Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Scottish Independence: Not Sure What to Think
I’m on Day 13 of my self-imposed news blackout, and loving it more each day. However, I did promise the editors that I wouldn’t be a stranger here, so I felt obliged to take a quick peek this morning. I figured it wouldn’t destabilize me too much to read the latest on the Scottish independence referendum. I found myself unsure what to think, so I figured I’d farm this one out to you.
On the one hand, the arguments for secession are lunatic. In fact, they’re nonexistent: The secessionists have no arguments, just very, very strong feelings. I’m sure you’re familiar with the outlines of this debate, so I’ll just review briefly:
So, what currency are you going to use? Oh, you haven’t worked that out. Well, I’m sure you’ll manage.
And who’s going to protect your bank deposits? You haven’t figured that out, either? Well, okay, no need to over-think things.
Have you figured out what you’ll do to prevent capital flight? You haven’t thought about that, either? I guess it won’t be a problem, so that’s fine.
Do you think it might be an important clue that the mere holding of this referendum has wiped billions off the value of Scottish companies? No? I guess I’m just a nervous nellie, I shouldn’t get wrapped around the axle about details like that.
I see that you don’t want nuclear weapons on your soil. I understand, nuclear weapons are really awful, aren’t they? But wait, you say you want to join NATO? You mean, you want to be protected by NATO’s nuclear umbrella? So let me get clear on this — you want to be a smaller, weaker country; and you don’t want to be invaded by a bigger, stronger country, but you also don’t want the nukes anywhere where they might make you feel icky? Have you asked yourself whether NATO will be very sympathetic to this desire? No? Well, I’m sure they’ll be understanding, once they understand how important this is to you.
And you want to join the EU, I gather. Have you considered the years and years that the UK spent painstakingly and painfully negotiating myriad opt-outs and rebates? Basically, you’d be throwing those out the window? You haven’t? Well, don’t get stressed out about that, I guess. You’ll sort it out.
So how are you planning to split up all those shared assets — the embassies, the BBC, all that government property? No idea? I guess that sounds like a good plan. The no-plan, that is. It sounds very spontaneous. Be here now, I always say. Lots of married people I know have found that the no-plan worked really well for them when their marriages went south.
And you plan to give up your seat on the Security Council to be, I guess, a sort of Greenland-lite? Fair enough, who needs power and influence in today’s world? Except Putin, maybe, he seems a little hung up on that.
I was wondering about, you know, institutions, like border police and whatnot — you have a plan for that? I mean, like, a detailed one? I guess you shouldn’t make yourself crazy about things like that, you’re a clever people, you’ll manage. Things like borders are easy to control, after all. And we seem to be managing fine without one in the US.
I love it that you’re going to live forever on North Sea oil. That’s just what I’d do, if I were you. I’m just, maybe, a little concerned: You’re going to run out of that oil pretty soon. Do your financial plans extend beyond “living off of it forever?” Well, it’s true that you’re Scottish, and Scotland is super-great. You’ll wing it. Okay on that too.
And finally: Scottish nationalism? Seriously, folks? And you are importantly different from Liverpudlians how, exactly? I mean, apart from having better golf courses. Oh, that’s right — you’ve got the Proclaimers and they don’t! Of course, I see your point now. That’s called “the narcissism of small differences,” by the way. But that’s cool.
Moving laterally, I must confess that at first glance, secession’s major boosters don’t fill me with confidence — although again, maybe I’m overthinking it?
The campaign battle over Scottish independence took a bitter turn on Saturday when a senior nationalist warned businesses such as BP that they could face punishment for voicing concern over the impact of secession. … former Scottish Nationalist Party deputy leader Jim Sillars went much further than separatist leader Alex Salmond, warning that BP’s operations in Scotland might face nationalisation if Scots voted for secession on Sept. 18.
“This referendum is about power, and when we get a ‘Yes’ majority we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks,” Sillars, a nationalist rival of Salmond’s, was quoted by Scottish media as saying.
“BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have been forced to be,” Sillars said.
I can envision some problems with this approach, if I really put on my doom-and-negativity-goggles. So I guess I still have my doubts, since I’m a bit of a worrier. I might even be tempted to recommend they not do this, since it will be pretty hard to take back.
But then again, it really does seem a bit rich — if not completely outrageous — for an American to say, “Well, we didn’t want to be be ruled from London. But we certainly recommend that to you.”
So you can see why this leaves me confused.
Published in General
Of the NATO countries, how many currently deploy nuclear weapons on their soil, whether their own or some other country’s?
Heck, Iceland doesn’t even have a standing army!
I say if Scotland votes for independence England should invade. Just for fun. Well, just for fun, and also to renegotiate the terms of the union.
An independent Scotland, if it nationalizes the oil industry, will have to learn how to operate offshore oil rigs without the help of British Petroleum plc.
Much like Newfoundland, the UK might be quite happy to be relieved of the burden of supporting the territory financially.
I was similarly confused, Claire, until I heard a secession support’s argument.
This might help, you.
“supporter’s,” that is. Please fix the edit function soon!
My wife’s relatives in Scotland are terrified of an independence vote. Her aunt married a Scot (he things the vote is insane), and they live in Glasgow where some of the most rabid supporters are based. Vandalism against the English is rising, as are physical threats. Houses that display a Union Jack have had windows broken.
My father-in-law’s opinion is that Braveheart is entirely to blame, as before that film came out the secession party was considered a fringe group of lunatics. But while the film was showing these guys were outside the theaters with propaganda booths, giving away booklets decrying centuries of injustice at the hands of the vile southerners. So young ignorant movie goers, fully riled up by the film, came out ready to paint their own faces blue and Scots Nationalists were right there fanning the flames.
Of course Tony Blair only made it worse by his “devolution”, which no one but him had really been suggesting. The recreation of the separate Scots parliament made this vote inevitable.
According to the family, what is not spoken in public is the feared return of clan-based partisanship and violence should Scotland’s socialists take them the way of Argentina. The Campbells in particular still wield a great deal of old influence, and other families might be looking to settle scores should things go pear-shaped.
As it stands now, the United Kingdom is already finished. By ridding themselves of Scotland, England might well enter a period of extended growth and prosperity as secession will adversely affect the Labour Party.
It has been pointed out that getting into the EU might prove to be a bridge too far as Spain would have a strong incentive to block any entry bid so as not to encourage their own separatists in Catalonia.
Reclaiming sovereignty from London only to send it off to Brussels never made much sense to me. It’s frustrating not knowing which nationality my wife will be by the end of the week, especially given the fact that Scots abroad have no say in the matter. I guess we’ll just have to wait a few months until she can become an American.
My original attitude was one of indifference, leaning towards the Scots should vote for independence so they can get what they vote for good and hard. (I think the best case for Scots independence is dismal, like the best case for the Obama Administration was to be the Carter Administration.)
Then I learned Piers Morgan has threatened to move back to the United States if the Scots vote for independence. As far as I am concerned, if that were to happen, a Scots vote for independence would be the equivalent of an act of war against the United States.
The good news for the Scots is the US has the Best President Ever for nations wishing to commit acts of war against the United States. Nothing is going to happen to those nations for at least two more years, and by then Piers Morgan would likely have left the United States in yet another snit.
Seawriter
They have to vote for independence to find out what’s in it.
Really? That’s odd. Brits living overseas are allowed to vote in UK elections.
I wonder if Québecois living outside Canada were allowed to vote in the 1995 referendum…
Sillars sounds a bit like Hugo Chavez in blue face paint.
The ‘naw’ campaign should probably try to capitalize on the fact that England would benefit more from the dissolution of the Union than would Scotland. Maybe something along the lines of “Stick it to the English. Stick with the Union.”
Leftmost a purely philosophical point of view, this is no different than my son wanting to move out because he doesn’t like the rules at my house, but he has no money and has given little thought to how he will survive on his own. He should move out, and figure things out on his own. And the Scots should secede, and figure things out on their own.
I want them to vote for independence just so I can grab a bag of popcorn and watch the train-wreck. Would London say “no backsies?”
And I want to see what the new Great Britain is like politically. Next Margret Thatcher?
What the what?
It would most likely be a David Cameron majority government, with the opposition split between Labour and the Lib-Dems. Whether that’s better or worse than the current coalition government depends entirely on your point-of-view.
Whether Yes or No wins, the future of Scotland and its institutions will be stitched together in back rooms by the usual unelected suspects from the permanent governing class. Pretty much like anywhere, then.
This is asking for someone with Photoshop skills.
OTOH, UKIP would also likely be in a better position, and that is worth cheering for too.
I assumed it would push the Tories considerably to the right. If we dropped Califonia and New York, presumably it would move the whole country considerably more right than the current center of the Republican party.
Would they though? They have not yet been able to win a single seat in UK general elections. The removal of the Scottish seats would not change the electoral calculus for UKIP one iota. It’s not about the popular vote, after all. It’s about winning seats.
Don’t you think they would keep Parliament’s size mostly constant? I’m not up to date on how they do this there, but it will increase the voting power of UKIP and the Torries relative to the leftist parties.
I find that I usually dislike Europian nationalist parties, because they tend to be protectionist and/or socialist. Is this true with UKIP?
Probably not odd at all. My guess is that expats are more likely to support the Union and have been disqualified for that reason.
Like all other important matters, issues pertaining to expats are completely up in the air.
Wait. I thought you said they want to join the EU, in which case, they’d be ruled from Brussels. That’s preferable to being ruled from London how, exactly?
But I probably shouldn’t overthink this.
Great post, Claire!
I am still where I was when I first heard Scottish independence was a serious probability:
1. The Scots should definitely have the right of self-determination (although a simple majority is too slim for a significant decision like this, 2/3rds would be better).
2. The remainder of the UK would be better off (at least for the near term) politically and financially, as the left-most polity would be sloughed off But the military/national-assets mess would be… messy.
3. The Scotland that produced the Scottish Enlightenment and the British Empire is gone, the remainders are more likely to be football hooligans on the dole, screaming for independence. So Scotland’s economic future is not promising, Slovakia is not a likely outcome, more likely Argentina.
4. For emotional reasons I would like to see a whole UK continuing. I suspect if the Scottish vote is successful then a lot of previously fringe self-determination efforts would gain momentum (Although an independent Bear Republic would be helpful for the rest of the US).
Let me fix that line for you: “This is asking for someone with Photoshop skills with a website that works.”
Really? You wouldn’t have any problem losing Edwards Air Force Base, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Naval Base San Diego, Camp Pendleton, MCAS Miramar, etc, etc?
Sovereignty and independence are highly flexible concepts, anyway. What is the status of the Isle of Man, or Puerto Rico, or Hong Kong, or the District of Columbia, the Faroe Islands, Monaco, Dubai, Andorra, Lesotho, the Canary Islands, Gibraltar, Western Samoa, Lichtenstein etc. etc?