Scotland vs Biafra: Biafra has more valid and stronger case for secession than Scotland

Between Scotland and Biafra: Biafra has more valid and stronger case for secession than Scotland

It is no longer news that the people of Scotland wishes to leave the United Kingdom. As the date for the referendum on Scottish independence draws closer, political gimmicks are rife in the land as many Scottish citizens agitates to regain their freedom from the English controlled Britain.  In the same vein Biafrans are agitating for their freedom from the stranglehold of the Islamic northern oligarchy and restoration of their country.

While a referendum to determine Scotland’s secession from United Kingdom is scheduled to hold early next month, the international community has turned a deaf ear to the cries of Biafrans. By September 18 2014 Scottish people will be voting in a referendum to determine their independence from the United Kingdom. Ironically, it was a Scot in the person of Fredrick Lugard who forcefully brought Biafrans and the rest of the ethnic nationalities making up the ‘mere geographic region’ into one country called Nigeria, without the consent of the indigenes.

As Biafrans currently struggle to restore their independence from the Nigerian quagmire, The Biafran focuses on the cases of Biafra and Scotland Independence.

Anyone wondering why Biafra Republic needs to be restored should first of all consider why despite all Scotland had gained from the union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it still wants to separate from the highly developed United Kingdom.

These are some points worth noting:

• The Kingdom of Scotland willingly joined the United Kingdom in 1707, when it entered into a political Union with the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain following the personal union earlier entered in 1603, when James VI, King of Scots, succeeded to the English and Irish thrones in 1603.
• Biafrans on the other hand, were on two main occasions forced to be part of Nigeria (first in 1914 – amalgamation of North and South Protectorates, following the earlier amalgamation of the regions in the south, and secondly in 1970 when the Nigerian federal forces forced them back into country).

• Huge number of powers has been devolved to the Scottish people by the United Kingdom to appease them. The Scottish Parliament, was in 1999 reconvened with authority over many areas of home (internal) affairs following a referendum in 1997. But all powers and rights of Biafrans have been stripped and concentrated at the central government. 
• Scotland has been given a lot of privileges to encourage them stay in United Kingdom, but Biafrans have consistently been persecuted and marginalised.
• Scotland's legal system has been kept separate from those of the rest of United Kingdom.
• Unlike Biafra, Scotland has operated educational and religious institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK and has therefore persevered its culture and national identity.
• Scots are not persecuted, killed, discriminated or strategically suppressed as successive Nigerian governments have done to Biafrans.

Therefore, if Scotland with all the huge benefits it has gained from staying in the United Kingdom is itching to restore their sovereignty and have been allowed to do so, Biafrans who have been grossly been ill-treated and marginalised by Nigerian government and people must be allowed to restore their sovereignty.

Biafrans have more valid and legitimate reason to secede from Nigeria than Scots.