6 ms·

Apparantly Scotland is "foolhardy" if it opts for "secession", but Ireland, which already did opt for secession (less pejoratively, secession is typically known

Apparantly Scotland is "foolhardy" if it opts for "secession", but Ireland, which already did opt for secession (less pejoratively, secession is typically known as independence once it is acheived), is a resiliant example to us all, with its HDI and economy miles above that of Scotland, and that despite a total lack of oil, and despite a bad housing bust. Funny, that. You have to be very careful with the Economist because they nearly always seem to have utterly transparent motiviations for the nonsense they peddle. In this case it seems like it benefits them to prop up the city of london and UK with a nice secure oil supply, and they have to perform weird intellectual handstands to justify why Scotland would be a basketcase while Ireland is inspirational.

jpttsn 13y ago
You're saying it's hypocritical to oppose the independence of Scotland, because there are examples of countries who have done well after their independence?
- nmeofthestate 13y ago
  Not hypocritical, just demonstrating poor judgement due to a lack of objectivity. As a relatively right wing, conservative English publication they're opposed to independence for Scotland but of course express this in terms of it being a bad idea for Scotland. this despite all the evidence that smaller countries do better. I'll now most likely be down voted for pointing that out.
  - robbiep 13y ago
    Yep, because choosing a country with strong socialist leanings that has legalised marijuana and a number of other similar liberal measures as 'country of the year' - whatever that means - makes sense if a publication can be entirely defined in terms of where one commenter feels they fit on the political spectrum. Declaring them opposed to Scottish independence for being a conservative publication in a post regarding their seeming love for a left wing country doesn't cognitively mesh well.
  - jpttsn 13y ago
    So if The Economist is against Scottish independence, this is evidence that they're not objective? There's something missing from your argument.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - alextingle 13y ago
    I'm not sure "objectivity" means what you think it means.
forktheif 13y ago
Ireland has been independent for 95ish years? It's economy only really became something to be envious of around 20 years ago. 20 years out of 95 isn't a great record.
- anonymousDan 13y ago
  Ireland, which had been pillaged by Britain for hundreds of years, was starting from a much lower base after independence than Scotland will be.
ig1 13y ago
You realize that North Sea Oil is well past it's peak ? - production has declined by nearly a half since 1999 and at current projections it'll be at a third of it's peak by 2020. The UK has a whole has already become a net importer rather than exporter. There are strong arguments in favour of scottish independence but largely they're down to cultural rather than economic reasons.
- randomafrican 13y ago
  But the oil-related infrastructure will stay and will keep generating some revenue. I live in an oil city and the number of Scottish workers or companies that have regional headquarters or major locations in Aberdeen is huge.
DanBC 13y ago
> while Ireland is inspirational. This Ireland? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/eu-chief-barroso-no-backdated-bank-debt-deal-for-ireland-29854504.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/eu-chief-barro... > Europe did not cause of the problems for Ireland; Ireland caused a problem for Europe, the head of the EU government said. > Following the bailout exit, the Government's bid to get backdated funding for the banking sector was dealt a spectacular blow as the head of the European Commission blamed the Irish banks, regulators and government for the difficulties in the country. > Categorically rejecting suggestions Ireland should now be helped by Europe, at least in the short to medium term, European Commission President Jose-Manuel Barroso cut loose on Ireland.
- jwilliams 13y ago
  The OP was probably referring to Northern Ireland, which is a devolved part of the UK (and uses GBP) - Whereas your article refers to the Republic of Ireland, which is in the Eurozone.
  - taejo 13y ago
    If OP was referring to Northern Ireland, then s/he should have said so, since "Ireland" generally refers to Ireland, and Ireland did secede, while NI did not.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      Isn't this more complicated than that? Declaring you've 'Seceeded' doesn't mean a new state is created/recongnized; there's a county in Iowa that 'seceeded' but it didn't change anything. Just sayin, how many people on the street know about anything but their hometown much less than the internal politics of Ireland.
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Is pretty simple really. Nothern Ireland is a part of the UK. So it definitely did not seceed from the UK. The Republic of Ireland, is a seperate country with completely different government and currency, that used to be part of the UK but isn't any more, so it has definitely seceeded. That county in Iowa, it is actually still part of the USA and has not managed to separate itself either legally, economically, or through force of arms. It is clearly not a separate sovereign nation. It has not seceeded from the USA.
pessimizer 13y ago
>Ireland has come through its bail-out and cuts with exemplary fortitude and calm That's not quite "resilient example to us all." I know that the Economist supports the kind of destruction that's been visited on the Irish economy, but they're not mentioning it here.
patmcguire 13y ago
Irish independence has more in common with Indian independence than with Scottish. Scotland isn't run as a colonial possession to generate wealth for the English ruling class, the inhabitants be damned Scots get votes and civil rights and all those goodies, the situations aren't comparable.
- JetSetWilly 13y ago
  Compare Scotland with another 5-million strong European country with similar oil reserves which retained independence - Norway - and try and say that with a straight face. Norway is far far richer, with a huge oil fund and more developed economy. Scotland's oil was used to fund thatcherism and inflict industrial damage upon Scotland. And by the way - Ireland had home rule prior to its independence and also elected MPs and had the vote, on the same terms as the rest of the UK, prior to its independence.
  - truthteller 13y ago
    it is British -- not Scottish -- oil.
    - JetSetWilly 13y ago
      It is both. Anyway, so was India or Ireland or the USA, that argument justifies any abuse.
  - andy_ppp 13y ago
    I'd always been skeptical of the SNPs (Scottish National Party) assertion that North Sea Oil means Scotland should be far richer than it is. After a bit of research it does seem like Scotland got screwed here. Also Norway is an excellent example as it does indeed have similar population and oil production.
snowwindwaves 13y ago
I believe Scotland receives money from the uk which they would not if they separate. A similar situation for Quebec and Canada.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Scotland receives money from the UK government in the form of a block grant. Scottish companies and residents also pay taxes to the UK government. At this point in time, Scotland contributes more in taxes than it receives through the block grant.
  - bencollier49 13y ago
    Incorrect, or at least misleading, depending on your terms of reference. Fact check: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990
    - matthewmacleod 13y ago
      No, it's not. From your linked article: The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending. In other words, "if you ignore one of Scotland's major economic outputs."
- alextingle 13y ago
  Scotland receives money from the UK in roughly the same proportion that the UK borrows money from gilt investors. Scotland would certainly have a budget deficit after independence, but not out of proportion with its size. What interest rate they would have to pay on that debt is a different question...
talideon 13y ago
I'm not sure where to start where how wrongheaded this comment is. First of all, as others have said, Ireland has been independent for 90 years. Secondly, Ireland had to go through 70 years of near-poverty, only briefly managing to getting close to digging itself out of its economic hole in the 1960s. Thirdly, with independence, Ireland lost most of its industrial homeland due to partition, as well has having to effectively buy itself back from the UK through the payment of land annuities, and the subsequent trade war that happened when the Irish state refused their payment, owing to the size of the amount demanded, utterly crippled the Irish economy. Arguably, from an economic point of view, Irish secession from the UK was foolhardy. The fact that almost a century later The Economist now considers the Republic largely a positive example has zero relation to how they would consider and independent Scotland. Ireland was a basketcase for decades. Also, 'secession' is the act of gaining independence. There's nothing pejorative about it. Also, Ireland does have substantial oil and natural gas reserves off its coast. However, they're more difficult to tap than those in the North Sea, and were effectively sold out from under the Irish people by Ray McSharry. Personally, I'd like to see Scotland give independence a chance. I just hope they stay withing the common travel area.

jpttsn 13y ago

You're saying it's hypocritical to oppose the independence of Scotland, because there are examples of countries who have done well after their independence?

nmeofthestate 13y ago
Not hypocritical, just demonstrating poor judgement due to a lack of objectivity. As a relatively right wing, conservative English publication they're opposed to independence for Scotland but of course express this in terms of it being a bad idea for Scotland. this despite all the evidence that smaller countries do better. I'll now most likely be down voted for pointing that out.
- robbiep 13y ago
  Yep, because choosing a country with strong socialist leanings that has legalised marijuana and a number of other similar liberal measures as 'country of the year' - whatever that means - makes sense if a publication can be entirely defined in terms of where one commenter feels they fit on the political spectrum. Declaring them opposed to Scottish independence for being a conservative publication in a post regarding their seeming love for a left wing country doesn't cognitively mesh well.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  So if The Economist is against Scottish independence, this is evidence that they're not objective? There's something missing from your argument.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- alextingle 13y ago
  I'm not sure "objectivity" means what you think it means.

forktheif 13y ago

Ireland has been independent for 95ish years? It's economy only really became something to be envious of around 20 years ago. 20 years out of 95 isn't a great record.

anonymousDan 13y ago
Ireland, which had been pillaged by Britain for hundreds of years, was starting from a much lower base after independence than Scotland will be.

ig1 13y ago

You realize that North Sea Oil is well past it's peak ? - production has declined by nearly a half since 1999 and at current projections it'll be at a third of it's peak by 2020. The UK has a whole has already become a net importer rather than exporter. There are strong arguments in favour of scottish independence but largely they're down to cultural rather than economic reasons.

randomafrican 13y ago
But the oil-related infrastructure will stay and will keep generating some revenue. I live in an oil city and the number of Scottish workers or companies that have regional headquarters or major locations in Aberdeen is huge.

DanBC 13y ago

> while Ireland is inspirational. This Ireland? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/eu-chief-barroso-no-backdated-bank-debt-deal-for-ireland-29854504.html http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/eu-chief-barro... > Europe did not cause of the problems for Ireland; Ireland caused a problem for Europe, the head of the EU government said. > Following the bailout exit, the Government's bid to get backdated funding for the banking sector was dealt a spectacular blow as the head of the European Commission blamed the Irish banks, regulators and government for the difficulties in the country. > Categorically rejecting suggestions Ireland should now be helped by Europe, at least in the short to medium term, European Commission President Jose-Manuel Barroso cut loose on Ireland.

jwilliams 13y ago
The OP was probably referring to Northern Ireland, which is a devolved part of the UK (and uses GBP) - Whereas your article refers to the Republic of Ireland, which is in the Eurozone.
- taejo 13y ago
  If OP was referring to Northern Ireland, then s/he should have said so, since "Ireland" generally refers to Ireland, and Ireland did secede, while NI did not.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Isn't this more complicated than that? Declaring you've 'Seceeded' doesn't mean a new state is created/recongnized; there's a county in Iowa that 'seceeded' but it didn't change anything. Just sayin, how many people on the street know about anything but their hometown much less than the internal politics of Ireland.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Is pretty simple really. Nothern Ireland is a part of the UK. So it definitely did not seceed from the UK. The Republic of Ireland, is a seperate country with completely different government and currency, that used to be part of the UK but isn't any more, so it has definitely seceeded. That county in Iowa, it is actually still part of the USA and has not managed to separate itself either legally, economically, or through force of arms. It is clearly not a separate sovereign nation. It has not seceeded from the USA.

pessimizer 13y ago

>Ireland has come through its bail-out and cuts with exemplary fortitude and calm That's not quite "resilient example to us all." I know that the Economist supports the kind of destruction that's been visited on the Irish economy, but they're not mentioning it here.

patmcguire 13y ago

Irish independence has more in common with Indian independence than with Scottish. Scotland isn't run as a colonial possession to generate wealth for the English ruling class, the inhabitants be damned Scots get votes and civil rights and all those goodies, the situations aren't comparable.

JetSetWilly 13y ago
Compare Scotland with another 5-million strong European country with similar oil reserves which retained independence - Norway - and try and say that with a straight face. Norway is far far richer, with a huge oil fund and more developed economy. Scotland's oil was used to fund thatcherism and inflict industrial damage upon Scotland. And by the way - Ireland had home rule prior to its independence and also elected MPs and had the vote, on the same terms as the rest of the UK, prior to its independence.
- truthteller 13y ago
  it is British -- not Scottish -- oil.
  - JetSetWilly 13y ago
    It is both. Anyway, so was India or Ireland or the USA, that argument justifies any abuse.
- andy_ppp 13y ago
  I'd always been skeptical of the SNPs (Scottish National Party) assertion that North Sea Oil means Scotland should be far richer than it is. After a bit of research it does seem like Scotland got screwed here. Also Norway is an excellent example as it does indeed have similar population and oil production.

snowwindwaves 13y ago

I believe Scotland receives money from the uk which they would not if they separate. A similar situation for Quebec and Canada.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
Scotland receives money from the UK government in the form of a block grant. Scottish companies and residents also pay taxes to the UK government. At this point in time, Scotland contributes more in taxes than it receives through the block grant.
- bencollier49 13y ago
  Incorrect, or at least misleading, depending on your terms of reference. Fact check: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    No, it's not. From your linked article: The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending. In other words, "if you ignore one of Scotland's major economic outputs."
alextingle 13y ago
Scotland receives money from the UK in roughly the same proportion that the UK borrows money from gilt investors. Scotland would certainly have a budget deficit after independence, but not out of proportion with its size. What interest rate they would have to pay on that debt is a different question...

talideon 13y ago

I'm not sure where to start where how wrongheaded this comment is. First of all, as others have said, Ireland has been independent for 90 years. Secondly, Ireland had to go through 70 years of near-poverty, only briefly managing to getting close to digging itself out of its economic hole in the 1960s. Thirdly, with independence, Ireland lost most of its industrial homeland due to partition, as well has having to effectively buy itself back from the UK through the payment of land annuities, and the subsequent trade war that happened when the Irish state refused their payment, owing to the size of the amount demanded, utterly crippled the Irish economy. Arguably, from an economic point of view, Irish secession from the UK was foolhardy. The fact that almost a century later The Economist now considers the Republic largely a positive example has zero relation to how they would consider and independent Scotland. Ireland was a basketcase for decades. Also, 'secession' is the act of gaining independence. There's nothing pejorative about it. Also, Ireland does have substantial oil and natural gas reserves off its coast. However, they're more difficult to tap than those in the North Sea, and were effectively sold out from under the Irish people by Ray McSharry. Personally, I'd like to see Scotland give independence a chance. I just hope they stay withing the common travel area.