Special Report: Scottish Referendum Rigged – The ‘How’ and the ‘Why’

Co-written with SOTT.net Editor Joe Quinn, first published on independent alt.news website SOTT.net on September 26, 2014

The change.org petition demanding a re-run of the Scottish referendum, “counted by impartial international parties”, has now reached 93,000 signatures as incredulous reaction mounts to the highly dubious referendum vote. Even Ron Paul expressed extreme scepticism about the result. The British media, meanwhile, is having a field day mocking the viral video footage of suspect activity at counting venues across Scotland, laughing off the fact that the only international observers to report anything about how the referendum was conducted were Russian observers, and dismissing Scots’ calls for recounts and fresh referenda as being “sour grapes” based on “conspiracy theories”.

But are these 93,000 (mostly) Scottish citizens, and the thousands of Facebook users demanding an investigation, just deluded sore losers?

To conclude that the Scottish referendum was very likely rigged for a ‘No’ vote by ‘British’ intelligence, we need to provide reasonable evidence that the British elite have the necessary character ‘qualities’, motive and operational history to engage in such a serious crime. We must also provide reasonable cause to believe that the British government and media opinion polls, that generally predicted a majority ‘No’ vote in the run-up to the referendum, were false, that the majority of Scots intended to vote yes, and that rigging of the vote was therefore necessary. Most importantly, we must present a plausible scenario, backed up by evidence, that British agents had the opportunity to commit this most undemocratic of crimes.

Character and operational history of the ‘elite’

House of Lords, Westminster, bastion of oligarchic ‘democracy’

When we refer to ‘British elite’ we mean individuals of predominantly English – but also Scottish, Welsh and Irish – ‘nationality’, who nevertheless eschew such nationalistic monikers and instead view themselves as the ruling political and social class of what they call the ‘British Isles’. As the self-styled stewards of that political entity, they assume ultimate authority over its entire landmass (including Ireland) and population and, indeed, seek to expand their power and wealth across as much of the rest of the world as possible.

They are generally amoral, believing themselves to be above both the rule of law and the naive conventions of morality as subscribed to by most ‘ordinary’ people. They have a self-imposed ‘duty’ to ‘rule’ the world and they do so with the characteristic ruthlessness of the psychopath, although many of them may not be clinical (i.e. genetic) psychopaths but merely deeply infected from a young age by the psychopathic values that define their familial, social and political milieu. Same difference then.

The individuals of which we speak are the war criminals who brought us:

  • the fundamentally illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq in 2003, based on a pack of transparent lies and resulting in the slaughter of 1.5 million Iraqis;
  • the equally illegal NATO bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed up to 40,000 Libyan civilians, also based on the lie that Gaddafi was ‘bombing his own people’
  • the current ongoing attempts to destroy Syrian society that have resulted in the deaths of at least 200,000 Syrian civilians – justified, yet again, on the outrageous lie of Assad ‘gassing his own people’

They are the overseers of ‘austerity’ for the masses who channeled billions in tax-payer funds to ‘bail out’ corrupt big bankers and then outrageously demanded that the shortfall caused by the bankers looting should be covered by the people, and that their insatiable greed should be balanced out by the suffering of the masses in the form of reduced social welfare coverage, pensions and third-level education cuts.

PM David Cameron, Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne – among countless other politicians, civil servants, military personnel, sppoks and City banksters – are all graduates of Oxford University, seen here posing as members of the ‘Bullingdon Club’ fraternity.

That this British elite do not hold democracy and the will of the people in especially high regard is no secret either. For one pertinent example among many, when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammed Mossadegh decided to take back control of Iranian oil from British Petroleum in 1953, the British elite, via British intelligence, immediately set to work: they overthrew him and installed a series of Western-educated puppet Prime Ministers under the equally puppetish Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who use the hated Savak secret police to terrorize the Iranian population (with the help of the CIA and MI6) for the next 25 years.

So if the British elite were prepared to go half way around the world to protect their oil interests in the form of organizing a coup d’état in Iran and installing a dictator, what do we presume their attitude towards the threat of the loss of ‘British’ oil in their own ‘back yard’, i.e. Scotland, might be?

Oxford University, recruiting ground for the British intelligence services

Past Form

Inserting large quantities of fake ballots into national elections and referenda apparently happens rather regularly. In May last year, tens of thousands of fake ballot papers were seized during elections in Pakistan. A truckload of 100,000 unofficial ballots was pulled over in Nigeria during the 2011 presidential elections. Investigators subsequently found another million fake ballots. In June this year, more truckloads of fake ballots were pulled over during elections in Nigeria. In April this year, 82 complaints were made during Afghan presidential elections concerning “hundreds of illegally filled ballot boxes, election observers barred from doing their job, interference in polls by government officials, and lack of knowledge on the part of election commission workers.”

Scottish voters should direct all enquiries concerning irregularities in the referendum to MI6 chief Sir John Sawers (left), GCHQ director Sir Iain Lobban (centre), and MI5 chief Andrew Parker.

Mass printing of fake ballot papers also occurred in Ukraine in 2010. In May last year, 350,000 fake ballot papers were seized from a printing house belonging to a local councillor during Bulgarian elections. In March this year, we learned that in Romania, the vice Prime Minister Liviu Dragnea defrauded a referendum by pushing the vote numbers to over 60% of the population, the threshold needed for the vote to be valid. He was indicted for coordinating a system involving 74 other people, local party executives and activists as well as the heads of local polling stations.

‘Oh, but they’re backwards countries; that would never happen here in the civilized world!’ Can we be so sure of that? Following a surprise win for the UK Labour Party candidate in the Scottish constituency of Glenrothes in the 2010 UK general election, the result was contested by the ousted Scottish National Party candidate. Repeated efforts to access the voting registry detailing exactly who had voted for who, the plaintiff was eventually told that it had “gone missing. Others noted a highly suspicious four-fold surge recorded in the number of postal votes for the constituency.


Scotland is the largest producer of oil in the European Union, accounting for 36 percent of Europe’s total oil and natural gas production in 2010. While the private corporations that profit from Scotland’s oil wealth have consistently played down the extent of Scotland’s remaining hydrocarbon resources, the Scottish government’s oil and gas analytical bulletin of March 2013 estimated that there was £1.5 trillion in wholesale value left in North Sea oil and gas. With new oil fields being discovered regularly, this is likely a very conservative figure.

London could not afford to lose control of Scotland’s tremendous oil and gas resources

While Norway, a country that discovered and nationalized hydrocarbons in their North Sea sector around the same time as the UK, has put $893 billion away for a ‘rainy day’ (the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund), the City of London has been squandering Scotland’s oil and gas wealth:

Were the UK to lose that single source of oil revenue, its remaining economy would be in [even greater] jeopardy [than it already is].

The collaterization of oil reserves alone provides a tremendous amount of financial muscle that the City of London would otherwise lack. In view of how much the UK has suffered economically since the Crash of 2008, it’s clear that the Crown could not weather another setback like Scottish independence.

The City of London is the World’s Largest Betting Parlor

This is one of the major reasons for Scottish disillusionment with British rule. The Brits will bet on anything within sight, and with anything within reach. The Scots became quite literally sick and tired of being used as a chip in the ever-bustling City of London casino. The standard of living in Scotland has never been lower in recent memory and the people – rich and poor alike – now know that London has taken liberally from Scotland in order to prop up an illusion of British supremacy that is dissolving by the day. Scotland’s future is being stolen so that the City of London can maintain (i) the appearance of solvency, (ii) the continuity of banking prowess, and (iii) a strong commercial presence worldwide.

Whereas the City of London has run its business as the largest casino of all time, it has now run out of easy cash, quick assets and the necessary liquidity to keep the game tables operating. Those British bankers don’t even have the gold in their vaults which has been held in trust, on account or as collateral for the various nations that own it. That deeply disturbing fact alone represents a huge amount of UK gambling debts gone bad. The people of Scotland know this and will not have their wealth squandered by the City, which ought to be a lifetime member of gamblers anonymous.

To rub salt into Scottish wounds, one of these inveterate Unionist gamblers appears to have been tipped off about the rigged ‘No’ vote, which he used to commit insider trading. This elitist exception aside, betting trends have historically been very good indicators as to which way an election or referendum would go. In fact, it’s well known among punters that betting on General Election odds provides much better predictions than opinion polls. Election candidates themselves look to political betting markets for a guide to their chances of electoral success. A record number of people in Scotland placed bets on this referendum and a full 70 percent of the stakes were bet on Scotland voting ‘yes’ to independence. Scottish people ‘put their money where their mouth is’ because they were confident, for very good reasons, of a landslide Yes. This data is not easy to dismiss and is the strongest indicator that a large majority of people actually did vote Yes.

One notable exception to this trend was Betfair, the largest online betting company in the UK and the largest betting exchange in the world, which was so certain of a ‘No’ vote in the referendum that it paid out on No bets two days before the vote. Betfair, interestingly enough, is owned by Andrew Black, grandson of Tory MP Sir Cyril Black, and its Board of Directors is led by die-hard Tory Gerald Corbett, who has chaired some of the largest British and Irish corporations, oversaw the disastrous UK railways privatization in the 1990s, and is an alumni of the same Boston Consulting Group Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney were buddies at in the 1970s. Betfair’s advance payout on a No vote was therefore most likely part of the British establishment’s attempt to prime the public for a ‘No’ vote, primarily via fraudulent opinion polls (see below).

The threat of an independent Scotland was also a direct threat to the rest of the ‘United Kingdom’ because it would have set a successful secessionist example for Wales, Northern Ireland and even Cornwall, and for independence movements around the world, potentially jeopardizing the ‘security’ of Britain’s ‘Commonwealth of Nations’, which is merely a euphemistic term for Britain’s informal empire. An independent Scotland therefore foretold the eventual destruction of everything that the members of the English imperialist old boy’s club hold dear, both financially and ideologically – their ideology being fundamentally elitist and racist, and their finances, as a rule, belonging to someone else. In short, a potentially independent Scotland was (and is) absolutely a serious “national security” threat to these people. “National security”, always and everywhere, meaning the interests of the elite few.

Opinion Polls and the reality on the ground

As is usual in the case of a major public vote, many opinion polls were undertaken in the weeks leading up to the referendum. Most of these were conducted by British government organisations such as ‘YouGov’ and the usual suspects in the British media establishment. Almost all of these polls, from the very beginning, had the ‘No’ vote in the lead, which sharply contrasted with the evidence on the streets, social media and old-fashioned common sense. In addition, anyone who puts much faith in public polls obviously doesn’t know about British intelligence’s penchant for manipulating the results of online polls among other things.

As we have noted previously, the idea that the traditionally fiercely independent Scottish people would have voted against the possibility of having their own country, their own government, control over their own resources and, theoretically, a significant improvement in their living standards, is so profoundly contradictory that it boggles the mind. Even those council district results that returned majorities in favour of independence don’t make sense. We’re being asked to believe that barely more than one-in-two people voted Yes in staunchly SNP-supporting, pro-independence Dundee. Before anyone quibbles over these ‘generalizations’, this generally accepted view of the Scottish people was born out on the streets of Scotland, where the biggest rallies over the last couple of years have been organised by the Yes camp.

A Yes rally on Calton Hill, Edinburgh, last year. The No side held no comparable events.
Scots rally around the statue of Donald Dewar in Glasgow, whose efforts won Scotland its own parliament in 1997.

Twitter revealed that there had been 1.5 million tweets backing independence since the first televised debate on Aug 5, three times the number that backed the ‘No’ campaign. Does this simply mean that the ‘No’ camp didn’t use social media as much as the ‘Yes’ camp, or that it had a preponderance of older voters who were ‘naturally’ wary of independence? Certainly, the British media and government attempted to scare Scottish pensioners into believing their pensions would be in jeopardy in an independent Scotland, but that claim was directly refuted by none other than the UK Minister of State for Pensions, Steve Webb, who stated that Scottish pensions would be secure regardless of the outcome.

As we will see, because no exit polls were conducted, we will never know how older Scots, or any other Scottish demographic, were planning to vote, but what we do know is that, in an independent Scotland, not only retired Scots, but all Scottish people, would have seen their standards of living rise in myriad ways.

Expectations were high that Clackmannanshire, the first council to announce its results, would score a strong ‘Yes’ vote. A Financial Times reporter observed the scene there pre-referendum:

We were on a new hillside private estate – not obvious territory. The results were staggering. There was no need to eavesdrop: the nods and smiles told their own story. The split was at least 2-1 in favour of independence.

The wee county is seen as a microcosm of Scotland.

The signs were everywhere from the comfy suburbs to the sad-eyed council estates: I must have spotted 300 Yes posters against just one tiny “Vote Naw” sticker, placed anonymously on a lamppost and half scratched out. This can be misleading: silent majorities do not proclaim their opinions. But one is starting to think the Nos’ silence is not a sign of strength.

And yet we’re asked to believe that this community voted 54% No to 46% Yes. In that respect, Clackmannanshire really is a microcosm of how the Scottish referendum went. That the first council result so brazenly defied common sense may have something to do with the fact that its Counting Officer – and Clackmannanshire Council Chief Executive – Elaine McPherson, who lives in Cheshire, England, is implicated in shady deals with one-time business partner Sir Philip Green, notorious British tycoon and die-hard Zionist-for-Empire-and-Austerity.

Even the British establishment media had to feign surprise on vote night as multiple Scottish districts that were assumed to be sure ‘Yeses’ were called for the ‘No’ camp. To get an idea of just how counter-intuitive the results were, consider this post-vote analysis from a UK Telegraph report:

“At 1.30am the first of Scotland’s 32 local authorities announced its result and set the tone for the night by announcing a surprise majority for No in an area where the separatists had been predicted to win well. […]

the nationalists received another nasty surprise when the Western Isles, which is represented by SNP politicians at Westminster and Holyrood, voted No.

The separatists then lost in two more of their target areas, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire, with the former proving a particular shock. After losing in the first six council areas to declare, a Yes victory appeared to be a remote prospect.

At just before 4am the nationalists won in Dundee, said to be the most pro-separatist city in Scotland, by a margin of 57 per cent to 43 per cent.” […]

The nationalists had pinned their hopes of victory on mobilising working class Scots, particularly in Dundee and Glasgow, conducting huge campaigns to encourage voter registration. But turnout in the two cities was only 79 per cent and 75 per cent respectively, much lower than the national average of around 85 per cent. […]

The separatists were hammered in Stirling – a seat held by the SNP in the Scottish Parliament – by 60 per cent to 40 per cent. […]

Falkirk then rejected independence by a margin of 53 per cent to 47 per cent despite it having SNP MSPs and it being the base of Dennis Canavan, the chairman of the official Yes Scotland campaign.

In another disastrous result for the nationalists, Angus rejected independence by 56 per cent to 44 per cent despite it having an SNP MP and MSPs. […]

Aberdeen – another city dominated by the SNP at Holyrood – then rejected separation by 59 per cent to 41 per cent. […]

the nationalists suffered another major setback after losing in Perth and Kinross by 60 per cent to 40 per cent despite it being represented by an SNP MP and at Holyrood by two of Mr Salmond’s most senior ministers, John Swinney and Roseanna Cunningham. […]

The night had started on an optimistic note for the Better Together campaign when a YouGov survey in the Guardian showing an eight per cent lead – 54 per cent to 46 per cent – was published at 10.30pm.

Around the same time Liam Fox, the former Defence Secretary, predicted a 55 per cent – 45 per cent vote split in favour of Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. This matched Downing Street predictions.

Even Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond’s own constituency of Aberdeenshire East, where he was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2011 as the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), produced a ‘No’ vote.

Interestingly, the Liam Fox mentioned above is the Liam Fox that was forced to resign after he was exposed as a Mossadt tool of intrigue inside the British cabinet.

So, to put it bluntly, the idea that any sizable number of SNP voters and other Scottish nationalists would ever have voted against independence is akin to suggesting that supporters of largest Unionist party in Northern Ireland (and all other Northern Ireland Unionists) would vote for a united Ireland separate from their beloved UK in a referendum on that question. In short, it’s so improbable as to strain credulity.

What? No Exit Polls?

Exit polls are polls taken at polling stations, in which a random sampling of voters are asked which way they voted. Anyone who has observed UK elections knows the results of the exit poll are the first thing that is announced on the evening news after polling stations close at 10pm. Except, as the polls closed in the Scottish referendum, this didn’t happen – there was no exit poll. As James Ball explained the day before counting began:

Exit polls are the best form of voting-related data we can ever get our hands on. They’re collected by large numbers of researchers standing outside polling stations and asking tens of thousands of people how they voted.

Campaigns are very familiar with arguing against exit polls they don’t like. The exit polls for the 2010 general election were very accurate with respect to the final results, but disagreed with the pre-election polls.

Obviously, in the context of the vote being rigged, genuine exit polls would have caused a serious problem when they differed wildly from both the pre-referendum opinion polls and the ‘official’ result, and trying to rig the exit poll was perhaps a bridge too far. So establishment media outlets like the BBC were asked to break with tradition and refrain from conducting them. With this conventional voting feature out of the way, let’s look at how the voting took place.

Multiple Voting Irregularities

Since the vote, Scots have been told the Scotland Referendum Act 2013 does not allow for a national recount and only local recounts are permitted, if the authorities are satisfied that there are “concerns about the integrity of the process” in individual councils. Mary Pitcaithly OBE (that is, an awardee by the Westminster government of the ‘Most Excellent Order of the British Empire’) is the Chief Counting Officer (CCO) and Convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. In response to tens of thousands of Scots crying foul over the referendum, she announced on Monday 22nd of September that she is:

“Satisfied that all counts throughout Scotland were properly conducted and scrutinised by thousands of people representing both the Yes Scotland and the Better Together campaigns, as well as international election observers, media and police. None of these people raised any concerns during the verification, counting and adjudication stages.”

…except for the Russian accredited and experienced election observers who immediately reported that the referendum was “badly flawed” and “didn’t meet international standards.” But they’re Russian, so they don’t count. In addition, perhaps Mrs Pitcaithly is unaware of the alarming number of reports from volunteers at both polling stations and counting venues who have raised serious concerns about several aspects of the voting process.

Eligible voters (people of any nationality resident in Scotland) did not have to present ID at polling stations. They simply gave their name, which was checked against an electoral registry of eligible voters. In return they received their ballot paper, a small white paper with the question and two check boxes:

Many voters reported seeing nothing on the reverse side of their ballot paper; no unique identification number was included. The Scottish Referendum Act 2013 clearly states that an identifying number should have been included on the reverse side of each individual ballot:

This cropped and marked image, taken directly from the Scottish Referendum Act 2013, shows how ballot papers issued by the the CCO should have included a unique identifying number.

The unique identification number on the back of ballot papers, most likely a bar code, was supposed to be used for tallying the total number of ballots issued during the day. This number was calculated by subtracting the number on the last ballot paper still in the book at the end of polling day from the number on the first ballot paper given out in the morning. The result is written on a sheet that is then taped to the ballot box, which is then sent to the designated counting venue for each district.

In addition, by law, the front of each ballot paper must include an “official mark”. This official mark forms part of the ballot paper artwork that is provided to Counting Officers by the CCO (the above-mentioned Mary Pitcaithly, OBE), and it must be kept secret to prevent fraudulent duplication of ballots. What this means is that the ballot papers, their design, and, apparently in some cases, their lack of unique identifying number on the back, was all the work of the office of the CCO. For someone to print their own ballot papers, however, all that was needed was access to the ballot paper design document.

According to official guidelines for volunteer counting agents (‘enumerators’) at East Renfrewshire’s local counting venue, if the number of ballots issued as recorded on the sheet attached to a ballot box did not tally with the number counted at the counting venue, the discrepancy was merely noted and the votes allowed to proceed to separation between Yes and No, and – we presume – included in the final count:

If the numbers do not match, the enumerators will be asked to recount the ballot papers. In the event the total number of papers counted matches the total on the master sheet, the papers will be removed from the table, placed in the box and moved to a storage area.

In the event the number again does not match the number on the master record but matches the number given by the enumerators on their first count, the papers will be removed from the table, placed in the box, and moved to a storage area.

In the event the number again does not match the number on the master verification sheet and is different from the number counted on the first occasion, enumerators will be asked to recount again. This will continue until the enumerators count the same number twice. Once the same number has been reached on 2 occasions, the papers will be removed, placed in the box, and moved to a storage area.

Another somewhat worrying aspect of these procedures (from an anti-fraud point of view) is that when the ballot boxes arrived at the Renfrewshire counting venue, they were merely counted and then placed in a ‘storage area’, while the volunteers had a break. The boxes were then retrieved from the storage area and the separation into ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ began. As regards the Sky News broadcast of ‘Yes votes on a No table’, it is possible that, as has been suggested, these were votes that had been initially counted, bundled into stacks of 100, and then returned to the boxes, as mentioned above, to then later be separated into ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.

A very interesting account from inside the Renfrewshire counting venue was provided by enumerator Jim Daly:

“I would like to offer the following observation.

I was an enumerator at the referendum vote count on behalf of Renfrewshire Council. The Returning Officer was David Martin, Chief Executive of Renfrewshire Council.

The vote counting was finished at 2.30am. What then happened appeared to be a mystery to me.

Mr. Martin and his assistants in suits seemed to be in a flap. This consisted of staring at laptops in front of those who were responsible for collating results and strong words were obviously exchanged.

As time marched on Mr. Martin paced around the hall rather nervously.

Then there were more meetings, up a corridor, out of view.

There was one lady with a laptop who, it appeared, was responsible for collating all the votes, but something wasn’t going well.

She was taken away by one of Mr. Martin’s assistants, out of view of the public, only to return and disconnect her laptop and leave the hall with it under her arm.

Mr. Martin still paced the floor looking uneasy, talking to what looked like aides.

As time passed from 2.30am until declaration time (4.52am), there were visible signs that those in charge weren’t happy with something.

During this process there were observers watching everything that the enumerators were doing but not what was being carried out by those recording [numbers] on the laptops.

From 2.30am until 4.52am the reason we were given for non-declaration was [that we were] wait[ing] for a TV slot….

Transportation of Ballot Boxes to Counting Venues

Within hours Glasgow police received ten reports from people being told at polling stations across the city that they could not vote because “someone of the same name had already voted.” It also emerged that polling cards were issued to minors below the statutory limit of 16, ballot papers were being sold on e-Bay, and ballot boxes were not picked up under secure conditions. Eyewitnesses at counting venues reported individuals arriving, unaccompanied, with boxes of ballot papers in the trunks of their cars.

One of the signatories of the above statement, a polling officer at a polling station, gave more background on what he witnessed:

“Last night we challenged the presiding officer regarding the transportation of ballot boxes in single-manned cars. Our ballot box was not an issue as it went straight from the hall into the van with the guys to take it to be counted. They had to wait until three personal cars arrived with boxes from other areas. These boxes were driven in cars by people on their own. These people were those who also had access to spare zip-ties and tags. We are not insinuating that anyone of these three people would have tampered with the boxes but if this is the system country-wide, we have a major problem. When asked what the rules were, the presiding officer replied:

‘I do not have that level of information. You will need to wait until tomorrow. It doesn’t matter now anyway. It is too late.’

Naturally we were shocked at her attitude and also her lack of understanding of the legal process. We wrote out a statement. Apologies, it was dark. She also made some corrections. I witnessed all three vehicles but the group of us only witnessed two. Hence we only refer to two. The process was the same for the third. I heard her ask the female in one vehicle,

‘Are you alone?’

To which the person replied,

‘No, someone followed me but they’ve gone now.’

We saw her arrive without escort. The second driver was not asked the question, despite also being alone. Why ask unless it is not protocol? Someone here is lying or not doing things correctly. Not happy at all. Not sour grapes. Just facts. Made us all feel sick last night.

Paul Birrell from Uphall, West Lothian gave this report from his local polling station:

“I was officially asked to attend one of my local stations as a Yes representative. I was there for the whole day and night. The things I saw were criminal.

[…] at the end of the night I witnessed the boxes being sealed (bit of tape with a serial number over the posting slot). A West Lothian Council van driver had arrived before this on his OWN.

When I asked him where the guardians are, he looked at me like he didn’t have a clue what I was on about. I explained what they were, only to have him and a few of the polling officers pissing themselves and making absurd jokes along the lines of… ‘what do you think is going to happen’ […] basically trying to humiliate me, so I backed off.

It is my understanding that the driver was alone and no one checked his van, nor was there any form of safeguards in place to ensure he couldn’t take a detour or meet with someone else to change the ballot boxes!!! Pippa Plevin and one other Yes representative witnessed this too.”

Secure Ballot Boxes?

In many images of ballot boxes and according to the reports of many polling place officials, ballot boxes were sealed with cable (zip) ties.

Cable ties of one type used to ‘seal’ ballot boxes

These ties were supposed to have an identifying number on them. This was presumably another level of security to prevent the boxes being opened or replaced entirely. Once the sealed boxes arrived at the counting venue, the box should have been checked not only for secure ties, but also the number on them should have been cross-checked with the number recorded on the numbers sheet that accompanied the box. There are however many reports of polling clerks being told not to record these cable tie numbers, in one instance at least, because, “there was very little possibility of checking them at the count”.

The individual who reported this was understandably skeptical about this official reason not to record the numbers since, as he notes, how hard it is to correlate a cable tie seal number at departure with the number at arrival at the counting venue? After all, the recorded number of ballot papers issued was, in theory, checked against the number in the box on arrival. What this means is that, in theory, sealed boxes could have been opened en route to the counting venue and the contents tampered with, or, the entire box could have been replaced, complete with new cable ties (and contents of course) without raising much suspicion.

Postal Votes

Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Ruth Davidson made some very alarming statements on vote night regarding postal votes:

“18% of the vote is going to come out of postal ballots and we’ve [the ‘Better Together’ campaign] had people at every sample opening over the past few weeks […] we’ve been incredibly encouraged by the results of that […] from the postal votes that were cast, our side would have had a lead […] there were people in the room that were sampling those ballot boxes as they’ve been opened and they’ve been taking tallies and the reports have been positive for us.

This directly contravenes the procedural rules laid down by the Scottish Electoral Commission, which stated that postal ballots could not be opened until they were added to the on-site polling station ballots on Thursday, September 18th. All that was permitted prior to then was to “open covering envelope ‘B’ and remove the postal voting statement and ballot paper envelope ‘A’, then check that the number on the postal voting statement in envelope ‘B’ matches the number on the ballot paper envelope ‘A'” [see ‘Stage 3’, p.33, The Scottish Independence Referendum Guidance for Counting Officers].

Most of those postal ballots were returned a full week before the referendum, providing privileged insiders like Davidson with wide open access to reliable polling data, something she admitted candidly on referendum night, and something police are now investigating:

The question remains, however, how many of the 790,000 postal votes did the ‘people’ from the ‘Better Together’ campaign have to open to get the impression that their side ‘had the lead’?

Even more disturbing are claims that postal ballots were first being sent to England to be ‘scanned’ and ‘have their signature checked’ before being returned to the relevant electoral district in Scotland:

Postal votes taken to England for some unknown reason?

This is highly unusual. All 790,000 postal votes should not have been secreted away to England for any reason. The list of Scottish residents that would be used to cross-check against the postal votes is available in the General Register Office of Scotland. We presume that Scottish council officials are capable of comparing two signatures to make sure they are the same. The fact remains that the postal ballots should have arrived directly to the relevant local council for processing and been opened only after polls had closed on the 18th. While Dawson’s peeking at the postal vote weeks in advance is clearly illegal, it probably did not directly affect the outcome. The alleged sending of the ballots to England, on the other hand, was a prime opportunity for MI5 to intercept them at one of its dedicated areas within Royal Mail distribution centres, open them, then replace the ballots with ‘No’ votes, reseal them and send them back to Scotland. This would explain why Ruth Davidson and her ilk were “incredibly encouraged” by what they saw in their ‘sampling’ – almost every postal vote they opened was a ‘No’ vote!

We have established that the British elite and their intelligence services have both the necessary character traits, operational history and motivation to view the idea of an independent Scotland with extreme prejudice and to take action to ensure it is never realised. We have also shown why there is reason to disbelieve the idea that a majority of Scottish people were planning to vote against independence and stay within a ‘union’ dominated by an English elite.

The next piece of the puzzle needed to complete the picture is ‘opportunity’. Did MI5 have the opportunity to rig the Scottish referendum and get away with it?

How they [probably] did it

Scotland is divided into 32 council areas of differing size and population density. In each council area there were multiple polling stations for voting. In Glasgow, for example, there were 200 such polling stations. Everyone resident in Scotland who registered to vote was sent a polling card which specified the polling place where they should go to vote. At least one week before voting day, it was known that 97% of eligible Scots had signed up to vote in the referendum. Since the distribution of polling places was established several months in advance, precise information on the number of adults living in any given post code district was easily obtainable, as was access to information about the total number of votes likely to be cast at each polling place (with a little math).

Ballot boxes from each polling station had an identifying name and number attached to them that defined the polling station and box number. Depending on the number of boxes at a polling station, these identifiers were alpha-numeric or simply numbered ‘box 1’, ‘box 2’ etc. Each council area had one ‘counting venue’ where ballot boxes were brought for opening and counting. In small council areas, counting venues were small community halls; in major metropolitan areas, the counting venues were much larger. In Glasgow, for example, the counting venue was the expansive Emirates Arena:

Emirates Arena, Glasgow

Ballot boxes were sent out to the polling stations across Scotland in the days before the vote. Several different kinds of boxes were used. There were tall, black, plastic boxes, wider blue plastic boxes, green boxes, and a few other variations on those themes. All were opaque and ballot papers were not visible inside. The only transparent boxes used were for collecting and depositing postal ballots (well, some of them). Most of these boxes appear to have been sealed with zip ties after voting closed at 10pm on voting day, though some had traditional locks on them, while others were sealed with red tape.

Ballot boxes being delivered inside the Edinburgh counting venue
Postal ballots in different boxes at the Edinburgh counting venue
Green ballot boxes arriving at the Glasgow counting venue
Still another kind of ballot box arriving at the Edinburgh counting venue

Boxes appear to have been taken from polling stations to the counting venues by a variety of means. Some were taken by courier vans, others were taken by local charter buses, and still others – as mentioned above – were taken in privately owned vehicles. In short, it seems that neither a uniform set of materials were used, nor a uniform code of conduct followed, either across the country or even within the same council area.

If we take the Glasgow counting venue as an example, several hundred ballot boxes from 200 polling stations would have arrived at the Emirates Arena counting venue in a variety of different transport vehicles, sometime soon after 10pm when polling stations closed. We can perhaps establish a window for the arrival of these boxes at between 10 and 11pm.

If someone wanted to rig the referendum result, the simplest and most secure way to do so would have been to switch a certain number of real ballots boxes with preprepared (and heavily No-weighted) boxes at some stage between the boxes leaving the polling stations and their arrival at the counting venue(s). Recall what the Russian observers said: procedures at the Edinburgh counting venue for verifying which ballot boxes came from where were so lax that they were unable to tell which boxes came from which polling stations. Here is an image of the two main entrances to the Emirates Arena in Glasgow.

As the several hundred boxes arrived in a short period of time, volunteers were on hand to receive the boxes and take them inside for counting. It’s important to note that few, if any, of the hundreds of people involved in the major logistical operation of transporting, receiving and counting the ballots at a major venue such as in Glasgow would have known each other. The opportunity for preprepared boxes to be switched prior to their arrival at the counting venue, or even switched on arrival by a ‘receiver’, is apparent. It is equally, or perhaps more, likely that the switching of ballot boxes occurred en-route from the polling station to the counting venue. Recall again the reports of a variety of very different modes of transport being used to deliver the ballot boxes – from couriers, to individuals arriving alone in cars, to people getting onto regular buses – and the accounts of there being no ‘security’ to accompany them.

With careful planning – including access to the document used to print ballot papers; to ballot boxes (many companies produce them); to Scotland’s electoral registry; and to the true poll results showing what way the Scottish people were really planning to vote (we suggest 70+% ‘Yes’) – a team of intelligence operatives on the orders of British intelligence chiefs, with a serious investment in keeping Scotland British, could have carried out this operation. The key to it being that the fraud had been completed before the ballot boxes arrived into the counting venues so that, thereafter, everything appeared normal and the ‘official result’ could be confirmed.

Jim & Margot’s Warnings

Veteran SNP leader Jim Sillars, to the right of Alex Salmond

Throughout the campaign, British oligarchs threatened a run on the banks if Scotland voted Yes – a threat they backed-up with capital flight from Scotland to the tune of 17 billion pounds just before the referendum – City of London bosses predicted dire consequences for Scottish business in the event of a Yes result, and leaks by the security services warned of “societal disintegration”. The lone public voices in Scotland striking at the source of this scaremongering were husband-and-wife team, Jim Sillars and Margo MacDonald. A former SNP deputy leader and life-long campaigner for Scottish independence, Sillars accused them of “subverting Scotland’s democratic process” and called for oil behemoth BP to be nationalised post-independence:

“This referendum is about power, and when we get a ‘Yes’ majority we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks. The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor poorer through lies and distortions.

The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a ‘Yes’. BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have been forced to be.

As for the bankers: your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.”

GCHQ, the UK’s NSA

Whether or not such populist moves would have happened, it’s clear that Scotland could potentially have moved in that direction. Together with Margo MacDonald, who passed away earlier this year, they warned about the British security services’ activities in Scotland and their role in subverting the Scottish independence movement. Remember Snowden’s leaks of British GCHQ documents detailing cyberwarfare efforts to “infiltrate Internet forums to ‘Deny, Degrade, Disrupt, and Deceive’ reputations and political groups”? Decrying ‘CyberNats’ – people posing as Scottish nationalists online, where they would post abusive comments, derail discussions, confuse issues, and generally cause mayhem – Sillars warned several months ago of a ‘dirty tricks’ campaign by MI5 in the referendum. Far from being ‘overly paranoid’, Sillars said what he said because he’s seen it all happen before: during the failed 1979 Scottish Devolution vote, even the CIA – via the US consul in Edinburgh – got onboard to derail it:

“That was for a weak assembly. Do you think that they will not be more engaged now that independence is on the agenda? I know an MI5 guy arrived in Glasgow. I won’t tell you how or why I know it. I know when he came.

Are you so naive, that you never think that perhaps MI5 and Special Branch are taking a role in this campaign? As their function is protection of the British State, they would not be doing their jobs if they were not.

There was, and probably still is, a section in MI5 that dealt with the Scottish national movement, headed by Stella Rimington, who became Director General in 1992, and is now Dame Stella.”

And that’s the main point. It is difficult to think of a more direct or inflammatory ‘threat’ to the very foundations of the British establishment elite than the break up of the United Kingdom and the loss (to them) of its resources and ‘human capital’. As Jim Sillars pointed out, their function is the protection of their interests in the form of a United Kingdom firmly under their control. It would therefore not only have been an extreme dereliction of their duty to fail to derail Scottish independence, they would also have been recklessly ignoring their own personal interests. In the real world, therefore, far away from the ‘freedom and democracy’ propaganda of English politicians, it is a foregone conclusion that some elements of British intelligence rigged the Scottish referendum vote.

Thursday 18th of September 2014 was chosen as the referendum date because it was the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, when the English army was defeated by Robert the Bruce, King of Scots. Then, as now, the hardest battle was to get the Scottish nobles out from under the English Crown. In the absence of a William Wallace to do this today, and opposed by the full array of a technologically superior and morally degenerate British state, Scots must rely on their wits to see through this daylight robbery of their right to self-determination.


Scottish referendum result undoubtedly rigged

Apparently terrorized by the fear-mongering tactics of the British establishment media, in the form of hysterical warnings about food price rises and “societal disintegration“, the fiercely independent Scottish people voted to remain in the UK. Or so the British establishment media would have us believe.

The official result matched the predictions of polls conducted by huge for-profit City of London market research companies. Prime Minister David Cameron declared that “this settles the independence debate for a generation.” Case closed? I don’t think so. We’re being asked to believe that a majority of Scots voted ‘Yes’ to more austerity, ‘Yes’ to more wars in their name, ‘Yes’ to keeping nuclear weapons, ‘Yes’ to the continued theft of Scottish natural resources and ‘Yes’ to less democracy.

If all of that sounds unbelievable, it’s because it is:

“It’s not who votes that counts. It’s who counts the votes.”

~ Attributed to Stalin

International observers

Some 222 international observers are said to have registered with the referendum organising body, Britain’s Electoral Commission. They were apparently required to pay their own way, costing these Canadian observers over $4,000 to attend. As far as I can tell at this juncture, the observations of just one party of these accredited observers has been reported anywhere.

Speaking on behalf of the four accredited observers from Moscow’s Public Institute of Suffrage, Igor Borisov reported that the Scottish referendum was “badly flawed” and did not meet international standards, specifically pointing out that the vote counting took place in rooms that were too big.

The counting centre his team visited was a huge aircraft hangar – 100 metres by 300 metres – next to an airfield. They reported that it was impossible to see what was going on because the observers were kept behind a perimeter, away from the tables where votes were being counted. Most alarmingly, they couldn’t tell where the boxes with ballot papers were coming from:

“Nobody was interested in who was bringing in the voting slips. There were no stamps or signatures as the bulletins were handed over.”

Russian official Georgy Fyodorov added:

There were more Yes votes during the vote count. Scotland found itself under immense pressure… Those on the UK side campaigning for a No vote resorted to every violation imaginable.”

Other irregularities

The following video is strongly suggestive of – at the very least – serious mismanagement of the ballots during the count:

Just what was that female counter doing removing votes from the Yes pile to the No pile? Some have argued that she may have been sorting them beforehand, then assigning them to the correct pile. But how hard is it for a supposedly intelligent person (I presume they chose intelligent people to do the counting) to look at a piece of paper, determine if there is an ‘X’ in the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ box and then put it the corresponding pile? This is either evidence of extreme incompetence or of deliberate vote fraud.

And what are we to make of the Sky News footage from the Dundee counting centre in which we clearly see Yes votes on the No table? Every caution should be taken to avoid cross-contamination, so the explanation that they were bundled that way prior to sorting into Yes and No is, again, evidence of gross incompetence or deliberate manipulation of the votes.

Meanwhile in Glasgow, police reported at least 10 instances of people attempting to vote multiple times at polling stations across the city:

There are countless ways to rig elections and referendums, as awake and aware Americans know well. Stuffing the ballot boxes is a relatively easy thing to do, and given the motives and track record of the British elite, and what they stood to lose with an independent Scotland, there is every reason to assume that vote fraud did indeed take place. Indeed, for those who have equipped themselves with an objective understanding of the true nature of the ‘democracy’ under which we live in the Western hemisphere, it was always a foregone conclusion.

The Russian observers noted boxes of ballots papers that “could have come from anywhere,” suggesting that, for example, boxes of stacked votes could be swapped with actual votes during transport from the polling stations to the counting centres.

Another possible point of entry is via the postal system. Some 790,000 postal votes were registered, the largest ever volume for postal votes in Scotland. How difficult would it be to ‘flip’ some or many of these? The SOTT.net crew knows from direct experience that Western intelligence services can and do routinely open people’s mail. For something as important as this referendum, they could have had teams in place, either within postal depots, positioned throughout postal transportation networks, or in separate facilities.

Too many people to be involved in such a conspiracy? Don’t underestimate some people’s naivety, and others’ perfidy; there are more than enough people out there who carry out such treacherous tasks gladly, believing it to be fully justified ‘for Queen and country’. The simplicity of a referendum in which people are asked to place an X beside a simple Yes or No answer works great in a world where people can be assumed to be honest and to ‘play by the rules’. But when a couple of trillion pounds in oil is at stake, well, the ‘rules’ bend.

Total information war

Speaking of British establishment media, of Scotland’s 37 newspapers, only one, the Sunday Herald, came out in favour of independence. In fact, it was the only mainstream media outlet – local, regional or national, English or Scottish – that supported independence.

Think about that. Only one media outlet.

University of Edinburgh researchers found that the more information a voter had, the more likely he or she was to vote Yes. Right there, we see that the media’s role is to lie to the people, to spellbind them through fear and disinformation.

Online, meanwhile, analyses of Twitter and Facebook chatter put the Yes:No ratio at around 2-to-1, about 65% versus 35% in favour of independence. The Russian observer’s statement about the greater presence of Yes voters is obvious even to casual observers of the build-up to this referendum: besides their pronounced dominance of online discussions, the streets of Scotland were clearly thronged with large majorities in support of independence.

Just where did this ‘silent majority’ of Scottish No voters emerge from? From the high turn-out of voters which, we’re told, was up to 97% in places? Sounds plausible, except for one important historical detail: when people turn out like that, it’s because they relish the chance to engage with a popular cause and change the status quo in their favour, not to keep things as they are.

The problem, as always, is that people forget. Although we’ve yet to hear from other international observers, the Scottish referendum result – despite overwhelming media bias and Westminster scaremongering – has been accepted by many in the Yes campaign. People forget that this time last year they learned through Snowden’s leaks what GCHQ – Britain’s NSA – gets up to. British intelligence agencies are permanently engaged in domestic and international spying, subversion, disinformation, and blackmail, and their activity increased dramatically after 9/11.

Scottish independence is a ‘threat to national security’

In this context, from the British government’s perspective, Scotland seceding from the UK isn’t just a matter of Scots’ democratic right to self-determination: it’s a flashing-red threat to national security. THIS is the very thing they were created to counter; this is the meat-and-potatoes of the British intelligence services.

Think about the lengths they were prepared to go to retain Northern Ireland in the UK: beyond all-out information war, they conducted false-flag bombings, assassinations, internment, torture, curfews… up to and including a policy of conducting shooting sprees of both random Catholic Nationalists and Protestant Loyalists. Does a tiger change its stripes?

Scots independent MP Margot MacDonald warned last year that the Scottish referendum would be subject to ‘dirty tricks’ by MI5, saying the Yes movement and Scottish National Party was riddled with British agents. Indeed, many Scots knew in advance of the referendum that British intelligence was actively working against the Yes campaign, hiding the true extent of new North Sea oil reserves, and believed the intelligence services would probably rig the referendum result.

Landslide referendum victory stolen

And now those same Scots don’t believe the official referendum result. Campaigns to collect signatures and bolster demands for an enquiry are already well underway. While that’s a good start, I’m afraid that it will take more than public enquiries, recounts, or revotes to achieve independence. This referendum did not catch the British elite by surprise (although the cabinet at 10 Downing Street was certainly caught out by the strength of support in favour of independence by the end of the campaign). The referendum was years in the making, and its September 2014 date was formally fixed in January 2012; the intelligence services therefore had the better part of two years to prepare for this.

If they will co-create and fund Chechen terrorism and Ukrainian Nazis to blackmail Russia, if they will co-create and fund Al Qaeda and ISIS to institute a Global War on Terror, justify police state measures at home, and invade, occupy and bomb sovereign countries abroad… do you think they will remain ‘neutral’ and ‘impartial’ in a referendum that would end the Union, stir nationalist sentiment in Wales, and hasten a United Ireland?

Let’s not forget, this is ‘Perfidious Albion’ we’re talking about – by which I mean the perennial British elites, primarily ensconced in London, though certainly also long-since woven into Scottish tartan. They will not ‘surrender’ Scotland lightly. British democracy has always been a sham – both in the UK, and then transported across the world when it was an empire, and still today it’s used as a tool to enforce the rule of tiny oligarchic elites.

They have stolen this landslide referendum victory from Scots, who have always been fiercely independent. Until more evidence emerges of fraud, I encourage Scots to gauge for themselves just how many of their fellow Scotsmen voted Yes or No, perhaps by forming local committees to conduct informal polls, then watch as you learn that the true result was 70%+ in favour of independence.

Alba gu bràth

See also

Scots MP: Scottish National Party and Yes Campaign riddled with MI5 and other agents of British security state

Scottish independence stolen: Petition demanding referendum be re-held reaches 70,000 signatures in one day

Just say aye! George Galloway loses the plot over Scottish independence

I couldn’t believe my ears recently when I learned that George Galloway, long-standing thorn in the side of the British establishment… is a firebrand supporter of Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom that is ruled with an iron fist by said establishment! Here’s a recent variant of his arguments against Scottish independence, from a ‘speech’ (more like an abrasive and illogical rant) titled ‘Just Say Naw’, apparently one of many as he toured Scotland to campaign against independence from the UK Crown.

I confess to not being able to listen to it all – it was really difficult for me to see him fall so low after admiring his defence of working class interests for so long. Scots aren’t merely voting ‘Yes’ for a change of passport, as he flippantly suggests; they’re doing so because there is no way for them to continue the ‘class war’ – as he puts it – within the status quo.

While it’s true that “fundamental class points” remain pertinent for Scots whichever state they live under, how those “class points” are addressed is another matter entirely. Scots have woken up to realize that said interests cannot be addressed by a government down in London. Of COURSE Scottish oligarchs envision ‘the natural order of things’ continuing more or less undisturbed. But surely drastically reducing the number of oligarchs with access to Scotland’s resources has at least the potential to improve things for Scots? At the very least, a smaller centralized state run by and for the Scots oligarchs he names in his talk is less likely than a larger centralized state run by and for many more oligarchs in London to get away with as many war crimes, and as much corruption.

Galloway believes that British working class solidarity is the social cohesion which still unites the UK. But this is obviously long dead, destroyed by Thatcherism and Blairism. He of all people knows that. Except for that brief post-WW2 spell when UK elites treated people a bit more decently than usual (while not changing one single bit towards ‘commoners’ abroad, mind you), the UK has been a festering, open sore on this planet for far too long, pillaging and plundering under the banners of ‘humanitarian intervention’, ‘Right 2 Protect’, ‘promoting freedom and democracy’, ‘liberating countries’ and other ‘noble causes’.

Why try to keep it alive? Let it go, for goodness sake! English researcher and author Mark Curtis says that the British regime – in the name of making the world safe for Western economic interests – is conservatively estimated to have directly or indirectly killed between 7.5 and 11.5 million people around the world from WW2 to 2004 [Source: Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses]. Who would WANT to continue associating with that barbaric record??

As regards Scots being responsible for a Tory government ruling England post-independence, this is the single most absurd thing I’ve ever heard Galloway say. What, are Scots meant to remain under London’s thumb in order to function as England’s conscience?!

Galloway told his audience in Glasgow: “If it hadn’t been for the Scottish votes four weeks ago in the Westminster parliament, we’d be in a war NOW with Iran, Syria, China and Russia!” This here is pure scaremongering of the working class he claims to speak for, and it’s precisely the scaremongering that London oligarchs – via the British media – are doing regarding the “ISIS threat”, “evil Russia”, and “nuclear Iran”. In fact, Galloway is doing their work for them.

In truth, the British Empire stood for World Wars, wreaking destruction, and enslaving millions to debt servitude.

The fundamental point of Scotland seceding from the UK is that Scots are trying to distance themselves from pathological warmongering maniacs in London. But Galloway insists that if they just stay, then the maniacs will be a little less maniacal. Maybe. What on Earth kind of argument is this for Scots to maintain association with wars of aggression, subverting genuine democratic expression in foreign countries, and forcing unfair terms of trade on other nations?

I say the opposite. The sooner the UK, as such, collapses, the sooner people both in the UK, and around the world, will suffer less because one of the Anglo-Zio-American Empire’s key focal points for infecting the planet with war, greed and corruption will have been neutralized, or at least significantly hampered in its ability to remain ‘Air Strip One’ to US interests.

In response to sensible people telling Galloway, “At least if we’re independent, Scotland wouldn’t be in the war”, Galloway went into a fit, saying “Oh, that’s alright for you to say from the safety of Scotland, but what about all those bombed people in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere?” AS IF Scotland’s involvement or otherwise would stop the mighty US-run empire from bombing whoever they damn well please! Get real, George! In fact, it is by voting for secession that they are doing what they can to help victims of UK foreign policy abroad – they would be obeying the First Law: Do no harm! By choosing to no longer participate in bombing ‘uncivilized’ people abroad, Scots will have contributed towards helping the alleviation of suffering in Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Syria and elsewhere.

Do I really have to spell this out to the Right Honourable George Galloway!?

Saying that Scottish independence would condemn England to perpetual Tory rule is pure nonsense for another fundamental reason. Where has Galloway BEEN for the last 15 years? Labour ruled from 1997 and was EXACTLY the same as the its predecessor and the current Conservative government! Voting one way or another in England – given its perennial pathocratic conditions – doesn’t change anything!

Maybe, just maybe, the horrifying realization of perpetual Tory-Labor rule can stir the English ‘working class’ to finally go, “Er, hang on, we live in an archaic anti-democratic state… maybe it’s time for republicanism or secession from Londonistan?” But then again, maybe they enjoy their lot? Whatever, it’s THEIR own democratic choice!

A still image from an unbelievably patronizing UK government ‘Better-Together’ campaign TV ad: it features a ‘Scottish housewife’ mulling over the issues related to independence, finding it all rather confusing, then electing to vote No to secession.

That Galloway used the ‘Ibrox incident‘ IN DEFENCE OF Scotland staying in the Union is also bonkers. Members of the UK armed forces joining up with UNIONIST thugs in Glasgow to intimidate Scots of Irish Catholic descent would be a thing of the past with Scottish independence. With no Union, there would be no ‘UK armed forces’, no thugs coming up from England to participate in fascist parades, and the overall Unionist cause thereby WEAKENS, not strengthens! It becomes LESS of a threat to social cohesion within Scotland, not more, as Galloway bizarrely tries to demonstrate.

Just yesterday Galloway gave a somewhat calmer presentation of his reasons for Scotland remaining within the UK. Speaking with long-time establishment spokesman Andrew Neil of the BBC (oh, the irony!), Galloway presented his central economic argument: if Scotland breaks away, any new Scottish state will have to compete with England by cutting regulation and taxes, thereby attracting foreign investment and stimulating new economic activity at home.

Ok, that’s what all countries do, so what’s the problem?

This, says Galloway, will spark a “race to the bottom” that leaves the working class in both Scotland, England and Wales even worse off than they currently are. How does he know this will happen? Because it happens everytime a new country is born? No, he ‘knows’ this will happen because the Book of Marxism says so, clearly stating that he “prophecy” this eventuality! I don’t think I need comment further on the religious adherence to socialist dogma.

There is absolutely no reason to fear that this eventuality Galloway predicts is a dead certainty. A possibility maybe, but the worst case scenario, not an absolute definite. Economics is not a fixed science, as much as the hardcore neoliberal ideologues running Western institutes on the study of economy would like everyone to think. Decisions relating to economic policy taken by governments in real world settings are largely informed by political positions they wish to defend or advance.

The UK government’s political decisions to bail out the banks, to institute austerity for everyone else, to wage financial war on Iceland, to subvert and pillage developing resource-rich countries around the world… these are not ‘forced upon it’ by hidden laws of economics: these stem from the dominant liberal doctrines upon which the UK was founded, and upon which the US was founded, and which keeps their jointly-created Western empire together and functioning ‘as if of one mind’.

By striking out for independence, Scotland is at least giving itself a chance to part ways with this monstrosity, and that can only be commended and supported by decent people yearning for positive change everywhere. George Galloway has this idée fixe, where capitalism = bad and socialism = good, and it blurs his line of vision between seeing how the world actually works and how he believes it ought to work.

How striking it is that Galloway’s unwarranted fears are given a platform by the BBC, while working class Scots demonstrate in their thousands outside the offices of this very institution because they correctly perceive that their views are not being aired by the British establishment media.

Resorting to the same marriage-divorce analogy London Prime Minister David Cameron has trotted out for his emotionally bland appeals to Scottish people to remain under London’s control (which Russell Brand hilariously trashed here), Galloway just glosses over everything evil about the UK with the promise that “things will get better”. Worse than Cameron’s vacuous appeals to emotion by referencing ‘family break-ups’, ‘painful divorce’, and ‘hurt children’, Galloway went one further by thinking it appropriate to compare his own real divorce with Scots’ independence.

I’m not going to accuse Galloway of ‘selling out’ here. I’ve no doubt that he is sure of his convictions. That’s the problem, the lack of doubt in his beliefs! Despite living through both the successes and failures of British socialism, he simply cannot countenance that, in the end, its tenets may be wrong, or at least wrong for this situation in this context.

The baseless self-assurance in his views of the world and his predictions as to how events will unfold is also evidenced by his certainty that Labour leader Ed Miliband will become the next British prime minster in 2015. Andrew Neil thankfully picked up on Galloway’s ludicrous suggestion: did Galloway seriously expect Scottish working class people to vote ‘No’ based on a “feeling” George had that Labour would win the next election??

Here we again see the blindness (or madness?) of George. From 1997 to 2010, the Scottish ‘working class’ HAD a labour government in London. The only reason today’s referendum was even successfully tabled in the first place is because the Scots working class has been so utterly betrayed by Labour in London. There is no representation of their interests in Westminster, Whitehall and the Foreign Office, to say nothing of those sickos at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.

This is why they want out!

Galloway then says the only way for Scotland to get out from under London’s nuclear weapons parked way up in Scotland, as well as London’s foreign military entanglements, is by having a British government… Again, this has been tirelessly tried by Scots for decades. The whole point of this referendum is that London doesn’t listen! Most importantly, Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond has made the moral case against nuclear weapons, saying “possession of nuclear weapons is against basic decency.”

“The world is interdependent,” says Galloway. Yes indeed, so why should Scotland maintain its dependency on London? Many choices of alliances open up for a free(er) and more independent Scotland. “The world is riven with hatred, so this is the worst possible time to be opting out of the world,” says Galloway. Scotland seceding from London is not “opting out of the world”: such silly declarations have no basis in reality, where, as Galloway thankfully understands, the world is interdependent and isolationism thereby isn’t an option for anyone. In any event, in the immediate future, little would change in Scotland and England’s relationship: they would maintain close cultural and economic ties.

Scots descended on London in their tens of thousands to protest the Iraq War, but it did nothing to prevent Galloway’s beloved Labour Party from involving Scots in the slaughter of up to 2 million Iraqis on behalf of the Western Empire.

Other reasons Galloway gives for voting against independence are that “the financial services industry in Scotland will be gravely damaged.” Wait a minute! Since when does he care for financiers?! Sensible economists have rubbished this ‘parade of horribles’ concerning negative economic consequences for an independent Scotland. “Ministry of Defence jobs in Scotland will be lost,” warns Galloway. Erm, would those be jobs in the very armed services Galloway has spent a lifetime criticising for their imperial quests abroad? At best, this appeal to the loss of jobs is facetious; at worst, it’s treacherous to the primary anti-war causes he has traditionally espoused. Yes, there’ll no longer be UK armed forces in Scotland. Instead, there’ll be a small Scottish military. More importantly, Scots will be taking moral responsibility for the actions of its own armed forces.

“Dicing with death… playing with fire… jumping off a roof… gambling all at a Las Vegas casino”: this is the language of someone who is frightened by change because he innately believes that change is bad. It’s also identical to the scaremongering of the Tory government, who could not have asked for a better representative for their ‘Better-Together’ campaign.

Galloway lives in the past and is unable to read the winds of change because he still believes that the utterly subverted and corrupted Labour party – in both Scotland and England – can be ‘saved’ from doing what is best for the City of London, the Israel Lobby, and the NeoCons in Washington. This is a pipe-dream, as anyone who understands ponerogenic unions infected by psychopaths and other pathological factors will know. These times we live in – where the disparity of wealth between the masses and elites widens exponentially, where the elites’ warmongering ways spiral out of control in their desperate pushback against ordinary people clamoring for basic justice – call for new institutions, new ideas, and new leaders. In the end, of course, without proper immunization via knowledge of psychopathy and the ponerization of organizations and societies, these too will come full circle and require drastic intervention, but for now Scottish independence and the demise of the UK’s oligarch-friendly institutions is a healthy point of departure.

Galloway’s take home message to Scots is: ‘better the devil you know’. This is the classic calling card of oligarchs deeply interested in maintaining the status quo, so Galloway is by no means alone on this: the US government supports him, Killary Clinton supports him, the Tories support him, the Orange Order supports him, the Royal Bank of Scotland supports him, and Big Oil supports him.

Galloway is on the wrong side of history. He gets things right from time to time, but on this issue he is way out in left-field. For all these reasons, and more, Scotland’s chance for independence is a glorious opportunity for Scots to take matters into their own hands, and – where this issue interests humanity at large – presenting a significant roadblock for the British establishment’s historic (and ever-present), perfidious role on the world stage.