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.
Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page:
Should the Scottish leave the U.K., it would fulfill an ancient quest for national self-determination. But they would also wind up with a state that is weaker, less wealthy and far less influential on the world stage. It would jettison 307 years of shared history that produced the Scottish Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and a vital and prosperous pillar of the Atlantic community today. History isn’t everything, and there are times when hard circumstances make separation unavoidable. But no such circumstances exist today.
Pat Buchanan’s latest column:
The call of blood, history, faith, culture and memory is winning the struggle against Economism, the Western materialist ideology that holds that the desire for money and things is what ultimately motivates mankind.
Economics uber alles. Here is Niall Ferguson in the New York Times wondering how these crazy Scots could think of seceding from England:
“The economic risks are so glaring that even Paul Krugman and I agree it’s a terrible idea. What currency will Scotland use? The pound? The euro? No one knows. What share of North Sea oil revenues will go to Edinburgh? What about Scotland’s share of Britain’s enormous national debt?”
A Scottish vote for independence, Ferguson wails, “would have grave economic consequences, and not just for Scotland. Investment has already stalled. Big companies based in Scotland, notably the pensions giant Standard Life, have warned of relocating to England. Jobs would definitely be lost. The recent steep decline in the pound shows that the financial world hates the whole idea.”
Niall Ferguson is not the kind of fellow who would have been out there at midnight dumping the King’s tea into Boston harbor in 1773.
And he would surely have admonished those stupid farmers on the Concord Bridge that if they didn’t put those muskets down, they could wind up ruining the colonies’ trade with the Mother Country.
“What currency will we use?” Ferguson would have demanded of Jefferson in Independence Hall in 1776.
The referendum will take place on Thursday. My own tentative reasoning–I speak here as someone with a few drops of Scottish blood, but only that–is that if I were a resident of Glasgow or Kirkcady or Edinburgh, I would most certainly vote “nae.” The so-called Scots independence movement doesn’t want independence at all. What it wants is a population still more dependent on the central government (albeit a new central government in Edinburgh instead of the old one in London) and a nation that will quickly beginning handing over its sovereignty to Brussels, becoming more dependent on the EU.
But that’s me. Good people of Ricochet, what about you?
If you were a resident of Scotland, how would you cast your ballot?