From the Guardian:

From Strasbourg, Le Monde has a fascinating article which claims the EU is “secretly … praying that the Scots will vote against independence” and that Euro MPs are “struggling to hide their embarrassment” if there is a yes victory …
Why? “How can we say yes to Ukraine and no to Scotland?” suggests one Euro MP.

Le désarroi des députés européens envers le référendum écossais

Posted by: Demian | Sep 18 2014 18:42 utc | 104

@ Noirette 101:
I will take this to the open thread later this evening so as not to hijack this thread.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 18 2014 18:53 utc | 106

I would find it strange if no organization were doing exit polling in such an important election.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 18 2014 19:58 utc | 108

Posted by: c | Sep 17, 2014 2:54:24 PM | 22
I agree 100% with your assessment of the currency issue. You’re dead on.

Posted by: MRW | Sep 18 2014 20:45 utc | 110

Malooga @ 85, sorry, I missed your response on that earlier thread. “So many posts, so little time.” I just wanted to make sure you’d seen it, I can see that you did like it. I’ll try and find it.
On the substance of 9/11, never underestimate a small no. of determined men with a clever plan and a few hundred or thosand gals. of highly flammable jet fuel. Throw in a design flaw (no central core, outer walls bore the load, they stressed under the temps. of the fuel) and confusion on the ground, and there you go. I think the plan worked better the bin Laden imagined it; several floors smashed and dozens, hundreds of dead would have been bad enough.
I don’t, however, underestimate the arrogance and marginal competence of American Imperium. Info. overload, distraction of other concerns, Bush II folks didn’t prevent it, but were quick to exploit it to achieve long-standing defense/intelligence aims.
How does Flight 93 fit into all this? They did rush them, after all. I have several boxcutters, use them at work. You can push out more than just the tip, a couple of good slashes might give many folks pause. I think it was more the fact several large men denied access; if memory serves the team on 93 was smaller, and I think the passengers had a clearer sense of what was up.
I’m sure we’ll be back to this later, so enough for now. Glad you liked that Roberts’ pc.
PS — did you hear the latest Trump news? Gov. Christie broke his press silence, said he welcomed Trump back to AC. GW Bridge biz is going to trip him, I think. Or hope, anyway.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 18 2014 22:02 utc | 112

Demian @ 83 —
Not saying you’re wrong, the philosophical implications of universalism and relativism are “above my pay grade,” so to speak. But as to the failings of Bolshevik national policy, I would tend largely to agree.
Lenin wanted to undermine, maybe even denigrate, Great Russian nationalism, seeing it as a bulwark of Tsarism. I think Ukr. nationalism owes a bit more of its “brown” (as in “brownshirt”) character to Western actors — but clearly Lenin created an environment where all varieties of nationalism could flourish. See the Civil War in Finland after the Oct. Revo., Poland too. And then, when the Bolsheviks got the Ukraine back, Lenin’s transfer of the Donbas to “balance” the nationalists in the west Ukr. was clearly a bad move.
I would also strongly agree, Russian nationalism today is clearly a progressive force.
PS — here’s a surprise, it got my “at” refs. all f*&@#’d up in this thread…. That satire at 71 had me going, I think I meant that and 78….

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 18 2014 22:30 utc | 114

How can they say no to Scotland and yes to Kosovo/a? The Scots have given much to the world as a very small nation, they earned ‘yes’ on my radar(that being invented by a Scot as one of many). The tough nut for the fixers (no vote), “you cant buy a Scot, just a Scotch”.

Posted by: kjs | Sep 18 2014 22:50 utc | 116

Demian; Do you have a link? As you know there are no exit polls and Yes folks at Craig Murray need the encouragement.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Sep 18 2014 23:12 utc | 118

@Ben Franklin #118:
EuroTrib: Rumors of a “tsunami of Yes” voters in postal balloting
Here are a couple of hashtags: #IndyRef #VoteYes
@kjs #116:
The Scots have also given some very bad things to the world. One was Adam Smith, with his idea that the economy is self-regulating, which is the basis of neoliberalism; another was David Hume, who, with his doctrine that values cannot be determined rationally (fact-value distinction), laid the basis for the Anglosphere’s nihilism.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 18 2014 23:27 utc | 120

Based on the first district that reported, it’s not looking good.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 19 2014 0:39 utc | 122

so far west Lothian and Clackmannanshire have gone to NO(we prefer to be ruled by London). So looks like Scotland wont be doing a crimea

Posted by: brian | Sep 19 2014 1:06 utc | 124

@brian #124:
I think you mean a Novorossia. Crimea has been part of Russia since Katherine the great, and Russia couldn’t let Sevastopol become occupied by NATO, so there was not much for Crimea to do.
A majority of Scots may still eventually develop enough self-respect to want to become free. I just wanted Scotland to choose independence now, because that would have taken some of the wind out of the West’s war against Russia.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 19 2014 1:34 utc | 126

Demian @ 117 —
Glad you found my take on the nationalities question interesting. I would agree that Russia compares favorably to other European powers regarding diversity. You’ll find I’ll usually bite on the right lure with that sort of provocation. Russia fascinated me since I saw some Hollywood treatment of Catherine II “the Great” as a kid.
Hard to beat Pushkin as evidence, one of his grandfathers was African, originally a slave and later a senior official to Peter the Great. I have a decent translation of Pushkin poem I did in grad school for a Russ. Lit. class, perhaps I’ll find it and post it some slow holiday weekend in an open thread.
I would say that Russia inherited the Soviet position as a counter-weight — it didn’t necessarily embrace that legacy, but Western actions forced Russia to react. It’s a positive force now, a narcotic under Yeltsin, and hence was a negative one.
I would disagree about Marxism and culture, if I could. Plenty of decent writing on culture from the left, Marcuse for example. Not my area of expertise, I know enough to let others pitch in here. You rightly attribute it all to idealism vs. materialism, I’m a dedicated historical materialist, Sartre’s “Search for a Method” is about as rareified of an atmosphere as I’m capable of.
If I might at least finish, then, on the topic of this thread, win, lose or draw, the referendum on Scotland has been another incremental weakening of Anglo-Am. hegemony. I think that the Atlantic elite, if you will, believes that it can contain whatever damage it creates. Exerts maybe a little indirect pressure for acceptance of Novorossiya.
To add to your point about the Crimea at 126 — you’ll recall that Novorossiya comes under control of the Romanovs at about the same time as the Crimea does (1794, founding of Odessa, e.g.).

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 19 2014 4:19 utc | 128

Glasgow and Dundee majority vote YES the rest like Edinburgh Aberdeen etc vote no, so its back to dependence, tridents in the back yard and voter aparthy
Scotland the brave? NAW

Posted by: brian | Sep 19 2014 5:04 utc | 130

@brian #131:
Yeah, I see your point now. All the Scots had to do was vote for independence (as opposed to risk their lives for it), just like the Crimeans.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 19 2014 5:20 utc | 132

@rufus magister #133:

Marx was a Hegelian

To be a Hegelian, you have to have a basic understanding of Hegel’s philosophy. Marx never had that: it was over his head. So he came up with his bullshit metaphysics, which was pre-critical, to use the technical philosophical term meaning proceeding without awareness of the advances that Kant had made in epistemology.
But I don’t mean to blame Marx for not understanding Hegelian philosophy. Philosophy in Germany began to decline about a decade after Hegel’s death. To quote Frederick Beiser’s Hegel:

What did defeat Hegelianism was the very card its master most loved to play: history. In 1840 the Prussian Reform Movement came to its end. In that fateful year both Altenstein and Friedrich Wilhelm III died. …
Once the forces of reaction began to assert themselves, it was inevitable that Hegel’s philosophy would collapse. After all, the very essence of Hegel’s teaching made him vulnerable to historical refutation. The great strength of Hegel’s system lay in its bold syntheses – of theory and practice, of rationalism and historicism, of radicalism and conservatism – for these seemed to transcend the partisan
spirit, granting every standpoint a necessary, if limited, place in the whole. But the great strength of Hegel’s philosophy was also its great weakness, its tragic flaw, For, as we have seen (pp. 219–23), all these syntheses rested upon a single optimistic premise: that reason is inherent in history, that the laws and trends of history will inevitably realize the ideals of the Revolution. It was just this optimism, though, that seemed to be refuted by the disillusioning events of the early 1840s. Hegel had bet his whole system on history; and he had lost. [pp. 312–313]

Posted by: Demian | Sep 19 2014 6:02 utc | 134

Billyboy
Iam sorry for your loss, would mean so much if UK got desintegrated. What you say about scarmongering is so true, of course the media do what their masters say, sigh.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 19 2014 8:01 utc | 136

(Reuters) – British markets rallied and the rest of Europe followed suit on Friday as Scotland’s decision to stay in the United Kingdom eased investors past the latest in a recent run of global political obstacles.
With almost all the votes in, the camp for Scotland to remain in the UK was ahead 55 percent to 45 percent, an outcome likely to bring relief to a number of countries in Europe, particularly Spain, which is facing similar secessionist pressures in Catalonia.
Sterling GBP=D4 jumped to a two-week high against the dollar, a two-year peak against the euro, London’s FTSE .FTSE share index hit a two-week high and Spanish stocks .IBEX and bonds ES10YT=TWEB as well as those in Ireland IT10YT=TWEB jumped. [.EU]

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 19 2014 8:52 utc | 138

134
Then 160 years later, Fukuyama turned Hegelian dialectic on its head with the End of History now consummating in Corporate Colossus; exactly the way Darwin’s theory of the best fit, and the world as a limitless fully-speciated end-state, was corrupted and turned on its head by Nazi Eugenicists, into ‘Survival of the Fittest’, e.g. Citizens United Oligarchical Tyranny.
New Marxism: The Triumph of the Slaves as achieved by the Uber-Elevation of Their Masters.

Posted by: ChipNikh | Sep 19 2014 9:38 utc | 140

Noirette:
Let me say first that I have nothing but the highest respect for your steady and perceptive contributions over the years. I can count on the fingers of my hands the times I have disagreed with you. (Although our differences on the dangers and necessity of nuclear power is a major difference! If the world’s two most industrialized nations can forgo it, than surely less industrialized ones can too.)
That said, we have several issues here. One might be semantic, as they were not literally one event, rather they must be interpreted as one event, in the sense that 9-11 was the Empire’s official world roll-out of the new improved version of post-modern 4th generational warfare. This warfare focuses on image, perception, emotional manipulation, deception, etc. as much, if not more than, traditional battlefield combat. So, 9-11 was the major psy-op, and the Anthrax attacks were subsidiary to and supporting of, the psy-op.
They had several goals:
*Intensify the fear.
*Tie Iraq to Al Qaeda through the medium of Anthrax
*Threaten Congress against even thinking of standing up to what amounted to a government coup.
*Speed up passage of the Patriot Act.
*Use that act to spy on Congress to quash dissent.
Graham McQueen’s work is always masterful, meticulously researched, nuanced and not pedantic, and contextually well seated. I recommend you listen to Kevin Barretts low key interview, I’m sure you will like him. He does directly disagree with your position, though.
THE 2001 ANTHRAX DECEPTION: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy
However, the incompetent way in which the attacks were pulled off, forced the government to back away from nailing the attacks to their official enemies. This exposed the event as the weakest link in the 9-11 chain.
You say that these these topics wax and wane — surely you do not mean to imply that this is random, and not part of a larger whole? You say that a crazed maverick cabal piggy-backed on 9/11. How was this cabal different from the one that pulled off 9-11? How was it outside of Cheney’s remit? That you do not say. Surely you do not believe that an industry group would threaten the lives of Congressmen in public for contracts? Did standard lobbying and corruption fail? If they did resort to such mafia techniques successfully, why doesn’t every other industry group do the same. Furthermore, your implication that this group was in some way rogue from the one which had just pulled off ”the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos” (Stockhausen), is bald assertion. How does any of this account for the fact that the White House was put on Cipro a full week previous to the attacks? (Surely that does not bespeak of rogueness, but of well-planned executive complicity.)
Forewarnings of bio-attack are nothing but the predictive programming aspect of the psy-op: to prepare the public mind. Much the same was done several years earlier with threats of dirty nukes when we were trying to wrestle control of Russia’a nukes from them. Or the work of the Judy Miller/Ann Barnard ilk.
As to the timeline:
*Cheney warned that he wanted legislation passed by Oct 5th. (Ignoring Cheney’s requests has been referred to as being ”Wellstoned.”)
*Oct 2 Daschle and Leahy temporarily hold up legislation.
*Oct 6-9 Letters sent to the two Senators
*Oct 15th “Rollcall” magazine says “Brace for Anthrax.”
*After publication on the same day, Senators receive letters.
Sure a lot of coinky-dinks there.
Anyway, McQueen’s interview is highly recommended.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 19 2014 10:17 utc | 142

Cameron doesn’t seem to like a little “Regime Change” in his own backyard (=Scotland), rihgt ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 19 2014 10:25 utc | 144

Scotland has spoken and what did it resoundingly say?
Long Live The Queen!
I will say, unlike Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, this is the way to hold a referendum vote. I didn’t notice any “rebel separatists” or Russian soldiers standing guard over the polling stations coercing the vote like we saw in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, or at least in Eastern Ukraine. In Crimea the heightened presence of Russian soldiers in the area made it abundantly clear to Crimea’s inhabitants which way they should vote, and they did indeed vote that way.
Scots were free to choose. Crimeans and Eastern Ukrainians were not free to choose. Without that freedom to choose, a referendum vote is meaningless — mere lipstick on an already decided piggish result.
And no, it’s not “just the beginning.” The forces for Scottish independence , and whatever is surreptitiously behind those forces, didn’t make a convincing case for the benefits of independence versus the costs because there isn’t a convincing case.
Most Scots have shown they’re intelligent enough to realize Gibson’s Braveheart was just Hollywood fiction. The same can’t be said for many here who can’t see that but instead will argue about who was better, Hegel or Marx. Time to take your Big Wheels home boys — it’s getting late and you need to take a bath and brush your teeth before bed.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 19 2014 10:48 utc | 146

Cold N. Holefield @ 147 said:
Scots were free to choose.
apparently so

Posted by: john | Sep 19 2014 11:17 utc | 148

Marx wasn’t a philosopher – he was an economist.
The theory of Communism arose from Marx’s analysis of how capitalism would mature.
In many respects, this analysis was very accurate; his error lay primarily with his understandable failure to forsee how capitalism would change from an economic set of practices to a titular form of government. A significant secondary failure was in understanding how capitalists in more mature industries change in their behavior.
Thus to attack Marx’s “philosophy” or lack thereof seems to me to be more an attack on Engel’s attempt to popularize Marx.
Equally to compare Hegel – a stringer of words – with Marx and his numerical analysis of the functioning of capital…apples and oranges. Hegel had lots of interesting ideas, but ultimately he was a social scientist. Emphasis on the social.

Posted by: c1ue | Sep 19 2014 12:01 utc | 150

@150
scots are not angles or saxons

Posted by: brian | Sep 19 2014 13:25 utc | 152

Posted by: Demian | Sep 19, 2014 1:20:05 AM | 132
the threat of attack galvanised the crimeans, even those not so keen….Scotland had no such impending threat

Posted by: brian | Sep 19 2014 13:28 utc | 154

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 19, 2014 6:48:26 AM | 147
Cold didnt notice the ukrainian terrorists breaking into crimea, but then his role here is to shore up the Langley case for regime change

Posted by: brian | Sep 19 2014 13:53 utc | 156

All Hail the Paper Ballot! Democracy in Action! E-voting is for and by the political/multi-national class.
Of course corporate media won out and Cameron keeps his job. For now.

Posted by: TikTok | Sep 19 2014 14:04 utc | 158

Aforementioned video on vote rigging:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017216086

Posted by: ben | Sep 19 2014 15:17 utc | 160

If the 1% threatened Scottish pensions then I would call that more than just scare mongering. They most certainly have the power to collapse any pension fund they choose. Somehow it is asking the people of Scotland to take a very real risk. I certainly hoped that the Yes vote had carried, but I can’t bring myself to criticize those pensioners who voted their very real fears. If Yes had won there would remain many serious political issues that would have to have been worked out. The way the vote was structured, Salmond and his forces could not have worked out any of these problems in advance. London is in the position to strongly influence the finances of any Scottish entity.
Iran and Russia certainly provide good examples of the willingness of the west to use control of international finance as a weapon.

Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 19 2014 16:28 utc | 162

Barflies —
Who knew Hegel would bring out the worst in so many posters….

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 19 2014 22:03 utc | 164

Trouble in Glasgow…
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29288249

Posted by: dh | Sep 19 2014 22:44 utc | 166

guess what
Countless evidences of fraud during the recent Scottish Referendum have come to light, including two counts of votes being moved in bulk into a No pile, Yes votes clearly being seen in no piles and strange occurences with dual fire alarms and clear cut fraud in Glasgow. We demand a revote be taken of said referendum, where each vote shall be counted by two individuals, one of whom should be an international impartial party without a stake in the vote.
It links to one of a number of videos posted online that claim to show evidence of ballot rigging.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/thousands-of-people-are-calling-for-a-revote-of-the-scottish#26smn3p

Posted by: brian | Sep 20 2014 0:08 utc | 168

Option 1 (or similar for candidate 1) is: for change – for better / safer / richer… – more “natural”, just, fair, comprehensible – more fashionable, even ‘young’ – and sometimes more ‘for the people’
Option 2 is – conservative, for the status quo, against novelty or change (or for only minor change) – more for the PTB / rule of law / present arrangements as they stand – for caution (unintended effects) – but mostly against the wild, unrealistic, Option 1
The distinction is independent of left/right. E.g. punitive measures (locking up pedophiles for life) are Option 1, but in a country like CH, the left will vote Option 2.
Option 1 will generally do better than it should in polls, because Option 2 voters will be hidden by: underpolling, not responding to the poll, by falling into: don’t know/ undecided/ will abstain.
Therefore, one needs to mentally correct a little. Btw, in France, pollsters apply an automatic correction, justified with dizzy mathematical formulae, simply adding 2 – 4% FN (Marine le Pen) votes. Ha ha. Note also how Obama played the Option 1 card to the hilt. And that, for ex. the FN in France did not campaign or even speak at all about one Option 1 proposal – gay marriage.
So in the Scottish independence affair, one might add, imho, 1 – 2% to the NO vote, as compared to polls. The polls were well done, the issue has been amply discussed, ppl took a position, it is a vital issue, there were not 50% (or even 4%?) of undecided who voted at the last minute haphazardly (in any case these either abstain or vote both sides around 50/50 in the grand scope are of no account.)
55%? I’m having a hard time with that. But who knows….
An off-shoot of my Option I /II split is that if you are dealing with an Option 1 proposal, you need to wait, let it gather steam, watch the situation, measure your enemy, the arguments, and intervene close to the end run. That is in cases that are more or less 50/50 or 40/60.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 20 2014 14:37 utc | 170