USA concerned over aggressively neutral Scotland!

Do I really need to make any more comment?


http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-us-concern-over-aggressively-neutral-scotland-1-2209877

A veteran US Congressional defence analyst recently suggested that an “aggressively neutral” independent Scotland “might not be too good” for American defence.

Robert L Goldich, who served for over 33 years as a defence analyst for the Congressional Research Service at the US Library of Congress, queried whether “a disintegrating United Kingdom” would continue to be a reliable defence partner for the US.

When you also read in the article The Carnegie Endowment, the oldest international affairs think-tank in the United States, was founded by Dunfermline-born Scottish-American industrialist Andrew Carnegie in 1910 to “hasten the abolition of war”. (my bolding.)

Its present board of trustees includes former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan.

It does make one wonder if it has ever met any of its stated aims ....but I'll bet those who have been sitting there for decades, NOT hastening the abolition of war, have become satisfactorily rich while beating their gums.

Heck, since 1910, there has been nothing but war somewhere in the world......and the UN has sat on their collective hands and done nothing at all about the proliferation of nuclear weapons by countries the USA likes...and countries the USA feels are too big to stand up against.

Much better aggressive neutrality, whatever that means (likely means we won't do as we're told) than out and out aggression for resources and influence which is much more likely to hasten the end of the world as we know it than the abolition of war.

What has it to do with the USA what Scotland does anyway re defence...it is an internal UK matter.

 

Yeah, this is pretty silly.

Scotland isn't really aiming for independence anyway. Even if you separate from the UK, you're still subject to the EU.

 

The problem generally with american reactions to foriegn relations. They are based in ignorance.

But scotland will never be neutral.

Those dumb bastards don't have a clue what to do. If they do split, they beg the EU for handouts. The same as Ireland did before.

 

LOL, yeah right... a tiny third world country with the population of 5 million people becoming "aggressively neutral"? No one will notice, not even the UK, let alone the US.

 

I'd be surprised if we stayed in the EU if we get a vote on it.

I'd rather go with EFTA, at least I would just now, but with two years to go, who knows.....but I get the impression from all I have read that it is harder to remove a country from the EU than it is to prise a UK PM's tongue from the behind of a US President, so I'd guess we will pretty well automatically be a member on independence whether we want to be or not.

I also get the impression that both Scotland and the rUK will have to renegotiate their terms...which I guess is fair enough, given the UK didn't get accepted in the first place until they handed Scotland's fishing waters over........and they won't still have them as a sweetener for the Spaniards etc.

While I am anti the EU, and have always been, I do sometimes wonder what Independence in the modern world is believed to mean.....I see it as the ability to make our own choices for ourselves, according to our needs and aspirations....and that includes the ability to choose for ourselves our alliances with other countries, or none, and whether we will even attempt to join international entities. For the last 305 years, we have been able to chose nothing for ourselves bar to emigrate and become citizens of other countries..as we did in large numbers from 1707.

 

You think? signed dumb bastard!

What handouts did Ireland beg for, out of interest?

Would that be the same kind of begging the UK did to get its IMF loan in 1976?

 

Sure, it is a big bad world out there. And the uk can just manage to survive. Scotland is dreaming if the majority view is. To seperate and somehow keep afloat.

Scotland need massive aid. But the independance has never been realistic. It is based in emotional history and not raw reality.

To be honest. I plagerised the above comment ^ from an episode of Question Time on the BBC. From a politician i forget the name of. As he was speaking down to a SNP Scot.

Still it is true then and now.

 

Mr Carnegie made most of his money from selling over priced steel to the US military.

If the Scots do gain their independence(I doubt they will as most Scots are against it) they should be against the Americans at every turn so they do not get dragged into anymore mindless butchery of poor people around the world for American business concerns.

 

From the article it sounded like Goldich was more generally referring to a UK breakup.

 

So an “aggressively neutral” independent Scotland “might not be too good” for American defence. and queried whether “a disintegrating United Kingdom” would continue to be a reliable defence partner for the US. is more generally referring to a UK break-up? Reads as quite specific to me.

It's all about the USA, USA interests, the US warmongering machine and the US economy......but why on earth should the USA even think that the good of the USA has first......or any place in our considerations?

Hard to believe that the aspirations of a wee country of 5 million people can generate such a furore when you consider that other countries over the years, particularly since WWII, have become independent encouraged by the USA. Couldn't possibly be double standards as in breaking up the USSR hegemony good..breaking up the USA hegemony bad.......could it?

 

I don't think you understand how defense planning works. The U.S. isn't really that concerned with Scotland becoming Independent. As defense planners, their job is to analyze all possible situations. They've decided that an independent Scotland could mean that one of the U.S.'s most important allies would be less capable in a wartime situation. I.e. all the territory in Scotland that could be used for airbases etc. as well as the millions of people and extra revenue generated by Scotland might no longer "support" the U.K. in war. It's like if California broke off from the U.S. The U.S. would be militarily hurt because it'd be losing 100 million citizens, billions of dollars in revenue, and some key bases. The U.K. is an important ally of the U.S. and thus Scotland figures into defense planning (even if only on paper). The U.S. has contingency plans for all kinds of possible scenarios. Up until the mid-20th century they even had plans to invade Canada and Mexico. Many wars that break out are unexpected. Military experts are paid to envision every single scenario and how it could affect a war. All countries do this.

 

And did they broadcast the intentions of discussing those contingency plans all over the media ahead of discussing them...so the press in those countries could write articles putting their own spin on them? Is that how defence planning works in the USA?

The "Friends of Scotland" in the USA, have got in on the act as well....saying The geopolitical ramifications on US foreign and economic policy, and the impact on our national security strategy of an independent Scotland have not been well aired in the USA,” an advance notice states. “Before coming to power, the Scottish National Party long called for a neutral Scotland, on the model of the Republic of Ireland, to include Scottish withdrawal from NATO and the removal of nuclear submarines from their base at Faslane, in western Scotland. What would be the impact for the US if these things were to happen?” With "Friends" like that, who needs enemies?

I don't much care what the impact for the US would be if these things were to happen. Why should I care, particularly as the US doesn't seem to care that the Unionist media jumps on anything they can spin into a Unionist position and use it to scare the Scots? Bad enough that the Unionist media comes up with worst case scenarios with regular monotony without other countries sticking their oars publicly into something which will not concern them until and if it happens? But maybe they are doing it just to put pressure on the Scots undecided vote in support of the UK.

Forward planning and discussion in private is one thing....putting into the public domain that you are doing the forward planning is another thing altogether. And I'm prepared to bet that the results of all this discussion will be out there in the Unionist media for all to read as well...and the appropriate Unionist spin put on it as usual.

The only countries involved in the Independence Referendum discussions and arguments are the UK and Scotland..the rest of the world can make all the contingency plans they like....but until there is a decision, keep the plans to yourselves and butt out of the discussions.

 

A very ignorant post, particularly the last sentence. This is a site where foreigners quite rightly set forth their views on the United States of America. That is quite right on a number of levels, not least because Americans are our fellow human beings. The same must be true when Americans comment on Scotland, or any other nation. In fact, that they do is a thoroughly good thing, which marks out a vital phenemenon - American public interest in the world which they dominate.

What was it Burns said?

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

You can always rely on Burns to refute narrow Tartan Tory nationalist tub thumping. And it's quite right that anyone, from any country, can contribute to the debate and interplay of ideas concerning any other country.

What's more, why should not Americans have a view on Scottish independence? Scotland, through the United Kingdom, is currently an ally of the USA. The cessation of Scotland from NATO would be an act which would have a negative impact on that alliance and all its members. This is not difficult to see, if it is easy to overstate. As alliances benefit both sides, Americans are quite entitled to establish quid pro quo measures for this, such as different rules on Visa entry to the USA than those that apply to other UK citizens, or other measures that penalize Scots and acknowledge the looser relationship that an independent Scotland might seek. Americans are entitled to protect their interests if Scottish nationalists threaten them.

I am quite sympathetic in principle to devolution, even if I am viscerally opposed to nationalism. Generally people's self interest is best served through cooperation, not division. Good fences do NOT make good neighbours, as Robert Frost knew very well. This debate in Scotland underlines the puerility of the nationalist cause as every time an issue like this is raised the Tartan Tories jump up and down with outrage that there should be any cost or unwelcome outcome to their hateful anti-English campaign (which it resembles the more and more you watch it). Let's be honest, why is Scottish nationalism a modern phenomenon? Where were the Scottish nationalists in 1848, for example, when nationalism as a liberation philosophy was at its height? The answer was that Scots were off building the United Kingdom and the British Empire. Scotland, aside from the Highland Clearances which were largely effected by Scots on Scots, has never been a real victim of any English "imperialism". It's a modern myth. Burns again:

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

Some thick as a brick Scots think that Burns was talking about the English nation, when it is clear that the rogues were all his fellow countrymen.

Scottish nationalism in its current extreme form throws up some important questions now: the self determination of the Orkney and Shetlands; the break up of the BBC, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Armed Forces and other "British" institutions whereby Scots should cease to benefit from being citizens of a country with 60 million (as opposed to 5 million) people. If Scottish people want their independence, then that is their right. But as the consequences of this political immaturity become apparent, and what once was mainly anti English hubris becomes less comfortable as the whisky wears off, Scottish people can jump up and down and tell anyone they like to "mind their own business" like any redneck reactionary in America would too. We shall continue to ignore such nonsense and say whatever we like.

 

Deliberately misrepresenting my position again, Heroclitus? A very ignorant reading of my post. I have no problem with individuals on forums or anywhere giving opinions, because I can respond to those opinions. I did not say that IgnoranceisBliss, or any other individual in this thread should butt out...did I?

I said that opinion forming organisations, talking shops, quangos, governments etc in other countries considering only the other countries' interests should butt out of the independence referendum until it becomes something which has anything to do with them....not that they are not entitled to their opinions within their own talking shops, but because they are able to get those opinions on a possible scenario into the media as "news"....when it is nothing of the sort.

It is bad enough that the UK media is stapped full of the opinion pieces of "important in their own minds" individuals masquerading as news, on both sides of the independence divide, and extremely short on accurate facts and figures, particularly on the Unionist side, without opinion pieces emanating from quasi-official, perceived official or official mouthpieces in countries furth of the UK. Until the referendum has taken place and a result has been decided, "news" about the possible ramifications of the effect of a vote for Scottish independence on other countries or international organisations, before negotiations have started with the rUK on divorce...is nothing more than just another opinion piece, with as much validity as "news" as your opinion or mine on here.

<Response to bit I have bolded>

Do they....or are they only jerking Unionist chains?

Burns was certainly referring to the 110 individuals of the Scottish voting elite who voted for the Union......every Scot knows that, even though they may not be prepared to accept it. Must irritate the crap out of the English as much as the thick as a brick English people (and foreigners) who say England and English when referring to GB the UK and every person within the UK borders irritates the crap out of us.

<response to the rest>

Sure Americans as individuals have a right to their view, as I have a right to mine. I refer you to my response above to the quoted first paragraph of your post. The time to use pressure is in negotiations when there has been a decision....before that it can be perceived as threats designed to influence Scottish opinion in favour of the Union.

Scottish Nationalism is not a modern phenomenon.It was formed as a result of the unifying of disparate groups and tribes to fight the English attempts to conquer Scotland...and has never gone away. It is why there were popular riots against the Union and why the Scots in Westminster, very shortly after the Union, tried to vote themselves out of the Union having realised the mistake they had made. They only lost by 4 votes, by the way, so English nationalism was still alive and kicking then as well.

As the Royal Burghs of Scotland said in 1707, forecasting what has happened since Seeing, by the articles of Union, now under the consideration of the Honourable Estates of Parliament, it is agreed that Scotland and England shall be united into one kingdom; and that the united kingdoms be united by one and the same Parliament, by which our monarchy is suppressed, our parliament extinguished, and in consequence our religion, church government, claim of right, laws, liberties, trade and all that is dear to us, daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English In a British Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the interest reserved by us, or granted to us by the English.

You are aware, I assume, that we need never have come to this pass? The Scots tried to discuss a federal Union with England in the mid 1640s, but that would have meant England not being in sole charge of everything, so the discussions never came to anything.

Scottish nationalism as a political rather than an ongoing visceral aspiration is certainly a more modern phenomenon...but then so is modern politics, universal voting and the Labour Party..and it was the radicals in Scotland who grew political Nationalism, but radicals of all political opinions with just one unifying raison d'etre...what was believed to be best for the Scottish people and Scotland.

The Tartan Tory epithet was a construct of the left wing parties when the SNP started making inroads on the Scottish vote and overturned Labour majorities in bye-elections in 1945 and 1967 in Glasgow.....they had to be Tartan Tories because they beat Labour..because until then, only the Tories ever had...smacks of American Republicans calling any social democrat or liberal a Communist, doesn't it?

What nobody in England has ever got their heads around is that it could have been any political party at that time with Tartan in front of the name and what Scotland wanted at the forefront of their minds. nothing to do with being Tory or right wing...more to do with a Labour Party which voted Party and not people. It was the Scottishness that got them their votes, not their political orientation, which only became clear anyway after William Wolfe became leader of the Party in 1969. He changed a marginalised, disorganised group of people, embracing politics of all shades from a' the airts with one shared aspiration, into a left of center social-democratic party. Not many of them in the UK today, is there?

I should think that the Scottish Nationalists of 1848 were doing the same as the English and Welsh Nationalists of 1848...earning a living. If you are sneering at the fact that Scotland didn't rise up against the Union and get large swathes of the population left after Culloden and the Clearances killed.....then sneer away. It is what too many English people do best.

Certainly much of the Clearances was inflicted on Scots by Scots...nobody who knows their Scottish history can deny that...but equally, nobody who knows Scottish history can deny, either, that the Clearances and where we are now in 2012 has been the result of UK Government actions from the time of the Union, in relation to Scotland, which are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as unfair, inequitable and on occasion deliberately anti-Scottish. And perception is all. It is what forms opinions, beliefs..and politics. Given imperialism is defined as The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations....care to explain to me the difference between the relationship between England and Scotland in the Union and English Imperialism?

 

Continued from above

What current extreme form? The only extreme form of Nationalism in the UK is that practiced by the BNP and the EDl...one titularly British and the other English. How can trying to claim the right, in a peaceful political process, to govern our own country without external interference by another nation, as so many other countries have done over the years (most of those getting out from under the UK's thumb as well, btw,) be termed extreme?

The self-determination of the Orkney and Shetland Islands is a lib-Dem construct to muddy waters at present. Tavish Scott, Lord Thurso and LibDem MSPs are not the Orkneys and Shetlands..or have I missed something?

The Orkneys and Shetlands are part of Scotland. If Scotland votes for Independence, they will come with us. If, after that,they decide that they would prefer to secede from Scotland and throw in their lot with another country, then that would be their prerogative, just as it is ours now regarding the Union. I should think, if they do secede, it would be more likely to form an alliance with one of the Scandinavian Countries than with the rUK, though....maybe the Faroes on the same terms as they enjoy under Denmark....or they could vote for a return to their Norwegian origins. It would depend on what they voted for in a referendum specifically dealing with their future..wouldn't it? Maybe they'd be happy to stay with Scotland if they got what was proposed for Scotland in the 1989 Labour and LibDem supported Scottish Consitutional Convention deliberations.....but which had been thrown out of the window by Labour before 1999 and devolution.

The break up of the BBC, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Armed Forces and other "British" institutions are matters for negotiation between the Governments of both countries if the vote is for Independence. Undoubtedly the thinking from Scotland on that and other issues will become clear over the next couple of years..and then at least there will be something to discuss....because, to date not one person in the press, on forums, on various pro-Unionist/anti-independence internet sites has managed to come up with one thing Scotland gets that they want, through being part of a Union that they could not achieve as an independent country. You got anything?

Being part of a Union of 60 million as opposed to an independent country of 5 million is certainly not a benefit if all you get from it is stuff you don't want because you are outnumbered 9 to 1 in the body which makes laws, apportions revenues and is in control of everything.

Heck, Heroclitus....stop your foot-stamping and pouting. You are not, I assume, a quasi-official, semi-official, official representative of any government or international organisation...in which case, carry on. If, however, you are a quasi-official, semi-official, official representative of any government or international organisation, then butt out until it is time for you to butt in...though when that time comes, you really shouldn't be butting in through the media but directly with the representatives of an Independent Scotland.

Can you really not differentiate between people as individuals having opinions and people with power, or who think they have power, having opinions but publicising those opinions under the auspices of some entity or another as if they were news,and not just more conjecture from a basis of no knowledge, which then gets promulgated in the media with the appropriate spin placed on it?

 

You can't possibly think an independent Scotland is generating a furor in the US? Maybe around the Scottish desk at the State Department, but otherwise, it's a very small, minor matter in terms of the US and the world.

 

Scottish independence is the worst thing that could happen to the UK. It's a complete distraction from real issues like rising food prices and a decaying economy. A new Scottish nation-state, like with most nationalist schemes, is designed solely for the benefit of the elite. Those who are already in leadership positions will now be in charge of their own government. Yay! Meanwhile, normal citizens in both England and Scotland bear the brunt of insanely high living costs and ridiculously high taxes.The UK needs a new deal and dividing until there's nothing left is not the way to get it.

 

Nope.the worst thing that could happen to the UK happens every election nowadays when we get a right wing/right of centre Government whoever we vote for.

All politics are are designed solely for the benefit of politicians. If the state gets the odd decent law as they are collecting their salaries, claiming their expenses, cosying up to the USA, preening themselves on the world stage and generally self-massaging their over-inflated egos then we are lucky......usually we just get party dogma translated into bad law because party is more important than people.

Normal citizens in Scotland already bear the brunt of insanely high living costs and insanely high taxes to fund the transport improvements to London, its sewer system, the London Olympics, illegal wars, Trident in Scotland, the atrocious MOD money wasting procurement (and scrapping before being brought into service) department, 1000+ Quangos, failed computer systems, the proliferation of pointless windmills to add to private profits for various people.......the list goes on.

There will likely, in an Independent Scotland be just as much incompetence (I have little faith in politicians), and we will likely continue throwing up pointless windmills, (at least up to the level already in scoping process up here where we will then have one windmill for every 35 people in the counties of Caithness and Sutherland......as far away from where the production is needed as it is possible to get without filling the Scottish islands)..but all our taxes will be spent in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland's 5 million and not in Westminster for the benefit of the UK's 60 million..and spent on what we want to meet our aspirations and not on what a UK Government wants so it can continue to swagger the world punching above its weight because we are carrying its boxing gloves.

We won't be dividing the UK until there is nothing left...we will, hopefully, be removing a third of the UK landmass and 5 million people from UK control. There has been 305 years for the UK to come up with a new deal..one which will satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people......and we have had 305 years of tinkering around the edges giving back to Scotland as little as the UK Government can get away with, while still ensuring control from Westminster. We are where we are today because Westminster is still where it was in 1707. Simple.

 

Well, I don't get the whole Neutral thing. It's not going to change much. I do think it's bad for Great Britain to tear that nation apart -- I don't think there are even many grievences as Scotland was never conquered as Ireland was. What do you have against them? Or do you just want to wear kilts more often?

 

The neutral thing is a problem for the rest of the UK, because a neutral Scotland is a nuclear weapon free Scotland......and as Scotland hosts Trident for the UK at the moment, the UK's ticket to play with the big boys won't have a home after independence. Without Trident, it seems, the rest of the UK becomes &#8220;a disintegrating United Kingdom&#8221; and it has been wondered if it would continue to be a reliable defence partner for the US.

Great Britain isn't doing any tearing..unless you are going to cite the animosity being engendered daily by Unionist politician and media posturing and stupidity as an attempt to tear apart any chance of being neighbours who get on. And there isn't a British nation, there are members of three nations who live on the island of Great Britain...not the same thing at all.

One of the grievances is the fact that we were never conquered like Wales and Ireland......but you'd never know that given we are dealt with as if we had been. We have currently less devolution than Northern Ireland. What I have against them? The Government and the fact that it is a unitary state and not a federal one.

Scotswomen don't wear kilts unless they are Highland Dancing or in a Pipe Band.

 

To be fair, the United States has NATO treaty obligations involved in this. There are legitimate grounds for US consideration and input into this matter.

 

Please explain to me what Trident in the UK has to do with the USA NATO Treaty obligations?

 

I suppose the Scotland Act was nothing. If you think that nationalism is such a good cure for the woes of Scotland's 5 million maybe you should consider that the rules of nationalism dictate that Westminster is not obligated to give Scotland a thing and what it does have was given to it by pandering Labour Government. England has most of the industry, population, and the wealth. If England was given its own parliament or assembly it would make the Westminster parliament totally irrelevant yet the English nation, despite being the dominant force in the isles for centuries, doesn't have its own representation nor should it have. But other regions think that nationalism and disintegration will somehow magically solve everything. All it'll do is make economic inequalities more prolific.

If Scottish nationalists are so concerned about the state of the UK and their region perhaps they should reflect for a while and remember that they live in a representative democracy where Scottish MPs sit in the UK parliament and make decisions for England (and the whole UK) which English MPs, because of the devolution arrangement, can't make for Scotland. If that doesn't comfort them maybe they should think about the fact that they have one of the most robust devolution settlements in the whole country when they are a tiny percentage of it.

 

You are quite correct, the Scotland Act was nothing. It was a token gesture to try and stave off the growing desire in Scotland for more control over their own lives. Heck, Northern Ireland has more control over its finances than Scotland was allowed in 1998.

I don't think nationalism is the cure for Scotland's woes...I think democracy is.......but it has only ever been the SNP who has recognised that there was a desire growing in Scotland to be able to have Scottish solutions to Scottish problems...because they think Scottish and not Union.

What rules of nationalism? Care to elucidate? I've never heard of them.

England could have had its own Parliament at any time. It has always been the English MPS who set their faces against it..nobody else. At the time of devolution the English regions were offered devolution, which was rather insulting to the nations in the UK...not just those nations which were being treated the same as English regiions....but to the English nation which was deemed as not being as much a nation as the other three so not entitled to be treated the same.

The Westminster Government does not give away power...ever...and perhaps it is about time the English nation realised that......the Unionist government has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the stage in which concessions, bit by bit and extremely reluctantly conceded, are the least worst option for them. The English people who don't like the current situation, however, have the problem that, unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they do not have any political party focused only on the good of the English people and fighting for political change. Westminster governments have always been too intent on implementing party dogma to listen to the voices of the people.

The first past the post election system is certainly representative....but not of democracy. It is, however representative of two parties sharing the spoils and ensuring that only the voters in marginal seats decide the government for the whole country. It also marginalises third parties and those who vote for them. I can see, under FPTP, hung Parliaments becoming more common.....and then it will not be the voters who decide the Government, as they did not this time, but the politicians in darkened rooms. Democracy....when nobody got what they voted for?

A robust devolution settlement? View attachment 12011 Define robust.

 

Here's an idea that probably sounds a little weird, but I wonder if it's feasible. If Scotland truly became independent and stayed out of both the EU and the UK, would they still be able to use the pound as their official currency?

I know they'd likely still use it in the beginning anyway, but staying with it seems fairly wise when considering that the pound is faring better than the Euro. It would also be easier than setting up your own currency.

Granted, it does somewhat defeat the purpose of independence.