From Alasdair Galloway

Here’s an idea (for discussion)

In my previous contribution I “spoke of many things” to paraphrase “The Walrus and the Carpenter”. I want to bring together a couple of ideas discussed in there.

First “Is there anyone who doesn’t see the hand of the Americans behind the Good Friday agreement, and the influence of the Irish-American community behind that? If the Irish, why not the Scots? Why not use the Scottish community (or including the ‘wannabe’ Scottish community)? Such activity may be belittled by our critics (devolution doesn’t allow for foreign policy so ultra vires, embarrassing etc), but such criticism seems to me to be an important justification for doing it (ie if they think it isn’t a good thing …).”

It would be a mistake to underestimate our American friends. Were America to put it to Westminster that allowing Scotland to become independent was a good idea, would they hesitate? One reason might be the influence of the Scottish diaspora if we can ever be bothered to get them organized to support this cause in the homeland? But lets put that question the other way round – why don’t they support Scottish independence? Some of the reasons offered are risible

• They don’t want to be seen to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign state. You’ve no idea how hard it is to say that without laughing!
• That Scottish independence would weaken one of their major European allies, indeed their closest and most trusted European allies (time to pause for more laughter)

But perhaps one highly significant reason they don’t support our independence is that we make regular noises, when discussing independence, not only about chucking out Trident but perhaps not looking to join NATO.  Help m’boab.

The other thought is the Chagos Islands.

“In the case of ICJ, it might be that it can make decisions, but can it enforce these? Or put another way, what can it do to make the UK implement its decisions, which it hasn’t done, for instance, in the cases brought by Mauritius and the Chagos Islands against the UK. In fact, there are several judgements against the UK concerning the Chagos Islands which the UK cheerfully ignores with little sign of loss by doing so.

We should be mindful of the experience of the Chagos Islands. The Chagos Islands had historically been administered from Mauritius, but when Mauritius was negotiating its independence the UK very strongly insisted that when Mauritius became independent they weren’t taking the Chagos Islands with them. Why not? Ever heard of Diego Garcia?

Prior to Mauritian independence, the population of the Chagos Islands was 924, almost entirely employed as contract farm workers primarily on copra plantations. However, between 1968 and 1973, the inhabitants were forcibly expelled from Diego Garcia by the UK Government so that a joint US/UK military base could be established on the island. Many were deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, following which the United States built the large Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, which has been in continuous operation since.”

So, let’s suppose a scenario. Scottish Independence is supported by a clear majority 57-62% support let’s say, but Westminster continues to stall. What if the Americans were to put it to Westminster that they should negotiate our independence, but only on the condition that a long term lease is granted on Faslane/ Coulport (perhaps, for our trouble a financial settlement would be negotiated, which a grateful US might contribute to). But as with Mauritius it is made crystal clear that, just as Mauritius had to give away the Chagos Islands (and Cyprus Akratiri), we would be pressured to, if not give away Faslane and Coulport then allow them to be employed for reasons that the Scottish community might not support.

Why would the Americans put such store on Faslane/ Coulport? Its significance  is the ‘Scotland – Iceland gap’ – ie all the Atlantic between Scotland Iceland which is extensively used by the Russians to get their warships/ submarines out of the North Atlantic into open ocean. For that reason it is extensively monitored by NATO who would be most anxious  to keep at least one end of the gap under their control.

Actually I am not entirely convinced that the nuclear weapons on the Clyde just now are all that important. There is, I understand, a view among the higher levels of the US government that the UK should stop kidding itself on about being a great power anymore, and should give up its nuclear arsenal, which is American really in any case. Faslane is after all the home port of all the UK’s submarines, even those with no Trident capability.  It could revert to that status easily.

What is important for the Americans (and for NATO) is the logistical capability that the Clyde offers, and to be able to hang on to this. Perhaps the base would become an international NATO base.

So, to summarise if independence has been negotiated with the proviso that Faslane would continue to be used either by rUK for Trident, or as the centre of NATO’s maritime activities in the North Atlantic, and a confirmatory referendum is to be held, how would you vote?

For what it’s worth I don’t know how I would vote. I’ve always been an “eyes on the prize” kind of guy. One of the things that makes me particularly fed up is that neither Salmond nor Sturgeon seem to appreciate which is more important, their historical legacies or securing independence? To me, it’s clearly the latter. Likewise, if we have to suck up continued use of Faslane, is that not worth it to get Westminster’s nose out of our affairs? OR is offering support – even coerced support – for nuclear weapons and the merchants of such weapons just too immoral a price as we launch our own wee country?