Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
The Scottish National Party has announced that a vote on Scottish independence from the UK will be held in 2014. David Cameron has tried to talk the Scots out of seceding from the union, and going back on his earlier stance, is now assuring them that if they stay in the UK, that Westminster will "devolve" more power to Holyrood.
Should he be doing this? Scotland is the biggest per capita recipient of "benefits" in the UK... what we would call welfare here in the states. More British tax money goes into Scotland than comes out of it. Per capita, Scots get 20 percent more spent on them per person than any other place in the UK. Scots get a variety of benefits free that other nations of the UK do not, including free college tuition. And while the SNP has promised that an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as the sovereign, the SNP is notoriously anti-royal, and I don't think many people actually believe them. Further, Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, says that an independent Scotland would get out of NATO. They're also committed to joining the Euro, have taken a strong no-nukes stance, and pledge a "progressive" confiscatory tax structure. The SNP is a largely leftist party and seems to have the overwhelming support of Scots.
So the question is... why would you want these people to be part of your country? North Sea oil can't be that big a reason. Further, some Tories have noted that with Labour being the second party in Scotland (the Conservative Party in Scotland is small to the point of being insignificant), if Scotland indeed leaves, it would almost make Labour a rump party in England, cementing the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as the big two parties in England. This leads to the theory that some Tories want Scotland gone, seeing both the elimination of an ungrateful society that eats more than it produces, and providing a domestic political benefit in England.
There's still Wales and Northern Ireland, of course. The Welsh haven't had this kind of secession impulse (at least not yet), and NI is firmly a unionist country for now. But even if they left as well, would that be bad for England? The vast majority of the population and wealth and industry in the UK is in England. Would the bolting of Scotland ultimately be good or bad for England?
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
My grandfathers (Macdonald and Murdoch) did not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but they agreed upon several.
One was that the living standard, job opportunities, and prospects for a future in Scotland were so dim that any man with a spark of ambition would emigrate. This explains why (as Grandfather Macdonald put it) "half the population of Canada is named Macdonald." (He was exaggerating--it's only 41%.)
The threat of secession by Quebec is an old ploy to exact benefits from the Canadian federal government. It's a real threat--without Quebec, the Maritimes cannot exist as a nation (they'll be annexed by Maine); and western Canada becomes a Pacific Rim nation.
The SNP sees this and thinks it can exert the same leverage. They're wrong. If they vote for secession, they'll slit their own throats--and take the Labour Party with them.
This would accord with another point of agreement of my grandfathers. When faced with any significant problem, angry Scots have always--always--chosen to do something valiantly self-destructive in the face of overwhelming English superiority.
(They didn't like haggis, either.)
Aug '10
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
I would prefer that the UK become a true federal nation by:
That would largely make any electoral imbalances between the four British regions moot, since the authority for most matters would be devolved to the regions.
Mar '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Misthiocracy: I would prefer that the UK become a true federal nation by:
That would largely make any electoral imbalances between the four British regions moot, since the authority for most matters would be devolved to the regions. · 2 hours ago
But what seems to happen is that the more authority is sent back to the local assemblies, the greater the cries for independence. And perhaps the reason why this is so is that the very existence of the modern UK... which came into being with the Act of Union... depends on the notion of "Britishness" rather than Englishness or Scottishness, etc. The more Scottish they become, the less British they are. I think this has to be an all or nothing deal. It appears that the UK has to be "one people", or it simply won't survive in its current form. Now, there's the possibility that the Scots do this, fail utterly as an independent state, and that Wales and NI go "Nope, we're staying put, thanks". It'll be interesting.
Nov '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Weirdly enough, Scotland's vote for the SNP doesn't actually demonstrate desire for independence. They voted SNP to get rid of Labour. (Yes, Scotland's pretty far left -- the Scottish Tories hadn't a chance, and some people who might have voted for them voted SNP to get Labour out.) Polls consistently show most Scots opposing the idea. The referendum could well result in "No."
But the SNP do want independence, and Alex Salmond is a canny politician. He's been playing for time, putting off the referendum as long as possible.
While from a sheer electoral perspective losing Scotland would be good for the Tories -- as if a large chunk of New England disappeared -- ironically, Labour did more to further the idea (through devolution) while the Conservatives have opposed it.
It's philosophically consistent for them to do so, and they're right in my view -- the union has frankly worked pretty well, and the grievances hardly justify the uncertain consequences of breaking up the country. They would be weaker separately than together, and there are countless unknowns. Currency is one -- for the Scots, joining the Euro sounds like a particularly bad idea just about now.
Edited on February 27, 2012 at 11:43pmAug '10
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Douglas
But what seems to happen is that the more authority is sent back to the local assemblies, the greater the cries for independence.
I humbly disagree. The way I see it, the real problem is that each regional legislature has vastly different powers and responsibilities (and levels of free cash from Westminster) as they each negotiated separately with Westminster.
The deals made were not about definitively setting the constitutional limits between Westminster and the regional parliaments. Instead, the deals were about buying the regions off at as low a cost as possible, but keeping as much ultimate power in Westminster as possible.
If the process had instead been about limiting Westminster's powers to the minimum required, and devolving all residual powers to the regions (INCLUDING England), we would have seen a completely different dynamic.
The devolution process simply became a game where each region tried squeeze as much money out of England as it could, while assuming as little responsibly as possible.
Get all four regions at the negotiating table at the same time with Westminster, and negotiate the separation of powers together. If they still can't work out a new constitutional deal, then start talking secession.
Aug '10
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
I humbly submit that the union worked pretty well, right up until the creation and continued dominance of the modern welfare state.
I don't really give a fig about the validity of the "grievances". I care about crafting a system that will foster the best possible governance for Great Britain in the 21st Century.
Health care, social assistance, other social programs, municipalities, and the other residual powers are best administered by levels of government closer to the people served.
It may have made sense for these functions to be the responsibility of Westminster when they made up a very small proportion of the budget.
Now that they have become the dominant activity of government, it makes perfect sense to limit Westminster to the central powers required for the defense and administration of the realm, and to devolve everything else to the regions.
The key is to ensure that no one region is granted powers not granted to the other regions.
Aug '10
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
In other words, and to make a long story short, the philosophical underpinnings of the process shouldn't be framed as Westminster devolving powers to the regions. That just perpetuated the narrative of a patriarchal Westminster trying to keep the regions quiet by offering them tidbits.
Rather, the process should be framed as the regions taking responsibility for themselves and limiting the powers of Westminster.
May '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
An independent Scotland would presumably get a disproportionately large fraction of the UK's offshore exclusive economic zone.
Off England and Wales, you quickly bump into the zones of other countries. Scotland has more elbow room.
The loss of oil revenue, etc. to the rump UK, might offset the savings in transfers.
Jul '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
The entire region is doomed and will fail just a bit ahead of us. Maybe 10-15 years.
Nov '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
I don't know that we disagree that much. I'm open to increased devolution; there's at the least a fair case for an English parliament.
Misthiocracy
I humbly submit that the union worked pretty well, right up until the creation and continued dominance of the modern welfare state.
Yes -- but the problem is the welfare state, not the union.
You could say something similar about another union of states...
Like California, there's no easy solution for Scotland's problems, so long as its people persist in voting for socialism.
My point was simply that the SNP's case for Scottish independence is not particularly overwhelming and that the conservative way to go about it, in the Burkean tradition, is to do what is necessary to fix significant problems (such as the West Lothian Question) with as little disruption to the current order of things as possible.
I think you are also thinking along those lines; Alex Salmond certainly is not.
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 12:27amJun '10
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
As with Quebec, they're separated by language, and tied together by convenience. Convenience wins.
Oct '10
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
I lived for a year in rural northern Scotland about 50 years ago. Lovely people who hated the Crown, but appeared quite incapable of self governance.
Let them seceed and discover what much of the world is learning; that being alone without a benefactor is a hard life, and, in the case of Scotland, will lead to failure.
As DocJay says above, maybe 10-15 years ahead, but going down with the rest of us.
Nov '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
"Scotland is covered by 59 constituencies of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliament."
Only one is held by the Conservative Party and that one is about as far south as you can get.
The comparison to New England is interesting. None of the 22 U.S. House of Representatives seats in New England after the 2008 election were held by Republicans (Massachusetts 10, Connecticut 5, Maine 2, New Hampshire 2, Rhode Island 2, Vermont). If you throw in neighboring New York, they held only 3 out of those 51 seats after the 2008 election.
Freedom isn't such a bad thing. If freedom is what they want, England should take it as a blessing and give it to them.
The St. Louis Cardinals wanted to re-sign Albert Pujols too, but at some point you can't give them everything.
Ann Coulter recently told Ricochet that immigrants from Scotland and Switzerland were the cure for economic sluggishness. Let's see if that's true...
Mar '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Has Scotland produced a single person of note in say the last 200 years? Where did the inheritors of Loxke and June
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 4:07amDec '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Richard Pugilist: Has Scotland produced a single person of note in say the last 200 years? Where did the inheritors of Loxke and June · 2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
That's actually an interesting point. The "Scottish Enlightenment" of the 18th century was a sort of fluke. Before and after that, Scotland was mainly filled with, for lack of a better term, white trash. In fact, Scotland was one of the main sources of the US's redneck population.
Oct '10
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Leigh:
It's philosophically consistent for them to do so, and they're right in my view -- the union has frankly worked pretty well, and the grievances hardly justify the uncertain consequences of breaking up the country. They would be weaker separately than together, and there are countless unknowns. · 7 hours ago Currency is one -- for the Scots, joining the Euro sounds like a particularly bad idea just about now.
You bring up a very important point, in fact, probably the most important one that affects the calculus of secession. It will be particularly difficult for Scotland if the UK says they can't hang on to Sterling, and London will still decide on the interest rate. For them to join the Euro at this time would be absurd given its problems.
Oct '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Has a student in Edinburgh, I gotta say that finding a Tory here is more difficult than finding the Philosophical stone.
I am part of the debating society, and each time we have big theme event all the guests are Scottish National Party, Lib-Dem, and Labour MSP/MPs, never once a Tory is to be found ... My Scottish friends find it normal, and I prefer not to ask for fear of lynching.
What I find funny is that the Conservatives are demonized for opposition to secession, and then demonized for trying to look at the bright side of secession.
bereket kelile
difficult for Scotland if the UK says they can't hang on to Sterling, and London will still decide on the interest rate. For them to join the Euro at this time would be absurd given its problems. · 25 minutes ag
o
The problem of them retaining the Pound will that they will still be sucking the life out of England, and be in a situation similar to that of Greece in Euro. So if they run massive deficits and go bust, the English will have to bail them out again for fear of damaging the sterling.
Mar '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
The Cloaked Gaijin:
Ann Coulter recently told Ricochet that immigrants from Scotland and Switzerland were the cure for economic sluggishness. Let's see if that's true... · 5 hours ago
Not from Scotland, it isn't. Sorry,but I think Anne has been wrong quite a bit lately, and this is the latest. I have nothing in the way of hard data to prove this, but reading history and watching political trends, the sense I get is that the "Hardy Scot"... the tough, go-it-alone guys in the mold of Scottish legend... left Scotland for Canada and the US southern states a long, long time ago, and that what remains is closer to Ewan McGregor's character from Trainspotting than William Wallace. In other words, that warrior screaming "Freedom!"? He moved here. His descendants are in Montgomery Alabama and western Ontario, not Aberdeen or Edinburgh.
Note: I see that Samuel actually lives there, so I'd be very interested in his take on my comments here. Am I on the mark or totally off, Samuel?
Edited on February 28, 2012 at 8:54amOct '11
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Douglas
Edited 0 minutes agoNote: I see that Samuel actually lives there, so I'd be very interested in his take on my comments here. Am I on the mark or totally off, Samuel? · 3 minutes ago
You probably right in your comment, especially on the cultural and philosophical side of it.
From what I seen from young political active people Scotland is and will likely be left-leaning for a long time, especially since these young people are likely to become the next generation of politicos.
Be it the debating circuits full of left-leaning people and themes, or the Student Union politics that are definitively left leaning (ie opposition to cuts, support for free education), it is definitively not a ''Hardy Scot'' country.
Even some Lecturers sometimes indulge in Tory bashing, from time to time.
Re: Scottish Independence: Should England tell them "Good Riddance"?
Hey, it worked for the Czechs and Slovaks. (For the moment.)