Britain to Scotland: lose global clout if you exit UK

LONDON Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:05pm EST

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron speaks during the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 24, 2013. REUTERS/Pascal Lauener

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron speaks during the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 24, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Pascal Lauener

Related Topics

Photo

Under the Iron Dome

Sirens sound as rockets land deep inside Israel.  Slideshow 

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government on Monday intensified its campaign to stop Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, publishing a legal opinion suggesting it would forfeit its membership of international bodies such as the European Union if it chose independence.

The pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) that runs Scotland's devolved government plans to hold a referendum on the politically sensitive and emotionally charged subject next year, and has played down the impact of a "Yes" vote on Scotland's international status.

But the 57-page legal opinion - drafted for the British government by two leading independent experts on international law - said the implications could be far-reaching.

The overwhelming weight of international precedent suggested Scotland would be legally deemed a "new state", it said - a scenario that would force it to re-apply to join international bodies such as the EU, the United Nations and NATO.

"If Scotland became independent, only the 'remainder of the UK' would automatically continue to exercise the same rights, obligations and powers under international law as the UK currently does, and would not have to re-negotiate existing treaties or re-apply for membership of international organizations," the government said.

Its unusual decision to publish such an opinion reflects its concern that Scots may vote for independence, triggering the break-up of a United Kingdom comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Prime Minister David Cameron intervened in the debate on Sunday, conceding that Scotland had what it takes to be an independent nation, but arguing it enjoyed "the best of both worlds" as part of the UK.

"Put simply: Britain works. Britain works well. Why break it?" he wrote in an article published in Scottish newspapers.

Cameron's political future and historic legacy are on the line. He has pledged to contest the next British general election in 2015 and his own Conservative party would never forgive him if he presided over the break-up of the UK.

JOINT CAMPAIGN

London's main parties are campaigning jointly against independence, knowing that Alex Salmond's SNP is an astute and highly motivated political machine that will spare no effort to win a vote on its flagship policy.

Tapping into an emotive cocktail of historical rivalry, opposing political tastes, and a perception that the British parliament in London does not nurture Scotland's national interests, the "Yes Scotland" campaign wants independence to be a reality by 2016.

Scottish secession could create serious problems for the remainder of the United Kingdom.

Britain's Trident nuclear submarine fleet is based in Scotland, revenues from Scottish North Sea oil remain important to its coffers, and analysts say Britain would find it harder to maintain its voice in international bodies such as the U.N. Security Council as well as in European Union decision-making.

The SNP published a document this month suggesting the transition arrangements could be made within 16 months, and that Independence Day for Scotland could come in March 2016, a timetable opponents dismissed as unrealistic.

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP's deputy leader, accused Cameron of making negative attacks in contrast to her own party's positive campaign. An SNP-backed working group is due to publish proposals on Monday setting out economic reform options for an independent Scotland.

Opinion polls suggest support for independence has stalled with around one third or less of voters backing it and just under half opposing it. But Cameron and politicians from other parties remain nervous.

One of the central planks of Cameron's argument is that Scotland already enjoys a high degree of autonomy through its own parliament, and he has hinted that it would be able to repatriate even more powers if it rejected full independence.

"We want you to scrutinize, challenge and form your own opinion. This must not be a leap in the dark, but a decision made in the light of day," he told Scots.

(Editing by Kevin Liffey)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
DeanMJackson wrote:
Scotland:

it is not you who needs the credentials that being a part of Great Britain imparts, it is…and this is the real truth…England that needs not just you, but Wales and Northern Ireland.

England needs you!

Without Scotland (or Wales and Ireland), what would England have been to recent history these past 500 years? A country with an outstanding Navy, but not the necessary numbers of land forces to ensure an Empire that made the world civilized…made only possible with the addition of Irish, Scottish and Welsh Regiments of Foot.

The world was made civilized by such Regiments, a dangerous world and the world remains dangerous, though your politicians have refused to inform you of the true dangers that exist in the world:

The “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse (as will be the upcoming fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government), implemented under the “Long-Range Policy” (LRP), the “new” more subtle strategy all Communist nations signed onto in 1960 to defeat the West with, which explains the following:

If the collapse of the USSR had been legitimate, the following obligatory actions would have taken place, as they always take place after political revolutions:

(1) Immediately after the “collapse” of the USSR high-ranking present and “former” Communist Party members within the various Federal government civilian/military/intelligence branches of the post Soviet republics were never arrested in the interests of national security:

Since there was no conquest that liberated the USSR, it would have been up to the people themselves to conduct the arrests to ensure the continuity of the freed state.

(2) Lower level Communist Party members within the 15 governments of the post USSR would have been immediately fired in the interests of national security:

The hated low-ranking CPSU members at all levels of government, who for 74 years persecuted the 90% of the population who were non-Communist, would have been fired from government positions, especially education. The freed Soviet public would then have requested assistance from the West to ensure critical services remained on-line until enough qualified freed Soviets could fill those positions.

(3) the Russian electorate these last 21 years have inexplicably only been electing for President and Prime Minister Soviet era Communist Party Quislings:*

Presidents of Russia since 1991:

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin – July 10, 1991 – December 31, 1999 – Communist.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – 31 December 1999 – 7 May 2000 (Acting) and May 7, 2000 – May 7, 2008 – Communist.

Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev – May 7, 2008 – May 7, 2012, during his studies at the University he joined the Communist Party.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – May 7, 2012 – Present, Communist:

Yeltsin and Putin would have been arrested in the interests of national security, while Medvedev would have been shunned by the newly freed Russians.

(4) there was no de-Communization program initiated after the “collapse” of the USSR to ferret out Soviet era Communist agents still in power:

The fact that there were no Allies in the freed USSR to carry out a de-Communization program, meant the freed Soviets would not only have had to take up that program themselves but ensure, unlike the German de-Nazification example in post war Germany, its effectiveness since:

(a) there was no occupation force to ensure the Communists weren’t still in power or could mount a violent comeback; and.

(b) unlike the Nazis that persecuted minorities in Germany, and were not generally hated by the dominant society, in the USSR Communists were the hated minority who persecuted the majority.

(5) not one “crime against humanity” indictment of the thousands of criminals still alive who committed crimes on Soviet territory:

Even post Nazi Germany (West and East) convicted and imprisoned Nazi war criminals.

(6) the refusal of the Russian Navy to remove the hated Communist Red Star from the bows of vessels, and the refusal of the Russian Air Force to remove the Communist Red Star from the wings of Russian military aircraft, not to mention placing the hated Communist Red Star on all new Naval vessels and military aircraft:

To the ordinary Russian, the Communist Red Star was the symbol for the hated Communist regime that for 74 years persecuted the 90% of the nation who were non-Communist; and.

(7) Soviet era Communist agents still control Russian Orthodox Church (and all other religious institutions within the 15 republics that made up the USSR, including religious institutions in the East Bloc):

If the collapse of the USSR had been legitimate, Communist Quislings within all religious institutions would have been immediately identified and thrown out of those religious institutions.

(8) Lenin’s tomb still exists in Red Square:

Just as the people of Germany tore apart the Berlin Wall in 1989, so too the Russian people would have destroyed Lenin’s tomb on December 25, 1991. The 74-year persecution of the 90% non-Communist Russian population would have seen Lenin’s tomb destroyed.
———————————
*Presidents of “former” USSR Republics and their political affiliation before the “collapse” of the USSR:

Armenia:

Levon Ter-Petrossian – October 16, 1991 – February 3, 1998, Communist.

Robert Kocharyan – February 4, 1998 – April 9, 2008, Communist.

Serzh Azati Sargsyan – April 9, 2008 – Present, Communist.

Azerbaijan:

Ayaz Niyazi oğlu Mütallibov – October 30, 1991 – March 6, 1992, Communist.

Abulfez Elchibey – June 16, 1992 – September 1, 1993, not Communist.

Heydar Alirza oglu Aliyev – June 24, 1993 – October 31, 2003, Communist.

Ilham Heydar oglu Aliyev (Son of third President) – October 31, 2003 – Present, Communist.

Belarus:

Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko – July 20, 1994 – Present, Communist.

Estonia:

Lennart Georg Meri – October 6, 1992 – October 8, 2001. During the campaign, the nationalist right tried to bring up questions about Meri’s alleged former links with the KGB. However, these allegations did not harm Meri’s reputation and public image. Why not?

Arnold Rüütel – October 8, 2001 – October 9, 2006, Communist.

Toomas Hendrik Ilves – October 9, 2006 – Present. not Communist.

Georgia:

Zviad Gamsakhurdia – April 14, 1991 – January 6, 1992, not Communist (dissident).

Eduard Shevardnadze – November 26, 1995 – November 23, 2003, 1948, Communist.

Nino Burjanadze – November 23, 2003 – January 25, 2004, Communist.

Mikheil Saakashvili – 25 January 2004 – 25 November 2007, Communist.

Nino Burjanadze – November 25, 2007 – January 20, 2008 (Acting), Communist.

Mikheil Saakashvili – January 20, 2008 – Present, Communist.

Kazakhstan:

Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev – April 24, 1990 – Present, Communist.

Kyrgyzstan:

Askar Akayevich Akayev – October 27, 1990 – March 24, 2005, Communist.

Ishenbai Duyshonbiyevich Kadyrbekov – March 24, 2005 – March 25, 2005 (Interim), Communist.

Kurmanbek Saliyevich Bakiyev – March 25, 2005 – April 15, 2010, Communist.

Roza Isakovna Otunbayeva – April 7, 2010 – December 1, 2011 Communist.

Almazbek Sharshenovich Atambayev – December 1, 2011 – Present, Communist.

Latvia:

Guntis Ulmanis – July 7, 1993 – July 7, 1999, Communist, 1965.

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga – July 8, 1999 – July 8, 2007, lived in Canada from 1954 until 1998 when she returned to Latvia where she was born, upon which in 1999 she was elected president.

Valdis Zatlers – July 8, 2007 – July 8, 2011, used his studies to avoid joining Communist Party.

Andris Bērziņš – July 8, 2011 (Elect), Communist.

Lithuania:

Vytautas Landsbergis – March 11, 1990 –November 25, 1992, not Communist.

Algirdas Mykolas Brazauskas – February 25, 1993 – February 25, 1998, Communist.

Valdas Adamkus – February 26, 1998 – February 26, 2003, not Communist.

Rolandas Paksas – February 26, 2003 – April 6, 2004, Communist.

Valdas Adamkus – July 12, 2004 – July 12, 2009, not Communist.

Dalia Grybauskaitė – July 12, 2009 – Present, Communist, 1983.

Moldova:

Mircea Ion Snegur – September 3, 1990 – January 15, 1997, Communist.

Petru Chiril Lucinschi – January 15, 1997 – April 7, 2001, Communist.

Vladimir Nicolaevici Voronin – April 7 2001 – September 11, 2009, Communist.

Mihai Ghimpu – September 11, 2009 – December 28, 2010 (Acting), not Communist.

Vlad Filat – December 28, 2010 – 30 December 2010 (Acting), not Communist.

Marian Lupu – December 30, 2010 – Present (Acting), Communist. 1988.

Russia:

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin – July 10, 1991 – December 31, 1999 – Communist.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – 31 December 1999 – 7 May 2000 (Acting) and May 7, 2000 – May 7, 2008 – Communist.

Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev – May 7, 2008 – May 7, 2012, during his studies at the University he joined the Communist Party.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – May 7, 2012 – Present, Communist.

Tajikistan:

Emomalii Rahmon – November 20, 1992 – Present, Communist.

Turkmenistan:

Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov – November 2, 1990 – December 21, 2006, Communist.

Gurbanguly Mälikgulyýewiç Berdimuhamedow – December 21, 2006 – Present, Unknown.

Ukraine:

Leonid Makarovych Kravchuk, December 5, 1991 – July 19, 1994, joined Ukraine Communist Party in 1958.

Leonid Danylovych Kuchma, July 19, 1994 – January 23, 2005, Communist, 1960.

Viktor Andriyovych Yushchenko, January 23, 2005 – February 25, 2010, Communist, 1980.

Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, February 25, 2010 – Present, Communist, 1980.

Uzbekistan:

Islam Abdug‘aniyevich Karimov – March 24, 1990 – Present, Communist.

Percentage of Soviet era Communist Party Quislings “elected” President to “post” USSR republics (51/39) = 76.47%.

Imagine it’s 1784 America. The Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed the previous year ending the revolutionary war with Britain. So who do the electorates of the newly independent 13 colonies elect for their respective governors? They elect persons who were Loyalists (American supporters of Great Britain) during the war for independence! Of course, in reality the persecution was so bad for Loyalists in post independence America that they had to flee the country en masse for Canada.

Or try this one out: After the collapse of the South African Apartheid Regime in 1994, the majority black population reelect for their Presidents only persons who were National Party members before the 1994 elections!

In order to understand the World Communist threat to our liberties, one must understand Communist strategy:

“Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to “resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge” to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia, in his work Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.

… Another speech of Lenin’s … in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding “perestroika.” “Our only strategy at present,” wrote Lenin, “is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.”

If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will find that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their sudden, orchestrated, mass “conversion” to Western-style norms of behavior, their endless talk of “democracy,” and their acceptance of “capitalism,” as genuine. “Scratch these new, instant Soviet “democrats,” “anti-Communists,” and “nationalists” who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents,” Golitsyn writes on page 123 of his new book [The Perestroika Deception]. In accepting at face value the “transformation” of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into “instant democrats,” the West automatically accepts as genuine the false “Break with the Past” — the single lie upon which the entire deception is based.

In short, the “former” Soviet Union — and the East European countries as well — are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical modus operandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninist revolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a world Communist government, which, by definition, will be a world dictatorship.

It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is the fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decades and generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Western politicians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politicians usually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order to control reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.” — William F Jasper, Senior Editor for The New American magazine.

You ask, what does Jasper mean when he says, “Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome”?

Simply explained, and on a tactical level, it’s called the “Scissors Strategy”, where one blade represents (for example) Putin & Company, however the other blade of the scissors–the leadership of the political “opposition” to Putin & Company–is actually controlled by Putin & Company*, which leaves the genuine opposition in the middle wondering why political change isn’t taking place. Understand this simple strategy?

On a strategic level, from 1960 – 1989 the USSR and China played the “Scissors Strategy”, by pretending to be enemies. This strategy allowed one side to play off against the other with the West, thereby gaining political advantages from the West, which neither Communist giant could have achieved if it was believed they were united. Clever, huh?

Union with England means the West is that much stronger against the barbarians that still exist, waiting to deprive you of the liberties you fought so hard to obtain.

Feb 10, 2013 11:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mike360000 wrote:
“..publishing a legal opinion suggesting it would forfeit its membership of international bodies such as the European Union if it chose independence.”

Gee, that’s the whole point! Scotland and these other countries seeking to regain their independence doesn’t want or need such things as NATO, the UN, the EU or any other Globalistic organization in running their countries. It is because of these globalistic organizations that all the countries are now suffering from so many problems! Let each country be independent and then each country can better look after the needs of their own people without consideration of other people and countries dictating tot hem what they should and should not do, all the while charging them big fees for being members, not to mention all the paperwork and red tape. All of which actually stifles countries by NOT letting them look after their own needs as they see fit!

Michael– Deo Vindicabamur

Feb 12, 2013 6:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.