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.>

[Boogieman]

“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.”

The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn’t simply denigrate the rights of those who you oppose having them, it denigrates the very concept of rights altogether.

For example, say we posit that only civilized responsible people have a right to self-determination. What are the consequences of such an assertion?

First, we would not be able to say such a right was universal, derived from our Creator, unless we also held that civilized and uncivilized people had separate Creators. If they had separate Creators, then the logical consequence is that civilization is immutable, and an uncivilized people could never become civilized. Observation proves that false, therefore the assertion is contradictory and cannot be true.

Alternatively, we could agree that both uncivilized and civilized people have the same Creator, but then we would have to conclude that the right to self-determination could not derive from said Creator. Necessarily, it would then have to derive from some other, lesser source, and then the right would not be inherent and undeniable. This is especially problematic regarding this right, because the next highest source one can imagine would be a sovereign ruler or government, and if such a source could grant or remove the right to self-determination, then the right would be quite worthless.

So, clearly, we can’t deny a right to others simply because they might not exercise that right responsibly, otherwise we are actually denying the right to ourselves as well. I cannot say that, just because someone might go around insulting people’s mothers, that they do not have the right to free speech, otherwise the right to free speech is non-existent, as we all could potentially commit such an abuse. No, if we are to have rights, we must accept the potential negative consequences of others exercising those rights as well.

[nathanbedford]

I certainly agree that you have analyzed a conundrum for conservatives-that is why I raised it in the first place.

My objection to Islamicists is that to countenance democracy which puts them in power is to institutionalize one man, one vote, one time which implies the death of civilized order. Conservatives are nothing if not in favor of civilized order. My argument is primitive, Islamicists place themselves beyond the pael by their uncivilized behavior. We are not philosopher kings we are conservatives grappling with the very unpleasant realities of a brutal philosophy which kills democracy. I submit that Islamist nationstates represent an existential threat to our own nation and, worse, to our civilization.

We have a philosophy of government embattled at home and besieged abroad possessed of principles which are precious to us and which we must seek always to preserve lest we lose our souls. But it does no good to feel self-righteous only to lose one's head into the bargain.

That is the great challenge of pursuing a conservative life-to strike the balance between practical reality and principle.

[untenured]

Well, it seems to me that the pro-independence camp is arguing for a change because "We're Scots and they're not." I grant I am not too familiar with the particulars of the Scottish campaign, but that appears to me to be nothing but a nationalist argument. Perhaps you and I are using the word differently.

If the people of Scotland who favor independence are voting to depart to protect their rights as individuals (which I doubt), I am with them. If they are voting merely to be governed by people arbitrarily born in Scotland rather than by people arbitrarily born in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I see no moral justification for that, especially if the new Scottish government will use that power to further violate their rights (which is what I think will happen).

The sovereign is a means, not an end. Always.

[untenured]

I think if you and I sat around for an hour or two we wouldn't end up far apart. I would say that revolutions should not be entered into lightly; the violence of the resistance should be proportionate to the violence of the oppression. Violent revolution should not be entered into for "light and transient causes."

The Scottish plebiscite is far from violent, of course, although one reads accounts of intimidation of independence opponents, much like what happened to people who gave to the anti-gay marriage initiative in CA. But the impetus for Scottish independence seems absurd to me, driven significantly by a desire to put SNP types in charge of government largesse.

As to "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?," would not either of those outcomes have been better than what actually transpired? As I understand it many abolitionists were opposed to the second option on principle, and excessive devotion to principle can get a lot of people killed. So the principle had better be a good one.

[Boogieman]

“If the people of Scotland who favor independence are voting to depart to protect their rights as individuals (which I doubt), I am with them. If they are voting merely to be governed by people arbitrarily born in Scotland rather than by people arbitrarily born in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I see no moral justification for that, especially if the new Scottish government will use that power to further violate their rights (which is what I think will happen).”

The problem is, you cannot assert a right that is dependent on the motivations or results of the exercise of that right, or it is no right at all. For example, if you only agree that people who will determine to have a federated republic have a right to self-determination, then what you are agreeing with is not a right, but some sort of neutered privilege that you have deemed to grant them.

[untenured]

The problem is, you cannot assert a right that is dependent on the motivations or results of the exercise of that right, or it is no right at all.

I think I began by saying in fact there is no such right to change the sovereign, no collective right of "self-determination." Indeed, I have worked very hard so far to avoid talking about the "rights" of collectives. (And be mindful of asserting that a right, especially a fictional collective one, is an absolute thing. How much misery has been brought about by such claims!) There is an individual right of individual resistance to an unjust sovereign, but that is all. If enough individuals resist, the sovereign will change. If they are really fighting for their rights, the amount of justice in this tragic world will happily increase. This is, I hope, the story of the American Revolution.

Said differently, there is no right to change the sovereign just because some fraction of people under its jurisdiction wants a different sovereign. The change in sovereignty must be grounded in something more fundamental.

[Boogieman]

“I think I began by saying in fact there is no such right to change the sovereign, no collective right of “self-determination.””

Then we really have no common grounds on which we could ever come to an agreement. What you are calling a “fictitious right” is foundational to the American experiment, and a well recognized principle of international law. Without it, we are all traitors to the crown of England and deserve to be hanged.

[arthurus]

It is what I expect of the Scơts. Much of the complaint with London has been about London not providing enough welfare for the Scottish poor and, in general, insufficient subsidies.
I expect they will try to fix those perceived problems with their own socialism. I did not say the Scottish state would fail. The socialist project will fail, I think rather quickly. A rapid failure of socialism is likely, in Scotland, to bring an overhaul of concepts and the system. What would follow, I cannot guess but can hope they take some pointers from Ireland.
And i do expect it will be a Republic. There is no Pretender waiting in the wings and the Scots, insofar as they retain any Christianity at all, are Presbyterians mostly which is not conducive to monarchy.