Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 17, 2014

The Scottish Independence Vote

It would be quite astonishing if the "Yes" vote would be allowed to win. There are too much money, personal political reputations and too many strategic assets involved for the "powers that are" to allow or accept a result that would not fit their plans.

Then again - why not hope for some really game changing event like Scottish independence, and the end of the big perfidious Albion, would be for Europe, NATO and the whole world?

Posted by b on September 17, 2014 at 14:25 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

Hope is great, reality another. Scottish independence? I doubt it.

Posted by: ben | Sep 17 2014 14:35 utc | 1

The only question I have is...how angry will the yes voters be if they don't get what they want?

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2014 14:43 utc | 2

George Monbiot in the Guardian has looked today at the bias and lies which most of the UK Media and "sainted "BBC have used to try and stop Scottish Independence
As well the three national parties... Labour/Tory/Libs have run a joint campaign against independence

The UK elites have had a bad fright and can berely concern their scorn for the Scots for daring to hope they might control their country,instead of leaving that to the Westminster Gang commitede to neo-liberal policies and neing a central pillar of world imperialism
BTW The Labour Leader Milliband is a hard-line zionist,and the British Labour Party has beenb in harness with the Tories ... what a sad end for the Labour Party...now little better than a tory junior partner

Posted by: Deblonay | Sep 17 2014 14:56 utc | 3

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists?CMP
The Monbiot article looking at the bias of the whole of the UK media

Posted by: Deblonay | Sep 17 2014 14:57 utc | 4

@ 4: thanks for the link. Kinda begs the question, do the Scots vote on e-voting machines? And beyond that, who counts the votes? Here in the U.S., most of the voting process has been turned over to private corporations. We vote on hackable machines, and the votes are counted by same.

Posted by: ben | Sep 17 2014 15:09 utc | 5

I think the vote will go for independence and the world won't fall apart if they do vote 'yes'. However, there will be some extremely pissed off people. Part of the gravy train just left the station, Cameron will be fine, he'll get a job with some Zionist outfit that have been pulling his strings and he'll be repaid, handsomely. What I am hoping for is a review into the decision to hide much of the Dunblane massacre court files for 100 years, unprecedented in UK history. Salmond has been influential in the Lockerbie miscarriage of justice too and has called for the US and UK to allow access to all their documents related to the crime.

Posted by: Andy | Sep 17 2014 15:10 utc | 6

On the Scottish bid for independence from TRNN:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12387

Posted by: ben | Sep 17 2014 15:13 utc | 7

I want them to leave England and throw out the navy and rent the bases to Russia. Slip in nato face works for me. It's only a dream but what hell.

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 17 2014 15:22 utc | 8

@jo6pac #8:

Yes, if Yes wins, there is no need for Scotland to rejoin the EU. It is welcome in the CIS.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 17 2014 15:34 utc | 9

If it cannot be bought, it’s a Scot. If it can,it’s a scotch.
People who say they would be better off looked after by the English are for sale. Prostitutes. Their vote will show if a long English programme of passification and domestication has succeeded in shamefully integrating and colonizing Scotland. For them the Scottish flag is a tea cloth to be sold to tourists.
A balance sheet can not be used to decide Scottish Independence. The most important things in our life have no scientific measure or monetary value. Pride, patriotism, Freedom, love, loyalty, trust, feeling, friendship, joy, peace. The value you give to these depends on whether your spirit is dead or alive. If fear has gripped your heart and you see no value in these you should, in all decency, step aside and take your cold hand off the exciting opportunity and new dawn that will allow Scotlands unique contribution to flourish. What an exciting prospect. A Scottis flag amonst the national flags.

If Scots independence is buried it is buried alive and will be resurrected by angry people without a referendum of North British loyalists who are just visitors without the right to decide Scottish affairs.
We are now dealing with the soul of a nation. This is sacred. There is a vitality in being fully responsible for yourself. Army, Flag, Diplomats.....

Posted by: boindub | Sep 17 2014 15:46 utc | 10

@8 jo6pac - lol! i think the vote will be close. i am happy they are being given the opportunity to have it.. too bad the referendum in crimea is treated with the same disdain that the uk media treat the yes vote here, but the parallels are interesting.. we are supposed to roll over when the media tells us what it does.

my ancestry is from the highlands. of course i am hoping for a yes vote, so it is hard for me to be impartial even if my ancestors left in 1798..

Posted by: james | Sep 17 2014 15:50 utc | 11

=were i scots, i would vote yes. or abstain. just to make that clear.=

However, the campaign (what I have seen of it, not much, MSM, etc.) is very emotional, and the whole issue is more a question of anti-London, GB, than pro- constructing a new state. In short, it (from MSM) looks like there is no real plan, though presumably? there are some ppl behind the scenes who have clear ideas, policies, if so, they aren’t available, and that is bad.

If an independent Scotland were to:

Set up its own currency (this is perfectly possible), refuse to join the EU or adopt the euro, no NATO, but join the WTO, the UN (and other alphabet soups), sign Schengen-Dublin, join EFTA, join other free-trade agreements, (like with Ukraine for the fun of it) ally with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, put itself in the huge club of the ‘unaligned’, well allright.

The main point would be - not being part of the EU, except with bi-lateral and easy to cancel agreements. Violent headaches and mess to be sure, but that would be independence.

That won’t happen imho.

In case of YES, Scotland will join the EU, and will set up a currency Union with England, or possibly even take on the Euro. In this way, it will be just as dependent as before (maybe more so as smaller with less power) and at odds with its old historical and geographical partner who will be bitter and angry. It would become a sort of Ireland, a very bad position, dependent on EU largesse, rules, manipulations, and with no real ties to other unaligned.

Some deeper considerations. The EU PTB and elected have a dream. That dream is a Europe of ‘regions’ - Picts, Lombards!, etc. - that are easier to manage, as they are small, and curry for favor to the top, and compete. Some up in Brussels, want to get rid of Nation States (Italy, France, Germany..) as these weigh too much in influence. The EU is not at all against an ‘independent’ Catalonia, Flanders, Basque country, whatever, though they don’t make that public. A split up Yougaslavia, for ex., was championed and suits them just fine. Sure 'n I'm exxageratin'...

Hollande did something interesting in this direction, heh. He re-wrote the map of France.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 17 2014 15:59 utc | 12

to me, what's important:

But if Scotland votes “yes” in an independence referendum next month, the submarines could ­become nuclear-armed nomads, without a port to call home. Washington’s closest and most important ally could, in turn, be left without the ultimate deterrent, even as Europe’s borders are being rattled anew by a resurgent Russia.

Former NATO secretary general George Robertson, a Scotsman, said in a speech in Washington earlier this year that a vote for independence would be “cataclysmic” for Western security, and that ejecting the nuclear submarines from Scotland would amount to “disarming the remainder of the United Kingdom.”

"Britain’s Trident nuclear program at stake in Scottish independence vote"

Posted by: erichwwk | Sep 17 2014 16:15 utc | 13

It would become a sort of , a very bad position, dependent on EU largesse, rules, manipulations, and with no real ties to other unaligned.
...
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 17, 2014 11:59:19 AM | 12

So true. As I was listening to Gordon Brown and other Westminster hacks & has-beens issuing an avalanche of thinly veiled threats, I couldn't help thinking that if the YES vote wins the Westminster crowd will rename, and treat, the new Scotland as New Ireland...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 17 2014 17:07 utc | 14

Didn't the British Empire - just after WWII feel the same when all its colonies filled with "natives" asked for their independence. Whether it was India or Kenya or Northern Yemen , let alone those resources-filled African nation where the Anglo-American companies were the masters, the locals had to fight to be able to get their own government. Like Eire, Scots want to control their own destiny, whether going to war to be with the US or not.
Westminster will cringe if and when they lose Scotland. They have given away Diego Garcia to the Americans and they will need a base for their nuclear subs. Will Gibraltar be a fit ?

Posted by: Yul | Sep 17 2014 17:11 utc | 15

@15 Losing Scotland is not the same as a random colony or even the whole empire. The Doctor won't be a UK citizen. Ireland was always just conquered territory, useful for oligarchy pillaging.

The entire political system will be indicted. Scotland is an integral part of the UK. Brown, Cameron, and company through political malfeasance created this situation. Labour and the Tories aren't worried about submarine bases. They are worried about their positions and place in history. David Cameron, a miserable little man, will be the guy who brought Somalia to Libya and lost Scotland during Cold War part deux. His coalition is done, and I doubt the back benches will approve of his continued leadership tomorrow if Scotland votes yes. Labour will lose one of its strongest bastions. For all we know, the UK could become ungovernable with Russian and Chinese money fleeing London.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 17 2014 17:32 utc | 16

The only question I have is...how angry will the yes voters be if they don't get what they want?

Posted by: dh | Sep 17, 2014 10:43:36 AM | 2

Good point. Perhaps angry enough to join IS in the Levant, and that's pretty damn angry.

If it's not Scottish, it's crap.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 17 2014 17:39 utc | 17

The Scots ought to vote Yes. But the voting machines will turn their votes to no. Exit poll tabulations will tell the real story. Bottomline: A Yes vote is a vote for world peace.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 17 2014 17:49 utc | 18

Don't worry it is a scrutinized manual count.

Posted by: Paul cockshott | Sep 17 2014 18:18 utc | 19

Yes supporters plan to use pens to mark their ballot papers amid fears their vote may be altered if they use the pencils provided.

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/independence-referendum/yes-voters-say-poll-may-be-nobbled-1.538913

Posted by: rob66 | Sep 17 2014 18:20 utc | 20

euro pound or own currency:

from billy blog Monday, August 18, 2014 by bill

The Scottish Fiscal Commission also put out a report on the desirable – Macroeconomic Framework – which says that:

Under independence, the Scottish Government would be responsible for the design and implementation of its own macroeconomic framework.

Yes, it would free Scotland from the decisions made by the UK government – if they also ditch the currency and set up an independent central bank.

So what does the Commission recommend:

– Currency – Sterling

– Central Bank – Bank of England (the ‘BofE’)

– Day-to-day monetary policy discharged independently (operationally) by the BofE.

– Interest rates set to promote price stability across ‘Sterling Zone’

Which they claim would give “Full economic sovereignty with Scottish Parliament” but which in practice would still tie the country to the United Kingdom and thwart any particular spending initiatives that might run counter to the existing fiscal position of the British government.

The Scottish government could not run an independent full employment policy with large-scale public sector job creation, for example, when the UK government was running austerity and it was forced to balance its budget.

There is thus very little to support in the Scottish National Party’s referendum pitch.

I would recommend the Scots vote YES in September. But only if the Referendum was clear that the new nations would introduce its own unpegged, floating currency and avoid any talk of joining the Eurozone or entering a currency union with Britain.

Further, I would only recommend voting YES, if the political parties committed to a clear statement that they would use the newly created currency sovereignty to achieving full employment and abandoned the neo-liberal austerity straitjacket that it is trapped in as a result of being part of Britain.

Under those circumstances,the creation of a separate nation would unambigously improve the welfare of the Scottish people. If they continued to use the British pound and/or maintained the austerity mindset that dominates neo-liberal governments around the advanced world at present, then nothing will be gained that would benefit the Scottish people.

But Plan A is anything but that and so I would vote NO.

While the ‘nationalist’ sentiments that go back in history are an important part of a nation’s defining culture, which are driving the need to be independent of Britain after losing that status in 1707, the currency arrangements define what a government can do and cannot do on behalf of its people.

In general, the statements by the Fiscal Commission about fiscal autonomy and full fiscal responsibilities are fraught with misconceptions given that the Government does not propose full currency sovereignty.

I would be voting NO in Scotland but with a lot of anger

Posted by: c | Sep 17 2014 18:54 utc | 22

@erichwwk even as Europe’s borders are being rattled anew by a resurgent Russia.

Do you have more fairy tales to tell? Who arrange the anti-Russian coup in Kiev right on Russia's border? Who "rattled"? Hint: not Russia.

Posted by: b | Sep 17 2014 18:56 utc | 23

In the public debate, the question of North Sea oil has been central. The polarisation of views is clear.

In this article from the Economist magazine (April 14, 2012) – The Scottish play – we confront the question “would an independent Scotland be an impoverished backwater or a land flowing with oil and money.”

The Article provides the following answer, which is not inconsistent with my analysis of the available data:

Scotland’s accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England … In 2010-11 Scotland’s GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain’s, with 8.4% of the population.

Historically Scotland has received bigger grants per head from central government than Wales, for example—in part a tacit acknowledgment that it contributes handsomely to oil revenues, which in 2010-11 amounted to £8.8 billion. An independent Scotland would lose that subsidy, but gain the right to collect taxes on hydrocarbons locally. For the moment, Scotland’s day-to-day accounts would look little different to now.

Analysts, however, argue that in the longer-term, the North Sea oil will run dry and there are “hidden liabilities” involved in decommissioning the oil and gas installations, which the British government is currently liable for.

The other issue surrounding the British-Scottish relationship is if the Scots get the lion-share (excuse the pun) of the North Sea oil revenue (they are claiming 90 per cent although they would get nothing if the Shetland and Orkney Islands, in turn, achieved independence from Scotland) what share of the banking bailouts will they have to wear?

The Economist article notes that the “financial-services industry” in Scotland is in deep trouble. The 2008 bailout of the two largest Scottish banks – Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and HBOS – required the British government injecting significant funds. Would the Scots have to pay the British Government back?

However, I think this issue would become irrelevant if the Scottish government achieved true independence. They would have all the funds necessary to nationalise the banking sector and guarantee deposits in the new currency. They could offer the British government some settlement in the new Scottish pound.

But if they do not introduce their own sovereign currency then these matters become more important.

The Economist article provides some commentary on that issue:

… most testing for Scotland’s future would be the question of its currency. Mr Salmond’s hopes of joining the euro have soured—for now he plans to stick with the pound. Yet the euro zone has amply demonstrated the dangers of entering a monetary union without fiscal union. Soothing niceties from Cheshire-cat politicians no longer reassure bond markets—Scotland would pay a premium for being part of a monetary union that could break. It would have no central bank, no monetary freedom and limited fiscal autonomy.

The White paper says that “an independent Scotland would have responsibility for macro-economics, defence and foreign affairs in a way that would not be possible while Scotland remains within the United Kingdom”.

The most important point is that to be truly independent the Scottish Government would have to gain “full Ministerial responsibility”, including all central banking and treasury functions.

Scotland should vote yes in 2014 but only if … Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2012 by bill 2012 !!!

Posted by: c | Sep 17 2014 19:06 utc | 24

"Perfidious Albion," b? Ha, ha, ha! Are you turning into Goebbels now?

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 17 2014 19:20 utc | 25

I really enjoy this site and send my thanks to b for all your efforts. The comment section is a huge plus. Kudos to the community.

Much as I wish for Scotland to vote yes, I don't think it will happen. The overall political situation is not dire enough yet. We are at the very beginning of the political dissolution that will come as nation states fracture in the face of severe economic decline. When new currencies have to be created out of the ashes of the current ones, then we will have real change. Until then we are just treading water.

Posted by: andrew | Sep 17 2014 19:23 utc | 26

Idiom Definition for 'Perfidious Albion'
England is known to some as perfidious Albion, implying that it is not trustworthy in its dealings with foreigners.


Spot on.
http://adreamitselfisbutashadow.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/606x341_226752_queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60t.jpg

Posted by: rob66 | Sep 17 2014 19:27 utc | 27

@Noirette (Sep 17, 2014 11:59:19 AM | 12):

The main point would be - not being part of the EU, except with bi-lateral and easy to cancel agreements. Violent headaches and mess to be sure, but that would be independence.

That's my feeling, too, Noirette. What good is it to break free from the UK, only to shackle yourself to the EUSSR? Scotland would be better off following the example of the Swiss and the Norwegians. Those countries are doing much better than the EU countries. Why should Scotland follow the Irish model?

Some deeper considerations. The EU PTB and elected have a dream. That dream is a Europe of ‘regions’ - Picts, Lombards!, etc. - that are easier to manage, as they are small, and curry for favor to the top, and compete. Some up in Brussels, want to get rid of Nation States (Italy, France, Germany..) as these weigh too much in influence.

That is also a real concern of mine. All of these secession movements seem enthralled with the EU, so I wonder if too much secession would not simply make matters worse for Europe.

Columnist Peter Hitchens claims to have once seen an EU map showing Europe carved into small, bite-sized little provinces:

The EU's purpose is to abolish the remaining great nation states, carving them up into 'regions' that will increasingly deal direct with the EU's central government in Brussels.

Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid and Rome are allowed to retain the outward signs of power. But it is a gesture. All the real decisions are already taken elsewhere, from foreign policy and trade to the collection of rubbish and the management of rivers. Under this plan, England itself will cease to exist. The European Parliament gave the game away a few years ago by publishing a map of the EU in which all the regional boundaries were shown, but the word 'England' was not mentioned. Meanwhile, the smaller nations of Europe are indulged by the EU, because (unlike the big countries) they are no threat to it. They are happy to be allowed a flag, an anthem, a well-paid political class, a little pomp and circumstance - and no real power.

At the end of the day, I want for the Scots whatever they want for themselves. But I do wonder whether this will turn out to be a good idea, a bad idea, or no real change at all.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 17 2014 19:35 utc | 28

Goebbels didn't coin the phrase "perfidious Albion". He just used an already coined phrase. It seems to have been coined by publicists of the French Revolution ("le perfide Albion"). And the phrase was used in German ("das perfide Albion") during the run-up to World War One.

Posted by: lysias | Sep 17 2014 19:41 utc | 29

@NotTimothyGeithner (Sep 17, 2014 1:32:25 PM | 16):

David Cameron, a miserable little man, will be the guy who brought Somalia to Libya and lost Scotland during Cold War part deux. His coalition is done, and I doubt the back benches will approve of his continued leadership tomorrow if Scotland votes yes. Labour will lose one of its strongest bastions.

It'll probably be bad for David Cameron personally, but this could actually give the Tories a new lease on life in rump-UK, since Scotland historically was so heavily pro-Labour. In fact, the whole 'better together' campaign has been so amazingly inept that some are now even spreading the conspiracy theory that the Tories in the cabinet have deliberately sabotaged it to get rid of Scotland.

The only thing that could go wrong for them here is that, once the Scots are gone, UKIP would also probably be more powerful in rump-UK.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 17 2014 19:44 utc | 30

There is the potential to meet all Scotland's energy needs from its renewable sources (e.g., wind, hydro, tidal, wave). That would mean the oil and gas could essentially all be exported.

Posted by: lysias | Sep 17 2014 19:51 utc | 31

The vote is going to be very close and I certainly hope it doesn't presage another 2000 election. Scots are not a temperate people and if funny bizness in the vote is suspected, I fear OSCE may have to help with a recount. Then there is our own 240 year-old example of democratic republic. The hard work starts after independence is reached.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Sep 17 2014 19:55 utc | 32

By the way, it just occurred to me: If Scotland does leave, will the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' have to change its name again? If I recall, the whole 'United Kingdom' name was adopted back when the Scottish and English crowns were formally merged. Now there'll only be one, free-standing crown left. Maybe they could call the place the 'Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland'? Just a thought...

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 17 2014 19:57 utc | 33

My friends at wsws are vehemently against Scotland 'independence', urging every day for a 'no' vote.

Vote “no” in the Scottish referendum—Fight for a socialist Britain
Statement by the Socialist Equality Party (UK)

The Socialist Equality Party (SEP) calls for a decisive and unambiguous “no” vote in the September 18 referendum on Scottish independence.

All claims that “independence” is a democratic demand, offering an alternative to cuts and austerity, are lies.

The move for separation from the UK is being led by right-wing forces espousing nationalism, whether or not they attempt to dress this up in fake left language. The aim is to transform Scotland into a low tax, cheap labour platform for the benefit of the banks and transnational corporations.

IMO Monbiot makes the best argument for a yes vote I've seen.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 17 2014 20:00 utc | 34

A Choice of Paths
Scotland’s possibility space is vast. It could align with the Nordic region and become a global power, home to the greatest minds of the next generation. It just has to dare to try.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/09/a-choice-of-paths/?fid=12994&isc=1&did=bookmark.be70371898411fe0d8bf81e6927b1eae646f0710&ctp=article

Posted by: rob66 | Sep 17 2014 20:01 utc | 35

@22 c

I'm with you. An independent Scotland would be great, but only if it had its own floating currency and was not a member of the EU. Anything else is a ticket to euro peasant austerian hell.

I think the weight against a yes is less than you'd think. Scotland's oil and other resources have already been looted. Scotland has already been forcibly deindustrialized. Other than losing a few million potential rent extractees, there's not much there for city of London to slurp.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 17 2014 20:16 utc | 36

Both the BBC and NPR have been carrying and emphasizing Cameron's point in his recent speeches that Scotland seceeding from the the UK will be like an ugly and difficult divorce. AND, stated Cameron, Scotland could never, ever, ever be reunited with England.

I kept wondering why that is so. Why couldn't a Scotland of the future, wishing to reunite, be able to do so, given that the populaces vote to do so?

What does Cameron know that I don't??

Posted by: jawbone | Sep 17 2014 20:24 utc | 37

The pound is a free floating currency. No one needs Osborne's permission to use it. But it is also a very expensive currency, destroying Scottish exports and so Scottish jobs. Independence will bring the opportunity for Scots to set up their own currency. It's one they should grab.

Iceland, with around the same population as Aberdeen, has its own currency. So does Cape Verde, with a population around that of Edinburgh. So do Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and most of the countries and self governing territories of the world, most of which, as it happens, have fewer people than Scotland. Sharing the pound with England wouldn't make anything worse than it is now, but having our own currency would give us another tool in making them much better.

[There] is a way around the oil problem...

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay-peter-mccoll/scotland-should-relish-chance-to-run-its-own-currency

Posted by: rob66 | Sep 17 2014 20:30 utc | 38

Oh, Caledonia, fair land hills and dales! Even for you God is in the details -- and its clear from this relatively informed discussion that the details are as clear as the banks of fog rising off the loch at sunrise.

Beware, Beware!
We rise from the air
and gaze into our ball
Beware, Beware!
All is not faire
For who but we know all?

In the eighties, there was a popular book making the rounds called The Nine Nations of North America, I wonder if anyone remembers it? Looking at the map, and the names and descriptions of regions, one is struck by how much has changed in the 33 years since the book came out. The author did not account for the rise of high-tech, finance, and the new energy producing regions, nor the fall in industry. Imagine -- what the author named “The Foundry,” with Detroit as its capital, could now be named “Neo-Liberal Libertaria” with Lew Rockwell as governor privatizing every state asset as fast as possible. By drawing a purely “functional” map, the granary has no port! America! Ruling Empire of land, sea, air, and space. In unity there used to be strength: now there is anomie, coercion and malevolence.

As Marx (and Marshall Berman) said, “All That Is Solid Melts into Air.”
Red Queens all -- We must remake ourselves ever more rapidly so as to fall less behind.

People want meaningful jobs, healthcare, security in disability and old age, community, hope, peace and control over their welfare. Those who own and run the world have given us joblessness, insecurity for all but the top 5% or less, atomization, fear, perpetual war, and no voice or control over our lives.

Personally, I think the deck chairs are best arranged in three rows to leeward, and one to windward -- all pointing outwards, of course. Anyone want to help me re-arrange them?

Scotland, ever a land of exiles, setting the hearth fires straight.

Is it just accident that my favorite corner of the Carribean isle where I dwelt was named Caledonia for the green hills which plunged hundreds of feet down to the ocean. Land where the Maroons hid, and where I stayed in a wood shack with Lythia and the pigs, who wandered in and out and tried to burrow between us in the night chill. In the day, we pressed silver fern to our cheeks as tatoos, and laughed. At night we watched the twinkling lights of the next isle float ghost-like above the horizon. Caledonia!

Sitting in a park in Paris, France
Reading in the news and it sure looks bad
They won't give peace a chance
That was just a dream some of us had...

Then I'm going home to Caledonia
Caledonia, I'm coming home
Oh will you take me as I am
Strung out on another plan
Caledonia, I'm coming home

Oh it gets so lonely
When you're walking
And the streets are full of strangers
All the news of home you read
More about the war
And the bloody changes
Oh will you take me as I am?
Will you take me as I am?
Will you?
Will you take me as I am?
Hmmm mmmmm
Take me as I am

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 17 2014 20:58 utc | 39

Scottish Independence: What?

John Cronin • a day ago

Every Scot in London I've ever met has been appalled by Alec Salmond: maybe distance gives them some perspective. One constant whine I hear is why didn't Cameron insist on allowing Scots-born in England to have a vote? The other thing they seem stunned by is his decision to bring the voting age down to 16: just pure populist irresponsibility. As one person said: a seventeen yr old just off the boat from Lithuania working in Mcdonalds for six months before going home is entitled to vote on a subject which has nothing to do with them, but someone who was born and raised there and has moved a mile over the border to Berwick will have no say.

My guess for what it's worth is that the vote will be a lot less close than everyone thinks: people have been telling fibs to the pollsters, and I think they are gonna be embarrassed The no vote will win by a larger majority than everyone is currently panicking about. But Salmond's spinning economic fairy stories to the Glasgow underclass about how they'll all be millionaires in an independent nation will result in a fairly ugly Friday morning. All police leave has been cancelled. The authorities are expecting large scale disturbances if (when) the no vote wins.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 17 2014 21:00 utc | 40

I don't really care one way or the other, but one thing I know for certain, the ordinary people, or the Small People, of Scotland will not gain any advantage from this. A small handful of elitists will skim the cream just as England is doing now to Scotland. These Scottish elites are selling Independence as though it will be a boon for all Scots. Fat chance. It never works that way. NEVER.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 17 2014 21:16 utc | 42

Irish independence worked out very well indeed for what was at the time the largest part of the common people of the country, the peasantry. My mother's family supported Sinn Fein all along, but my father, who had opposed Sinn Fein and supported the Parnell/Redmond moderate Nationalist Party in his youth, had to admit, when he visited Ireland again in the 1960's, that independence had worked out well indeed for the country folk of Ireland.

Pareto's iron law may mean that it is ultimately a small ruling class that always occupies the highest political positions in a country, but that does not mean that a political system cannot work better or less well for the rest of the population.

Posted by: lysias | Sep 17 2014 21:32 utc | 44

Why isn't Mel Gibson being recruited for the marketing campaign??!?!!?!?

FFFFFFRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Fernando | Sep 17 2014 21:42 utc | 45

Poems And Songs Of Robert Burns by Robert Burns: Lines Written On A Banknote

Lines Written On A Banknote
Wae worth thy power, thou cursed leaf!
Fell source o' a' my woe and grief!
For lack o' thee I've lost my lass!
For lack o' thee I scrimp my glass!
I see the children of affliction
Unaided, through thy curst restriction:
I've seen the oppressor's cruel smile
Amid his hapless victim's spoil;
And for thy potence vainly wished,
To crush the villain in the dust:
For lack o' thee, I leave this much-lov'd shore,
Never, perhaps, to greet old Scotland more.

Posted by: c | Sep 17 2014 22:07 utc | 46

@lysias:

Yes, but I was friends with Kevin Clear from Bray, who fought valiantly and vainly to keep Ireland out of the EU. We know how that worked out...

By the way, he had a book in his shelves, written I believe in the seventies, entitled "The Balkanization of Europe." In 1980, late one night over a few nips of Jameson, he very accurately, and with great detail, predicted the next 40 years.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 17 2014 22:07 utc | 47

When "b" uses the words "perfidious Albion" then I know enough. Frankly, I don't like England too much either:
- England (in cooperation with the US) regularly bombed Iraq between 1991 & 2003.
- England wants to destabilize continental Europe and a confrontation with Russia, as well whereas e.g. Germany wants cooperation with Russia.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17 2014 22:14 utc | 48

Posted by: lysias | Sep 17, 2014 5:32:27 PM | 43

The same argument could be said for all the Small People in the West during the easy credit years, but that doesn't preclude what I asserted. We're talking about post-2008 here so we might as well be talking about AD versus BC. It's a very different world.

Your statement is merely a supporting argument for the Chicago School boys who always claimed a rising sea of prosperity raised all ships. Ireland gained its independence on a wave of global prosperity fueled by easy credit and cheap energy. Those days are over.

Scotland, if it gains its independence, will have no such luck. Its elite will continue the trend that's been implemented by all elite everywhere after 2008 — austerity to maintain the concentrating trend of wealth.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 17 2014 22:17 utc | 49

First off,what the hell would Russia ever attack Britain for?Abandoned Welsh coal mines?sheesh.
As a Scottish,Dutch, German, American with an English surname,I say;Go for it,defang the little sidekick of perfidious America,expose it's hollow economy of banksters.
And little Joe Goebbels wasn't always wrong.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 17 2014 22:19 utc | 50

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17, 2014 6:14:23 PM | 47

- Scotland aided England in subjugating India and as a result, India became Scotch Whiskey lovers. Now, those Indian Scotch Whiskey lovers are nervous their Scotch Whiskey may become too pricey should Scotland gain its independence. That alone is worth leaving things as they are and not upsetting the apple cart.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 17 2014 22:22 utc | 51

To CDH at 48 --

Ireland gained its independence in 1921, and for many years its people were its main export. The impoverishment of Ireland after 2007 is an indictment of the Chicago school, not its confirmation. They are apparently back to their old export trade.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 17 2014 22:25 utc | 52

[I]t is possible to create a kind of constitutional process which is not limited to elites, according to Hélène Landemore.

Five lessons seem particularly worth keeping in mind for any country intent on trying this at home...

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=6747

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2014/0221-scotland/18135314-1-eng-US/0221-Scotland_full_600.jpg

Posted by: rob66 | Sep 17 2014 22:29 utc | 53

Yes the Yesvote even has the US war machine worried...But so far the evidence is YES will win, even tho polls make out NO has aslight edge, on the streets what you see is the YES campaign

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:30 utc | 54

Posted by: dh | Sep 17, 2014 10:43:36 AM | 2


not half as angry as Pefidious Albion if YES wins!

will Albion invade scotland?

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:31 utc | 55

'As well the three national parties... Labour/Tory/Libs have run a joint campaign against independence'


this referendum like that in Crimea is exposing political realities, in this case that every british politician of any party is linnig up behind smiley/teary masks to show their love for scotland, while seeking to sway the minds of the scottish people

one party 3 right wings

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:34 utc | 56

Posted by: erichwwk | Sep 17, 2014 12:15:08 PM | 13


why dont the english host THEIR trident nukes? well because its better scots gits get blown up than their own people

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:38 utc | 57

@53 I imagine mostly sadness in England if YES wins. Maybe anger in some quarters. Invasion is most unlikely.

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2014 22:41 utc | 58

Posted by: c | Sep 17, 2014 2:54:24 PM | 22

voting NO with anger? what folly? what a joke! most scots will be voting YES, because they see hope in independence OR NO because theyre afraid...NOONE will vote NO because they are angry with the brits!

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:42 utc | 59

On the Scottish Vote --

On a different, earlier thread, I was neutral on Scottish independence. Didn't support it, but the byproduct of taking the piss out of "New Labour" was a pleasant side effect.

But after seeing an editorial in the local MSM broadsheet today, I'm fully behind it.

As it was a reprint from the LA Times, it's likely to have been widely distributed. B. Simms & J. Pack argue that "England's northern flank will be exposed... and all planning against Russian encroachments will have to be rethought." They further argue that "since Russia's annexation of Crimea, Europe is once more a dangerous place." Who will protect the Scots "against the Russian encroachment."

Is the Looney Party looking for candidates in Scottish constituencies? I have a pair of nominees.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 17 2014 22:44 utc | 60

Posted by: c | Sep 17, 2014 3:06:17 PM | 24


why quote the Economist?

Nobel prizewinner Joseph Stiglitz also accuses Scotland's finance sector of using scare tactics over independence
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/25/opposition-currency-union-socltand-bluff-joseph-stiglitz

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:44 utc | 61

one of the main YES campaigners:

Nicola Sturgeon ‏@NicolaSturgeon ·11m
Home after a long, hard but exhilarating campaign. Thanks to everyone - Yes & No - who played a part. Tomorrow, the nation decides. #VOTEYES

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:49 utc | 62

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 17, 2014 6:44:16 PM | 58


now we will be told Russia has annexed scotland!

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 22:50 utc | 63

Heres a link to an article by ex UK Ambassador Craig Murray showing overwhelming support for the "Yes" vote. He also has articles on the lies & spin from MSM agitating/scaremongering for the "NO" vote. It's all going to be down to who counts the votes & how they are cast . . . "Mr Diebold - calling Mr. Diebold - white courtesy phone for Mr. Diebold # 10 calling"

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/09/referendum-conundrum/

Posted by: kiwicris | Sep 17 2014 22:51 utc | 64

Posted by: brian | Sep 17, 2014 6:44:46 PM | 59

The YES campaign has a WWW site, which has the logo – “YES, Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands” (Source), and then proceeds to advocate that:

The Scottish Government proposes that an independent Scotland will continue to use the pound and enter into a formal currency agreement with the government of the United Kingdom.

In other words, Scotland’s future will not be in its own hands but rather be severely limited by the fiscal and monetary policy decisions taken by the British government, as now.

The YES Campaign says that “based on expert advice”:

Scotland should continue to use the £ as part of a currency union with the rest of the UK … A currency union also means cooperation over other issues including financial supervision and agreed fiscal rules.

As is the case now, the Bank of England (which is publicly owned) would retain responsibility for monetary policy – including interest rates – throughout the currency area, as well as continuing to act as lender of last resort to financial institutions in difficulty.

So no currency sovereignty at all.

The YES Campaign claims that forming a currency union is just a matter of “common sense”

The “expert advice” came from none other than the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which has among its members Joseph Stiglitz, who is currently considered one of the darlings of the progressives. Which just goes to show.

The Commission has released a number of reports to support Plan A.

Its report on – Fiscal Rules and Fiscal Commissions claims at the outset that:

Public sector borrowing is one of the most important and valuable tools of macroeconomic policy open to any independent government.

A fully independent government does not need to borrow. Such borrowing is a left over from the old Bretton Woods system when governments had to fund deficits. A fiat monetary system means the government does not have to borrow any longer. The retention of such borrowing has been used by neo-liberals ever since 1971 to stifle government spending and force austerity onto economies.

I would be voting NO in Scotland but with a lot of anger

Posted by: c | Sep 17 2014 22:57 utc | 65

The Trident base will most likely become a bargaining chip....versus keeping the British pound. Which would turn out to be some kind of half-arsed independence. If it's YES.....which I doubt.

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2014 23:03 utc | 66

what's more the scottish pound already exsists. better get used to it
scottish pound

Posted by: c | Sep 17 2014 23:05 utc | 67

@62. What does Diebold have to do with it? Validated votes will be hand-counted under supervision by both parties.

@65 Those are notes printed by Scottish banks. They represent pounds sterling.

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2014 23:12 utc | 68

unlike most polls.
Generation Yes ‏@GenYes2014 ·4h
Yes at 63% to 37% on @skynews online poll! #indyref #VoteYes http://ift.tt/1wEgWhj pic.twitter.com/qkrXy79Deh

this one reflects whats can be seen on the streets

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 23:20 utc | 69

Posted by: c | Sep 17, 2014 6:57:02 PM | 63


got it! youre for NO!

Posted by: brian | Sep 17 2014 23:21 utc | 70

@kiwicris #62:

Thanks for that. That's the most encouraging piece I've read yet.

@rufus magister #58:

I should have thought you'd be for Scottish independence, if for no other reason than your Russian studies background. Scotland choosing Yes would obviously be good for Russia/Novorossia.

@brian #53:

Tony Blair Urges the “Ukraine Solution”: Air Strikes Against Scotland in Event of ‘Yes’ Vote

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has urged the UK government to consider military action against Scotland in the event of a vote for independence.

Mr Blair, who was prime minister between 1997 and 2007, broke his silence in the debate over Scottish independence to urge air strikes – including the use of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent – against Scottish strategic targets in the event of a ‘Yes’ victory next Thursday.

Interviewed in Kiev, Mr Blair said on Saturday that he hoped Scots would vote against independence, but warned that if Scotland voted to break up the United Kingdom then military intervention would be inevitable: “Obviously I hope that Scotland votes to stay part of the United Kingdom. But Scotland should prepare itself for a full-scale invasion by ground forces if it doesn’t.”

Mr Blair’s comments came just weeks after the former PM called for NATO leaders to agree a joint campaign of targeted bombings and drone attacks against badgers in support of the UK government’s campaign to control the spread of TB in the British countryside.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 17 2014 23:31 utc | 71

@69 There would be an exemption in the case of Edinburgh, Blair added, his birthplace.

Posted by: dh | Sep 17 2014 23:35 utc | 72

brian @ 61 --

Polite Men in Plaid spotted on the Clydeside.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 18 2014 1:16 utc | 73

Demian @ 69 -- I'll spare everyone a dissection of the complex problem of nationalism (audible sigh?).

Except - to say, it's like the American Imperium -- used to be progressive, now tends to be less so. IMHO.

And to recommend "The Invention of Tradition," edited by Hobsbawm & Ranger. Neat essays on Ossian and the upgrading of the theatricality of English royal ceremonies (better music, better staging). I'll note that Anderson's "Imagined Communities" was quite popular and influential back in my grad school days. Both still in print and modestly priced in paperback.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 18 2014 1:30 utc | 74

The rise in pressure for Scottish independence from lunatics wearing kilts to your average jock can be traced back to Thatcher, who reduced support for all of the regions of the UK - not just Scotland. The result was a significant migration of people towards London (including many Scots - who do not have a vote in this referendum by the way), and redrawing of electoral boundaries in accordance with the population shift. Look at the changing population of Liverpool, for instance,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Liverpool

The New Labour government of Blair and Brown did nothing to undo the Thatcher policy.

The disaffection of the Scots with control by a right wing neoliberal government from London is mirrored in other parts of Britain, especially the post-industrial North. Britain is, in fact, two societies, but the divide is not at the England-Scottish border. Look at house prices across England for instance.

In addition I suspect that many people in Britain also do not support the military adventures of the current and previous governments in support of US foreign invasions.

The right wing (particularly Murdoch) press will prevent any government left of Genghis Khan being elected. Britain has shifted from a social democracy in the 1960s (Harold Wilson kept Britain out of Vietnam) and 70s to the neoliberal entity it is now with one major industry - finance.

Posted by: mb | Sep 18 2014 1:41 utc | 75

To me, events such as this is where you watch all the cutting edge tricks of propaganda, social engineering, and everything else go down.

Study this campaign very closely - they use the same tactics used everywhere to drive us anywhere - from war to the local mall: media bias, street rallies, ubiquitous messaging.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 18 2014 2:02 utc | 76

"The Invention of Tradition," yes, you beat me to it!
Also, perhaps more prosaicly, "The Crofter and the Laird," by John McFee.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 18 2014 2:42 utc | 77

@guest7 #74:

FWIW, the pro-independence campaign uses grass roots organizations modelled on Obama's first presidential campaign. And George Monbiot wrote in his piece explaining why he is for independence that the idea of independence gives people hope.

And I think that people who bring up the "balkanization" of Europe overlook that this is a special case. The Empire is often called the Anglo-American empire for a reason. So on a symbolic level and to a lesser degree on a geoporitical level as well, a breakup of the UK would signify a partial breakup of the Empire itself. Neoliberalism is an Anglo-Saxon economic model which the US and England imposed on continental Europe and on most of the rest of the world. (Austria was too German for Friedrich Hayek, so he made England, with its economic liberalism, his home.)

Posted by: Demian | Sep 18 2014 2:44 utc | 78

Scotland itself was once referred to as "Albion" and the Scots Gaelic name for Scotland is "Alba" reflecting a similar origin in the Indo-European root for "white," as in the white cliffs of Dover.

If the yes vote succeeds and I hope it does, will the English refer to Scotland as "perfidious Alba?" How treacherous of them to abandon us after all we have done for them! Cameron acts as if Scotland is a child he will disown forever if he or she tries for legal emancipation from parental control. Abusive parents always overestimate their children's desire to be with them.

It's hard to say which way the PtB want the vote to go, as there are pros and cons each way for their interests, but if they want Scotland to stay it is difficult to imagine them allowing something as toothless as voting to get in their way. I hope I am wrong but tomorrow will be an interesting and beautiful day if the Scots win their independence.

Posted by: Sean | Sep 18 2014 3:35 utc | 79

@34

"Vote “no” in the Scottish referendum—Fight for a socialist Britain
Statement by the Socialist Equality Party"

Thanks for the reminder why I don't bother reading that site anymore. Scotland doesn't owe England and its alleged "socialists" a goddamn thing.

I see no such creature emerging from the depths like Nessie anytime soon in the UK. If there is a chance for some type of socialism anywhere in the soon to be ex-UK it will be in an independent Scotland, which will hopefully see the value in ditching the Labour party hacks and coming up with a real leftist alternative.

Posted by: Sean | Sep 18 2014 3:44 utc | 80

to malooga at 75 --

"Invention of Trad." is an excellent book, you are gentlmen, a scholar, and a judge of fine whiskey. "The Crofter and the Laird" sounds promising, some sort of social history approach, I'd guess.

Did you read that PC Roberts pc. yet? I just got done an email to AE about the attribution problem you raised. FYI, some pull at Oceania Saker, not so much elsewhere.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 18 2014 4:06 utc | 81

to demian at 69, 76

"...Russian studies background. Scotland choosing Yes would obviously be good for Russia/Novorossia."

Latter part is clear, any weakening of Anglo-Amer. polit/ideological stranglehold is good, Scottish independence gives (some) momentum/legitimacy to other separatist moves, e.g. Catalonia oft mentioned. Benefits here could be overstated, UK still has the City of London, substantial other forces/assets. I'd expect the Scots will be induced/pressured into maintaining bases, and the Tories-Libs-Labs will muddle along. Incremental losses for the status quo.

Former part, maybe not so much. Perhaps you're thinking of Lenin on the national question. I believe he was wrong on there.

I'm a strong internationalist, I like to think, and I oppose further national division; we should be lessening them, not aggravating them. Though I do have a soft spot for the Gaelic nationalist movements. In my earlier post (still too distracted and lazy to find) I suggest a Gaelic League, with Wales and the Bretons, as well as all 26 counties, be formed with our Scots cousins.

As I argued though on one of my earliest posts, there's a natural right to rebellion against tyranny. And certainly, resistance to the Maidan coup rises to the serious needed to justify such an extreme. If eventual union with Russia is secured, it should lessen division.

Jeez, but it's damnably difficult. Here's the long winded post I wanted to avoid. A dirty job but someone.... The academy thought it had this nationalism business pinned down and on the run in the Cold War. There was no "End of History," more like "History rears up bites you in the arse.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 18 2014 4:09 utc | 82

@rufus magister #80:

Perhaps you're thinking of Lenin on the national question. I believe he was wrong on there.
As a Marxist, Lenin was a cultural relativist, and so didn't understand that in the same way that there are good and bad religions, there are good and bad cultures. Lenin contributed to fascism by encouraging Ukrainian nationalism, instead of raising up Russians who thought they were Ukrainians by making them understand that the idea that there is such a thing as a Ukrainian people is nothing more than a Russophobic fantasy constructed by Western powers.. Russian culture is universalistic; since Ukrainian identity is the result of successive attempts by imperial powers to destroy Russia, it is anti-universalistic and supremacist.

In the same way that, because of its universalism, Russian nationalism is a positive force in history, Scottish nationalism is also to be encouraged, since it is a form of revolt against one of the most anti-human and destructive ideologies that have ever existed, English imperialism, of which the US empire of chaos and neoliberalism are a continuation.

Se also my #76.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 18 2014 4:45 utc | 83

@Demian 76:

I myself am agnostic, not having my own haggies in the fire, so to say.

You make a great case in your second paragraph, but puncture it in your first. Monbiot, who I used to like ten years ago, is to my mind the kiss of death. And all this Obama 2.0 Hopey Changey shite is downright frightening.

The identity struggle does not negate the class struggle. Nor does it offer any guidance towards economic independence, or to orienting within a network of healthy win-win trade relationships -- if that is even possible under the EU leviathan's remorseless gaze.

wsws generally offers a solid news analysis, at the expense of a viable political alternative.

Socialism (and I say this as a socialist in spirit) was penetrated from within and destroyed in the same manner that the 9-11 Truth movement has been -- where the average person does not care about, and is driven away by, minute internecine squabbles.

wsws library of polemics on the four internationals, Trotskyism, the dangers of Pabloism etc,, etc., ad infinitum, is far too obscure for any but the most sincere and ardent student of history. One follows it at one’s own risk down a rabbithole of deception and betrayal, until simply meeting people’s needs appears a chimera. It almost seems unconsciously calculated to push away real voters.

Look at even political blogs: you see over and over again -- the call to nationalize the central bank. Now, I am not against that idea, I am in favor of it. But to think that one simple action will solve the vast problems of modernity is a jape’s deception.

So, people need a simple (not simplistic), but relatively complete and coherent political program and roadmap, broad enough to win over a majority of the population. (forget identity and wedge issues) The task is hardly impossible, or even daunting: Debs did it to much success 100 years ago. And the opportunity to repeat, and build upon his successes stands wide open for a sincere group of people with a motivated leader.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 18 2014 4:49 utc | 84

@ krasnyy uchitel (Rufous Magister):

Yes, nationalism as a step away from imperialism is, in my opinion, a step towards eventual internationalism, of a more just make-up. (The problem isn’t internationalism per say, or globalism, as it is called, since we all DO live and interact on one globe. The problem is the rules of the game: Globalism for the 1/1000 of 1% is different than globalism for the 99%. Cui bono.)

Mcphee is a literary stylist and an acute observer and chronicler, not a theorist -- but engrossing reading for a rainy day or on a trip.

Yes, I read the PCR piece, who I have a high respect for, and replied on our previous thread. I’m not sure what you are looking for. For the record, I did not hear about the event (9-11) until about ten hours after it happened, but instantly knew the “story” was impossible.

I had a deep personal relationship with those buildings. Pre-WTC, the area had been full of small old buildings housing electronic jobbers and small electronics retailers. Our across-the-street neighbor had a TV shop in the district, and I would accompany my father down there for a day of picking up vacuum tubes for projects and whatnot. I watched the neighborhood condemned, the buildings built (peering through the little spaceship holes while my father, the engineer, held me up and described what was happening.) It was far more engrossing to me than anything I had ever seen on TV. Years later, my father’s engineering firm moved to two hitherto unoccupied floors high up the North Tower. In somewhat of a demotion and affront, my father was in charge of the move. He was livid, “They’ve moved me from running billion dollar projects, to picking out gold knobs for the executive faucets,” he would grouse, describing his humiliation. In any event, as the floors had never been occupied (the building was a white elephant from the get-go) I got to see the internal structure, the columns, the floor joists and connections, the fireproofing, etc. close-up, and first hand. The building was of an novel and unique design, with its box shell, and was greatly admired and studied, as well as subsequently copied. Each floor was approx. one acre, and my coolest memory was being alone with my dad on a floor, a fifth of a mile in the air, and surprising him by pulling my frisbee out of my backpack, and then spending half an hour playing frisbee with him, running back and forth around the central box of columns. In college, I wrote my longest paper ever on the buildings for an architecture class. My father’s firm moved in, and his office was on the 95th floor of the North building -- exactly the point where the first plane entered. I don’t mean to build up the drama, as he had retired about ten years before 9-11, and passed away before the event. Still, I remember visiting him at his office; he had an L shaped desk, and when you sat across from him, his back was to the windows and you faced out to the sky and lower Manhattan. So, I can well envision what it would have looked like sitting in his office on that serene September morning, and watching a plane come right in at you in real time. I can’t even think about it without my palms sweating.

Back to 9-11. Roberts is correct to agree with Graeme MacQueen that the Anthrax letters and 9-11 must be interpreted as one event. (I remember trying to convince my brother, a very prominent reporter at the time that something was wrong with the 9-11 story. I called him up when the Anthrax story first broke and related the news to him. ”That’s impossible!,” he shouted, ”Now you’ve really gone off the deep end.” A sentence he never retracted, even as the entire story played out. With the Anthrax event, government conspiracy became an exposed and proven fact, a concept too frightening for one so embedded within the establishment.) I see that MacQueen has just come out with a book, “The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy,” which I haven’t read yet, but have very high expectations for. (MacQueen also did excellent work in the lead-up to the Syrian destabilization.) I see there are a number of mp3s of recent interviews with him out on the web incl. one on noliesradio, which I downloaded but have not listened to. I highly, highly recommend to anyone interested the 2011 radio program “Unwelcome Guests” #561 (free download), which, in two hours, places the event within the European gladio framework, giving a firm context, and then discusses the event itself (MacQueen was undoubtably in the midst of researching and writing the book.).

So yes, PCR is a brave writer, and the official conspiracy theory of 9-11 (OCT), namely that 19 guys armed with boxcutters could successfully hijack 4 planes and knock down three buildings with two of them (the third building destroying millions of SEC records of firms accused of wrongdoing), while having an incompetent pilot perform a descending 270 degree hairpin turn at full speed and hit the most guarded building in the world exactly where the records for the missing $2.3 trillion announced the day previously was located and destroying them, is to anybody able to escape the ubiquitous matrix of programming we are subjected to 24/7, complete bunkum. (By the way, does anyone know what boxcutters look like? No, they are not utility knives. Next time you go to a supermarket, ask the stockboy to see his boxcutters. They are a specialized implement customized for cutting boxes without destroying the contents of the box. Thus they expose only 1/8” of razor blade, no more, so as not to penetrate deeper than a sheet of corrugated cardboard. While they are certainly capable of inflicting a nasty flesh wound, the idea that someone could hijack a plane with one is about as laughable as someone destroying a plane with his underwear or a shoe. What will the next weapon be -- a child’s compass?)

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 18 2014 6:29 utc | 85

first it was Georgr Galloway.now its webster tarpley
the new liberal friends of Westminster and opponents of scottisdh independence

WebsterGTarpley @WebsterGTarpley · 3h
Congratulations to @GeorgeGalloway for mounting class-based rejection of fraudulent pseudo-independence of #Scotland-Now #Scots must VOTE NO
https://twitter.com/WebsterGTarpley

Posted by: brian | Sep 18 2014 7:27 utc | 86

World Socialist WS ‏@WSWS_Updates 20m
George #Galloway defends British capitalism in Scottish referendum campaign - World Socialist Web Site http://ow.ly/BCxsq #indyref

Posted by: brian | Sep 18 2014 7:42 utc | 87

b said:
There are too much money, personal political reputations and too many strategic assets involved for the "powers that are" to allow or accept a result that would not fit their plans.

All that needs to be said. No vote will win and the "powers" know that.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 18 2014 8:52 utc | 88

31

You mean peat, brown coal, wind if its blowing, mini hydro, experimental tidal and science fiction wave. Wait until toperating costs and MTBF start hitting the bottom line.

Posted by: Chip Nihk | Sep 18 2014 9:51 utc | 89

Well, today's the big day. I can't wait to gauge the reaction if and when the vote is "no." I'm sure some will scream & holler and say the vote was rigged by Diebold even though it's been pointed out the vote is paper with pen.

As I've mentioned, I don't care either way but I am mildly amused by delusionally false confidence when it rears its ugly head which is just about always.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 18 2014 10:07 utc | 90

So yes, PCR is a brave writer

Yes, so brave. He was also a brave Assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan when all that "shit" went down. Brave is about timing. The time to be brave is before the horse leaves the barn — not after it's long gone. Bravery after it's long left the barn is not bravery, it's opportunism.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 18 2014 10:11 utc | 91

No vote will win and the "powers" know that.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 18, 2014 4:52:44 AM | 86

And how do they know that? Once again another commentator implying the vote will be rigged. You have no proof of that but you've already decided in advance, before the votes are cast and counted, that it's a rigged election.

Considering that logic, that all elections that matter (and let's face it they all matter these days) are rigged, we can than safely assume that if it's a "yes" that wins the day it was ordained by "the powers that b."

Using that same logic, it holds that Obama was the Elite's pick since that election (or those elections) was/were rigged, both of them actually, to elect Obama. What would Billmon say about that since he voted for Brand Obama both times? Is Billmon on board with the rigged election theory? I seriously ask this question since this space is an ode to the spirit of Billmon and he is often quoted here as an authority on all matters.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 18 2014 10:21 utc | 92

there's a natural right to rebellion against tyranny.

So long as that's what the rebellion is really all about. Seldom, if ever, it is. More often than not, perhaps almost always, it's about one brand of tyranny over another and passionate blood is spilled in vain.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 18 2014 10:24 utc | 93

It's hard to say which way the PtB want the vote to go

I think it's safe to say, both intuitively and deductively, the PtB will win either way. They're quite adept at burning both ends of the candle. It's pretty much heads they win, and tails you lose these days. Perhaps it's always been that way, but it certainly is now.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 18 2014 10:28 utc | 94

a sudden blitzkrieg by langleys favorite son, Cold

Posted by: brian | Sep 18 2014 12:10 utc | 95

- Many a scot wants more independence from "London" but that's NOT on the ballot. The vote is whether or not Scotland must an independent country.
- And I DO think Scotland has a very significant chance of seceding from "Perfidious Albion" with this vote. The polls show that the "YES" vote (independence) has surprisingly large support.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 18 2014 12:15 utc | 96

Great excitementt, the Scots will vote for their independence today! Yes it will be.

What happens to Scotland’s Westminster MPs after a ‘yes’ vote?

Posted by: Oui | Sep 18 2014 12:37 utc | 97

This is how the UK looks today
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/Bx0NVd6IIAAtJwY.png
for the GIF http://trendsmap.com/v2/Lf62/w

Posted by: brian | Sep 18 2014 13:04 utc | 98

@96 A traditional Labour Party or a Tony Blair trial would solve this issue in a second or perhaps would have averted it. The younger voters might be lost at this point.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Sep 18 2014 13:40 utc | 99

Love these emotional messages … doesn't prove a thing, but makes you feel better.

Amanda Craig @MandaCraig
My Da, who has been a strong Labour No voter,
changed his mind an hour before he left for the
polling station today and voted Yes. So proud.

Roger Mullin @RogMull • 35 min
Lady in tears of joy in Kirkcaldy "My 38 year-old
son went to vote no. Came back home crying
he couldnt do it and voted Yes " wow. #Yes

Posted by: Oui | Sep 18 2014 14:12 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.