22/01/2013 Newsnight Scotland

will be something none of us predicted. Thank you very much.

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: An international lawyer and former

White House advisor gives us his verdict on how the United States

might see an independent Scotland. And a conservation society says we

should cut back on mackerel. Fishermen tell us to ignore them.

So who's right? Good evening. Amid all the claims and counter claims,

agreement over an independent Scotland's position on the

international stage seems as far off as ever. Earlier this evening,

a former adviser to the Clinton administration told an audience at

the University of Glasgow that while international law will play a

part, political negotiation and diplomacy will be key to deciding

Scotland's membership of the likes of NATO, the UN and of course the

European Union. For the First Minister this turned out to be

politically damaging. Have you sought advice from your own

Scottish block officers on this matter? We have. But the row over

EU membership shows that whatever Alex Salmond and his opponents

claim the year is no way to renegotiate membership from the

inside or outside. One part of the country, I am not speaking about

any specific one, if it wants to become an independent State it has

to apply for European membership. Even this intervention has proved

to be far from definitive. Less controversial would be membership

of the United Nations. An organisation that includes

Afghanistan and Zimbabwe to it surely find a place on the flagpole

for a suit -- Scotland. demonstrated against the Iraq war,

I am tired marching, I want a seat for our Government. Last year, the

SNP voted narrowly to change membership. It is now clear that

nuclear weapons would have to go, that is none of course you will.

Diplomacy and politics are more likely to decide Scotland's

position than international ditties and historic precedent. It is

surely wrong to think that somewhere in the bowels of the

State Department, Barack Obama does not have someone keeping an eye on

all of this. David Scheffer teaches International Human Rights Law and

International Criminal Law. Previously he served as a senior

adviser to Madeleine Albright during the Clinton administration,

and has published extensively on international legal and political

issues. He joins me now. Before we get on to the legal stuff I am

interested in you having been an adviser to the Clinton

administration. Madeleine Albright was in Glasgow not that long ago

and made a critical speech on the dangers of fragmentation within the

European Union. Do you think that reflects the view the State

department would have? I think it is a natural point of view for them

to have because the world is at a lot simpler for the United States

is a United Kingdom were not to break up. It does not complicate

matters within any talk in terms of how a divided United Kingdom would

retain its role and membership in NATO. It complicates the picture

enormously for the United States. It does not surprise me that that

point of view is expressed. That is what I would expect. You would

expect the American Government to be against an independent Scotland

even if it is not jumping out and saying that in public? Absolutely.

It presents strategic complications and security issues for the United

States. That does not mean there will not be someone in the State

Department looking at the aspirations of the Scottish people

but they will be looking at it much more from a strategic and political

point of view. Presumably, as you said, breaking up the UK, there

also seems to be a broader perspective. One point is that the

Americans want the European Union to be as strong as possible.

would say with all due respect to Madeleine Albright, it does not

necessarily reach the conclusion that if Scotland breaks off from

the United Kingdom that somehow weakens the European Union. I was

thinking more of presidents such as Catalonia or other parts of the

European Union. The idea is that a European Union which is externally

fragmented is externally weaker. There is clearly a domino theory at

work here. If one were to go down clearly others could go down with

in Europe which would weaken the European Union. Each of these

situations is so unique that whether it be Spain, Belgium or

otherwise, we must look at how one can retained the overall unity of

the European Union, the overall unity of NATO, without necessarily

dictating that each existing member State has to retain its existing

political formulation for years on end, in the future. Life is going

to change. The European landscape will change. You seem to be saying

it would not necessarily be right to stick with the status quo.

at all. I do not necessarily align myself with that point of view. I

think the European Union needs to accommodate these kinds of

adjustment within sovereignty of the European Union and the NATO

alliance. You cannot look at either of those organisations with a

static notion of what their future looks like. If you're overall aim

is to retain the overall unity of these alliances and that structure,

you need to pay attention to what is happening within each member

State. If you were back in the State Department and people turned

around and said this is wrong, Britain is one of the most

important allies, a Britain without do not want that, there is no

conceivable way in which that would be good for America, of what would

you say? I would argue internally. There are different ways of looking

at the issue. At the end of the day it is predictable that the United

States would stand with the United Kingdom as a strong ally and

express itself with that respect. got the impression weeding your

speech that you might actually rather favour Scotland becoming

independent, am I being fair? -- a reading your speech. I am not

opposed to it. The expression of the Scottish people needs to be

confirmed in the referendum. If it is yes I think a path we should be

discovered for the independence of Scotland. I think it is entirely

natural as an expression of self determination in it 2013 for there

to be a referendum on this issue. That is am very natural evolution.

This part of the United Kingdom has been on a path to its sense at

least the 1970s. It is a logical trajectory. There is nothing

shocking about it. No one should be surprised at that a referendum is

being held. In the future, if a referendum is being held, there are

ways to move this situation towards what I considered to be at very

reasonable separation of the rest If Scotland were to become

independent, you think it is tenable that Britain is on the

Security Council given that there are countries like Germany and

Japan which already questioned, sometimes, whether it is

appropriate for Britain to be there. A undoubtedly, debate will arise as

to the future. Let me be more specific. Yes, there will be

questions raised. About the continuation of the permanent seat

of the United Kingdom, if this process moves forward, with

Scotland, but Scotland would play a stronger hand if it works closely

with London to sustain the permanent seat in the United

Nations Security Council by using its emerging relationships with

other nations to essentially lobby those other nations for the

continuation of the United Kingdom's seat. One of your former

State Department colleagues said, we're dealing with countries like

China, Japan and Brazil, here. United Kingdom still holds a pretty

strong hand in the Security Council in terms of the ultimate vote as to

its own fate within the Security Council. What I am saying is that,

whenever Russia retained the Security Council seat, and that was

to a friendly agreement within the council. The United Kingdom is

perfectly capable of retaining a similar, friendly agreement, but it

can only do so, in my view, if Scotland stands with it in seeking

that friendly agreement with and the council. -- within. Its health

benefits have made it a popular choice for our dinner plates, but

now mackerel has been downgraded from a list of fish suitable to eat.

The Marine Conservation Society says it is no longer a sustainable

choice, thanks largely to Iceland and the Faroe Islands increasing

the amount of the species that they catch. The move has angered

Scotland's fishermen, who are urging us to ignore the advice.

Here's Steven Godden. Attractive might not be the work that springs

to mind, but appearance, it seems, is no barrier for the upwardly

mobile mackerel. This Glasgow fishmonger boost its rice down to a

combination of factors, among them, celebrity chef endorsement under

push to encourage people to eat more oily fish. Today his customers

have something to ponder after the Marine Conservation Society took

mackerel off his list of suitable fish to eat. The leaves me with a

dilemma. I know that there is going to be mackerel available. Scottish

fishermen are going to be lending it. I have to consider what is

sustainable, what my customers are going to be happy with, and the

fish that I supply them with is actually going to be sustainable,

long into the future. sustainability is at the root of

their advice. Mackerel was traditionally found mainly in the

north-east Atlantic. In the last few years it has seen a shift

north-west towards Iceland and the Faeroe Islands. A decision by those

governments to refuse quota agreements with other North

Atlantic countries was at the same time significantly increasing how

much they catch infuriated fishing leaders, triggering the so called

mackerel wars. Is human nature. They want to capitalise on the

stock, but the stock is of a finite size, and the fishing pressure is

almost double what it should be, so the stock is in danger of

collapsing entirely. Scottish fishermen say that the charity has

a point about Iceland and the fear Roy Evans over-fishing but insist

they have been too hasty, warning people off mackerel. For latest

scientific advice, produced in October, shows that the sign that

it level is at 2.7 million tonnes, and the signs says the safe limit

is 2.2 million tonnes. The stock is well above these limits. We feel

they should have waited until there was some fresh information before

coming out with the statement. extra they will produce fresh date

on mackerel stocks, but as the increase in quotas continues, this

humble fish will remain a political animal. Joining me from our London

studio is Jim Masters, from the Marine Conservation Society, who

you saw on that film. And also in London is Bertie Armstrong of the

Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It is a bit confusing. You're not

saying that mackerel is in danger, but you're saying don't eat it.

We're not telling people not to eat it, we're telling people, advising

people, to exercise caution when thinking about sourcing mackerel

and eating it, which is an entirely different thing. It is not as if

people eat it every day, is it? is not in the list of fish to a boy

completely, they should think twice before producing it. If people

continue to eat mackerel, they should source that fish from the

lowest impact fisheries or fisheries previously set to fight

as sustainable before the recent advice. -- certified. You're saying

that this is nonsense? This advice is very much premature. The stock

is nowhere remotely near collapsing. It has changed its migration into

Icelandic waters because of the size of it. It is not near collapse.

We would like this thing to change to the source of the problem and

the source of the problem is gross over catching by Iceland and the

Faeroe Islands outside International Again is. What would

be helpful in the argument is a people focused on the reputation of

Iceland as a fisheries manager rather than concentrating on what

you pointed out was confusing advice from the Marine Conservation

Society. I noticed you nodding in agreement. Yes, there is a bigger

picture at stake, and that is the unilateral appropriation of stocks

by Icelandic and Faroese fisherman. After many advice -- years of

nurturing stocks were Scottish and poor regions please, from a very

low level in 2002... 0 but the fish just went up there, did they?

not sure why they might have been found up there, it could be because

they are chasing prey, it could be climate change, but they are

fuelling in greater numbers off the coast of Iceland. Why can't this be

sorted out? Your demanding sanctions against the Icelandic

fleet. They make the point that the EU and we all we are still

demanding 90% of the fishery when most of the fish are in Icelandic

waters. Most of the fish are assuredly not. 1% of spawning

happens in Icelandic waters. The migration starts near the Arctic

Circle and ends up by the IB the insular. There is not a body of

fish going exclusively into the Icelandic waters. This is

opportunism, buy them. The way that they are bridging this is basically

mugging. They are going to catch the fish in such prodigious

quantities that you are going to have to pay attention to the stock

were received the eventually, and they want a really big share. It is

like saying, you have a big house and the spare room, there is a

homeless person here, I am just win to have that spare room. Grimsby,

which are think is the biggest processing fish town in Britain

relies heavily on Icelandic fish. If you are worried about jobs in

Scotland, you could be put in hundreds of people out of a job,

there. What will actually happen is, the threat to Iceland by the EU,

saying to them, you going to have to be yourself or we will have to

take sanctions, so please come back to the negotiating table. Nobody

has said that Iceland and the Faeroe Islands are not entitled to

a share, but what we're looking at is the size of that share, and the

way they are advancing the argument is by taking the role of the

European quota. We will take you as a neutral in this one. What could

they do to sort this out? Platforms exist to resolve this dispute

between different fishing interests. We are not here to play politics

with the fish stock in any shape or form. We are here to raise an issue

about sustainable fishing. In the long term, sustainable fishing

makes economic and environmental sense for everybody. Thank you both

very much indeed. A quick look at tomorrow's newspapers. The Scotsman,

Cameron says UK support for the EU But the picture of the British