THE former principal officer in Scotland for Barack Obama has criticised Westminster for its intellectual dishonesty over Scottish independence.
The Times revealed that Dana Linnet, a main go-between for Holyrood and the US government during Obama’s presidency, hit out at the Tory Government for its attitude to Scotland wanting to return to the European Union as an independent nation.
During 2014, the pro-Union side had argued voting Yes would remove Scottish citizens’ EU citizenship. More recently Westminster has been critical of the SNP’s desire for Scotland, which voted to Remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum, to rejoin the EU after independence is won.
Linnet commented: “The UK government can’t say in 2014 that Scottish independence would be bad because Scotland would not be an EU member anymore with all those huge economic benefits and then say in 2018 that Scotland can’t be independent post-Brexit with no EU economic benefits.
“Makes no sense. None of their words were/are intellectually honest or proven by sound economic data. I hope the EU does leave the light on for you. As I’ve said many times I have no dog in your fight but I can see ‘what’s what’ …”
READ MORE: Succession star Brian Cox: Scottish independence is inevitable
The news follows former European Council president Donald Tusk’s suggestion that there would be enthusiasm in the EU if Scotland moved to become a member of the bloc as an independent country.
Linnet’s criticism also comes after three polls over the last week put support for Scottish independence higher than support for the Union.
SNP depute leader Keith Brown said Linnet was “spot on”.
He continued: “The Tories’ arguments have zero credibility or consistency.
“The only reason the UK Government is trying to deny [an independence referendum] is because they are scared they would lose and that the people of Scotland will choose a better future as an equal, independent European nation.”
The US consulate did not comment on Linnet’s claims.
In 2014, when asked about Scottish independence, Obama said it was the US’ desire to keep a “strong, robust, united and effective partner” – but went on to say the decision was “up to the people of Scotland”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel