You heard it here first in the NYT:
The details of Scotland’s grievances are almost the diametrical opposite of those of, say, the Tea Party or Swedish right-wingers. They want more social welfare spending rather than less, and have a strongly pro-green, antinuclear environmental streak. (Scotland’s threatened secession is less the equivalent of Texas pulling out of the United States, in that sense, than of Massachusetts or Oregon doing the same.)
It is amazing to me that what sparked a civil war in the United States is apparently just a matter for a one-day vote in the “United Kingdom,” but times are changing and nations are less important than they used to be — just ask the Europeans, or take a trip abroad and observe the extraordinary social, economic and linguistic commonalities that unite the world in comparison with, say, 1787. Perhaps we could keep using the dollar, and preserve the right to travel and work freely in the rest of what is now the United States.
Would we be better off on our own?
stomv says
No. Nor would citizens of the other 44 states.
whoaitsjoe says
That was free of the social and cultural influence of the south, and the world’s worst business tax burden of the US Federal Government?
Certainly a complicated question, but not without merit.
cwlidz says
No but I sometimes wish that the neo-Confederates would decide to have the deep South secede.
jconway says
He didn’t just free the slaves, and part of that bargain means you stay in the union even if your candidate loses the election. That’s a basic constitutional compact. And I think America will benefit tremendously from continuing to have it’s mother region remain in the union.
kbusch says
Wikipedia
Slavery in a different form.
hoyapaul says
The Scottish vote for independence — along with calls for independence that have in the last couple of decades occurred across the world from Quebec to Iraq — belies the suggestion that somehow “nations are less important than they used to be.” If anything, they may be more important than ever before.
petr says
… It was Scotland, voluntarily, agreeing to unite with England that actually created the United Kingdom, in 1707. This is slightly different from a colony, the Americas, seceding in a civil-cum-revolutionary war. And I think the idea is that if they entered into it voluntarily they should be allowed to exit in the same way.
If Scotland does vote for independence there are many questions, not least of which is what does David Cameron do? The Scottish MPs make up a united bloc in the House of Commons and, though they are a reliable Labor support, the entire house would be thrown into chaos by their absence.
Equally thorny issues are inclusion in the EU and currency… It’s likely that the EU will let them in without much problem but will they continue to use the pound or adopt the euro or create their own currency? And being one of the oil rich countries what will that do?
In the short term, a Scottish independence vote would be chaos. In the long run, I think it’s for the best. Obama, apparently, disagrees and has ‘tweeted’ his desire that they remain united in the Kingdom.
Unlike the US there are strict rules on reporting on elections prior to the official tally, which should happen between 1:30 and 2:30 in the morning (our time).
On the question of New England secession, I don’t find any arguments for the act at all… Why would we?
Gumby says
Once we had independence, we could draft a constitution in which free speech explicitly did not include political spending by corporations. We could also expect better environmental protection standards, smarter drug policy, and lower military spending.
But would the Patriots still be allowed in the NFL? Okay, perhaps I should slow down.
If MA had enough influence on the drafting of the constitution, we might also look forward to an explicit 1-party system of government too.
Lastly, it would further improve Deval Patrick’s chance at being President of something.
centralmassdad says
I am pretty sure that the 13 original states entered into the Union voluntarily by voting for adoption of the 1789 Constitution, and thought that they could leave in the same way, precisely as you argue. Certainly that was the argument President Jefferson Davis made; President Lincoln disagreed.
It isn’t so obvious to me that the EU would likely admit an independent Scotland: Spain (Basques), France (Basques), Germany (Bavaria), and Belgium (French/Dutch) each have separatist movements of their own, and why would they want to put that issue on full boil for themselves? If Scotland has Spain, France and Germany opposed, admission isn’t goinf to happen.
petr says
… however with reference to both the United Kingdom and the United States Constitution signed in 1787, It’s not clear that Bob was referencing the US Civil War or the civil-turned-revolutionary war. Scotland is voting to secede from the United Kingdom. The US, likewise, voted to secede from the United Kingdom. This is apart from the south voting to secede from the union…. This time around the English aren’t threatening to go to war with Scotland.
Spain, for just one example, has a large fishing fleet that fishes in United Kingdom waters under present treaties the UK has with the EU. Scottish secession will make a large portion of them Scottish waters. Should Spain seek to negotiate with Scotland for access they are likely to be rebuffed by Scotland unless they support Scotlands inclusion in the EU.
Scotland, if it secedes, will immediately be realized as one of the largest economies in Europe (concommitantly dropping England down a few notches) and this makes them fundamentally different, vis a vis the EU, than any other separatist movement extant. This is not a rebellion. Scotland, if anything, has been a ‘silent partner’ in the UK and has fueled
the English economy… not the other way around.
centralmassdad says
Scotland gets to abrogate treaties of the UK? And the rest of Europe will support that?
It certainly will be an interesting chaos if the vote is yes. I don’t see how they go on the Euro without first securing admission to the EU, which is at the very least iffy and will take time in any event. I can’t imaging they would want to keep sterling, as their political differences with the UK suggest that they want a very different monetary policy.
What a mess this could make.
petr says
Scotland does nothing of the sort. Any treaties become null and void as the UK, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist. Chaos? Yes. I said as much above. Perhaps you didn’t realize how big this is? Well, it’s even bigger than that…
centralmassdad says
If a new independent Scotland takes the position that the treaty obligations of UK are null and void with respect to Scotland, then I can’t imagine that they will get any support at all from the international community, period.
But even the separatists don’t seem to be saying that.
But, your’re right, a yes vote is a huge leap into the unknown, which is why it will be shocking and interesting if they are foolish enough to do it.
centralmassdad says
The leader of the SNP made this threat.
But he also threatened that those same countries with denial of access to Norwegian waters, because such access would require passage over Scottish waters.
That guy is as crazy as Ted Cruz or any of the cracked teapot Republicans. Blocking passage over one’s waters and blocking access to waters where countries have rights is, and has been for several centuries, considered an act of war.
Christopher says
It will still be the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland without the Great which is what Scotland gives it. There would still be a government in Westminster with fewer parliamentarians as those from Scotland withdraw. Even if this were a question I expect everyone will recognize the new state fairly quickly as the successor state just as the Russian Federation was recognized as the successor state to the USSR without much discussion that I recall.
kbusch says
neither Slovenia nor Slovakia is in the European Union.
stomv says
Scotland’s GDP is ~220 billion USD.
Connecticut’s GSP is ~230 billion USD.
Scotland’s GDP will be somewhere between Ireland and Portugal. Hardly one of the largest economies of Europe — they’ll be, roughly, the 19th largest economy in Europe, and still less than 1/10th of Germany, France, or UK’s.
petr says
The GDP of an independent Scotland is unknown but is certain to be much larger than the GDP of Scotland-in-the-UK, which is the number you cite. That’s sorta the meaning behind “not independent” and the meaning of my carefully chosen phrase “will be realized.” A goodly portion of the ‘exports’ from Scotland to England end up counted against the GDP of the UK. Only three cities, London, Zurich and Munich have more in financial assets than Edinburgh, right now, That’s all prior to factoring in Scotlands oil deposits. Scotland will not rival Germany, thats certain, (nobody will) but it’s independence from the UK will take the UK down a whole lot and bring Scotland up a lot. I would go so far as to put it (ultimately) in the top ten.
The most compelling (and now, apparently successful) case that “Better Together” made was that, since 70% of Scotlands “exports” went to England, making England Scotlands largest trading partner, why would anybody want to mess with that? The case vacillated between brotherly concern and thinly veiled threat. The response, in favor of independence, was, “yea, and we think the Parliament in London has gamed this system to the extent we can’t escape it and don’t think we’re getting a fair price for our ‘exports’ so howsabout we give it a go on our own.” All that was boiled down to the unofficial “better together, for you alone”
You have no idea of the fear that ran through England over this… and you think it was because England didn’t want to lose Europes 19th largest economy? It was because England did not want to stop being the number 2 economy (I’m not saying that Scotland would replace it as #2… only that without Scotland, the UK is very very far from the second largest economy in Europe…)
stomv says
You seem to be claiming two things: (1) that Scotland’s economy will grow significantly faster than it is currently with independence, but also that (2) the numbers I cite are underrepresenting Scotland’s wealth (banking, energy).
I’m not interested in postulating on (1), but I would like to read more about (2). Do you have any citation for “A goodly portion of the ‘exports’ from Scotland to England end up counted against the GDP of the UK.” or, better yet, evidence that my source is undercounting the GDP due to trade with the rest of the UK?
Bob Neer says
There was no question of the British colonies’ voluntarily seceding because they weren’t a country to being with. The 13 original states were sovereign entities before they joined in the United States.
Christopher says
My understanding is that their parliament voted at gunpoint to join.
As for New England, that was threatened once just about 200 years ago, but unlike the devolution by the grace of Westminster we have a secure federal system. It is within states’ prerogatives to pick up the ball on most matters where the feds have dropped it.
petr says
My understanding is that their parliament voted at gunpoint to join.
… for which this is profoundly true.
Scotland and England have certainly had a rough history, with plenty of tension, but it’s not so cut and dried to say that England definitively had the upper hand, as it did with Ireland (and it did to Eire well before and well after Scotland joined…). It really was a mutual decision and, like I said, created the Kingdom of Britain. Did everybody like it? No. Was everybody enthusiastic about it? Nope. But it wasn’t at the point of a gun.
Christopher says
…but I’ve read quite a bit of this era and circumstances and while point of the gun might be a little hyperbolic I have definitely gotten the impression it was not entirely consensual. This is part of why Jacobites and the legitimate Stuart succession remained popular for so long.
marcus-graly says
One could argue that the Scots sold their independence, but it certainly wasn’t at gunpoint. Even Burns admitted this:
Short version
– Scotland tries to establish its on new world colony in Panama.
– The venture consumes an enormous portion of the small nation’s capital.
– It completely fails.
– England offers to pay off all the investors as one of the terms of union, effectively recapitalizing the nation.
– Scottish Parliament accepts the offer.
sue-kennedy says
Or perhaps we could take Scotland’s place, we would lose one of our best best holidays but gain soccer riots.
Seriously, not a bad exercise to discuss from time to time the bonds that hold together such a diverse country.
Al says
We have too many people, and don’t have the ability to feed them all with locally grown food. Hunting game is not an option to feed our cities. We would be dangerously dependent on importing food. Then there’s energy, defense (not the police), and manufactured goods. This is not 1865 when NE was a manufacturing center with a small population to support. Today we would be dependent on ‘foreign powers’ for everything we need to sustain our economy. Nice thought, though.
Gumby says
We’ve gotten pretty accustomed to trading with the “Lesser-44” I’ll call them. We’d probably be tempted to join NAFTA. But think how much power we could bring back to the unions and our own labor/safety/environmental standards if we crafted a new trade agreement on New England’s terms!
But NATO definitely – I definitely want to be part of NATO. I need the US to save me from the threat of Russian communism.
JimC says
if we’re cutting loose with five other states, I’d pick Vermont, New York, California, Washington … OK Maine too. I like Maine.
Why be bound by geography? It’s 2014.
centralmassdad says
That this post is cited incredulously by someone who is immune to irony, on redmassgroup?
JimC says
If the independence vote fails today, there will be another vote within five years, and that vote will pass.
centralmassdad says
And it hasn’t happened yet
JimC says
n/t
centralmassdad says
.
Figures though. three hundred years of rebellions, famine, and war in Ireland to get the same thing, but Scotland?
“Oh, here’s something, we can just let the Scots vote.”
And they say nay.
sabutai says
If they follow through with their “oath” to devolve further to Scotland, that would short-circuit a vote. The SNP wouldn’t have much traction, and could conceivably split between hard-core separatists and nationalists. That is essentially what has happened in Catalonia (where independence is stalled in the mid-40s). Scotland has been exhausted by this vote and I can’t imagine too many people want to do it again soon. And don’t underestimate Alex Salmond’s influence in getting this far. People like that don’t grow on trees.
If, on the other hand, they try to send over more powers and something gets in the way, say the “West Lothian question”* it’s on again. A spurned Scotland would be even closer to winning.
*West Lothian question – why do Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland get more powers, but not England? Doesn’t England deserve its own parliament? This is the greatest sleeping threat to surviving UK federalism.
bluewatch says
Let’s do it!
Here are my slogans:
Corporations are not people.
We believe in science.
Every person has the right to obtain a college education, without tuition, at public universities and colleges.
All men and women are equal.
The government shall regulate the ownership of firearms.
stomv says
New England state colleges are amongst the most expensive public colleges for in-state students in the country. For example:
UNH (Main Campus) $16,422
UVM $15,284
UMass-Amherst $13,415
NC State University $8,206
Ohio State University $10,037
Texas $9,798
Cal Berkeley $12,864
UNebraska $8,060
Utah $7,457
I’m not arguing that it *should* be this way, but that, in fact, it is. Now this doesn’t include room/board/books (which tend to be higher in New England because cost of living is higher), and it doesn’t include financial aid. Another way to look at things might be total state funding for state colleges and universities, per capita. I’d bet dollars to donuts that plenty of states fund public ed to greater bucks per person than New England states. This isn’t a surprise. The percentage of state legislators who attended an in-state state college is quite high in many states, though its not so typical in New England.
jconway says
Out here in the Midwest, people put a lot of pride in the quality and affordability of their state colleges, and they have proud alumni bases. With the exception of UCONN, I didn’t see a whole lot of people steered there in my time as an ‘elite’ student at a public high school from our guidance counselors. A big emphasis on Harvard and BC, or going out of state. A lot of friends went to the SUNY, Cali or UVA system instead.
The more athletic kids got recruited by UNH and UCONN. All my friends who went to UMASS loved it, I am strongly looking at it for grad school, and I think we could do a lot more regarding promotion and affordability. UVM and UMaine were real bargains even when I was applying, and can compete on ambiance and substance with the best of the Amhersts and Williamses out there. UMASS undergrad program, particularly the Commonwealth College, has only improved. I will encourage my future kids to apply to state schools-the elites are overrated.
centralmassdad says
unless it conflicts with what we already believe.
Now, off to require warning labels on the genetically modified foods!
SomervilleTom says
Texas, in particular, has a whole lot of nukes.
I hope we somehow take back all our dangerous toys before we let any secessionist movement build up too much steam.
Bob Neer says
On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to remove nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
Bob Neer says
http://www.draper.com/strategic_systems.html
Pablo says
Listening to the BBC on WBUR (English radio for New England), one passionate advocate for the YES vote in Scotland said that independence would once and for all end Tory rule from London. Scotland, it seems, is considerably to the left of the rest of the nation and Tories in Scotland are probably even less popular than Republicans in Massachusetts.
We could leave the USA. We could sell Texas to Mexico for $1.98. We could declare Quebec an independent nation and then annex Ontario and the Maritimes. Lots of ways to adjust the borders to rid ourselves of our current GOP insanity, which I suspect is considerably worse than anything the Tories ever did to Scotland.