The Serious Prospect of Scottish Secession

[Ad Orientem]

Scotland is set to vote on the question of seceding from the United Kingdom on September 18, and the polls suggest it's going to be very close. The economic and political consequences could be staggering.

http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kalets ... e-clearer/

[Pointedstick]

I for one welcome it! Smaller, more homogenous political units always seem to function more smoothly, even if there may be economic consequences. People are often willing to put up with them if it means greater sovereignty and less of a feeling of being politically tied to a more powerful people.

[Mountaineer]

Might result in a job opening for obama post 2016 

On a more serious note, should I be stockpiling single malt or waiting for a price drop?

... Mountaineer

[Ad Orientem]

I for one welcome it! Smaller, more homogenous political units always seem to function more smoothly, even if there may be economic consequences. People are often willing to put up with them if it means greater sovereignty and less of a feeling of being politically tied to a more powerful people.

That's a decent argument for their secession. But long term it is likely to be an act of economic sepuku. Scotland receives far more in monetary and economic benefits from the union than they send south. Their planned reliance on North Sea Oil revenue as the sole underpinning of their new economy is at best, high risk. But long term it will probably be a boon to England that will be freed of the old fashioned lefty socialism espoused by the Labour Party whose base is Scottish. If I lived in Scotland I would be making fast plans to get out while it is still possible.

[dualstow]

It all seems silly but I haven't read that much about it beyond North Sea oil and Annie Lennox.
Every British (well, English) person I've asked about it has scoffed "Let them."

[Ad Orientem]

Might result in a job opening for obama post 2016 

On a more serious note, should I be stockpiling single malt or waiting for a price drop?

... Mountaineer

I'd wait. There are already signs of panic in the Pound Sterling and the English have made it crystal clear they will not enter into a currency union with an independent Scotland. My guess is independence will see a big drop in the price of your favorite scotch whiskey.

[gizmo_rat]

But long term it will probably be a boon to England that will be freed of the old fashioned lefty socialism espoused by the Labour Party whose base is Scottish.

The few Scots I've spoken to would like to be shot of the London (City) centric
neo-liberal narcissists that rule, despite Scotland consistently voting against them.   

I've no dog in the fight but its been fun watching the "Yes" vote gain since the great and the good from the political and business world have swamped the media with their "No" campaign over the last couple of weeks.

BTW the Labour party hasn't been socialist in living memory.

[img width=500]http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php[/img]

[Kshartle]

But long term it will probably be a boon to England that will be freed of the old fashioned lefty socialism espoused by the Labour Party whose base is Scottish.

The few Scots I've spoken to would like to be shot of the London (City) centric
neo-liberal narcissists that rule, despite Scotland consistently voting against them.   

I've no dog in the fight but its been fun watching the "Yes" vote gain since the great and the good from the political and business world have swamped the media with their "No" campaign over the last couple of weeks.

BTW the Labour party hasn't been socialist in living memory.

[img width=500]http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php[/img]

What does the left vs. right stand for on this graph GR (other than direction)?

[moda0306]

Secession is an immensely interesting topic, and watching the arguments and circus around it from both sides is always going to be fun to observe.

But I really have no opinion on it.  The entire concept is usually a moral one built on the idea self-determination, which the entire concept of a state (small or large) ignores to a degree when it doesn't allow individuals to opt in or out of taxes, laws, etc. 

The only real argument that holds water is going to be a utilitarian one... and these are inherently difficult to organize, as you are often talking about tens of millions of people whose economical and social lives could be effected.  And these people are often motivated not from a well-calculated utilitarian decision, but instead a tribalist emotional decision, so you're not going to win hearts and minds once you start talking about GDP.

[Kshartle]

But I really have no opinion on it.  The entire concept is usually a moral one built on the idea self-determination, which the entire concept of a state (small or large) ignores to a degree when it doesn't allow individuals to opt in or out of taxes, laws, etc. 

How are you doing Moda?

It will be interesting to watch if in fact a vote is held and the Scotts clearly vote for secession. I wonder what the US government response would be if the Brits refuse and arrest the secession organizers.

Maybe the Scotts can nominate Mel Gibson as the new president!

[stone]

The thing that spooks me about it is that the independence campaign don't seem to have bothered to think about what it means to have a sovereign currency or to lack one. They say that voting for independence will mean that Scotland can choose to reject austerity politics. That would be true IF they had a sovereign currency but they seem hell bent on avoiding having a sovereign currency.
I've had a go posting about this:
http://directeconomicdemocracy.wordpres ... -scotland/

[moda0306]

But I really have no opinion on it.  The entire concept is usually a moral one built on the idea self-determination, which the entire concept of a state (small or large) ignores to a degree when it doesn't allow individuals to opt in or out of taxes, laws, etc. 

How are you doing Moda?

It will be interesting to watch if in fact a vote is held and the Scotts clearly vote for secession. I wonder what the US government response would be if the Brits refuse and arrest the secession organizers.

I'm good!

If 51% could essentially secede a territory from its parent government, and people agreed with this concept/principal, we'd have anarchy.  I'm not saying this as a good/bad thing (though I do think it would be "bad"), but just a cause/effect relationship.  If MN seceded from the Union with a 51% vote (you know, so us Democrats are no longer paying for your Welfare State of Florida... bahahaha... jk), we've established a principal that Bachmann's 6th district would probably enact in a heartbeat, but then the democratic towns within that region might object!  And elect to stay part of the state (West Virginia style). 

Essentially, what you have is force no matter what.  This is why I don't recognize the moral sovereignty of a "state" or territory... only people (and animals to a degree).  Now functionally, in utilitarian terms, it's important (to my happiness, and understanding the world) to recognize the functional sovereignty of a state.  But arguing that 51% of people can create a seceded state flies in the face of self-determination in the first place, and lest we forget, FORCIBLY removes the other 49% from the state they would rather be a part of.

Oh... and I can't PROVE any of the moral sovereignty stuff.  Perhaps you can help me with that .

[Kshartle]

But I really have no opinion on it.  The entire concept is usually a moral one built on the idea self-determination, which the entire concept of a state (small or large) ignores to a degree when it doesn't allow individuals to opt in or out of taxes, laws, etc. 

How are you doing Moda?

It will be interesting to watch if in fact a vote is held and the Scotts clearly vote for secession. I wonder what the US government response would be if the Brits refuse and arrest the secession organizers.

I'm good!

If 51% could essentially secede a territory from its parent government, and people agreed with this concept/principal, we'd have anarchy.  I'm not saying this as a good/bad thing (though I do think it would be "bad"), but just a cause/effect relationship.  If MN seceded from the Union with a 51% vote (you know, so us Democrats are no longer paying for your Welfare State of Florida... bahahaha... jk), we've established a principal that Bachmann's 6th district would probably enact in a heartbeat, but then the democratic towns within that region might object!  And elect to stay part of the state (West Virginia style). 

Essentially, what you have is force no matter what.  This is why I don't recognize the moral sovereignty of a "state" or territory... only people (and animals to a degree).  Now functionally, in utilitarian terms, it's important (to my happiness, and understanding the world) to recognize the functional sovereignty of a state.  But arguing that 51% of people can create a seceded state flies in the face of self-determination in the first place, and lest we forget, FORCIBLY removes the other 49% from the state they would rather be a part of.

about 99% agreed.

Florida isn't so much of a welfare state as it is a ponzi scheme. We need more old rich members to move down. The ones relying strictly on federal welfare (SS) ain't cutting it.

[moda0306]

How are you doing Moda?

It will be interesting to watch if in fact a vote is held and the Scotts clearly vote for secession. I wonder what the US government response would be if the Brits refuse and arrest the secession organizers.

I'm good!

If 51% could essentially secede a territory from its parent government, and people agreed with this concept/principal, we'd have anarchy.  I'm not saying this as a good/bad thing (though I do think it would be "bad"), but just a cause/effect relationship.  If MN seceded from the Union with a 51% vote (you know, so us Democrats are no longer paying for your Welfare State of Florida... bahahaha... jk), we've established a principal that Bachmann's 6th district would probably enact in a heartbeat, but then the democratic towns within that region might object!  And elect to stay part of the state (West Virginia style). 

Essentially, what you have is force no matter what.  This is why I don't recognize the moral sovereignty of a "state" or territory... only people (and animals to a degree).  Now functionally, in utilitarian terms, it's important (to my happiness, and understanding the world) to recognize the functional sovereignty of a state.  But arguing that 51% of people can create a seceded state flies in the face of self-determination in the first place, and lest we forget, FORCIBLY removes the other 49% from the state they would rather be a part of.

about 99% agreed.

That was nice... let's try that again sometime .

[Mountaineer]

I'm good!

If 51% could essentially secede a territory from its parent government, and people agreed with this concept/principal, we'd have anarchy.  I'm not saying this as a good/bad thing (though I do think it would be "bad"), but just a cause/effect relationship.  If MN seceded from the Union with a 51% vote (you know, so us Democrats are no longer paying for your Welfare State of Florida... bahahaha... jk), we've established a principal that Bachmann's 6th district would probably enact in a heartbeat, but then the democratic towns within that region might object!  And elect to stay part of the state (West Virginia style). 

Essentially, what you have is force no matter what.  This is why I don't recognize the moral sovereignty of a "state" or territory... only people (and animals to a degree).  Now functionally, in utilitarian terms, it's important (to my happiness, and understanding the world) to recognize the functional sovereignty of a state.  But arguing that 51% of people can create a seceded state flies in the face of self-determination in the first place, and lest we forget, FORCIBLY removes the other 49% from the state they would rather be a part of.

about 99% agreed.

That was nice... let's try that again sometime .

I always knew you guys were part of the 1% crowd. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Us Minnesotans are subsidizing Kshartle's income by throwing gobs of money to his state... don't you dare put is in the same class .

[Kshartle]

Mountaineer,

Us Minnesotans are subsidizing Kshartle's income by throwing gobs of money to his state... don't you dare put is in the same class .

Think of it more like stimulus. It's vital to the economy that people in MN be taxed and the money go to people living here in the sunshine state. If that stopped then our consumption would drop and others would stop producing. It would be an economic death spiral.

To get back on track.....how would anyone here feel about the Scotts voting to secede and the leaders being arrested by the government in London?

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Us Minnesotans are subsidizing Kshartle's income by throwing gobs of money to his state... don't you dare put is in the same class .

Think of it more like stimulus. It's vital to the economy that people in MN be taxed and the money go to people living here in the sunshine state. If that stopped then our consumption would drop and others would stop producing. It would be an economic death spiral.

To get back on track.....how would anyone here feel about the Scotts voting to secede and the leaders being arrested by the government in London?

Well it's on the other side of the world, so I can only work up so much concern, but that would be quite a shock and extremely unfortunate.

Is voting for secession considered an act of rebellion?  Sounds pretty tame until they actually try to enforce the rebellion by trying to "confiscate" the property of the British government.  It seems to me that this is when shit gets real  .

[Libertarian666]

The thing that spooks me about it is that the independence campaign don't seem to have bothered to think about what it means to have a sovereign currency or to lack one. They say that voting for independence will mean that Scotland can choose to reject austerity politics. That would be true IF they had a sovereign currency but they seem hell bent on avoiding having a sovereign currency.
I've had a go posting about this:
http://directeconomicdemocracy.wordpres ... -scotland/

So you believe that the ability to print money means you can ignore the laws of economics? Then Zimbabwe must be the richest country on earth!

[Kshartle]

The thing that spooks me about it is that the independence campaign don't seem to have bothered to think about what it means to have a sovereign currency or to lack one. They say that voting for independence will mean that Scotland can choose to reject austerity politics. That would be true IF they had a sovereign currency but they seem hell bent on avoiding having a sovereign currency.
I've had a go posting about this:
http://directeconomicdemocracy.wordpres ... -scotland/

So you believe that the ability to print money means you can ignore the laws of economics? Then Zimbabwe must be the richest country on earth!

I know if I had a printing press I sure as hell could 

I wonder why the government doesn't let me. I promise I will only do asset swaps ahahahahaha.

If the organizers are promising the scottish voters they will give them goodies at zero cost then my guess is the Scotts will be hoodwinked.

[moda0306]

The thing that spooks me about it is that the independence campaign don't seem to have bothered to think about what it means to have a sovereign currency or to lack one. They say that voting for independence will mean that Scotland can choose to reject austerity politics. That would be true IF they had a sovereign currency but they seem hell bent on avoiding having a sovereign currency.
I've had a go posting about this:
http://directeconomicdemocracy.wordpres ... -scotland/

So you believe that the ability to print money means you can ignore the laws of economics? Then Zimbabwe must be the richest country on earth!

I know if I had a printing press I sure as hell could 

I wonder why the government doesn't let me. I promise I will only do asset swaps ahahahahaha.

If the organizers are promising the scottish voters they will give them goodies at zero cost then my guess is the Scotts will be hoodwinked.

If you really promise to do asset swaps, and go out and buy a bunch of bonds from people, your only material affect on the economy will be on the bond market, lowering the yield, which MIGHT have a SMALL effect on people's propensity to save or consume.  But sorry... Bobby Bondholder isn't going to go out and spend $1 Million all of a sudden because you took his bonds of his hands and gave him money.

Would you?  Suppose you're operating a standard PP... and someone wants to offer you SLIGHTLY above FMV for your bonds, and you decide "oooh, that's a sweet deal," and sell them to him.  Now you have $250k cash instead of $250k in LTT's.  Are you going to go spend it, or just buy a bunch of new bonds?  The latter.  There is no fundamental economic reason for you to go out and spend a bunch of money and drive up nominal prices on goods/services.

Thanks for helping me prove my point about the economic impact of asset swaps!!  Thread hijack: complete.

[Ad Orientem]

Mountaineer,

Us Minnesotans are subsidizing Kshartle's income by throwing gobs of money to his state... don't you dare put is in the same class .

Think of it more like stimulus. It's vital to the economy that people in MN be taxed and the money go to people living here in the sunshine state. If that stopped then our consumption would drop and others would stop producing. It would be an economic death spiral.

To get back on track.....how would anyone here feel about the Scotts voting to secede and the leaders being arrested by the government in London?

Since the British government approved and has organized the referendum by act of Parliament and all the parties have pledged to respect its verdict I see little danger of civil war.

[Kshartle]

If you really promise to do asset swaps, and go out and buy a bunch of bonds from people, your only material affect on the economy will be on the bond market, lowering the yield, which MIGHT have a SMALL effect on people's propensity to save or consume.  But sorry... Bobby Bondholder isn't going to go out and spend $1 Million all of a sudden because you took his bonds of his hands and gave him money.

Then why did he sell me the bonds for cash? If he just wanted cash why didn't he sell them before I printed? The simple fact is more cash exists to bid up prices than before I printed it. It makes no difference what I choose to buy. The same amount of bonds exist alongside more cash. Do you think Bobby Bondholder is just going to bury his cash in the backyard and never spend it? What do you think he's going to do with it?!?!? Burn it?!?!?!

I thought the point of the printing and the bond-buying was too stimulate demand for goods and services by debasing the currency and driving down yields to discourage savings?

You don't think driving up bond prices and drving down currency value causes some people to sell their bonds and "stimulate" demand? I thought that was the entire justification for the QE. Why else are they doing it?

Ahhhh but we've done this dance before.

If you take it to the extreme conclusion you can understand it better. Imagine I print enough money in my basement to buy up every outstanding dollar denominated debt in the entire world. Every single person who had a bond now has cash instead and I own every dollar denominated liability. What do you think would happen? The effect is identical even I just buy a tiny bit it's just much much smaller.

[Kshartle]

Mountaineer,

Us Minnesotans are subsidizing Kshartle's income by throwing gobs of money to his state... don't you dare put is in the same class .

Think of it more like stimulus. It's vital to the economy that people in MN be taxed and the money go to people living here in the sunshine state. If that stopped then our consumption would drop and others would stop producing. It would be an economic death spiral.

To get back on track.....how would anyone here feel about the Scotts voting to secede and the leaders being arrested by the government in London?

Since the British government approved and has organized the referendum by act of Parliament and all the parties have pledged to respect its verdict I see little danger of civil war.

Well that's good.

Do you think they will have an honest vote? Of course we know the old saying "It's not who votes that counts but instead who counts the votes!", or something like that.

[Ad Orientem]

Think of it more like stimulus. It's vital to the economy that people in MN be taxed and the money go to people living here in the sunshine state. If that stopped then our consumption would drop and others would stop producing. It would be an economic death spiral.

To get back on track.....how would anyone here feel about the Scotts voting to secede and the leaders being arrested by the government in London?

Since the British government approved and has organized the referendum by act of Parliament and all the parties have pledged to respect its verdict I see little danger of civil war.

Well that's good.

Do you think they will have an honest vote? Of course we know the old saying "It's not who votes that counts but instead who counts the votes!", or something like that.

Britain is not a banana republic. I have a high degree of confidence that the vote will be a free and fair one.