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
Let’s compromise and make it an unambiguously American sport: BASEBALL!
The difference, of course, was that the two were on relatively equal levels of development, economic and institutional. Scotland, on the other hand, has been for the last century, at least, a backward basket case.
There’s a reason so many Scots left Scotland to come to the US and Canada.
Also, both the Czechs and Slovaks decided to follow relatively similar types of economic and institutional development. Scotland, wants to go another way.
But these are all the more arguments for why England shouldn’t want Scotland to be united with it, and should welcome their independence.
PS: Oil and nukes are minor issues, which will work themselves out. It’s not so difficult for England to base their submarines in England. They’re boats…they move on their own. What happens with the oil will be limited by the companies that own and operate the facilities there. Socialists aren’t so crazy as to limit their cash flow, unless they’re the crazy kind of Socialists.
I cannot believe I hadn’t considered how they’re going to divide up the debt. What a can of worms that’ll be. One assumes that the majority of the debt is owed to banks in The City, precisely the folk that the Scots say they’re rebelling against.
They’re promising to nationalize the Royal Bank of Scotland. So, Scotland will own the bank it owes money to?
It is Argentina all over again.
The question is, what would change?
The same companies that operate and invest there, will continue to do so. Most of these are based in England. They will pay corporate taxes in England. Their economic activity will benefit England to the same degree as it does now.
The only thing that would change is the % of the taxes that go to the local national jurisdiction, which do not depend on corporate headquarters.
So how much are we talking about?
These numbers need to be broken down, because saying “oil” is not sufficient. Very little will change simply because it is now a different country, both from the economic (i.e. GDP/GNP perspective, or the tax perspective.
Money isn’t everything. Freedom is more important than money, to a certain degree. I don’t understand why they would want to leave, but I’m a firm believer in the central point of the Declaration of Independence: Self-Determination. If a people wish to rule themselves, then they should be free to do so. When a people are forced to be ruled by others, then they are not free, the ruler has no reason to not oppress.
We may not see the logic, but it is their right and I applaud the UK for not standing in the way.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Hey, images are almost sorta not quite working yet!
The independence campaign in Scotland is promising to nationalize the oil fields. They hate, hate, hate British Petroleum plc.
If the oil fields were underground, it wouldn’t be nearly as big a deal. The problem is that they are offshore. The technical knowhow and capital resources required to get at the oil are far more considerable.
D’all think BP is going to give up those contracts without a fight? D’yall think BP will just leave their hardware in place for Shell or Exxon to use? It’ll be a major logistical/financial/corporate clusterfun.
Well, Scotland won’t have much of a navy, maybe a few canoes can be rounded up and Greenpeace will loan them Rainbow Warrior if they ask nicely, so I’m pretty sure BP will be safe.
Here’s a poser of a question though:
IF Scotland does go independent, are we correct in assuming that the socialists will actually be the ruling party? How much of a chance is there that Scotland would get a more moderate government?
So, a foreign company sucking the oil from Scotland’s territorial waters without its permission will be “no big deal”?
Very little. Here’s the Scottish electoral map from the 2010 election. Red is Labour. Yellow is Liberal-Democrat:
The black line is the border with England.
More to the point, BP has a bigger navy than Scotland would. It’s not that it would be “no big deal”, but rather that BP would have rather a lot of relative clout. It’s hard to defend your oilfields in Venezuela against armed gunboats and helicopter gunships, but I’m guessing the pinkos in Scotland will need some time to squander their resources on military kit.
Personally, I think it’s more likely that BP would turn off the taps and tug their platforms to a English port (or even rent them to Norway). If Scotland isn’t willing to give BP a piece of the pie, then Scotland will have to build a new oil industry from scratch. They can lease to American and Dutch companies, but they’ll have to either bring their equipment in without violating UK’s maritime territory, or build it in Scotland.
Basically, if independent Scotland’s government is truly as nationalistic as it’s campaigners claim, the UK will be in no mood to offer them any breaks. That means the maritime shipping on which Scotland will depend will have to go the long way, in very treacherous northern seas.
I think a lot of people are assuming free trade between Scotland and the UK, but the drum-pounding from the Scottish nationalists is in the other direction. The big unanswered question is, just how serious are the Scots about their nationalism? The UK isn’t going to let them use English ports and English rail to transport their goods if Scotland doesn’t give the UK anything in return.
Did you ever read any of Jasper Fford’s Thursday Next novels? In those it was Wales that had gone independent, turning into a sort of Celtic North Korea, but I do wonder of the lunatics in Scotland realize that they are heading that way for real.
Well, the other wildcard is the EU.
If Scotland adopts the Euro then it’ll be accepted into the EU, which will mean that the UK will be obligated to allow freedom of movement for Scottish trade through UK territory.
However, someone far more knowledgeable than I will have to let us know if the EU treaties allow member states to nationalize industries owned by companies based in another member state.
It would seem (to me anyways) to violate the spirit of the common market if an EU member could expropriate the property of another EU member’s corporation.
Perhaps the end game is that the EU will have to adjudicate the divorce, and if the UK doesn’t like the terms then it’ll have to leave the EU.
It’s a Highland Cow (pronounced “coo”). Almost as common by the side of the road as sheep in the Highlands.
To the larger point, I feel quite comfortable as an American saying Scottish Independence would be unwise:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”
Show me the long train of abuses, and I shall revise my opinion.
However, if Scotland wants to leave, I see no reason for England to stop it. (And I agree with the others, either England should have its own Parliament, or Scotland shouldn’t have one.)
The UK will have to leave the EU? I am confused. I see the downside for the EU — one less maker nation and one more taker nation. What is the downside for the UK?
Seawriter
The downside is that they’d lose access to the EU common market, and UK corporations that have already invested in increasing their holdings in EU nations would be at risk. The UK would not be able to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the EU without it also applying to Scotland.
The UK could potentially make a go of it on its own if it could depend on the oil revenues. If it loses those to Scotland, then it would really need its EU trade to keep government revenue up.
I have never once wished that Ireland was part of the UK. If I were Scottish I would be fed up to my back teeth of patronising foreigners telling me I’ll never manage on my own. How does Denmark get on? New Zealand? Of course independence will be messy when it happens- sooner or later. Big deal! They’ll work it out. Hopefully they’ll overcome their leftie tendencies in time. The bottom line is that Scotland has many many advantages and has a distinct national identity sufficient to form a proud Celtic nation. Good luck to them!
What do you believe these to be?
Roberto, Anglophone, well-educated, magnificent coastline and ports, fishing, high-end tourism ( golf and fishing) oil, common law tradition, distinct culture, major connections with US ( all those Presidents!), great scientific and literary tradition, social cohesion, rich market next door accessible by land. I’d say Scotland is a better candidate for Statehood than most existing states.
The UK is hardly a “continental scale empire”.
…that they just spend oodles of time and money demonizing.
Misthiocracy, I don’t believe loving the neighbours is a prerequisite for independence.
If you expect them to trade with you, best not to insult them to their face.
I don’t think either the Orkney or Shetland Islands care to hold hands with Scotland and jump off the cliff together. If either (or both) choose to remain in the UK, I suspect the oil revenue problem is solved.
Seawriter
Look at the way Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans all talk about each other.
I don’t recall Canada’s Prime Minister calling the USA an occupying force that has drained Canada dry and then threatened to nationalize the holdings of American companies.