According to the Scotsman Alasdair Darling has warned us that the break up of the UK would risk Scotland’s place in a ‘New World Order’.
Now, for a moment lets put aside the Alex Jones type of new world order where we are all marched back and forth to work by jackbooted nazis whilst Henry Kissinger and the Bush family, robed and hooded, whip a naked Tony Blair round some country club and sacrifice a goat to top off the evening.
Leaving that aside, what he is actually talking about?
Well first it is good old-fashioned scaremongering in the finest tradition.
He said we have to stop ‘constitutional wrangling’ and look to India and China and see how much their economies are improving.
I believe the implication is that larger economic units (I won’t refer the the UK as a country) will fare much better in the ‘new’ economy than smaller ones…
Mr Darling argued that the interconnected nature of economics means Scotland is stronger as part of the UK.
Well he would of course – his job depends on it.
The veiled thing here is that Scotland would miss out on its opportunity to be part of the new imperialism…
“I believe Scotland and England are far better off together than apart – especially when, all over the world, new opportunities are arising which we can seize if we have the will to.”
The obvious answer the SNP might give to that would be to say that that is the purpose of the European Union.
There has been a subtle shift in the propaganda coming from London lately. They have lost the battle with regard to convincing people that Scotland would not be economically viable if it was independent so they have switched the emphasis to talking about how difficult disagreeing with London will make it for us in the future.
“I believe it would be a profound mistake to spend the next four years in constitutional conflict north and south of the Border, when we need to meet the economic challenges we face.”
“The rest of the world is doing just that. So must we by meeting the challenges and seeking the opportunities that come from globalisation. We’ve got a choice: four years of constitutional wrangling, blaming someone else; or making sure we act now and seize the opportunities for Scotland’s future.”
No one I know is blaming the English people. In fact, recent polls show that 60% of the English public are in favour of Scottish Independence. Who we are blaming is people like Alasdair Darling and the rest of the political class in London that continue to try to scare us in this manner.
Jack Straw admitted the real reason for it…
“historically England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among other things, of amplifying England’s power worldwide.
A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interest of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England.
Our [England’s] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We’d slip down the world’s GDP tables.
Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN.”
Scotland would actually go up in the tables for most things and I don’t believe most Scots want to be part of the new imperialism anyway so that negates his arguments.
It again comes back to the old famous quote [here adapted]..
It is better to have our politicians here in Edinburgh where we can throw stones at them because not even the strongest arm can throw as far as London.
THE GREAT DECEPTION – If you haven’t read this already I URGE you to.
 Some of the other purposes of the EU were in the BBCs ‘Yes Minister’…
- Jim Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal.
- Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha.
- Jim Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey?
- Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let’s look at this objectively. It’s a game played for national interests, it always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?
- Jim Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of Free Western nations.
- Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
- Jim Hacker: So why did the French go into it then?
- Sir Humphrey: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition.
- Jim Hacker: That certainly doesn’t apply to the Germans.
- Sir Humphrey: No no, they went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race.
- Jim Hacker: I never heard such appalling cynicism. At least the small nations didn’t go into it for selfish reasons.
- Sir Humphrey: Oh really? Luxembourg is in it for the perks; the capital of the EEC, all that foreign money pouring in.
- Jim Hacker: Very sensible central location.
- Sir Humphrey: With the administration in Brussels and the Parliament in Strasbourg? Minister, it’s like having the House of Commons in Swindon and the Civil Service in Kettering.
- Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it’s worked so well?
- Jim Hacker: That’s all ancient history, surely.
- Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EU] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we’re inside we can make a complete pig’s breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it’s just like old times.
- Jim Hacker: But if that’s true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership?
- Sir Humphrey: I’d have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
- Jim Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
- Sir Humphrey: We call it diplomacy, Minister.