How Globalisation means there is no "independence"

The SNP argue against the fundamental principles of Globalisation in the sense that Britain should not stay within a domestic globalised unit but Europe as the European Union should, resulting in absurd hypocrisy.  

Much has changed in the last year; I have been outraged with the incompetent Scottish executive and their leading agenda to end the current United Kingdom.

The SNP and their Yes campaign propose “independence” for Scotland, although when we think about independence we think about a country that stands on its own feet, a country that can work and act for its citizens on its own accord; the offer we have at the moment from the Scottish government is more “dependence” than “independence” and this is simply due to the globalised world we have created.

The idea that we can separate from the rest of the country and still share the many intstitutions that we have only have thanks to being part of our UK is absurd, the nationalists assume that we can take the good from what we have established as a United Kingdom and leave the so called “bad”, they are under the deep illusion that “independence” or maybe “dependence” will indeed solve all of our problems, but in reality it can’t.

Separatists are branding the “independence” idea as a solution to get away from the current coalition government, a government that whether we agree with it or not; is not an everlasting dictatorship, it can be altered and changed when the British people go to the polls in 2015. Separation on the other hand is a permanent change, if we vote to leave the UK then we have officially kick started the process of tearing up and dissolving all that has been established and created over the last 300 years or so.

This brings me to a point that I like to make, or more so the theories of globalisation, and how that has impacted the world and those who support the idea of collectivism rather than separatism.

Believe it or not there has been three stages to globalisation, first occurring in 1492 when Columbus founded the Americas (Globalisation 1.0) , thus starting the rush to imperialism and the start of colonisation by the European powers, this turned the thinking and agenda of  European Kingdoms from focusing on little domestic domination to international domination- the fight of gaining world control began, empires were on the rise and in all- the start of the globalised world exploded and has evolved since then.

In this Britain was awakened to a new reality, the reality that our differences on this little island should be put to bed, and together we should step up and face this new rush together as a united Kingdom- and in 1603 and 1707 that is exactly what happened- two former foes joined together and created a single unified sovereign state- a state that went on to create the largest formal empire that the world had ever known. As such, its power and influence stretched all over the globe; shaping it in all manner of ways.

The next step in creating the world we are in today was the industrial revolution, and the technological advances (Globalisation 2.0), this starting in the 1800’s, the main difference between 1.0 and 2.0, is the fact that prior it was countries that became multinational in force, the era of the industrial revolution had seen companies become multinational, thus creating a world that became  more connected , a world that yes still held the bearings of war and bloodshed, but still for the first time in our history had a clear agenda of creating a global economic market and the makings of a global telecommunications structure.

Within this European states grew their sense of identity, the need for a strong united identity in Britain was  there, and the former regional identities that once caused so much war and anguish was diminishing, for once in Britain’s history there was peace domestically, our people were united for the greater good- so in this sense the rise of the British identity created a belonging of unity for each other , and in my view the slow decline of the English and Scottish identities due to the rise of globalisation created the most peaceful time in our Islands history as a governing island of people.

Although now in the 21^st century our economic output is not as strong, the world has been graced with another economic downturn, it is now in this era that we have seen the rise of separatism, is this due to racism and hatred, partly, but I believe that it is a naive natural step within our history to revert backwards, the need for unity to many has faded with the once powerful empire, and the once unified British identity seems now irrelevant to many , so the idea that has now dominated our  island is separation, to pull away from what we have established and revert back to a time when this Island was an infant.

Many have said within the independence debate that we should not use history, but when we look at history we see that the true destiny of our island over the past 400 years has been unity, the Great British parliament that was established 300 years ago has a direct duty to uphold that unity, it serves the British people, and should serve our unified identity equally, if it fails in this then it will fail the country that has been established.

We are now at the stage in our history where the world is minuscule in size, this is due to (Globalisation 3.0) with the advent of the internet and the openness that has spread not only within Europe but around the world.

If we take what happened during Globalisation 1.0, when the Kingdoms of Europe united within themselves, such as the strong sense of identity within each nation state and the strong advent of the British identity away from the separate regional identities that once reigned the island, it took this new era of Empire to unite Britain and other states across Europe.

 What we see now though is not each Kingdom uniting in the way we had seen 400 years ago, but we see that Europe as a continent has united and is still trying to unite in the next step of globalisation, whether people agree with it or not, is it happening.

This showing that the UK was the first state on the planet to successfully unite into a single entity, not in a global sense but in a domestic sense, which is why the structure of our current United Kingdom is looked upon as a model of the future, and what can be achieved when former countries do unite, our small structure of globalisation within our small island has shown  that coming together is better, our island is the model of the future not the past, and that is what the people that do seek to destroy our United Kingdom need to realise.

Scottish 'independence' defence, a state of emergency

Defence, a state of emergency

I have been looking into the defence of a separate Scottish state and comparing it with our current British wide defence spending and equipment that our British armed forces currently have to their disposal. I also looked into the secret intelligence services, special counter terrorism units, shipbuilding contracts and everything connected with the armed forces, as there is no doubt about it defence will play a very important role in the current and upcoming debate on Scotland’s constitutional future.

The first thing that I feel needs our urgent attention is not the shipbuilding contracts that Scotland currently has thanks to the Royal Navy, nor the number of men and women that would actually join a Scottish defence force, but the main threat that we face as a western nation in or out of the United Kingdom is “terrorism” and other internal threats from extremists.

I think the debate about defence is actually going in the completely wrong direction; it is not about how many warships Scotland would get to build as part of the UK, or without the UK, the main issue with defence is our national security, would separating Scotland from the United Kingdom harm our national security? That to me is the most fundamental issue that should be put to the separatist politicians that seek to end the 300 year old union.

 If of course the separatists did succeed in ending the union that would mean an end to Scotland having the advantage of UK wide Secret Intelligence Services, known as Mi6 and Mi5, which would put Scots national security at risk.

The number one risk to our wellbeing just now is “terrorism”, since 2001 it has been the main fear within western societies that Al Qaeda successfully stage similar attacks around western countries as they did in 2001, and they have, here in Britain we have faced 2 major attacks and countless plots to try and kill our citizens. What we have to think about is “who are the people that uncover these plots?”, and yes who are they? Well they are the men and women that work within Mi5, Mi5 is the intelligence branch that works with internal threats from extremists within our own country, they have uncovered hundreds of plots from around Britain from terrorists that wish to cause havoc on our nation.

The separatists have to realise that Scotland is not invincible, the world is not a friendly place, and we know that from countless terrorist attacks across the globe. The Scottish Nationalists seem to think that the world would somehow welcome Scotland with open arms, that the Scottish nation would face no threats as nothing would dare to harm the new sovereign state, well actually I would think a newly established state would be  very vulnerable , vulnerable to the likes of Al Qaeda.

A newly established state with no real defence plans, with no counter terrorism units, with no guarantee of a service which would prevent internal attacks would surely be the most vulnerable country in the western world? Scotland could well be a target in waiting, and why wouldn’t it be? 

These people that wish death upon the western nations would stop at nothing to show the world that they mean business, these people are not stupid, in 2001 they sussed out that the US and the west had a lack of security right across the aviation world, terrorists seed out weak security links that they can use to their advantage with devastating consequences, so how hard would it be for Al Qaeda to suss out weak links within Scotland, would it be that difficult, a country with no solid counter terrorism units, with no real intelligence services? 

The Scottish Nationalists are also in two minds about joining NATO, now the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a military alliance that came about from the cold war to prevent the expansion of the USSR, but it has grown to be much more, NATO is now a critical part of our defence, each country in NATO can freely share intelligence information. Sharing information between all 28 nations freely is one of the main reasons why Mi5 and Mi6 have prevented and uncovered so many terrorist plots that could have resulted in hundreds of deaths upon our streets.

So why would a separate Scottish state seek to end this relationship with these other nations, surely a newly sovereign state with no real intelligence services, and no real counter terrorism units would jump at the chance to join a military alliance that would be vital to Scots national security, but no. The nationalists would prefer to be isolated, isolated in their own Scottish bubble; a bubble that they seem to think cannot burst.

So the bigger picture here is not about how many warships a separate Scotland could build without the Royal Navy (which would be few or zero) but it is about our national security, would an independent Scotland provide your family with similar services such as Mi5 and Mi6? How long would it take a newly sovereign state to establish these vital services that are critical to our wellbeing? These are just some of the many questions that need to be answered about our defence, they are certainly questions that have to be answered before any Scots marks a “yes or no” on the ballot box.

I would rather live in a country that has well known and truly remarkable intelligence services such as Mi5 and Mi6 than live in a separate Scottish state that has no credible defence plans, that does not want to play a role in a key international military alliance (NATO) than face the consequences of a extremist attack due to the lack of security thanks to the Scottish separatists and their weak defence plans for a isolated Scotland.

I think it is just as important that we remember those people that fought and died for our security, that is why I would like to end this blog by paying respects to all British D-day Veterans of world war 2, I thank you for your service, and thank you for fighting to retain the country I love, “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. 

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fall, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. 

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour!”

- Sir Winston Churchill 

Alex Salmond and his illusion of a Scottish Monarch

It may not surprise you that Alex Salmond has once again endorsed the Queen, as recently as today he said "our (the Scottish people) affection for Elizabeth, Queen of Scots, is nonetheless very powerful and very strong". This is true that our affection for the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is very strong, Queen Elizabeth II has reigned over us for more than 60 years, what a pleasure to have such a wonderful monarch.

Although, if you had not noticed, and trust me, many more people would have not noticed, is that his language when talking about our British monarch is non-factual and incorrect. He portrays the Queen as the "Queen of Scots", there has not been a separate Scottish monarch or English monarch since 1603 (union of crowns), prior to 1603 both Scottish and English thrones were separate but for the past 400 years, following the Accession of King James IV of Scotland (I of England) to the English throne, a single monarch has reigned in the United Kingdom.

So why does Alex Salmond portray something that does not exist? It is simple, it does not take a genius to understand what exactly Alex Salmond would like to achieve by misleading the Scottish people, he would like to create an illusion ( yes another one), that there is no British monarch, that there is nothing "British" about our monarchy, he is trying to advertise the monarchy to the Scottish people in a different way, in a way that would only be possible if Scotland was a separate state from the United Kingdom.

His illusion starts with Her Majesty's title, our Queen has a very long title, her official title that is used right across the United Kingdom (that includes Scotland) is "Elizabeth the second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" , yes that is very long title, so to cut it down, we can say either Queen of the United Kingdom, or Queen of the UK. Remember she is a British monarch, she is not a Scottish monarch and she is not an English monarch, she is not the "Queen of England".

The point that I make is that there is no such thing as the "Queen of Scots", this is a false title, it is made up by the SNP (Alex Salmond in particular) to create an illusion that the Queen of the UK is the head of state of a separate sovereign Scotland, which would only be possible if Scotland separated from the United Kingdom. The SNP want to change my view, and your view of the Queen in Scotland, they are trying desperately to portray her as a Scottish head of state, a Scottish head of state in an independent Scotland, the same way in which the Queen is head of state of Australia or Canada.

The SNP realise that right now the monarchy in the United Kingdom is a British institution, it is an institution that promotes everything British, the Scottish separatists are trying to play that down as much as they can, they are trying to get Scots in the mindset that she can be a Scottish head of state, and that we (the Scots) don't have to wave around the union flag, but we can wave the Rampant Lion around instead.

The nationalists are sneakily trying to create an illusion that we can keep the Queen as head of state, but at the same time promoting her as not a "British" head of state but rather a Scottish head of state, they do this while Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, they do this knowing that she is a British monarch. The SNP have to remember that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, under a constitutional monarchy, with the British monarch as the head of state of the entire United Kingdom.

She is not the Queen of Scots or the Queen of England, she is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the nationalists do not believe me, why don't they read below what the Queen said in 1977 speaking at her silver jubilee:

"I number Kings and Queens of England and of Scotland, and princes Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations.

But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."  (video)

- Queen Elizabeth II  

The forbidden words of a separate... opps I mean an "independent" Scotland.

So what do I mean by that heading above, well it seems the nationalist's have now made a list of all forbidden words that should not be used to describe Scotland's departure from this United Kingdom, on the top of that list is the word "separation", so why all the fuss? Well as far as I know the United Kingdom is a democratic country that favours freedom of speech, we listen to each other, debate with each other. This gives us the great pleasure of voicing our opinions without the fear of being killed or tortured, which of course can't be said for some other countries around the world.

The Scottish nationalists have said that the unionists should not use the word "separation", now there is other words that are also deemed as "forbidden" by the SNP, but today I want to concentrate on the big one, the one word that the nationalist's do not want coming out from my mouth, your mouth, or any unionist politician's mouth is "SEPARATION".

But why, well the Scottish politicians that seek to end our United Kingdom seem to think that using that particular word is negative, but wait... Nobody said it was positive to end a 300 year old union anyway, so of course the word "separation" is not going to be positive, why would it be?

Well let’s look into this word "separation" for a second, what does it mean? what does it mean in a political context?

Well, in a non political context you could argue that it comes under:

The action or state of moving or being moved apart: "the separation of parents and children".

The state in which a husband and wife remain married but live apart: "she and her husband have agreed to a trial separation".

So let’s concentrate on the first definition of the word "separation", it basically says that anything moving or being moved apart would be considered as "separation", so let’s think about that, would Scotland be moving apart from the UK if the SNP achieved their goal of independence? Yes it would, I would think it would anyway, Scottish politicians would have to move back up the road to Edinburgh, they would be separating from their home in London to their homes in Scotland, which would separate them from their years and years of being a resident in England.

The second definition refers to a marriage, now I am not the only one who has heard certain nationalist MSP's refer to the relationship between Scotland and England as an "abusive" marriage, the one person in particular that sticks out is that vile women known as "Joan McAlpine", yes the same women (if she is one) that said that any Scot that is against separation is anti-Scottish, she also said that it was pathetic to mourn the deaths of the people that died on the titanic, she has a vile reputation.

The point I am making refers to the fact that many nationalist MSP's refer to the partnership we share with England as a "marriage", they say that it is a failure and that it should end, well technically they say that it would not end completely, they say that they would like Scotland and England to still share the same house, but we would just have our own rooms in that house, or in a political way they would like a social union to remain between Scotland and England, so wait.. Therefore the SNP do want a divorce they would rather have a "separation", which by the second definition means "in which a husband and wife remain married but live apart", which is what the SNP are after, they do not want a divorce but they would like a "separation", in which case means that Scotland and England remain tied together, and remain friendly but they both have their own space and can do things separately.

So now we have defined these words in a sort of non-political way, let’s look at what it says about "separatism" in a political way.

"Separatism is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation from the larger group. While it often refers to full political secession, separatist groups may seek nothing more than greater autonomy. Some groups refer to their organizing as independence, self-determination."

So above we have another definition, this time it clearly sets out what the nationalists would like to achieve. The Scottish nationalist's would like to be removed from a larger group (the UK), they also seek more autonomy within the United Kingdom, referred to as "devolution max", so why don't they accept the fact they are what the English languages clearly says they are, "SEPARATISTS", that seek separation from the United Kingdom...

They do not like the use of this word (separation) because it lets the cat out of the bag, it gives a clear indication that the SNP (the separatists) would like to separate Scotland from this United Kingdom and turn Scotland into a small separate state from our families in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They know that deep down the majority of Scots hate the idea of division and separatism, so the nationalist's are trying to desperately to create an illusion that Scotland would not be separating from the UK, but we would be taking a "natural" step towards a divided Britain, which is in no way natural. Since when was it natural to end a 300 year old country?

The main point of this blog is to tell you that we have freedom of speech for a reason; yes the nationalists can say that using the word "separatism" is scaremongering, but then you have to ask the question of:

"why is the word "separatism" so frightening to the nationalist's that they create an illusion to hide the truth?"