By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
When the first results were announced (as there were no exit polls), it became clear that Scotland had lost a once-in-a-generation chance to become independent. This does not mean that Occupied Scotland will stay within the so-called United Kingdom for another 20 or 30 years, but it makes clear that there will be no change for the next 5-6 years for sure.
What was the reason for No-vote to prevail?
Scottish independence leader Alex Salmond and his team underwent a great effort in which a great historical perspective was missing. The Yes-campaign supporters were offered too little of a vision to make of Scotland’s independence their basic need of existence.
Lack of Inspiring Vision & Disregard for Historical and National Identity
As per the details of a presentation elaborated by an outfit of the Yes-campaign (http://www.independentscotland.org/content/voting-YES-for-scottish-independence.htm), no 1 reason to vote Yes for an Independent Scotland was or should be “Taking Responsibility by moving all Governing Powers to Scotland”; no 2 reason was or should be “Get the Government we choose”, and the minor reasons included financial benefits, irrelevant issues of international affairs (nuclear weapons), and a very weak denunciation of a ‘forced political marriage’ (the innocuous term was coined to describe the nefarious English annexation of Scotland).
A very simple Google search will remove the last doubts about the main reason for which the Yes-campaign failed to gather the support of more than 45% of the voters. If you write “Occupied Scotland” (in brackets), you have around 58000 results only (which is very low a number), and if you search for the contents, you realize that they are mainly historical of nature and they refer to Viking Crusaders, king Edward of England, who was known as the ‘Hammer of the Scots’, and Cromwell! Very scarce links to political analysis and/or editorials can be found in the search.
If Scotland is not viewed by Scots as ‘Occupied by England’, Scots will not find the need to do all that it takes to liberate their country.
This means in other words that, even for Yes-campaign supporters, today’s Scotland is NOT an Occupied country, which is of course very wrong. Certainly, the means and the conditions of Scotland’s foreign occupation are not similar to those attested in Occupied Palestine or Occupied Oromia in Africa, but this reality does not lessen the fact that Scotland has been occupied since 1707, after having been targeted and threatened, aggressed and attacked by England for centuries.
A country is always occupied by an enemy; this is an undeniable fact in World History. There is no such thing as a ‘friendly occupation’. Trying to minimize the inimical character and nature of a foreign occupation does never bode well with the occupied nation’s aspirations and chances to achieve liberation, independence and self-determination.
When a hostile country invades a nation, the occupying forces try to find immoral, corrupt, and idiotic persons that, placing their personal interests above the national interests of their Occupied Land, find it normal, easy and ethical to collaborate with the occupier. Outmaneuvering this plague is by definition one of the major targets and tasks of a national liberation effort.
In the case of Scotland, these catastrophic persons were very active indeed in the last weeks before the referendum, and they intend to remain as such thereafter simply because this issue did not end. The disreputable former prime minister (who was never elected to that post) Gordon Brown is one of them; as he knows how to be a loyal lackey to the City, he has just announced a new Scotland Act to be ready as draft legislation by the end of January 2015 (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/20/gordon-brown-timeline-scottish-devolution-independence-video). Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and their likes know very well that the spectrum of Scotland’s Independence will only become more forceful in the years ahead; and with ridiculous measures of advanced devolution, they try to appease and besot more Scots. These are the enemies who should have been denounced in the most stressed terms.
Unfortunately, First Minister Alex Salmond and the Yes-campaign supporters failed to duly, fully and irrevocably discredit Gordon Brown and his likes as they should. To do so, they should have first properly and adequately presented Scotland as an Occupied Land, and they should have underscored, and focused, on issues of Historical and National Identity. That they did not attempt anything in this direction is clearly shown in their way of presenting (http://www.independentscotland.org/content/voting-no-for-scottish-independence.htm) the possible reasons to vote No. As per their presentation, no 1 reason is: ‘believing England and Scotland are better off together’. However, for a Scot, this ‘belief’ is tantamount to high treason.
It is exactly the same as if Marshal Philippe Pétain said, after signing the Second Armistice at Compiègne on 22 June 1940, that he ‘believed France and Germany are better off together’. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that political correctness does not validate (neither does it invalidate) demands for national servility and submission. Simply, national capitulation is a matter of high treason – anytime anywhere.
The lack of an inspiring vision of an Independent Scotland dramatically reduced the scope of the Yes-campaign. National independence is something far higher than mere economic considerations, natural resources exploitation, and cheap anti-nuclear ideology.
What does it matter whether the divorce is going to be ‘messy’ (as per Jill Lawless here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Scottish-independence-could-mean-messy-divorce-5754503.php)? And if it is ‘complicated’ to divorce after a 300-year union, it is even more unacceptable to call a foreign occupation merely a ‘union’. Actually, it was not a union; it was a systematic burial of an entire nation, and a sophisticated, yet not brutal, genocide – mainly spiritual, not physical, of character.
At the practical level, one should however begin pondering about a key issue that, if viewed and considered differently, would change – in and by itself – the result of the referendum automatically.
Who voted for Scotland’s Independence?
For the national independence of a country, only those, who belong to that nation, have a birth right to have a say, and therefore to vote. In this regard, it is paranoid to offer voting right to another nation’s citizens. And it is self-disastrous to offer voting right to the hostile nation’s citizens, who are to be considered as the first enemies of the occupied land, and as the most resolute opponents of the occupied nation’s right and will to achieve national independence.
Quite paradoxically, the 2010 Draft Bill extended the voting right in the referendum to all the British citizens who were resident in Scotland!
This is tantamount to offering the voting right to Nazi soldiers in a referendum held in Occupied France 1940-1944!
Occupiers have by definition no right to decide on anything about the future of the country that they hold captive.
However, a significant number of English, Welsh and North Irish live in Scotland; offering them the voting right in the referendum for Scotland’s independence was indeed the main reason for the calamitous result. According to an estimate, around 500000 English live in Occupied Scotland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753400/Revealed-How-half-million-English-voters-living-Scotland-set-block-independence.html). They should have been blocked out of the referendum.
Another paranoid measure was to offer voting right to all the citizens of the 52 other Commonwealth countries and to all the citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who were resident in Scotland. This means that a Sri Lankan, a Nigerian, an Arawakan from Guyana, and a Bulgarian would have a say about the future of a nation to which they did not belong and even did not bother to belong. It should be anticipated that, if invited to participate, these foreigners would only care about per their own interests, and not about the genuine local interests – let alone the interests of Scotland as a nation. As it could be expected, in their majority, they voted against Scotland’s independence.
Another incredible measure was preventing ca. 800000 Scots living south of the borderline between England and Scotland from voting. In fact, all Scottish expatriates did not have a vote, which is a matter of indignation and outrage. As early as January 2012, Elaine Murray, a Labor party member of the Scottish Parliament, demanded that the voting right be extended to Scots living in other parts of the UK, but the debate was opposed by the Scottish government itself! Ridiculous excuses were advanced at the time such as that the UN Human Rights Committee suggested that other nations would question the legitimacy of a referendum if the franchise is not territorial, and the like!
Except the lack of a great vision, the disregard for the National Identity, and the paranoid extension of voting right to the enemies of Scotland’s independence, Alex Salmond and his team made many wrong suggestions and decisions about what Independent Scotland would look like. In fact, they acted as if they intended to minimize as maximum as possible the otherwise shocking dimensions of a secession. This can be really detrimental in politics.
If something, which is shocking by its nature, ceases to be shocking for one reason or for another, people lose their appetite for it and disrespect it altogether. What follows is a list of mistakes ensuing from this very erroneous perception of politics.
If Scotland seceded from England, Elizabeth II would still be the monarch of the kingdom of Scotland. This is preposterous! The Republic of Scotland would be a far clearer vision and a far happier perspective; as such they would motivate a greater number of more enthusiastic supporters. Today, the fact that Scotland and England shared a monarch for almost a century before the two countries ‘united politically’ in 1707 does not matter much. And it certainly does not mean that, after separating from England, Scotland needs to be organized as a kingdom, and not as a republic.
This would be the correct slogan for a passionate debate among only Scots.
Another mistake of the Scottish government was to promise Scottish citizenship to non-Scottish, British citizens living in Scotland, as well as to Scotland-born Britons who live elsewhere. Although this measure showed a certain magnanimous spirit, it would not change in anything the vicious vote intension of the English residents in Scotland. So, as they should never be given a voting right, they should never be promised Scottish nationality.
In a materialistic world, mass media-guided, brainless and thoughtless populations are forced to consider economic issues as vitally important for their otherwise valueless lives. However, assuming that political pragmatism is necessary, one understands the reason economic issues are dealt with great concern by politicians, advocates, activists and campaigners.
But then it was a terrible mistake for Alex Salmond and his team to announce that the pound sterling would remain Scotland’s official currency after a Yes-victory in the referendum. Global mass media tried to portray an Independent Scotland as a small country in a dangerous global environment. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated even that ‘a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty’ in an indirect form of blackmailing. Yet, the only real economic danger is for Scotland to remain within a financially collapsed state, like England that has a 10 trillion external debt to serve. In reality, escaping from bankrupt England should have been reason good enough even for English residents in Scotland to vote in favor of Scotland’s independence. In this regard a clear language should have been articulated in total opposition to the global mass media and the criminal gangsters of the City.
In fact, there have been bloggers and writers who saw this reality, like Ian R. Crane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muiZCgC7QB4) and Ellen Brown (http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-public-bank-option-for-scotland/5402542). Ian R. Crane was very right in demanding an independent Central Bank of Scotland, a new currency for Scotland, strict currency controls for at least the first 3 years of Scotland’s independence, nationalization of the energy sector, and Scotland’s immediate withdrawal from EU and NATO. And Ellen Brown was quite correct in her prediction: “If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence”.
In fact, in the atmosphere that enveloped the referendum, there was too much of material concern and a very weak expression of national idealism; this does not constitute the correct combination to speak to the soul of the Scots. Another language will be needed in this regard in perhaps 5 or 10 years. What language? Pure Scottish! As the great Scottish poet and lyricist Robert Burns (1759 – 1796), the national poet of Scotland, put it: “We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation”!