Why Scotland looks like the canary in the independence coal mine

http://blogs.reuters.com/mark-leonard/2014/09/16/why-scotland-looks-like-the-canary-in-the-independence-coalmine/

by akbarnama • 12 years ago

45 85 12 years ago

blogs.reuters.com

I had two nearly simultaneous thoughts:

1. This is great, throwing it back to government for the people and really should shake up big federal governments.

2. Or maybe not so great, because of number of pitfalls. Getting something like secession right is hard, chances are economies will suffer hard. There will be some superpowers that will never allow this is current political climate such as China, Russia, and potentially India. This will be effectively strengthening their positions. If countries split up into smaller states, while local governance will likely improve, international gridlock will not.

arethuza6• 12 years ago

I must admit that I am rather surprised of the amount if international attention that the referendum here is getting - Scotland is a small, relatively unimportant (i.e. we're not London) part of the UK which is itself a relatively minor economic and military power.

Given the stream of world political and business leaders who have felt the need to pass comment (inevitably in favour of the "No" campaign) I really do wonder what is going on.

[NB OK OK I shouldn't have said "minor economic power" and the UK has superb (but horribly equipped and under-funded) armed forces].

sheltgor2• 12 years ago

I'm not surprised at all... It's not every day that a country democratically permits succession. There has only been, what? One new country since the end of the Cold War? Further, while Scotland isn't London, it has a large standing in culture for a number of English speaking countries due to it being the background of many people there, and further it still has some big economic issues surrounding it. 90% of the UK's North Sea Oil anyone?

wil4214• 12 years ago

In the US, we are actually aware of the Scots ambition to secede. Insert Braveheart reference here. Many of us were actually Scotsman or Irishman at some point in our ancestry.

We are anticipating what will happen if "yes" succeeds and what that means to Scotland (and its economy). World leaders do not want successfully countries with desirable/friendly leaders to break up.

jordan0day• 12 years ago

I don't think most people would consider the UK a "relatively minor economic and military power". It's a G7 country, after all.

Chinjut• 12 years ago

The UK is a relatively minor economic power? I mean, yes, it's far from top dog, but it's the sixth largest economy in the world (by GDP). It's not as though the only countries worth paying attention to are the U.S., China, Japan, Germany, and France (which is neck and neck with the UK), is it?

cstross• 12 years ago

There are allegations (admittedly partisan) that the British government's Foreign Office (which answers to the governing coalition, who are strongly opposed to Scottish independence) have been campaigning for the past year to get foreign heads of state and institutions to make statements opposing Scottish independence:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/mar/westminster-ad...

If true, this would certainly explain why people with no conceivable direct interest in the constitutional settlement of the British Isles (Vladimir Putin, anyone? Tony Abbot?) have been speaking out strongly against the independence campaign: it costs nothing and keeps the British ambassador's boss happy.

anigbrowl4• 12 years ago

Apres vous, le deluge.

I favor the No campaign because I favor federalism, in general - though as someone who grew up in Ireland, I can also empathize with the desire for a separate national identity. Overall, though, the practical freedom of being able to cross borders without having to account for one's movements or accept inequitable monetary transactions is a far more valuable liberty than nominal participation in some abstract sovereignty. I have my doubts about whether Irish independence from the UK was really advantageous and feel that my European citizenship - nebulous though European political identity may be - is of far greater value than my Irish citizenship.

As far as Scotland in particular is concerned, I think independence is a very mixed blessing - whether or not I'm right about the long-term value in the short term I would anticipate a period of vicious factional politicking.

wil4214• 12 years ago

I would add the US to number 2.

The US does not allow states to secede. Guam or Puerto Rica may have better chances though...

From wikipedia:

"In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."

ChrisPebble• 12 years ago

The US Civil War was essentially fought over the right of states to unilaterally withdraw from the union (the answer was no).

The constitution could be amended to explicitly allow this but I don't foresee that happening anytime soon. So yes, the US is firmly in #2.

taejo• 12 years ago

s/now/not/ (I wouldn't normally comment on a typo, but this changes the meaning to the opposite of what was intended, so I was confused for a moment)

anon4• 12 years ago

Small nations would join forces in larger unions. That is, when it's advantageous for two nations to be part of a union, but neither wants to truly merge with the other, you get things like the EU. A deeper hierarchy, i.e. small governments which are themselves working as part of a larger government might lead to better local policies than what we have now.

ZeroGravitas3• 12 years ago

The two smaller nations created from the UK after a yes vote would already be co-members of a variety of overlapping organisations/unions/treaties, such as Nato, the commonwealth, various EU-related things.

Independence, Independence with a currency union, further devolution, the current status quo and what it was like a decade ago are all points on a spectrum rather than a black and white thing.

walterbell4• 12 years ago

If a smaller country does not have an independent currency, how much independence do they have?

Smaller countries means more borders where movement of goods or people can be tracked (papers please).

Smaller countries have less resources to defend themselves from multinational lawsuits enabled by free-trade agreements.

walterbell4• 12 years ago

Would the downvoters please have the courtesy to leave a comment explaining their point of view?

pasbesoin2• 12 years ago

I didn't downvote you, but I'll voice a similar concern. In my case, influenced particularly by observation and commentary from Paul Krugman. Who's been pointing out the role of adoption of the Euro in what's been playing out in Europe for some years, now.

Currency seems to be a large, unanswered question -- or rather, concern -- in the Scottish initiative.

omegant• 12 years ago

This is the kind of debate you gey with independence topics. It's an emotional topic, not a rational one.

adrianscott• 12 years ago

Plenty of independence. Panama, for example, does not have an independent currency, has significant 'independence', and has one of the fastest-growing economies in Latin America (and beyond).

johnchristopher• 12 years ago

Considering the title I thought the article would highlight the flemish region of Belgium or the Basque country for which Scotland could be the canary or the blueprint. A lot of political leaders are paying real close attention to how things are going to unfold.

edit: I don't understand how I could missed it but the article does mention the flemish region and Catalonia (I wish they would have compared it though).

ZeroGravitas3• 12 years ago

He does mention Flanders, and Catalonia which is likely the first to go in Spain.

btown• 12 years ago

This makes me wonder if the domination of two monolithic political parties in the United States, well-represented in geographically disparate areas, is actually a force for the cohesion of the U.S.A. as a country. For instance, since there are large numbers of G.O.P. supporters in, say, Idaho, there's a lot less credence to a group of, say, southern red states considering secession due to fundamentally different policy preferences.

It does still baffle me, though, that economic conservatism is seen as a force for the poor in America, whereas elsewhere in the world, in this article's words, evoking "socialist utopia... [is] an effort to stave off the spiraling growth of inequality."

crusso3• 12 years ago

Some network technologies solve problems client-server, some network technologies solve problems peer-to-peer. Different approaches, different philosophies.

Historically, Americans have been more fiercely independent and valued bottom up approaches to resolving their problems. A lot of the rest of the world is more hive-minded and looking for top-down solutions.

chc2• 12 years ago

Surely there's a better way to describe a preference for coordination and planning than "hive-minded."

walterbell4• 12 years ago

From a 2013 interview with Marc Andreessen, http://pando.com/2013/10/03/marc-andreessen-the-world-is-goi...

"“I think there is going to be double, triple, quadruple countries in the coming years,” Andreessen told Sarah Lacy at Thursday night’s PandoMonthly in San Francisco.

The cofounder of venture firm Andreessen Horowitz noted that the borders of today’s countries are in some cases arbitrary, pointing to Iraq, Syria, and much of Africa as artificial constructs. In the last few decades, the world has seen the emergence of a litany of new countries, and he sees no reason why that splintering is going to slow down.

“You’re going to get a much larger number of countries,” he said, before noting that the proliferation of nations could be a positive force in the long term, measured by a span of 100 years or more.

“The transition is going to be very painful,” he said, “but I think ultimately it’s going to be very healthy.”

nickbauman5• 12 years ago

Translation: Smaller countries are easier to manipulate. The powerful Andreessens of the world will have an easier time getting what they want from them.

walshemj2• 12 years ago

Yep why do you think Salmond and the NAT's are playing the race to the bottom with capital gains tax and is so chummy with Trup and Murdoch.

api_or_ipa• 12 years ago

Yes, smaller countries are more agile. A great number of issues in diverse, expansive countries can be solved with a greater focus on regionalism. The Chinese have approached this problem recently (post 1978) by increasing regional autonomy. See the various reforms implemented since 1978 leading up to their adoption of the M-form[1]. There is also the argument that signals can pass more easily through a more distributed system, meaning greater ability for decision makers to make informed decisions.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-form

collyw4• 12 years ago

Iceland were the only one that seemed to listen to its people after the financial crisis, and didn't succumb to the bankers threats. They seem to be doing OK.

crusso3• 12 years ago

Maybe so, but there are some nations/organizations looking to absorb more territory like China, Russia, ISIS, and maybe Turkey.

danbruc• 12 years ago

Well, in the end it is a trade-off - smaller countries are easier to understand and therefore easier to govern because they are less complex and probably more homogeneous. On the other hand you will lose some efficiency in comparison to larger countries because the relative overhead of running the country will increase. If somebody ever tried to figure out where the sweet spot might be?

pasbesoin2• 12 years ago

I'm writing this comment in advance of reading the article, but I've been thinking about this circumstance and the thoughts are finally gelling to a few concise, if not fully encompassing, words.

For many particularly in the developed world, globalization and its pressures, particularly economic, have made it clear to individuals that -- perhaps ironically -- it is every person, every community for oneself.

Those individuals and communities are beginning to respond.

If this trend leads to an increasing push not just for individual but also communal self-reliance, I don't see that as a bad thing, at this point.

It can cap or limit some of the current exploitation. And re-introduce some redundancy into what have apparently become very fragile and risky systems and dependencies.

A primary push should be for energy independence. Once you have that, it's much more difficult for external interests to jerk you around. And hopefully the initiative can grow and maintain a significant domestic technical sector.

There are also perils, and I'm no political nor sociological expert. But as with municipal broadband in the U.S., pushback against intellectual property excesses in many places, and a thousand other things, more in the general public are finding that, for them, "bigger" is NOT "better". Not currently. Not, increasingly, for a while, now.

Independence is one means of drawing boundaries to that "bigger" that seems to just keep squeezing them.

P.S. I'll add that I've read the OP article, now. Having done so, my comment stands unchanged.

nickbauman5• 12 years ago

I'm convinced that the Scottish Independence question is an outcome of the discovery of its oil reserves. That underneath it all is just greed.

lotsofmangos2• 12 years ago

I don't think you have looked into it very well then.

tankenmate• 12 years ago

The UK Continental Shelf Act dates from 1964, the devolution push (note not independence) was in 1979; fifteen years later.

If anything it is a reaction against greed as Scotland is substantially more left wing than England and Wales.

acheron3• 12 years ago

The idea that left-wing politics are somehow "against greed" is kind of hilarious.

thenomad• 12 years ago

For a similar viewpoint on the whole "smaller countries" thing from someone who is rather more positive about Scottish independence, here's Charles Stross's piece on the Scottish Referendum:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/09/the-refe...

jerf• 12 years ago

It's worth pointing out that there were a lot of people in "our circle" who have been pointing out for a long time that decentralization of governance has been getting only more and more possible over time, and that the same forces that created enormous monoliths in the 20th century may cause their breakup in the 21st.

I think 9-11 sort of put a spike in the wheels of that discussion for a while for various complicated reasons, but in the meantime the forces have marched on and aren't getting any less compelling, while in the meantime confidence in big institutions is low and still dropping.

Even as right now in the US it looks like the forces of centralization are riding strong, given how poorly performing they have been and how people are ever-more increasingly distrustful of the central government, I would be very unsurprised to see 2016's Presidential election turn into a big "state's rights" fight, or some other narrative fundamentally about solving things with further centralization vs. decentralization, with the centralization party riding into very strong headwinds by 2016. If not 2016 than I think very likely by 2020.

One thing I sort of find interesting about this is that the US has a very, very clear structural path back to decentralizing itself without requiring any major upset. It's something that can be done cleanly and gradually, without revolution or uprising. Perhaps the US will decline in the 21st century, but I do not find it as inevitable as some people do.

worklogin• 12 years ago

What legitimate reasons are there to remain part of the UK, other than "Less pain of separation"?

I hear the UK say, "If you stay with us, we promise to give you more power!" Well, why don't you go ahead and give it NOW, and that would probably swing Scotland to a firm "No". Which makes me think the UK is lying, and Scotland would get no substantial improvement in autonomy.

jiggy20112• 12 years ago

The economy. Scotland does most of it's trading with the rest of the UK anyway so would remain affected by any decisions taken in westminster, but would have much less influence over those decisions especially in the event that they keep the same currency. Much of Scotland's economy would become contingent on volatile and finite oil revenue.

Also the UK is a single landmass , so it makes sense to defend it as such.

omgtehblackbloc• 12 years ago

Oh yes, we must defend the UK from the savage barbarian nations which border on every side, just waiting for a false move so they can stage a full-on invasion!

steanne• 12 years ago

erm.. northern ireland?

kevinkimball• 12 years ago

I'm a little amazed that none of the comments in this thread mention the EU. If the Scots go for "Independence in Europe" as Salmond has said they will, surely that would be the model for Catalonia or Flanders to follow.

anigbrowl4• 12 years ago

One obvious reason to think otherwise is that existing EU countries can veto the entry of new members, and Spain's government is unlikely to want to encourage Catalonian dreams of freedom. Belgium is already a federation and Belgians are famous for not being very invested in a Belgian national identity so they probably wouldn't care much.

junto• 12 years ago

The bookies are offering 2/7 odds which is about 77% against.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/scots-independence/60436/sc...

Hard cash versus pollsters.

Thoughts?

anigbrowl4• 12 years ago

They're good Bayesians:

Graham Sharpe of William Hill told The Guardian last week that the steadiness of the odds is partly to do with liability management, because there has already been a lot of money placed on no: "We are facing a seven-figure loss on a no vote and a six-figure win on a yes vote so we're trying to even that out…

Apocryphon• 12 years ago

Here's a hypothetical for HN:

Does anyone reckon that if Scotland was to go its own way, the rather leftist government there would withdraw from prior cooperation with the NSA/GCHQ? There's already been an unofficial proposal to give asylum to Edward Snowden if the referendum passes. Or would the status quo continue, except there with Six Eyes?

meatcider3• 12 years ago

We can only hope that they do, even if only from a point of principle. Although it will make no difference to the operations of the Five Eyes organisation since they don't respect geographical or political borders anyway.

joaorico• 12 years ago

In conversation with several Scotts, I've been told what they want most is autonomy from London, more than from the UK. That London is autistic for a long while, too much disconnected from the rest of the UK, including the rest of England. It is too asymmetric, economic- and power-wise.

walterbell4• 12 years ago

They should have a chat with the former colonies of London.

arjunnarayan• 12 years ago

This is an important point. Felix Salmon has an excellent analysis of this sentiment in Scotland here: https://medium.com/@felixsalmon/why-scotlands-voting-yes-2d6...

Why Scotland looks like the canary in the independence coal mine

Related Stories