What The Papers Say - Russia Has An Interest In Scotland's Independence Debate - News

RUSSIAN interest in the Scottish independence debate online claims English Government's Defence Secretary Ben Wallace who refused to comment further.

English Government MP, Ben Wallace, claims that Russia has an interest in magnifying division in national debates including in Scotland and said that Russian president Vladimir Putin would not respect Scotland more if it removed the Trident nuclear submarines post-independence.

During a briefing with journalists, the English government MP was probed on the Russian state’s interest in the debate around the Scottish constitution. Asked if there was any evidence of Russian interference in the current Scottish independence debate online, Mr Wallace said: “I think what we’ve seen is Russia and other nations take an interest to magnify division in national debates around Europe including Scotland. I can’t talk about the here and now but there is an interest and more than that.”

Last year the English Government's Intelligence and Security Committee concluded Russian interference in English politics was the new normal and that there was open-source commentary that Russia undertook to influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Asked about the Scottish Government disputing that finding, the English government minister said: “As security minister at the time – not 2014, but as a security minister after that – I’ll take the word of the English Government's committee over the Scottish Government.” Asked if he had seen evidence of Russian interference in the 2014 referendum, he said: “No comment."

In September, SNP members agreed during their party conference that nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland within the first three years of Scotland reasserting its statehood. It came after England's Financial Times published proposals earlier this month which revealed the English Government could seek to lease the base from a Scottish state. Other suggestions included shifting the nuclear submarines and missiles to France or America. Asked if the removal of Trident from Scotland would play into President Putin’s hands, the English Government MP said: “Well I’d certainly say that Russia doesn’t know any boundaries when it comes to whether the country is big or small. If you look at its role in political systems or indeed countries such as the Baltic states etc., it’ll try everything it can to spread division. So, would Putin respect Scotland more because it didn’t have nuclear weapons? No, I don’t think so. He doesn’t have any track record of leaving alone countries without nuclear weapons. In fact, sometimes it’s quite the opposite.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Through The Eyes Of The English Establishment - The Treaty of Union

 The Scots complain A LOT. How dare the English establishment mock our representatives they cry. Only they don't say English. Oh no, that would be to admit the truth that they try so hard to hide from themselves. What they say instead is Westminster and UK. It is the UK Government. The UK Supreme Court, UK law, "unwritten" constitution of UK, reserved to Westminster and yet they will call it an English parliament with a majority of English MPs. They even refer to parliamentary sovereignty and rules of parliament. Neither of which are applicable to the state parliament as they were from the English parliament prior to its abolition. So how do the English establishment see it? Let's look through their eyes. Ever since the Scottish civil wars of the 17th and 18th centuries the Scottish government has sought help from their treaty partner in curbing the unruly Scots and bringing them to heel. So much so that English garrisons were set up all over Scotland and all things S...
Read more

An Inconvenient Truth - Treaty of Union 1707

 What do you do when it is publicly pointed out that there is no Government of Great Britain, no constitution of Great Britain and no parliamentary sovereignty among the myriad other features that are missing from the treaty of 1707? When it is publicly pointed out that the current set up is mere convention and that CONVENTION IS NOT LAW? You quietly go about changing that situation. You rename yourself, publicly, you then set about ensuring that others refer to you by your new name giving you credence. The next step is to change the legal situation. EVEL was brought in to give legitimacy to the English government acting and legislating from within the parliament of Great Britain, in essence treating the parliament as English. Clause 38 had English parliamentary sovereignty written into it. The ability for "UK" government to ratify treaties was written into law. Note that the English government had Crawford and Boyle pen a paper stating that England was UK. To quote them ...
Read more

Going Beyond Theory - The Practical Application of a Scottish State

 Practical application demonstrates how theory is applied. Ifs, buts and maybes are addressed through demonstrating the reality. Where there is uncertainty practical application brings certainty through observation.  The argument from the "independence" movement is that people just need to be persuaded. Proponents have cited "facts" regarding Scotland, its wealth and its resources. They have theorised about how Scotland can do x,y,z better if circumstances were different, if only Scotland had full control of its governance yet that is where their arguments end. If someone came at you and said they were or could do x,y,z would you automatically believe them? If you disagreed, would you be persuaded otherwise through statement alone? Most folk would ask you to prove it. And for 53% of the Scottish population, that is precisely what they are saying. Put up or shut up. Stop harping on about something you cannot or will not prove. And who can blame them? Theory only gets...
Read more