Category: International relations

Even though the headline is from one of the most famous Scotsmen in fiction, Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott of the U.S.S. Enterprise, this post is not about Star Trek.

(Haggis, by the way, is sheep stomach stuffed with sheep organs, oatmeal, onion and suet — think of lamb loaf — with meat stock, simmered about three hours. I used to work with a native of Scotland; I do not recall her opinion of haggis. I suppose it fits right in with other British, uh, delicacies, including spotted dick [pudding with dried fruit], Welsh rarebit [cheese on toast — no rarebit, or rabbit, in it], stargazey pie [sardine pie with, I kid you not, the sardine heads sticking through the crust], and, of course, blood pudding.)

Today, Scotland is voting on its independence from Great Britain.

The Washington Post provides some context for how rare an independence vote is:

Countries don’t like it when regions decide they want to be independent. When the American South decided it wanted to secede, the United States government spent 1861 to 1865 convincing it that it had made a bad decision. (Not everyone was convinced.) This is the history of the world: New countries are often formed only after bloodshed. …

What constitutes a secession of the sort that Scotland might experience is itself tricky to define. We turned to the CIA World Fact Book to find countries that it considers to have save been created by secession. But that, too, wasn’t clear. Take Panama. It seceded from Colombia, but (as those who’ve been watching the PBS special on the Roosevelts this week know) it was hardly as simple as their shaking hands with Colombia’s president. Or Kosovo. In the eyes of the United States, it is an independent country. That opinion is not shared. And Crimea. Did its vote count?

Proving the “tricky to define” part, the comments bring up all kinds of potential additions to the Post’s map, including all the former Warsaw Pact countries and every African country that used to be part of the Ottoman Empire.

The London Daily Mail adds this map of what Europe would be like had every European separatist movement succeeded:

As you know, my last name is Norwegian. Had Norway not successfully seceded from Sweden in 1905 (which took 90 years to accomplish), I guess I would be one-fourth Swedish. I’m not sure how I feel about that.

The better question is what effect would Scottish independence have on the U.S. Polls will be open until 10 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, which is 5 p.m. in the Central Time Zone. The BBC reports that the result is expected to be announced between 6:30 and 7:30 a.m. Beeb time, which would be, well, overnight here, though if there’s an obvious trend in early returns that will probably be something insomniacs can read tonight.

Nile Gardiner has five reasons why Americans shouldn’t root for approval of Scottish independence:

1. The Special Relationship will be undercut.

The United Kingdom is far and away America’s biggest and most important ally. Anything that weakens Britain, and chips away at the Special Relationship, is a big negative for the United States. This fear has been amply expressed by dozens of members of the United States Congress, both Republican and Democrat, who are backing a resolution in the House of Representatives declaring that a “united, secure, and prosperous United Kingdom” is vital to US interests.

The Special Relationship is too powerful a partnership to be set adrift by a Scottish vote for independence, but there can be no denying that it will not be the same without the valuable contribution to the alliance made by Scottish soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as statesmen, scholars and entrepreneurs, who helped make it the global force it has been for the last seven decades.

2. Britain’s nuclear deterrent will have to be moved

The UK’s entire nuclear deterrent is based in Scotland, and all Britain’s nuclear bases and warheads will have to be moved out of the country, a huge headache not only for London, but also for Washington.  Any threat to Britain’s status as a nuclear power is a matter of great concern for the United States. The Nato alliance was originally conceived as a nuclear alliance, one that has been underpinned since its founding by the American, British and (at times) French nuclear deterrents. Anything that undermines Britain’s position as an independent nuclear power and weakens Nato is a matter of significant concern to the United States.

3. The coalition against ISIL will be weakened

Britain is central to Washington’s strategy of building an international coalition to confront and defeat ISIL, in Iraq and Syria. The timing of the Scottish referendum could not be worse for the White House, which is depending upon Downing Street to help rally countries in Europe and the Anglosphere to contribute militarily to the air war against Isil. A defeat for the No campaign could dramatically weaken David Cameron’s position, making it harder for him to move forward with British military action, especially if there is a leadership challenge within the Conservative Party. The prime minister’s ability to win a vote in the House of Commons and take Britain to war again in the Middle East, would undoubtedly be called into question by defeat in the Scottish referendum.

4. U.S. markets will take a hit

If Scotland votes for independence, expect significant turmoil not just in the City, but on Wall Street as well. 2014 has been a year of significant volatility in American stock markets, driven in part by events in Europe. Fears over the economic fallout from Scotland breaking off from the UK, will spook US markets, frighten investors, and add to an air of uncertainty exacerbated in recent months by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Add to this the prospect of a Scottish economy set adrift from the pound, with potentially huge costs incurred in transitioning to an independent financial system, and you have every reason to fear more market turbulence.

5. An independent Scotland will be an insignificant ally to the U.S.

As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland is a valuable ally to the United States, home to Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent and submarine bases, as well as several British military regiments. It is also home to important NATO early warning air defenses, increasingly important in the face of Russian aggression. As an independent entity, with a meager projected defense budget of just $2.5 billion, significantly less than the $4.1 billion budget of London’s Metropolitan Police (hat tip: Luke Coffey), and just 15,000 members of the Armed Forces, Scotland’s role as a US partner would be practically non-existent. Edinburgh would struggle to gain entry to Nato, with countries such as Spain and Italy likely to veto Scottish membership for fear of encouraging nationalist movements within their own borders.

So watch the stock market Friday if independence wins.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with Gardiner’s analysis, as the comments demonstrate (well, those that don’t make tiresome arguments comparing Ireland and Northern Ireland, as well as Canada and the U.S., or poke fun at Obama’s golf game given St. Andrews):

• All reasons given are excuses for the royalty, overthrown by Americans some 238 years ago. The Scots must decide for themselves. They do not need input from bHo of any other American.
• And on top of that, they’re not even talking about overthrowing the monarchy, just going back to the way things were before 1707, when England and Scotland were fully independent nations who shared a monarch. Scotland’s relationship to England would be more like that of Canada or Australia.
• Was listening to Wes Moss earlier tonight (he’s an investment/stock market guy here on local radio) and he said there’s no worry for us but Scotland is a different matter. LOL It makes their debt to GDP ratio 86%! UGH!
• Scotland has not even set up a monetary system…This is the first thing that needs to happen before they do this…I am all for Scotland becoming a country. But they need to set up a money system before this happens…(they have not done this…) If the separation takes place.. within 3 months, this new country will fail…
• Just like the ‘United States’, the ‘United Kingdom’ isn’t anymore. There is some serious division going on here and in the UK. The things that should pull a country together are not enough in today’s world. People are disconnected and distant toward one another. It is a disturbing trend that needs to be reversed.
• Scotland is sending a message to the motherland they don’t like what they see happening in England. They are making a move to protect what they have.
• The situation with the US is not like Scotland. not even close. the british brought the revolution on itself by it’s treatment of the colonists as second class citizens from the Sever Years War until Bunker Hill. True Scotland has had considerable conflict with the crown in the past but that centuries ago. Scotland has been a vital member of the UK for several centuries and in the modern world a weaker UK will also effect the US also. if the Scottish people truly want to be independent (not Progressive agitators pulling their BS like they do here in the US) through disinformation, and they ARE not they BELIEVE that they could survive on their own in the current political/economic global climate then let them. but they are opening themselves up big time for terrorism, national movements and other problems that could spill over into England.
• Historically, countries that were formally part of the British Empire (notably Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) have all been very strong allies of the US (particularly NZ) and have maintained excellent working relationships with England. What is there about Scottish freedom that leads you to conclude that there will be any difference if Scotland is free? I believe that the relationship between England and Scotland will be a close one with mutual interests the overriding consideration. IMHO much noise about nothing.
• The reasons given are a bit dramatic. While there will surely be consequences, both positive and negative, the benefits will outweigh the risks. First of all, the U.K. while a great ally, their influence and authority has been exaggerated for the last 100 years. This is simply recognizing that fact. Europe is in a state of flux once again as Germany becomes western Europe’s most influential member. While not as militarily strong as the UK, its economy is in a much better position. The U.S. will have to decide what kind of relationship it wants with Germany and soon or else opportunists in Moscow and Germany will take advantage of the lack of dialogue and move Germany out of the pro western camp and into a neutral position that benefits them more economically. The UK’s debt is another factor to consider. This will simply emphasize that debt and Scotland wants out of the frying pan before the heat gets turned up any more. The U.S. strategic relationship can stay the same with very little massaging as I’m pretty sure Scotland won’t mind having U.S. Nuclear assets in their back yard. As far as stocks go, I doubt we will see more than a 300 point bounce at the worst. Finally ISIL is a global issue where the interests of Russia, Iran, U.S., Israel, Turkey, and the Middle east are all clashing. Whether or not Scotland is part of the picture is insignificant.

And the last, and potentially most interesting, comment:

Agree 100%. These arguments are a pathetic example of grasping at straws. Free Scotland today, Free Texas tomorrow.

 

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post:

In the past few days, Russian troops bearing the flag of a previously unknown country, Novorossiya, have marched across the border of southeastern Ukraine. The Russian Academy of Sciences recently announced it will publish a history of Novorossiya this autumn, presumably tracing its origins back to Catherine the Great. Various maps of Novorossiya are said to be circulating in Moscow. Some include Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk, cities that are still hundreds of miles away from the fighting. Some place Novorossiya along the coast, so that it connects Russia to Crimea and eventually to Transnistria, the Russian-occupied province of Moldova.

Even if it starts out as an unrecognized rump state — Abkhazia and South Ossetia, “states” that Russia carved out of Georgia, are the models here — Novorossiya can grow larger over time.

Russian soldiers will have to create this state — how many of them depends upon how hard Ukraine fights, and who helps them — but eventually Russia will need more than soldiers to hold this territory. Novorossiya will not be stable as long as it is inhabited by Ukrainians who want it to stay Ukrainian. There is a familiar solution to this, too. A few days ago,Alexander Dugin, an extreme nationalist whose views have helped shapethose of the Russian president, issued an extraordinary statement. “Ukraine must be cleansed of idiots,” he wrote — and then called for the “genocide” of the “race of bastards.”

 

But Novorossiya will also be hard to sustain if it has opponents in the West. Possible solutions to that problem are also under discussion. Not long ago,Vladimir Zhirinovsky — the Russian member of parliament and court jester who sometimes says things that those in power cannot — argued on television that Russia should use nuclear weapons to bomb Poland and the Baltic countries — “dwarf states,” he called them — and show the West who really holds power in Europe: “Nothing threatens America, it’s far away. But Eastern European countries will place themselves under the threat of total annihilation,” he declared. Vladimir Putin indulges these comments: Zhirinovsky’s statements are not official policy, the Russian president says, but he always “gets the party going.”

A far more serious person, the dissident Russian analyst Andrei Piontkovsky, has recently published an article arguing, along lines that echo Zhirinovsky’s threats, that Putin really is weighing the possibility of limited nuclear strikes — perhaps against one of the Baltic capitals, perhaps a Polish city — to prove that NATO is a hollow, meaningless entity that won’t dare strike back for fear of a greater catastrophe. Indeed, in military exercises in 2009 and 2013, the Russian army openly “practiced” a nuclear attack on Warsaw.

Is all of this nothing more than the raving of lunatics? Maybe. And maybe Putin is too weak to do any of this, and maybe it’s just scare tactics, and maybe his oligarchs will stop him. But “Mein Kampf” also seemed hysterical to Western and German audiences in 1933. Stalin’s orders to “liquidate” whole classes and social groups within the Soviet Union would have seemed equally insane to us at the time, if we had been able to hear them.

But Stalin kept to his word and carried out the threats, not because he was crazy but because he followed his own logic to its ultimate conclusions with such intense dedication — and because nobody stopped him. Right now, nobody is able to stop Putin, either. So is it hysterical to prepare for total war? Or is it naive not to do so?