Scottish Independence

[Barrister]

But whatever - knock yourselves out. I wish one of them would succeed, if for no other reason than watching it crash and burn might make the other STFU already with their constant whining.

Czechs don't seem worst than they were.  Slovakia had a rough patch getting out of communism but seems better of today than they were before.
I'm not sure about Kosovo, but I doubt it can be worst than in Yugoslavia.  Or Serbian domination.

Incidentally, can you name one failed country, following democratically attained independance, who chose to rejoin the motherland?

I can only think of handful of countries that democratically attained independence.  It's an odd requirement.

Most countries that obtain independence have a vote to secure it.  South Sudan, Eritrea, Kosovo, East Timor - all had votes prior to independence.

What is more unusual is citizens in stable democratic countries who vote in favour of independence.  Of those, only Czech / Slovak split comes to mind (though I guess arguable Montenegro could also qualify).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Scottish idependence: so boring a topic, it must be replaced by Quebecs'? 

at least it wasn't another ACW-hack

[Razgovory]

Most countries that obtain independence have a vote to secure it.  South Sudan, Eritrea, Kosovo, East Timor - all had votes prior to independence.

What is more unusual is citizens in stable democratic countries who vote in favour of independence.  Of those, only Czech / Slovak split comes to mind (though I guess arguable Montenegro could also qualify).

I'm under the impression that those countries also saw quite a bit violence.  Even if you have an election, the armed bands wandering around sort of discredits the election.  The only ones I know of are some elements of the British empire and the Czech/slovak thingy.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Most countries that obtain independence have a vote to secure it.  South Sudan, Eritrea, Kosovo, East Timor - all had votes prior to independence.

What is more unusual is citizens in stable democratic countries who vote in favour of independence.  Of those, only Czech / Slovak split comes to mind (though I guess arguable Montenegro could also qualify).

I'm under the impression that those countries also saw quite a bit violence.  Even if you have an election, the armed bands wandering around sort of discredits the election.  The only ones I know of are some elements of the British empire and the Czech/slovak thingy.

Norway-Sweden maybe? (just guessing here)

[Razgovory]

Maybe Belarus and Russia.  Possibly some white ruled states Africa trying to get more British support.  Still that really stretches democratic.

[sbr]

BB I would contend there is more in common culturally between an Oregonian and an Alabaman than between you and me.

En commencant par la langue.

What the fuck, that was uncalled for .

[The Brain]

Most countries that obtain independence have a vote to secure it.  South Sudan, Eritrea, Kosovo, East Timor - all had votes prior to independence.

What is more unusual is citizens in stable democratic countries who vote in favour of independence.  Of those, only Czech / Slovak split comes to mind (though I guess arguable Montenegro could also qualify).

I'm under the impression that those countries also saw quite a bit violence.  Even if you have an election, the armed bands wandering around sort of discredits the election.  The only ones I know of are some elements of the British empire and the Czech/slovak thingy.

Norway-Sweden maybe? (just guessing here)

Not a lot of violence, no.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's curious that you would cut out the exact portion of my post that discussed that...

I did see that.  I am not suggesting disagreement, rather amplifying on the same point.

[Martinus]

I get that it is natural to view all problems through the prism of one's own experience, but it isn't very enlightening.  Scotland/UK is not Québec/Canada, or Hungary/AH Empire, or Flanders/Belgium, or whatever.  Each case is different.

The Scots may have very good reason to want independence, I am not in a position to say much on that.  What is interesting is that the Yes case seems to making certain questionable assumptions or sloppy arguments on pretty vital issues, like currency.  Let's assume a future independent Scotland in the EU and a rump Britain that exits - that is actually a pretty plausible outcome a few years out if Yes wins.  Would it really make sense for Scotland as an EU member to use a currency run by a country outside the EU?

My guess is that the actual, practical economic and political issues aren't really the point (though a case can certainly be made that they ought to be). The appeals are to emotion, and not reason; I was serious about this being really "about" the poetry of Robbie Burns. Hence, a certain sloppiness on the practicalities of a "yes" outcome - these aren't really the issues that are driving the yes vote.

The thing is, this is not just the UK debate - with the UK on the verge of leaving and, at the same time, splitting up, it is the EU debate. It seems like the EU is at its weakest in years. Let's hope it survives. It needs the UK in, though and I don't think the UK without Scotland will stay.

[Eddie Teach]

What the fuck, that was uncalled for .

FYI, my sister that lives in Oregon? Born in Alabama.

[Martinus]

But whatever - knock yourselves out. I wish one of them would succeed, if for no other reason than watching it crash and burn might make the other STFU already with their constant whining.

Czechs don't seem worst than they were.  Slovakia had a rough patch getting out of communism but seems better of today than they were before.
I'm not sure about Kosovo, but I doubt it can be worst than in Yugoslavia.  Or Serbian domination.

Incidentally, can you name one failed country, following democratically attained independance, who chose to rejoin the motherland?

Slovaks are definitely worse off.

[The Minsky Moment]

The thing is, this is not just the UK debate - with the UK on the verge of leaving and, at the same time, splitting up, it is the EU debate. It seems like the EU is at its weakest in years. Let's hope it survives. It needs the UK in, though and I don't think the UK without Scotland will stay.

Yes, this is crucial.
To say this vote is about Scottish independence is not really correct because Scotland intends immediately to join the EU.  So it is really trading off being a significant region in a big EU state to be a small EU state.  As a practical matter, this means Scotland will have little influence on certain key external policies and on significant regulatory matters.  It will have control over certain internal matters like health and education, but it already has that anyways.

The other piece is that a post-independence Brexit puts independent EU Scotland in an awkward position, because then it is in a position where there is no formal political coordination with its actual economic and currency zone, while having lots of coordination with an alternative economic-currency bloc.

[Josquius]

What do people make of an independent Scotland's chances of joining the eu?
I can't help but see a lot of problems- upset at Scotland jumping the queue, Scotland not having it's own central bank, worry from other eu countries about secessionists, etc...

[Barrister]

What do people make of an independent Scotland's chances of joining the eu?
I can't help but see a lot of problems- upset at Scotland jumping the queue, Scotland not having it's own central bank, worry from other eu countries about secessionists, etc...

I suspect that Scotland will be admitted to the EU sooner or later.  The EU as a whole doesn't want to be losing bits of itself.

I do think that the EU holds most of the cards though in accession negotiations however, and won't be easy or immediate for Scotland.

[Sheilbh]

This kind of "pride of the periphery", whether coming from a Serbian or a Quebecois, has always been baffling to me.

I don't know if it takes more chutzpah or ignorance for a Pole to call the home of Hume and Burns, Carlyle and Smith, Watt and Fleming, a part of the periphery

I would think those with their own personality could find an identity even without their own postage stamps and national bird.

Scotland very definitely has its own identity.

As I say my view is that Scotland and Wales are both comfortable in their identity. England isn't - see the associations of a St George's flag and racists - so it sort of sucks the oxygen out of the room of British identity. It's like that (from my perspective) infuriating Newsweek cover:

And the thing is, this region isn't really all that better off with the half-assed mini states the West created out of the Dual Monarchy's ashes. Did nationalistic hatred decrease? Quite the contrary. Did it stop the region from being the playground of Germany and Russia? Quite the contrary. Did it help the economy of the successor states? Quite the contrary.

I imagine, though I could be wrong, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Slovakia and the Czechs are all rather happy they're not being dragged down by Hungarian mentalism

As long as the USA is kind enough to protect us.

Of course the SNP have already had quiet talks with the Americans to let them know that, if they win, they want to stay in NATO and are very happy to have US (non-nuclear) bases. As with Rupert Murdoch's semi-endorsement, I wonder how many of the nationalists imagined a future like this.

Having said that I think it's very sensible. I'd bet the Russians start probing Scotland just like they do the UK and Scandinavia already.

That may be so but only days before the vote there doesn't seem ot be any clear picture on what the settlement on currency would be.  If Scotland wants to use sterling, then the reality will be that England will be in driver's seat, both in any negotiation for Scotland's admission to the currency bloc and for any subsequent administration.  Rational self-interest if nothing else would push England to use that leverage.   Why go independent to settle for such a result?  It does seem a bit like Yi says - a grasp at "bird and stamp" symbolism.

How would we have an idea before the vote? If there was a plan it would mean the unionists have already conceded defeat. Any concession on any subject before the vote would be impossible for the no campaign. Hopefully they've planned various negotiating positions just in case (though given that Number 10 was briefing just 9 months ago that the only question was 'how low the yes vote will go' maybe they've not), but to admit them before the vote would be catastrophic for the no campaign. On the other hand I think a big problem has been that Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have all announced different plans for further devolution in the case of a no vote.

The markets were turbulent today and if Scotland vote yes I imagine that'll happen until there is a settlement. We tend to worry about that sort of thing - the first peacetime coalition in 80 years was negotiated in 5 days because there was a fear that the peace in the City wouldn't last. So I imagine one way or another it will be settled quickly.

But you're right both sides should push for their best position - though there's a free market think tank here arguing that a Panama style currency peg may be the best option for Scotland in a number of ways. Personally I think the bigger risk is who Salmond will be negotiating with. It's not clear to me that Cameron could survive a yes vote, even if he did there'd be turmoil among the Conservative and Unionist Party (recently described by one conservative columnist as Jonestown in suits). Politically his position would be incredibly weak which would make England a difficult and rather unpredictable negotiating partner.

As to the sort of powers Scotland currently has I think you're all over-estimating them. They can vary income tax by 3% from the rate set by the Treasury and they have devolved power over health, education, agriculture, transport and that sort of thing. But they don't raise their own budget to spend on that, they get it as a block grant from the Treasury.

I think there's two big problems with this. The first is what the leader of the Scottish Tories (and former opponent of further devolution) says, which is if you're not responsible for raising the money you spend then it's very difficult to make a centre-right argument about efficient spending or reducing the size of the state. If, say, a Labour government came into power and decided to cap energy prices, restore the 50% tax rate and increase spending on all sorts of bits of government then the most a Scottish government could do with that is not raise spending so much and cut the top rate to 47%. The general direction would be the same because they still get their taxes set by Westminster and their block grant set by Westminster.

The second is basically the alternative which the SNP have played on very well. Scotland's voted for Labour in every general election since the 50s and very often ended up with Tory governments. Since Thatcher (and I think she bears a lot of blame for turning the Tories into a regional, Southern English party) the Tory share of the vote has plummeted from around a third to about 10% - I suspect the patriotic old Tory vote in Scotland are now patriotically SNP. So there was a history of Tory governments imposing policies opposed by Scotland on them, most famously the poll tax. So the SNP now say to Scots, especially Labour voters and especially lefties who came of age in the 80s, that the Tories want to privatise the NHS and if they managed it, because of the block grant, Scotland would have to too.

In short neither of these alternative visions of Scotland as a neo-liberal, tax cutting base of entrepreneurs or a Scandinavian social democracy are currently possible no matter what the people of Scotland want, because ultimately that decision will be taken in Westminster by MPs called Gerald.

I think the SNP do have the best lines, that the best people to run Scotland are the people who live in Scotland and that the deal with London - because Scotland can't dictate her own future - is 'you send us your talented people and resources, we send you the methadone of public subsidy.'

Really, it's an appeal to Robbie Burns:

All identities about romance. The biggest failing of the unionist side was they never tried to project any, despite there being plenty

What do people make of an independent Scotland's chances of joining the eu?
I can't help but see a lot of problems- upset at Scotland jumping the queue, Scotland not having it's own central bank, worry from other eu countries about secessionists, etc...

I think the last point is true. But they meet all the criteria. It's not queue jumping, they just don't have to do as much to qualify.

I think it'll be tough and take a while, the best option may be to see if the EU would start processing the application once the decision's made (ie 2014) and tell the incoming Scottish government what they need to do, rather than waiting till formal independence. But I think it helps that the EU will go from have 10 net contributors to 9.5. Both sides admit Scotland will be a net contributor so I imagine a way will be found.

A show on the BBC doing a seemingly good job on presenting both sides of the argument mentioned that the breakup of Czechoslovakia took IIRC 3 years and more than ten thousand treaties.

Sure there'll be lots of work. We have an entire Department of civil servants in the Scottish Office who'll do little else I imagine. Nothing wrong with that.

Also it was 3 years from fall of communism to dissolution, from the Slovaks declaring independence to getting it took about a year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21110521