@ Clydebuilt
Well you may be right: but I honestly don't think that the US has much interest either way. Westminster asked for a favour: he obliged precisely because it does not much matter, I think.
One thing which has not been much discussed on this issue is this:
"Privately, however, figures in the Obama administration have expressed fears about the significant impact on US interests if the UK's influence and status in Nato, the UN security council and the EU were weakened by Scotland's independence and the loss of Trident nuclear submarines on the Clyde." (from the Guardian report)
It seems to me that this is an admission that the rUK would lose its seat on the Security Council, or at least that it might. I am fairly sure this is a big concern at Westminster. Similarly they keep saying Scotland will be out of Nato (speed the day, IMO
) but this acknowledges that the UK would have less influence there without Trident. Hadn't thought about that in quite that way. I do not see how rUK would lose status and influence in the EU because of Scottish independence: would it have fewer representatives or something? I don't know. I do know that it has less influence because of Cameron's walk out, if that is still relevant, but the biggest undermining fact would seem to me to be the UKIP vote and that has very little to do with us.
I have gained the impression that this statement has said a great deal more than Mr Cameron might have wished. I was thinking Mr Obama had laid emphasis on US interests: but it seems to me now that he has given a lot away about Westminster's interests and agenda, perhaps inadvertantly
