
Scots, What the Heck? - jseliger
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?_r=1
======
StefanKarpinski
Paul Krugman is so much better when he's being rational about economics than
when he's on yet another tirade about how bad Republicans are – whether one
agrees or not, it's just uninteresting. This is similar to how Richard Dawkins
is utterly brilliant when he sticks to evolutionary biology but kind of
insufferable when he crusades against religion.

~~~
grifpete
You're entitled to your opinion on his crusades against religion. But let's
bear in mind that there are those of us who consider religious irrationalism a
key challenge of our age, nationally and internationally, and hence that such
a crusade is important.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Let's also remember there are people who believe that insults and
condescension are the least effective ways to help someone see they are acting
irrationally, and that attacking a group of people's shared identity is the
worst way to work with them on the substance of the challenges of our time.

~~~
deciplex
You're right it's a poor way to change someone's mind, and certainly doesn't
foster inclusion, but what of people who are still making up their mind?
Mainly, I'm talking about young people who have been raised in a mostly
religious context, but haven't gone head-over-heels yet.

It _might_ be that challenging superstition in the most brutal way possible
(outside of physical violence, that is), serves to promote more rational
beliefs among this group.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I doubt it. I won't repost my other comment which addresses this [1] but in my
opinion people like Dawkins are fanatics. And science/atheist fanatics are no
better than religious fanatics. Religious fanatics drive me away from religion
but Dawkins fanaticism drives me away from atheism.

I think it's calm, rational argument that has swayed me most away from
religion. Just a simple thought experiment:

1\. You think religions like scientology are crazy. 2\. You believe in a man
who was born of a virgin, died, rose from the dead, and who hundreds of
millions of people eat and drink every weekend. 3\. How can you call them
crazy when you believe that?

Even still it's hard for me to get off the fence but simple arguments like
that, which aren't arrogant and totally patronising, but lay out the facts in
an honest way, are what convince people.

I think the problem with a more aggressive approach is arrogance. Most
religious people probably accept they could be wrong - their belief is based
on faith. But aggressive atheists argue that religious people are wrong and
stupid when from a religious persons perspective the atheist has no proof they
are wrong. Evolution is real and correct but isn't proof their is no God.
Atheists say it's not up to them to prove their is no God, it's up to
religious people to prove their is. But if you're calling someone out as wrong
they will think you need to prove it. Because there is and never will be a way
to disprove the existence of a God I don't think this approach works. You have
to present the facts in a way that is honest but in a way that the other
person hasn't thought about before.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8289140](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8289140)

------
api_or_ipa
Krugman's article dialect borders on the offending.

The point he was making can be easily summed as the peculiarities of the
macroeconomic Trilemma[1]. If Scotland honours the pound, then it must either
lose monetary independence or restrict capital inflows. Every country must
make this decision, whether they are in an economic union or not. Scotland's
situation is interesting because effectively, a fixed exchange rate situation
with Britain will mean less monetary policy mechanisms for Scotland to play
with. Of course, it can always attempt to maintain economic stability with
fiscal policy; it suffices here to say they have their individual purposes.

Krugman is a very well known advocate of monetary policy, especially in the
2008 recession. For this reason, it's clear he has a disposition towards
favouring his own tools of choice. Of course, for being a left wing economist,
it isn't difficult to see a possible reason why he favours monetary policy: it
devalues currency, taking more from those who hold large cash balances.

Economists, like all other professions, should strive to be fair and balanced
in their articles. Krugman's article is certainly not balanced.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity)

~~~
ef4
> Of course, for being a left wing economist, it isn't difficult to see a
> possible reason why he favours monetary policy: it devalues currency, taking
> more from those who hold large cash balances.

This is one of those memes that just won't die: currency devaluation isn't bad
for the rich. It's bad for the poor. The rich hold the vast majority of their
wealth in inflation-proof assets. Their housing costs are fixed because they
own houses. The poor hold what little liquid wealth they have in cash, and
their housing costs are variable because they rent.

If inflation was the pro-poor policy, you could be damn sure we wouldn't have
experienced it consistently for a hundred years.

This confusion springs from the idea that inflation is a pro-debtor policy.
But the biggest debtors by far are rich people and institutions. Nobody lends
poor people tens of thousands of dollars to buy securities on margin, or
millions to build real estate developments.

~~~
parasubvert
The reality is more complicated. Wages tend to be sticky downwards, therefore
the main way to dig a country out of a balance sheet recession is through
currency devaluation, which forces a haircut through other means. It's how
Canada and Germany rebounded in the 90s.

Yes, this hurts the poor and middle class, as inflation does (though it also
can help - people that bought houses in the 70s effectively got a discount),
but unemployment hurts more.

------
scythe
I think it would have made more sense for Krugman to frame this as an argument
for a new Scottish currency: his point is that

* a currency union without a political union is bound to cause problems if you wait long enough

* history shows us that nobody is willing to fix the currency until it's too late

So it would be better if Scotland avoids starting on the wrong track by simply
creating a currency. As he states, though, the Scottish secessionists are
bound and determined to go the wrong way...

(Side note: Labor productivity is lower in Canada, but something tells me that
working hours are shorter and vacations longer...)

~~~
thret
I thought that odd too: surely lower labor productivity in a prosperous nation
is a positive indicator of a higher quality of life.

~~~
api
Canada has a lot of oil and other natural resources in proportion to its
population. I suspect this underwrites a lot of their high standard of living
vs. labor intensiveness. I'm not sure nations that don't have that kind of
cash cow can do what Canada does.

------
christop
> And it wasn’t just Spain, it was all of southern Europe and more. Even euro-
> area countries with sound finances, like Finland and the Netherlands, have
> suffered deep and prolonged slumps.

I hadn't heard of troubles in those two countries before before, though I'm
sure like pretty much every country in Europe — or indeed the world — they
didn't go entirely unscathed during a global financial crisis. Scotland, the
UK as a whole and other western European countries aren't exactly in the
depths of recession and unemployment that have been happening in Spain and
Greece, for example.

Note the lack of mention of Norway (not that it's a eurozone country), which
is in an incredible financial position with a $900bn fund made up primarily by
saving a portion of oil revenue. While Norway has had 15 years to amass this
huge fund, this is the model that Scotland would like to follow — as after
independence it would have control of its north sea oil and gas revenue.

> In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has
> demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very
> dangerous.

What happened was dangerous, though arguably the use of a shared currency and
central bank helped countries support one another.

In any case, the most likely outcome in the case of Scottish independence is a
currency union with the rest of the UK, in a similar manner to the Euro. If
the Bank of England denies Scotland the use of its assets, it will also have
to forgo Scotland's share of the liabilities, essentially wiping out
Scotland's share of UK debt. So it's unlikely that Scotland's currency would
be completely separate in any case.

All in all, while there are naturally unknown factors, there are plenty of
reasons to seek independence and just in terms of economics — even excluding
oil and gas revenue — an independent Scotland would appear to be in a good
financial position.

~~~
jacquesm
The housing market in NL all but crashed and is still just about limping
along. In some provinces the situation is pretty dreadful. The funny bit is
that the prices haven't dropped all that much (because people are
psychologically much less likely to take a loss on a property than they are to
cash in on a profit, a big factor in this is that they'll end up with a
remaining debt to the bank after selling the house which is definitely not
always an option).

So the market simply froze with asking prices holding relatively steady and
sales dropping to near zero at some point. As of late there is a bit of a
recovery depending on the area you look at.

~~~
justincormack
That tends to happen with housing, meaning people cant move but prices do not
appear to fall.

(In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than
the loan, but thats not the case in the rest of the world)

~~~
seanflyon
> In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than
> the loan

Could you explain this a bit more. I think you are saying that in the US when
you sell your house for less than the value of the loan, the banks takes the
loss instead of you, which is not how I thought it worked. Does this have
something to do with mortgage insurance?

~~~
ojbyrne
I think he means if you get foreclosed, the bank has no recourse beyond just
taking your house. If you sell your house, then obviously you're responsible
for the difference.

~~~
seanflyon
That seems odd. Why would anyone sell their house for less than their mortgage
when they can just walk away and not owe anything?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why would anyone sell their house for less than their mortgage when they can
> just walk away and not owe anything?

Credit and taxes -- a short sale is, though damaging, less so to ones
creditworthiness than a foreclosure, further, the _entire amount of the unpaid
principal_ (in either the short-sale or the foreclosure/surrender case, but
foreclosure sales generally return less than a short sale with positive owner
involvement would) is taxable as income.

------
fennecfoxen
> But Canada has its own currency, which means that its government can’t run
> out of money, that it can bail out its own banks if necessary, and more. An
> independent Scotland wouldn’t. And that makes a huge difference.

Works for Panama, Ecuador, and El Salvador, all of which use the dollar.
Worked for plenty of successful governments on the gold standard throughout
history. And it works for every state and city and other regional government.
It's really pretty partisan and tendentious to suggest that governments
playing games with the currency is a fundamental tenet of governance.

Just because your favored public policy techniques make use of currency
manipulation doesn't mean a nation can't do without it, Mr. Krugman, even if
the Scots _are_ pretty far to the Left.

~~~
peteretep

        > Works for Panama, Ecuador, and El Salvador, all of which 
        > use the dollar.
    

Scotland! You too can have the economy of a Central American state!

(Scotland's GDP: $216 billion, Panama $36b, Ecuador $84b, El Salvador $23b)

~~~
ef4
Scotland was ground zero for the industrial revolution and has had relative
peace within its borders for centuries.

Those other three countries all experienced coups in living memory, and didn't
seriously start industrializing until at least a century later than Scotland.

Those factors are more than enough to explain a factor of four or five
difference in GDP.

------
fideloper
My sister lives and works and Scotland on visa (we're American).

She (and others in her position) are worried that this passing may well end up
with her visa not getting renewed or cancelled as they are UK viasas rather
than Scottish ones.

Could be interesting times for ex-pats living in Scotland!

~~~
Finbarr
As a Scot living in the US, I'm curious to know what's going to happen the
other way around.

I'm concerned about what will happen to my British citizenship in the event of
independence. It seems like Scotland would introduce its own citizenship and
passport with independence, but it is unclear what would happen to existing
British passport holders of Scottish descent.

If the answer is dual citizenship, I wonder how this will affect the
availability of public services over time. For example, as a holder of both
passports, would I be free to pick and choose which country I draw a pension
from, get healthcare from, and pay tax to?

For me, there are too many unanswered questions. Currency is the tip of the
iceberg.

~~~
sparkzilla
You are not the only one with this concern. Despite being out of the country
for a long time I would prefer to keep my British passport. I'm also annoyed
that I don't get a vote on whether my nationality will change.

~~~
peteretep
Why would your nationality change? You would simply gain an option on another
nationality.

~~~
sparkzilla
I am British and have a British passport. If there is a Yes votes I will have
to change to a Scottish passport, which I believe will have less value, or an
English passport, which is not my identity. Neither of those is a good choice.

Ex-pat Scots, whose nationality will be affected by the result, were
specifically denied the vote, while English people and other nationalities,
including Germans and other Europeans living in Scotland, have been allowed to
vote. Complete insanity.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I am British and have a British passport. If there is a Yes votes I will
> have to change to a Scottish passport, which I believe will have less value,
> or an English passport, which is not my identity.

Er, no one has proposed that _England_ become independent of the UK -- if
Scotland leaves, you could have a Scottish passport or end up with a British
passport. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland --
comprised of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland -- without
Scotland will still be the United Kingdom of (most of) Great Britain and
Northern Ireland -- comprised of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

~~~
sparkzilla
I don't think you get my point.

~~~
nly
Likely worst case scenario is the UK coffers get fat on Scottish
registrations. Unless you opt to become a republic, you'll still be a British
subject regardless.

[https://www.gov.uk/register-british-citizen](https://www.gov.uk/register-
british-citizen)

~~~
roywiggins
Surprisingly (to me), most citizens of Britain are _not_ technically "British
subjects."

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

------
midhir
Interesting article. Worth noting that Stiglitz is more bullish about the
economic possibilities for Scotland after independence - though I understand
he's an advisor to the Scottish Government.

I'll be glued to the count on the 18th anyway.

------
dimitar
I'm surprised that there is so much controversy about this article - nothing
Paul Krugman has written here is outside the mainstream in international
economics, in fact it can be taken out of a textbook (in fact the author has
written a very popular one on the subject).

The point or the article is simple - you are going to have a new set of
problems to work out, please think about them, don't assume the best possible
outcome. I didn't see a radical policy proposal that could possibly offend
anyone. A lot of people seem to dislike the examples - but this is just
nitpicking to show off.

~~~
peteretep

        > I'm surprised that there is so much controversy about 
        > this article
    

You must be new to the debate about Scottish independence on the internet.

------
icu
I expect this to be a wealth transfer event and personally I am going to make
some cheeky One-Cancels-the-Other Order (OCO) bids and cheeky offers on the
pound and on publicly listed Scottish companies, especially financial stocks.
I expect price action will likely surge upon confirmation of where this vote
will go and I'm betting I'll be able to make a profit from this event. In my
experience the market always overshoots upon 'risky' events and reverts back
to the mean.

I would be interested to hear if anyone else sees this vote the way I do (or
doesn't)?

~~~
fidotron
I'm an English person that lives in Quebec, and going from what I know growing
up in the UK and what I have seen here with the current polling I'm convinced
not going for independence will work out worse.

The reason is markets really hate uncertainty. Given a close but non-final
referendum the result isn't certainty: it's potentially decades of
uncertainty. Quebec has had this for over 30 years and it's destroyed the
place. (To be clear, I don't think Quebec should go independent now, but if it
was going to 1980 was the time).

Independence has many unknowns, but a lot of them are of the kind where
solutions mysteriously won't be available until the problem actually presents
itself. For example, the Scottish EU question is a lot of bluffing on both
sides, but you can't help thinking the reality will prove to be a lot less
exciting. After 5-10 years it will settle down a bit, but if the status quo is
preserved with the potential for another one you can watch all the businesses
hedging their bets with stuff going south of the border for decades to come,
while the economy in the north becomes even more dependent on the public
sector, which is a recipe for trouble.

As a result I don't think anyone taking too strong a financial position based
on this coming out one way or the other is particularly wise.

~~~
icu
Right I get what you're saying but this isn't a long term trade, I'm looking
to set up a sort of 'jack in the box' trade where if price leaps up or leaps
down I'll catch the ride and then cash out. I expect this trade will be done
in a day.

For example, I remember being in NZ when Air NZ (publicly traded national
airline) was in financial trouble and their share price was tanking. As soon
as I could I bought up loads of shares on the (correct) assumption that the NZ
Government wouldn't let the _only_ national carrier go bust. Sure enough the
NZ Government announced a rescue package and I made some good money.

Thankfully I had the good sense to bet on Uncle Sam in 2008 and made a killing
in options.

My point is that sometimes politics makes for 'wealth transfer' events in the
market.

------
ggchappell
> In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has
> demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very
> dangerous.

The above, I think, is the interesting content in this article. Whatever
Scotland ends up doing, the larger questions of how the world of the future
ought to be organized are important ones, and the above principle looks like
one that is worthy of some thought.

~~~
kiliancs
Agreed. It seems impossible at the moment, but we should ask ourselves what
the ideal situation would be and work to get there: what about a world
government (democratically elected) that respects the diversity and autonomy
of all nations (including Scotland, Catalonia and any others through the
democratic application of the right to self-determination) with a global
currency?

------
tbatchelli
Independence is a tradeoff. On one side, they'll put the issue of not having
currency and other downsides, on the other hand they'll put the benefits that
they see fit.

Krugman's argument might be sound, I don't know, but I don't think it's the
only argument.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Independence is a tradeoff"

People seem to forget this and focus on a few individual issues instead of the
bigger picture. In the end nobody really knows what will happen. I feel both
sides have failed at answering people's questions but that's mainly because
they don't know the answers to a lot of them. The decision either way will be
majorly uniformed. I think for a lot of people it will be a question of 'I
don't like the way things are and this is a way to possible change that'.

~~~
sparkzilla
Hope is not a policy.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I didn't say it was.

------
beloch
The linked article draws a bizarre comparison between Canada and Scotland,
should it secede from the U.K.. First of all, Canada has nearly seven times
the population and vastly more land. Second, Canada's "relatively small"
economy is merely the #11 largest in the world in terms of GDP and three
quarters the size of the entire U.K. (and 31% higher per capita). Third,
Canada never really seceded from the U.K.. Although Canada has been
independent in practice for over a century and completely independent in law
since patriation in 1982, Canada's symbolic head of state is still the British
monarch. Canada never had to fight or vote for independence. We just gradually
wound up that way.

The relationship between Canada and the U.S. does have some superficial
similarities, but Canada's status as a different country has always made
relations between Canada and the U.S. substantially different than between
Scotland and the U.K.. The situation Scotland finds itself is almost
completely different from anything Canada as a whole has ever gone through.

The more interesting parallel is between Quebec and Scotland. Quebec's
population is 50% larger than Scotland's and its land area is vastly larger,
but it has held two referendums on separation from Canada and has threatened
to hold others several times. Here are some lessons we've learned:

1\. Baseline support for separation is Quebec is well below 50% most of the
time, but separatists have chosen unusual periods when separatist sentiment is
at a peak to hold referendums and campaigned hard for a victory. In these
separation referendums, the advantage clearly goes to the separatists.

2\. The terms for a successful separation vote have been and remain unclear.
At the time of both referendums, federalists and separatists had extremely
different ideas about what percentage of the vote would be necessary to
actually carry out separation. Since then a "clarity act" has been passed, but
all it states is that a "clear majority" is required. If it looks like
Scotland might reach 50% plus one, then the U.K. and Scotland had better have
a clear stance on what that will mean!

3\. A separatist government was responsible for composing the referendum
questions in both of Quebec's sovereignty votes. These governments can and
will choose tortuous, unclear phrasing to get as many extra votes as they can.

4\. Everybody has different ideas of what separation would actually entail.
Would Quebec keep a portion of federal property (e.g. Military equipment)?
Would they assume a proportional amount of the national debt? Would they be
allowed to use Canadian currency/passports? Would English centers (e.g.
Montreal) and native bands that wish to remain in Canada be permitted to
separate from Quebec and remain with Canada? The list goes on and on.
Federalists will make separation sound as scary and punitive as possible while
separatists will make it sound as harmless as possible. The trouble is, people
voting in the referendum don't really know what they're voting for except a
start to the negotiations!

5\. Business interests loathe political instability. Referendums and
separatist governments with draconian language laws have significantly
retarded Quebec's economy over the years. I would suggest that, whether they
separate or not, it would be in Scotland's best interests to pass a law
stating how long it must be before the next referendum on separation can be
held. If this is not done, separation will remain a constant uncertainty.

6\. Separation threats haven't been all bad for Quebec. Due to Canada's
practice of transferring funds from wealthy provinces to poor provinces,
Quebec has received substantial funding that has helped make up for it's
lagging economy. Their separatist governments have also used the specter of
separation to extort concession after concession out of the federal
government. If Scotland votes no, it's a safe bet that the U.K. government
will be pandering to Scottish interests for generations.

~~~
idlewords
> Canada's status as a different country has always made relations between
> Canada and the U.S. substantially different than between Scotland and the
> U.K

That is literally the point of Krugman's article, not a reason to dismiss it.

To spell it out for you, the comparison is that an independent Scotland would
have a relationship to the UK analagous to that between Canada and the US, a
small northern country bordering an economically dominant southern one that is
its major trading partner, and with which it has close cultural ties.

The Quebec tangent you go off on makes no sense, since the situation there is
colored by a long history of struggle along religious and lingustic lines that
has no parallel in the Scotland/England relationship.

------
mkehrt
My very cursory reading on the subject indicate that polls have shown that
Scots truly expect a major economic downturn if they secede; however they may
be willing to bear that price if it will free them from a government they feel
does not represent them. So, this isn't really a useful commentary on the
referendum; they know the economic issues but might not care.

------
Zigurd
Scots don't want to be dragged into America's next war. That's probably reason
enough.

------
panarky
If you want to geek out on the politics of Scottish independence, Charlie
Stross has just the thing.

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/09/the-
refe...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/09/the-referendum-
question.html)

------
kiliancs
If we accept that nations (that is, communities of people with a feeling of
belonging to the same group that share history, culture, language, traditions,
etc.) exist, then we must accept that they should be considered equal in the
same way people are considered equal: they should treat each other as equal
and should care about the wellbeing of each other. They should look for their
own wellbeing, but consider the common good of all nations to be even more
important.

Given these principles, the world should encourage nations to take care of
their own issues and reach the maturity and capability to function
economically and advance culturally and socially, and to interact with the
rest in spirit of cooperation; they would provide the means for that.

This would be, in my opinion, one of the requirements to ensure lasting peace,
as well as a potent boost for the world economy. The alternative is that these
nations are not recognized or only partially recognized, and that they are
unable to manage their own issues the way they wish, and to have their own
voice in the world, for so many of the important matters are global nowadays.
Ignoring them will always lead to growing instability, as these nations and
their aspirations will not disappear -and if they do, that would be a loss for
humanity.

We have the tools of democracy to achieve this peacefully. The editorial of
the NYT a few days ago[1] talked about the value of achieving this
democratically. Xavier Sala-i-Martín, economist at Columbia University, often
explains a story that makes the same point (I tried to improve Google's
translation a little):

"What if an alien interested in bringing democracy to its planet suddenly
appeared in our living room and asked us how do we earthlings make collective
decisions? Surely we would explain that to choose our leaders, we vote; that
to pass our laws, we vote; you to decide how public money is spent, we vote,
and to set taxes, we vote. If, suddenly, the galactic sir stood in front of a
world map and told us: "I guess you also vote in order to change the borders
on this map, right?". We would have to embarrassedly respond: "No, the borders
can be changed only by fighting". Given this bizarre revelation, poor Mr.
green would turn green (if that was not its original color) and would run,
exclaiming that we are barbarians."[2]

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/opinion/scotlands-
identity...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/opinion/scotlands-identity-put-
to-a-vote.html) [2]
[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caffereggio.net%2F2012%2F11%2F17%2Fel-
col%25C2%25B7lectiu-wilson-de-xavier-sala-i-martin-en-la-
vanguardia%2F&sandbox=1)

------
WordSkill
Krugman is a known idiot, I have far more interest in what coherent thinkers
such as Joseph Stiglitz have to say on the matter:
[http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-
stories/scottish-i...](http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-
stories/scottish-independence-stiglitz-attacks-no-camp-1-3520079)

In common with literally all my foreign friends who, like me, have chosen to
make Scotland their home, I am mystified that there is any question of
rejecting the chance to become an independent country.

I do understand that change can be frightening but, on every level, the
prospects for a modern, self-governing Scotland are clearly better than
remaining as comedy bit-players in an exhausted system designed to serve the
needs of another country's hereditary elite?

The United Kingdom was not chosen by the Scottish people in 1707, it was a
stroke of royal power politics. Today, the UK is still pre-occupied with
protecting the privilege and private wealth accumulated by the top 1% during
the age of empire and is, therefore, laughably unfit to steer our entire
population towards the opportunities of the future.

Can my Scottish friends not sense that something is wrong when the No campaign
keep hammering the same obvious psychological buttons, do they not see this
for the slick marketing campaign it is when Alistair Darling and the entire UK
media straight-facedly suggest that oil is a curse, because of price
volatility, rather than the blessing every other country considers it to be?

Is it not insulting when they suggest that, alone among all the peoples of the
world, only the Scottish are incapable of democratically determining what is
best for them and acting in their own best interests?

Even if Scotland did not have extraordinary natural resources that most
countries would, quite literally, kill for, a rich diversity of resources
that, per head of population, very few countries in the world can rival
([http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bwh9F9LCcAAKBSV.jpg](http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bwh9F9LCcAAKBSV.jpg)),
there is something much more important, and this is what I, an Irishman who
has lived in Scotland for 12yrs, and ALL my foreign friends here - Canadians,
Australians, English, German, Americans, Thais and French etc - can see so
clearly:

A people who gain the chance to govern themselves, who become the masters of
their own destiny, they grow. They cast aside of the feeling of being second-
best, they lose the bitterness, the chip on their shoulder. Whatever the
challenges a small nation might face, nothing is as important as the feeling
of pride and self-worth that come with being a first-class citizen in your own
country.

This isn't just some abstract, wishy-washy point about feeling good; the
future we are heading into is one in which self-confidence, the ability to
believe in ourselves and our abilities, will be a fundamental driver of
business, trade and innovation. It is vital that Scottish children take on the
world with the same natural self-confidence as children from Oxford or London,
that they be the ones taking chances and setting up companies, not the ones
deciding that, on balance, it is probably best to play it safe and aim for a
dull but secure job.

Forgive me, but I must be frank: the Scottish character has been affected by
three centuries of playing second fiddle to England, there is more than a
smidgen of self-hate and self-destructiveness in the Scottish temperament, and
the self-harm that George Monbiot writes about
([http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-i...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-
independence-england-scotland)) is likely to manifest itself spectacularly on
polling day. That is why the No campaign will keep remorselessly pounding away
at those deeply embedded fears and self-doubts right up until election day,
because fear is how you hold people down.

They will keep pretending that it is about Alex Salmond, while conveniently
ignoring real issues, such as the fact it was Scotland's oil which made
Sterling a petrocurrency, propping up its value during the Thatcher years and
allowing London to become a world centre of finance, all while lying about how
much oil they were extracting. None of this is secret, it is all there in
government papers released under the thirty-year rule:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-
black-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-
was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html)

... and this is how the last gasp of empire looks: keep jock in harness by
somehow persuading him that he needs the English rather than the other way
round. This is the system, it has been perfected over centuries, it is
insatiable and, no matter what they or their local sock puppets say, it does
not have your best interests at heart.

I think the No campaign will win. Despite the recent dramatic gains by the Yes
side, I believe the No campaign, with the entire weight of the London press
and the BBC behind them, are tapping into rich and reliable reserves of self-
doubt in the Scottish psyche. This saddens me greatly, as I believe the
eventual realisation of what has been thrown away will only further poison the
Scottish soul.

Despite having been sold to the electorate as a bulwark against change, the
United Kingdom will change beyond recognition in the coming years. English
politics will continue to be driven rightwards by the UKIP agenda, regardless
of what the Scottish people want, and we may well find ourselves out of the
European Union anyway, courtesy of The Daily Mail.

Certainly, the age of austerity and privatization will continue to drive down
the "Barnett formula" money you are supposedly receiving in return for your
oil propping up the London Exchequer, but more devastating will be the growing
sense that, yet again, the Scottish have blown it, losing the one chance you
had to disentangle and discover who you really are.

~~~
de_Selby
> Is it not insulting when they suggest that, alone among all the peoples of
> the world, only the Scottish are incapable of democratically determining
> what is best for them and acting in their own best interests?

Surely as an Irishman you are familiar with the Wales, and Northern Ireland?

I agree that the chip on the shoulder attitude does exist in Scotland, but I
don't think that independence is the magical solution you propose.

I am also Irish, and there is a very similar sentiment towards the English in
people here, yet we have had our independence for generations now.

I think that the solution to that kind of sentiment is to work more towards
inclusiveness. Again I think we have a perfect example of this on our doorstep
- we have only started to make progress with the troubles in Northern Ireland
when politicians sat down and started working together.

I don't know what side of the debate I side with, but it sounds to me like you
have bought all the emotional rhetoric that the yes campaign have been
selling.

I fail to see result of the vote having any great consequence for Scotland,
they will still be EU members after all.

~~~
roywiggins
> "they will still be EU members after all"

Last I heard, they'll have to apply to get in, which could take five years.

[http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/08/uk-scotland-
indepen...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/08/uk-scotland-independence-
eu-idUKKBN0H31FK20140908)

~~~
WordSkill
The EU commissioners would prefer everything to remain as it is because the UK
government has promised an in-out referendum on the EU and, quite simply, they
figure there is more chance of the in vote winning if Scotland is still part
of the UK at that time.

So, the EU commissioners will say all they can to keep the UK together.

However ... the tone will rapidly change if Scotland does go independent.
There is zero chance that the EU will risk forcing a prosperous, educated
country that is already compliant with EU laws out and make them spend several
years re-applying, especially when there is a real chance that England will be
leaving.

The EU is a business, a very lucrative one. They need the rich countries to
pay for the poor, uneducated, mafia-riddled ones to the south and the east.
They already lost oil-rich Norway years ago, they won't make the same mistake
again.

Just watch, the EU will arrange for "special status" to kick in on the very
first day of independence, nothing will change.

~~~
pi-err
You're not helping the Scottish cause with junk info like this. (I'm French
and pro-independence)

"EU is a business", "north pays for south", "zero chance that the EU..." \-
all parts of a thought process that'd lead you to disaster .

The EU is a complex, unique international organization designed to bring peace
through unprecedented one-of-a-kind economic development.

I get from Brussels insiders that a best-case scenario is an independent
Scotland joining the eurozone, while rUK votes to stay in the EU with a "ad
hoc" status.

Now most member states have very different feelings about this. This forces
the EU Commission to keep a low profile and stick to conservative answers on
any independence question.

You have to realize that there _is_ a risk that some member states can block a
fast track accession to EU for iScotland. For instance iScotland could have to
go through a 3-5 years roadmap and audit until the standard 12 points for
accession are cleared (vs a best case, unprecedented 12-months fast track to
the EU).

As I see it, this is the biggest risk for iScotland. Even with EU Parliament
on your side, member states have influence and power that could slow down the
process, and expose the new country to a tough start. I hope the Yes wins, but
I hope the win doesn't get ruined with unrealistic expectations.

Wikipedia has a nice sum up of the complexity of this thing:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_Euro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Scotland)

------
blueking
Come on Scotland STAND UP !!!!!!! Go Scotland !!!

------
supernova87a
This whole debate is ridiculous, much like Texas perennially threatening to
defect. No way that the UK would let Scotland leave with the oil revenues.
There is that other article that points out that if Scotland defected, the
Shetlands (oil revenues) would have an equally good claim to leave Scotland
too.

Then what would Scotland be? The sucking welfare hole that swallows a huge
amount of UK tax money, without any more tax money to support it. I.e. the
poor backwater of a frontier country it once was...

~~~
glomph
The current UK Government has agreed to honor this referendum.

~~~
stormbrew
Parliament may not bind its successors.

~~~
glomph
The government isn't going to change before the referendum.

~~~
stormbrew
The principle doesn't just apply to changes of government, it means that a
commitment by parliament is only good so long as parliament consents to that
commitment. It can be changed or overruled at any time.

~~~
glomph
Sure but for a Government being able to function depends on you being able to
take their word to have at least some value. They have committed to this. I
think it is reasonable to assume they will stick to it. Yes governments break
promises, but I think this is one they will stick with.

