2012-01-14

Scottish independence has favorable window; Anglo-Saxon nations looking to past to move forward

Scots Wha Hae! The battle for independence
Within 24 hours, however, Mr Salmond had been forced to follow Westminster's lead and confirm plans to hold an independence referendum in 2014.
The coalition is gambling that support for independence will remain in the minority – currently below 40 per cent – up to the referendum and the issue will be killed off for a generation. The real risk is the lingering possibility that the Scots will vote "yes" to leaving the UK – or that they somehow get the chance to vote on new powers short of independence.
Social mood should turn quite negative if the longer-term Elliot Wave forecasts play out as expected and adding the extra 10%+ needed for independence won't be difficult. What Scotland is looking for is something closer to the (original) American model of states' rights.

Is 'devolution-max' the way forward for Scotland?
It's being nicknamed "devolution max" and will ask whether Scottish people want full tax powers to fall in Holyrood, but keep things like defence and foreign affairs under the control of the Westminster government.
One Scot quoted in the article explains why independence is unpopular:
Paul Scullion - an engineer from Edinburgh - isn't sure his country is ready to break away.
"I admire what Alex Salmond is trying to do, but I wouldn't vote yes at the moment," he says.
But full independence could see Scotland with its own government, own prime minister, maybe even its own army.
"Scotland as an independent country wouldn't survive, I don't think," says Paul.
"We still depend a lot on handouts from Westminster, with things like defence and jobs," he admits.
The Scottish government believe "devolution max" will secure a "yes" vote and so is the party's back-up plan.
Considering the long-range social mood forecast and the economic implications, chances are good that there will be major spending cuts. This will weaken the economic argument and even become a reason for independence, if the cuts fall even a little disproportionately on Scotland—and that is all but guaranteed because massive government spending cuts will always fall disproportionately on the groups more reliant on government spending.

I wholeheartedly endorse devo-max. It is the perfect solution, as is a move towards states' rights in the United States (a similar devolution of power), for the current situation. The Scottish National Party believes devo-max is a stepping stone to independence, but I believe it is more likely to be the pressure valve that holds the UK together. Had powers already been devolved and there were only the loose ties of union remaining, a significant secular decline in social mood could lead to independence. Instead, it will probably cause the declining social mood to turn inwards and focus on domestic problems.

The bonus kicker for devo-max is that the SNP is a socialist party, reflective of Scotland's support for the Labour Party, while England is heavily Tory. Thus not only is there an ethnic fault line, but also an ideological one. Scotland would turn left (in the present-day sense of the word) and England would turn right. This could lead to greater demands for independence in a repeat of the euro crisis: Scotland chooses bad economic policies, borrows in pounds, heads for crisis and seeks an independent currency to solve the problem. More likely though, Scots would confront their problems and reform. If they remain politically tied to England, the Scots may help block reform. By separating, England will accelerate reform and Scotland will likely follow.

As Ron Paul becomes a more serious contender in the United States, a similar idea is making its way into the national discussion. The U.S. will not break apart (yet? see Buchanan), but could devolve powers as the federal government reduces its role in economic and political life. Canada already allows for some greater powers at the provincial level, partially as a means of deflecting separatist sentiment in Quebec. The plus for Anglo-Saxon nations is that there's a long and storied history of individualism and this allows for a far greater tolerance of "independence" in the system, whereas other cultures and societies face greater stress when a minority presses for independence. For this reason, I forecast the Anglo-Saxon nations are very unlikely to separate. In fact, if devolution proceeded far enough, we may even see revived talk of a greater voluntary union between the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand when social mood again turns higher.

Paul Johnson wrote this article in 1999 when Britain seemed ready to dissolve itself into the European Union, offering a union with the United States as a more favorable counterweight. Now, Britain is unlikely to join for the foreseeable future and the political trend is towards independence. His article more focused on political union, rather that greater voluntary cooperation where each nation retains complete independence, but whether for political or voluntary union, the sentiment for greater political cooperation exists. Why Britain should join America
A year ago the Canadian newspaper tycoon Conrad Black launched the debate by suggesting Britain should become a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement, thus transforming it into a North Atlantic Free Trade Area. The discussion has been given special impetus by recent reports in British newspapers that in 1967 President Lyndon B. Johnson and Prime Minister Harold Wilson seriously discussed a union of the two countries.
For ordinary British people, the U.S. is not a foreign country but "family." America and Britain share the same language and culture, the same deep-rooted respect for democracy and representative institutions, the same religious and moral assumptions and similar legal systems. The recent impeachment of President Clinton was incomprehensible to continental Europeans but not to the British. The British invented impeachment in the 17th century and have used it at least 60 times.
Also, though official American opinion used to favor the emergence of a European federal state, thinking it would be a duplicate of the American system, Washington has in recent years become increasingly critical of European Union policy. Europe seems protectionist, illiberal, socialist and, not least, incapable of acting in concert over the whole range of foreign and military policy issues, especially in the Balkans and the Middle East. Thus the U.S. and Britain have been forced to act together, often alone. This too is bringing about changes of attitude on both sides of the Atlantic.
Unlike the Germans and Greeks, the Scottish, English, Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders have more in common than they differ. America declared independence from Britain; Canada, New Zealand and Australia retain loose ties to the motherland, yet all are often in close cooperation on international issues. Of course, Scotland has its own history of conflict with England, but after hundreds of years in union, the discussed changes in Scotland are in keeping with the culture and history, far different from a political separation in say Belgium, where two distinct nations may emerge.

No comments:

Post a Comment