SNP NATO and the US Consul General

SouthernJock · SNP NATO and the US Consul General

Saw the article in the Sunday Herald :
Lisa Vickers, the new US consul in Scotland, questioned the effect of separation on American energy firms and criticised the SNP’s anti-Nato policy. She also speculated about whether an independent Scotland would become a member of the European Union.
In an interview with the Sunday Herald, she said the US would “probably” prefer the UK to remain united and insisted there were “various elements” of the SNP’s independence policy that had not been fully explained
“Would an independent Scotland be a member of Nato? They don’t know. Would they be in the EU? They don’t know,” she said. “I don’t think the SNP is willing to say with 100% confidence and security that ‘this is what will happen with independence, and this is how you will be, and this is what will belong to you.’”
She added: “I think there are a lot of questions. And I think that, right now, there are not a lot of answers.”
In remarks likely to irk the SNP, Vickers claimed independence was not being seriously discussed by ordinary Scots.
“They may find that, as an article I read in the press a couple of weeks ago quoted, people are not sitting down to breakfast and hotly debating ‘should Scotland be independent?’. It’s sort of an idea in the back of the mind that comes up at cocktail parties,” she said.
However, her most pointed criticisms were reserved for the SNP’s defence policy, which is for an independent Scotland not to be a member of Nato.The official’s comments provide insights into the US government’s view on constitutional politics in Scotland. Although Vickers said there were “pros and cons” to separation, the US is not thought to favour independence because it would involve the break-up of its main international ally.

Apart from sticking her inexperienced nose into something that she should not be critising or getting the US involved with, she should be garnering a consus from all sides and that includes having a cosy chat with Alex Salmond, to find out exactly what the position is of the SNP, then she will be able to report back to Washington her thoughts on the matter. I would not expect any country to offer support or criticism over planned independence, until they have the fullest of facts (that are not supplied by UK government). But there support would be most welcome once the decision is made.
Alex Salmond on the other hand should make certain things clear to the electorate, such as plans for NATO, personally I think it would be stupid to pull out of NATO and that Scotland could play a good part along with other NON-NUCLEAR countries such as Portugal , Denmark and Canada, by all means get rid of Nuclear weapons, but that should not equate to leaving NATO. If Scotland is to play its part as a soverign nation, then it should play its part in UN, EU as well as NATO

Avatar

I think it was a pretty ignorant comment for her to make - its like sending an offical representative over to the US who publicly says "the US doesnt have any clear direction, the Republicans haven't a clue as to what to do with Iraq now and Scotland would prefer it if the USA seperated into smaller soverign states" - well not exactly but im sure you get my drift.

As for NATO - I have to disagree with you there, personally I dont see the point in having old style alliances anymore - I think they have shown themselves to be more a hinderence to peace in the past and really just antogonise and isolate other nations or force them into their own alliances. I agree about playing a part in the EU and UN though.

Cymro

I would like and Independent Wales to be a member of NATO personally. I think there is certainly a place for these kind of alliences. NATO has obviously changed from the body that first came into existance - they aren't a rival to communism anymore! But, NATO action in Kosovo was a good thing in my opinion in order to bring some sort of peace to the region.

It's because of things like NATO in Kosovo that I don't call myself a pacifist. I believe military should be used as a last resort in order to defend people from states. In the same way I don't wholy oppose Afghanistan - I'd just prefer it if the people of Wales got to descide for ourselves as opposed to having to follow the decisions of our masters in Westminster.

Had the Iraqi campaign been about removing Saddam inorder to defend the Iraqis and the Kurds and not about oil, and apparent WMD's and came with a clear path not to occupy the country as we're seeing now I would have been more likley to support the campaign. My problem with NATO is that it's overly balanced in the US's favour and that it's hypocritical - it only opposes nasty dictators the US doesn't like as opposed to nasty dictators the US does like.

SLG

I don't think decisions like that should be made till after the first term of an independent state. As we keep talking about, many folk vote SNP purely on the issue of independence. Only after the first elections in an independent Scotland would the SNP have the authority to make decisions like this IMO.

IF Convenor

If you have a no nukes policy, like the SNP does, it would by hypocrisy to shelter under the nuclear umbrella of NATO. No nukes means no NATO.

SouthernJock

I think stating "the US doesnt have any clear direction, the Republicans haven't a clue as to what to do with Iraq now ", would actually be accuratly based on fact, as apposed to her state dept/westminster breifing (which ever route her briefing came from, it obviously originated in London).
I actually agree with your comments on NATO, it is an outmoded alliance which was borne out of the Cold war, having said that it should be noted that NATO has actually expanded beyond its 'North Atlantic' remit as it no empasses the former warsaw pact countries, such as Poland. NATO is in the process of re-inventing itself and become more involved in non-North Atlantic areas such as the releif effort in Pakistan (how more non-North Atlantic can you get) as well as helping the African Union in Darfur. They are also embarked upon there Partnership for Peace programe. Im not selling NATO, Im just pointing oit that Scotland could play a very important part in decision making. There is no point on being outside and criticising something, if you can be on the inside and help shaping up how actions are taken and decided upon. A bit like complaining about local or national government, if you decide that actually voting is a waste of time

neil8r

SouthernJock

SouthernJock

IF Convenor

NATO is a mutual defence alliance. If one member is attacked all members are pledged to defend. Three members have nuclear weapons. Therefore all members are under the nuclear umbrella.

SouthernJock

SLG

Avatar

I can see that NATO does take some positive actions, but shouldn't this be the UN's job? - It just seems to me that NATO is like the big boys club for western nations to throw their weight around and act hard.

Thats an interesting point that im sure has been raised before with regards to the SNP, they have quite a few policies which they cant enact until after independence, at which point they are supposed to call a general election and disband/ go there seperate ways anyway, so it does seem a bit pointless them having a policy for withdrawing from NATO anyway.

SouthernJock

IF Convenor

The only sensible option for major issues like membership of NATO (or the EU) is to set a timetable for debating the matter post-independence and then put it to a referendum.

However Scotland can do nothing about NATO or anything else until it is independent. Without independence we just have to accept whatever the majority of the UK decides for us.

Morph

That is true IF by the problem is that without clear policies on what the SNP plans to do about situations like Scotlands place in NATO and the EU before full independance it
1. Leaves the present unionists a slight tactic which could be used to sawy some voters that the SNP doesn't have a clear policy on some issues.
2. May lead to fracturing of the government over these issues after independance.
Therefore it may be in the interests of Scotland if clear policy was decided now

Avatar

"As for NATO being a big boys club for Western Nations, hardly fits with its current membership, which consists of Denmark (which is often used for a comparison with Scotland), Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Rep, Portugal, Poland, Turkey, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg...anyway you get the drift "

I would say they were all pretty westernised though, perhaps with the exception of Turkey. It just seems to undermine the point of the UN by giving America that legitimacy to go ahead and bomb people when they think that China or Russia will veto them if they try to go through the UN. For NATO to appeal to me it would have to include as many nations as possible, which again would just be the same as the UN or atleast similar enough to make it pointless.

Cado

what's the rational for withdrawing from NATO?

Financial? Possibly foreign policy associations? I understand that many see NATO as primarily a US organisation. However, leaving aside the US, about every Western Nation left is part of Nato. The antipodean nations have a separate association with the US. The French aren't part of it because they're, well, French. nuff said.

I can't understand why we wouldn't want to be part of NATO. Other than participating in the rather embryonic Eurocorp - something the US hates because they see it as a potential rival to NATO.

The US is without a doubt the most prominent member, thereafter it is primarily a European (and Canada) organisation.

Avatar

I wouldn't want Scotland to ally itself primarily with western nations - I'd prefer it if we took a more balanced approach in which we could forge better relations with countries like China, Iran, Cuba, Palestine, Russia etc - if these countries are as problematic as we are constantly told, we'll have a better chance of preserving peace by having "special relationships" with them in which we can act as mediators between them and the west - I'd certainly prefer going down that route and being the black sheep of the western nations, than falling in line with the rest and their smug superior attitudes. Its not likely that I'll see this happen but I can dream Smile

Cado

You forgot to add Venezuela to your wee list of potential future Allies Wink

SouthernJock

Avatar

"Realistically that would not happen, as any relationships with the mentioned countries would purely be in a UN context"

Why do you think that?

" I think a few things would have to change in Iran, before Scotland made that country its new best friend."

Their ex-president/whatever was over here just the other week.

"Im amused that you would think that Scotland would be the black sheep to western nations, on the contrary I think youll find that 90 odd percent of western nations would look forward to working with Scotland (the exceptions, may of course be Scotlands southern neighbour)
Scotland needs to have a mature atitude towards its relationship with the rest of the world, it doesnt need to be in the so called third world zone (Cuba, Palistine etc), but it can play its part in forging good relations with those countries as it would/should do with every other nation."

I agree im not saying we shouldn't form relations with other countries - but the concept of Joining NATO is basically like saying your in a gang and your allied against the enemies of western culture. The entire concept of certain nations being grouped into an "axis of evil" is a dangerous attitude to have and one which will only lead to more wars and terrorism. I would like to see an independent Scotland put one finger up to that attitude and try to lead via example a way in which modern countries can interact without the use of or perceived use of cultural imperialism.

Cado

A random thought I had a while back is that Scotland could opt to be neutral but still have a well trained professional force. I don't know how much money there is to be made from doing UN work but we could look to actively seek employment in UN roles - in return for hard cash of course. There's the possibility that the forces could end up being self-financing, they'd get plenty of experience. I can't see UN work drying up soon, quite the contrary in fact.

A professional force available for hire to serve any UN mandated mission....

Just a thought. Confused

Avatar

"A random thought I had a while back is that Scotland could opt to be neutral but still have a well trained professional force. I don't know how much money there is to be made from doing UN work but we could look to actively seek employment in UN roles - in return for hard cash of course. There's the possibility that the forces could end up being self-financing, they'd get plenty of experience. I can't see UN work drying up soon, quite the contrary in fact.

A professional force available for hire to serve any UN mandated mission....

Just a thought. Confused"

Thats an interesting point - isn't Ireland neutral and part of the UN? Im sure they have an army which very rarely leaves the country - do the UN offer concessions or payment for armies employed on peacekeeping missions? If they did to a point where the army would basically be self sufficient by going on UN tours that would be a great idea Cado.

IF Convenor

Scots mercenaries? A long-standing tradition.

Niall

A Chairadean mhath.

Personally I believe we should be neutral and model ourselves on the Swiss who have a very small professional Air force and Army but a large well trained militia. However this strategy does have its dangers. Scotland occupies a highly strategic area controlling much of the North Atlantic and my greatest fear is that the US Government will engineer 'regime change' in Scotland, possibly through force of arms. They have deposed 76 regimes so far, the only notable failure being Cuba. I don't trust America to stay out of our internal affairs as the Vice Consul has just demonstrated. She is parrotting the official Bush line. We have been warned.

Airson Alba!
Niall.

Cado

Can't see the US doing that. I'm sure many in positions of 'influence' have realised that the US's reputation internationally is mud, being 'anti-US' is quickly becoming quite a populist political cause the world over, including the West. To start overtly meddling in Western political affairs would just lead them to becoming total pariahs. They've only got one 'friend' that'll speak up for them at the moment, play too many games and they'll quickly find many Western nations actively speaking out against the US. The US also has many internal 'lobby' groups plus others who do have an attachment to the 'old-world', their roots basically. The 'Irish' lobby carries a lot of influence in the States.

Anyway, my point being that while US meddling in international affairs is semi-tolerated, meddling in the politics of fellow Western Nations would be a big no no IMO, because if they can meddle in one nations affairs, they'll could been seen to potentially graduate onto meddling in other Western nations internal affairs.

The US, politically, is pretty isolated as it is. Being blunt - but the US is a European product, historically - they are 'family' in a broader Western sense and fundamentally of the same heritage as Canada, Aus, NZ etc in having their origins in English speaking colonialists. The 'West' is their only natural ally in the world. They need to be building bridges with Europe and the West, not burning the last few that they have by trying to bend things in their favour simply because the present international political climate isn't that conducive to the present US administration.

SouthernJock

Cado

Avatar

Avatar

Interesting - I would have thought so also, hmm that's quite amazed me somewhat.