David Cowan: Special may prove too strong a word

Congratulating the University of St Andrews on launching its 600th anniversary recently, former American President Bill Clinton commented, "St Andrews has helped guide and inspire America's past and future leaders throughout our history" and recalled that "three signatories of our Declaration of Independence held a connection to the university, and thousands of American students are welcomed here each year for study abroad".

Clinton is alluding to the historic ties, political and cultural, America cherishes with Scotland, something of a "special relationship". Historically, this started with the influence of economic ambition, political thought and education in a fledgling America, as swathes of Scots left for the new nation. It continues today as descendants recall Scottish roots and cultural exchanges are made ranging from university students to golfers.

However, the term "special relationship" has a more specific political dimension, one managed between the British prime minister and the American president, with varying degrees of success. The special relationships of Thatcher-Reagan and Blair-Bush were sturdy to the point of controversial. The Brown/Obama connection may have been special but it was no relationship, while Cameron/Obama has yet to really kick off.

On one level, Americans should certainly welcome a nation demanding its own identity as an enlightened nation separate from England. After all, that's just what Americans did. America drew on Scottish enlightenment ideas and common sense philosophy to establish its own claims of independence from Britain. However, since the founding of America, Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom. As a mature nation America would probably be uncomfortable with the break-up of a key international ally. When it comes to the political interests of today, the sentimentality of Americans about Scotland or its own origins will give way to national self-interest. If Scotland becomes independent, America's "Brigadoon Scotland" would have to give way to hard-headed political and diplomatic decisions as Scotland establishes its own nation state, the foundation stone of international relations. Scotland would have its own military responsibilities, forging its own diplomatic ties with nations from America to Zimbabwe.

What then would happen to the relationship in the event of an independent Scotland? More specifically, would there be a "special relationship" between Scotland and America? A former US consul in Edinburgh, Lisa Vickers, gave some insight into American thinking about Scotland when she was quoted saying the Bush administration would "probably" prefer independence not to happen. She also outlined quite clearly America's priorities. She questioned the effect of separation on American energy firms, criticised the SNP's anti-Nato policy, and speculated about an independent Scotland becoming a member of the European Union.

Things have not changed under the Obama administration. The key issues continue to be defence, economic interests and Europe. These are things in which America will be most interested.

We cannot expect too much intimacy on the military front. The most urgent agenda item in an independent Scotland would be the question of Nato membership. Scotland is a major site for US military activities, Nato nuclear forces and listening and radar warning installations. Yet the SNP opposes Nato membership because it opposes nuclear weapons. The party has also opposed almost every intervention made by Nato in recent years. Back in 1999, Alex Salmond described the Nato intervention in Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing by the Serbs as "an unpardonable folly". The SNP prefers the idea of European defence co-operation, a position taken by Austria, Sweden, Ireland and Finland.

In a move to protect two aircraft carriers being part-built in Scottish yards, last year Salmond supported the retention of the Royal Navy base at Faslane. He did not see this as admission of support for the Trident deterrent, rather he saw the facility having a role of handling the submarines that carry Britain's deterrent. Splitting hairs it may be. The bottom line is what would Scotland, as a small non-aligned country, do with one of Europe's most sophisticated and well-equipped defence establishments?

On the economic question, Scotland is host to a range of American business interests. America remains Scotland's most important inward investor, with some 700 American firms employing 10 per cent of the Scottish workforce. American firms are global in sectors where Scotland is strong, such as alcoholic beverages, medical/pharmaceutical products and office machinery/computers. America is also the single most important foreign overseas market for Scottish business. Much of Scotland's prosperity, today and historically, is founded on commerce with America, accounting for exports of over 2.5bn and around 15 per cent of total exports.

In terms of the EU relationship, Scotland could be like Ireland or Sweden, on the fringes of Europe. In the EU, Scottish businesses have access to a market of over half a billion consumers, and collectively the EU is Scotland's largest single trading partner. Salmond has talked of Scotland carving a niche at the heart of Europe's energy policy and future.

Would-be architects of an independent Scotland talk of a new "Celtic Lion" to match Ireland, though that particular lion has been neutered by the recession.

Scotland may retain all of the advantages currently enjoyed under UK membership, but it might alienate America in the process. America may not take particular comfort from Scotland joining the EU, seeing it negatively as part of the strengthening of Europe.

It is not simply a question of what Scotland will do, but also the impact of these military, economic and European changes on the rest of Britain. Such a 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. Independence would undoubtedly affect the special relationship of London with America, and what the rest of Britain will have to offer the relationship.

Special relationship means, well, relationship. And the relationship between Scotland and America has suffered greatly in recent times, and could overshadow the early days of nation building. When Obama appointed his own US consul in Edinburgh, Dana Linnet, she stepped right into the damage caused by the decision over the Lockerbie bomber, arguably the biggest diplomatic row ever between America and Scotland. The US government and popular opinion objected vigorously to the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in August of 2009; worsened by the fact that he is still alive. The decision by Kenny MacAskill was described by Hillary Clinton as "deeply disappointing" and condemned by President Obama as "a mistake".

The relationship politically is in a difficult place, and realistically Scotland may not be that significant to America as an independent state, which in all likelihood will lump it in with the rest of Europe in relationship terms. However, there may be a hint of the enduring nature of the special relationship in American reactions to the Lockerbie fiasco. When France opposed the invasion of Iraq in the UN, French fries were famously renamed Freedom fries. While there have been calls to boycott Scotland, we've yet to hear of Freedom whisky!

l David Cowan is completing a PhD on the Religious Right and American Foreign Policy at the University of St Andrews