The following are the written thoughts of Dr. James L. MacLeod, President of MGRGW, Inc. ( See Profile )
Click the Play button to hear the Synopsis read for you.
The main article is after the Synopsis.
One very real issue behind “National Sovereignty” is Scotland’s power to decide to go to war or not go to war. Scotland has no national sovereignty on this issue now. Scotland cannot decide whether to go into a war or stay out of war. The U.K decides war for Scotland. Since the biggest block in the U.K. is England’s, it boils down to this: England decides if Scotland goes to war because Scotland is, in reality, the Scottish tail that wags on a predominately English dog sniffing after an American master.
The Iraq War, or wars, is a practical example of this. Iraq War I which WAS going on as opposed to Iraq War II, which IS now going on. England joined with America in advocating Iraq War I which failed and the now consequent mess is Iraq War II. But Scotland was dragged into Iraq War I by England, which was, more or less, sucking up to America. Had Scotland had its sovereignty to declare war, it probably would not have been involved in the Iraq War. So the real question seems to be: Should Scotland have its sovereignty back so it can decide its own wars? (If you are for Scotland’s right to decide its own wars, vote “yes” to independence. If you are against that right, vote, “no.”
Dr. MacLeod, the author, recommends, YES, for Scotland’s independence.
Only it is not quite that simple. Britain has been in combat for every year of the last one hundred years, or since World War I. Scotland therefore has not just been indirectly involved in the Iraq War but one hundred years of combat by not having its national sovereignty and having to tag along and wag along behind England who usually sniffs after America. (So the author suggests the best solution may be Scotland freeing itself legally from England and England freeing itself psychologically from America.)
Unfortunately, there is more. Britain has the fourth or fifth (it alternates) highest defense spending in the world. (Guess who’s first?) Saving this would make a significant sum of money that Scotland would probably not spend in the English war, but prefer to spend its share on the Scottish people. (Here is another oar dipping disputatiously in troubled waters.).
Anyway the suggestion that ends this tangled web is to vote for Scottish Independence. It would certainly simplify an enormous number of complexities.
The vote in September is going to be on whether Scotland will have its National Sovereignty. That is the most important issue because it involves two main issues and a minor multitude of issues. The two main issues being that if Scotland gives up, does not retake, does not hold on to its national sovereignty then Scotland is going to be in a war in a flash. The War is already brewing again in Iraq. Now here is the way it will go:
America will go back to war in Iraq. England will follow it. England always carries water for America. That is whatever America does, England follows. And Scotland is dragged along because it has no national sovereignty on war and taxes.
NOW REMEMBER THE TWO BIGGEST ISSUES ARE WAR AND TAXES.
And if you don’t have your national sovereignty, then eventually, although it looks as if it will be in a few months England will be at war again in Iraq because the U.K. follows America because England dominates in the U.K and England not always but almost always follows America.
So unless Scotland votes and receives its national independence, it is going to be dragged into another unnecessary war by America. Now it is my view, what would be good hypocritical politics is England will wait until right after the vote for Union to get in to the new Iraq War. So when you vote for Union, expect a war coming down the track.
Let us face it. America is addicted to war. It thinks war is the magic wand that it can wave that makes trouble vanish. In actuality war makes things worse, but American experience has been false and otherwise. In Japan and Germany, America thinks it won the war by itself, usually, and it talks about how after World War II both Germany and Japan fell into line as democracies. Americans think war was the magic factor. That is simply not true.
The magic factor was both Germany and Japan were high industrialized countries with a large middle class capable of a democracy. After the War the middle class revived and democracy was set up. What American logic slipped on was it was not so much the war that caused the successful democracy in Germany and Japan but the existence of an industrialized middle class.
The problem then was America, overlooking the essential middle class industrialization necessary, then thought all they had to do was have a war and “voila” a democracy. That is certainly what they thought in Iraq. But Iraq did not have a large industrialized middle class to fall back on, but America completely overlooked this. All they needed was a successful war and, presto, Iraq would turn into a democracy.
The point is America believes that if it waves the magic wand of war, the past victories of Japan and Germany will be repeated. Because so many Americans accept this over-simplified logic of war (but no large industrialized middle class) means democracy. America starts a war nearly every time it turns around, and will continue to do so, because she is thinking of World War II and how war was the magic wand that turned Japan and Germany into democracies.
As long as England, the dominant force in the U.K, follows America, it is always going to be dragging Scotland and, for that matter, Wales into American wars. And the English are always going to be following America. England is the chief water carrier for America and it was in the Iraq War in the twinkle of an eye spouting every cliché Americans could muster.
Now Scotland may say, ‘oh, the English will say they will not get us into another war.’ Yeah, and are you dumb enough to believe it. It would be a lie they use to get Scotland in the United Kingdom where, as usual, England could dominate. Now after war comes taxes. Have you thought about how the taxes will rise when, not if, America drags England, who drags the U.K. Which means Scotland into the war.
The only absolutely safe way to stay out of another really stupid war like Iraq or Afghanistan is to vote to restore Scotland’s national sovereignty, its independence, that allows Scotland to declare or not to declare war by itself. Then Scotland could stay out of another futile and unnecessary war like those it has recently been in.
If you have noticed the present trouble, the rising in Iraq, you can see where the next war America will involve you in is coming. But even if that war does not work out, please God, soon enough another will. America will go in to save whatever country that is also living in the twelfth century.
Recent history shows that America is almost a compulsive about war. It is not rational at times. It is on some sort of self-deluding mission, in which, I might add, the five million people in Scotland will be of little help in and have no good reason to go into. So I strongly suggest you in Scotland get your freedom and national sovereignty back by voting for an independent Scotland. All else shrinks in importance after war and the money war costs. Other issues there are, but there are no other major issues. War and money to fight a war are major issues.
I have seen many reasons to vote for Scottish independence. I respect all of them. But what stands out is Scotland must regain its national sovereignty to not be in another war. But if you think England will NOT get into another American war, you are not politically astute. Neither are you a reader of history nor an observer of the English character. When America gets into a war, and experience shows she will, England will follow and England will draw Scotland into it also.
Now let us go to the United Kingdom which is, in theory a democracy, but in actuality often is not because as long as Scotland is part of the U.K., Scotland suffers under the tyranny of the majority. The majority, which comes from England will decide as majorities rule but, if you add a border between Scotland and England, Scotland is a separate country. And an English majority will not rule over it.
Democracy is only as good as its border. And Scotland has no legal border to ensure the Scots are a majority in their own country and can vote the Scottish way. (As it is Scots, a minority, are forced accept the English way, which is a majority.)
Scotland now suffers under the tyranny of an English majority.. A new legal border between the two countries will establish Scots as a majority in their own country on all votes, which is the way it should be.
I see no reason why Scotland should suffer under the tyranny of an English majority, when by making the old border legal, it can have a majority of Scots ruling Scotland. As things are now, Union is a ploy, a political trick, to subdue Scotland for England. Union is a low political trick and after three hundred years of foreign rule, should be recognized as one and ended.
Now you may say the U.K is a democracy. and the majority rules. If the world is made a democracy by abolishing all borders, then China will rule Europe because there are more of them and they have a majority rule. Then Europe in a world democracy will be suffering under the tyranny of a Chinese majority. (The difference is the borders that we draw to keep another country to keep the bigger country from suffering under the tyranny of a larger majority and what is needed in this vote on Union is to draw a border between England and Scotland so each will be a majority in their own countries. As it is now, England has the majority and the Scots get the short end of the English stick.
A new national border means separate governments and each represented more fairly than the present rule of the nation which is being ruled primarily by the English majority which was and is a nation in itself.
The point is there is more to government than having a majority, which does not automatically mean your right to rule. Other countries have a right to national sovereignty as well as a national community of their own. It means you no longer decide for me, I decide for myself, and your having more people does not make you right.
If Scotland does not want to join in the wars that America uses to hypnotize England, why should Scotland be dragged along if it sees its country as more a Switzerland than an England? Why not allow Scotland to vote and decide its own destiny. Why should Scotland be tied to the English sense of purpose which usually happens to mean American wars as frequently as Americans may like. But why should Scotland be involved in them?
Let Scotland free itself from the tyranny of the majority, set up Scotland’s borders so Scots will have be their own majority to decide what happens to Scotland! End this tyranny of the English majority.
Vote to draw again a national border so Scotland can be its own state and thereby be able to determine its own fate. With democracies making borders is everything. Let Scotland be a small, independent democracy, which is a better choice then to be the hanger on of a dinosaur empire living by a prehistoric code of war.
But If you wish to see and be in another war, stay with England. At any incidence you may have gratification as you may have ever confidence that England, following America’s lead, will give you enough wars to exceed your wildest expectations.
And if you do not vote for Scottish Independence, when wars come, you will have no one to blame but yourself for your unhappy situation. And I would suggest for your good thinking that the only sure way for Scotland to be safer from threat of war is to vote for Scottish Independence.