Scottish Independence Successfully Subverted, For Now

From de Veer Magazine
Jump to: navigation, search
Courtesy: Open Source

By Ann-Marie de Veer
Saturday 11 October 2014

In late May, early June 2012, the primary belligerents in the fight for an independent Scotland formally joined battle. Both the Yes Scotland and the Better Together organisations officially began the task of campaigning for, and against respectively, an independent Scotland. As the campaign ebbed and flowed, among evidence of media bias and dirty tricks by MI5, most of the polling organisations reported that the final result would be very close. However, what the media did not report was that the result had already been decided back in May 2011, even before the launch of the official campaigns, when the Scottish National Party (SNP) won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament general election.

Scotland was thus deprived of its independence by electoral fraud, but by who, how and why?

Why?

When the SNP achieved the impossible in May 2011, scoring an overall parliamentary majority in the Scottish Parliament using an electoral system specifically designed to prevent that very event, the alarm bells in London immediately began to ring. The SNP's publicly stated desire for an independent Scotland was known and they now posed a very serious threat to the continued existence of Great Britain, a union of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland dating back to 1707.

As history records, the current Scottish National Party (aka. Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-Alba) that formed in 1934 was the product of an amalgamation of the National Party of Scotland (1928) whose roots were in the Scots National League (1921), the Scots National and Scottish Home Rule Movements and the Scottish Party (1930). Their publicly known and widely acknowledged desire for independence dates back to the early 1920's and remains undimmed to this day.

And so the Scotts, in particular the SNP, have long been viewed as secessionists to the union and had to be stopped by whatever means given that its demise threatened Great Britain's core interests. That is, if its economic, military and strategic importance were to be preserved and its status in both regional and global organisations like NATO, The Commonwealth of Nations, the United Nations, and the European Union, among others, then the union must remain intact. The threat to Great Britain was obvious but what was not so obvious was how this particular coup de grâce was going to be administered and who was going to carry it out.

How?

No sooner had the SNP assumed power in Scotland in May 2011 than London created a multi-disciplined task force whose objectives were simple: to subvert the Scottish parliament by opposing the SNP's call for a referendum and, in the event of being unable to do so, secure a NO vote in the poll that ensued. The force was subsequently divided into two groups, an overt team of lobbyists that would cultivate existing relationships, and generate new ones, in the cause of the union while using all forms of media to disseminate its propaganda. The covert team (aka. subversives) would infiltrate, and recruit if necessary, agents of change to subvert the message of the opposition while manipulating the outcome of online polls and the discourse that ensued in social media. Given that none of these tools could guarantee the outcome of a national referendum, the subversives were also tasked with creating the weapons of last resort:

Selected staff of the polling, transportation, counting and security elements of the polls were to be either coerced, bribed, and if necessary, threatened to ensure the NO vote prevailed.

However, this was also viewed as not being enough to guarantee the desired outcome and the ultimate weapon was also deployed:

Selected substitutions of ballot boxes using duplicate ballots already cast as predominately NO were carried out.

The plans were agreed and executed, and the results speak for themselves.

The voter turnout rate of 84.6%, unusually high for ballots in the UK, reflected the extent of the ballot box substitutions carried out as did the scale of the NO vote itself, at 55.3%, which was both significantly above the predictions of the nominally independent polling organisations and even exceeded their usual margins of error. Clearly the subversives were not able to advise the pollsters of the extent of the NO vote with sufficient accuracy before they reported their predictions to the public but they had fulfilled their mission nonetheless.

Who?

Of course, the English regime used both their professional and private relationships north of the border to garner support for the NO vote and actively cultivated new ones that were likely to be of use in the future. Similarly, businesses, industry and commerce that were sympathetic to the union cause also joined the fray, creating and disseminating their own propaganda. However, the notion that their combined efforts were merely a merging of interests by like minded individuals or groups is patently false.

The facts are this was a carefully planned and orchestrated campaign that used the skills and expertise of the people involved. The key to their success was not simply a convergence of ideas, values and beliefs working unilaterally in a loosely constituted amalgam but the concerted effort of a multi-disciplined task force coordinating the activities and responses of the groups involved to achieve a NO vote by whatever means. Failure was not an option.

That this task force was created, funded and supported by the English regime in known. What is also known is that the two facets of this force, the lobbyists and the subversives, never met, a common approach in support of plausible deniability. Nonetheless, they were both successful in their respective missions: the lobbyists generated considerable media bias and negative forecasts for future business and commerce in an independent Scotland while the subversives, MI5 and its agents, recruited the polling staff that unequivocally guaranteed the majority YES vote would be turned into a decisive NO vote for the English regime.

Thus, the NO vote prevailed.

That the English regime are guilty of mounting an illegal campaign of media bias and using scaremongering tactics to frighten businesses, industry and commerce from supporting an independent Scotland, is known. What is less well known is that MI5 and its agents, in a myriad of nefarious activities involving every aspect of the polling process, subverted the will of the Scottish people by turning an overwhelming YES vote into a NO.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that if Scotland is to ever achieve independence then it will have to adopt the same methods used by the English.

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin