USA tries to interfere in Scottish independence debate

US consul questions wisdom of Scottish independence

By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor

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. [headline is misleading, probably is not a definite remark.] 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. [actually SNP policy is that they would leave] Would they be in the EU? They don’t know,” [again SNP policy is that they would remain in the EU] 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.” [the bill will be published within the first 100 days and the referendum will be held during the term of the parliament with a yes vote triggering independence]
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.” [It can be done.]
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’. [Obviously Ms Vickers doesn't listen as is obvious from her ill informed remarks- JOE]
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, [ah but this isn't reflected in the article what a shock!] the US is not thought to favour independence because it would involve the break-up of its main international ally. [There's the rub, the US know if Britain breaks up they can't count on a poodle to follow their bidding. An argument in favour of independence if ever there was one. - JOE]
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. [If that's the price of Scottish independence then good. This seat is not used in Scotland's interests in any shape or fashion anyway. JOE]

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 also waffled a lot of irrelevant tripe, as usual.