United States President Barack Obama sticking his nose in UK affairs (your report, 6 June) is against the accepted norms of the G7 to not interfere in the internal affairs of a fellow state.
Like the second question asked of David Cameron at his anti-independence speech of 7 February, this smells of a “plant”.
We had the usual formula of “It’s up to the Scots” followed by words on Scotland and the EU that were just what Cameron needed to boost his faltering Scottish and EU positions.
I would like to see a psychologist’s report on Cameron’s facial expression because I do not believe that these speeches are made (including Q&As) without some forward indication to each other.
I see that the Westminster collaborators are already on the streets with leaflets saying Obama said “Nope”.
No doubt your unionist apologists are already hitting the keyboards, unable to comprehend that Obama has stated what is best for America (including securing future British cannon fodder) and showing that the Scottish people, far from being more important as part of the UK, are a fringe nuisance that should lie down and shut up.
Thomas R Burgess
St Catherine’s Square
Despite its breathtaking hypocrisy coming from the leader of a nation that never ceases to ostentatiously celebrate its independence from Westminster rule, perhaps we should not be too surprised by Barack Obama’s apparent statement of opposition to Scottish independence.
Like most of his Oval Office predecessors, Obama has little or no real understanding of the internal social, economic and political dynamics of the UK, never mind Scotland.
Although the parallels between Scotland in 2014 and the US in 1776 should be blindingly obvious to such a supposedly learned and cultured man, few American presidents have been able to see the world from perspectives different from their own – or to learn the lessons of history.
To them, Scotland is nothing more than Westminster’s nuclear weapons dump – or perhaps one large, tartan-trimmed golf course.
In 2008, Obama embodied, as his campaign slogans encapsulated, “hope” and “change”, not just for America, but for the world.
For someone who was entranced and inspired by his elegant, soaring rhetoric and his progressive promises, Obama’s presidency – from Guantanamo Bay and Al-Megrahi, to Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden – has been little more than a series of grandiose disappointments.
We can add his comments on Thursday, which traduced the Scottish people’s right to that same democratic self-government which he routinely lauds at home, to that sorry list.
If independence is good enough for you, Mr President, it will be good enough for us.
Predictably, when President Obama expresses cautious support for the union, the SNP screams foul play; what would its response have been had he expressed support for independence?
The truth is that, despite Alex Salmond’s expressions of support for the USA and presumably its foreign policy, president Obama must surely cast his mind back to comments made by our First Minister, two words in particular made during the wholesale slaughter of Albanians in Kosovo when Salmond described the positive actions of Nato to stop this slaughter as “unpardonable folly”.
He might add to that Salmond’s flat refusal, under pressure from the Chinese, not to meet the Dalai Lama. Posturing of this kind by Salmond while Scotland is still a part of the UK serves the country ill both domestically and on the world stage, so one shudders to think what would occur post-independence.
As the leader of his country which also happens to be the lead partner in Nato, an alliance the Scottish Government wishes to join, President Obama has every right to voice his opinions.
There is a wonderful precedent for this. The First Minister has repeatedly told the EU that it must accept an independent Scotland as a member without conditions, has told Nato that Scotland must be admitted even though the SNP is against one of Nato’s major tenants, has told all the EU members that they have no say in Scotland’s EU membership and has informed the people of the rest of the UK that an independent Scotland is guaranteed a currency union with them whatever they really want.
The First Minister knows all about interfering in the affairs of other countries so what is sauce for the goose…
(Dr) Roger I Cartwright
True to form, the Cybernats and the SNP are rattled by the comments made by President Obama concerning independence and so he experiences the abuse that emanates from the Yes campaign should anyone dare to express an opinion other than in favour of independence.
Is it not ironic that on the 70th anniversary of D-Day, President Obama is told to keep his nose out of Scottish affairs?
Fortunately, I assume the SNP was not of the same opinion in 1941 when America entered the war and joined with the UK and others globally to win the peace.
R S G Allison