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
I think the argument in favor of independence boils down to Mel Gibson with painted face screaming “FREEDOM!!!!,” and I’ve got to admit that in principle I’m not entirely unsympathetic to that sentiment. As you point out so thoroughly though, the details don’t seem to have been thought through in much detail.
I’d just add that if they wind up being ruled by a Hugo Chavez with a brogue, as seems likely at least initially, I suspect they will come to regret swinging for the fences of freedom and independence when their next best alternative was remaining a somewhat coddled junior partner in what is in essentially a relatively free and prosperous United Kingdom.
My final thought/hope though, is that Scotland being Scotland, after having touched the hot stove of hot socialism, and sat on the hard seat of independence and self reliance, there is probably a real chance that they will turn tail and — in the best of all worlds — become the Switzerland of the north. Of course I’m not talking about events likely to occur in my lifetime now.
The US could do what it did last time.
1. Hang onto Federal bases (Fort Pickens in 1861, EAFB, VAFB today.
2. Encourage a division of a seceding state so we keep the part that wants to stay. (West Virginia them, Lower California – Lo Cal – today. All those bases could make up a new state with San Diego as the capitol.)
(That would also solve the problem of folks leaving the Republic of California for Texas. They would all head for Lo Cal.)
Seawriter
There are 650 seats in Parliament. Scotland has 59 of those seats, 51 being held by centre-left Labour and Liberal Democrats. There is ONE Tory riding.
A new Parliament without Scotland would give the Tories 303 of 591 or a clear majority. That doesn’t mean they won’t lose seats in the next election but it would improve their odds.
Which is why my initial take was let them get what they vote for good and hard. There is nothing so powerful as an illusion whose time has come. Leaving the UK is an illusion whose time has come.
Then Piers Morgan has to announce his departure to the US, if the Scots leave the UK.
Seawriter
Yeah, like I already wrote, the TORIES would win a majority. Scotland’s departure would make zero difference to UKIP’s ability to win a single seat.
Somebody more knowledgeable than I is free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that reorganizing Scotland as a Self-Governing Possession of the Crown is on the bargaining table, as it would not resolve the question of the North Sea oil.
I was just dealing the numbers. If UKIP were to steal votes they would surely take them from Cameron’s squishies.
Good point. Kinda like Scarpa Flow
Even considering all the historical inaccuracies and, indeed, outright lies contained within that movie?
A much bigger sticking point is Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde.
I would think they would need to deal with mineral rights first, and to develop a broader range of export properties than Walkers’ cookies, Glenfiddich and Bellhaven ales.
The thing is, UKIP’s support is too diffuse. They need concentrated support within a constituency in order to win seats. I don’t see it happening. Tories tend to govern much more conservatively when they have a majority. The raison d’etre for UKIP would be weakened under a safe Tory majority.
(Sorta like there’s no practical reason for another right-of-centre party in Canada right now, as long as the Conservatives have a safe majority and the left-of-centre parties are divided.)
I have wondered about that question too. As it has been explained to me a “yes” vote would just be the first step. If they voted yes, then later votes would be held on questions like what form of government. It seems possible that the Scots could plump for independence along the lines of, say, Canada, keep the Queen as sovereign and with it more of those ties to the UK. On the other hand I believe the current head of the Nationalist Party is a fervent republican, I don’t know how many of his fellows are similarly inclined.
They are counting on the oil, but with higher commodity prices (thanks to Chinese demand) there has been a revitalization of the British mining industry lately. There’s even a bit of a mini gold rush of sorts happening. The Scots may be counting on those industries in addition to the oil.
As far as I can prognosticate, the only reason the UK might agree to any form of “sovereignty-association” would be if Westminster gets to control the oil. Scotland would never agree to that. Without the oil, Scotland is of very little economic value to the UK. The entire debate begins and ends with who gets the oil. IMHO.
Am I the only one who finds it incredibly ironic that the Scottish Nationalists want to their ‘independent’ Scotland to be a Green, nuclear-free Eden which relies on petroleum production?
The only immediate benefits of this are symbolic, so I’m pretty sure that the whole idea is to escape being subjects of the crown. I doubt becoming Australia or Bermuda is what they’re looking for. Scotland is more like the Republic of Ireland which, when it became self governing, went all the way and didn’t even join the Commonwealth, largely out of historical disaffection with English rule.
Thanks for the update.
I forgot, nearly 100% of the granite for curling stones comes from a single beach in Scotland.
So, they can always count on that revenue as well…
I’m not sure, either – I kinda like the idea of the lefties departing the UK (which may become known as the Former UK… oh, wait…). Then the Conservatives are more likely to remain the majority and England (oh, and Wales and N Ireland) can prosper under a new Mrs Thatcher (yet to be identified).
On the other hand, it would be bad for Scotland, and I kinda like Scotland.
Anyway, not to worry – Mr Cameron has just given the best speech of his career – it may be his last.
I’m just sympathetic to self determination at a more local level generally. (I’m not alone here in that, am I?) If power can somehow be devolved downward from a leviathan to a smaller and more local leviathan, ceteris paribus, I’m for it.
It does not mean anything, the English will feel bad if the scots says yes, that’s it.
The independence campaign claims that it wants Scotland to be a Dominion with the House of Windsor sitting on Scotland’s throne, equal to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We’ll see.
It won’t be quite that easy. The division of assets will not be an easy negotiation in the event of a “yes” vote. The oil, man. The oil.
You know, this is the sort of thing I’d really like a newspaper article to tell me (assuming it’s true). Now that you’ve told me, I can imagine that this is the sort of thing people say to each other in private; and it makes sense, intuitively. But it’s just not the sort of thing that gets reported.
Really? I hadn’t read that, but I stand corrected.
Are there any libertarians who would say, as they have in our recent VirtuCon debates, that the main goal should be independence, and all these details will work themselves out later?
That would be an argument for true federalism for all four of the British nations, something I wholeheartedly support. Sadly, that option has not been put on the bargaining table either.
Westminster has a really strong aversion to negotiating a new written constitution. The last one was in 1215, and look what it took to get that sucker sealed and delivered.
You’re definitely not alone; that’s what has me saying, “Yes, but,” however lunatic the stories those who plan to vote “Yes” are telling themselves. I don’t think they’ll get what they’re hoping for out of it, but they’ll be the authors of their own screw-up, the estimation of which is not by my lights a meaningless principle.
Not me. The dual questions of ownership of North Sea oil and ownership of military assets are very big, and very complex, sticking points. Left unanswered, they could indeed result in violence.
The most recent examples we have for a division of this complexity and magnitude are the Baltic states and Ukraine. How much of the USSR’s military assets were they allowed to keep after partition? Imagine how much more acrimonious that partition would have been if they’d had oil of their own?