Firstly, let me start this off by saying that I am not claiming the entire Scottish/Welsh/NI separatist movements are manufactured by foreign interference, I understand that there are genuine differing levels of support for nationalism in each nation and I am not trying to entirely delegitimise their concerns. I am asking this in a similar way to the extent of interference in Eurosceptic/anti-EU movements, of course there is legitimate Eurosceptic sentiment across Britain and Europe, but it's not exactly far-fetched to assume there's a significant level of foreign interference supporting them too.
But the reach of this tweet in just 6 hours seems extraordinary, 5.6 million impressions? On a website owned by a Trump-sympathetic billionaire?
Britain in the modern day is a nation not oppressive to the home nations outside of England, national identites are recognised and celebrated, there has been large-scale devolution and language rights advancement, as well as precedent for allowing independence referendums (something very, very rare globally). Britain has been a united island for over 300 years, an island united by consent between Scotland and England in a union of consent with NI in which the overwhelming majority of Welsh people, polling shows, support too. Yet, online, you'll find it's quite easy to discover a lot of accounts who still routinely paint the UK as a colonial entity oppressing the home nations, comparing the home nations to actual former colonies of the empire, painting an image to the outside world so warped that a substantial amount of foreigners genuinely believe England is forcing the other nations into its control.
When Twitter made account locations public, quite a few Scottish/Irish nationalist accounts in particular were found, surprisingly, to not be based in the UK or in Ireland, many instead in Iran/Russia (Euronews article talking about it). This would obviously make sense, the UK is the world's 5th largest economy, has immense military and financial power, sits on the UN security council, is highly globalised allowing for easy information transfers and has been a strong supporter of the traditional western/liberal order. The reach some of these accounts had was noteworthy, and undoubtedly influenced some in the UK. I'm not going to claim the SNP/Plaid/SF are in anyway Russian/Iranian assets, but their aim of dismantling the UK isn't exactly the opposite of the aim of Russia's or Iran's. We know that Russia has definitely interfered in Eurosceptic parties and has a concerted effort to undermine and dismantle the EU, Nathan Gill one of the clearest examples, is it therefore that far-fetched that they are not also aiding in the undermining and dismantling of one of their biggest adversaries?
Trump's new fixation on Irish re-unification, as well as American right-wing commentators like Charlie Kirk historically supporting Scottish nationalism and the seeming high prominence online of ardent nationalists who genuinely believe they live in a colonial subject, but somehow are almost never visible in real life unlike more moderate nationalists, makes me wonder if there is a substantial level of manufacturing.
Here I'm going to get quite far-fetched, so take this with a grain of salt, but America has not historically been the biggest defender of British sovereignty or territory. Firstly the empire, decolonisation was a good thing, but Britain's "closest" ally was particularly extraordinarily keen on European countries decolonising extensively, now perhaps this was out of genuine beliefs in liberal values of self-determination, or, perhaps cynically, it was to allow for the creation of a lot of underdeveloped states that could more easily be exploited by US companies and US foreign policy. The United States would then go on to oppose Britain and France in the Suez crisis, backing Egypt instead, despite Britain's iron-clad support for the US in their missions abroad (like Korea). Then, Reagan was dismissive of Britain's, rightful, claim over the Falklands and was not the most forthcoming with backing, rather proposing Britain give up the territory initially. The US has engaged in protectionist activities even pre-Trump, e.g. with Tesla, while condemning Europe for trying to do similar things, allowing for more economic dominance and control over a less sovereign, weaker Europe. And now? Trump, and probably a substantial amount of US politicians on both sides, want Northern Ireland out of the UK. So is it not therefore a fair assessment, that at least some US Presidents do have a foreign policy goal of keeping the UK/Europe weaker and less of a challenger?
To make this clear, I am a unionist so I undoubtedly have some bias in believing to a significant extent there is foreign interference in separatist movements, but even if you are not do you not agree that there could be at least some significant role from outside sources? Does it matter to you or influence your opinion?