Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • July 1, 2025 12:22 PM

@ Bruce,

Hmm

A sparse and effectively singluar event used as confirmation of an unsafe political hypothesis is not exactly proof of anything especially when you know more about the political parties involved.

Independence in Scotland has been a thorn in not just Scottish politicians sides but that of English politicians as well, for a very very long time.

The fact that there is a Scottish Parliament and First Minister is proof of just how much of a thorn, and for how long it has been there.

Thus politicians in Scotland and England will claim any falsehood if they can use it to deflect reality.

Put simply sufficient Scots want out of the Union before the English Parliament bleeds Scotland dry of all it’s natural resources.

The English Parliament is desperate because due to repeated incumbents being fiscally irresponsible to certain vested interests the UK and especially England is bankrupt in all but name.

Robbing Peter to pay off Paul has never been a wise policy as it almost always ends up with a level of disagreement that can not be stopped. Worse others see it as a way to “steal by proxy” something a lot of third world nations have been forced into by the likes of the IMF, World Bank etc. Worse in Europe the EU pulled the same tactics thought up by WWII German Economists on Southern Europe which is why much of the EU is now in the dreadful state it is in.

The fact that the US State Dept has been actively trying to sabotage the EU for more than thirty years and probably more than half a century has not exactly gone unnoticed and I think comments by the Current US President and his appointees has made that abundantly clear.

I can not say if Iran has been behind one or two campaigns for Scottish independence, but I can say they they probably had minimal or no effect.

But further even if true, we can in fairly good probability lay the driver behind them at other nations doors and with way more credible reasons.

As I and others pointed out “last time around” a political appointee as National Security Advisor Mr John Bolton did just about everything he could to start a war with either Iran or China, something that is still clearly written in history.

Every thing John Bolton and others at State have done is to try and foment war with either Iran or China. Now China has progressed it’s military capability to a point that it’s questionable if the US could reach anything even as good as a pyrrhic draw, that just leaves Iran and the Middle East on the table…

The problem is that as the rest of the world has seen with “Putin’s Promises” to Assad and Syria all Middle Eastern nations will get “hung out to dry” by what are nolonger World Super Powers…

And Trump has kind of shot himself in the foot with NATO so it’s unlikely European Nations will do an “Article 5” supportive action of the US unless they see a very real threat to them.

But some are going to ask “Why” the US is going after Iran that actually offers them no threat and untill recently did not.

Well in part it’s China… China gas an energy crisis and is kept afloat by Middle East Oil. The view of some is “cut off the supply, kneecap China”.

It’s really not a wise viewpoint, as it makes alternative energy supply options something that China will have seriously considered for quite some time as well as how to deal with it.

The Chinese tend to think long term, the US bot even short term as recent tariff events have demonstrated.

Now just about every one will know that US politicians can not in any way be trusted. The “Chips Act” being a case in point…

Nobody in their right mind is going to build anything in the US that can get grabbed under the war act etc, unless they consider it “throw away”…

Clive Robinson • July 1, 2025 4:52 PM

@ lurker,

With regards,

“And the Clemson paper is nearly a year old.”

When you’ve read enough papers you will realise,

“It’s not an academic paper”

At best it’s a media news / puff piece, apparently designed to target a large US Social Media Corp (Musk’s X).

Oddly for any kind of paper there is no link back to the academic organisation, nor real refrences and much else you would expect.

So a little sleuthing reveals the Uni is not exactly notable, and the media hub is at least half funded by a big chunk of change from what was and effectively still is a “republican leaning journalism foundation”

That has a history of right wing –by most peoples definition– behaviour.

The foundation supposedly is to fund journalism, but… In the case of the Universities media hub it’s to go after Silicon Valley Social Media Corporates…

Whilst this is not of necessity a bad thing, it does call things into question with regards impartiality and independence.

Like,

“Is this a hatchet job on Musk/X?”

Have a look at,

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/john-s-and-james-l-knight-foundation/

And come to your own conclusions.

Me I’m getting some thick rubber gloves and a 12ft pole with a point on the end, before I venture further into this swamp.