Foreign Policy
National Security
-
Leadership
A Silver Bullet to Solve Sexual Assaults
-
War Dogs
Postcard from Bagram
-
Obama
The Neo-Nixonian Presidency
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - 5:33 AM
Share
By Robert L. Goldich
Best Defense bureau for Celtic secessionism
Remember when the main character in the movie Braveheart, loosely, really loosely, based on the Scottish chieftain and military leader William Wallace, shouted "Freedom!" at the top of his lungs? Although the real Wallace defeated the English in 1297 at Stirling Bridge, he was captured in 1305 and hanged (but not until he was dead), drawn (four horses pulling his body apart in different directions) and quartered (just what it sounds like) for "treason" by the English.
It probably won't come to that in the early 21st Century. But a more formidable successor to Mel Gibson exists in the person of Alex Salmond, the current First Minister of Scotland, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and its majority in the Scottish Parliament. Just about everybody in the United Kingdom seems to agree, whether they like him and his policies or not, that Mr. Salmond is an extraordinarily astute, charismatic, and dynamic political leader. He is currently engaged in a high-stakes interaction with the British Government and its political leadership to have a referendum, sometime in the next couple of years, on whether or not Scotland should leave the United Kingdom and become an independent country.
Well. As with all such disputes, it arises for domestic reasons which need not concern the United States and those responsible for, and interested in, U.S. foreign and national security policy. We may not be able to affect the process overtly, and doing so would almost certainly be counterproductive. But that doesn't mean that some very important questions need to be asked about what the implications of Scottish independence would be for US national defense. Let's start with general issues.
First, Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom since 1707, when the "Act of Union" was enacted by Parliament. That alone means something. What would it say to American policymakers if our closest ally, one with whom we have been linked in peace and war since we entered World War I in 1917, suddenly broke apart after over 300 years of political unity? What would it say about the internal cohesion of whatever rump UK remained after Scotland left? Would Wales -- which, arguably, has much more linguistic and cultural differentiation from England than Scotland -- be next? Would moves for Northern Ireland's independence from the UK, and union with the Republic of Ireland, be re-energized, with possible attendant violence? Or, more broadly, would a disintegrating United Kingdom be considered as reliable a partner?
There are some more pointed questions that American policymakers might start thinking about. Mr. Salmond has on occasion stated that he favors having the UK retain control over foreign and defense policy, but this scarcely squares with his also stated desire to eventually have all nuclear weapons -- that is, British ones -- out of Scotland, and his stated support for establishment of a "Scottish defense force" that would include the Scottish regiments of the British Army. (As a fair chunk of the enlisted soldiers, and most of the officers, of Scottish regiments, aren't Scottish, this might not work out too well, but I digress.)
What would be the foreign policy of an independent Scotland, as it appears that Mr. Salmond in fact wants to have his own defense policy? Would it join NATO? How much, if at all, would it cooperate with the armed forces of a truncated United Kingdom? With the armed forces of other Western democracies, including, but not limited to, those of the United States? Would it cooperate with the British intelligence services in the maintenance of internal security against terrorism in the British Isles? Would it cooperate with other countries' intelligence services, including those of the United States? Would it look more leniently on the presence of embassies and diplomatic representatives, and their activities, from anti-American and anti-Western states such as North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela? Mr. Salmond and his Scottish Nationalist Party, and the dominant political culture in Scotland, is quite far to the Left, for a variety of internal reasons that don't matter here. This doesn't augur well for a positive answer to any of these questions. It suggests that we have to consider that, a la the Republic of Ireland, Scotland might well be aggressively neutral, and avoid involvement all kinds of Euro-Atlantic collective security agreements that have been so important in maintaining European stability since 1945.
Finally, what would Scottish independence, and what it implies about the long-term political stability of the UK, say to American economic interests? To Americans, Great Britain is not, say, velvet-divorced Czechoslovakia, and certainly not Doonesbury's Brzrkrstan. It is viewed as a bedrock of political stability that underlies a willingness to invest in a country. It could scarcely be considered such if Scotland left it. Moreover, Mr. Salmond has made all kinds of statements about the need for an independent Scotland's economic policy to shift sharply to the Left, not something guaranteed to invite foreign investment.
The people of the current United Kingdom will ultimately decide, one way or another, actively or passively, about Scottish independence. But that doesn't mean that Americans don't have a strategic stake in it. Scottish independence may or may not be a good idea for Great Britain as it is currently constituted. But there are good reasons for us to think that it might not be too good for us.
It is my understanding that with hung, drawn, and quartered, the intend was to hang a person carefully so as not to kill them, or perhaps hang them in a cage for several days. Then drawing was to carefully slit them open from neck down so they are disembowled, next they were quartered, a horse was tied to each limb and whipped into bolting in different directions.
... currently going on in the world, you'd suppose that inventing crises should be considered an unattainable luxury. One can imagine the Wales if yet another portion should wish to go its own way.
Drawn: Conveyed to the gallows. Hanged, or half-hanged. Quartered. "The saw please, Joe Bloggs."
Braveheart may have been hung, but alas, his size and circumference are both unknown.
You are dead wrong to state, 'Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom since 1707' - the UK was CREATED by the Treaty of Union in 1707 between the 2 sovereign States of Scotland & England.
As for all the 'Would it?' questions posed by Mr Goldich, these are hypotheticals that are as meaningless as asking if the US would do X/Y/Z after the upcoming Presidential elections.
What we do know is that a free sovereign Scotland would be a good friend of the US and would play a full part in regional European security matters. And as for this nonsense of Scotland drifting off to the Left - it is SNP policy to use the full kit bag of sovereign economic powers to INCREASE Scotland's competitiveness, such as slashing Corporation tax in order to encourage further inward investment. And yes, the SNP has what to American perceptions are 'left' social policies, but with the greatest respect, that is of no business of anyone outside Scotland.
Please. Scotland has been part of the UK since it was created in 1707. The sentence is still true when you drop the "it was created in" part. If anything, the fact that Scotland was part of it from its inception just strengthens the claim that if Scotland leaves the whole union will fall apart.
Taking away Scotland was seriously harm England's military strength. Scotland may or may not be a "friend" but it won't compensate for the immediate effects of weakening NATO. Dismissing this and other potential harms as "hypotheticals" is irrational. You can't make decisions like this without considering the consequences, and changes in the balance of power always have consequences. You're also completely inconsistent when you insist on dismissing the negative "hypotheticals" but then act absolutely certain of the positives.
And, lastly, it's not just "Scotland's business." Not all Scots want independence, there are non-Scots in Scotland, and the exact divisions of any ethnic or nationalist group are almost always unclear. If every single person on the North of the island agreed completely, then that would be one thing. But there are going to be winners and loosers regardless of what happens, both domestically and internationally.
ZT, it doesn't matter what impact Scotland dissolving the Union will have on England's military strength. We are not going to stay in an 'abusive marriage' just to satisfy the armchair generals among you.
We have a word in Scotland that describes you people perfectly: Numpties!
It is the country we live in, and it will be for the people who live here to decide. I am not going to sit back and let the Numpties in London; the capital of a foreign country, continue to govern us without respect, fairness or equality.
Yes, there will be losers, but if Scotland decides, then that is simply democracy at work, or is democracy only for other people?
And what do you suppose we are going to do with non-Scots? Do you think we are going to pack them on trains to England? The people who live here will continue to live here if they so choose. Ours is a civic nationalism and not the ethnic variety. The SNP has many people with origins outside of Scotland, including many English people. That's the kind of people we are: Internationalists!
You really need to do your research before putting finger to keyboard.
The answers of many of these questions are known
It is official policy of the SNP and backed by Salmond for an independent Scotland to withdraw from NATO. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/02/13/snp-deny-claims-they-may-drop-opposition-to-independent-scotland-joining-nato-86908-23746794/
Scotland makes up 5% or so of the UK's GDP. I know what to make of the idea that any American company is going to decide "oh, well, I'm going to skip out on the UK now" because the size of its economy has gone from being the 6th largest in the world to being the . . . 6th largest in the world.
Who can fault the concept of self-determination? It seems a logical way to define the political boundaries of a state. If Scotland is willing to give up the massive subsidy (about £35 billion) that the English vote it each year then I suppose that is their right. Alex Salmond wants Scotland out of NATO but also demands that London give assurances won’t pull its naval construction out of Scotland.
Self-determination is a wonderful thing and means a people can do as they please unless you are a Falkland Islander (virtually 100% British) in which case Sean Penn while touring Argentina says you don’t count.
Re this article, it is not the people of the UK that will decide on Scottish independence; it will be the people of Scotland.
As for this nonsense about English subsidies; what planet are you on? Scotland contributes more to the Westminster Treasury than it gets back. 8.4% of the population and 9.4% of the UK's revenue supply, at a conservative estimate. Keep up and do some research! Where is your proof? Are you aware of GERS? Did you see the report in last Sunday's Times? This will help clear your head.
Alex Salmond made no demands re the naval construction in Scotland. In fact, he has made no comments on it at all. All the nonsense has come from the Unionist camp.
British Naval contracts are open to tender, and are legally bound by law to be so. After the dissolution of the Treaty of Union, Scottish yards, I imagine, will be able to tender for English naval contracts, and vice-versa. It would make sense for the English tax payer to get value for money, with the most competitive bid.
Further, the assets of the UK don't belong to England. Consequently, the pound sterling is not English, or the Bank of England, or the navy, the army or the air force, or the Houses of Parliament and the real estate of government infrastructure, etc.
As for Scotland becoming a potential 'enemy'of England or the USA, just because we intend to stay out of Nato is just plain stupid. Some people really need to grow up and rid themselves of this armchair colonial attitude.
We are not a colony to be bought and sold. We are not some strategic plaything of the USA and England, and we will decide our future path.
And we will do fine. Really; we'll be ok!
...an exercise in futile self-determination? Apparently Lincoln found fault with the concept (as well as habeus corpus) and he ended up with a large monument.
The UK political, governmental and legal system(s) make my head hurt almost as much as the US Republican primary. However, it is interesting to watch the former British Empire's decline in a mere 70 years. Perhaps there are lessons there for the US.
The zen of executing British traitors
Hanging, drawing and quartering for this offense was introduced about half a century after William Wallace's execution, and drawing, contrary to Mr Goldich's belief, had nothing to do with horses. This execution style was to hang the convicted fellow by the neck until he was barely conscious, then hang him up again by his wrists from an inclined ladder or hurdle so his body wouldn't swing as he and the cheering crowd could see some government official slash into his guts, cut out his bowels, display them to all and throw them on a fire. This tended to have a fatal effect. After then, what was left of the traitor was quartered. The word "draw" still means to extract the viscera. Deer hunters and housewives with chickens still do it.
Mr Wallace was hanged, then beheaded, then drawn, then quartered. His head was displayed in London and the rest of his body traveled to far parts of the island. Since he was headless when drawn, Mr Gibson's dramatics during the execution scene seem somewhat awry.
So also are internal relations in the United Kingdom at present. The British prime minister, Mr Cameron, tells the Scots they may not have a referendum about independence until he grants permission for it. (He seems to offer no certainty that any such permission will ever be granted.) In Edinburgh, Mr Salmond tells the newspapers that Mr Cameron's views about this are irrelevant.
Is the Pentagon drawing up plans to send in SOF in the near future to resolve this matter? Like Mr Goldich, I hope not, but who can say. Will relations between London and Edinburgh turn to armed violence? Again like Mr Goldich, I think not, but I do say this: if the time comes, chances are good that American television viewers will find it hard to understand any Scots patriots who appear in the evening news, Syrian style, to demand that American arms or forces be sent to help the Scots "freedom forces." Some of those Scottish accents defeat even most Englishmen -- and perhaps some other Scots as well.
Will the Unionists of truncated Ulster remain true to the UK if their brethren in Scotland make the break?
The SNP's vision of an independent Scotland doesn't involve the disUK having any say over Scottish defence or foreign policy. But it does involve the UK nuclear deterrent leaving Scotland, although the time scale may be open to compromise. Irish-style neutrality is not on the cards. If the SNP are - for now anyway - disinclined to join NATO, they have said positive things about the Partnership for Peace and the Libyan intervention. And we have it on good authority - Mr Salmond said so on TV - that the hypothetical defence forces of an independent Scotland would participate in similar operations in the future.
Good riddance? Well, that’s the view of one hell of a lot of English Conservatives who are frankly fed up with Scottish whining and bellyaching and relish expunging all those ‘dour’ Scottish Labour and Liberal MP's from the hallowed halls of Westminster.
Can’t hardly blame them because the numbers are pretty stark. Scotland has been a drain on the national budget receiving roughly £1,644 more in public spending per capita than English residents (England is £7,535 per person, while in Scotland it is £9,179). Additionally, Scotland’s two major banks have required massive bailouts paid for largely by English taxpayers.
Please, such idiotic statements
Lets have some hard facts, such as, the fact that Scotland contribute more inrevenues TO the UK Treasury, than it actually gets back in the shape of the block grant.
The myth that Scotland is subsidised was blown away ages ago!
Secondly 'Scotland's two major banks' Royal Bank of Scotland, headquartered in Edinburgh, but its investment and hedge fund division, is headquartered in London. Halifax Bank of Scotland, headquartered, since its merger with the Halifax building Society, in Halifax, Yorkshire, England.
It has already been proven that IF Scotland HAD been independent prior to the banking crisis, bot RBS and HBOS would have been succesfully bailed out and financed by an Independent Scotland. As it was, English Taxpayers hardly paid ANYTHING in the bail out. RBS had been paying the treasury billions each year to the UK Treasury, Scottish Taxpayers, as well as Scottish oil revenues contributed the lions share of the bank bail out
Braveheart in the 21st century
I find the amount of English reporters with mind reading ability quite amazing,and probably not true.So many start off with "The Scottish people" like we don't know what is going on,well we do know what is going on and much better than the" mind readers"
I would like those that are ignorant ,to realise in Scotland we the people are sovereign,not the crown we have had the right to remove a monarch that was not doing the job properly,but that is the past.We look to the future,and leave the history to the students.
Westminster might have many questions regarding the effects on them should Scotland go its own way. That's for them to consider and nothing whatsoever to do with the Scots.
All Scotland wishes to do is to make its own way in the world, the absolute right for any identifiable nation and underscored by the United Nations Article 1 on self determination. This is a Charter igned up to by the UK government but to which it pays lip service.
Constant interference in Scotland's legitimate aspiration is contrary to international law and Westminster have already fallen foul of that convention many times over.
A confident First Minister would already be banging his chest and alerting the international community to this flagrant abuse of international convention.
Why is he silent and why does he not send the likes of Moore, packing. He does not negotiate with Cameron, he tells him like it is.
We can tell Westminster if we want but it is not compulsory.We will take our share of acquisitions as is our right,and our debts also.Perhaps you should go and see the UN legislation.The trap is almost set.
I think your arithmetic,is a little off.You may find as we leave and take what is ours by right,even the trying to steal some of our waters cant work,as in the UN charter all borders must return to those prior to the union.We have been subsidising the South East for years,you just cant count,hell even the fines handed out by our courts go to the treasury,port fees all round Scotland go to the treasury,these two items in England go to the local council,you will soon be crying.Our share of the overseas dominions as well,If we are such a burden why is the UK government so reluctant to let us go,try and think it out.
On the armed forces we supply about 19% of all personnel.
Scotland has an absolute right of self-determination - I don't doubt that one bit. If the Scottish people want independence then they should have it. However, I suspect that when they finally have a chance to look into the abyss the 'Nationalists' led by the buffoon Salmond will be disappointed just like the Quebecois separatists led by René Lévesque. BTW, the numbers if they are wrong blame the Daily Mail not me.
Saorsa!
...from a Stewart son of Rothesay
The article leaves out one more equally-plausible scenario. What happens if Argentina gets trigger happy when the UK's military is splitting up and downsizing?
The UK's military has been downsizing off and on since 1989, with a pause between 2003 and 2009. Major cuts are planned from here to 2015. And if the referendum goes the wrong way - wrong from Westminster's perspective, not mine - that will accelerate as defence would be facing a sudden budget cut of around 10%. And that's 10% in cash terms and not in "didn't get the increases we had expected" terms.
But no matter what problems UK forces face today and may face in the future, the Argentinian armed forces would always have trouble swimming to the Falklands. Sure, Tom Clancy could find a way to solve the problem, but in the real world it isn't going to happen.
Grampa Simpson: (Typing a letter) Dear Mr. President, there are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot.
Whenever I read one of these trans-atlantic reviews of the debate, the subtext seems to be 'aaaargh! damn you for making me think about Europe!'. Relax and go back to sleep. I know it's irritating of us to have internal politics while there's a Presidential election on but nothing will come of it. Even if we vote for independence, 90% of the UK will remain. Yes, the political and military support offered will continue to degrade but as has been mentioned here many times, that is hardly a new phenomenon. I didn't think the US was so impressed with the UK these days that they would worry about its demise.
I speak firstly as a Scot (from a Sutherland crofting family) and secondly as a serving soldier.
I worry about the impact of any independence or 'devolution max' because neither side can tell us yet what it will look like. The figures and the law are disputed. Independence in principle is one thing, but independence in practice can look very different (for a recent example look at the break up of Czechoslovakia).
I worry about independence because Scotland posseses no mature political institutions. The dialogue of nationalism is hot and getting hotter. Scottish politics has traditionally been rough and very often tribal in its outlook. I would like to see checks and balances in the political system, currently there are none. To say that we are intrinsically a liberal democracy because we are Scottish is to ignore history and Scottish history.
@Beltanefire is incorrect to state that the Scots will decide on independence. Who gets to vote has yet to be decided. There are many people living in Scotland who are not Scottish, there are many Scots living outside of Scotland. It is not clear who will get to vote.
@Beltanefire is also incorrect in what he states about British navy contracts. Military contracts are reserved, that is they need not go to European tender. Therefore there is no requirement for any British (England, Wales, N Ireland) navy to grant contracts to Scottish yards. The concept of still having a British Armed forces if Scotland gains independence and runs an independent foreign policy is fundamentally flawed. One cannot have one armed forces for two separate entities the pre-Act of Union history of Scotland and in particular the Darien Scheme show the problems in attemnpting to do so.
Charles Patrick OBrien is also wrong in the statistics that he quotes on the Armed Forces. Currently 10% of the Armed Forces are recruited from Scotland (Scotland punches above its weight in recruiting terms, and the quality is high).
There are currently more Scots in favour of the status quo then there are in favour of independence. What is indisputable however is that the Scottish Nationalists are certainly shouting the loudest!
Thank you for providing a rational commentary on the subject.
CALLUM MACKAY - A Scots Soldier responds
Some how I dont think you have been paying attention!
Excuse me for saying this, but you show a singularly amount of ignorance on the subject
"I worry about the impact of any independence or 'devolution max' "
These are actually two seperate arguements
The SNP have always wanted complete independence and has already been laid out in various white papers issued by them. Indpendence would result in an ending of the United Kingdom.
Some politicians (not the SNP) have muted Devilution Max, or 'Devo-Max', a kind of half way house, in which Scotland has all powers devolved to it, including all fiscal powers. But excluding Defence and Foreign affairs, which would remain under a UK Government. Devo-Max, would actually lead to a more federal set up for the UK.
It wasnt the SNP's intention to include Devo-Max in the forthcoming referendum, but are minded to include a question on that subject to discussions and debate by 'Civic Scotland' (Civic Scotland is the term used for Church's , Trade Unions , Town Hall and other non political bodies)
So to say "neither side can tell us yet what it will look like' is incorrect as it has been discussed at length already and will be the subject of debate in the coming months.
" Scotland posseses no mature political institutions." You obviously are not aware that Scotland has had its own parliament since 1999 (the second, since the original closed in 1707)
Your obviously unaware that Scotland has its own legal system, which pre-dates the union of 1707
It will be entirely down to those resident in Scotland to decide on the future of Scotland, we should all have the grace to recognise that democratic and inalienable right by any nation to make that choice
Does Scotland have the economic depth to be independent?
I am reminded of something I read on Greece, that it does not have the economic depth to be a truly independent state and has only been independent when it suited a great power who subsidized its Independence. Economic depth is the ability to support your population from organic commerce. Can Scotland support its populations current life style or will true independence mean a lower life standard of living?
If it does not have economic depth then it is just a glorified European province, trading London for Brussels, the Euro for the pound, NATO for UK military. Granted, given that the UK's extremely lenient attitude towards finance has turned the UK economy into the financial casino of Europe, it may will be a good move to shift from a UK province to a EU province. But that is just a bet on who will crater harder in the next economic crisis, the UK or Euro-land. Seems like a lot of work just to pick between 2 bad options.
My team will be wearing kilts to fit in and our mission will be to protect the single malt wells. Other teams will organize Scots to defend their golf courses and other national assets.
We must analyze why Braveheart lost and revise the Scots' strategy. For one thing, the color of their camouflage requires revamping and our Army is expert in picking camo gear. If we can perfect our sheep stealth camo, the Brits will never see us. Then, we can plant Haggis mines which will stop the Brits cold.
I look forward to the day when we can wear Harris tweed uniforms and kilts. And now for a wee dram against the draft.
De Anglia oppresso liber!
I can't believe all these comments have turned a brilliant article into the mundane.
Don't we have enough to worry about?
What would you have us do? Do you want us to intercede or somehow prepare ourselves for this possible eventually? I'm busy trying to get out of Afghanistan while watching the Straits of Hormuz, and the slaughter of innocents in Syria. Now my Defense Secretary tells me we only have 16 bunker-buster bombs which only penetrate to 200 feet and we need 300 feet so he moved $82 million to produce an improved bunker-buster that we will have soon? Then I've got generals and admirals using the false specter of a hostile China to get new strategic systems we probably don't need. I'm trying to figure out the significance of placing a company of Marines in Australia which will grow into a BLT to do what? What do we have to be able to do in the Pacific? Are we still the world's policeman? Will the nuts in Pakistan lose a nuc to terrorists or make a mistake in their artificial hostility toward India? Will Iran dominate Iraq? Will polar bears have an adequate number of ice flows to make their annual northern migration?
Scotland? I say again, please pass the single malt.
Ireland's aggressive neutrality
That's quite a statement: aggressive neutrality.
Assertive might be credible, but aggressive? Give us a break, please. We didn't all come down in the last shower.
Let's review the facts: Ireland was aggressively occupied and forcibly partitioned by a leading military power. A majority of the people of the island of Ireland wished for the country to be reunified. Government policy was to offer full support of the allies in return for reunification. Churchill dismissed this with a contempt that was frankly racist and the allies made plans to invade and occupy the Republic and even considered conscription -- of citizens of a sovereign independent country.
Had any invasion occurred the Republic was not equipped to resist it. This is well known and documented. So too is the fact that the Republic was officially neutral for the reason given but in practice was ANYTHING BUT.
More Irishmen from the republic died in British uniforms during the 2nd world war (and the first) than from the north--that is tens of thousands.
The first Victoria Cross awarded in the 2nd world war (and the first) was to Irishman from the Republic.
To maintain the fiction of Irish neutrality the British government acceded to an Irish govt request that Irish soldiers return home in civilian clothes when on leave.
One of the sad consequences of this official neutrality is that many Irish soldiers who fought and died in the struggle against Nazism are not commemorated as such.
Many hundreds of Irishmen stepped into dangerous non-combat jobs on the Atlantic and Arctic convoy routes and died when their ships were torpedoed.
Every German plane that landed in Ireland during the war was detained and its crew interned. Every American and British plane was repaired if needed, loaded with food and sent on its way.
The Irish coastguard worked for the British throughout the war, giving meteorological information and shipping movements.
It’s difficult to see what more the Irish could have done for the allies during the war without actually declaring war on Germany – a war it had no resources for. The only thing denied to the British (and all combatants) was the use of Irish ports. As these had been forcibly occupied up to 1939 their retention was about the only meaningful expression of Irish sovereignty and neutrality, and the only important card de Valera had in his negotiation with Churchill.
Go on patronising us and telling us we have no right to be neutral, just like we were deemed not entitled to self-government, if you care to. But calling a militarily insigificant country's neutrality "aggressive" says more about your "with us or against us" mentality -- a form of aggression that has cost America very dearly.
BTW The Indian constitution is modeled on the Irish one. Since WWII Ireland has chosen to align itself with non-aligned countries, like India. Get over it.
There was a joke during the War: British bomber over Berlin, caught in the searchlights, flak coming up, one engine on fire, rear-gunner wounded, Irish pilot mutters, “Thank God Dev kept us out of this bloody war"
Of course Ireland had to be 'neutral' during the War. It was only 20 years after the War of Independence and Churchill could be just as horrible to the Irish as he was to the Indians. But Dev should have let us use the Treaty Ports - a lot of men died in the Western Approaches.
Churchill could have had what he wanted if he was prepared to concede Irish unification. Irish home rule of a unified country had already been conceded but walked back for domestic political reasons.
Stupid decisions sometimes have lasting unintended consequences. Like executing the leaders of the 1916 rebellion in Dublin... it GUARANTEED the exit of Ireland from the UK.
Devalera was not a universally popular person in Ireland but no Irish person who reads the history of his relations with Churchill could feel anything but disdain for Churchill as far as his blind spot regarding Ireland was concerned. He was undeniably a great man but he had a few flaws, including being a racist and imperialist.
A tragedy really. They were both half-American and might have found some common ground.
Scottish Right To Self Determination
Tom, let me take you back to when America was also getting a rough deal from England. England ruled you. Badly. That is why America declared its independence. England told America at the time that it could never make it alone. It could never survive without England. How wrong that was. And do you know what the American Constitution was based on? - The Declaration of Arbroath, a statement of Scottish Independence from 1320. In short, your Constitution was based on the Scottish model.
http://heritage.caledonianmercury.com/2011/02/10/the-scottish-influence-on-the-us-declaration-of-independence-from-arbroath-to-the-enlightenment/001866
America has probably the biggest population of Scots outside of Scotland. This is widely recognised in Scotland and we are proud of it. It is beyond dispute that we consider ourselves firm friends and allies of the U.S. with as much desire to preserve freedom as yourselves.
Aye, but... the Americans getting their independence was not good for the empire. Misbehaving vassal states need to be kept in line. As you point out, there is some irony involved here.
The difference between the Irish and the Scots: the Irish never accepted English rule.
And what damage has Ireland's autonomy done to American interests? Precious little.
The Scots should be free to decide their national destiny for themselves and if it ever entails having a difference of views with Uncle Sam... that's his problem. America has depended rather too much on propping up corrupt, illegitimate and undemocratic regimes around the world. All the rhetoric about freedom is tosh if you are a young Saudi, or a Palestinian.
The very idea of an American ruminating on the adverse consequences of the Scots deciding their own destiny is actually, at some level, pretty disgusting.
"First, Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom since 1707"
Actually thats inaccurate. The United Kingdom was formed, first by the Treaty of Union 1706 and ratified by the Acts of Union 1707 (Both the Scottish Parliament and English Parliament had to each pass their respective Act's of Union for it to be passed). If Scotland votes on indpendence, this would lead to the dissalution of the Treaty of Union and the United Kingdom would cease to exist. The result would be to go back to the status prior the treaty, that is the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (It should be noted that Wales is an inclusive entity within England as laid out in treaty of union, as its a princepality of England). Northern Ireland on theother hand, being a province of the United Kingdom, will find that it will nolonger be a province of any particular state and will have to think about what it wants to to. One possiblity is that it either merges with the Republic or Ireland or becomes a semi-autonomous state. This has alaredy been muted by the Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister, who is working towards a referendum in Northern Ireland in 2016.
"need for an independent Scotland's economic policy to shift sharply to the Left, not something guaranteed to invite foreign investment"
Actually, since the pro-independence SNP took charge in 2007, as a minority Government and then in 2011, in an unprecedended majority government (by overwhelming landslide) the SNP have doen rather well in attracting inward investment into Scotland, wihich is a result of their strong pro business ethos.
Its this background that the Scottish Government under the SNP want to have more fiscal powers under their control to push for even more ineard investment.
The pro-union, anti independence, London based parties have the Scotland Bill currently going through the London parliament, which tinkers around the edges in increasing devolved powers to Scotland, but in research by leading economists, has been found wanting, to the extent that it would do more damage to Scotland than good!
Bad for America?
Good i hope your whole country falls apart and is destroyed perhaps then we will have an end to your constant intefering in things that are nothing to do with you.
It is typical of America to look at it from a how bad will it be for us? point of veiw i guess Scottish independance is a good reason to attack Iran since you hav'nt been able to find another.
As always all America can think about is its selfish self not the people who have to live with this traitor ruining their lives independance will ruin Scotland but i'll leave before that happens i'm English anyway!!!
Anyone who threatens our union is guilty of treason and should be beheaded on the queen's orders Alex Salmond is a usless beached whale with no political credibility he has no idea's no direction and his party has and always will be a one trick pony.
This ridiculous windbag never talks about how much this will cost Scotland never tells anyone the opinion polls are against independance or who will fund it once the west minster money stops coming.
Who cares?
America is on the case so like in all the other countries they have intefered in they will no doubt know best and will make up our minds for us regardless of what we want.
After all why not America always knows best perhaps we should just ask Barak Obama what we should do he's always got an opinion on how people should live he can make up our minds for us and why not?
America's opinion is the only one that counts so we should just let them decide for us like they do for everyone else and if we choose the wrong thing they can always bomb the right choice on us.
A better idea is to go away and stay out of things that are none of your business the last thing Britain should have took to do with America is the war of independance.
The CIA might have thought i was a good idea to bomb London on July the 7th to keep us for backing out of the Iraq war but you will be sorry you did that to us and the truth will not stay burried forever the enemies of Britain will be crushed!!!!!
Folks in london and south east get more than anyone per head in any part of uk.then its Northern ireland! If Scotland was such a drain on English taxes.why did westmonster oops westminster claim seabed around Scotland the very same day the Scottish Parliament was opened in 1999!.and when thatcher found out about oil.the first thing she said was how do we keep the scots nationalists quiet!As for the national debt.yes Scotland will take its share .even though it was london bankers that created the mess.The oil will help pay that off .As for currency it was a scot who enaugurated the Bank OF England .so would keep the pound until on feet just like rep of ireland kept the pound!Alex salmond has done his homework on independence while unionists laughed from sidelines.Whos laughing now!.london and the unionists sent cameron up to Scotland .and all he did was wrap himself in a union flag and talk up the uk and not Scotland!it has backfired on him already.If this is the best unionists can do .the uk is finished.And only yesterday rupert murdoch has came out in support of Scottish independence.Remember Scotland & England were independent before and shared the same monarch and lived in peace.Independence is coming .The usa has nothing to fear from it only to gain.After all it was the declaration of independence in America that was based on Scottish declaration of independence .God bless America& Scotland
Scotland makes up 5% or so of the UK's GDP. I know what to make of the idea that any American company is going to decide "oh, well, I'm going to skip out on the UK now" because the size of its economy has gone from being the 6th largest in the world to being the . . . 6th largest in the world.
If this is true, what am I missing? It doesn't seem like a great time to leave.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(37)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE