Discussion for article #227682
Seems to me all the reasons cited for not voting for independence are in fact reasons to vote for it.
It all seems to boil down to “don’t do it, because it’ll be very inconvenient for the rest of us.”
Even the UK on the whole is making noises about leaving the EU. NATO offers little to them and expects much, including harboring nukes on their behalf.
Whatever the hell you do, Scotland, don’t screw with the whiskey supply.
4 Likes
The “Yes” campaign is being appallingly dishonest. They are running a campaign that is reminiscent of American Republicans claiming that tax cuts are magic and they pay for themselves. In the Scottish version, Independent Scotland (iScotland) gets to pick and choose what assets and what debts its leaves the rest of the UK (rUK) with. Also they are able to force rUK to join in a currency union with them, so that their new economy has a stable, strong currency to run on, and so that corporations have no motivation to decamp to south of the border. And did I mention that iScotland will also increase public spending and cut taxes?
In the real world, rUK will never, ever join in a currency union with iScotland. The English have always held that there are rewards to be had from joining the enormous eurozone, but they are far outweighed by the risks that stem from currency union without political union. Therefore, why on earth would they ever sign up for currency union with iScotland, which has an even worse risk/reward calculation? Why would they want to play Germany to iScotland’s Greece, when they aren’t being offered a France to sweeten the deal?
iScotland’s would-be ruling class has already said they won’t be setting up an iScottish currency: that is too much like like hard work, plus they have no way of raising the billions it would require. Remember, they are promising the Scots they can have their FREEDOM!!! with absolutely no consequences. Belt tightening is out of the question.
They claim that if the rUK are big meanies and won’t give them their currency union, they’ll join the Euro. Problem: they don’t meet even the most basic criteria, such as having your own currency and your own central bank. iScotland say they will negotiate exceptions and get themselves fastracked. They are completely oblivious to the fact that current Euro member states like Spain will never allow that to happen, because they don’t want to establish a model for other would-be Independence movements (Catalonia) to follow.
iScotland is going to end up running their new paradise using the rUK pound, without currency union. Which means their financial sector will move south - you cant have banks with no lender of last resort. It also means they will have zero control over monetary policy, and will be totally exposed at the first sign of trouble. Again, think of Greece, but this time there is no Germany to ride to their rescue.
The markets will eat them alive.
8 Likes
Possible repercussions from iScotland: Trade sanctions on exports to U. S. Hagel mentioned that. Would include sanctions on whisky.
A Scotland without NATO can probably free ride off the alliance the way Austria, Switzerland, Ireland, and the postage stamp sovereignties do. But without the customs relaxation of the EU, or GATT membership for that matter, they’re going to find a lot of stuff they now get relatively cheap, like food just for a start, suddenly getting very expensive. The price of oil is set globally and countries that import North Sea oil will be looking to balance out their trade deficits.
1 Like
If any Country needs to be kicked out of NATO, it is TURKEY, who supports the Al Qaeda Islamists fighting in Syria…and won’t support the US effort against ISIS.
1 Like
One bad experience at age 18 turned me off Scotch forever, anyway. I love the tradition and the mystique, but I just haven’t found one I can drink (though I’ve heard about some–the ones without all the bog-flavored goodness–might be able to deal with if I ever encountered them.
And, of course, bourbon is to Kentuckians as Scotch is to Scots . . .
The neoliberal critiques of an independent Scotland are on the money insofar as the many concerns that would come with disentangling a developed economy from a massive remaining developed economy centered in London. I think they do miss the point about Scotland’s leverage in that disentanglement, though.
The UK military relies on more than just Scottish ports, and so do many British civil services. Untangling Scottish employment from “national” UK services will be a long process, possibly one that settles into a detente with a long-term shared services agreement. I could see this transitioning into a common defence, but the issue of Trident subs and deep water ports will be the major sticking point there.
Any realist would assert, correctly I think, that Scotland is not going to get everything it is calling for by breaking from the UK. However, if it negotiates a compromise – and maintaining those subs is a massive chit – common defence would undercut risks to NATO ties, allow Scotland to shore up its economic institutions (either migrating to a Scottish Pound with a “dirty float” pegged to GBP before free float - or to the Euro) over a period of decades.
It would probably be 2040 before a Scandinavian Scotland could properly constitute itself apart from England but along with Europe/Trans-Atlantic alliances. If you’re not a Scottish maximalist and are willing to play the hand you’re dealt, deals could be made to facilitate that. It wouldn’t stop some panicked moves by some of the existing Scottish financial sector, but if the country dares 25,000 bankers to move to London I’m not sure there’s room to play in the south. Scottish banks would reconstitute.
And probably there would be some shocks to GBP as well as bureaucratic redundancy creeps up through division of services first with the Scots and then with any other home rule concessions sought Wales or elsewhere, so I doubt the image being painted of an aggrieved Bank of England vengefully turning the screws to Scotland. Too much potential blowback on domestic UK investments.
Both countries are in this together, not just Scotland. And really, if you’re a Scot and your goal is a few decades from now to govern your country more like Norway than England, are you more likely to achieve this goal as a part of the UK, with the Tory vote in England being what it is, or as an independent country?
2 Likes
Niall Ferguson and Tony Blair think it would be a disaster too. And they’ve never been spectacularly wrong about anything, have they (cough IRAQ cough).
If I were a Scot I’d vote for political independence in a heartbeat.
3 Likes
So in other words, they’re being held hostage.
Isn’t that what “rogue nations” opposing democracy do?
Can we call them an “axis of evil” now?
Terrorists or something?
Not saying I’m either for or against… but this shows what utter hypocrites our “free nations” are… what propaganda we are fed.
It’s not about freedom versus tyranny, it’s not about good systems versus bad, democracy versus dictatorship.
Its just about power. Who gets to be king of the hill. Who gets the oil profits.
Do you think anyone would give a shit if Wales, which DOESN’T have Scotland’s oil, or Scotland’s strategic importance, voted for independence?
3 Likes
(Scotland, incidentally, tends toward the liberal side, and is sick of being ruled by the British conservatives. I can understand the feeling.)
4 Likes
“No” vote scare tactics! Finish the work of William Wallace, you cowardly Scots!
2 Likes
As does Paul Krugman. People of all shades of the political spectrum look at the iScotland campaign and see pie-in-the-sky promises that cannot hope to come to pass.
Or, rUK does not negotiate. It just says it is keeping the bases, as it did in Cyprus. Or after secession from the UK regions of iScotland launch their own secession movement to stay in the UK.
Everybody wants their own independent state these days. The People’s Republic of Donetsk, Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq, Texans etc. all think everything will turn up roses if they just had independence.
I don’t really understand what the yes’ers hope to gain and I don’t trust people who make vague promises about how much better things will be. I do know that during times of economic uncertainty the rich get richer and the poor get screwed.
Krugman’s warning is primarily based on the concept of keeping the Pound as the currency while having no control over monetary policy. I think a newly independent Scotland should plan on using the Euro, myself.
1 Like
Hey, I ain’t voting. I believe it’s up to the Scots, who have their own beefs with England. I think any comparison with the Donsetsk People’s Republic is poor, in that this is a purely democratic process without any outside interference- excepting, of course,that from London. 
And what of Cornwall?
Will no one back the independence of the Cornish? 
If scotland votes yes it will soon find itself like every other liberal country, bankrupted
Desire for independence frequently trumps practical concerns, the world over.
It can be argued that the United States would have ended up better off if they had not fought the war of independence. (They would have been given independence anyways in a few more decades, just like Canada and Australia, there would have been no costly War of 1812, likely no Civil War, slavery would have been eliminated earlier, perhaps resulting in much better race relationships in the present day, America would have participated in WWI from the start, leading to a shorter conflict and possibly no WWII, etc).
America muddled through and turned out ok (more or less).
2 Likes