
Why Scotland looks like the canary in the independence coal mine - akbarnama
http://blogs.reuters.com/mark-leonard/2014/09/16/why-scotland-looks-like-the-canary-in-the-independence-coalmine/
======
worklogin
What legitimate reasons are there to remain part of the UK, other than "Less
pain of separation"?

I hear the UK say, "If you stay with us, we promise to give you more power!"
Well, why don't you go ahead and give it NOW, and that would probably swing
Scotland to a firm "No". Which makes me think the UK is lying, and Scotland
would get no substantial improvement in autonomy.

~~~
jiggy2011
The economy. Scotland does most of it's trading with the rest of the UK anyway
so would remain affected by any decisions taken in westminster, but would have
much less influence over those decisions especially in the event that they
keep the same currency. Much of Scotland's economy would become contingent on
volatile and finite oil revenue.

Also the UK is a single landmass , so it makes sense to defend it as such.

~~~
omgtehblackbloc
Oh yes, we must defend the UK from the savage barbarian nations which border
on every side, just waiting for a false move so they can stage a full-on
invasion!

~~~
jiggy2011
You don't think the UK should maintain a defence capability?

~~~
meatcider
Well, from a Scottish viewpoint we've only ever been invaded by one nation in
the last thousand years…

------
TrainedMonkey
I had two nearly simultaneous thoughts:

1\. This is great, throwing it back to government for the people and really
should shake up big federal governments.

2\. Or maybe not so great, because of number of pitfalls. Getting something
like secession right is hard, chances are economies will suffer hard. There
will be some superpowers that will never allow this is current political
climate such as China, Russia, and potentially India. This will be effectively
strengthening their positions. If countries split up into smaller states,
while local governance will likely improve, international gridlock will not.

~~~
arethuza
I must admit that I am rather surprised of the amount if international
attention that the referendum here is getting - Scotland is a small,
relatively unimportant (i.e. we're not London) part of the UK which is itself
a relatively minor economic and military power.

Given the stream of world political and business leaders who have felt the
need to pass comment (inevitably in favour of the "No" campaign) I really do
wonder what is going on.

[NB OK OK I shouldn't have said "minor economic power" and the UK has superb
(but horribly equipped and under-funded) armed forces].

~~~
wil421
In the US, we are actually aware of the Scots ambition to secede. Insert
Braveheart reference here. Many of us were actually Scotsman or Irishman at
some point in our ancestry.

We are anticipating what will happen if "yes" succeeds and what that means to
Scotland (and its economy). World leaders do not want successfully countries
with desirable/friendly leaders to break up.

~~~
walshemj
You know most of the "Scottish" legends are made up out of whole cloth and
make the most unrealistic cowboy films look like saving private Rayan in terms
of realism.

~~~
wil421
You're telling me Braveheart wasnt a true story?

Either way most people in the US know about some of them. Thats why I chose to
say: "Insert Braveheart reference here" instead of "It's all for nothing if
you don't have freedom."

~~~
arethuza
Actually the line you are probably looking for (and why they kept going on and
on about "freedom" in _that_ movie) is:

 _...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any
conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor
riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone,
which no honest man gives up but with life itself._

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

Which, as an aside, has some quite interesting stuff about sacking a King if
he isn't good at his job...

[NB This has no real relevance to the current referendum - but I'd be lying if
I didn't admit to liking this kind of stuff.]

------
btown
This makes me wonder if the domination of two monolithic political parties in
the United States, well-represented in geographically disparate areas, is
actually a force for the cohesion of the U.S.A. as a country. For instance,
since there are large numbers of G.O.P. supporters in, say, Idaho, there's a
lot less credence to a group of, say, southern red states considering
secession due to fundamentally different policy preferences.

It does still baffle me, though, that economic conservatism is seen as a force
for the poor in America, whereas elsewhere in the world, in this article's
words, evoking "socialist utopia... [is] an effort to stave off the spiraling
growth of inequality."

~~~
crusso
Some network technologies solve problems client-server, some network
technologies solve problems peer-to-peer. Different approaches, different
philosophies.

Historically, Americans have been more fiercely independent and valued bottom
up approaches to resolving their problems. A lot of the rest of the world is
more hive-minded and looking for top-down solutions.

~~~
chc
Surely there's a better way to describe a preference for coordination and
planning than "hive-minded."

~~~
crusso
I was wondering where the downvotes were coming from. I meant to be accurate,
not insulting.

I thought that hive-minded accurately described the seeming desire to
centralize authority and form a collective, trusting that those in charge had
the best interests of society in mind.

~~~
chc
The term "hive mind" has connotations of lack of independent thought and
disregard for the well-being of individuals. It's the sort of thing you'd use
to describe an alien insect species psychically controlled by a central queen
in a sci-fi novel. A functioning representative democracy is not the sort of
image it evokes.

------
joaorico
In conversation with several Scotts, I've been told what they want most is
autonomy from London, more than from the UK. That London is autistic for a
long while, too much disconnected from the rest of the UK, including the rest
of England. It is too asymmetric, economic- and power-wise.

~~~
arjunnarayan
This is an important point. Felix Salmon has an excellent analysis of this
sentiment in Scotland here: [https://medium.com/@felixsalmon/why-scotlands-
voting-yes-2d6...](https://medium.com/@felixsalmon/why-scotlands-voting-
yes-2d6a5412de44)

------
kevinkimball
I'm a little amazed that none of the comments in this thread mention the EU.
If the Scots go for "Independence in Europe" as Salmond has said they will,
surely that would be the model for Catalonia or Flanders to follow.

~~~
anigbrowl
One obvious reason to think otherwise is that existing EU countries can veto
the entry of new members, and Spain's government is unlikely to want to
encourage Catalonian dreams of freedom. Belgium is already a federation and
Belgians are famous for not being very invested in a Belgian national identity
so they probably wouldn't care much.

------
johnchristopher
Considering the title I thought the article would highlight the flemish region
of Belgium or the Basque country for which Scotland could be the canary or the
blueprint. A lot of political leaders are paying real close attention to how
things are going to unfold.

edit: I don't understand how I could missed it but the article does mention
the flemish region and Catalonia (I wish they would have compared it though).

~~~
ZeroGravitas
He does mention Flanders, and Catalonia which is likely the first to go in
Spain.

------
thenomad
For a similar viewpoint on the whole "smaller countries" thing from someone
who is rather more positive about Scottish independence, here's Charles
Stross's piece on the Scottish Referendum:

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

~~~
jerf
It's worth pointing out that there were a lot of people in "our circle" who
have been pointing out for a long time that decentralization of governance has
been getting only more and more possible over time, and that the same forces
that created enormous monoliths in the 20th century may cause their breakup in
the 21st.

I think 9-11 sort of put a spike in the wheels of that discussion for a while
for various complicated reasons, but in the meantime the forces have marched
on and aren't getting any less compelling, while in the meantime confidence in
big institutions is low and still dropping.

Even as right now in the US it looks like the forces of centralization are
riding strong, given how poorly performing they have been and how people are
ever-more increasingly distrustful of the central government, I would be very
unsurprised to see 2016's Presidential election turn into a big "state's
rights" fight, or some other narrative fundamentally about solving things with
further centralization vs. decentralization, with the centralization party
riding into _very_ strong headwinds by 2016. If not 2016 than I think very
likely by 2020.

One thing I sort of find interesting about this is that the US has a very,
very clear structural path back to decentralizing itself without requiring any
major upset. It's something that can be done cleanly and gradually, without
revolution or uprising. Perhaps the US will decline in the 21st century, but I
do not find it as _inevitable_ as some people do.

------
walterbell
From a 2013 interview with Marc Andreessen, [http://pando.com/2013/10/03/marc-
andreessen-the-world-is-goi...](http://pando.com/2013/10/03/marc-andreessen-
the-world-is-going-to-see-an-explosion-of-countries-in-the-years-ahead/)

 _" “I think there is going to be double, triple, quadruple countries in the
coming years,” Andreessen told Sarah Lacy at Thursday night’s PandoMonthly in
San Francisco.

The cofounder of venture firm Andreessen Horowitz noted that the borders of
today’s countries are in some cases arbitrary, pointing to Iraq, Syria, and
much of Africa as artificial constructs. In the last few decades, the world
has seen the emergence of a litany of new countries, and he sees no reason why
that splintering is going to slow down.

“You’re going to get a much larger number of countries,” he said, before
noting that the proliferation of nations could be a positive force in the long
term, measured by a span of 100 years or more.

“The transition is going to be very painful,” he said, “but I think ultimately
it’s going to be very healthy.”_

~~~
nickbauman
Translation: Smaller countries are easier to manipulate. The powerful
Andreessens of the world will have an easier time getting what they want from
them.

~~~
api_or_ipa
Yes, smaller countries are more _agile_. A great number of issues in diverse,
expansive countries can be solved with a greater focus on regionalism. The
Chinese have approached this problem recently (post 1978) by increasing
regional autonomy. See the various reforms implemented since 1978 leading up
to their adoption of the M-form[1]. There is also the argument that signals
can pass more easily through a more distributed system, meaning greater
ability for decision makers to make informed decisions.

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-form](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-form)

~~~
nickbauman
The problem with decentralization is waste of duplication. I don't think it
needs to be an "either / or". It should be a "yes, and".

------
Apocryphon
Here's a hypothetical for HN:

Does anyone reckon that if Scotland was to go its own way, the rather leftist
government there would withdraw from prior cooperation with the NSA/GCHQ?
There's already been an unofficial proposal to give asylum to Edward Snowden
if the referendum passes. Or would the status quo continue, except there with
Six Eyes?

~~~
meatcider
We can only hope that they do, even if only from a point of principle.
Although it will make no difference to the operations of the Five Eyes
organisation since they don't respect geographical or political borders
anyway.

------
junto
The bookies are offering 2/7 odds which is about 77% against.

[http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/scots-
independence/60436/sc...](http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/scots-
independence/60436/scottish-independence-odds-bookmakers-ignore-close-polls)

Hard cash versus pollsters.

Thoughts?

~~~
anigbrowl
They're good Bayesians:

 _Graham Sharpe of William Hill told The Guardian last week that the
steadiness of the odds is partly to do with liability management, because
there has already been a lot of money placed on no: "We are facing a seven-
figure loss on a no vote and a six-figure win on a yes vote so we're trying to
even that out…_

------
walterbell
If a smaller country does not have an independent currency, how much
independence do they have?

Smaller countries means more borders where movement of goods or people can be
tracked (papers please).

Smaller countries have less resources to defend themselves from multinational
lawsuits enabled by free-trade agreements.

~~~
walterbell
Would the downvoters please have the courtesy to leave a comment explaining
their point of view?

~~~
pasbesoin
I didn't downvote you, but I'll voice a similar concern. In my case,
influenced particularly by observation and commentary from Paul Krugman. Who's
been pointing out the role of adoption of the Euro in what's been playing out
in Europe for some years, now.

Currency seems to be a large, unanswered question -- or rather, concern -- in
the Scottish initiative.

------
pasbesoin
I'm writing this comment in advance of reading the article, but I've been
thinking about this circumstance and the thoughts are finally gelling to a few
concise, if not fully encompassing, words.

For many particularly in the developed world, globalization and its pressures,
particularly economic, have made it clear to individuals that -- perhaps
ironically -- it is every person, every community for oneself.

Those individuals and communities are beginning to respond.

If this trend leads to an increasing push not just for individual but also
communal self-reliance, I don't see that as a bad thing, at this point.

It can cap or limit some of the current exploitation. And re-introduce some
redundancy into what have apparently become very fragile and risky systems and
dependencies.

A primary push should be for energy independence. Once you have that, it's
much more difficult for external interests to jerk you around. And hopefully
the initiative can grow and maintain a significant domestic technical sector.

There are also perils, and I'm no political nor sociological expert. But as
with municipal broadband in the U.S., pushback against intellectual property
excesses in many places, and a thousand other things, more in the general
public are finding that, for them, "bigger" is NOT "better". Not currently.
Not, increasingly, for a while, now.

Independence is one means of drawing boundaries to that "bigger" that seems to
just keep squeezing them.

P.S. I'll add that I've read the OP article, now. Having done so, my comment
stands unchanged.

------
nickbauman
I'm convinced that the Scottish Independence question is an outcome of the
discovery of its oil reserves. That underneath it all is just greed.

~~~
tankenmate
The UK Continental Shelf Act dates from 1964, the devolution push (note not
independence) was in 1979; fifteen years later.

If anything it is a reaction _against_ greed as Scotland is substantially more
left wing than England and Wales.

~~~
acheron
The idea that left-wing politics are somehow "against greed" is kind of
hilarious.

~~~
lotsofmangos
I think people may get that notion from the enforced redistribution of money
from the rich to the poor side of it.

You can argue about which works, but the capitalists and the communists and
the socialists do all claim to want the greatest wealth for the greatest
number.

~~~
nickbauman
Then, of course, there's the mathematical claim to what the greatest wealth to
the greatest number is:

[http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics...](http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics.ipynb)

