Snapshot of _The SNP's star economist eviscerates the case for independence - 'You can’t really say that Brexit is the worst thing ever and then commit the biggest Brexit of all time'_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snps-star-economist-eviscerates-the-case-for-independence/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snps-star-economist-eviscerates-the-case-for-independence/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Article text**
He’s only gone and done it again. Mark Blyth, born in Dundee but now professor of international economics at the prestigious Brown University in the United States – the man who was wooed by the Scottish government to join its economic advisory council in 2021 in the obvious hope he would lend credibility (and maybe a touch of stardust) to its case for secession – has eviscerated the economic arguments for splitting from the UK.
As a quick recap, not long before Blyth took up his role formally advising the Scottish government, video emerged of him criticising the economic case for a Scottish exit from the UK on the basis it would be ‘the biggest Brexit in history’.
‘It’s [the UK] been together for over 300 years, so if pulling apart 30 years of economic integration with Europe is going to hurt, 300 is going to hurt a lot,’ he said.
What was meant to be a PR triumph for the SNP completely backfired. Blyth no longer advises the Scottish government. But perhaps because he has previously signalled his backing for secession despite being so honest and open about the downsides, the professor remains something of a darling of the nationalist movement.
Fast forward to this weekend and a video interview with Blyth from his US home was the star attraction at the ‘Scotonomics Festival of Economics’, a conference organised by separatists aiming to boost the economic case for secession. It was incredible. With his record for saying it like it is, you might have expected Blyth to drop the odd truth bomb here and there. Instead, he turned up with a 10-megaton truth nuke.
Let’s start with his repeating his warning that a Scottish exit from the UK will be like Brexit on steroids. ‘You can’t really say that Brexit is the worst thing ever and then commit the biggest Brexit of all time. Which is literally what this is,’ said Blyth.
He went on to say Scots have to think sensibly about what being independent really means:
*‘At the end of the day, as a small, open economy, which you then would be, you need to balance your imports and your exports over the long term or everyone thinks your currency is shite, and at that point they dump it, prefer payments in British pounds, and then you get a run on your foreign exchange, and you get a mini Argentina on your hands. So just because you’re independent, you can print bits of money, doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have things to back it up.’*
The SNP’s currency plan is for an independent Scotland to start off unofficially using sterling before moving to adopt a new Scottish currency as quickly as is feasible. Some nationalist supporters, including the organisers of the event, view the creation of a Scottish currency as the key to successfully cutting away. This is because they subscribe to modern monetary theory (MMT), which posits that countries in control of their own currency essentially do not have to worry about budget constraints so long as they keep inflation under control.
The MMTers also favour a newly independent Scotland refusing to accept a share of UK government debt. This is also something the SNP has hinted at using as a threat to provide the Scotland side with leverage in separation negotiations.
It is safe to say Blyth is not a fan of MMT or this approach to national debt. ‘MMT is closed economy Keynesianism. That’s all it is, and you don’t live in closed economies,’ he said, adding that if MMT applies anywhere it can only apply in the US, with its uniquely dominant economy that effectively gives it a form of insulation. ‘You’ll just get poor as shit,’ was his final analysis.
He also added that a newly independent Scotland, effectively starting life by defaulting on its debt while launching a new currency, will have zero credibility in financial markets.
Then there was the argument often put by First Minister Humza Yousaf that cutting away from the UK will recreate Scotland as the rich Nordic-like nation it naturally should be. ‘Scotland, particularly in nationalist circles, loves to say that Scotland is a small open economy like the Nordic economies. That’s a bit like saying I’m a supermodel because I also have legs,’ said Blyth. Ouch, as they say.
A few other Blyth zingers were:
On currency again: ‘The entirety of currency is confidence. Confidence is not given by nationalist fiat.’
On the argument that becoming independent will improve energy security: ‘Your energy infrastructure is owned by asset managers… so how you going to improve that when you don’t even own it and you’ve no capacity to buy it. I mean I don’t do fantasy economics. I’m too old for this.’
On debt again: ‘If you think you’re starting off with a default, you’re dead already.’
Blyth, the author of anti-austerity book Angrynomics, was no doubt asked to be interviewed for the conference to provide the proceedings with a bit of star quality. He gave us much more than that. His honesty on the economic costs of independence is to be applauded. If only his audience of committed nationalists could be so open to reality.
Credit to the conference organisers for accepting dissenting voices. And that was a very dissenting voice. Ouch.
I’m sure someone will be along soon to point out that it’s about sovereignty and feelings, rather than money.
I don't believe Blyth was meant to be a dissenting voice, he has (and I believe still does) openly supported Scottish Independence in the past.
The issue here is that their arguments are so bad that even the economists on their own side are having to dismantle them.
As with Brexit, the honest argument would be that this is a really problematic economic move but that's worth it for [insert what you think it's worth it for].
In both cases, the Yes campaign has realised that there's nothing actually stopping them from telling everyone they get [insert what you think it's worth it for] *and* incidentally it'll be great for the economy too don't ask questions.
The insert always should be "to begin the long, painful multi-generation project of reform to do just about as well as we would have but with more freedom of action in the future".
A hard sell unless you are leaving an absolute shit-show.
> As with Brexit, the honest argument would be that this is a really problematic economic move but that's worth it for [insert what you think it's worth it for].
I'm not a supporter of Scottish Independence, I'm not Scottish for one, so don't really have a dog in this fight.
However, I do think that the Tories right now are making a very compelling case that what you spend on is far more important than how much you spend. There's constant questions, op eds, analysis etc. along the lines of "WTF are our taxes going?" because somehow the Tories manage to spend an absolute fortune while delivering less, fiscal drag is raising a huge amounts of people's tax rates and despite that everything is shitter. I think a case can be made that an independent Scotland while making less on paper, would be stronger because they wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot constantly economically like the Tories have been.
Tough sell, and the major downside would be the similarity to the Brexit argument where the Tories promised that we'd be better off out of Europe, and instead they go and strangle the life out of our economy, then bring in Truss to give it the old double tap and ensure they've finished it off, people will ask how can they be sure that independence really would be better? Like Brexit, obviously it's an economic handicap, and there's no guarantee the upsides will compensate for that.
You do have a dog in this fight to an extent. Scottish independence would have an impact on both sides of the border like Brexit has had.
European companies continue to try trading as efficiently as they have done before and have to employ more staff to facilitate it.
It’d be a continued negotiation for decades to reach a reasonable settlement/detanglement.
And what’s to say we don’t both as separate entities end up with populist, nationalist tub thumpers in charge as we have done recently that seek only to inflame everything.
It wouldn’t materially affect you as much as a Scottish citizen but there would be an impact so your opinion should be taken into account, even if you can’t vote for/against.
> You do have a dog in this fight to an extent. Scottish independence would have an impact on both sides of the border like Brexit has had.
Yeah, but it's not my decision to make. If they don't want to be in the UK, I don't believe in oppressing them into staying. Just like the EU didn't vote on whether we should be allowed to leave. These relationships are like a marriage, and you can't just decide whether your partner should be allowed to leave. Both must consent.
> And what’s to say we don’t both as separate entities end up with populist, nationalist tub thumpers in charge as we have done recently that seek only to inflame everything.
I agree with you, but from Scotland's perspective if they already have that via the UK government why should that be a threat? Don't vote for independence from Tory governments, your own government might be as bad? Seems a bit rich.
> It wouldn’t materially affect you as much as a Scottish citizen but there would be an impact so your opinion should be taken into account, even if you can’t vote for/against.
I mean, I was sharing my opinion.
Aye, but people whose focus is sovereignty and feelings keep trying to assett that the financials add up. When they control the discussion, and independent scotland will be an economic superpower. When facts come into play, it's not about economics.
Ye cannae have yer cake and eat it
(Yet another brexit parallel)
Yes. And Brexit really was about sovereignty, and the economic case never did add up -- not in the short to medium term future anyway. The difference is that the UK is economically big enough to survive that process for the longer term, and Scotland isn't.
It's an interesting one, infrastructure and management is getting much cheaper especially for small nations and that trend is set to continue. They're well positioned for wind generation so likely to see growth in that area which could scale with data centres which suit the cold wet climate or SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) from sequestered or bioavailable carbon, their latitude places them as a good air-cargo hub between America and Europe (the shorter route due to a spherical earth). They're already a popular tourist destination and the global publicity of scxit would likely be a big draw for that yankee dollar and if they get in with the EU that'll be a load of euro tourists, and of course Brits will all flock there to see how it's going and assuming SNP follow through on their already partial decriminalisation of cannabis (stopped prosecution for small amounts) there will be lots of Brits going up to spend their hard earned pounds, probably converted to euros.
Their economic prospects aren't dire in the long term assuming they keep modernising and adapting, as is their plan. Reintroduction of the R&D tax credit for example could draw a lot of the types of businesses I described above, i don't think it'd make them a powerhouse but they could be a comfortable small country.
If they were to join the EU then they would have to build a customs border between Gretna and Berwick and then attempt to negotiate a trade deal with the rump UK (via the EU). All the positives you have listed won't come close to cancelling out that massive negative. They would still be at the mercy of Westminster, just in a different way.
Yeah, in a slightly ironic way Brexit has made Scottish independence near impossible imo.
Scotland basically has a choice between a hard border with England and Wales, or continuing one with the EU.
Could they manage to get a "best of both worlds" NI deal? I doubt it.
No, but that's the only reason NI "got away with it"
The tories fought tooth and nail against giving up the hard border in NI, because doing so essentially admitted brexit was a bit shit.
They'd never do the same for Scotland, because there's nothing forcing them to. So Scotland could either rejoin the EU (with its hard border with England and Wales) or have a close relationship with rUK, but maintain the current hard border with the EU.
>I’m sure someone will be along soon to point out that it’s about sovereignty and feelings, rather than money.
And yet is nothing like Brexit despite making fun of Brexiters for 8 years for using these arguments.
It's kinda a strange article, scotenomics doesn't have anything to do with the snp as far as I know. It's organised by a professor currently teaching in catelonia, and was very international. It sounded like a pro mmt conference with a pro small country independence slant, not a pro snp per say. Not that I know much, but I was part of the venue staff for most of the weekend. Listening to the acedemics in the breaks they all seemed far more interested in talking about how to get mmt accepted in the US or large acedemic instatutions than anything else.
>I’m sure someone will be along soon to point out that it’s about sovereignty and feelings, rather than money.
Of course it is. But in this case, unlike brexit, the economic penalties would be totally overwhelming. Size matters if you want to be resilient enough to get through such a transition.
The pretty much echoes what the american geo political economist Peter Zeihan summarises as Scotland's chances. Namely it would be an abject disaster.
[Video](https://youtu.be/VCwrbv-_PNo?si=io-rKyElhh-s98ih)
I didn't mind reading Blyths view but after "ten megaton nuke". I'm really sorry but I gave up with that style of journalism. That's an utterly appalling way to write. It seems to be AI or geared for clickbait on social media.
Happy to watch the remarks directly as I certainly can't trust this account. Was the conference proceedings broadcast?
https://x.com/staylorish/status/1771499591629779290?s=20
*Mark Blyth slams Scot Gov indy case. Again.*🚨
*“I fully understand the desire to be separate. But the idea that this isn’t going to hurt? You can’t really say that Brexit is the worst thing ever, and then commit the biggest Brexit of all time. Which is literally what this is.”*
Part 2:
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1771499625620410681
*Blyth was so brutal, the Scotonomics gang eventually had to cut him off…*
Folk have been saying this for years, it’s good that someone of such profile has laid it out. Nationalists simply have no idea about economics. Scotland would be complete and utter toast. For decades. “Aye, but we’d be freeeee!”
> His honesty on the economic costs of independence is to be applauded. If only his audience of committed nationalists could be so open to reality.
That truly is the key summary of the SNP's approach to independence. They just lie or evade questions about the difficulties independence would bring.
Brexit happening was probably the worst thing to happen to independence because it showed just what uncoated promises based on nationalistic overinflation of your own importance to a larger trading partner are actually worth; fuck all.
Is there an extent to which they don't actually expect to ever have to test these theories so they can kind of say what they want about independence and nationalists will keep lapping it up and voting them in?
This is enormously anecdotal so take what I say accordingly, but I do know of SNP members who believe many newer SNP members, especially MSPs and MPs who joined the party after the first referendum, aren't interested in independence at all and do indeed view it simply as a tool to drum up support.
They suggest some of the newer MSPs and MPs joined the SNP solely because of how dominant the SNP are in Scotland, making it the only viable option for people who want to be involved in politics. They'd just as happily join Labour or the Tories if they were the dominant party in their local area.
So, again very anecdotally, I do believe there are elements within the SNP who don't actually care whether independence ever happens or not. They simply beat the drum because it gives them a job.
> This is enormously anecdotal so take what I say accordingly, but I do know of SNP members who believe many newer SNP members, especially MSPs and MPs who joined the party after the first referendum, aren't interested in independence at all and do indeed view it simply as a tool to drum up support.
This is my view as well.
We all accept the idea that nobody agrees with *everything* that their party stands for; even the party leader. A party's policies are a compromise agreement that everyone can get behind, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with every single individual item 100%.
I fully believe that there are SNP politicians who joined up because a) they wanted to stand for a pro-Scotland party, or b) they just wanted to be a moderate politician, and the SNP were the best opportunity to do that. Publicly backing independence was the price they paid for one of those two reasons.
It probably helps that they feel that they will never be confronted with the reality of independence anyway, so it's a nice dream to occasionally mention without really having to worry about it.
This isn't an unprecedented political phenomenon. If you look back at West Germany or Ireland you'll see parties that officially strongly supported unification while actually being quite happy they didn't have to deal with it or plan seriously for it.
> I fully believe that there are SNP politicians who joined up because a) they wanted to stand for a pro-Scotland party, or b) they just wanted to be a moderate politician, and the SNP were the best opportunity to do that. Publicly backing independence was the price they paid for one of those two reasons.
This sort of thing happens in all parties, and there are some politicians who don't much care about policies one way or another and just want to be important. Examples include Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.
It's like the Republicans in the US. They don't want solutions, they want problems they can use to attack the opposition with. If they were ever in a position to get what they're demanding, they wouldn't know what to do.
I imagine lots joined because they want to be in power and the SNP is the dominant party so the best team to join. 30 years ago those same people would be in Scottish Labour.
> I do know of SNP members who believe many newer SNP members, especially MSPs and MPs who joined the party after the first referendum, aren't interested in independence at all and do indeed view it simply as a tool to drum up support.
This is a widely held belief within the independence movement -- certainly [Wings over Scotland](https://wingsoverscotland.com/) holds that view.
My view is there are some in the SNP who see it as a vehicle for pushing woke policies, and don't really care much for indy one way of the other.
I'd have to agree with him. Before Brexit Scottish independence was a valid argument. With the umbrella of the EU, which included freedom of movement and harmonised trading standards, it would have been a symbolic departure from the UK. Being independent, yet still part of the whole with little disruption.
Leaving now, after claiming Brexit was a self destructive mistake, would be like laughing at your mate shoot himself in the foot, then grabbing the gun and doing the same.
Remaining part of the greater union, although much smaller, is the only option now.
Size does matter..
The problem with this theory is that Scotland would have had to also leave the EU as a direct consequence of leaving the UK. The UK was a member of the EU, *not* Scotland - legally, the only way for Scotland to have slipped in automatically would have been if the UK entirely dissolved and her successor states inherited her treaties.
This is also leaving aside the active separatist movements that a number of EU states have. It is unlikely that many of them would have wanted to carve out an exception that could be seen as endorsing separatism, especially for a relatively strategically and economically unimportant country like Scotland.
>The problem with this theory is that Scotland would have had to also leave the EU as a direct consequence of leaving the UK.
This was the official line of the EU prior to the indy referendum, because it represents member states' interests and the UK is the member state in question - so it was invested in the In campaign. If scottish independence had become inevitable, I'm not sure it would've necessarily turned out that way, though. Scottish independence would've also hurt the UK and other nearby member states economically, and the EU can be relatively flexible when it comes to these sort of things. It would've come down more to whether an independent Scotland could fulfill membership requirements and be economically competitive, more than the principle of the matter, imo.
All this presuming that the UK was permissive and not revanchist about Scottish independence, because they could just veto any vote on the matter.
>This is also leaving aside the active separatist movements that a number of EU states have. It is unlikely that many of them would have wanted to carve out an exception that could be seen as endorsing separatism
I believe the official stance of Spain (although it's nuanced) is generally that they oppose *unilateral* declarations of independence, there could've been wiggle room if the UK accepted independence. They might not have been a fan but the headaches of a hard border across the Isles could've led to concessions - see also the Irish border.
It's a lot of hypotheticals, but it could've gone either way, imo.
>the EU can be relatively flexible when it comes to these sort of things.
The EU has never demonstrated any flexibility whatsoever of this kind.
A country is either a member state or it isn't. An independent Scotland doesn't have a membership treaty with the EU and would not be a member until it applied like any other applicant country.
What I meant by 'being flexible' is that the EU institutions can move quickly on some things and taboos can break when the need arises. See the joint debt issued during the covid pandemic or the military aid to Ukraine. Or the unique situation established in Northern Ireland.
Legally Scotland would need to go through an accession process, yes. But it's possible that process could've happened simultaneously as it negotiated its withdrawal from the UK, or, failing that, it could've been granted access to the single market while it negotiated its membership. There are many different forms of relation with the EU, as repeatedly discussed during the Brexit negotiations. It's not just membership vs no membership.
When have the EU institutions ever moved quite quickly with respect the accession of a member state.
Someone said an independent Scotland would have left the EU as a direct consequence as of leaving the UK and you said you weren't sure it would "necessarily have turned out that way". But now you're admitting that it would have turned out that way and legally Scotland would have had to go through an accession process.
There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever about the consequence of Scotland becoming independent. It would have been out of the EU.
There has never been a crisis that required rushing accession, so obviously it's never been needed. The entire point I'm making is that the EU has moved fast on things that were considered no-go's before. It's your prerogative to disagree but 'it has never done so in this specific area' isn't a very strong rebuttal in my eyes, unless you can point to a clear legal or procedural reason (not a political one) for a delay.
I suppose it's fair to say Scotland would have technically left. But if leaving would have coincided with immediately rejoining, or failing that immediate single market access while it rejoins in due time, it takes virtually all the bite out of the threat, which is the most important point.
>There has never been a crisis that required rushing accession
There is no such thing as a crisis that requires rushing accession. Scotland becoming independent certainly wouldn't be one.
>I suppose it's fair to say Scotland would have technically left. But if leaving would have coincided with immediately rejoining
There's nothing technical about it. An independent Scotland would not have been a member.
Leaving would not have coincided with immediately joining either as accession negotiations couldn't commence until Scotland was already independent and would have taken years following that.
Before brexit Scottish independence would have meant leaving the EU the only way to have avoided leaving the EU would have been to have Westminster fight Scotland’s cause in the EU, which is doubtful without Scotland accepting a massive share of its debt burden.
So I got to disagree with you there.
This is the only way I can see Scottish independence working too, with the UK back in the EU or inside of the EEA. Look at the mess that happened with ROI and Northern Ireland and just imagine that being applied to mainland Britain.
The problem with the UK rejoining the EU in that scenario would be that Scotland would still be cut off, but now from both the EU and UK.
The optimal route would be for an Independent Scotland to form an economic union with the UK, then both of them join the EU at the exact same time.
That is to say that we would need a UK which is both willing to rejoin the EU, but also willing to hold off on that for Scotland's sake at their own economic expense.
Which would be a *very unlikely* arrangement to say the least
The most foolish thing IMO was for the SNP in Westminster to not get behind a customs union in the indicative votes post Brexit vote.
This level of alignment would have made subsequent Scottish independence run far more smoothly and would boost the chances of any return to EU.
I don't think anyone in the independence movement has ever said there definitely won't be temporary issues with leaving the UK, particularly if Westminster out of spite tries to make things difficult for us.
But it'll be worth it in the long run, as the main thing holding Scotland back is the Westminster ruling class. Note that they are also the enemy of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
Well obviously, but that may be an acceptable cost to pursue the perceived benefits of independence. The issue is the complete denial that things would get significantly worse in the short to medium term (and likely the long term too), the electorate must be presented the facts, otherwise the SNP are just as bad as the leave campaign.
The Confederacy was a banana republic built around a single, declining, source of revenue.
Britain very easily replaced the cotton they provided. Post-war cotton had to compete against cotton supplied from Egypt, Brazil, and India, whose growth was enabled by the South banning exports to Europe at the start of the civil war.
The South fully believed in the idea of King Cotton; that they controlled such a vital part of the economy that they could withhold it and force European nations to intervene on their behalf. Instead they were choked off from the world by the Union navy, the vast majority of Southern cotton produced in the war was burned in the fields or warehouses by Union troops, and the rest of the world turned to new sources
Monopolistic, protectionist, single-resource countries are not economically stable. That's why Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other oil-rich countries are desperately trying to diversify their holdings with their oil dollars. And in the meantime they have to form a literal cartel to control the price of oil. Cartel-tactics don't work when all you need is arable land to plant more cotton.
While they were *de jure* independent already a lot of the Soviet satellite states did better after breaking from the Kremlin's *de facto* control. Botswana famously did well on independence from Britain especially compared to many of its post-colonial neighbours in the region, and Singapore found itself independent against its will when it was expelled from Malaysia yet is now a very prosperous nation.
None of these countries were built overnight though.
Singaporean economic growth was immediate from its expulsion from Malaysia, as far as I know. It was more hurt by the withdrawal of the RAF bases in the late 60s.
>The confederacy in the US actually could have been an economic success.
Please don't use the racist slave state as a comparison point for the 21st century.
edit: why the downvotes?
It is pretty significant. Slavery significantly changes the economic calculus of a nation as it creates incredibly low costs for unskilled labour. When the South was in a position to either give up the practice of slavery (because it is an evil, horrendous abuse of human rights) or reform a foundational principle of it's entire economy, they chose to protect their wealth. When one sets aside the obviously triumphant morals of abolitionism, it is an economically painful prospect.
Fortunately the south was defeated and the racist violence of slavery was (largely) abolished. But it makes sense that economic prospects of the Confederacy were brighter if slavery remained. It was a drug to which the Southern economy was addicted to, at an incalculable human cost.
Basically gov has no budget constraint and can print unlimited money. It’s not based on economics. There’s a reason orthodox econ ignores it.
As Krugman said MMT goes too far in its support for government budget deficits, and ignores the inflationary implications of maintaining budget deficits when the economy is growing
I’m a Keynesian. It’s very important to remember. Gov debt and household debt are not the same. But that does not mean a government can go into unlimited debt
They have not produced a model. From what can be reversed engineered from their writings, they believe the IS curve is vertical, i.e. interest rates have no effect. Whenever central banks adjust rates you can find them on social media complaining that such policies don’t affect inflation. In particular, they believe rates do not affect investment and lowering them can even increase inflation.
This is clearly wrong. Furthermore, their policy is to keep interest rates at zero. How that can work with arbitrage, i.e. if the Fed puts interest rates to zero, then borrow dollars and buy euro bonds with a future dollars contract for infinite free money, nobody knows.
I'm not sure that's true, in so much as it was a lie they told themsleves afterwards rather than something they advocated. Before it was all "Brexit will make us better off", after it became "the cost is worth it".
Yeah that is exactly my feeling, there were some voters who wanted Brexit at any cost, but for most once they reliased that nobody was getting a unicorn the 'cost is worth it' line became the narrative and cope to deal with the fact that they were played for fools.
I do think Scottish independence is a bit different, the indy at any cost group was bigger, especially during the worst of the Johnson period of the Tories. But as it has become more likely that Labour will win the next GE, it's become clear that at least some of that group is really just get rid of the Tories at any cost.
> Before it was all "Brexit will make us better off"
This is the view I hear a *ton* of Independence supporters give as well though. A lot of them honestly think they'll be better off going independent.
United Ireland is a funny one as in recent history Dublin is the least enthusiastic about the consequences of it. For most of the 20th century, Northern Ireland was more economically successful than the republic (on a per capita basis), but that trend has been reversing in the 21st century and has accelerated since Brexit.
Now the ROI will have to contend with adding 1/4 to their total population overnight and start propping up a bunch of deteriorating public services that the local economy is unable to support alone. Add to that the fact that there would still be a large amount of disgruntled Unionsists that would likely stir up trouble - up to and including violence - and it's a lukewarm proposition for any government in Dublin.
I’ve tried telling Americans on this site that Dublin is less enthusiastic for reunification and London less enthusiastic for stopping it than a lot of them think but it’s useless. Lots of people are so wedded to this propagandised view that Ireland is groaning under oppression and dreaming for unification that it’s hard to tell people the facts.
I sympathise much more with them and the other two. Ireland is divided, from their point of view unfairly.
With Brexit, the "price to pay for our sovereignty" was fucking stupid, we already had complete control over our country. With Scotland it's just making themselves poorer because they don't like English people
It's still the same mindset.
On one side you have people who would vote for a United Ireland even if it meant economic catastrophy
On the other, you have people who would vote against it even if a United Ireland would guaranteee economic prosperity for centuries to come
We didn't have complete control though. The point of the EU is to cede sovereignity to the centre. Now a member retains the right to leave so it hasn't permanently lost that sovereignity, but operationally the member state cannot use it as it desires as long as it is a member.
I've said this before and I still believe it, there are simply no good arguments for Independence at this point. All that's left is raw Nationalism and the ugliness that comes with it.
This was at the same "Scotonomics" festival where an SNP claimed that the island of Islay (population 3000) had a greater economic output than the entire city of Birmingham (population 1.1 million) with the implication that economic growth in Scotland was being held back by the UK. One has to have a genuine superiority complex to even contemplate that such an outrageous lie was credible.
And the SNP leader of Dundee council who also spoke at the festival ended up deleting his twitter account after it was pointed out he'd lied in his speech.
These days you can take it pretty much for granted that any SNP politician talking about the economy side of things is just blatantly lying to keep the base on side.
The only good argument is the emotional one.
"It's not going to be easy. It's going to hurt in the short term... but shouldn't we be our own country again?"
National self-determination for its own sake. People were saying this in 2014 and they didn't listen then either. They'll never get enough people on board so long as they try to bullshit people into believing it'll be the land of milk and honey when everyone knows that'll clearly never be the case.
> They'll never get enough people on board so long as they try to bullshit people into believing it'll be the land of milk and honey when everyone knows that'll clearly never be the case.
Worked for Brexit.
You only need 50.01% of people to believe in you one time.
Populist playbook. Take a general population who aren't happy with how things are and promise them a wonderful future. When the other side point out the reality accuse them of being negative/defeatist.
> "It's not going to be easy. It's going to hurt in the short term... but shouldn't we be our own country again?"
Which is very close to what JRM was saying on Brexit.
Terrible idea all round and much of the rhetoric is interchangeable.
That's just got to be fuelled by xenophobia towards the English, it is saying that the English are so economically idiotic and the Scots so inherently superior, that they can produce more even on tiny islands.
*Scotland attempts to commit the same terrible financial decision which will have an even worse impact.*
Random Scot: Damn we're so much smarter at economics than those pesky English.
You are now changing the topic. This conversation was specifically about the absurd insinuation, that you supported, that English people are inherently worse at economics than the Scottish. A ridiculous belief which you should be embarrassed to have even suggested you support.
You are embarrassed by it, hence why you are now spinning it to be about Tories and some general decline.
Irrational nonsense about people who live a few miles to the south.
Please adjust your eyes. I quoted you saying English were economically idiots and gave you examples of idiocy (brexit, etc). No where did I say scotland was superior. You just plucked that from somewhere.
Even that suggestion in itself is also ridiculous.
Your personal disagreement with the government doesn't equate to the entire nation of England or let's accurately now say Britain is economically incompetent.
"Somewhere" the entire point of the thread.
I am *shocked*, I tell you, *shocked*. By which I of course mean that I am completely unsurprised that implementing a bad idea (that they have spent years railing *against*) in a situation where the problems will be magnified won't magically produce a better result than the last time it was tried. Scottish independence is turbo-Brexit; all of the same problems, but bigger, and without even the token win of claiming back the budget surplus that is transferred (given that Scotland's spending is partially funded by the UK, whereas at least the UK was a net contributor to the EU budget).
It's not like this is even the first time that an economist employed by the Scottish Government has told them that independence is a terrible idea:
>Scottish independence would inflict more than 250,000 job losses across the country and slash economic output by at least 10 per cent, an adviser to the Scottish government has warned.
>Richard Marsh, who has undertaken research on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon’s Sustainable Growth Commission, claims that significant reductions in public spending, even if partly offset by tax rises, would hit Scotland’s most deprived communities the hardest. About 7 per cent of jobs in Dundee and West Dunbartonshire would be lost through reduced public spending.
>...
>Paul McLennan, the SNP MSP for East Lothian, described Marsh’s report as “a preposterous scare story”. He said that “no one with credibility still suggests Scotland is too wee and too poor to be a successful independent nation. Even hardline unionist politicians are too embarrassed to peddle this brazen scaremongering these days.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-independence-would-cost-250-000-jobs-ll7fb06sh
Of course, I'm sure that this expert formerly employed by the Scottish Government will *also* be ignored as describing “a preposterous scare story”, so that nationalists don't have to actually produce any evidence as to why the experts are wrong. And they can therefore continue to lie to their voters about how wonderful independence will be, how the UK will definitely give loads of money to rent a crucial military base that the UK *already* owns, and how the UK will bend over backwards to continue paying for the pensions of a foreign country.
As someone who voted No in 2014 and Remain in 2016, it really was wild to see friends and colleagues around me just flip on the reality of leaving a political and economic union. In 2014 I found myself in with the Leave voters and in 2016 I found myself in with the Yes voters.
Spent 5 minutes in there and *Jesus...*, cognitive dissonance that makes Brexiteers look reputable.
The SNP have truly ran one of the most successful mass grooming campaigns of the modern age.
Can you believe it's actually become more moderate in the last couple years? To the point that some of the hardliners now say there's a pro unionist bias which is hilarious.
Never fails to amaze me how these types see bias against them everywhere and yet fail to realise the reason for this is that reality itself is biased against them.
As someone with no particular dog in this fight, can someone with a better understanding of economics than me explain whether similar relatively recent (and relatively peaceful) economic “uncoupling” of nations (Czechia/Slovakia, Baltic nations, Serbia/Montenegro/Kosovo - I realise that this one might not fit the “peaceful” criteria) were difficult to manage, and whether they were painful/detrimental in a purely economic sense.
Czechia & Slovakia immediately entered into a full customs union upon seperation and then entered the EU together so they never had a moment of trade being divided.
The problem is that you can't compare an independent Scotland to any state in history. If Scotland were to secede, it would be the first country in history to do so with a massive welfare state. Every other country that became independent didn't have to create a massive public sector to support the population. I would say Scotland could become successful independently in the long term if they were to completely slash the size of the state (which is something Scots will never do nor will they ever support).
There’s a whole Wikipedia article about the [dissolution of Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia). Looks like it was painful in the short run, but rapidly joining the EU (within 12 years) seems to have helped. Some choice quotes from the article:
> By 1991, the Czech Republic's GDP per capita was some 20% higher than Slovakia's. Transfer payments from the Czech budget to Slovakia, which had been the rule in the past, were stopped in January 1991.
>Initially, the old Czechoslovak currency, the Czechoslovak koruna, remained in use by both countries. Czech fears of an economic loss caused the adoption of two national currencies as early as February 8, 1993.
> At the beginning, the currencies could be exchanged at par, but later the value of the Slovak koruna was usually lower than that of the Czech koruna(in 2004, around 25–27% lower).
> On January 1, 2009, Slovakia adopted the euro as its currency, with a conversion rate of 30.126 SK/€
>According to The Prague Post, "Slovak GDP reached 95 percent of the Czech GDP, and it is likely to draw level with it. The Slovak gross national product (GNP), which includes citizens' incomes abroad and deducts the money multinational companies move out of the country, is higher than the Czech one. Old-age pensions are more or less at the same level in both countries, and the consumption per capita is slightly higher in Slovakia. However, salaries are 10 percent lower on average in Slovakia than in the Czech Republic"
I don't understand Scottish nationalists refusal to accept a fair share of the UK debt. Similarly I don't understand the sheer lack of mention from unionists that if Scotland should and must accept the UK's debt, Scotland should therefore be entitled to its fair share of the UK's assets including loans/money owed, shares, buildings, government owned land and infrastructure, international holdings including diplomatic service properties (does the UK government still own land in our colonies? Should include that), vehicles, all army assets including aircraft, ships and weaponry and everything else the UK government owns right down to the pens and paper.
The only question worth debating is what % can everyone agree is a fair share
>I don't understand Scottish nationalists refusal to accept a fair share of the UK debt.
Scotland's deficit last year was £19 billion, about 9% of GDP. £10 billion of that was debt interest. Without the debt interest, Scotland would have had a slightly lower deficit than the UK average. (of course that's with very high oil revenue, which has already dropped off).
With it's share of debt Scottish independence is a non starter. Without it they can claim that things wouldn't be so bad.
Of course the problem is Scottish independence requires legislation in Westminster, and Westminster wouldn't agree to it without debt being sorted.
>Similarly I don't understand the sheer lack of mention from unionists that if Scotland should and must accept the UK's debt, Scotland should therefore be entitled to its fair share of the UK's assets including loans/money owed, shares, buildings, government owned land and infrastructure, international holdings including diplomatic service properties (does the UK government still own land in our colonies? Should include that), vehicles, all army assets including aircraft, ships and weaponry and everything else the UK government owns right down to the pens and paper.
Most assets would be included by default. Scotland has its share of schools, roads, hospitals, railways, government offices, police stations etc and no one would suggest that an independent Scotland wouldn't own those. The same is true for a share of liquid holdings, like the national insurance fund.
Other things like diplomatic properties probably wouldn't be included. The EU stuck firmly to the principle that the UK wasn't entitled to things like a share of the EU buildings, and should pay all the costs of leaving the EU. The UK would almost certainly do the same. It would be unfair to expect taxpayers in the rest of the UK to pay more so that Scotland could replicate things like embassies abroad.
>The only question worth debating is what % can everyone agree is a fair share
There are basically 3 options, a population share, a "historic" share, or a GDP share. A population share is simplest, if Scotland has 8.3% of the total population, it pays 8.3% of the debt.
A GDP share would adjust that for Scotland's GDP. If Scotland had 8% of UK GDP, it would assume 8% of debt.
A historic share would be very complicated and probably impossible for Scotland to finance, because Scotland has received approx 10 - 20% higher spending than the UK average since the 1920s, and, apart from the 1980s, has contributed less in per capita in tax revenue, so Scotland's "historic" share of the debt would probably be enormous.
I can't really see how independence would proceed until Scotland agreed some way of guaranteeing funding for a population share of UK debt. Because Scottish politicians have repeatedly suggested they wouldn't honour a share of UK debt, the UK would no doubt insist it was all repaid before the end of the post independence transition period (the Scottish government planned to continue to rely on HMRC to collect taxes on their behalf for up to 8 years after independence, I suspect the UK government would settle for an 8 year repayment schedule).
Surely a fair split would be based on the proportion of the UK’s population that Scotland represents? Based on the recent censuses in 2021 (2022 for Scotland) that looks to be 8.2% (5.48m in Scotland, 67.02m UK overall).
I suspect it might work out slightly differently in reality, but around 8% would be the figure I’d expect to see.
I don't think it's as simple as simply splitting by population. For example, how do you account for the fact that [on average Westminster has spent more per person in Scotland than they do in England by around 15%?](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04033/SN04033.pdf) Do you increase their share of the debt by the same %? If you do, Scots will claim it's unfair. If you don't, then assuming debt based on population size means they're possibly paying less than is actually their share of the debt.
Realistically you'd probably be looking at around 9-10% if they accounted for the extra spending in Scotland.
the lack of mention is probably because they accept as a given that independence means a splitting of the assets and would be surprised if anything else was suggested.
Why keep talking about something you accept would be part of the process?
I find it absolutely bizarre that Scottish people who think that Brexit was a huge mistake also unironically think that they should do an even bigger Brexit of their own. Do they really think that they’re just built different and that they won’t have the exact same issues, if not even worse issues that Brexit has caused?
They even use the exact same talking points that brexiteers used and completely fail to see the irony. “We’re not being represented. We’re being oppressed by bureaucrats in London/Brussels. We’ll negotiate new trade deals as soon as we’re out.” They’re all the exact same arguments yet these people genuinely don’t realise it. They rightfully complain about how corrupt Westminster is while wilfully ignoring that the SNP have been exposed as being equally corrupt in recent years.
I guess I just don’t understand how they can’t see the irony in being both anti Brexit but pro independence when they’re really the exact same position but slightly rebranded.
Independence wouldn't be a thought if the UK had kept their promise on devolved powers. The main grief people have up here is that we keep getting conservative governments in Westminster who have the lions share of power.
>Do they really think that they’re just built different and that they won’t have the exact same issues, if not even worse issues that Brexit has caused?
Yes.
It's in SNP's manifesto to rejoin the EU. You know, the biggest single market on the planet. There would be no "negotiating new trade deals" as a primary focus, it would be to rejoin and reap the benefits.
But it’s seen again and again that joining the EU (if at the price of worsening trade with the RUK) wouldn’t actually help Scotland in the short to medium term…
Independence is hardly a "short to medium term" thing. If we're talking long-term, Scotlands total sovereignty and rights over it's own resources, laws, etc would give it a fair chance. Coupling that with a cheeky entry into the EU would only propel us.
If you want a nice breakdown of the big questions. Andrew Neil did a nice interview with some SNP dude years ago(forget the dudes name).
The arguments are pretty much still the same and haven't materially changed.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJiq3Y4c4C0&ab\_channel=TheSpectator](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJiq3Y4c4C0&ab_channel=TheSpectator)
They could become a Nordic-like country but it will take a while and a heavy dose of competence
The SNP definitely does not have the latter, not the sharpest tools in the shed from what ive seen so far, it would be a disaster.
Scottish nationalists and Brexiteers may sit on different sides of the culture wars, but on an economic level (which ideally should be the deciding factor as to how you'd vote on such an issue) they aren't that radically different from each other. Same old populist uncosted 'sunlit uplands' shite.
The SNP would probably have vastly more success (and cross border support) if they pursued an agenda of federalisation with England getting their own parliament, devo max, and Westminster being converted to a body that handles defense, foreign relations, and any mutually agreed responsibilities instead.
The problem is that Westminster doesn't want a federal system, or devo max. They also aren't interested in devolution generally. This is something labour need to address. Personally, I believe the UK must become a federal nation if it is to sustain unity.
It's how I see it. And how my Scots relatives are explaining it.
If any remainers downvoted that, I'd be interested to hear why.
Leavers, heh, I'd only expect the downvote tbh after several years of reinforcing the stereotype.
Because joining the EU (which requires economic stability and isn’t currently accepting members) would put up barriers with trade with Uk which is 67% and 63% of Scottish exports and imports respectively. Basically joining the EU wouldn’t help Scotland in the short or medium term (it would after 15-20 years after independence) and that was by a report that says it’s more optimistic about Scottish trade than every other report that was written by independents.
> would put up barriers with trade with Uk which is 67% and 63% of Scottish exports and imports respectively.
Which barriers are these? Do you know the breakdown of the 67/63% trade?
The UK got a 'tariff free' deal for physical goods (not services) majority made in the UK, with the EU. The current barriers with these are bringing back paperwork for which UK.gov refused to get prepared for. If Scotland can actually get prepared, then there shouldn't be much barriers for Scottish made goods and food?
It feels like the Brexit voters are the ones who don't want Scexit. The patronising arguments, so far, have been nonsensical, and seem to assume anyone advocating or slightly in favour of Scexit needs educating that these things don't happen overnight.
Even then. Due to the fact we’re in the 21st century and in an open economy Scotland wouldn’t be much better off rejoining the eu after scexit because they’d be so prone to exchange rate fluctuations and deficits as they just can’t produce as much to offset it and they’d have to join the euro which would not benefit Scotland. Scotland didn’t have that problem when being part of the uk which is why Brexit was such a mistake but Scotland rejoining the eu would bring about a lot of problems after a scexit
This was always my argument to people saying Scotland should become independent because of brexit. You think brexit is economically bad, but you think brexit where you are even more interlinked with the body you are leaving and trade even more with the body you are leaving would be economically good?
Its straight up contradicting yourself with that stand point.
Question, I haven't been paying much attention, but *has* anyone going around saying there'd be no negative economic impact to Scottish independence? I always got the impression that the argument was that any negative economic impact was worth it for the *actual* regaining of sovereignty. And if the Scottish people are okay with that, I see no reason for me to object in their affairs.
There being no negative impact is absolutely pervasive in the nationalist movement.
To start with you have a large amount of people that genuinely think GERS is a conspiracy, Scotland is a net financial contributor to the UK and would immediately be better off on independence.
Then you have a group of people who handwave away any economic issues by saying we'd join the EU and that would solve the problem.
Then you have another group who like to pretend they're being pragmatic and being upfront about the negative economic impact in the "short-term", but then pretend that short-term is only a year or so rather than multiple decades.
Collectively that's a significant chunk of the independence movement.
Yes. If by "anyone", you accept Humza Yousaf as a notable person:
>The First Minister will say: “If we use the same analysis for countries that are similar to Scotland – such as Denmark, Ireland and Finland – the difference for the typical Scottish household would be even greater.
>“They would be £10,200 better off.
>“That is the prize of independence.
>“Not to match the performance of those independent countries overnight, no-one is saying that, but to start catching up so Scotland’s level of prosperity becomes more normal, more like that of comparable nations. It is the UK that is the outlier.”
>While Scotland has “extraordinary resources” and “key economic strengths”, the First Minister will say the UK economy is one of “low growth, low productivity and chronic inequality”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/humza-yousaf-rishi-sunak-scottish-labour-independence-snp-b2474413.html
The SNP leader publicly stated that Scottish independence would *improve* Scotland's economic position, because the UK was holding it back.
This is of course, a complete lie.
It's interesting the parallels between Brexiteers and Scot Nationalists. Brexiteers are very keen to make the economic argument *against* independence, but ignore the fact that there was very little credible positive evidence for economic benefits of Brexit. If they valued Brexit - on the basis of sovereignty - then it is very hard to see how they could possibly be against independence.
But equally the idea that most Nationalists love the idea of leaving the UK - to gain sovereignty - but then rejoining the EU (as a much smaller and less consequential member), also seems to make little sense.
Brexit has been a mess. But it was always going to be a mess. The fact it has been shown to be so difficult should really be discouraging potentially Independence voters - because if it was hard to unwind membership of the EU, it will be harder to unwind 300 years of the union.
> it will be harder to unwind 300 years of the union.
Ireland unwound [750 years](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliamentandireland/) as a much poorer agricultural society in the midst of a World War and it only took a few decades until they equalised (granted as the sick men of Europe when they both joined the EEC in 1973).
Not everything has to be unwound like Johnson was trying to do so as to have nothing at all to do with Europe> He went out of his way to destroy non-commercial and cultural agreements with Europe.
To objectively gauge the situation, we have to also consider the differences: Ireland had a large, young population who emigrated and returned monies, or themselves, to improve the country. Scotland would be the oldest, poorest, fattest country in Europe, and if they could *not* join the EU, then the UK union would be second best than going it alone I fear.
Back to the weirdness of having so many Brexiteers complain about the economics of Scottish independence.
Politics is driven by emotions and nationalism is a basic drive. You can't avoid it.
Hardcore Remainers often forgot that too.
Blind self destructive ideology should be called out for what it is.
Sure the true believers will never listen to reason, but that's no reason to not challenge it publicly. There might be *someone* on on the margins either way that gets swayed.
It's lazy to imply "it's all emotions so let's not bother"
> It's lazy to imply "it's all emotions so let's not bother"
It's incompetent to act like nationalism does not matter.
The Remain side had a strong cohort of open borders, anti nationalism. It's not going to happen.
> Blind self destructive ideology should be called out for what it is.
>
>
>
> Sure the true believers will never listen to reason, but that's no reason to not challenge it publicly. There might be someone on on the margins either way that gets swayed.
>
>
>
> It's lazy to imply "it's all emotions so let's not bother"
And you can't really perform Brexit and then object to Scottish Independence.
Remember kids!
* 'Non binding advisory polls' are actually totally binding. (and have lower prerequisites)
* There's no need follow through with any of the policies they promise during the campaign
* None of the economic or logistical arguments matter (we're tired of experts)
* There's no need to show the parliament or public the actual agreements. Just force them through!
* You can break any international/legal agreements you like in the process (Hold the cards!)
* There's no need for more than a 51% majority.
* Any victory gives an unquestionable and unchangeable mandate.
* And anyone who refutes these ideas is a UNDEMOCRATIC TRAITOR!
This is the precedence for how 'our democracy' works, and hearing any of the people involved in brexit suddenly change their mind when it's no longer in their favour would be a incredibly powerful argument for independence.
Can't disagree with any of this but at the same time from the other side a confirmatory referendum is obviously required if Scotland did vote to go independent.
A year and a half ago he complained he'd been misrepresented by the media on scottish independence and he was still pro, so I'll take this with a small grain of salt. But maybe he has changed his view.
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20676559.mark-blyth-real-views-economics-scottish-independence/
How could Mark Blyth possibly be misrepresenting his own view? The headline is a direct quote from him. [Here is a clip of him saying it](https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1771499591629779290).
From what I have read of Mark Blyth, he hasn't openly changed his mind, but he is very critical of every single plan that seems to come forward.
To be fair to him; he can think it a terrible idea economically, and still support independence.
Maybe he thinks that there are non-economic reasons that justify independence. A belief in local decision-making would justify it, and it's possible that he thinks that the principle of that is worth the economic damage. It's not a position I support personally, but I can follow the logic of there being things more important that the economic impact (for example; I wouldn't accept living under an authoritarian dictatorship, even if it were guaranteed to increase GDP).
Or maybe he got left at the altar by a Scottish girl one time, and now he wants revenge by burning the country to the ground.
>To be fair to him; he can think it a terrible idea economically, and still support independence.
Yeah. Personally I would be in favor of a WW2 style war economy to address climate change. I know no one would support it because we would lose many luxuries and face economic hardship, but I still think it would be a rational thing to do if your priority is the future of our society
He could also think independence has value that supersedes the economic pain it would bring
I think climate change is a case where we’re going to be forced onto something akin to a war footing at some point this century anyway so the sooner we start preparing for that eventuality the better. We need to be thinking right now about what to do in the event of crop failures, supply chain breakdowns, and a rapid deterioration of the geopolitical landscape that we can’t avoid at this point. At the very least we should be rearming ourselves heavily and building the logistical capability and expertise we’ll need for a much larger military in the future.
I’d also start treating the oil lobby as though it were a fifth column and be absolutely ruthless at eliminating its influence from our politics. I’d prohibit climate change denialism on anything other than a private individual level (I’d make it an imprisonable offence for the directors of a UK registered company to allow it to promote climate change denial anywhere in the world for example) and have the security services penetrate oil companies to ensure compliance.
The only way to undo Brexit would be for the UK as a whole to rejoin. Even then it wouldn't undo all the damage.
Scotland becoming independent isn't going to undo anything.
> An independent Scotland being part of the EU is not undoing Brexit.
It is *for Scotland*.
> The damage from the U.K. as a whole would be done and would continue.
Sure there would be a drop of trade with the UK. But Scotland's trade with EU would grow. And you know what -- the EU is a much bigger trading bloc than the UK. So over the long term, Scotland wins.
The UK used to be Ireland's biggest trading partner. Now the EU is.
> It is for Scotland.
It is not for Scotland. The reverse of the U.K. leaving the EU is not an independent Scotland joining.
>Sure there would be a drop of trade with the UK. But Scotland's trade with EU would grow.
Scotlands trade with the EU is much less valuable than its trade with the rest of the U.K.
>the EU is a much bigger trading bloc than the UK. So over the long term, Scotland wins.
Larger doesn’t mean more valuable. When Scotland had equally unrestricted access to both the U.K. and the EU it did more trade with the U.K.
That is because the U.K. is closer, more economically integrated and more profitable as a consequence. Over the long term Scotland would lose out if it implemented trading barriers with the U.K.
The U.K. was in the EU for 47 years and in those 47 years Scottish-EU trade never came close to overtaking Scottish-rU.K. trade in value terms.
What makes you think it would be any quicker now?
its a question of balancing the economic factors against other justifications. while most "uninvolved" people would argue the same way in both cases, its not totally unreasonable to treat them differently depending how differently you value those things.
I can't quote or name any Yes economists or any who have supported or backed the SNPs claims. Also never seem one put forward any serious rationale of their own.
This guy is a charlatan. Fully aware of the economic quagmire independence would create and yet supports it anyway?
Maybe he should write two articles, one in favour one against.
Realistically, SNP members and politicians know that a Scexit (yes, I just made that up), would be economically stupid. But Scotland leaving the Union is not and never will be an economic argument, it's a political/emotional one, which is why they refuse to budge on it.
Westminster enacted Brexit without so much as a vague idea of a plan. I don't see how you can look at the hypocrisy and then have the gall to wag the finger at Scotland.
Snapshot of _The SNP's star economist eviscerates the case for independence - 'You can’t really say that Brexit is the worst thing ever and then commit the biggest Brexit of all time'_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snps-star-economist-eviscerates-the-case-for-independence/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snps-star-economist-eviscerates-the-case-for-independence/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Article text** He’s only gone and done it again. Mark Blyth, born in Dundee but now professor of international economics at the prestigious Brown University in the United States – the man who was wooed by the Scottish government to join its economic advisory council in 2021 in the obvious hope he would lend credibility (and maybe a touch of stardust) to its case for secession – has eviscerated the economic arguments for splitting from the UK. As a quick recap, not long before Blyth took up his role formally advising the Scottish government, video emerged of him criticising the economic case for a Scottish exit from the UK on the basis it would be ‘the biggest Brexit in history’. ‘It’s [the UK] been together for over 300 years, so if pulling apart 30 years of economic integration with Europe is going to hurt, 300 is going to hurt a lot,’ he said. What was meant to be a PR triumph for the SNP completely backfired. Blyth no longer advises the Scottish government. But perhaps because he has previously signalled his backing for secession despite being so honest and open about the downsides, the professor remains something of a darling of the nationalist movement. Fast forward to this weekend and a video interview with Blyth from his US home was the star attraction at the ‘Scotonomics Festival of Economics’, a conference organised by separatists aiming to boost the economic case for secession. It was incredible. With his record for saying it like it is, you might have expected Blyth to drop the odd truth bomb here and there. Instead, he turned up with a 10-megaton truth nuke. Let’s start with his repeating his warning that a Scottish exit from the UK will be like Brexit on steroids. ‘You can’t really say that Brexit is the worst thing ever and then commit the biggest Brexit of all time. Which is literally what this is,’ said Blyth. He went on to say Scots have to think sensibly about what being independent really means: *‘At the end of the day, as a small, open economy, which you then would be, you need to balance your imports and your exports over the long term or everyone thinks your currency is shite, and at that point they dump it, prefer payments in British pounds, and then you get a run on your foreign exchange, and you get a mini Argentina on your hands. So just because you’re independent, you can print bits of money, doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have things to back it up.’* The SNP’s currency plan is for an independent Scotland to start off unofficially using sterling before moving to adopt a new Scottish currency as quickly as is feasible. Some nationalist supporters, including the organisers of the event, view the creation of a Scottish currency as the key to successfully cutting away. This is because they subscribe to modern monetary theory (MMT), which posits that countries in control of their own currency essentially do not have to worry about budget constraints so long as they keep inflation under control. The MMTers also favour a newly independent Scotland refusing to accept a share of UK government debt. This is also something the SNP has hinted at using as a threat to provide the Scotland side with leverage in separation negotiations. It is safe to say Blyth is not a fan of MMT or this approach to national debt. ‘MMT is closed economy Keynesianism. That’s all it is, and you don’t live in closed economies,’ he said, adding that if MMT applies anywhere it can only apply in the US, with its uniquely dominant economy that effectively gives it a form of insulation. ‘You’ll just get poor as shit,’ was his final analysis. He also added that a newly independent Scotland, effectively starting life by defaulting on its debt while launching a new currency, will have zero credibility in financial markets. Then there was the argument often put by First Minister Humza Yousaf that cutting away from the UK will recreate Scotland as the rich Nordic-like nation it naturally should be. ‘Scotland, particularly in nationalist circles, loves to say that Scotland is a small open economy like the Nordic economies. That’s a bit like saying I’m a supermodel because I also have legs,’ said Blyth. Ouch, as they say. A few other Blyth zingers were: On currency again: ‘The entirety of currency is confidence. Confidence is not given by nationalist fiat.’ On the argument that becoming independent will improve energy security: ‘Your energy infrastructure is owned by asset managers… so how you going to improve that when you don’t even own it and you’ve no capacity to buy it. I mean I don’t do fantasy economics. I’m too old for this.’ On debt again: ‘If you think you’re starting off with a default, you’re dead already.’ Blyth, the author of anti-austerity book Angrynomics, was no doubt asked to be interviewed for the conference to provide the proceedings with a bit of star quality. He gave us much more than that. His honesty on the economic costs of independence is to be applauded. If only his audience of committed nationalists could be so open to reality.
Credit to the conference organisers for accepting dissenting voices. And that was a very dissenting voice. Ouch. I’m sure someone will be along soon to point out that it’s about sovereignty and feelings, rather than money.
I don't believe Blyth was meant to be a dissenting voice, he has (and I believe still does) openly supported Scottish Independence in the past. The issue here is that their arguments are so bad that even the economists on their own side are having to dismantle them.
As with Brexit, the honest argument would be that this is a really problematic economic move but that's worth it for [insert what you think it's worth it for]. In both cases, the Yes campaign has realised that there's nothing actually stopping them from telling everyone they get [insert what you think it's worth it for] *and* incidentally it'll be great for the economy too don't ask questions.
The insert always should be "to begin the long, painful multi-generation project of reform to do just about as well as we would have but with more freedom of action in the future". A hard sell unless you are leaving an absolute shit-show.
> As with Brexit, the honest argument would be that this is a really problematic economic move but that's worth it for [insert what you think it's worth it for]. I'm not a supporter of Scottish Independence, I'm not Scottish for one, so don't really have a dog in this fight. However, I do think that the Tories right now are making a very compelling case that what you spend on is far more important than how much you spend. There's constant questions, op eds, analysis etc. along the lines of "WTF are our taxes going?" because somehow the Tories manage to spend an absolute fortune while delivering less, fiscal drag is raising a huge amounts of people's tax rates and despite that everything is shitter. I think a case can be made that an independent Scotland while making less on paper, would be stronger because they wouldn't be shooting themselves in the foot constantly economically like the Tories have been. Tough sell, and the major downside would be the similarity to the Brexit argument where the Tories promised that we'd be better off out of Europe, and instead they go and strangle the life out of our economy, then bring in Truss to give it the old double tap and ensure they've finished it off, people will ask how can they be sure that independence really would be better? Like Brexit, obviously it's an economic handicap, and there's no guarantee the upsides will compensate for that.
You do have a dog in this fight to an extent. Scottish independence would have an impact on both sides of the border like Brexit has had. European companies continue to try trading as efficiently as they have done before and have to employ more staff to facilitate it. It’d be a continued negotiation for decades to reach a reasonable settlement/detanglement. And what’s to say we don’t both as separate entities end up with populist, nationalist tub thumpers in charge as we have done recently that seek only to inflame everything. It wouldn’t materially affect you as much as a Scottish citizen but there would be an impact so your opinion should be taken into account, even if you can’t vote for/against.
> You do have a dog in this fight to an extent. Scottish independence would have an impact on both sides of the border like Brexit has had. Yeah, but it's not my decision to make. If they don't want to be in the UK, I don't believe in oppressing them into staying. Just like the EU didn't vote on whether we should be allowed to leave. These relationships are like a marriage, and you can't just decide whether your partner should be allowed to leave. Both must consent. > And what’s to say we don’t both as separate entities end up with populist, nationalist tub thumpers in charge as we have done recently that seek only to inflame everything. I agree with you, but from Scotland's perspective if they already have that via the UK government why should that be a threat? Don't vote for independence from Tory governments, your own government might be as bad? Seems a bit rich. > It wouldn’t materially affect you as much as a Scottish citizen but there would be an impact so your opinion should be taken into account, even if you can’t vote for/against. I mean, I was sharing my opinion.
Aye, but people whose focus is sovereignty and feelings keep trying to assett that the financials add up. When they control the discussion, and independent scotland will be an economic superpower. When facts come into play, it's not about economics. Ye cannae have yer cake and eat it (Yet another brexit parallel)
I agree.
Yes. And Brexit really was about sovereignty, and the economic case never did add up -- not in the short to medium term future anyway. The difference is that the UK is economically big enough to survive that process for the longer term, and Scotland isn't.
It's an interesting one, infrastructure and management is getting much cheaper especially for small nations and that trend is set to continue. They're well positioned for wind generation so likely to see growth in that area which could scale with data centres which suit the cold wet climate or SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) from sequestered or bioavailable carbon, their latitude places them as a good air-cargo hub between America and Europe (the shorter route due to a spherical earth). They're already a popular tourist destination and the global publicity of scxit would likely be a big draw for that yankee dollar and if they get in with the EU that'll be a load of euro tourists, and of course Brits will all flock there to see how it's going and assuming SNP follow through on their already partial decriminalisation of cannabis (stopped prosecution for small amounts) there will be lots of Brits going up to spend their hard earned pounds, probably converted to euros. Their economic prospects aren't dire in the long term assuming they keep modernising and adapting, as is their plan. Reintroduction of the R&D tax credit for example could draw a lot of the types of businesses I described above, i don't think it'd make them a powerhouse but they could be a comfortable small country.
If they were to join the EU then they would have to build a customs border between Gretna and Berwick and then attempt to negotiate a trade deal with the rump UK (via the EU). All the positives you have listed won't come close to cancelling out that massive negative. They would still be at the mercy of Westminster, just in a different way.
Yeah, in a slightly ironic way Brexit has made Scottish independence near impossible imo. Scotland basically has a choice between a hard border with England and Wales, or continuing one with the EU. Could they manage to get a "best of both worlds" NI deal? I doubt it.
A hard border is a difficult sell but at least doesn't involve messing with an international peace deal (i.e. GFA)
That is what would make any open-border deal impossible. The EU made a special exception for NI precisely because of the GFA.
But would make a hard border politically possible if not popular
No, but that's the only reason NI "got away with it" The tories fought tooth and nail against giving up the hard border in NI, because doing so essentially admitted brexit was a bit shit. They'd never do the same for Scotland, because there's nothing forcing them to. So Scotland could either rejoin the EU (with its hard border with England and Wales) or have a close relationship with rUK, but maintain the current hard border with the EU.
>I’m sure someone will be along soon to point out that it’s about sovereignty and feelings, rather than money. And yet is nothing like Brexit despite making fun of Brexiters for 8 years for using these arguments.
It's kinda a strange article, scotenomics doesn't have anything to do with the snp as far as I know. It's organised by a professor currently teaching in catelonia, and was very international. It sounded like a pro mmt conference with a pro small country independence slant, not a pro snp per say. Not that I know much, but I was part of the venue staff for most of the weekend. Listening to the acedemics in the breaks they all seemed far more interested in talking about how to get mmt accepted in the US or large acedemic instatutions than anything else.
I mean, one of the co-founders of Scotonomics is an SNP politician (albeit one currently suspended for racism).
>I’m sure someone will be along soon to point out that it’s about sovereignty and feelings, rather than money. Of course it is. But in this case, unlike brexit, the economic penalties would be totally overwhelming. Size matters if you want to be resilient enough to get through such a transition.
The pretty much echoes what the american geo political economist Peter Zeihan summarises as Scotland's chances. Namely it would be an abject disaster. [Video](https://youtu.be/VCwrbv-_PNo?si=io-rKyElhh-s98ih)
I didn't mind reading Blyths view but after "ten megaton nuke". I'm really sorry but I gave up with that style of journalism. That's an utterly appalling way to write. It seems to be AI or geared for clickbait on social media. Happy to watch the remarks directly as I certainly can't trust this account. Was the conference proceedings broadcast?
https://x.com/staylorish/status/1771499591629779290?s=20 *Mark Blyth slams Scot Gov indy case. Again.*🚨 *“I fully understand the desire to be separate. But the idea that this isn’t going to hurt? You can’t really say that Brexit is the worst thing ever, and then commit the biggest Brexit of all time. Which is literally what this is.”* Part 2: https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1771499625620410681 *Blyth was so brutal, the Scotonomics gang eventually had to cut him off…*
Folk have been saying this for years, it’s good that someone of such profile has laid it out. Nationalists simply have no idea about economics. Scotland would be complete and utter toast. For decades. “Aye, but we’d be freeeee!”
> His honesty on the economic costs of independence is to be applauded. If only his audience of committed nationalists could be so open to reality. That truly is the key summary of the SNP's approach to independence. They just lie or evade questions about the difficulties independence would bring.
Brexit happening was probably the worst thing to happen to independence because it showed just what uncoated promises based on nationalistic overinflation of your own importance to a larger trading partner are actually worth; fuck all.
Is there an extent to which they don't actually expect to ever have to test these theories so they can kind of say what they want about independence and nationalists will keep lapping it up and voting them in?
This is enormously anecdotal so take what I say accordingly, but I do know of SNP members who believe many newer SNP members, especially MSPs and MPs who joined the party after the first referendum, aren't interested in independence at all and do indeed view it simply as a tool to drum up support. They suggest some of the newer MSPs and MPs joined the SNP solely because of how dominant the SNP are in Scotland, making it the only viable option for people who want to be involved in politics. They'd just as happily join Labour or the Tories if they were the dominant party in their local area. So, again very anecdotally, I do believe there are elements within the SNP who don't actually care whether independence ever happens or not. They simply beat the drum because it gives them a job.
> This is enormously anecdotal so take what I say accordingly, but I do know of SNP members who believe many newer SNP members, especially MSPs and MPs who joined the party after the first referendum, aren't interested in independence at all and do indeed view it simply as a tool to drum up support. This is my view as well. We all accept the idea that nobody agrees with *everything* that their party stands for; even the party leader. A party's policies are a compromise agreement that everyone can get behind, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with every single individual item 100%. I fully believe that there are SNP politicians who joined up because a) they wanted to stand for a pro-Scotland party, or b) they just wanted to be a moderate politician, and the SNP were the best opportunity to do that. Publicly backing independence was the price they paid for one of those two reasons. It probably helps that they feel that they will never be confronted with the reality of independence anyway, so it's a nice dream to occasionally mention without really having to worry about it.
This isn't an unprecedented political phenomenon. If you look back at West Germany or Ireland you'll see parties that officially strongly supported unification while actually being quite happy they didn't have to deal with it or plan seriously for it.
I have some bad news for anyone in West Germany who was a faux-reunionist
Yeah, be careful what you wish for.
> I fully believe that there are SNP politicians who joined up because a) they wanted to stand for a pro-Scotland party, or b) they just wanted to be a moderate politician, and the SNP were the best opportunity to do that. Publicly backing independence was the price they paid for one of those two reasons. This sort of thing happens in all parties, and there are some politicians who don't much care about policies one way or another and just want to be important. Examples include Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.
It's like the Republicans in the US. They don't want solutions, they want problems they can use to attack the opposition with. If they were ever in a position to get what they're demanding, they wouldn't know what to do.
The same way the Far Right love immigration. They love it. Immigration is an adrenaline shot straight into the jugular of their politics.
I imagine lots joined because they want to be in power and the SNP is the dominant party so the best team to join. 30 years ago those same people would be in Scottish Labour.
> I do know of SNP members who believe many newer SNP members, especially MSPs and MPs who joined the party after the first referendum, aren't interested in independence at all and do indeed view it simply as a tool to drum up support. This is a widely held belief within the independence movement -- certainly [Wings over Scotland](https://wingsoverscotland.com/) holds that view. My view is there are some in the SNP who see it as a vehicle for pushing woke policies, and don't really care much for indy one way of the other.
Which is what happened with farage and ukip. They never expected to leave the gravy train.
I'd have to agree with him. Before Brexit Scottish independence was a valid argument. With the umbrella of the EU, which included freedom of movement and harmonised trading standards, it would have been a symbolic departure from the UK. Being independent, yet still part of the whole with little disruption. Leaving now, after claiming Brexit was a self destructive mistake, would be like laughing at your mate shoot himself in the foot, then grabbing the gun and doing the same. Remaining part of the greater union, although much smaller, is the only option now. Size does matter..
The problem with this theory is that Scotland would have had to also leave the EU as a direct consequence of leaving the UK. The UK was a member of the EU, *not* Scotland - legally, the only way for Scotland to have slipped in automatically would have been if the UK entirely dissolved and her successor states inherited her treaties. This is also leaving aside the active separatist movements that a number of EU states have. It is unlikely that many of them would have wanted to carve out an exception that could be seen as endorsing separatism, especially for a relatively strategically and economically unimportant country like Scotland.
>The problem with this theory is that Scotland would have had to also leave the EU as a direct consequence of leaving the UK. This was the official line of the EU prior to the indy referendum, because it represents member states' interests and the UK is the member state in question - so it was invested in the In campaign. If scottish independence had become inevitable, I'm not sure it would've necessarily turned out that way, though. Scottish independence would've also hurt the UK and other nearby member states economically, and the EU can be relatively flexible when it comes to these sort of things. It would've come down more to whether an independent Scotland could fulfill membership requirements and be economically competitive, more than the principle of the matter, imo. All this presuming that the UK was permissive and not revanchist about Scottish independence, because they could just veto any vote on the matter. >This is also leaving aside the active separatist movements that a number of EU states have. It is unlikely that many of them would have wanted to carve out an exception that could be seen as endorsing separatism I believe the official stance of Spain (although it's nuanced) is generally that they oppose *unilateral* declarations of independence, there could've been wiggle room if the UK accepted independence. They might not have been a fan but the headaches of a hard border across the Isles could've led to concessions - see also the Irish border. It's a lot of hypotheticals, but it could've gone either way, imo.
>the EU can be relatively flexible when it comes to these sort of things. The EU has never demonstrated any flexibility whatsoever of this kind. A country is either a member state or it isn't. An independent Scotland doesn't have a membership treaty with the EU and would not be a member until it applied like any other applicant country.
They don't want a country to have an easy time outside the EU but if Scotland wanted to stay why would the make it difficult?
Scotland couldn’t stay. It wasn’t a member. It could apply to join.
What I meant by 'being flexible' is that the EU institutions can move quickly on some things and taboos can break when the need arises. See the joint debt issued during the covid pandemic or the military aid to Ukraine. Or the unique situation established in Northern Ireland. Legally Scotland would need to go through an accession process, yes. But it's possible that process could've happened simultaneously as it negotiated its withdrawal from the UK, or, failing that, it could've been granted access to the single market while it negotiated its membership. There are many different forms of relation with the EU, as repeatedly discussed during the Brexit negotiations. It's not just membership vs no membership.
When have the EU institutions ever moved quite quickly with respect the accession of a member state. Someone said an independent Scotland would have left the EU as a direct consequence as of leaving the UK and you said you weren't sure it would "necessarily have turned out that way". But now you're admitting that it would have turned out that way and legally Scotland would have had to go through an accession process. There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever about the consequence of Scotland becoming independent. It would have been out of the EU.
There has never been a crisis that required rushing accession, so obviously it's never been needed. The entire point I'm making is that the EU has moved fast on things that were considered no-go's before. It's your prerogative to disagree but 'it has never done so in this specific area' isn't a very strong rebuttal in my eyes, unless you can point to a clear legal or procedural reason (not a political one) for a delay. I suppose it's fair to say Scotland would have technically left. But if leaving would have coincided with immediately rejoining, or failing that immediate single market access while it rejoins in due time, it takes virtually all the bite out of the threat, which is the most important point.
>There has never been a crisis that required rushing accession There is no such thing as a crisis that requires rushing accession. Scotland becoming independent certainly wouldn't be one. >I suppose it's fair to say Scotland would have technically left. But if leaving would have coincided with immediately rejoining There's nothing technical about it. An independent Scotland would not have been a member. Leaving would not have coincided with immediately joining either as accession negotiations couldn't commence until Scotland was already independent and would have taken years following that.
Before brexit Scottish independence would have meant leaving the EU the only way to have avoided leaving the EU would have been to have Westminster fight Scotland’s cause in the EU, which is doubtful without Scotland accepting a massive share of its debt burden. So I got to disagree with you there.
This is the only way I can see Scottish independence working too, with the UK back in the EU or inside of the EEA. Look at the mess that happened with ROI and Northern Ireland and just imagine that being applied to mainland Britain.
The problem with the UK rejoining the EU in that scenario would be that Scotland would still be cut off, but now from both the EU and UK. The optimal route would be for an Independent Scotland to form an economic union with the UK, then both of them join the EU at the exact same time. That is to say that we would need a UK which is both willing to rejoin the EU, but also willing to hold off on that for Scotland's sake at their own economic expense. Which would be a *very unlikely* arrangement to say the least
The most foolish thing IMO was for the SNP in Westminster to not get behind a customs union in the indicative votes post Brexit vote. This level of alignment would have made subsequent Scottish independence run far more smoothly and would boost the chances of any return to EU.
So the only solution is to get indy, then join the EU? You're agreeing with Scottish nationalists.
I don't think anyone in the independence movement has ever said there definitely won't be temporary issues with leaving the UK, particularly if Westminster out of spite tries to make things difficult for us. But it'll be worth it in the long run, as the main thing holding Scotland back is the Westminster ruling class. Note that they are also the enemy of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.
Surely any independence movement falls flat economically in the short term? It just isn’t really a thing that makes sense in 5 year election cycles.
Well obviously, but that may be an acceptable cost to pursue the perceived benefits of independence. The issue is the complete denial that things would get significantly worse in the short to medium term (and likely the long term too), the electorate must be presented the facts, otherwise the SNP are just as bad as the leave campaign.
Not really. The confederacy in the US actually could have been an economic success. Lots of countries' economies jumped when they became independent.
The Confederacy was a banana republic built around a single, declining, source of revenue. Britain very easily replaced the cotton they provided. Post-war cotton had to compete against cotton supplied from Egypt, Brazil, and India, whose growth was enabled by the South banning exports to Europe at the start of the civil war. The South fully believed in the idea of King Cotton; that they controlled such a vital part of the economy that they could withhold it and force European nations to intervene on their behalf. Instead they were choked off from the world by the Union navy, the vast majority of Southern cotton produced in the war was burned in the fields or warehouses by Union troops, and the rest of the world turned to new sources Monopolistic, protectionist, single-resource countries are not economically stable. That's why Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other oil-rich countries are desperately trying to diversify their holdings with their oil dollars. And in the meantime they have to form a literal cartel to control the price of oil. Cartel-tactics don't work when all you need is arable land to plant more cotton.
Confederacy is a strange example. Can you think of any actual countries that went independent and didn’t economically suffer in short term ?
While they were *de jure* independent already a lot of the Soviet satellite states did better after breaking from the Kremlin's *de facto* control. Botswana famously did well on independence from Britain especially compared to many of its post-colonial neighbours in the region, and Singapore found itself independent against its will when it was expelled from Malaysia yet is now a very prosperous nation. None of these countries were built overnight though.
I have no doubt all those have done well since. I meant _right_ after. Like 5-10 years.
Singaporean economic growth was immediate from its expulsion from Malaysia, as far as I know. It was more hurt by the withdrawal of the RAF bases in the late 60s.
>The confederacy in the US actually could have been an economic success. Please don't use the racist slave state as a comparison point for the 21st century. edit: why the downvotes?
It’s the most famous secession movement. Montenegro is a recent case. Plus many of the ex soviet republics.
Because you aren't addressing the point and instead are going for virtue signalling. The morality wasn't the point.
It is pretty significant. Slavery significantly changes the economic calculus of a nation as it creates incredibly low costs for unskilled labour. When the South was in a position to either give up the practice of slavery (because it is an evil, horrendous abuse of human rights) or reform a foundational principle of it's entire economy, they chose to protect their wealth. When one sets aside the obviously triumphant morals of abolitionism, it is an economically painful prospect. Fortunately the south was defeated and the racist violence of slavery was (largely) abolished. But it makes sense that economic prospects of the Confederacy were brighter if slavery remained. It was a drug to which the Southern economy was addicted to, at an incalculable human cost.
Also as an economist blyth is so right about MMT its so dumb
I am much more of a miro/environmental economist since the UG days, can you provide the ghist of what MMT is?
Basically gov has no budget constraint and can print unlimited money. It’s not based on economics. There’s a reason orthodox econ ignores it. As Krugman said MMT goes too far in its support for government budget deficits, and ignores the inflationary implications of maintaining budget deficits when the economy is growing I’m a Keynesian. It’s very important to remember. Gov debt and household debt are not the same. But that does not mean a government can go into unlimited debt
They have not produced a model. From what can be reversed engineered from their writings, they believe the IS curve is vertical, i.e. interest rates have no effect. Whenever central banks adjust rates you can find them on social media complaining that such policies don’t affect inflation. In particular, they believe rates do not affect investment and lowering them can even increase inflation. This is clearly wrong. Furthermore, their policy is to keep interest rates at zero. How that can work with arbitrage, i.e. if the Fed puts interest rates to zero, then borrow dollars and buy euro bonds with a future dollars contract for infinite free money, nobody knows.
There's always a breed of Scottish nationalist that supports Independence 'at any cost', and see being made poorer an acceptable price for freedom.
There's nothing wrong with holding that viewpoint if you accept the downside of your argument.
Exactly - fuck the nationalists for trying to plant trees the shade of which they’ll never sit
When push came to shove that was the Brexiteer mindset as well. I've never seen the two as all that fundamentally different.
I'm not sure that's true, in so much as it was a lie they told themsleves afterwards rather than something they advocated. Before it was all "Brexit will make us better off", after it became "the cost is worth it".
Yeah that is exactly my feeling, there were some voters who wanted Brexit at any cost, but for most once they reliased that nobody was getting a unicorn the 'cost is worth it' line became the narrative and cope to deal with the fact that they were played for fools. I do think Scottish independence is a bit different, the indy at any cost group was bigger, especially during the worst of the Johnson period of the Tories. But as it has become more likely that Labour will win the next GE, it's become clear that at least some of that group is really just get rid of the Tories at any cost.
> Before it was all "Brexit will make us better off" This is the view I hear a *ton* of Independence supporters give as well though. A lot of them honestly think they'll be better off going independent.
It's also the United Ireland mindset
United Ireland is a funny one as in recent history Dublin is the least enthusiastic about the consequences of it. For most of the 20th century, Northern Ireland was more economically successful than the republic (on a per capita basis), but that trend has been reversing in the 21st century and has accelerated since Brexit. Now the ROI will have to contend with adding 1/4 to their total population overnight and start propping up a bunch of deteriorating public services that the local economy is unable to support alone. Add to that the fact that there would still be a large amount of disgruntled Unionsists that would likely stir up trouble - up to and including violence - and it's a lukewarm proposition for any government in Dublin.
I’ve tried telling Americans on this site that Dublin is less enthusiastic for reunification and London less enthusiastic for stopping it than a lot of them think but it’s useless. Lots of people are so wedded to this propagandised view that Ireland is groaning under oppression and dreaming for unification that it’s hard to tell people the facts.
To be fair I'd take American opinions on Anglo-Irish relations more seriously if the majority of them could find either country on a globe.
I sympathise much more with them and the other two. Ireland is divided, from their point of view unfairly. With Brexit, the "price to pay for our sovereignty" was fucking stupid, we already had complete control over our country. With Scotland it's just making themselves poorer because they don't like English people
It's still the same mindset. On one side you have people who would vote for a United Ireland even if it meant economic catastrophy On the other, you have people who would vote against it even if a United Ireland would guaranteee economic prosperity for centuries to come
We didn't have complete control though. The point of the EU is to cede sovereignity to the centre. Now a member retains the right to leave so it hasn't permanently lost that sovereignity, but operationally the member state cannot use it as it desires as long as it is a member.
Except the UK is a strong nation that long ago reached critical mass and was only loosely coupled to the EU.
I've said this before and I still believe it, there are simply no good arguments for Independence at this point. All that's left is raw Nationalism and the ugliness that comes with it. This was at the same "Scotonomics" festival where an SNP claimed that the island of Islay (population 3000) had a greater economic output than the entire city of Birmingham (population 1.1 million) with the implication that economic growth in Scotland was being held back by the UK. One has to have a genuine superiority complex to even contemplate that such an outrageous lie was credible.
And the SNP leader of Dundee council who also spoke at the festival ended up deleting his twitter account after it was pointed out he'd lied in his speech. These days you can take it pretty much for granted that any SNP politician talking about the economy side of things is just blatantly lying to keep the base on side.
The only good argument is the emotional one. "It's not going to be easy. It's going to hurt in the short term... but shouldn't we be our own country again?" National self-determination for its own sake. People were saying this in 2014 and they didn't listen then either. They'll never get enough people on board so long as they try to bullshit people into believing it'll be the land of milk and honey when everyone knows that'll clearly never be the case.
> They'll never get enough people on board so long as they try to bullshit people into believing it'll be the land of milk and honey when everyone knows that'll clearly never be the case. Worked for Brexit. You only need 50.01% of people to believe in you one time.
Populist playbook. Take a general population who aren't happy with how things are and promise them a wonderful future. When the other side point out the reality accuse them of being negative/defeatist.
Best description of populism I've heard.
Ultimately all politics is based on emotions. If your nationalism can't hold a nation together it has economic costs.
> "It's not going to be easy. It's going to hurt in the short term... but shouldn't we be our own country again?" Which is very close to what JRM was saying on Brexit. Terrible idea all round and much of the rhetoric is interchangeable.
Scotland's role in the UK is absolutely not at all similar to what the UK's role in the EU was. This is such a bullshit comparison.
That's just got to be fuelled by xenophobia towards the English, it is saying that the English are so economically idiotic and the Scots so inherently superior, that they can produce more even on tiny islands.
>saying that the English are so economically idiotic Are you saying they're not? Brexit, HS2, privatisation, infrastructure, etc. The list goes on.
Yeah, they're not.
*Britain commits one of the worst financial decisions since the second world war with huge impact to everyday life.* Random redditor: no, they're not.
*Scotland attempts to commit the same terrible financial decision which will have an even worse impact.* Random Scot: Damn we're so much smarter at economics than those pesky English.
CulinaryCuriosity believes some people are inherently better at economics because they were born on the Northern side of a tiny island.
The1Floyd, despite the 14 years of tory rule, ignores the blatant decline of the UK in almost every regard and has their head in the sand.
You are now changing the topic. This conversation was specifically about the absurd insinuation, that you supported, that English people are inherently worse at economics than the Scottish. A ridiculous belief which you should be embarrassed to have even suggested you support. You are embarrassed by it, hence why you are now spinning it to be about Tories and some general decline. Irrational nonsense about people who live a few miles to the south.
Please adjust your eyes. I quoted you saying English were economically idiots and gave you examples of idiocy (brexit, etc). No where did I say scotland was superior. You just plucked that from somewhere.
Even that suggestion in itself is also ridiculous. Your personal disagreement with the government doesn't equate to the entire nation of England or let's accurately now say Britain is economically incompetent. "Somewhere" the entire point of the thread.
I am *shocked*, I tell you, *shocked*. By which I of course mean that I am completely unsurprised that implementing a bad idea (that they have spent years railing *against*) in a situation where the problems will be magnified won't magically produce a better result than the last time it was tried. Scottish independence is turbo-Brexit; all of the same problems, but bigger, and without even the token win of claiming back the budget surplus that is transferred (given that Scotland's spending is partially funded by the UK, whereas at least the UK was a net contributor to the EU budget). It's not like this is even the first time that an economist employed by the Scottish Government has told them that independence is a terrible idea: >Scottish independence would inflict more than 250,000 job losses across the country and slash economic output by at least 10 per cent, an adviser to the Scottish government has warned. >Richard Marsh, who has undertaken research on behalf of Nicola Sturgeon’s Sustainable Growth Commission, claims that significant reductions in public spending, even if partly offset by tax rises, would hit Scotland’s most deprived communities the hardest. About 7 per cent of jobs in Dundee and West Dunbartonshire would be lost through reduced public spending. >... >Paul McLennan, the SNP MSP for East Lothian, described Marsh’s report as “a preposterous scare story”. He said that “no one with credibility still suggests Scotland is too wee and too poor to be a successful independent nation. Even hardline unionist politicians are too embarrassed to peddle this brazen scaremongering these days.” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-independence-would-cost-250-000-jobs-ll7fb06sh Of course, I'm sure that this expert formerly employed by the Scottish Government will *also* be ignored as describing “a preposterous scare story”, so that nationalists don't have to actually produce any evidence as to why the experts are wrong. And they can therefore continue to lie to their voters about how wonderful independence will be, how the UK will definitely give loads of money to rent a crucial military base that the UK *already* owns, and how the UK will bend over backwards to continue paying for the pensions of a foreign country.
As someone who voted No in 2014 and Remain in 2016, it really was wild to see friends and colleagues around me just flip on the reality of leaving a political and economic union. In 2014 I found myself in with the Leave voters and in 2016 I found myself in with the Yes voters.
Same for me, on r/scotland it feels like people assume that being a No voter means I'm a pro-brexit Tory
Spent 5 minutes in there and *Jesus...*, cognitive dissonance that makes Brexiteers look reputable. The SNP have truly ran one of the most successful mass grooming campaigns of the modern age.
Can you believe it's actually become more moderate in the last couple years? To the point that some of the hardliners now say there's a pro unionist bias which is hilarious.
Never fails to amaze me how these types see bias against them everywhere and yet fail to realise the reason for this is that reality itself is biased against them.
As someone with no particular dog in this fight, can someone with a better understanding of economics than me explain whether similar relatively recent (and relatively peaceful) economic “uncoupling” of nations (Czechia/Slovakia, Baltic nations, Serbia/Montenegro/Kosovo - I realise that this one might not fit the “peaceful” criteria) were difficult to manage, and whether they were painful/detrimental in a purely economic sense.
Czechia & Slovakia immediately entered into a full customs union upon seperation and then entered the EU together so they never had a moment of trade being divided. The problem is that you can't compare an independent Scotland to any state in history. If Scotland were to secede, it would be the first country in history to do so with a massive welfare state. Every other country that became independent didn't have to create a massive public sector to support the population. I would say Scotland could become successful independently in the long term if they were to completely slash the size of the state (which is something Scots will never do nor will they ever support).
There’s a whole Wikipedia article about the [dissolution of Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia). Looks like it was painful in the short run, but rapidly joining the EU (within 12 years) seems to have helped. Some choice quotes from the article: > By 1991, the Czech Republic's GDP per capita was some 20% higher than Slovakia's. Transfer payments from the Czech budget to Slovakia, which had been the rule in the past, were stopped in January 1991. >Initially, the old Czechoslovak currency, the Czechoslovak koruna, remained in use by both countries. Czech fears of an economic loss caused the adoption of two national currencies as early as February 8, 1993. > At the beginning, the currencies could be exchanged at par, but later the value of the Slovak koruna was usually lower than that of the Czech koruna(in 2004, around 25–27% lower). > On January 1, 2009, Slovakia adopted the euro as its currency, with a conversion rate of 30.126 SK/€ >According to The Prague Post, "Slovak GDP reached 95 percent of the Czech GDP, and it is likely to draw level with it. The Slovak gross national product (GNP), which includes citizens' incomes abroad and deducts the money multinational companies move out of the country, is higher than the Czech one. Old-age pensions are more or less at the same level in both countries, and the consumption per capita is slightly higher in Slovakia. However, salaries are 10 percent lower on average in Slovakia than in the Czech Republic"
Thanks. It appears that there are some pertinent parallels there.
I don't understand Scottish nationalists refusal to accept a fair share of the UK debt. Similarly I don't understand the sheer lack of mention from unionists that if Scotland should and must accept the UK's debt, Scotland should therefore be entitled to its fair share of the UK's assets including loans/money owed, shares, buildings, government owned land and infrastructure, international holdings including diplomatic service properties (does the UK government still own land in our colonies? Should include that), vehicles, all army assets including aircraft, ships and weaponry and everything else the UK government owns right down to the pens and paper. The only question worth debating is what % can everyone agree is a fair share
>I don't understand Scottish nationalists refusal to accept a fair share of the UK debt. Scotland's deficit last year was £19 billion, about 9% of GDP. £10 billion of that was debt interest. Without the debt interest, Scotland would have had a slightly lower deficit than the UK average. (of course that's with very high oil revenue, which has already dropped off). With it's share of debt Scottish independence is a non starter. Without it they can claim that things wouldn't be so bad. Of course the problem is Scottish independence requires legislation in Westminster, and Westminster wouldn't agree to it without debt being sorted. >Similarly I don't understand the sheer lack of mention from unionists that if Scotland should and must accept the UK's debt, Scotland should therefore be entitled to its fair share of the UK's assets including loans/money owed, shares, buildings, government owned land and infrastructure, international holdings including diplomatic service properties (does the UK government still own land in our colonies? Should include that), vehicles, all army assets including aircraft, ships and weaponry and everything else the UK government owns right down to the pens and paper. Most assets would be included by default. Scotland has its share of schools, roads, hospitals, railways, government offices, police stations etc and no one would suggest that an independent Scotland wouldn't own those. The same is true for a share of liquid holdings, like the national insurance fund. Other things like diplomatic properties probably wouldn't be included. The EU stuck firmly to the principle that the UK wasn't entitled to things like a share of the EU buildings, and should pay all the costs of leaving the EU. The UK would almost certainly do the same. It would be unfair to expect taxpayers in the rest of the UK to pay more so that Scotland could replicate things like embassies abroad. >The only question worth debating is what % can everyone agree is a fair share There are basically 3 options, a population share, a "historic" share, or a GDP share. A population share is simplest, if Scotland has 8.3% of the total population, it pays 8.3% of the debt. A GDP share would adjust that for Scotland's GDP. If Scotland had 8% of UK GDP, it would assume 8% of debt. A historic share would be very complicated and probably impossible for Scotland to finance, because Scotland has received approx 10 - 20% higher spending than the UK average since the 1920s, and, apart from the 1980s, has contributed less in per capita in tax revenue, so Scotland's "historic" share of the debt would probably be enormous. I can't really see how independence would proceed until Scotland agreed some way of guaranteeing funding for a population share of UK debt. Because Scottish politicians have repeatedly suggested they wouldn't honour a share of UK debt, the UK would no doubt insist it was all repaid before the end of the post independence transition period (the Scottish government planned to continue to rely on HMRC to collect taxes on their behalf for up to 8 years after independence, I suspect the UK government would settle for an 8 year repayment schedule).
Surely a fair split would be based on the proportion of the UK’s population that Scotland represents? Based on the recent censuses in 2021 (2022 for Scotland) that looks to be 8.2% (5.48m in Scotland, 67.02m UK overall). I suspect it might work out slightly differently in reality, but around 8% would be the figure I’d expect to see.
I don't think it's as simple as simply splitting by population. For example, how do you account for the fact that [on average Westminster has spent more per person in Scotland than they do in England by around 15%?](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04033/SN04033.pdf) Do you increase their share of the debt by the same %? If you do, Scots will claim it's unfair. If you don't, then assuming debt based on population size means they're possibly paying less than is actually their share of the debt. Realistically you'd probably be looking at around 9-10% if they accounted for the extra spending in Scotland.
the lack of mention is probably because they accept as a given that independence means a splitting of the assets and would be surprised if anything else was suggested. Why keep talking about something you accept would be part of the process?
I find it absolutely bizarre that Scottish people who think that Brexit was a huge mistake also unironically think that they should do an even bigger Brexit of their own. Do they really think that they’re just built different and that they won’t have the exact same issues, if not even worse issues that Brexit has caused? They even use the exact same talking points that brexiteers used and completely fail to see the irony. “We’re not being represented. We’re being oppressed by bureaucrats in London/Brussels. We’ll negotiate new trade deals as soon as we’re out.” They’re all the exact same arguments yet these people genuinely don’t realise it. They rightfully complain about how corrupt Westminster is while wilfully ignoring that the SNP have been exposed as being equally corrupt in recent years. I guess I just don’t understand how they can’t see the irony in being both anti Brexit but pro independence when they’re really the exact same position but slightly rebranded.
Independence wouldn't be a thought if the UK had kept their promise on devolved powers. The main grief people have up here is that we keep getting conservative governments in Westminster who have the lions share of power.
>Do they really think that they’re just built different and that they won’t have the exact same issues, if not even worse issues that Brexit has caused? Yes.
It's in SNP's manifesto to rejoin the EU. You know, the biggest single market on the planet. There would be no "negotiating new trade deals" as a primary focus, it would be to rejoin and reap the benefits.
But it’s seen again and again that joining the EU (if at the price of worsening trade with the RUK) wouldn’t actually help Scotland in the short to medium term…
Independence is hardly a "short to medium term" thing. If we're talking long-term, Scotlands total sovereignty and rights over it's own resources, laws, etc would give it a fair chance. Coupling that with a cheeky entry into the EU would only propel us.
Neither will conservative governments
What are your thoughts on the EU UK trade deal?
If you want a nice breakdown of the big questions. Andrew Neil did a nice interview with some SNP dude years ago(forget the dudes name). The arguments are pretty much still the same and haven't materially changed. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJiq3Y4c4C0&ab\_channel=TheSpectator](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJiq3Y4c4C0&ab_channel=TheSpectator)
But I though brexit was the best thing ever and worth imposing economic sanctions on yourself for?
They could become a Nordic-like country but it will take a while and a heavy dose of competence The SNP definitely does not have the latter, not the sharpest tools in the shed from what ive seen so far, it would be a disaster.
Scottish nationalists and Brexiteers may sit on different sides of the culture wars, but on an economic level (which ideally should be the deciding factor as to how you'd vote on such an issue) they aren't that radically different from each other. Same old populist uncosted 'sunlit uplands' shite.
as an economist he is right on both counts. Brexit was a humongous fucking mistake. scexit would also be a humongous mistake
The SNP would probably have vastly more success (and cross border support) if they pursued an agenda of federalisation with England getting their own parliament, devo max, and Westminster being converted to a body that handles defense, foreign relations, and any mutually agreed responsibilities instead.
The problem is that Westminster doesn't want a federal system, or devo max. They also aren't interested in devolution generally. This is something labour need to address. Personally, I believe the UK must become a federal nation if it is to sustain unity.
Unless they rejoined the EU
That was my take, they wouldn't just be 'brexiting' Wengland, they'd be rejoining the EU, to get back what was taken from them.
It's how I see it. And how my Scots relatives are explaining it. If any remainers downvoted that, I'd be interested to hear why. Leavers, heh, I'd only expect the downvote tbh after several years of reinforcing the stereotype.
Because joining the EU (which requires economic stability and isn’t currently accepting members) would put up barriers with trade with Uk which is 67% and 63% of Scottish exports and imports respectively. Basically joining the EU wouldn’t help Scotland in the short or medium term (it would after 15-20 years after independence) and that was by a report that says it’s more optimistic about Scottish trade than every other report that was written by independents.
> would put up barriers with trade with Uk which is 67% and 63% of Scottish exports and imports respectively. Which barriers are these? Do you know the breakdown of the 67/63% trade? The UK got a 'tariff free' deal for physical goods (not services) majority made in the UK, with the EU. The current barriers with these are bringing back paperwork for which UK.gov refused to get prepared for. If Scotland can actually get prepared, then there shouldn't be much barriers for Scottish made goods and food?
It feels like the Brexit voters are the ones who don't want Scexit. The patronising arguments, so far, have been nonsensical, and seem to assume anyone advocating or slightly in favour of Scexit needs educating that these things don't happen overnight.
Even then. Due to the fact we’re in the 21st century and in an open economy Scotland wouldn’t be much better off rejoining the eu after scexit because they’d be so prone to exchange rate fluctuations and deficits as they just can’t produce as much to offset it and they’d have to join the euro which would not benefit Scotland. Scotland didn’t have that problem when being part of the uk which is why Brexit was such a mistake but Scotland rejoining the eu would bring about a lot of problems after a scexit
This was always my argument to people saying Scotland should become independent because of brexit. You think brexit is economically bad, but you think brexit where you are even more interlinked with the body you are leaving and trade even more with the body you are leaving would be economically good? Its straight up contradicting yourself with that stand point.
Question, I haven't been paying much attention, but *has* anyone going around saying there'd be no negative economic impact to Scottish independence? I always got the impression that the argument was that any negative economic impact was worth it for the *actual* regaining of sovereignty. And if the Scottish people are okay with that, I see no reason for me to object in their affairs.
There being no negative impact is absolutely pervasive in the nationalist movement. To start with you have a large amount of people that genuinely think GERS is a conspiracy, Scotland is a net financial contributor to the UK and would immediately be better off on independence. Then you have a group of people who handwave away any economic issues by saying we'd join the EU and that would solve the problem. Then you have another group who like to pretend they're being pragmatic and being upfront about the negative economic impact in the "short-term", but then pretend that short-term is only a year or so rather than multiple decades. Collectively that's a significant chunk of the independence movement.
Yes. If by "anyone", you accept Humza Yousaf as a notable person: >The First Minister will say: “If we use the same analysis for countries that are similar to Scotland – such as Denmark, Ireland and Finland – the difference for the typical Scottish household would be even greater. >“They would be £10,200 better off. >“That is the prize of independence. >“Not to match the performance of those independent countries overnight, no-one is saying that, but to start catching up so Scotland’s level of prosperity becomes more normal, more like that of comparable nations. It is the UK that is the outlier.” >While Scotland has “extraordinary resources” and “key economic strengths”, the First Minister will say the UK economy is one of “low growth, low productivity and chronic inequality”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/humza-yousaf-rishi-sunak-scottish-labour-independence-snp-b2474413.html The SNP leader publicly stated that Scottish independence would *improve* Scotland's economic position, because the UK was holding it back. This is of course, a complete lie.
It's interesting the parallels between Brexiteers and Scot Nationalists. Brexiteers are very keen to make the economic argument *against* independence, but ignore the fact that there was very little credible positive evidence for economic benefits of Brexit. If they valued Brexit - on the basis of sovereignty - then it is very hard to see how they could possibly be against independence. But equally the idea that most Nationalists love the idea of leaving the UK - to gain sovereignty - but then rejoining the EU (as a much smaller and less consequential member), also seems to make little sense. Brexit has been a mess. But it was always going to be a mess. The fact it has been shown to be so difficult should really be discouraging potentially Independence voters - because if it was hard to unwind membership of the EU, it will be harder to unwind 300 years of the union.
> it will be harder to unwind 300 years of the union. Ireland unwound [750 years](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliamentandireland/) as a much poorer agricultural society in the midst of a World War and it only took a few decades until they equalised (granted as the sick men of Europe when they both joined the EEC in 1973). Not everything has to be unwound like Johnson was trying to do so as to have nothing at all to do with Europe> He went out of his way to destroy non-commercial and cultural agreements with Europe.
Yes but the rhetoric sounds convincing!
To objectively gauge the situation, we have to also consider the differences: Ireland had a large, young population who emigrated and returned monies, or themselves, to improve the country. Scotland would be the oldest, poorest, fattest country in Europe, and if they could *not* join the EU, then the UK union would be second best than going it alone I fear.
Thanks for that. 2 great comments.
Back to the weirdness of having so many Brexiteers complain about the economics of Scottish independence. Politics is driven by emotions and nationalism is a basic drive. You can't avoid it. Hardcore Remainers often forgot that too.
Blind self destructive ideology should be called out for what it is. Sure the true believers will never listen to reason, but that's no reason to not challenge it publicly. There might be *someone* on on the margins either way that gets swayed. It's lazy to imply "it's all emotions so let's not bother"
> It's lazy to imply "it's all emotions so let's not bother" It's incompetent to act like nationalism does not matter. The Remain side had a strong cohort of open borders, anti nationalism. It's not going to happen.
Minority views are in the minority. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be expressed. We had politics before the nation state as a political structure.
> We had politics before the nation state as a political structure. Liberal democracy and nationalism went together. That's what made it work.
It's really is the end of history then! Nothing to see here, move on everybody! Dissenting voices are irrelevant?
What?
> Blind self destructive ideology should be called out for what it is. > > > > Sure the true believers will never listen to reason, but that's no reason to not challenge it publicly. There might be someone on on the margins either way that gets swayed. > > > > It's lazy to imply "it's all emotions so let's not bother"
Repeating yourself doesn't clarify that. You can't sack populations and wait until they all become citizens of the world.
Thank god someone's bloody saying it. People who criticise Brexit then champion independence are **fucking** thick as pig shit
And you can't really perform Brexit and then object to Scottish Independence. Remember kids! * 'Non binding advisory polls' are actually totally binding. (and have lower prerequisites) * There's no need follow through with any of the policies they promise during the campaign * None of the economic or logistical arguments matter (we're tired of experts) * There's no need to show the parliament or public the actual agreements. Just force them through! * You can break any international/legal agreements you like in the process (Hold the cards!) * There's no need for more than a 51% majority. * Any victory gives an unquestionable and unchangeable mandate. * And anyone who refutes these ideas is a UNDEMOCRATIC TRAITOR! This is the precedence for how 'our democracy' works, and hearing any of the people involved in brexit suddenly change their mind when it's no longer in their favour would be a incredibly powerful argument for independence.
Can't disagree with any of this but at the same time from the other side a confirmatory referendum is obviously required if Scotland did vote to go independent.
A year and a half ago he complained he'd been misrepresented by the media on scottish independence and he was still pro, so I'll take this with a small grain of salt. But maybe he has changed his view. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/20676559.mark-blyth-real-views-economics-scottish-independence/
How could Mark Blyth possibly be misrepresenting his own view? The headline is a direct quote from him. [Here is a clip of him saying it](https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1771499591629779290). From what I have read of Mark Blyth, he hasn't openly changed his mind, but he is very critical of every single plan that seems to come forward.
To be fair to him; he can think it a terrible idea economically, and still support independence. Maybe he thinks that there are non-economic reasons that justify independence. A belief in local decision-making would justify it, and it's possible that he thinks that the principle of that is worth the economic damage. It's not a position I support personally, but I can follow the logic of there being things more important that the economic impact (for example; I wouldn't accept living under an authoritarian dictatorship, even if it were guaranteed to increase GDP). Or maybe he got left at the altar by a Scottish girl one time, and now he wants revenge by burning the country to the ground.
>To be fair to him; he can think it a terrible idea economically, and still support independence. Yeah. Personally I would be in favor of a WW2 style war economy to address climate change. I know no one would support it because we would lose many luxuries and face economic hardship, but I still think it would be a rational thing to do if your priority is the future of our society He could also think independence has value that supersedes the economic pain it would bring
I think climate change is a case where we’re going to be forced onto something akin to a war footing at some point this century anyway so the sooner we start preparing for that eventuality the better. We need to be thinking right now about what to do in the event of crop failures, supply chain breakdowns, and a rapid deterioration of the geopolitical landscape that we can’t avoid at this point. At the very least we should be rearming ourselves heavily and building the logistical capability and expertise we’ll need for a much larger military in the future. I’d also start treating the oil lobby as though it were a fifth column and be absolutely ruthless at eliminating its influence from our politics. I’d prohibit climate change denialism on anything other than a private individual level (I’d make it an imprisonable offence for the directors of a UK registered company to allow it to promote climate change denial anywhere in the world for example) and have the security services penetrate oil companies to ensure compliance.
Scotland leaving UK to rejoin EU wouldn't be a Brexit, it'd be an unbrexit, as it would undo Brexit.
The only way to undo Brexit would be for the UK as a whole to rejoin. Even then it wouldn't undo all the damage. Scotland becoming independent isn't going to undo anything.
It would undo Brexit *for Scotland*.
No. An independent Scotland being part of the EU is not undoing Brexit. The damage from the U.K. as a whole would be done and would continue.
> An independent Scotland being part of the EU is not undoing Brexit. It is *for Scotland*. > The damage from the U.K. as a whole would be done and would continue. Sure there would be a drop of trade with the UK. But Scotland's trade with EU would grow. And you know what -- the EU is a much bigger trading bloc than the UK. So over the long term, Scotland wins. The UK used to be Ireland's biggest trading partner. Now the EU is.
> It is for Scotland. It is not for Scotland. The reverse of the U.K. leaving the EU is not an independent Scotland joining. >Sure there would be a drop of trade with the UK. But Scotland's trade with EU would grow. Scotlands trade with the EU is much less valuable than its trade with the rest of the U.K. >the EU is a much bigger trading bloc than the UK. So over the long term, Scotland wins. Larger doesn’t mean more valuable. When Scotland had equally unrestricted access to both the U.K. and the EU it did more trade with the U.K. That is because the U.K. is closer, more economically integrated and more profitable as a consequence. Over the long term Scotland would lose out if it implemented trading barriers with the U.K.
> Scotlands trade with the EU is much less valuable than its trade with the rest of the U.K. The same is true of Ireland 40 years ago. It isn't now.
It would be devastating to Scotlands economy if it took 40 years for EU trade to replace lost U.K. trade. You didn’t think that one through.
It won't take 40 years.
The U.K. was in the EU for 47 years and in those 47 years Scottish-EU trade never came close to overtaking Scottish-rU.K. trade in value terms. What makes you think it would be any quicker now?
I will just say that unionist brexiteers that use this argument are eviscerating the case not to reverse brexit asap so becareful it cuts both ways
its a question of balancing the economic factors against other justifications. while most "uninvolved" people would argue the same way in both cases, its not totally unreasonable to treat them differently depending how differently you value those things.
I can't quote or name any Yes economists or any who have supported or backed the SNPs claims. Also never seem one put forward any serious rationale of their own.
This guy is a charlatan. Fully aware of the economic quagmire independence would create and yet supports it anyway? Maybe he should write two articles, one in favour one against.
It's not about the money, but to be independent from London's iron grip on the Scottish nation.
Sounds exactly like the post-Brexit Brexiter arguments. “It was never about the economy, we just want our sovereignty back!!!11!1”
The Spectator can't go 5 mins without without spreading some anti-SNP propaganda.
Realistically, SNP members and politicians know that a Scexit (yes, I just made that up), would be economically stupid. But Scotland leaving the Union is not and never will be an economic argument, it's a political/emotional one, which is why they refuse to budge on it.
Westminster enacted Brexit without so much as a vague idea of a plan. I don't see how you can look at the hypocrisy and then have the gall to wag the finger at Scotland.
Huh? Try reading what I wrote – I said these independence movements are not based on economic arguments, but political/emotional ones. That's all.