
On the Scottish independence referendum and the post-Westphalian settlement - cstross
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/09/the-referendum-question.html
======
putzdown
Abstraction is the napkin with which pundits wipe their sloppy chins. I don't
know whether Scotland should secede from the UK or not, but I do know that
this article doesn't hold enough substance to contribute to the question.
There's simply too much handwaving. "Forget all the short term
arguments...about whether we'll be economically better or worse off." Uh, no,
I'd say that a substantive and long-term issue. "And to the extent that all of
us who aren't in the 0.1% are "working class"—if you have to work to earn a
living, you're working class, even if you're a brain surgeon or an
accountant—the enemy of all of us?" Oh...kay so brain surgeons are now in the
working class and that means nationalism is the enemy of everyone?

Westphalia. Beige dictatorship. Cute. But please don't apply your favorite
cookie cutters to a deep and complex issue and tell me they slice it just the
way it needs to be sliced.

~~~
Tycho
I think the point is that any calculation about whether we will be
economically better off is inherently a short-term forecast. Nobody knows
beyond that.

I think the point about the ideal size of a state being closer to Scotland's
population than to the UK's is a reasonable, _fundamental_ contribution to the
debate. It's not a 'cookie-cutter' argument. People are right to think in
fundamental, philosophical terms.

As the referendum draws closer I find myself paying less and less attention to
short-term issues (which are mostly just quibbles over SNP _policies_ , which
really don't have much to do with _independence_ \- we could get independence
then elect a different party) and thinking more along fundamental lines. One
thing I'm sad not to have seen much discussion on is the constitution for an
independent Scottish state. That to me is vitally important from a historical
perspective.

~~~
cmdkeen
The debate about a constitution is both short term and vital, it is the most
worrying of the SNP's policies. They both want a unicameral chamber and keep
bandying around terms like "Sovreign will of the Scottish people" \- which has
worrying populist tones and a distinct lack of accountability. Seeing what
they get up to in the Scottish Parliament with a majority on the committees
that are supposed to hold the Executive to account makes me worry about what
sort of government an independent Scotland would be starting with - and that
is very hard to change, especially to introduce checks and balances.

I don't know where the Scottish equivalent of the Bill of Rights would come
from.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
An independent Scotland would supposedly join the EU which would give it the
basics in terms of a bill of rights. Until the EU the UK as a whole never had
a written bill of rights so it would be no worse off.

In terms of the SNP, what happens to them in an independent Scotland might be
the most interesting thing. They'd undoubtedly do well in a first election but
after the glow has worn off and without their current USP (independence, the
only party which is just about Scotland) it'll be interesting to see how they
define themselves - after all, politically it's not impossible to view them as
to the right of the Labour party (they're not the Tories but they're certainly
not socialists), and in another few years time they're going to be very much
part of the establishment.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Don't Spain and Belgium vehemently oppose Scotland acceding to the EU?

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
As far as I can tell they're currently opposing it somewhat indirectly but
they absolutely don't want the precedent of a country separating and being
allowed into Europe.

Neither of them are quite European heavyweights but ultimately , unless there
is some sort of fudge (not impossible but unlikely), every existing EU nation
will have to vote to accept an independent Scotland. For that to happen it
would appear that something will have to be done to placate those with similar
potential domestic issues themselves if it's too happen. Whether of not such a
something realistically exists or not I don't know.

------
junto
I like the Swiss 'canton' concept, where each canton is fairly autonomous,
with its own constitution and courts. These cantons were previously completely
separate states, ironically formed as part of the Treaty of Westphalia:

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland)

I'd like to hear any Swiss opinions on this system, since they have to live in
it, but as an outsider I've always considered this local governance, with
limited national state powers to be attractive. However, I'm not sure whether
this kind of model is applicable everywhere. I'm guessing there are some
historical, geographical, cultural and/or economic reasons for its success in
Switzerland compared to other countries.

~~~
heydenberk
One need look no further than the US to see the folly of a weak federal
system.

~~~
ensignavenger
There are a lot of people who would say that the biggest problems the US face
are because the Federal Government is too strong and more power should be
given to the states.

~~~
knieveltech
There are also a lot of people that believe in angels and think we should
switch to you-keep-what-you-kill libertarianism, both questionable viewpoints.

------
cmdkeen
The Westphalian system exposed it's massive flaw not in 1914 but at the turn
of the 19th century. The Westphalian states could not stop a rampaging
Napoleon from conquering vast swathes of territory until marched 500,000 men
without proper supplies into a Russian winter.

Ukraine is an excellent example of the flaws of NATO - the system of small
countries has to be plausible in their desire to stand up for each other. And
the Baltic states have just cause to be very nervous these days - it is
American backing that secures them, not the smaller NATO members who don't
even meet their 2% of GDP spending pledge.

The problem of the Scottish debate regarding international relations is that
it is so focused on 2003 Iraq. It forgets the many good international
engagements the UK has been a part of, and the potential future ones it could.
Only powerful countries get to make mistakes on the magnitude of Iraq. An
independent Scotland would not be able to look at something like Bosnia,
Kosovo or Sierra Leone and be able to intervene if it wanted to.

Alternatively see a certain Team America speech about various bits of the
anatomy...

------
lorddoig
Another Scot here (and a 'no' voter). Totally agree on almost everything
except the 'short-term implications'. They have the potential to be both
devastating and medium- to long-term. The currency issue, for example, is
decidedly less trivial than either side have said. Specifics will depend on a
lot of fights between Westminster and Holyrood that we won't get to see until
after we've decided.

~~~
jiggy2011
Agreed, after watching the last debate I was stunned by the extent to which
Salmond tried to handwave this.

~~~
jeffbr13
The independence campaign has to hand-wave the issue, and can't outright
declare that Scotland would _almost certainly_ have a currency-union with the
UK, because it's ultimately contingent on the UK government.

If they did, the unionists/UK government could attempt to call their bluff by
having UK politicians declare that a currency-union would never happen. It's
doesn't cost the unionist politicians very much credibility and it undermines
the independence campaign on that key issue, whether or not a currency union
is a strong likelihood in the case of independence.

~~~
lorddoig
The truth is the UK government would be shooting themselves in the foot if
they didn't enter a currency union - unless they thought the Scottish economy
was a real threat to the stability of the rest of the UK, or that having
Salmond's cronies on the board at the Bank of England was politically
unviable.

The thing is though that in a currency union there's only so far the two
economies can diverge before they _have_ to adopt different currencies to
maintain stability (Greece and the Euro is a fine example of the bad end of
this stick) - which kind of defeats the purpose of being independent, to an
extent.

------
ZanyProgrammer
"No, seriously: 95% of the discussion in the referendum debates and on the
street has been about short term issues that can be resolved one way or the
other in the coming days and months (occasionally, months or single-digit
years)."

Talk about handwaving-I'd say that the currency system and EU membership are
_very_ big issues that deserve essays in and of themselves. I get he's a
libertarian who doesn't like the Westphalian system (though why is it that
conservatives and libertarians are seemingly the only people who give a rats
ass about 17th century politics) but the actual issues of Scottish
independence are more of an afterthought.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think he's a libertarian. See, for instance, his take on Bitcoin.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
I assumed since he was writing on PopeHat. My bad for making that assumption.

~~~
teraflop
I think you're confusing popehat.com with antipope.org. Charles Stross is a
self-described socialist.

~~~
smsm42
Being a libertarian myself, I must admit I rather tend to agree with the
socialist guy here. Smaller governments are better _especially_ if they'd be
socialist. If the government in the place where I live decides to build
socialism, I'd like to be able to move before the toilet paper shortages start
(I don't know what is special about toilet paper but socialists tend to have
worst of luck with it [1]) and smaller is the government smaller is the
distance I would have to move to regain access to this under-appreciated
commodity. So besides all political reasons the most practical reason of
minimizing the risk and the transaction costs if the worst does happen,
smaller governments are better for me.

[1]
[http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-27/venezuela-i...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-27/venezuela-
is-running-out-of-toilet-paper-)

------
aquanext
I don't think you'd find very many people who would support breaking up the
United States -- at least in the United States. There might be support for
breaking some of the states _in_ the US into smaller entities, particularly on
the West Coast.

But we have a pretty strong national culture, despite our local differences
and our shared and troubled history.

~~~
jobu
Although the number of people involved is relatively low, there are some loud
voices in various parts of the US that would like to secede.

Hawaii -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement)

Texas -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements)

Alaska -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party)

~~~
aquanext
There's a movement where I'm from that wants the Pacific Northwest states plus
British Columbia to split off into a country called Cascadia. Barring some
terrible disaster, I highly doubt that's ever going to happen in the near
future.

Maybe in some distant future where things are very different, but it's not
realistic right now.

------
drpgq
"The population of the American Colonies in 1790 is estimated at roughly 2.7
million; the United States today has over 300 million inhabitants. In 1780
England and Wales had around 7.5 million inhabitants"

I didn't know that ratio between the England and Wales population versus the
American colonies was that small at that time. I would have thought it would
have been bigger.

~~~
adventured
Not sure where they got that.

The 1790 census says 3.893 million, with 694,000 being slaves.

(Jefferson and Washington both believed the true figure to be higher)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census)

------
ddebernardy
> the kind of nationalism that brought us the Great European War (...) is
> pretty much dead.

Not sure which rock the author is living under... Has he ever heard of e.g.
Golden Dawn? Seems like this kind of nationalism is still very much alive.

------
jrapdx3
If I were a Scot, I don't know how I would be able to decide which way to
vote. The impulse toward autonomy collides with the value of "economies of
scale". A small autonomous entity has to provide its needs for itself, or wind
up negotiating with numerous other entities to assure having necessary
resources, not likely a stable or reassuring situation to be in.

It appears parallel to the episodic waves of industrial consolidation and
fragmentation. Innovations start off as small local efforts which begin to
"catch on", and the idea spreads. Over time small autonomous enterprises begin
to merge because of efficiency pressure, until only a few giants remain.
Eventually, innovations challenge the giants' dominance and the cycle renews.

Political entities rise and fall, empires grow and decompose. It's not a
static process, and it is very evident that some small nations survive and
some large ones have not.

For regions and nations the key must be finding the best dynamic balance
between autonomy and the benefits of larger pools to provide for common
interests. It is a very tough goal to accomplish.

To take the USA as example, there are problems with state-to-state differences
as it is. Health care is a currently prominent example. Arguably, my health
needs don't change if I move to a different state, is it logical that health
care should vary greatly one state to another? Should there be less or more
autonomy in this regard? There are advocates on both sides, in any case, a
delicate federal vs. state balance exists that's risky to disrupt.

Large-system uniformity and efficiency are beneficial when it works, and
miserable when it does not. Perhaps the best we'll do is, where possible, keep
working to improve inter- and intra-regional communication, respect and
cooperation.

I know, that's hardly an answer to the question, but I don't think there is
really any answer at all.

------
pbhjpbhj
From the comments to the article:

>"My broader point stands: there is a precedent for a constituent nation
peacefully leaving the UK within the past century." //

Has he forgotten that the EU started about 30 years after this? That seems the
main reason that this situation is completely different - the geopolitical
landscape has changed entirely, ignoring that seems rather strange.

Currently we enjoy the CTA, so no obvious border controls with Eire. But UK +
Eire are not in the Schengen area. EU have decided that all new countries will
be in the Schengen area, Scotland thus will not be able to be in the CTA
without the rUK (and Eire) effectively accepting the Schengen Agreement. Now I
may have misjudged the current political temperature but with the rise of UKIP
I can't see the rUK voting to relax immigration policy.

If Scotland don't get in to Europe presumably rUK will be required to maintain
border controls whether we acceded to the Schengen Agreement or not.

Peacefully?

He does at least mention the 2 year war of independence,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence).
There was a lot of violence besides, I'm sure the PLA/INLA/[provisional] IRA
and the likes haven't been forgotten but those considerations probably aren't
relevant _what with all the differences between the situations_.

The lesson to learn from Eire is probably that if a unified region vote No
then don't try and keep them as part of the Union. But that doesn't really
work, if there's a land border it makes sense (Borders or D&G). Also for the
islands, if Orkney and Shetland voted No, then there's far less chance that
rest-of-Scotland will form a navy and start attacking them as their first
action? The geography is different, the age is different, the politics are
different, the modes of government are different, we're 100 years further away
from feudalism for starters.

It's worth making the comparison but concluding the situations are the same
seems disingenuous at best.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
The EU may make an exception to Schengen as Scotland is in a unique position -
it will claim (with some justification) that it is already in the EU (and
outside Schengen) and the starting point for it should be the UK's current
position.

More interesting on the CTA is that it would involve signing up to many of the
immigration policies rUK and Ireland have agreed to as part of that deal -
that contradicts the more open immigration policy the SNP are selling as part
of their pitch (which also includes the CTA).

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Do you think the other member states of the EU, Spain say, want to set an easy
precedent for regions of countries to become autonomous states and be accepted
in to the EU?

The UK is in the EU - a new country is being formed, that country is not in
the EU.

The Yes proponents appear to be answering all the tricky questions with
"{smiling and waving hands} we're sure it'll work out in our favour".

I'm waiting for HM the Queen to dissolve her Scottish parliament and put
Salmond in the Tower! That'd spice things up a bit.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Obviously not - Spain in particular (but not exclusively - there are plenty of
other counties in the EU who face similar issues) won't want a precedent which
could apply to, say, Catalonia.

But that's a separate issue about Scotland joining full stop, rather than the
terms on which they'd join. I suspect if Catalonia declared independence then
the most sensible starting point for their EU membership is what covers them
already (that is Spain's position). No-one really benefits from a position
where unnecessary change and uncertainty is pushed onto newly formed
countries.

I agree that the yes campaign's approach to difficult issues seems to be
essentially "don't worry your pretty little heads about it, it'll all be fine,
we've got the oil".

Short version: if it's a yes vote, it's going to be a big ol' mess for a
while.

------
kryptiskt
I dislike small countries, I felt claustrophobic back when Sweden wasn't a
member of the EU and a move abroad would need to be planned many months in
advance with reams of paperwork. Problems were smaller scale back when we had
those itsy-bitsy countries that Stross is so romantic about. Small countries
today only breeds parochialism (not in my backyard!) and cultural
backwardness.

And EU isn't an escape valve from that. Multiply the number of countries in
the EU by three and watch it grind to a halt.

I wouldn't mind a nordic union swallowing all the nordic states and move away
from the romantic idea of a state for every nation.

~~~
adventured
New Zealand, Hong Kong (pre 1997), and Singapore, aren't really what I'd call
culturally backwards. They may not be on the cutting edge culturally, but
they're not backwards.

And on the flip side, there are plenty of large countries that are narrow
minded and backwards in every respect. I'd argue most countries in the world
today are either slightly or extremely backwards and mostly tend to their own
sphere of matters. There are perhaps a mere three dozen countries for which
such isn't true.

India and China have 2.4 billion people, I'd argue about 2/3 of those people
live culturally backwards (what a cultural snob from NY, Paris, London etc
might define as such anyway) and narrowly focused lives. Most of those people
have very little real knowledge or awareness of the greater international
world. Their problems, knowledge, experiences and lives in general are all
extremely local.

I struggle to see that parochialism and cultural backwardness is in any way
particular to size.

~~~
kryptiskt
If you slice and dice say the UK into smaller pieces, do you think London are
gonna help Tyneside when the latter is hit by economic trouble? That's the
parochialism that results from small countries, an endless accounting of small
favors granted just because a border is put up and some people are defined as
strangers.

------
a8da6b0c91d
Smaller nations sounds nice but in the intermediate term reality Scotland
would become a minor province of the EU nation. It'd be trading Britain for
something much bigger.

~~~
cstross
We've already got that something (the EU). It's relatively benign. (Meanwhile,
we've got an extra tier of government that insists on spending tax revenue
raised in Scotland on stuff the Scottish people really don't want.)

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
The EU is an ongoing and succeeding effort to replicate the United States
Federal government in Europe. Scotland will eventually wind up having as much
say as New Hampshire does in very important matters, such as control of its
borders and agriculture policy.

~~~
arethuza
"control of its borders"

I'm pleased to say that we don't seem to have quite the same obsession in
Scotland with keeping immigrants out as a lot of people in the UK. In fact the
SNP is rather keen on _encouraging_ immigration.

I'd far rather have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU than be
trapped in the UK with Boris Johnson as PM running second hand UKIP policies.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Control of borders is practically the definition of a nation. If you don't
have a say in who comes in, you aren't a nation.

~~~
arrrg
Restricting freedom of movement and labour is morally unconscionable. I’m
certain we will look back to that in a few centuries with horror.

At least the EU was able to reduce that somewhat in some places. Sure, the
outer border of the EU is horrific, but inside it’s at least somewhat ok. A
world with borders is an evil and oppressive world. We should always work
towards removing them all for everyone.

(Yes, I know about Schengen and the differences between Schengen and the EU.
However, be assured that Schengen would not exist without the EU. It’s just
that achieving consensus is hard, so some want out of some things and some
want it. That’s why it’s always so complicated and hard. EU is a convenient
shorthand, because I don’t just mean visa free travel, I also mean being able
to live and work in other places.)

~~~
jiggy2011
That might work if all countries had similar culture, values, standards of
living and agreements over things like how healthcare should be paid for. In
reality, if a first world country opens it's borders to the rest of the world
, even if the agreement is reciprocal then most of the traffic is going one
way as people try and converge on the source of wealth. We already have this
problem within the UK when trying to cram so many people into London.

It also raises questions like, if I can live and work wherever I want why
should I only be able to vote in one fixed arbitrary place?

~~~
arrrg
Yes, and abolishing slavery was also hard … (I do explicitly not want to
compare the severity and impact of borders to the severity and impact of
slavery or even racism today. It’s an analogy.)

I know there are practical issues in the way that prevent abolishing borders.
I know this won’t happen quickly, probably not during my lifetime, probably
not in a couple centuries, but working towards a world where this is possible
seems like a worthwhile goal to me. Why should people be arbitrarily bound to
the place they were born? It’s insanity and highly unethical.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
I look forward to hearing your tune when 2,000 illiterate indians show up in
your neighborhood and start publicly defecating all over the place.
[http://www.poo2loo.com/](http://www.poo2loo.com/)

------
sparkzilla
This guy dresses up his reasons in pseudo-intellectual guff. If we follow his
reasoning reductio ad absurdum what would be the size of the smallest state
he'd like? One with 15 million people? One with 5 million? One with one
person?

In reality he just doesn't like the English, specifically English
conservatives. The Scots claim they don't like being ruled by people they
didn't vote for. But they were happy to vote for Labor for 15 years before
this Tory government. Part of a mature society is that you understand that
around half of the time you don't get who you vote for.

I'm no great fan of Paul Krugman but he correctly points out that the new
Socialist State of Scotland would be set adrift in a world of capital flows it
cannot hope to control. [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-
krugman-scots...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-
scots-what-the-heck.html?_r=0)

David Cameron should never have let it go this far. A federal system would
have made far more sense, and not divided Scotland's people and broken a
successful union.

