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.
How Would you Vote on Independence for Scotland?
Two views:
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?
Published in General
Texas does have culturally and geographically distinct regions within itself. And, as in all states or nations, small and mid-sized towns have little in common with the major cities. Certainly, “local rule” is a difference of degree.
Also, one’s home culture isn’t necessarily bound to one’s place of residence. People often relocate these days. And family roots can be a strong influence on regional loyalty. If Texas were to secede, I would be just as happy if it shared statehood with much of the Gulf Coast and the Deep South.
Henry Kissinger recently made an astute point about the political conflict caused by citizens of a nation so commonly interacting socially and economically, on a daily basis, with foreigners. Nationality ain’t what it used to be.
Even at a the city level, there can be a division of geographic loyalties. It’s common for residents of any major city to prefer one side of town to another, based largely on the types of people who cluster in those areas. Many things influence perceptions of locality.
Governments are always imperfect, pragmatic arrangements between competing interests and powers. The ideal is “limited, local” government. The more limited, the less compelling the desire for locality; and vice versa.
If one accepts that premise — if a government defying limits increases pressure for more locality — then one might argue that the entire Western world is set for a long series of secessions and revolutions.
Do you believe that this is the case for all matters? In other words, do you believe that every state should, ideally, leave the union, and that there are no public goods, such as defense, some handling of interstate commercial issues, or monetary policy, that justify a federal government, albeit one smaller than currently exists?
I have family in Northern Ireland and go to belfast quite often. Although emotionally Scottish independence ( as northern irish independence ) would be a wonderful thing. Due to the heavy dependence on the English economy for both Scotland and Northern Ireland I don’t think independence would bode well. The ultra liberal sentiment in Scotland (and Northern Ireland ) is fed by a victim mentality which has not sustained them. Much like victim groups in America blaming ones personal failings on the colonialism of England has led many people onto the dole in which they feel entitled to. Independence would put them into economic peril, which I’m sure many would say ” hey you get the government you deserve” which I understand however I think the scots know this and will likely vote no.
“YES?! NO?! WHO CARES!!!!”
This sentiment brought to you by Scotland’s Brewers, Distillers and Purveyors
A very neat summary, James, of the reason I myself would vote “nae.”
Yes, yes, yes!
At least, if I were English, I’d hope for that.
If I were Scot, I’d probably already have left Scotland a long time ago.
Pat, of course, gets it pretty wrong. It’s one thing to want to separate from Mother England in order to have…more free trade…and more economic freedom, and more freedom over your affairs to achieve a less intrusive government, as the Colonials did.
It’s quite another to want to separate so that you can turn Scotland from a welfare-state bureaucracy which runs pretty much everything there, into a Trotskyite People’s Republic.
Which, again, is all the more reason Scotland should go its own way.
Two things jump out at me from that website:
1) It’s all white people. Very disappointed. Surely, if anyone would have gotten the message by now, it would have been the Trotskyites running that website.
2) It’s clear this idea is based on an alternative reality. Their graphic on energy in Scotland is astonishing. Tidal energy, and “wave potential”. Oh boy.
That alone provides a glimpse of Scotland’s economic future.
I’m slightly surprised by your priorities. Surely the possibility of another Thatcherite UK is more important than the misguided views of some Scots? It’s not like a no vote is going to make those Scots any the less misguided.
Yep. A “no” vote would just continue to keep this large block of Leftist voters in the UK, influencing British politics just as they are doing now.
If anything it might make things worst since a condition for staying in, might be more government subsidies, more government jobs, more influence on UK politics.
The Yes campaign does want to be politically correct, but they also want to win the election.
The Trotskyites are, weirdly, somewhat less excited about independence than most Scots. For everyone else, it’s all they’re talking about, all the time. Go to the SSP site, though, and the big new release is a document about ending the monarchy. It mentions independence, but it’s not focused on it. It’s easy to forget that in Scotland “Trotskyite” isn’t an insult, but a vibrant political force.
America only has a few countries that are real allies and most of them are in the Anglosphere. Generally, when the chips are down Britain and America can rely on each other more than any other country.
NB: Don’t misunderstand me, I am well aware that Canada and Australia are good allies. (New Zealand? Meh. Not so much.) Japan is a good ally. Denmark has sided with us on most arguments. I believe the contributions of Israel and India will become more significant in time. I am not dismissive of these other countries. (Well, except for New Zealand.) All I am saying is that if the U.S. was forced to give up all allies except for one then Britain should be the one she keeps.
Because I am in favor of anything that reduces Leftist influence on America’s most important ally, I favor the Scots getting really stupid and breaking away from England. (For similar reasons I would not mind America splitting California into five states, triaging these new states and jettisoning those afflicted with stage four Leftist infestations. But that’s another rant.)
I think–but I’m not sure–a citizen of England would think that Scotland breaking away would be an improvement.
If I were a Scot then I would NOT favor breaking away from England treasury because there is too much to lose: the Leftist infestation will causes Scotland to implode. Scotland has become a Leftist hothouse flower that is unfit to survive in a state of nature. England (and America) are weeds that that can survive in the state of nature.
Scottish independence:
Good for England (the sullen, sponging kid finally leaves home);
Bad for the free world (the UK is somewhat diminished on the world stage);
Disastrous for Scotland (Greece without the sunshine).
If I were a Scot, I would vote for the preservation of the country that has given us Scots a seat at the world’ s top tables for the last 307 years, that has guaranteed our liberties from threats foreign and domestic, that has respected (and even indulged) our cultural identity, and that has engaged in no conduct against us warranting a divorce. I would vote ‘Naw’.
I don’t dispute the value of a federal system or of concentrated powers for issues like national defense. But subsidiarity is generally the most efficient and just means of authority distribution. There is greater likelihood of interaction between officials and citizens, ensuring both situational awareness and accountability. An army needs a general with advisors, not a committee with subcommittees. But most else can be handled via cooperation of independent entities.
My ideal system is one of tiered democracy in which each voter only elects candidates he or she actually knows. Without knowledge, a choice isn’t truly free. So I might vote for a mayor, and mayors would vote for county men, and county men would vote for governors, etc. It’s a chain of faith, like trusting a friend of a friend. After all, no matter the system of governance, the character of individuals is pivotal. By this arrangement, citizens have direct control over the foundation of the electoral system while national leaders are both derivative of those initial choices and insulated from the pressures of populism.
Anyway, most nations are much smaller than the combined United States, so I’m sure many of our states could survive as separate countries. But subsidiarity does not necessitate separate nations. If the District of Columbia was not the corrupt omnipotent oligarchy it has become, talk of Texas secession would be only humor and bravado. American government seems to have been pretty darn reasonable before FDR.
I’m not sure history supports the view, but I’m inclined to see the rise and fall of nations in part as a “natural” cycle between conquest/federalization and revolution/division. Cultures are forever spreading, shrinking, moving, mixing, etc. Governments grow and succumb to corruption until they break. Eventually, old loyalties regain relevance and new collective identities demand representation, and a new nation is formed.
I’m rambling now. Please forgive the wall of text.
Oh yeah. I didn’t mean it as an insult either. I mean it in all seriousness: that kind of leftism is pretty mainstream there and certain parts of Europe.
It’s fine. I just don’t understand why you’d prefer independence, given those principles, to a tiered democracy like Scotland has now, with MPs in Westminster and an additional regional government for Scotland, with further power being exercised at a lower level. Scottish Westminster constituencies have 65,475 people (fewer than English constituencies), most of whom have little interest in politics, meaning that their “surgeries” (where the MP meets and talks with constituents on an one on one basis) are rarely busy. If you want to get to know your MP, and your Member of Scottish Parliament, you’re fully able to do so.
The European election system is region-wide proportional representation, meaning that the people’s vote matters little; in the last three elections, Scotland has consistently elected 2 Labour, 2 SNP, and a conservative. Until this year, they also got a Liberal Democrat, but this year they replaced her with a UKIP candidate. Going back before redistricting, there was an additional Conservative and an additional Labour MEP. This means that the actual selection of MEPs is conducted at the primary stage, which is not done by popular vote, but is mostly controlled by elected party officials and elected union representatives. This seems like exactly what you’d want. Why mess with it?
BTW, this article from the Trotskyites on what a Socialist Scotland would look like is pure gold.
Vibrant innovation in “anti-capitalist” websites, communal ownership of pretty much everything, construction companies owned by “the workers” sitting around discussing how to make housing more affordable and accessible, rather than their companies more “profitable”. Planned everything.
Interestingly, communally owned construction “companies” build most of Eastern Europe. Strangely, they never managed to get housing cheaper or accessible to anyone. I wonder what’s their explanation for that.
Surprisingly, I also find it hard to distinguish it from the majority of the Left-wing factions of the Democratic Party in the US.
As a Scottish-American and direct ancestor of Andrew Jackson, I would vote “Aye” to relieve England of a mighty burden. The U.S. benefited greatly from many men of Scottish descent: Andrew Carnegie, David Hume, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Graham Bell, plus the 50,000 Scots who settled the Thirteen Colonies and established the infamous Protestant work ethic, but this impressive tradition exists no longer.
Let them eat oatcakes.
My own non-answer to this question can be found here.
The yes side are a bunch of socialists. If they were a true functioning free market driven economy I might be persuaded to support them. Otherwise diminishing Great Britain can only be counter productive to American interests. They’re our best ally, and I’m sticking by them.
I am not deeply familiar with the history of Switzerland but have gained the impression that, in effect, it has always been a collection of city states that formed a confederation for mutual protection. Much of Switzerland’s arrangements seems admirable (for example the possibility of the public expressing a view through plebiscites initiated without central government approval). However, this is surely the result of an historical development. It is not necessarily something that is easily reproduced elsewhere.
Breaking states into smaller units does not necessarily result in better governance – that outcome is entirely dependent upon (a) the nature of the governed and (b) the nature of those who put themselves forward to do the governing. By “nature” I mean in the case of the governed, at least, the extent to which they have a rational expectations of what government can achieve. In the case of those who do the governing “nature” too often means the extent of the lie they think they can get away with (especially as the full effects of their policies, based on those lies, often do not arise until after they have long since left office). Small is not necessarily better as the example of Greece shows.
On the particular point of Scotland, it is a relatively large country in area but with a relatively small population which is preponderantly based in a central strip which contains the two large cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the former famous for its early devotion to socialism – hence the term applied to it “Red Clyde” and the latter occupied by sleek bureaucrats and politicians and the people who crave the company of such. The principle of subsidiarity would suggest that devolution of powers should occur to several different regions of Scotland, each of which have different requirements and almost certainly have different social attitudes. That level of devolution is not something on offer by the party which is pressing for a “yes” vote and is certainly not something of which the central belt would approve.
You cite Ireland as an example of a small country that has thrived after independence. Yes, it thrived but only after 50 years of stagnation. The “thriving” began when it joined the EU and began to receive substantial subsidies as a new member and exploited (in the nicest possible sense) its right to set its own corporation tax rate and its fluency in English to induce companies to locate there. It’s independence is now heavily qualified so that even when the population votes “no” to the extension of powers to the central bureaucracy of the EU its vote is ignored and it is even pressed to have a further vote until it gives the right answer. Joining the euro placed control of its monetary policy, in effect, in the hands of Germany which, at the time, needed low interest rates which then gave rise to the absurd property boom in Ireland and the subsequent crash. The fiscal union that is envisaged by the bureaucracy of the EU will no doubt put paid to the highly competitive corporation tax rate Ireland uses, a rate which countries like France have castigated as, in effect, unfair competition. It is small but it is not independent.
Scotland may well succeed but there are two obvious problems;
(a) the fact that the party seeking the “yes” vote is, in effect, promising treats for all (except high income earners) and has even promised increased public spending derived from oil revenue (while simultaneously proposing to use the same oil revenue to create a “wealth fund” – i.e. having your cake and eating it), and
(b) it will be sitting next to an economy almost 12 times its size which already contains 800,000 (approximately) Scottish born “emigrants” (who were denied a vote in the referendum on the spurious grounds of expense and difficulty when all it really needed, in the 2.5 years that have led up to this referendum, was a birth certificate and a postage stamp) and which will no doubt continue to attract highly skilled individuals (if only because of the weather which is not, in fact, uniform throughout the UK as foreigners may sometimes believe).
Well, the question may be interesting for Ricochet post. I hope the interest is maintained over the coming 18 months when the “British” are either bickering about who gets what if Scotland goes or be bickering about whether Scotland should continue to receive a $2000 per head subsidy and whether Scottish MPs (who are predominantly Labour MPs – socialists to you) should continue to have the right to vote in the House of Commons on matters that only affect the English or even whether England, which has been a unitary state for about 1000 years, should be “Balkanised” into little regions because it is otherwise too large compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (i.e. because Labour want to retain control of those areas where people have voted for them for 60 years with no beneficial effect but are likely to continue so to do)
If the Scots are already well represented under the British system, then there’s isn’t a need for division. I was under the impression that this apparent majority (if a slim majority) of Scots believe they would be better represented by an independent government.
Again, I agree that separation should require more than a bare majority. But even if two-thirds or more were required, the Yays and Nays might be geographically split in a way that complicates the matter.
Is trade necessarily complicated to an adverse degree by international boundaries? Is there necessarily less trade and general interaction between New York and Canada than between New York and Pennsylvania? I wonder why even a federal system is preferred to separate nations, among cultures which share a foundation of values. Does anything other than defensive power necessitate large and populous nations?
It’s possible that both Scotland and England would be better off in the end. The people who wouldn’t be better off would be politicians. They benefit from a larger government which provides more opportunities for advancement.
If I was a Scot, (to answer Peter’s question) I would vote “no” to avoid the prospect of living under a permanent left-wing, socialist government: think Greece without the sunshine.
That is precisely the reason why, as someone living in England, I hope they vote “yes”.
Matthew Parris sums up the prevailing mood in England well:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/matthew-parris/2014/09/if-scotland-leave-we-dont-owe-them-anything-but-its-no-great-favour-to-britain-if-they-stay/
“Prime Minister Cameron, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, if you seek liberalisation: Come here to this gate! Mr. Cameron, close this gate! Mr. Cameron, build up this wall!'”
A strong majority of English people support independence, with the Welsh and Northern Irish opposing it. It doesn’t appear to be the case that a majority, even a small majority, of Scots want it, though, and the English don’t get to vote (Mrs. of England and other colonial administrators aside, of course). I don’t think that there would be serious problems with trade. For all the abuse the EU takes from us on the right, it’s pretty good at ensuring that interstate commerce flows smoothly.
The US-Canada border is much more of a barrier to trade. It’s not nearly as bad as it was in the early 1990s, which was in turn immeasurably better than in the days before Reagan signed the CUSFTA, but interstate commerce is still easier than international. Since trade is a European competency, though, Scotland/ UK commerce would be more like interstate than international stuff.
John Hendrix: #45 “I think–but I’m not sure–a citizen of England would think that Scotland breaking away would be an improvement.”
I remember running into some news that Muslims in London had spit on her majesty’s troops returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, cursing them during a parade. That brought me to the consideration, given about one in six of her majesty’s troops are from Scotland, that the Scots might not like the direction of immigration policies over which they have little to no say. One might aver that the Scots appreciation for military valor is not subject to Muslim immigrants.
I suspect that there are all kinds of things, both large and small, which can be used to rally sufficient voters to the polls to yank Scotland from its current subservience to “Great Britain” to its own independence.
Just ask James Bond.
I am in Scotland and I will vote tomorrow. I still don’t know what I am going to vote.
I could vote No, which would be better for Scotland. My friends and colleagues in Scotland would maintain their good standard of living, Scotland would get more devolved powers and continue to wield power beyond its size both in the UK and the world. The role of the Queen, flag, national anthem would remain unchanged. To my romantic and historical sentiments this would be good.
I could vote Yes, which would be better for England. My family and friends in England would be better off under the more conservative governments which would flourish without the Scottish MPs. The 22 year long burden of subsidising Scotlands economy would end. The rUK (remaining UK) Government could stop pandering to the Scots (who only make up around 8.4% of the UK population). The north of England would benefit by no longer being seen as the bit you drive through on the way to Scotland.
If there is a Yes vote the area of Scotland in which I currently live will be much worse off – as ignored and forgotton by an Edinburgh government which focusses only on the Central Belt and the oil of Aberdeen as it has been by Westminster. Scotland itself will be great for a few years, but there are already reports of a £400m deficit in the Scottish NHS. There would have to be radical change to bring the economy under control which will not be possible with a pegged pound and the promises of an expanded welfare state.
If there is a No vote, then Scotland will benefit from increased devolved powers and the continued support of the Westminster government – even to the further detriment of the other English regions. The pandering to the Scots will continue and they will remain a drain on the British economy and a pull to the political left.
I don’t think I will know what I am going to vote until I stand in the polling station looking at the ballot paper. Whatever happens, friends and family will be greatly affected by the decision for years to come.
As an aside, I do have a petty concern. If Scotland votes to separate, what happens to Balmoral Castle and the Palace of Holyroodhouse?
If I may, I think this is a larger question. This isn’t about the immediate first or second order effects. It’s not about temporary or transitory effects. This isn’t about subsidies or who will win this week or who will lose next year.
Because all today’s or next week’s winners and losers can and will change over time.
If I were voting, I would vote on the big picture. This is a large historical question. It’s a question that, in centuries past, people fought and died over. A question, a vote, that will matter not next week, but centuries from now.