22/01/2013

Download Subtitles

Transcript

:00:09. > :00:12.will be something none of us predicted. Thank you very much.

:00:12. > :00:15.Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: An international lawyer and former

:00:15. > :00:20.White House advisor gives us his verdict on how the United States

:00:20. > :00:24.might see an independent Scotland. And a conservation society says we

:00:24. > :00:28.should cut back on mackerel. Fishermen tell us to ignore them.

:00:28. > :00:30.So who's right? Good evening. Amid all the claims and counter claims,

:00:30. > :00:34.agreement over an independent Scotland's position on the

:00:34. > :00:37.international stage seems as far off as ever. Earlier this evening,

:00:37. > :00:39.a former adviser to the Clinton administration told an audience at

:00:39. > :00:42.the University of Glasgow that while international law will play a

:00:42. > :00:45.part, political negotiation and diplomacy will be key to deciding

:00:45. > :00:55.Scotland's membership of the likes of NATO, the UN and of course the

:00:55. > :00:56.

:00:56. > :01:01.European Union. For the First Minister this turned out to be

:01:01. > :01:09.politically damaging. Have you sought advice from your own

:01:09. > :01:14.Scottish block officers on this matter? We have. But the row over

:01:14. > :01:19.EU membership shows that whatever Alex Salmond and his opponents

:01:19. > :01:29.claim the year is no way to renegotiate membership from the

:01:29. > :01:34.inside or outside. One part of the country, I am not speaking about

:01:34. > :01:41.any specific one, if it wants to become an independent State it has

:01:41. > :01:47.to apply for European membership. Even this intervention has proved

:01:47. > :01:56.to be far from definitive. Less controversial would be membership

:01:56. > :02:04.of the United Nations. An organisation that includes

:02:04. > :02:12.Afghanistan and Zimbabwe to it surely find a place on the flagpole

:02:12. > :02:21.for a suit -- Scotland. demonstrated against the Iraq war,

:02:21. > :02:29.I am tired marching, I want a seat for our Government. Last year, the

:02:29. > :02:35.SNP voted narrowly to change membership. It is now clear that

:02:35. > :02:40.nuclear weapons would have to go, that is none of course you will.

:02:40. > :02:48.Diplomacy and politics are more likely to decide Scotland's

:02:48. > :02:53.position than international ditties and historic precedent. It is

:02:53. > :02:58.surely wrong to think that somewhere in the bowels of the

:02:58. > :03:05.State Department, Barack Obama does not have someone keeping an eye on

:03:06. > :03:08.all of this. David Scheffer teaches International Human Rights Law and

:03:08. > :03:10.International Criminal Law. Previously he served as a senior

:03:10. > :03:12.adviser to Madeleine Albright during the Clinton administration,

:03:12. > :03:20.and has published extensively on international legal and political

:03:20. > :03:24.issues. He joins me now. Before we get on to the legal stuff I am

:03:24. > :03:30.interested in you having been an adviser to the Clinton

:03:30. > :03:37.administration. Madeleine Albright was in Glasgow not that long ago

:03:37. > :03:43.and made a critical speech on the dangers of fragmentation within the

:03:43. > :03:47.European Union. Do you think that reflects the view the State

:03:47. > :03:54.department would have? I think it is a natural point of view for them

:03:54. > :04:01.to have because the world is at a lot simpler for the United States

:04:01. > :04:06.is a United Kingdom were not to break up. It does not complicate

:04:06. > :04:13.matters within any talk in terms of how a divided United Kingdom would

:04:13. > :04:19.retain its role and membership in NATO. It complicates the picture

:04:20. > :04:25.enormously for the United States. It does not surprise me that that

:04:25. > :04:31.point of view is expressed. That is what I would expect. You would

:04:31. > :04:38.expect the American Government to be against an independent Scotland

:04:38. > :04:43.even if it is not jumping out and saying that in public? Absolutely.

:04:43. > :04:48.It presents strategic complications and security issues for the United

:04:48. > :04:51.States. That does not mean there will not be someone in the State

:04:51. > :04:56.Department looking at the aspirations of the Scottish people

:04:56. > :05:03.but they will be looking at it much more from a strategic and political

:05:03. > :05:08.point of view. Presumably, as you said, breaking up the UK, there

:05:09. > :05:13.also seems to be a broader perspective. One point is that the

:05:13. > :05:20.Americans want the European Union to be as strong as possible.

:05:20. > :05:25.would say with all due respect to Madeleine Albright, it does not

:05:25. > :05:31.necessarily reach the conclusion that if Scotland breaks off from

:05:31. > :05:37.the United Kingdom that somehow weakens the European Union. I was

:05:37. > :05:43.thinking more of presidents such as Catalonia or other parts of the

:05:43. > :05:49.European Union. The idea is that a European Union which is externally

:05:49. > :05:54.fragmented is externally weaker. There is clearly a domino theory at

:05:54. > :05:59.work here. If one were to go down clearly others could go down with

:05:59. > :06:04.in Europe which would weaken the European Union. Each of these

:06:04. > :06:10.situations is so unique that whether it be Spain, Belgium or

:06:10. > :06:16.otherwise, we must look at how one can retained the overall unity of

:06:16. > :06:22.the European Union, the overall unity of NATO, without necessarily

:06:22. > :06:27.dictating that each existing member State has to retain its existing

:06:27. > :06:35.political formulation for years on end, in the future. Life is going

:06:35. > :06:41.to change. The European landscape will change. You seem to be saying

:06:41. > :06:48.it would not necessarily be right to stick with the status quo.

:06:48. > :06:54.at all. I do not necessarily align myself with that point of view. I

:06:54. > :06:57.think the European Union needs to accommodate these kinds of

:06:57. > :07:05.adjustment within sovereignty of the European Union and the NATO

:07:05. > :07:11.alliance. You cannot look at either of those organisations with a

:07:11. > :07:15.static notion of what their future looks like. If you're overall aim

:07:15. > :07:19.is to retain the overall unity of these alliances and that structure,

:07:19. > :07:25.you need to pay attention to what is happening within each member

:07:25. > :07:28.State. If you were back in the State Department and people turned

:07:28. > :07:38.around and said this is wrong, Britain is one of the most

:07:38. > :07:44.important allies, a Britain without do not want that, there is no

:07:44. > :07:50.conceivable way in which that would be good for America, of what would

:07:50. > :07:56.you say? I would argue internally. There are different ways of looking

:07:56. > :08:01.at the issue. At the end of the day it is predictable that the United

:08:01. > :08:08.States would stand with the United Kingdom as a strong ally and

:08:08. > :08:13.express itself with that respect. got the impression weeding your

:08:13. > :08:21.speech that you might actually rather favour Scotland becoming

:08:21. > :08:26.independent, am I being fair? -- a reading your speech. I am not

:08:26. > :08:32.opposed to it. The expression of the Scottish people needs to be

:08:32. > :08:38.confirmed in the referendum. If it is yes I think a path we should be

:08:38. > :08:43.discovered for the independence of Scotland. I think it is entirely

:08:43. > :08:50.natural as an expression of self determination in it 2013 for there

:08:50. > :08:55.to be a referendum on this issue. That is am very natural evolution.

:08:55. > :09:01.This part of the United Kingdom has been on a path to its sense at

:09:01. > :09:07.least the 1970s. It is a logical trajectory. There is nothing

:09:07. > :09:14.shocking about it. No one should be surprised at that a referendum is

:09:14. > :09:19.being held. In the future, if a referendum is being held, there are

:09:19. > :09:29.ways to move this situation towards what I considered to be at very

:09:29. > :09:30.

:09:30. > :09:34.reasonable separation of the rest If Scotland were to become

:09:34. > :09:37.independent, you think it is tenable that Britain is on the

:09:37. > :09:42.Security Council given that there are countries like Germany and

:09:42. > :09:47.Japan which already questioned, sometimes, whether it is

:09:47. > :09:54.appropriate for Britain to be there. A undoubtedly, debate will arise as

:09:54. > :10:01.to the future. Let me be more specific. Yes, there will be

:10:01. > :10:05.questions raised. About the continuation of the permanent seat

:10:05. > :10:10.of the United Kingdom, if this process moves forward, with

:10:10. > :10:14.Scotland, but Scotland would play a stronger hand if it works closely

:10:14. > :10:18.with London to sustain the permanent seat in the United

:10:18. > :10:22.Nations Security Council by using its emerging relationships with

:10:22. > :10:30.other nations to essentially lobby those other nations for the

:10:30. > :10:37.continuation of the United Kingdom's seat. One of your former

:10:37. > :10:43.State Department colleagues said, we're dealing with countries like

:10:43. > :10:48.China, Japan and Brazil, here. United Kingdom still holds a pretty

:10:48. > :10:56.strong hand in the Security Council in terms of the ultimate vote as to

:10:56. > :11:02.its own fate within the Security Council. What I am saying is that,

:11:02. > :11:06.whenever Russia retained the Security Council seat, and that was

:11:07. > :11:11.to a friendly agreement within the council. The United Kingdom is

:11:11. > :11:17.perfectly capable of retaining a similar, friendly agreement, but it

:11:17. > :11:27.can only do so, in my view, if Scotland stands with it in seeking

:11:27. > :11:29.

:11:29. > :11:32.that friendly agreement with and the council. -- within. Its health

:11:32. > :11:35.benefits have made it a popular choice for our dinner plates, but

:11:35. > :11:38.now mackerel has been downgraded from a list of fish suitable to eat.

:11:38. > :11:40.The Marine Conservation Society says it is no longer a sustainable

:11:40. > :11:43.choice, thanks largely to Iceland and the Faroe Islands increasing

:11:43. > :11:46.the amount of the species that they catch. The move has angered

:11:46. > :11:50.Scotland's fishermen, who are urging us to ignore the advice.

:11:50. > :11:56.Here's Steven Godden. Attractive might not be the work that springs

:11:56. > :12:00.to mind, but appearance, it seems, is no barrier for the upwardly

:12:01. > :12:06.mobile mackerel. This Glasgow fishmonger boost its rice down to a

:12:06. > :12:11.combination of factors, among them, celebrity chef endorsement under

:12:11. > :12:16.push to encourage people to eat more oily fish. Today his customers

:12:16. > :12:21.have something to ponder after the Marine Conservation Society took

:12:21. > :12:25.mackerel off his list of suitable fish to eat. The leaves me with a

:12:25. > :12:30.dilemma. I know that there is going to be mackerel available. Scottish

:12:30. > :12:35.fishermen are going to be lending it. I have to consider what is

:12:35. > :12:39.sustainable, what my customers are going to be happy with, and the

:12:39. > :12:44.fish that I supply them with is actually going to be sustainable,

:12:44. > :12:51.long into the future. sustainability is at the root of

:12:51. > :12:56.their advice. Mackerel was traditionally found mainly in the

:12:56. > :13:01.north-east Atlantic. In the last few years it has seen a shift

:13:01. > :13:04.north-west towards Iceland and the Faeroe Islands. A decision by those

:13:04. > :13:09.governments to refuse quota agreements with other North

:13:09. > :13:13.Atlantic countries was at the same time significantly increasing how

:13:13. > :13:18.much they catch infuriated fishing leaders, triggering the so called

:13:18. > :13:22.mackerel wars. Is human nature. They want to capitalise on the

:13:22. > :13:26.stock, but the stock is of a finite size, and the fishing pressure is

:13:27. > :13:30.almost double what it should be, so the stock is in danger of

:13:30. > :13:34.collapsing entirely. Scottish fishermen say that the charity has

:13:34. > :13:40.a point about Iceland and the fear Roy Evans over-fishing but insist

:13:40. > :13:45.they have been too hasty, warning people off mackerel. For latest

:13:45. > :13:51.scientific advice, produced in October, shows that the sign that

:13:51. > :13:56.it level is at 2.7 million tonnes, and the signs says the safe limit

:13:56. > :13:59.is 2.2 million tonnes. The stock is well above these limits. We feel

:13:59. > :14:06.they should have waited until there was some fresh information before

:14:06. > :14:10.coming out with the statement. extra they will produce fresh date

:14:10. > :14:18.on mackerel stocks, but as the increase in quotas continues, this

:14:18. > :14:20.humble fish will remain a political animal. Joining me from our London

:14:20. > :14:24.studio is Jim Masters, from the Marine Conservation Society, who

:14:24. > :14:30.you saw on that film. And also in London is Bertie Armstrong of the

:14:30. > :14:35.Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It is a bit confusing. You're not

:14:35. > :14:40.saying that mackerel is in danger, but you're saying don't eat it.

:14:40. > :14:44.We're not telling people not to eat it, we're telling people, advising

:14:44. > :14:50.people, to exercise caution when thinking about sourcing mackerel

:14:50. > :14:57.and eating it, which is an entirely different thing. It is not as if

:14:57. > :15:01.people eat it every day, is it? is not in the list of fish to a boy

:15:01. > :15:05.completely, they should think twice before producing it. If people

:15:05. > :15:09.continue to eat mackerel, they should source that fish from the

:15:09. > :15:17.lowest impact fisheries or fisheries previously set to fight

:15:17. > :15:26.as sustainable before the recent advice. -- certified. You're saying

:15:26. > :15:32.that this is nonsense? This advice is very much premature. The stock

:15:32. > :15:36.is nowhere remotely near collapsing. It has changed its migration into

:15:36. > :15:40.Icelandic waters because of the size of it. It is not near collapse.

:15:40. > :15:45.We would like this thing to change to the source of the problem and

:15:45. > :15:48.the source of the problem is gross over catching by Iceland and the

:15:48. > :15:53.Faeroe Islands outside International Again is. What would

:15:53. > :15:58.be helpful in the argument is a people focused on the reputation of

:15:58. > :16:03.Iceland as a fisheries manager rather than concentrating on what

:16:03. > :16:08.you pointed out was confusing advice from the Marine Conservation

:16:08. > :16:15.Society. I noticed you nodding in agreement. Yes, there is a bigger

:16:15. > :16:20.picture at stake, and that is the unilateral appropriation of stocks

:16:20. > :16:26.by Icelandic and Faroese fisherman. After many advice -- years of

:16:26. > :16:34.nurturing stocks were Scottish and poor regions please, from a very

:16:34. > :16:39.low level in 2002... 0 but the fish just went up there, did they?

:16:39. > :16:43.not sure why they might have been found up there, it could be because

:16:43. > :16:49.they are chasing prey, it could be climate change, but they are

:16:49. > :16:52.fuelling in greater numbers off the coast of Iceland. Why can't this be

:16:52. > :16:59.sorted out? Your demanding sanctions against the Icelandic

:16:59. > :17:02.fleet. They make the point that the EU and we all we are still

:17:02. > :17:12.demanding 90% of the fishery when most of the fish are in Icelandic

:17:12. > :17:13.

:17:13. > :17:16.waters. Most of the fish are assuredly not. 1% of spawning

:17:16. > :17:24.happens in Icelandic waters. The migration starts near the Arctic

:17:24. > :17:27.Circle and ends up by the IB the insular. There is not a body of

:17:27. > :17:34.fish going exclusively into the Icelandic waters. This is

:17:34. > :17:40.opportunism, buy them. The way that they are bridging this is basically

:17:40. > :17:44.mugging. They are going to catch the fish in such prodigious

:17:44. > :17:48.quantities that you are going to have to pay attention to the stock

:17:48. > :17:53.were received the eventually, and they want a really big share. It is

:17:53. > :18:01.like saying, you have a big house and the spare room, there is a

:18:01. > :18:06.homeless person here, I am just win to have that spare room. Grimsby,

:18:06. > :18:10.which are think is the biggest processing fish town in Britain

:18:10. > :18:13.relies heavily on Icelandic fish. If you are worried about jobs in

:18:13. > :18:22.Scotland, you could be put in hundreds of people out of a job,

:18:22. > :18:27.there. What will actually happen is, the threat to Iceland by the EU,

:18:27. > :18:31.saying to them, you going to have to be yourself or we will have to

:18:31. > :18:35.take sanctions, so please come back to the negotiating table. Nobody

:18:35. > :18:41.has said that Iceland and the Faeroe Islands are not entitled to

:18:41. > :18:45.a share, but what we're looking at is the size of that share, and the

:18:45. > :18:53.way they are advancing the argument is by taking the role of the

:18:53. > :18:57.European quota. We will take you as a neutral in this one. What could

:18:57. > :19:03.they do to sort this out? Platforms exist to resolve this dispute

:19:03. > :19:07.between different fishing interests. We are not here to play politics

:19:07. > :19:13.with the fish stock in any shape or form. We are here to raise an issue

:19:13. > :19:20.about sustainable fishing. In the long term, sustainable fishing

:19:20. > :19:26.makes economic and environmental sense for everybody. Thank you both

:19:26. > :19:36.very much indeed. A quick look at tomorrow's newspapers. The Scotsman,

:19:36. > :19:40.

:19:40. > :19:47.Cameron says UK support for the EU But the picture of the British