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 don’t understand this comment. Are you suggesting something about it was a reaction to the US Civil War? And if so, what?
Actually, I read that both RBS and Lloyd’s (Scotland’s two biggest banks I believe) are making plans to reincorporate in England. Something about how it’s hard to be a serious player on the global financial stage if you’re regulated by Larry, Moe and Hugo.
I think the size of their respective Navies is pretty irrelevant. There’s simply no indication that Scotland’s independence will lead to war — with England or BP. Of course nothing is impossible but the fact is people in circumstances such as these, who share much of a common world view and understanding (whether they want to admit it or not) generally sort out their differences rather than do something as counterproductive as war. Think Quebec and Ontario, not Shiite and Sunni.
Well, yea, but Canada has never been ruled from Washington. I think Rick Perry might have referred to the USA as an occupying for that has drained Texas dry at one point though.
Absolutely. Many of the “Fathers of Confederation” believed that the Civil War was caused by the states having too much power, and so they set out to create a more centralized government for Canada by giving the federal government the authority for the sort of things you’d imagine like foreign affairs, the military, and maritime regulation, but also for the criminal code as well as the residual powers. In order to avoid religious conflict between the provinces, they gave the provincial governments powers over areas which, at the time, were handled mostly by the churches, and not considered matters of national importance, namely welfare, health care, and education. The provinces also got jurisdiction over non-renewable resources (i.e. mining and, later on, oil), in exchange for the federal government getting the majority of the taxation powers.
It just so happened that, as the 20th Century went along, the areas of provincial jurisdiction became increasingly more important, politically-speaking. This was not the goal in 1867, but (with the benefit of hindsight) it sure was a lucky result.
When oil is involved, I wouldn’t rule anything out.
Why is it that foreigners know all about the US Constitutional system and most Americans (even me, I’m a lawyer for Chrissakes) know next to nothing about anybody else’s?
…aaaaand, if Texas were ever to declare its independence it would have to think about what kind of trade relationship it would expect to have with the United States. I’m guessing a Texan Republic wouldn’t be invited into NAFTA immediately if it publicly demonized the American people.
Because the USA is the fourth largest country in the world by land area, the third-largest country in the world by population, has the largest economy in the world, and BY FAR the largest military in the world.
It’s really only natural.
Yea, maybe, but I sort of rolled my eyes at (and didn’t respond to) some of the earlier comments about Scotland and England trade etc. With, again, the caveat that anything can happen, I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that these trading relationships are both mutually beneficial and economically significant. No matter how much puffing their chests on the one side and whimpering about inappropriate comments on the other, there’s a tendency for cooler heads to prevail, economically impacted constituents on both sides to intervene, and something that preserves the value of these relationships to be worked out.
…which is why I hedged my comments with the caveat that they depend on just how serious the Scottish nationalists are when they spout their rhetoric.
I think that’s right. If (god forbid) a real Hugo Chavez took power in Scotland, the damage he or she could do is almost unlimited. I just don’t see that happening though. Maybe it’s because I have some Scottish friends. Probably not good to overgeneralize from a small sample size, but I’ve just never met a Scot who I think could be bamboozled by a clown like that, so I guess I’ve just got some faith in them that it won’t got that far.
Oh, also, I wouldn’t put too much money on the average Canadian knowing all that much about Canada’s constitutional system, or how the country was founded. I’m a history guy, ya know? I’m unusual, which is putting it mildly.
Let me put it this way: Students of America’s founding can study the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, etc, etc.
Up here, Canada’s founding debates weren’t compiled into a single volume UNTIL 2003!
I happen to have a copy. I don’t know anybody else who has a copy, and I know a lot of people who work in politics and/or have history degrees.
Re North Sea Oil – isn’t there a standard in international law wrt how off shore oil fields are allocated? (Some combination of where the land border hits the ocean and the extent of the continental shelf?) It may not be the free for all that’s being imagined here. (Also, if you look at a map of the oil and gas fields, a significant number are off the English coast. It isn’t all Scottish either.)
Yeah, I’m feeling a lot like Gomez Addams right now, waiting for the trains to crash. One the one hand, I don’t wish anyone ill, but on the other… this could be really cool.
We have a bit of the same here. The average American thinks the Constitution protects free speech and freedom from discrimination, and that’s about it — except, that is, for those who think it mandates income redistribution. That’s one of the things I love about Ricochet. I can have a conversation about enumerated powers and residual powers and at least half the people involved know what the hell I’m talking about. I guarantee you half the lawyers I know couldn’t tell you what the Tenth Amendment says.
I would have guess more than half myself : )
Scottish independence:
Good for England (the sponging, sullen teenage kid leaves home);
Bad for the free world (the UK is somewhat diminished on the world stage);
Disastrous for Scotland (Greece without the sunshine).
Of which they gave up via a treaty in which Russia agreed to not invade the Ukraine, and respect their sovereignty, yet the U.N. nor the security counsel made a peep about it. At the minimum Russia should loss is seat on the security counsel for violating a nuclear proliferation treaty that was less than 20 years old.
Sadly, of course, the UN Charter has no provision allowing for the removal of a Permanent Member from the security council. Permanent means permanent.
Who’s going to stop them? The UN?
If they did, the first security council member to be kicked out would be the United States.
Seawriter
Again, too bad there’s no provision. Would love to toss the UN to the dust heap of history.