September 11, 2014

Voting No in the Scottish Referendum is a vote for more wars in the Middle East

Should the people of scotland decide to break away from the united kingdom and declare independence there are no economic, social, political or cultural impediments preventing the country from remaining a fairly prosperous society or indeed from becoming even more prosperous. Many countries around the world with small populations have flourishing economies – scotland’s neighbour across the north sea, norway, being a primary example. The days when only countries with huge populations could become prosperous because profits from mass production required large domestic markets are long gone.

By far and away the biggest advantage of scottish independence is that scotland would be able to forge its own foreign policies rather than having to go along with the british government’s foreign policies. Over the last couple of decades britain’s foreign policies have been particularly belligerent and bellicose. The invasion of iraq and the toppling of saddam hussein was followed by the occupation of afghanistan, the aerial bombardment of libya led to the downfall of mohammed gadaffi, and, in 2013, the bombing of syria was averted only at the last moment. Even as the debate over scotland’s future has been heating up over the last couple of months, the united kingdom government has been aligning itself with a new bout of american military strikes in iraq and, far more controversially, has been sympathetic to the idea of a coalition of the willing to launch air strikes against syria - supposedly only to put out the wildfires of the islamic state but which will inevitably lead to attacks on the government of bashar al-assad thereby further antagonizing russia and iran. These english foreign policy adventures have turned into an ever increasing nightmare of devastation and social, political and economic, disintegration. England has helped to plunge iraq, afghanistan, libya and syria into chaos, violence and poverty threatening to destabilize the whole of the greater middle east which could easily spiral into a vortex of endless bloodshed and immiserization.

The questions that arise then are, do the people of scotland want to be seen as having supported this carnage over the last decade and do they support the spread of this devastation to even more countries throughout the greater middle east in the near future? The referendum gives the scots a chance to condemn england’s recent foreign forays and denounce tony blair’s demonic lies about the threat of saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction hitting the united kingdom iwithn forty-five minutes. It also gives them a chance to exonerate themselves from britain’s upcoming foreign military misadventures over the next few years which will only succeed in causing the disintegration of even more countries across the greater middle east.

The english desperately need scottish wealth and scottish military personnel to enable them to engage in further massacres in the middle east. When david cameron visited scotland this wednesday (september 10) he pointed out that he wanted to scotland to stay within the united kingdom even though it was not in his party’s interests to do so - if scotland no longer sent scottish labour mps to westminster the tories would likely win huge parliamentary majorities at the next few general elections. But cameron’s supposedly pure love for scotland, irrespective of his party’s interests, is still based on hard cash. Even though the tories are adversely affected by scotland’s election of labour mps, they still benefit hugely from scotland’s membership of the union because of the vital resources it provides for tory governments embarking on calamitous military adventures. Without scottish financial and personnel resources, the english government would find it much more difficult to afford to participate in america’s illegal and unethical wars throughout the greater middle east. This impact would even greater that might at first be supposed because the costs of england’s fleet of nuclear powered submarines would become a far higher percentage of the overall english military budget leaving far less money to be spent on the english army and air force. England’s independent nuclear deterrent has been affordable only because scottish people are currently compelled to pay for it even though many don’t want it.

Increasingly over the last few decades english politicians have looked west for guidance in politics, foreign policies and military adventures. They have allowed themselves to become america’s poodle following the global superpower into, usually illegal, military adventures around the world. English tories are also full of admiration for america’s economic policies despite the fact that these policies have been leading to a dramatic deterioration of american society: the rise of oligarchs, growing wealth inequalities, the spread of christian fundamentalist bigotry, tea party extremism, scientific denialism, outright political corruption resulting from citizens united, the easy availability of automatic weapons, highly militarized police forces, widespread racial bigotry, a huge prison population, widespread homelessness, and a decaying economic infrastructure.

Mention was made earlier of scotland’s neighbour across the north sea. The people of scotland may do well to cast their eyes westwards towards scandinavia for their inspiration and guidance. Scandinavian countries seem altogether more humane and civilized and thus much less prone to social, political and economic disintegration than america. Whilst the english are heading for disaster because of their total embrace of atlanticism, the scots have an opportunity to pursue a more enlightened and civilized path by embracing scandinavian values and seeing themselves as part of a peaceful north sea community.

The referendum offers the scots a choice between a rampant, warmongering, self destructive, nation-destroying, pax americana or a realignment with scandinavian countries that pursue fairer and more rational, domestic and foreign policies.

A No vote is a vote in support of english warmongers from thatcher, blair, brown, cameron and clegg. It is a vote of support for blair’s war crime in lying about saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It is a vote in favour not only of the devastation inflicted on iraq, afghanistan and libya but of further devastation on syria, jordan, lebanon and iran. A Yes vote is a vote in favour of foreign policies based on justice, humanitarian values, mutual prosperity and respect for the environment. 

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home