US Consul General questions wisdom of Scottish independence.

Economist

http://www.sundayherald.com/58917

THE US government has made a dramatic intervention into Scottish politics after a senior diplomat said the Bush administration would “probably” prefer independence not to happen.

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.

The official’s comments are controversial because independence looks set to be one of the key issues during next year’s Holyrood election campaign.

An opinion poll last week found a majority of Scots favoured breaking up Britain and revealed the SNP was ahead in the popular vote.

The Nationalists’ flagship policy is to hold a referendum on independence during their first four-year term in government. Their election hopes were boosted in recent weeks by a £100,000 donation from businessman Sir Tom Farmer and encouragement from the leader of Scotland’s Catholics, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who said he expected independence “before too long”.

But the independence debate has taken an unexpected turn in the light of the comments made by Vickers, the US government’s “voice” in Scotland.

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.”

Vickers also said the consequences of a “yes” vote in a plebiscite were unclear: “Even [the] referendum does not say definitely and conclusively, ‘if you vote for this referendum in this first 100 days, Scotland will be an independent nation again after a period of time’. That’s not what they are saying at all.”

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 US consul said: “I don’t think it’s nearly that simple. I don’t think you just wake up one morning and say ‘we are going to pull out of Nato’. It doesn’t work like that. There are just so many different questions that would have to be answered. I don’t believe there are any countries that have pulled out of Nato.”

Vickers also claimed Alex Salmond’s anti-Nato stance may not be “set in stone”. She said: “No good politician is going to tell you ‘this is absolutely what we are going to do’. They are going to tell you that ‘this may be what we would like to do, if it seems the prudent thing to do’.

On the future of US energy companies in a separate Scottish state, she said: “Would their situation change were Scotland independent?”

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.

Such constitutional change could diminish the UK’s case for staying in the G8 and weaken the argument for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

SNP leader Alex Salmond accused Vickers of “inexperience” and criticised her comments.

“I am sure the US consul doesn’t have to be reminded of diplomatic protocol. It’s a curious position to put so much stress on your own country’s self- determination, and not to think it is important for other people. Maybe it’s time for her to get out of the cocktail party circuit and around the country.

“We have had some good American consuls in the past. I am quite sure that once she gets up to speed, then she will know a bit more of Scottish politics.”

George Foulkes, the vice-chairman of Scottish Labour’s Holyrood election campaign, slammed the SNP’s defence policy.

“Most people in Scotland know that breaking up Britain would be bad for the economy and bad for jobs. They also know that the Nationalist position on Nato is frankly ludicrous. Leaving Nato would threaten thousands of jobs and leave Scotland isolated, exposed and vulnerable,” he said.

05 November 2006

Quite amazing actually if that is what she said - diplomats aren't supposed to say these things - they're supposed to be above party politics. Seems to me that strategic military interest would be the US's overriding concern come independence, and also gives more fuel to the idea that Scottish independence, may have negative consequences for the rump UK - in terms of defence and international affairs.

The Lithgae Jambo

That the Bush administration is against it may just be the reason for some to change for it - but I doubt it will change the minds of those who are already independently minded

Corby Boy

They know they would lose their staging post for the CIA.

Maol.Chaluim

macwea

I would take the Consul General's comments with a pinch of salt. It is simply the Bush Administration doing Blair a favour by trying to discredit the SNP. She has probably been instructed to make these comments. However, nothing will stop the tide of opinion in favour of Independence.

(Although she might have a point about NATO!)

It's time!

Avatar

Not to mention they wouldn't be able to fly their torture victims through our airports anymore..

We need a slogan like "home rule = rome rule" except like "Labour rule = washington rule" - but catchier.

Maol.Chaluim

Remember the news a while back about the possibilities of the Tories supporting a minority Labour administration at Holyrood?

Vote Tory, get Labour, vote Labour, get Bush...

wisnaeme

Aye weel, they wouldn't want a goverment in control that hasn't sold its-self to US diktats or high heid yins in a national goverment that doesn't automatically supinely prostrate themselves in the advancement of US global policy interests,would they?They've invaded countries or disposed of legitiment heads of state in independent nations by foul and unethical means before for daring to oppose US diktats and US policy in the recent past,Have they not?I believe some of those nations are still suffering from the result of US "benevolence" towards them, I don't think that you will find many folk in those affected nations that are thankful for such "benevolence" from an all powerful Foreign state that so savagely interferes in their internal affairs and in their daily lives. All in the name of helping them of course.

SLG

I don't think we can complain about this. The US are just looking after their own interests here, not Scotland's. She is not saying anything is bad for Scotland, just that they (the US) have issues to be resolved. I don't think this will have any impact, apart from mibee entrenching the feeling that we should decide for ourselves.

IF Convenor

Jack McConnell, the flea on the rump of Bush's poodle.

garye

Can we not get Bush himself to comment? A few "wise" Laughing

words from him and we'd have folk flocking to the cause!