Close
Britain/Africa: Scottish lessons

News & Analysis

Britain/Africa: Scottish lessons

History reveals that Britain (the United Kingdom) has never protected indigenous or non-British interests – whether in Africa, Australasia, the Indian subcontinent or North America – not even in Scotland.  The British have always opposed and suppressed the interests of other nations,  if their interests were in conflict with those of the “British Empire”. The 18 September 2014 Scottish Referendum was no exception. Dr Motsoko Pheko explains how Scotland’s fate brings back memories of what the British did in colonial Africa to protect empire at any cost.

When the “Yes” campaign vote in Scotland for national independence gathered momentum, all the three main political parties in Britain extended their massive campaign of intimidation against the people of Scotland, especially a few days just before the referendum.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband told the BBC that the “pro-independence campaign had an ugly side”. Prime Minister David Cameron painted a bleak picture of the Scots not being able to continue using the pound if they voted “Yes”.

Queen Elizabeth II, though she claimed to be “neutral”, said she hoped that “the Scottish voters would think carefully.”

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) poked its nose into the affairs of the Scottish people as well. Its Deputy Spokesman William Murray said: “A Yes vote would raise a number of important and complicated issues that would have to be negotiated.”

But what is clear is that a “Yes” vote by the Scottish
people would have been a double-edged sword if the United Kingdom tried to punish Scotland for its independence after the election.

Here are some reasons for this:

The United Kingdom’s nuclear missiles are based in Scotland.

The United Kingdom would have lost its Scottish regiments.

The United Kingdom would be a new country with less power and prestige internationally if Scotland had voted “Yes” in the referendum.

Wales and Northern Ireland would have re-thought their status within the territorially reduced United Kingdom. 

The pro-republic sentiment in Australia and Canada to break ties with the English monarch would have fermented. 

The British Commonwealth would sooner rather than later collapse.

The United Kingdom’s place on the UN Security Council, with its veto vote, would be insecure.

The Irish people did not suffer any currency problem when they dropped the British pound.

The United Kingdom would have encouraged the “No” vote in the Scotland Referendum to protect its own interests, not those of the people of Scotland.

Related Posts

  • The healing power of art

    The arts are the outstanding conveyor of a society’s cultural beliefs, practices, attitudes and values. Amandine Ndikumasabo considers how can we use them to heal.

  • South Africa unites against looters

    Instead of sowing divisions, South Africa’s pro-Zuma rioters seem to have united the country against them and inspired acts of heroism and selflessness.

  • Paul Pogba in action on the football field

    Paul Pogba – a flawed genius?

    How many players have won a World Cup and been sent off for scoring a penalty? Possibly only Paul Labile Pogba. Michael Renouf paints a portrait of his career.

  • The meteroric rise of MTN in Nigeria

    When South African telecoms firm MTN managed to get a foothold in Nigeria, it expected good business but could not have imagined the growth it would experience. Report by R. Roy

Unmissable Past Stories