Why Scotland looks like the canary in the independence coal mine(blogs.reuters.com)
blogs.reuters.com
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/
85 comments
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.
Also the UK is a single landmass , so it makes sense to defend it as such.
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!
erm.. northern ireland?
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
Ok, but Scotland is not withdrawing "unilaterally" anyway: the government in Westminster specifically authorized this referendum. If there was some serious secession movement in the US along the lines of Scotland's, I don't think the federal government is going to send General Sherman in this time.
I'm voting "Yes", but I must emphasise how much credit the UK as a whole deserves for handling this in a completely peaceful and fairly civilised way.
Totally disagree. Considering what flimsy pretext the US routinely invades countries since WWII, a local invasion would just make it that much more expedient. Look at how many well-enfranchised groups have made hay on the US war machine.
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].
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].
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?
I think that line was me being grumpy about the referendum coverage - I've got to the point where I just want to cast my vote, get it over with and move on.
[NB Doesn't matter what a bank economist or business leader says, they aren't going to change my vote.]
[NB Doesn't matter what a bank economist or business leader says, they aren't going to change my vote.]
google for UK vs mississippi and the like. Basically you take GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity per citizen and Britain as a whole is poorer than Alabama but slightly richer than Mississippi. Regardless of the decimal places the headlines are all along the lines of if Britain joined the USA as a 51st state it would be roughly the 49th or 50th poorest depending on who's numbers you use.
It was a huge fad across all the infotainment sites about three or four weeks ago.
It was a huge fad across all the infotainment sites about three or four weeks ago.
these figures are deceptive considering the UK's comparatively-socialist tax attitude. The biggest thing I would point out is that we have nationalised free healthcare for everyone, which takes a big bite out of PPP but also means that being poor isn't a health concern. We also have a pretty comprehensive benefits system which, although unpopular, provides a large safety net for the unemployed, disabled and otherwise non-working.
The UK isn't some pauper state where everyone's living on the breadline, we just take a different approach to the USA.
[edit] replaced GDP with PPP for better clarity/relevance.
The UK isn't some pauper state where everyone's living on the breadline, we just take a different approach to the USA.
[edit] replaced GDP with PPP for better clarity/relevance.
Also we have more holidays, Americans get next to nothing.
That's per capita and has rather little to do with the overall size of the UK's economy. The US is very rich and even its poorest states are doing pretty well.
The UK's GDP is substantially bigger than that of any state of the US. (UK: about $2.5T; California: about $1.9T.)
The UK's GDP is substantially bigger than that of any state of the US. (UK: about $2.5T; California: about $1.9T.)
True. The bad news is the article specified Britain not the UK as a whole and the population of Britain is twice CA.
The innumerable articles on the topic seem to miss the point that its not necessarily a poverty thing as a quality of living thing.
Poverty in the USA means poor health and very high crime and awful living conditions. And there's a cultural correlation with trash blowing around in the streets and run down buildings. I've spent some time in Ireland (I don't like on the US coasts so I can afford international travel) and poverty in Ireland merely means they can't afford luxuries. I never really found a slum in my wanderings of Galway and Dublin but all US cities have slums.
I have also spent time in Huntsville Alabama, mostly in the neighboring military base, decades ago. I can hear the coasties snickering already, but its really quite nice other than the humidity. So Britain being as poor as the deep south really isn't all that bad.
The innumerable articles on the topic seem to miss the point that its not necessarily a poverty thing as a quality of living thing.
Poverty in the USA means poor health and very high crime and awful living conditions. And there's a cultural correlation with trash blowing around in the streets and run down buildings. I've spent some time in Ireland (I don't like on the US coasts so I can afford international travel) and poverty in Ireland merely means they can't afford luxuries. I never really found a slum in my wanderings of Galway and Dublin but all US cities have slums.
I have also spent time in Huntsville Alabama, mostly in the neighboring military base, decades ago. I can hear the coasties snickering already, but its really quite nice other than the humidity. So Britain being as poor as the deep south really isn't all that bad.
I've linked to an article from a reputable source on the matter below. However, I would say that having lived in Bay Area, France and the UK, despite the fact that the headline figures place France and the UK below California, France and the UK feel wealthier than those numbers would suggest. I suspect the difference lies in better public amenities and provisions in Europe.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Voices/2014/...
I searched for this - because, not very surprisingly, this didn't really make the news in the UK - and found the following: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/26/if...
It's actually quite an interesting thought exercise to contrive as many reasons as you can why the information presented there is pretty much meaningless.
It's actually quite an interesting thought exercise to contrive as many reasons as you can why the information presented there is pretty much meaningless.
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?
If you ignore Cold War fallout (though the breakup of Yugoslavia continues to this day), and sham countries like South Ossetia, then there's at least Timor-leste and South Sudan. Timor is not in great shape, but appatently getting better, and certainly better off independent. Remains to be seen if South Sudan is better off by itself or not, but I'm not planning a vacation there any time soon.
Isn't much of the UK's nuclear arsenal also in Scotland?
The UK's fleet of 4 Trident submarines is based in a sea-loch (fjord) not far from Glasgow, Scotland's largest city. As you might expect, this isn't a particularly popular policy for a lot of people in Scotland.
A very interesting article on the UK's "independent" deterrent by Charlie Stross can be found at:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u...
A very interesting article on the UK's "independent" deterrent by Charlie Stross can be found at:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u...
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.
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.
I don't think most people would consider the UK a "relatively minor economic and military power". It's a G7 country, after all.
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.
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.
"We are anticipating what will happen if "yes" succeeds and what that means to Scotland"
In the long run, about as much as Ireland. This is not the first piece of land the British Empire has lost. Not uncharted territory at all.
In the long run, about as much as Ireland. This is not the first piece of land the British Empire has lost. Not uncharted territory at all.
You have no idea how difficult it is to avoid thinking of it in historical terms - although my own views (I'm voting Yes) are all about the future, not the past.
My music teacher at secondary school (a staunch SNP supporter) spent a significant amount of time teaching us songs about a war 700 years ago (NB guess why the referendum is in 2014?).
Personally, I would forget the Declaration of Arbroath, no matter how stirring it may be, and focus on the Declaration of Calton Hill which is all about a better future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Calton_Hill
[Ignore its origins with the SSP - entertaining bunch of lunatics though they are].
My music teacher at secondary school (a staunch SNP supporter) spent a significant amount of time teaching us songs about a war 700 years ago (NB guess why the referendum is in 2014?).
Personally, I would forget the Declaration of Arbroath, no matter how stirring it may be, and focus on the Declaration of Calton Hill which is all about a better future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Calton_Hill
[Ignore its origins with the SSP - entertaining bunch of lunatics though they are].
You know most of the "Scottish" legends are made up out of whole cloth and make the most unrealistic cowboy films look like saving private Rayan in terms of realism.
You're telling me Braveheart wasnt a true story?
Either way most people in the US know about some of them. Thats why I chose to say: "Insert Braveheart reference here" instead of "It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom."
Either way most people in the US know about some of them. Thats why I chose to say: "Insert Braveheart reference here" instead of "It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom."
Actually the line you are probably looking for (and why they kept going on and on about "freedom" in that movie) is:
...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath
Which, as an aside, has some quite interesting stuff about sacking a King if he isn't good at his job...
[NB This has no real relevance to the current referendum - but I'd be lying if I didn't admit to liking this kind of stuff.]
...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath
Which, as an aside, has some quite interesting stuff about sacking a King if he isn't good at his job...
[NB This has no real relevance to the current referendum - but I'd be lying if I didn't admit to liking this kind of stuff.]
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.
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.
Its a step closer to democracy, where your voting power is not diluted ten times.
Why not make every street into its own republic? Because more voting power within a less powerful entity isn't necessarily an overall improvement. I'm unconvinced that sovereignty is infinitely divisible or effectively fungible (and I promise you that this is not for lack of exploring radically different concepts).
>Why not make every street into its own republic?
I didn't say we shouldn't. I think that is ultimately the direction we should be aiming towards. True democracy, where the people decide.
I didn't say we shouldn't. I think that is ultimately the direction we should be aiming towards. True democracy, where the people decide.
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.
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.
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.
They wouldn't though. The UK (or what remains of it) would be a member of those organisations. Scotland would be a member of almost none of them.
There is certainly a spectrum of different levels of devolution, but make no mistake: there is a massive chasm at the point of actual independence. It changes everything.
There is certainly a spectrum of different levels of devolution, but make no mistake: there is a massive chasm at the point of actual independence. It changes everything.
Although Scotland would at least have the choice as to whether to apply to join or not. Choices it does not have at present. If Scotland remains part of the UK and a future Westminster government (which Scotland would be unlikely to affect at the ballot box) initiates an in/out EU referendum how much do you think Scotland's opinion would be worth?
If what you say is true, then it would be monumentally self-defeating behavior from all involved. I can see why game theory might suggest various threats might make sense at this point, before the vote, but after the vote has taken place, it would no longer in be in the UK's simple economic interest to maintain that stance.
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."
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."
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.
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.
Surely there's a better way to describe a preference for coordination and planning than "hive-minded."
I was wondering where the downvotes were coming from. I meant to be accurate, not insulting.
I thought that hive-minded accurately described the seeming desire to centralize authority and form a collective, trusting that those in charge had the best interests of society in mind.
I thought that hive-minded accurately described the seeming desire to centralize authority and form a collective, trusting that those in charge had the best interests of society in mind.
The term "hive mind" has connotations of lack of independent thought and disregard for the well-being of individuals. It's the sort of thing you'd use to describe an alien insect species psychically controlled by a central queen in a sci-fi novel. A functioning representative democracy is not the sort of image it evokes.
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.
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...
They should have a chat with the former colonies of London.
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.
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.
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).
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).
He does mention Flanders, and Catalonia which is likely the first to go in Spain.
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...
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/09/the-refe...
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.
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.
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.”
"“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.”
Translation: Smaller countries are easier to manipulate. The powerful Andreessens of the world will have an easier time getting what they want from them.
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
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-form
The problem with decentralization is waste of duplication. I don't think it needs to be an "either / or". It should be a "yes, and".
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.
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.
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?
Maybe so, but there are some nations/organizations looking to absorb more territory like China, Russia, ISIS, and maybe Turkey.
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?
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?
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.
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?
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/scots-independence/60436/sc...
Hard cash versus pollsters.
Thoughts?
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…
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…
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.
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.
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).
Would the downvoters please have the courtesy to leave a comment explaining their point of view?
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.
Currency seems to be a large, unanswered question -- or rather, concern -- in the Scottish initiative.
This is the kind of debate you gey with independence topics. It's an emotional topic, not a rational one.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you have looked into it very well then.
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.
If anything it is a reaction against greed as Scotland is substantially more left wing than England and Wales.
The idea that left-wing politics are somehow "against greed" is kind of hilarious.
I think people may get that notion from the enforced redistribution of money from the rich to the poor side of it.
You can argue about which works, but the capitalists and the communists and the socialists do all claim to want the greatest wealth for the greatest number.
You can argue about which works, but the capitalists and the communists and the socialists do all claim to want the greatest wealth for the greatest number.
Then, of course, there's the mathematical claim to what the greatest wealth to the greatest number is:
http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics...
http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics...
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.