Would Scottish Independence Be a Net Plus for Liberty?

Townhall.com ^ | September 17, 2014 | Daniel J. Mitchell

[Kaslin]

This Thursday, Scottish voters decide whether they want to break away from the United Kingdom and reclaim their independence.

Do advocates of economic liberty in America have a dog in this fight?

Well, there’s very solid academic evidence from economic historians that Europe originally became rich precisely because power was decentralized among lots of small jurisdictions that had to compete with each other.

Moreover, I’ve argued that we’d get better policy if Belgium split into two nations.

So would the same be true if Scotland broke off from the United Kingdom?

Niall Ferguson, born in Scotland, is opposed.

Scotland regained its own Parliament in 1999, following an earlier referendum on so-called devolution, which significantly increased the country’s autonomy. Since 2007, there has been a Scottish government, which is currently run by the Scottish National Party. So much power has already been devolved to Edinburgh that you may well ask why half of adult Scots feel the need for outright independence. The economic risks are so glaring… What currency will Scotland use? The pound? The euro? No one knows. What share of North Sea oil revenues will go to Edinburgh? What about Scotland’s share of Britain’s enormous national debt? …Petty nationalism is just un-Scottish. And today’s Scots should remember the apposite warning of their countryman the economist Adam Smith about politicians who promise “some plausible plan of reformation” in order “to new-model the constitution,” mainly for “their own aggrandizement.”

I’m sure that many pro-independence politicians in Scotland are looking out for themselves, so that’s a compelling argument.>

[GeronL]

England would become much more conservative, so it might help there but Scotland would probably be more socialist

[jwalsh07]

Freedom is always a plus, even when those being freed are marxist pigs gorging at the trough.

[arthurus]

I suspect a Scottish Republic will be quite Socialist, at least until everybody gets really poor in a month or two.

[denydenydeny]

The guys who would run independent Scotland are more Hugo Chavez than William Wallace.

[Boogieman]

There’s plenty of room for doubt as to whether independence would be good for the people of Scotland, economically, culturally, and otherwise. However, I think conservatives should all recognize that everyone, for better or worse, has the right to self-determination.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

A swift downgrade to socialist third world shithole soon to be financed by better off socialist third world shitholes

[Viennacon]

Three reasons to support

1) Scotland becomes Greece and learns a valuable lesson

2) David Cameron resigns, the Tory party collapses just at a time when Labour will be short over 30 lawmakers, opening the door for a UKIP takeover

3) Support anything that can sow chaos in a liberal country. It hastens the death of liberalism

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

It wouldn’t be to rUK’s advantage to have a failed state right next door to it. If iScotland falls on its arse (and it would), who do you think is going to be the one bailing it out?

[Viennacon]

The EU

[untenured]

However, I think conservatives should all recognize that everyone, for better or worse, has the right to self-determination.

You are using "everyone" and "rights" in the collectivist sense. What about Scots who don't want to pay higher taxes, who don't want a bigger welfare state, who don't want the EU to have more control over their country (assuming these things are the result of a "yes" vote)? Can a majority of Scots violate the rights of the minority this way by stripping them of their sovereign, their passports, just because they are the majority?

Peoples don't have rights, individuals do. Nationalism is fundamentally an anti-freedom ideology.

[Gluteus Maximus]

Scottish independence would be a real shot in the arm for other secessionist movements. Catalonia, Flanders, Brittany, to name a few. Maybe even right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. I believe that I can’t successfully share a polity with anybody who voted for Obama in 2012. I believe that the Red States should secede peacefully. An independent Scotland might be a real boost to an independent Texas, for example. So, while I certainly see the arguments against it, I’m rooting for the SNP.

[nathanbedford]

Can a majority of Scots violate the rights of the minority this way by stripping them of their sovereign, their passports, just because they are the majority?

One might equally ask, can a minority of colonials violate the rights of a minority of Tories by stripping them of their sovereign, their passports and declaring independence in 1776?

One might equally ask, can Yankees deprive a majority of Southerners in 1861 of their right to secede?

These are not easy questions and it was not easy for the Tories who were expelled from America in 1783 and it was not easy for the South during reconstruction. In one instance we approve of the self-determination of peoples in the other instance we do not because we change the definition of who the "people" are.

Perhaps we should look for a principle which guides our thinking independent of whether we approve or disapprove of the politics of "the people." But that is not so easy because, for example, I am opposed to respecting the democratically determined majority interests of radical Islamists. I freely admit to jettisoning all fidelity to democracy under those circumstances.

[wastoute]

Not so interested in Scotland. The implications for Texas, however...

[Boogieman]

“You are using “everyone” and “rights” in the collectivist sense.”

Nonsense. Unless you want to assert that our founding fathers were collectivists when they said:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

“What about Scots who don’t want to pay higher taxes, who don’t want a bigger welfare state, who don’t want the EU to have more control over their country (assuming these things are the result of a “yes” vote)?”

If the Scots vote for independence, and then a minority is unpleased with the results, they have several options. They can form their own political party, and campaign within the boundaries of the political system to have their grievances addressed. Or, failing that, they can peacefully petition for separation from the rest of the Scots. Failing that, they can revolt and separate themselves by force of arms.

“Nationalism is fundamentally an anti-freedom ideology.”

Well, I’m talking about self-determination and the social contract, not nationalism. If you don’t believe in the principles I’m speaking of, then you probably don’t belong on FR, in my opinion, as you are basically advocating that we should still be subjects of the English crown ourselves. I’d love to hear you explain how that is “pro-freedom”.

[untenured]

Since the "majority of Southerners" to whom you refer was really the "majority of Southerners, excluding those unrepresented Southerners held in bondage," I am not sure that example is apposite. But your point about the Tories is a valid one.

My thinking is that the function of the sovereign is to protect the people's liberties as individuals. There is no collective right per se to change it. Down that road lies much potential for mischief arising from the ambitions of evil men and the gullibility of those persuaded to follow them. Nationalism, unchaperoned by any broader notion of rights, is in my view for this reason dangerous, even pernicious. Based on what little I know about it, I view the SNP in part this way - as opportunists driven by the desire to accumulate power.

But if a sovereign violates the liberties of the citizens, of course a rebellion might be justified. But what of the Tories, and others in similar situations? Having done nothing but been opposed to the side that eventually won, which from another perspective was merely being loyal to the side that lost, do they thus become traitors? Can they be expelled, stripped of their property, segregated, or killed, as has happened to others in such positions? If they are expelled, should they be compensated for their property? Or should some way be found to allow them to stay or leave as they like, in peace? (Perhaps this last is impossible, but surely it would be best to try.)

And as to the present controversy, are any rights of Scots being violated simply because their sovereign is in Westminster and not Edinburgh? I think not. If independence would lead to the further violations of their rights via the imposition of burdensome laws by Edinburgh or Brussels, then can independence itself be held to violate the rights of Scots as individuals, regardless of how a majority voted? I think so.

You are right, these are hard questions, even more in real situations than in the abstract. The environment after a change of sovereignty, nationalist or otherwise, violent or not, is not where I expect reason and decency to flourish, and yet that is where they are most needed. (Czechoslovakia appears to have pulled it off, but I cannot immediately think of other examples.)

[untenured]

Well, I’m talking about self-determination and the social contract, not nationalism.

In the present case, what's the difference?

[Boogieman]

The difference is a matter of principle, as I haven’t advocated for nationalism, but the principles that I just cited. If those principles coincidentally align with nationalism, then it’s a boon to the nationalists, I suppose, but logic does not hold that you can accuse someone of advocating nationalism based on such a coincidence.

[Ohioan]

It is profoundly not my business to tell the Scots how to vote. But I am curious as to your assumptions, three major ones in one short sentence!

I thought that the vote was whether or not to dissolve the Union with England, not to declare a Republic. Has not Scotland always been a Monarchy?

Secondly, has not displeasure with English control been a factor in Scots voting for the Labour Party? In short, is it as likely as you assume that an Independent Scotland would move Left rather than Right?

Finally, why would you assume that the people from whose ranks the Industrial Revolution was sparked, would fail as an independent people? I have been told by well educated Scots that a disproportionate percentage of leading U.K. itellectuals, over the past few generations, have been Scots. Do you have any basis for disputing that?

I am just curious, not trying to be intrusive in the direct affairs of kindred peoples.

[nathanbedford]

I can't pass up all these cues to at least nod in favor of Article V solutions to what I regard to be the myriad problems confronting America today.

Let me note along the way that we have a Constitution consciously conceived to thwart the tyranny of the mob or to frustrate majority rule where, as you point out, matters of individual liberty must remain inviolate despite the will of the majority. On the other hand, majority will long frustrated becomes fertile ground for revolution which in turn leads to all the baleful consequences, especially for the minority, which you have outlined.

The founding fathers brilliantly conceived a Constitution which most of us revere but which served for only about 80 years this purpose of maintaining the precarious balance and avoiding civil war. The founding fathers provided the means within the Constitution itself to alter its terms but the South chose a unilateral path outside the Constitution, or at least outside the explicit provisions of the Constitution permitting change. The result was war. Of course, the South maintained that the right to secede was always inherent in their sovereignty. That question has been settled for all time at Appomattox.

Now our nation is confronted with attempts, actually cumulatively successful attempts, to amend the Constitution not by unilateral action as was done by the South, but by more devious means involving the court, the Congress, the bureaucracy, and, of course, our current chief executive. The left has chosen not to avail itself of Article V but amends the Constitution by stealth. Should this mean war?

If the idea of sovereignty of the nationstate itself is not compelling enough to justify either secession or devolution by plebiscite as is now being contemplated in Scotland, what does precipitate the active right to alter government? What justifies resort to rebellion against an illegitimate change of government? What if that change of government is not done by violence but by stealth? Is it different if it is done by plebiscite? If we deny the results of a plebiscite have we not justified the use of force by the majority whose mandate is stolen?

In responding to these questions are we entitled to judge the worthiness of the cause? In other words, do we object to southern secession because it was extraconstitutional or do we object because we are repelled by slavery? Do we have reservations about Scotland's potential vote because we have reservations about the motives of the agitators? Is that our business? If the Russians in Crimea are foolish enough to shelter within the tender mercies of Vladimir Putin, are we to pass judgment on their urge to join their kinsman?

Does it matter how the affair is managed? In other words, does it matter that we now have evidence that minority Ukrainians in Crimea are being mishandled by the Russians? Suppose the South said, as a price of leaving the union we are willing to emancipate all slaves? Or consider the converse, should the union have compensated slaveholders for the loss of their property? Does the manner of the leaving save a bad cause or discredit a good cause?

I return full circle to the Fifth Article of the Constitution which provides a practical means with a reasonable balance of the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority.