Scotland Independence?

[HeloDude]

Just curious what you guys will think will happen later this week with the vote in Scotland? And if they do vote for independence, what are the positives and negatives we might see as a result in Scotland, the rest of the UK, the EU, and here in the US?

My bet is that it will be a somewhat close vote (with 5-10 points), but that they remain with the UK for the near future, though this might give more steam to their independence movement vs crushing it. A strong part of me would like to see it happen, if nothing else just to see how things will shake out.

My number concern is the delicious scotch--as long as it continues to flow (like 'where the beer flows like wine') and at close to the same price, then I'm good! It's all about priorities...

[M2]

I don't see any negatives, and support has been increasing...

[guineapigfury]

I'm glad they're resolving this peacably, which isn't the norm for this sort of thing. Here's some negatives.

[Dupe]

The biggest negative is uncertainty surrounding future oil revenues. Scotland is a fair bit more liberal than England, but those policies won't work if there isn't an oil tax base to fund it.

[SuperWSO]

I'm not sure there are any positives to making a medium sized nation into two smaller ones beyond a temporary boost in Scottish self esteem. Soon they'll be right up there with Luxenberg, Lithuania and Estonia amongst the power players.

[Dupe]

I'm not sure there are any positives to making a medium sized nation into two smaller ones beyond a temporary boost in Scottish self esteem. Soon they'll be right up there with Luxenberg, Lithuania and Estonia amongst the power players.

What about the right of self-determination?

Many Scots (roughly half) believe the policies coming from Wesminster are not in Scottish best interest. Additionally, with a seat at both the EU and UN, Scottish global interests (whatever those are) may then be more powerful.

[guineapigfury]

I couldn't resist:

[SocialD]

[Lord Ratner]

It's gunna be a mess. For starters, only Scots who currently reside in Scotland are allowed to vote. If "yes" wins, expect to see a huge push for a revote including all Scots, not just the group most biased towards independence.

The only plan for a currency is "we'll use the pound" which is not a plan at all, since the remaining UK will have to vote on it, and politicians supporting a currency union with a newly independent Scotland will face political suicide with the rise of nationalist parties.

The SNP has no plan for a military, other than "we'll have one, and we'll be in NATO." I think the last I heard was a standing army of 3,500. As compared to the UK army of 100K.

The UK nuke enterprise is heavily embedded in Scotland. Independence will be the best weapon of the anti-deterrent crowd, since moving nukes to a new place is political suicide.

As it stands, Scotland uses a larger portion of public funds than it supplies in taxes. The NHS is already at the breaking point in many areas.

The SNP plan appears to be almost entirely supported by the idea Scotland has enough gas and oil to be like Norway, but unlike Norway, Scotland's oil wealth is based on surveys of future reserves and extraction potential.

I think they have a decent chance of winning the vote. I also think that if they do, it still won't happen, especially if Whitehall keeps to their promise of denying a currency union. A revote including the many, many Scots who live in Wales, N Ireland and England would also kill the movement.

[brickhistory]

Popularity of the idea and amount of support is scaring Spain with its Catalan state. Rumors of EU not admitting Scotland or at least slow-rolling it. Same for NATO. Not a done deal that Scotland gets in.

In fact, a "yes" could be the wedge for the EU to start to break up. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...).

I'm sure there are other county-sized wannabe's that think being "independent" will be all that.

If Scotland does it, their finances will be in the sh1tter. Oil revenue compared to the lose of economic advantage of buying in bulk as part of UK will soon run them out of their socialist ideals.

I think the final verdict will "no" with lots of Braveheart-like "we are free" chanting ever after.

[slackline]

I guarantee you there are a couple of provinces in China watching this, and that the CCP is pissed it's happening because they're already areas giving them fits...

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[M2]

I think STRATFOR nailed it on their analysis despite not picking one side or the other...

The Origins and Implications of the Scottish Referendum

By George Friedman

The idea of Scottish independence has moved from the implausible to the very possible. Whether or not it actually happens, the idea that the union of England and Scotland, which has existed for more than 300 years, could be dissolved has enormous implications in its own right, and significant implications for Europe and even for global stability.

The United Kingdom was the center of gravity of the international system from the end of the Napoleonic Wars until World War II. It crafted an imperial structure that shaped not only the international system but also the internal political order of countries as diverse as the United States and India. The United Kingdom devised and drove the Industrial Revolution. In many ways, this union was a pivot of world history. To realize it might be dissolved is startling and reveals important things about the direction of the world.

Scotland and England are historical enemies. Their sense of competing nationhoods stretches back centuries, and their occupation of the same island has caused them to fight many wars. Historically they have distrusted each other, and each has given the other good reason for the distrust. The national question was intertwined with dynastic struggles and attempts at union imposed either through conquest or dynastic intrigue. The British were deeply concerned that foreign powers, particularly France, would use Scotland as a base for attacking England. The Scots were afraid that the English desire to prevent this would result in the exploitation of Scotland by England, and perhaps the extinction of the Scottish nation.

The Union of 1707 was the result of acts of parliaments on both sides and led to the creation of the Parliament of Great Britain. England's motive was its old geopolitical fears. Scotland was driven more by financial problems it was unable to solve by itself. What was created was a united island, acting as a single nation. From an outsider's perspective, Scotland and England were charming variations on a single national theme -- the British -- and it was not necessary to consider them as two nations. If there was ever a national distinction that one would have expected to be extinguished in other than cultural terms, it was this one. Now we learn that it is intact. We need a deeper intellectual framework for understanding why Scottish nationalism has persisted.

The Principle of National Self-Determination

The French Enlightenment and subsequent revolution had elevated the nation to the moral center of the world. It was a rebellion against the transnational dynasties and fragments of nations that had governed much of Europe. The Enlightenment saw the nation, which it defined in terms of shared language, culture and history, as having an inherent right to self-determination and as the framework for the republican democracies it argued were the morally correct form of government.

After the French Revolution, some nations, such as Germany and Italy, united into nation-states. After World War I, when the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, Romanov and Ottoman empires all collapsed, a wave of devolution took place in Europe. The empires devolved into their national components. Some were amalgamated into one larger nation, such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, while others, such as Poland, were single nation-states. Some had republican democracies, others had variations on the theme, and others were dictatorships. A second major wave of devolution occurred in 1992, when the Soviet Union collapsed and its constituent republics became independent nation-states.

The doctrine of the right to national self-determination drove the first wave of revolts against European imperialism in the Western Hemisphere, creating republics in the Americas. The second wave of colonial rising and European withdrawal occurred after World War II. In some cases, nations became self-determining. In other cases, nation-states simply were invented without corresponding to any nation and actually dividing many. In other cases, there were nations, but republican democracy was never instituted except by pretense. A French thinker, Francois de La Rochefoucauld, said, "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue." Even while betraying its principles, the entire world could not resist the compulsion to embrace the principles of national self-determination through republican democracy. This effectively was codified as the global gold standard of national morality in the charters of the League of Nations and then the United Nations.

Click to Enlarge

The Imperfection of the Nation-State

The incredible power of the nation-state as a moral principle and right could be only imperfectly imposed. No nation was pure. Each had fragments and minorities of other nations. In many cases, they lived with each other. In other cases, the majority tried to expel or even destroy the minority nation. In yet other cases, the minority demanded independence and the right to form its own nation-state. These conflicts were not only internal; they also caused external conflict over the right of a particular nation to exist or over the precise borders separating the nations.

Europe in particular tore itself apart in wars between 1914 and 1945 over issues related to the rights of nation-states, with the idea of the nation-state being taken to its reductio ad absurdum -- by the Germans as a prime example. After the war, a principle emerged in Europe that the borders as they stood, however imperfect, were not to be challenged. The goal was to abolish one of the primary causes of war in Europe.

The doctrine was imperfectly applied. The collapse of the Soviet Union abolished one set of borders, turning internal frontiers into external borders. The Yugoslavian civil war turned into an international war once Yugoslavia ceased to exist, and into civil wars within nation-states such as Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. At the same time, the borders in the Caucasus were redrawn when newly independent Armenia seized what had been part of Azerbaijan. And in an act that flew in the face of the principle, NATO countries divided Serbia into two parts: an Albanian part called Kosovo and the rest of Serbia.

The point of all this is to understand that the right to national self-determination comes from deep within European principles and that it has been pursued with an intensity and even viciousness that has torn Europe apart and redrawn its borders. One of the reasons that the European Union exists is to formally abolish these wars of national self-determination by attempting to create a framework that both protects and trivializes the nation-state.

Scotland's Case

The possibility of Scottish independence must be understood in this context. Nationalism, the remembrance and love of history and culture, is not a trivial thing. It has driven Europe and even the world for more than two centuries in ever-increasing waves. The upcoming Scottish election, whichever way it goes, demonstrates the enormous power of the desire for national self-determination. If it can corrode the British union, it can corrode anything.

There are those who argue that Scottish independence could lead to economic problems or complicate the management of national defense. These are not trivial questions, but they are not what is at stake here. From an economic point of view, it makes no sense for Scotland to undergo this sort of turmoil. At best, the economic benefits are uncertain. But this is why any theory of human behavior that assumes that the singular purpose of humans is to maximize economic benefits is wrong. Humans have other motivations that are incomprehensible to the economic model but can be empirically demonstrated to be powerful. If this referendum succeeds, it will still show that after more than 300 years, almost half of Scots prefer economic uncertainty to union with a foreign nation.

This is something that must be considered carefully in a continent that is prone to extreme conflicts and still full of borders that do not map to nations as they are understood historically. Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, the second-largest and most vibrant city in Spain, has a significant independence movement. The Treaty of Trianon divided Hungary so that some Hungarians live in Romania, while others live in Slovakia. Belgium consists of French and Dutch groups (Walloons and Fleming), and it is not too extreme to say they detest each other. The eastern half of Poland was seized by the Soviet Union and is now part of Ukraine and Belarus. Many Chechens and Dagestanis want to secede from Russia, as do Karelians, who see themselves as Finns. There is a movement in northern Italy to separate its wealthy cities from the rest of Italy. The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is far from settled. Myriad other examples can be found in Europe alone.

The right to national self-determination is not simply about the nation governing itself but also about the right of the nation to occupy its traditional geography. And since historical memories of geography vary, the possibility of conflict grows. Consider Ireland: After its fight for independence from England and then Britain, the right to Northern Ireland, whose national identity depended on whose memory was viewing it, resulted in bloody warfare for decades.

Scottish independence would transform British history. All of the attempts at minimizing its significance miss the point. It would mean that the British island would be divided into two nation-states, and however warm the feelings now, they were not warm in the past nor can we be sure that they will be warm in the future. England will be vulnerable in ways that it hasn't been for three centuries. And Scotland will have to determine its future. The tough part of national self-determination is the need to make decisions and live with them.

This is not an argument for or against Scottish nationhood. It is simply drawing attention to the enormous power of nationalism in Europe in particular, and in countries colonized by Europeans. Even Scotland remembers what it once was, and many -- perhaps a majority and perhaps a large minority -- long for its return. But the idea that Scotland recalls its past and wants to resurrect it is a stunning testimony less to Scottish history than to the Enlightenment's turning national rights into a moral imperative that cannot be suppressed.

More important, perhaps, is that although Yugoslavia and the Soviet collapse were not seen as precedents for the rest of Europe, Scotland would be seen that way. No one can deny that Britain is an entity of singular importance. If that can melt away, what is certain? At a time when the European Union's economic crisis is intense, challenging European institutions and principles, the dissolution of the British union would legitimize national claims that have been buried for decades.

But then we have to remember that Scotland was buried in Britain for centuries and has resurrected itself. This raises the question of how confident any of us can be that national claims buried for only decades are settled. I have no idea how the Scottish will vote. What strikes me as overwhelmingly important is that the future of Britain is now on the table, and there is a serious possibility that it will cease to be in the way it was. Nationalism has a tendency to move to its logical conclusion, so I put little stock in the moderate assurances of the Scottish nationalists. Nor do I find the arguments against secession based on tax receipts or banks' movements compelling. For centuries, nationalism has trumped economic issues. The model of economic man may be an ideal to some, but it is empirically false. People are interested in economic well-being, but not at the exclusion of all else. In this case, it does not clearly outweigh the right of the Scottish nation to national-self determination.

I think that however the vote goes, unless the nationalists are surprised by an overwhelming defeat, the genie is out of the bottle, and not merely in Britain. The referendum will re-legitimize questions that have caused much strife throughout the European continent for centuries, including the 31-year war of the 20th century that left 80 million dead.

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report:

The Origins and Implications of the Scottish Referendum is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

[chim richalds]

I guarantee you there are a couple of provinces in China watching this, and that the CCP is pissed it's happening because they're already areas giving them fits...

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

I also guarantee there are a few states here watching this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

I also guarantee there are a few states here watching this.

I guarantee there are a 'few' big government types here who are also watching...hoping this doesn't spread.

[Lawman]

I guarantee there are a 'few' big government types here who are also watching...hoping this doesn't spread.

We had some people try that a few decades back... didn't work out so well.

While its opening a can of worms that would need its own thread, no US state is leaving the union. For all the blustering and bragging Texans do about how its in their states constitution it doesn't matter (not to mention that it isnt actually there). First, the "Supremacy Claus" (Article 4) of the constitution states you can write whatever you want but if it doesnt align with the US constitution it is null and void. Second, and more to the point Texas V White settled the legality of Succession, our US constitution does not allow for states to secede from the Union. Short of open rebellion nobody is going to go out and form a new country.

Sidenote: Polls on the news are gonna be too close to call on Scotland. Im really curious to see if this does happen and they do split what kind of timelines and adjustment periods they set themselves. Curious to see how many of their voters are in that "Change!" mode and not looking at the long game, ala the Post McCain/Obama Southpark Episode.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Lawman

[Fuzz]

Wait so the Federal government ruled that you couldn't leave the federal government? What a shocker, like any orginization of authority anywhere is ever going to admit you could leave their influence.

ETA: I'm not advocating states leave, (however I do believe that's their choice since we are a voluntary union of states), just pointing out the irony of what you stated.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Fuzz

[Lawman]

Wait so the Federal government ruled that you couldn't leave the federal government? What a shocker, like any orginization of authority anywhere is ever going to admit you could leave their influence.

ETA: I'm not advocating states leave, (however I do believe that's their choice since we are a voluntary union of states), just pointing out the irony of what you stated.

Actually no. Texas argued that it wasn't responsible for war debt accumulated by the confederate government because that government was illegal.

The USSC found for Texas in the matter based on previous codified standards, 1 being it was implicitly stated in the original articles of confederation that a state could not leave the union and also that the constitution didn't explicitly overturn that nor did it provide for any sort of breaking up of states after their admittance from either territory or foreign state status (like making Cali 2 states for example).

There were dissenting opinions on the bench however. Its just important to note that in the wake of a period defined by the idea of state sovereignty within the union a group of individuals who's job it is to interpret the constitution found that succession was not a right. Compare that to todays highly centralized government, no way in hell is that idea making it any further than some grass roots rally in Texas or Hawaii.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Lawman

[HeloDude]

There were dissenting opinions on the bench however. Its just important to note that in the wake of a period defined by the idea of state sovereignty within the union a group of individuals who's job it is to interpret the constitution found that succession was not a right. Compare that to todays highly centralized government, no way in hell is that idea making it any further than some grass roots rally in Texas or Hawaii.

The 'United' States doesn't sound like much of a 'union' if one State wishes to leave and the federal government/other States forces them to stay...or am I mistaken? So what's your definition of a union?

Oh and it's 'secession'.

[Lawman]

The 'United' States doesn't sound like much of a 'union' if one State wishes to leave and the federal government/other States forces them to stay...or am I mistaken? So what's your definition of a union?

Oh and it's 'secession'.

Thats what I get for typing on an Ipad...

We are totally going down this rabbit hole arent we....

Look Illegally choosing to leave a body you had to be ratified in as a member of is not allowed under the constitution. What level does soverignty exist at. The city? The county? the State? Every single one of those levels has in some way shape or form attempted to leave the greater whole of whatever Union it was a part of. Staten Island tried to leave New York.... Should that have been legal if it simply didnt want to be part of it anymore? The Nation of the United States is what is recognized at a sovereign level, not the state. Thats the same reason states are not allowed to ratify their own treaties with foreign powers. So yes a state that made the decision to become part of the United States doesnt simply get to say "fuck this Im out."

States are ratified into the Union, which by doing so do not so much voluntarily choose to be part of as swear allegiance too. At what level to oaths not mean anything if a state chose to affirm its self to the US constitution. Short of the Federal Government not living up to its requirements under the US Constitution and breaking its end of the contract, no the states do not have a right to simply chose to leave when they dont like the systems they swore allegiance too.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Lawman

[Vertigo]

no the states do not have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to simply chose to leave when they dont like the systems they swore allegiance too.

FIFY. You're right, it is well established states do not have a Constitutional right to secede. But do they have a natural and inalienable right to secede?

A free state isn't really free if it can't leave of its own will, is it?

[Lawman]

FIFY. You're right, it is well established states do not have a Constitutional right to secede. But do they have a natural and inalienable right to secede?

A free state isn't really free if it can't leave of its own will, is it?

People have made that argument in regards to taxes, and it has repeatedly been found to not be within the protections provided under the 9th and 10th Amendments which is the basis for the argument in the first place.

The same could be said for the idea that somehow a bunch of people effectively voted for us hundreds of years removed from any of us on our consent to be citizens of the United States. Effectively you are born a citizen of the US by default where in the other approach would be to allow people to chose to become citizens through some oath of allegiance (wait I think I said that every day in grade school...) upon reaching the age of consent at 18. We do maintain the individual right to give up your citizenship, we do not maintain the right of the state to do so.

Like I said there would be some argument for the idea of a legal secession provided that the Federal Government was complicit in its requirements of the Constitution. If for instance the Federal Government refused to protect the State of Florida or Arizona from a military Invasion of a foreign military power than that state would have an argument that it was abandoned to its own sovereignty. But simply deciding by popular opinion "we dont like this so we are out" isnt a protected right.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Lawman

[Jughead]

But simply deciding by popular opinion "we dont like this so we are out" isnt a protected right.

...and, for those arguing otherwise (and unless I missed something): Are you in the same crowd who refer to that little dust-up in the 1860s as the "War of Northern Aggression"...?? I mean, Holy Non-Starter, Batman!!, you must be arguing to hear the sound of your own voice!

[OverTQ]

You know I am not normally a loud Texas type...but since you brought it up. If we decide to leave the Union...we won't be asking. Just saying...cause it obviously irritates somebody here....no names....Kinda funny too that there are only about 2 army guys here and we find something to go at it about.

[Prozac]

If Texas wants to go I say have at it. Only thing I'll miss is Austin. And the BBQ. And the blondes with the big....awww shit, Texas come back....PLLLEEASE baby....we promise we'll treat you right this time.

[Fuzz]

...and, for those arguing otherwise (and unless I missed something): Are you in the same crowd who refer to that little dust-up in the 1860s as the "War of Northern Aggression"...?? I mean, Holy Non-Starter, Batman!!, you must be arguing to hear the sound of your own voice!

No the "War of Northern Aggression" is a sore loosers stance on it. It was a civil war, one side said "we are out of here" and the other side said "not so fast". The war was fought and determine that it would remain one country, completely fine by me. However, I found Lawnman's justification of using the Federal government saying you can't leave as the final answer, ironic, like anywhere in history or just thinking about it would a country willingly say "yeah go ahead and leave". Government's sole goal is to amass and keep power, allowing territory to leave goes against its fundamental purpose. Now I will agree the Constitution has no provisions to leave the Union, however Vertigo and Helodude hit the nail on the head, a) are you really free if you can't leave and b) you may not have a Constitutional right but there are rights higher than the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the Colonists didn't have a right under English Law to leave the British Empire, but there are inalieable rights that trump all government laws.

I don't want to see any state leave, well actually there are a few and Texas isn't one of them, but if they did choose to then it would be their right to leave, but its also the U.S. governments right to keep them from doing so.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Fuzz