Opinion – Scotland can expect a huge hangover after vote | The Japan Times – John Gelmini

Dr Alf poses some interesting questions as does Bill Coles.

English: Alex Salmond photographed in his cons...

English: Alex Salmond photographed in his constituency at Turriff (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The three main political parties chose to let Alistair Darling lead the NO campaign because he is typically Scottish and looks every inch a careful bank manager and sounds exactly like one when he is talking about money.

Alex Salmond, on the other hand, is pugilistic, pretends to be everyone’s dining and drinking companion and is in reality a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a man whose sums do not add up and a demogogue.

The strategy devised, not by the party leaders but, by the Bilderbergers who put them into office has been to emasculate the United Kingdom but to strengthen the EU.

This has meant more devolution, more power to the Celtic fringes but never quite enough to enable any one breakaway country to truly go it alone.

The English were and are being emasculated by the constant drain on resources that the Celtic fringe represents and the idea is to make them an integral part of an EU which they have very little say in.
Salmond perhaps understands this but like others before him he became full of hubris and really started to believe his own rhetoric.

He convinced so many of his fellow Scots that the Establishment took fright and dispatched the Party leaders north.

Someone carefully planted at Crathie Church supposedly went up to the Queen and uttered a contrived statement to which she replied that “people need to think very carefully”.

Normally the Queen is hemmed in by bodyguards and only speaks to people she knows or has been instructed to speak to yet we are supposed to believe that all this interaction came about by an “ordinary member of the public” about an issue that she is constitutionally bound not to talk about.

Nicholas Witchell the diminutive BBC Royal correspondent took 15 minutes last night to explain how the Queen’s intervention was neutral.

Clearly his explanation was bogus and deliberately disingenuous, designed to covey the message Vote NO but not in such great numbers as to create a clear-cut result.

What is sought is a knife edge NO which will weaken the pound,create economic uncertainty and make the constituent parts of the UK more malleable under a process of “divide and rule”.

John Gelmini

Scottish independence: The Queen is urged to intervene – Telegraph

English: Detail from a frieze in the Scottish ...

English: Detail from a frieze in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Queen Street, Edinburgh (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is a deeply worrying, must-read, lead story from the Telegraph. Check it out!

via Scottish independence: The Queen is urged to intervene – Telegraph.

Personally, I am against independence for Scotland. I do not believe that it will be in the best long term interests of Scotland nor the rest of the UK. Broken up the UK will be much weaker economically, politically  and as a society.

There are three reasons for this mess.

Firstly, there is David Cameron‘s poor strategic judgement in agreeing to the referendum. This blog has repeatedly argued that Cameron has played for short-term political advantage, rather than what’s in the strategic interests of the UK. See my earlier blog on abuse of strategy.

Secondly, Ed Milliband has been totally ineffective and working class people in Scotland have no faith in him.

Thirdly, the Scottish people, especially ordinary working and middle class people are angry that recent governments have ignored their interests.

For me, whether it’s a “yes” or “no”, Cameron, Milliband and Clegg should immediately resign. The country needs to return to democracy. If Scotland wins an independence vote, the country will enter an uncharted economic, political and social crisis. There will be massive economic speculation, with major employers potentially savaged. Ultimately, in the short-term, I fear that Scotland’s working and middle classes will suffer a crisis on the scale World War I or II, with huge increased unemployment and loss of savings – a true depression. The world’s economy is fragile, especially Europe and this will be seen as a disaster. In terms of size, I believe that the disaster could have much greater impact than Japan’s nuclear disaster at Fukashima, for example.

Personally, I do not believe that it is the Queen’s place to bail out the politicians. However, there is perhaps a case for Her Majesty to add her stature to the gravity of the decision, stating the arguments both for and against, and to confirm that she believes in the Scottish people.

Thoughts?