Alistair Darling has warned Scots that they will lose diplomatic influence if they leave the United Kingdom. He gives Syria as an example. Syria having been such a resounding diplomatic success for the UK, and the UK having contributed hugely to the successful resolution of the conflict – or presumably his reasoning is something like that.
An Independent Scotland would almost certainly not have invaded Iraq and would be most unlikely to have occupied Afghanistan for ten years. It would thus not have squandered vast sums of money, not contributed to the continued political disaster of both countries. An independent Scotland would not be a permanent member of the Security Council. This would impact terribly on the population, who would be benighted like the peoples of Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Australia, in all of which the lives of ordinary people are absolutely intolerable because of their non membership of the Security Council, and all of which have been repeatedly invaded and wiped out in nuclear attacks continually throughout the last six decades.
I worked in multilateral negotiations in both the UN and EU and found colleagues from countries like Ireland, the Netherlands and Canada to be professional competent and influential. The Scots certainly can be all of those. Small countries contribute to policy, to peacekeeping and to humanitarian effort. This latest bit of unionist nonsense is contemptible.
You’ve made a good point in the case for an independent Scotland – namely, that it would not share in the responsibility for Britain’s blunders in foreign policy. The loss of international clout would, I am sure, not be missed by a country, if it were more prosperous and better run.
The “if” is important however. Consider the financial trouble that Ireland and Iceland got themselves into in the past decade. An independent Scotland wouldn’t be bailed out by the UK if it happened.
In the end, the people resident North of the border will decide, hopefully on rational grounds, whether they wish to stay in the UK or not. I hope that they will stay, but will respect whatever decision they make.
I doubt that people resident by their own free choice on the Isle of Thanet will have any part in that decision, however. 🙂
BBC’s today programme have just run a piece about how even some republican congressmen are not believeing the case for war. Apparently it’s going to be a “nerve-wracking week for the whitehouse”. Not a word, let alone of such concern, for the poor fuckers waiting to be bombed.
Last night r4 said there is a case for recalling parliament to vote again. They didn’t mention what that case might be.
A R5 chat show last night had an american talking head repeating all the lies. Even the presenter suggested the people were no longer listening to the ‘campaign’ for war and all the listeners texts were anti-war.
The propaganda is relentless.
Jemand 2 Sep, 2013 – 2:56 am
I don’t think Gravatar needs to be “compromised” for Western intelligence services to have access to their aggregated data on unique email addresses…The problem with this is not just identification of specific posters on this blog but ID of posters across a spectrum of sites.”
Personally, I doubt anyone in any government agency is hunting down people who comment on craig murray’s blog.
Soory, my I posted my above comment with no formatting to make it clear the first part was quoting jemand.
Phil,
You are a five star idiot. They record anything they can.
Interesting you consider Craig’s blog insignificant though.
MJ: “Denmark has its own currency.”
True but not terribly relevant. No doubt Scotland would initially continue to use the UK Pound but somehow I doubt that would last all that long – particularly if there was any possibility of the UK leaving the EU. The most likely options, it seems to me, would be adoption of the Euro (unlikely under present circumstances but who knows in a few years’ time) or having its own currency (Scottish Pound, presumably).
More broadly, Ireland’s non-membership of NATO and Denmark’s non-membership of the Eurozone supports the idea that countries of comparable size and geography to Scotland can make their own decisions on such matters.
interesting to read Pepe Escobar in Asia Times back in May 2012 on the pipelines. wish the pipeline narrative was getting out to the public:
Why Qatar wants to invade Syria
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI28Ak03.html
On the clout that an independent Scotland would have in international affairs, I go along with Craig Evans (1 Sept 3.18 pm)that this will depend on its actions and values rather than with James Mason’s tendentious and imperfect comparison with the Marshall Islands (pop 70,000). The Republic of the Marshall Islands is “a presidential republic in free association with the United States, with the US providing defense, funding grants, and access to social services” (Wikipedia).
Small countries which have had considerable influence on issues of global significance, because of the efforts their politicians and officials have made to become well-informed about issues that matter to them and have thus become valuable contributors to international policy making. One example is the the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Malta played a huge part in creating momentum in the UN for negotiations to get underway; and Irish diplomacy made sure that there was a clause (the “Rockall clause”)preventing isolated rocks from generating bast EEZs for the country exercising sovereignty over them.
I’m not currently in favour of independence (especially if only carried by a divisively thin majority of those voting – which, as a Scot living in London, does not include me); but lack of international clout because of size/ population seems a weak argument (cf the historic influence of Venice, the current voice of the Maldives and Tuvalu in the debate on climate change; and the personal authority over the last century of a number of individual leaders from small European countries). It is also a morally suspect argument – wanting to get one’s way by bullying rather than by example and persuasion.
Douglas Hurd’s tired cliché about the UK “punching above its weight” might be more accurately applied to a smaller country – like an independent Scotland – that used its influence to support the development of and respect for international law.
lots & lots of detail:
3 June: Global Research: Dmitry Minin: The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitics-of-gas-and-the-syrian-crisis-syrian-opposition-armed-to-thwart-construction-of-iran-iraq-syria-gas-pipeline/5337452
Oddie, good to see that Global Research is back up again and that is a good article. Yesterday and for several days Global Research, one of the better real news outlets, was under attack and, those who clicked the link, like Phil, would know that this article was not available. It is now.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/media-truth-and-sabotage-online-threats-directed-the-global-research-website/5347388
I notice the “shower of shills” say nothing about the real news and their heroes’ efforts to keep it out of the public domain.
Fred said;
Now that is the best rebuttal ever.
Although, you should lock the knife drawers, just in case you decide to stab someone or self-harm, all because you have a knife and you have to use it!
Compelling reason that Scots should go on invading as in the Carry on film fashion; without wearing any knickers and letting their kilts fly! On the other hand disband their army and let the England do the dirty on them yet again!
Clever!
Sharp!
Ingenious!
Circle of life is complete;
Morsi to be tried for ‘inciting murder’: Egyptian state TV
Mubarak is off the hook, and now Morsi is where he belongs.
The will of the Egyptians I suppose!
Just wondering if it will be the Campbells or the McDonalds in charge of the army.
@Je 3:36 1-9
… as could the Americans, the French and probably the Israelis too for that matter.
Why is it assumed that the former is a possibility but the latter unthinkable? Why are the Russians always cast as the Baddies – potential or actual I wonder?
I suggest a good ponder on that question will tell us a lot about how we are conditioned to view the world – The Russians are still synonymous with the Cold War USSR in the minds of the masses for example, rendering their continued demonisation for declining to see things the globalists way, that much easier.
Continued….
Whereas they (The Russians) are about all that stands in the way of more war and the complete forced re-ordering of the ME per the article Mary linked earlier and now up on Wikispooks too – It’s a real cracker and explains suppressed elite policy towards the ME very clearly indeed.
“Circle of life is complete”
Yes, back to the future;
http://www.imemc.org/article/66048
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/egyptian-navy-attacks-palestinian-fishermen/
@Fred – 11:53
Very Droll :-)))
Still having a good old chuckle at that one.
Just wondering if it will be the Campbells or the McDonalds in charge of the army.
The titular heir to the Duchy of Cumberland (as in Butcher Cumberland, 1745) is this deadbeat quasi-royal….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_August_V,_Prince_of_Hanover
If he were to reclaim the duchy, I’m sure the Campbells would rediscover their ancient allegiance and sell out to the English. Again.
So – the Macdonalds. Or better yet, the Camerons….scrub that, maybe.
So – the Macdonalds.
The Wee Frees from the Western Isles?
And they accuse Alistair Darling of scaremongering.
More likely the heavies from Castlemilk…or Dundee. Clan Macdonald knows no boundaries -the Wee Frees were the ones who couldn’t hack it down South, and as you say, even they are terrifying. Be very afraid, white settler.
Heh.
AlcAnon 2 Sep, 2013 – 9:22 am
“They record anything they can.”
To think the feds are after you for commenting here is fearful to say the least. They might be looking at visitors to a very few genuinely seditious sites but most not places where opinions expressed are little different to say what some mps hold for example.
And even if they are looking, so what? You are breaking no laws commenting here. What do you think will happen? Let me tell you. Nothing. The proof is in the pudding that many here make no effort to cover our tracks and I don’t believe anyone is being persecuted yet. My guess is that craig is by far the most watched person here. Others will be on databases but not for commenting here. Can you provide one example where someone has been shat on for writing a comment on a mainstream blog?
The (deep) state likes you to be afraid. Possibly it only survives in it’s current murderous incarnation because good people aren’t looking or good people are afraid. My advise is don’t buy into the fear.
Phil,
You are welcome to try Craig’s challenge.
Which was try saying something really derogatory about Vladimir Putin. Then try visiting Russia.
According to Craig someone is paying attention.
doesn’t look like the Gulf guys got their way…tho this is being spun in some MSM:
Arab League urges UN-backed action in Syria
However, some influential members of the League, including Egypt, Iraq,
Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military
intervention.
Egypt’s foreign minister on Sunday said that his nation objected to “any
aggression in Syria”.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139118235327617.html
Abe Rene at 08.18:
“Consider the financial trouble that Ireland and Iceland got themselves into in the past decade. An independent Scotland wouldn’t be bailed out by the UK if it happened.”
No indeed, but both Ireland and Iceland are still managing quite fine by themselves no? Whereas Scotland got into similar trouble as part of the UK (Independence would mean we would be free to create our own banking controls and not be ruled by the ‘city’ as Westminster currently is…). And actually the UK did not even bail itself out in 2008, most of the money came from the good ‘ol USA…
Please read this to better understand how a future iScotland could and would be able to bail out any of its’ banks that failed, should we choose to bail them out and not follow the Icelandic model or some other alternative of our creation.
An iScotland would certainly be more prosperous (google “McCrone Report” and download the pdf if you have not read it already), whether better run or not remains to be seen but if the electorate felt Scotland was not being well run we would be in much better position to change our govt than at present, where we basically get the govt the south of England votes for..
On topic – Scotland currently has no power on the ‘world stage’ as we are not represented on any international body, only the UK is – and UK govt will never put Scotland’s interests ahead of those of England/rUK should they differ. See for example the Iraq war in which majority of Scots MP’s voted against (in line with overwhelming public opinion inside Scotland) but as part of UK we went to war anyway…
“No indeed, but both Ireland and Iceland are still managing quite fine by themselves no? ”
No, the £7bn the UK tax payers gave them helped save them.
“And actually the UK did not even bail itself out in 2008, most of the money came from the good ‘ol USA… ”
Could you provide your source for that information?
Fred – try reading the link in my post above
http://tinyurl.com/q6xbzu5
“The UK government bail out of RBS and HBOS amounted to £65bn a lot of money but the US federal reserve made emergency loans available to RBS of £285bn and to HBOS of £115bn and $552.32bn to Barclays – sorry who bailed out the British banks again?”
Basically banks that operate in more than one country were bailed out by all of those countries roughly in accordance with the proportion of the banks’ total business based in each country. Thus RBS was bailed out by USA so heavily in accordance with the proportion of business RBS had in USA – effectively the Fed bailed out RBS’s US customers who otherwise would have lost their cash. I suspect this is also why UK bailed out Ireland and/or Iceland to tune of 7billion (if this is correct) – they were effectively bailing out UK customers (in Iceland’s case the UK ‘customers’ were govt itself and many local authorities IIRC).
So IF we assume RBS is a Scottish bank (HQ office in London) and IF we further assume it was to fail in similar manner at some future date following Scottish independence, then IF the Scottish govt chose to bail out said bank, it would only have to bail out the bank in accordance with the amount of business it actually holds/does in Scotland – estimated to be about 5% of the current UK total..
I wonder if Freds Union Jack underwear is getting a bit sweaty?
The latest Panelbase Scots Indy poll gives 44% Yes, and 43% No.
@Robin
A bank borrowing money from a central bank isn’t exactly a government bailout, it’s what banks do and what central banks are there for. A loan was taken out and then it was repaid with interest, happens all the time.