The people of Scotland voted in a referendum to end Britain’s rule on 18 September 2014… The official result of the referendum is negative, saying that the majority of people voted to stay under the British rule. The event demonstrated clearly that the so-called democracy is just a never-ending farce that has nothing to do with people’s will or interests.
The referendum had a very large turnout – according to official data 85% of people came out to vote. What does that tell us? It tells us that the question of Scotland’s independence was taken to heart and people became politically active. We know that the population usually becomes politically active when they wish to influence the government to make changes and they recognize an opportunity. The population remains largely passive when it finds the status quo agreeable or sees no chance of influencing the situation. The large turnout indicates the rather strong desire of change in the masses although the official result states the opposite.
Note that the preliminary polls, widely publicized by sources like BBC, Bloomberg and others, indicated that the referendum results will be negative with 52 % of population against the independence of Scotland. Under this premise, why would a large part of population suddenly become active? If they wanted to keep the status quo, all they had to do was to stay at home in front of the TV. There is only one explanation: the population became active precisely because they wanted to demonstrate their disagreement with the preliminary results. They all went out and voted because they wanted change and they noted that the change is close, they only need a couple percent to sway the balance. That is the kind of incentive that activates the electorate and causes large turnout: a desire for change and the impression that a single vote may decide the future of the country.
My guess is that the CNN accidentally published partially correct numbers when they announced the preliminary results where the Yes vote achieved 58%. That would be perfectly logical under the circumstances: the preliminary polls show 52% against (that’s what they put on the first line) and the final result was closer to the 58% in favor due to the high turnout of the population activated by the circumstances. I think, Scotland voted positively on their independence but they would never see the real results of that referendum.
So why would this actually be the case?
No country in the world is eager to break up its territory and let the country to become smaller. Every country wants to get more territory, more people, more resources. All wars in the history were fought about just that. Why would you think that trend would ever reverse?
If Britain suddenly let a part of its territory to break apart that would be a clear signal of failure to all the other countries around the globe. It would also be send a signal of possibility of staggering proportions. Suddenly, Flanders would have a referendum for breaking off from Belgium, Northern Italy – from Italy, Catalonia – from Spain and so on. There are so many territories that were annexed as the result of wars that Europe would split into twice as many countries within a couple of months. This is simply unimaginable. Countries, governments, empires do not work like that. A country that allows its territory to be annexed without dire consequences will be quickly consumed by its neighbors.
Britain will never let any of its territories go and they will do everything they can to keep them in check. There is no incentive whatsoever for Britain to give part of itself up for any reason. The referendum is a clever trick to calm into submission the population of the province that wants independence. The result of that referendum is predefined, the result will be that people in their majority desire to stay with the “rightful owner” of the land. The main result is that this referendum will be now quoted every time the people of Scotland mention independence, it is now a “done deal” for the next 10-20 years. It is a very good move for Britain and a very bad move for Scotland. Although, of course, the officials and unofiicials that organized this referendum will be better off with Britain than without. The others… well, who cares.