Having recently published a report into the (literally) incredible Scottish independence referendum result, your hosts this week discussed some of their findings, and provided further analysis illustrating just how unlikely it is for Scots to have turned down the opportunity to separate from the British government and the City of London's casino capitalism.

Running Time: 01:56:00

Download: MP3

The change.org petition demanding a re-run of the Scottish referendum, "counted by impartial international parties", has now reached 93,000 signatures as incredulous reaction mounts to the highly dubious referendum vote. Even Ron Paul expressed extreme scepticism about the result. The British media, meanwhile, is having a field day mocking the viral video footage of suspect activity at counting venues across Scotland, laughing off the fact that the only international observers to report anything about how the referendum was conducted were Russian observers, and dismissing Scots' calls for recounts and fresh referenda as being "sour grapes" based on "conspiracy theories".

But are these 93,000 (mostly) Scottish citizens, and the thousands of Facebook users demanding an investigation, just deluded sore losers?

If we look at the British voting system in general, we find a somewhat less than glowing 2008 report from the Council of Europe's human rights watchdog stating that reforms to the postal voting rules introduced by Labour made electoral fraud in Britain "childishly simple". The British voting system was now open to fraud and the system "makes it extremely easy to add bogus characters to the voters' lists", the report stated.

But to conclude that the Scottish referendum specifically was likely rigged for a 'No' vote by 'British' intelligence, we need to provide reasonable evidence that the British elite have the necessary character 'qualities', motive and operational history to engage in such a serious crime. We must also provide reasonable cause to believe that the British government and media opinion polls, that generally predicted a majority 'No' vote in the run-up to the referendum, were false, that the majority of Scots intended to vote yes, and that rigging of the vote was therefore necessary. Most importantly, we must present a plausible scenario, backed up by evidence, that British agents had the opportunity to commit this most undemocratic of crimes.

Sott.net editors Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley analyze global impact events that shape our world and future, and connect the dots to reveal the bigger picture obscured by mainstream programming.

From the crisis in Ukraine to the ISIS in Iraq, from increasingly extreme weather to surviving in a world ruled by psychopaths, your hosts, their colleagues (and occasional guests) explore the deeper truths driving world events by exposing the manipulations behind what passes for 'news'.

The Scottish Independence Referendum result - beautiful democracy at work, or rigged? How on earth did Scots turn down the chance of an era to gain independence from London? The SOTT crew investigates...

Running Time: 01:54:00

Download: MP3

Apparently terrorized by the fear-mongering tactics of the British establishment media, in the form of hysterical warnings about food price rises and "societal disintegration", the fiercely independent Scottish people voted to remain in the UK. Or so the British establishment media would have us believe.

The official result matched the predictions of polls conducted by huge for-profit City of London market research companies. Prime Minister David Cameron declared that "this settles the independence debate for a generation." Case closed? I don't think so. We're being asked to believe that a majority of Scots voted 'Yes' to more austerity, 'Yes' to more wars in their name, 'Yes' to keeping nuclear weapons, 'Yes' to the continued theft of Scottish natural resources and 'Yes' to less democracy.

If all of that sounds unbelievable, it's because it is:

"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes."

~ Attributed to Stalin

I couldn't believe my ears recently when I learned that George Galloway, long-standing thorn in the side of the British establishment... is a firebrand supporter of Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom that is ruled with an iron fist by said establishment! Here's a synopsis of his arguments against Scottish independence, from a recent 'speech' (more like an abrasive and illogical rant) titled 'Just Say Naw', apparently one of many as he toured Scotland to campaign against independence from the UK Crown.

I confess to not having been able to listen to it all - it was really difficult for me to see him fall so low after admiring his defence of working class interests for so long. Scots aren't merely voting 'Yes' for a change of passport, as he flippantly suggests; they're doing so because there is no way for them to continue the 'class war' - as he puts it - within the status quo.

While it's true that "fundamental class points" remain pertinent for Scots whichever state they live under, how those "class points" are addressed is another matter entirely. Scots have woken up to realize that said interests cannot be addressed by a government down in London. Of COURSE Scottish oligarchs envision 'the natural order of things' continuing more or less undisturbed. But surely reducing the number of oligarchs with access to Scotland's resources has at least the potential to improve things for Scots? At the very least, a smaller centralized state run by and for the Scots oligarchs he names in his talk is less likely to get away with as many war crimes, and as much corruption. than a larger centralized state run by and for many more oligarchs in London.

People of Scotland!

Let's be honest. For a long time, the vast majority of you have, at the very least, harbored a certain resentment towards the 'English', and by 'English' I mean the racist, warmongering 'elite' class in Westminster who have treated you as second class citizens.

I'm here to tell you that your dislike of these 'English' is entirely justified. As an example of the prevailing attitude of the English establishment towards the Scottish people, consider the comments made by two members of the English establishment media a few days ago. In reference to the very fact that the Scottish were even being 'allowed' the chance to vote for independence, one of them said:

"Hang on, are we just pandering to the errant child, offering sweeties"

the other added:

"rewarding bad behavior"

These comments clearly highlight the contempt with which the English establishment authorities look upon the Scottish people. So why would any Scot, in his or her right mind, want to be associated in any way with such elitism and arrogance?

Since the beginning of the Western-engineered crisis in Ukraine, the world has been bombarded with propaganda about how Evil Russia is. Yet, despite what we're all being asked to believe, there was no "Russian invasion", MH17 was not shot down by Russia, and Ukraine has de facto split in two. While these manipulated events on Russia's borders grab the headlines, let's take a look at what is going on behind the scenes in "America's backyard", as John Kerry shamelessly described Latin America in April this year.

The century-long pretense upheld by American leaders that their country is a Republic is betrayed by Kerry's imperious language, and he obviously needs diplomacy (not to mention geography) lessons. Besides, he was clearly referring to Latin America, even though, technically, the US is also part of the "Western Hemisphere".

Anyway, you've also probably heard about President Putin's visit to Latin America and the BRICS's Summit in Brazil. The existential danger that BRICS presents for the Western 'elite' is obvious; the alliance between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa represents a serious political and economic alternative to the current US system of global hegemony. And it's growing, with countries like Argentina, Venezuela, Iran, Mongolia, Malaysia and others interested in joining. Currently, BRICS represents almost half of the world population and close to a third of the global GDP.

Sott.net editors Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley analyze global impact events that shape our world and future, and connect the dots to reveal the bigger picture obscured by mainstream programming.

From the crisis in Ukraine to the ISIS in Iraq, from increasingly extreme weather to surviving in a world ruled by psychopaths, your hosts, their colleagues (and occasional guests) explore the deeper truths driving world events by exposing the manipulations behind what passes for 'news'.

Running Time: 02:06:00

Download: MP3

Watch the following video from RT, which includes a clip from Secretary of State John Kerry's joint press statement with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on September 11 in Saudi Arabia. The trip to Saudi Arabia followed Kerry's 'surprise' visit to Baghdad the day before, where newly installed (puppet) Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi called for the international community "to act immediately to stop the spread of this cancer [IS/ISIS/ISIL]." Who exactly is Iraq's new prime minister?

Minister of communications in the post-invasion Iraqi government for 2003-2004, Abadi has served in various posts since then, and has been deputy leader of the Islamic Dawa Party since 2007. Prior to returning to Iraq in 2003 he had spent at least the last 25 years in 'voluntary exile' in the UK being groomed by her Majesty's finest for his future role in post Saddam Iraq.

Pay attention to Kerry's words, in response to the Abadi's request for help in dealing with IS.


He says:

"The government of Iraq has invited the United States of America and asked for help. It has asked for help from the United States; it has asked for help from its neighbors, from other countries in the region. And under international law, when a country is invaded and a country invites somebody to come in and help them, we have every right in the world to respond to that request."

Sounds reasonable, right?

Western mainstream media whores are already jumping all over a single sentence in the Preliminary report [on the] Crash involving Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 flight MH17, that reads:

Damage observed on the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft appears to indicate that there were impacts from a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft.

According to paragons of bullshit like the BBC, this "pretty much rules out anything else other than a [BUK] missile".

What the BBC and just about every other mouthpiece of Western anti-Russian propaganda are studiously ignoring is the evidence provided by Russia, which was corroborated by eyewitnesses, that a fighter jet was in close approach to MH17 when it went down. And in case everyone forgot, large caliber bullets are also "high-energy objects".