4 ms·

Abstraction is the napkin with which pundits wipe their sloppy chins. I don't know whether Scotland should secede from the UK or not, but I do know that this ar

Abstraction is the napkin with which pundits wipe their sloppy chins. I don't know whether Scotland should secede from the UK or not, but I do know that this article doesn't hold enough substance to contribute to the question. There's simply too much handwaving. "Forget all the short term arguments...about whether we'll be economically better or worse off." Uh, no, I'd say that a substantive and long-term issue. "And to the extent that all of us who aren't in the 0.1% are "working class"—if you have to work to earn a living, you're working class, even if you're a brain surgeon or an accountant—the enemy of all of us?" Oh...kay so brain surgeons are now in the working class and that means nationalism is the enemy of everyone? Westphalia. Beige dictatorship. Cute. But please don't apply your favorite cookie cutters to a deep and complex issue and tell me they slice it just the way it needs to be sliced.

Tycho 12y ago
I think the point is that any calculation about whether we will be economically better off is inherently a short-term forecast. Nobody knows beyond that. I think the point about the ideal size of a state being closer to Scotland's population than to the UK's is a reasonable, fundamental contribution to the debate. It's not a 'cookie-cutter' argument. People are right to think in fundamental, philosophical terms. As the referendum draws closer I find myself paying less and less attention to short-term issues (which are mostly just quibbles over SNP policies, which really don't have much to do with independence - we could get independence then elect a different party) and thinking more along fundamental lines. One thing I'm sad not to have seen much discussion on is the constitution for an independent Scottish state. That to me is vitally important from a historical perspective.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  The debate about a constitution is both short term and vital, it is the most worrying of the SNP's policies. They both want a unicameral chamber and keep bandying around terms like "Sovreign will of the Scottish people" - which has worrying populist tones and a distinct lack of accountability. Seeing what they get up to in the Scottish Parliament with a majority on the committees that are supposed to hold the Executive to account makes me worry about what sort of government an independent Scotland would be starting with - and that is very hard to change, especially to introduce checks and balances. I don't know where the Scottish equivalent of the Bill of Rights would come from.
  - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
    An independent Scotland would supposedly join the EU which would give it the basics in terms of a bill of rights. Until the EU the UK as a whole never had a written bill of rights so it would be no worse off. In terms of the SNP, what happens to them in an independent Scotland might be the most interesting thing. They'd undoubtedly do well in a first election but after the glow has worn off and without their current USP (independence, the only party which is just about Scotland) it'll be interesting to see how they define themselves - after all, politically it's not impossible to view them as to the right of the Labour party (they're not the Tories but they're certainly not socialists), and in another few years time they're going to be very much part of the establishment.
    - Tycho 12y ago
      It's hard to say whether Scotland's support of the Labour party stems more from dislike of conservative economics or from dislike of Conservative MPs (aristocratic English families).
    - ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
      Don't Spain and Belgium vehemently oppose Scotland acceding to the EU?
      - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
        As far as I can tell they're currently opposing it somewhat indirectly but they absolutely don't want the precedent of a country separating and being allowed into Europe. Neither of them are quite European heavyweights but ultimately , unless there is some sort of fudge (not impossible but unlikely), every existing EU nation will have to vote to accept an independent Scotland. For that to happen it would appear that something will have to be done to placate those with similar potential domestic issues themselves if it's too happen. Whether of not such a something realistically exists or not I don't know.
- notahacker 12y ago
  I'd agree that the "ideal size of a state" is pretty fundamental to the debate but don't see much of an argument for independence improving matters in the original post I'd argue that where is Scotland's economic power base going to come from, and what sort of economic freedom will they actually get[1] is a much more fundamental, long term issue than the present set of Westminster politicians being uninspiring careerist with a lack of radical ideas, which this article discusses at great length. For better or worse a similarly sized and distributed UK electorate produced much more conviction politics and polarisation in the 70s and 80s. As for the consensus politics, the only guaranteed outcome of the referendum is that 40-49% of the electorate is going to be bitterly disappointed. Even the arcane philosophical question of the present level of devolution waters down the allegedly-obsolete Westphalian system whereas a fully independent Scotland freed from any Westminster tinkering reestablishes it[2] is open for debate. [1]The only problem I have with the debate about whether Scotland will be economically better off is that neither side is willing to openly admit the most likely outcome of post-independence negotiations (Holyrood ceding rather a lot of oil revenue and fiscal handcuffs for formal currency union in the form of token representation on the Bank of England's committees) [2]The actual Westphalian treaty, amongst other things, established the formal independence of the Netherlands and Switzerland from larger empires
Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
> There's simply too much handwaving. Welcome to the Scottish independence debate. On one level it's been extraordinary - pretty much everyone has an opinion and the turnout rate is likely to be 80%+. On a more depressing level the quality of the debate and information made available has largely been extraordinarily poor.
scythe 12y ago
Non-speculation is not necessarily any better than speculation. The wisdom of crowds requires people to think for themselves[1] rather than subscribing to the status quo; only a democracy of independent thinkers avoids groupthink. In this case, we don't have any choice. People are voting, they're voting about changes, and they're voting about changes now, so it's good to see that people are coming up with original thoughts, because this aggregation of opinions is the only solution available to human society -- nobody, not Alfred Wohlstetter, not Noam Chomsky, not even Ludwig Wittgenstein -- knows what the world will look like in 200 years, and really, there isn't any[2] scientific knowledge on how borders ought to be drawn. "If you don't know how to vote, vote for nothing" -- this impulse will be the death of democracy. Simple ideas are better than no ideas; intuition is worse than reason but still better than nothing. The opinion I am espousing in this post stands in direct contrast to many previous arguments where I called for rigor and caution. This is because I think elections are a fundamentally different process than top-down policies: an election needs to incorporate the information possessed by every individual in the society, if I'm working for the NSA and -- even if I have a family to support, or ideological opposition to pulling a Snowden -- if I know what we're doing is wrong I can vote against it, because the sanctity of the voting booth is the cornerstone of [every] democracy[3]. So it's also interesting to wonder if the Internet -- all this connectedness -- might lead us into social biases that would never have previously affected us. The ideas which become popular these days are the ones that you can learn about in five minutes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd#Problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd#Problems [2] it's not rigorous [3] http://www.tv.com/m/shows/the-wire/margin-of-error-898885/trivia/ http://www.tv.com/m/shows/the-wire/margin-of-error-898885/tr...

Tycho 12y ago

I think the point is that any calculation about whether we will be economically better off is inherently a short-term forecast. Nobody knows beyond that. I think the point about the ideal size of a state being closer to Scotland's population than to the UK's is a reasonable, fundamental contribution to the debate. It's not a 'cookie-cutter' argument. People are right to think in fundamental, philosophical terms. As the referendum draws closer I find myself paying less and less attention to short-term issues (which are mostly just quibbles over SNP policies, which really don't have much to do with independence - we could get independence then elect a different party) and thinking more along fundamental lines. One thing I'm sad not to have seen much discussion on is the constitution for an independent Scottish state. That to me is vitally important from a historical perspective.

cmdkeen 12y ago
The debate about a constitution is both short term and vital, it is the most worrying of the SNP's policies. They both want a unicameral chamber and keep bandying around terms like "Sovreign will of the Scottish people" - which has worrying populist tones and a distinct lack of accountability. Seeing what they get up to in the Scottish Parliament with a majority on the committees that are supposed to hold the Executive to account makes me worry about what sort of government an independent Scotland would be starting with - and that is very hard to change, especially to introduce checks and balances. I don't know where the Scottish equivalent of the Bill of Rights would come from.
- Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
  An independent Scotland would supposedly join the EU which would give it the basics in terms of a bill of rights. Until the EU the UK as a whole never had a written bill of rights so it would be no worse off. In terms of the SNP, what happens to them in an independent Scotland might be the most interesting thing. They'd undoubtedly do well in a first election but after the glow has worn off and without their current USP (independence, the only party which is just about Scotland) it'll be interesting to see how they define themselves - after all, politically it's not impossible to view them as to the right of the Labour party (they're not the Tories but they're certainly not socialists), and in another few years time they're going to be very much part of the establishment.
  - Tycho 12y ago
    It's hard to say whether Scotland's support of the Labour party stems more from dislike of conservative economics or from dislike of Conservative MPs (aristocratic English families).
  - ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
    Don't Spain and Belgium vehemently oppose Scotland acceding to the EU?
    - Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
      As far as I can tell they're currently opposing it somewhat indirectly but they absolutely don't want the precedent of a country separating and being allowed into Europe. Neither of them are quite European heavyweights but ultimately , unless there is some sort of fudge (not impossible but unlikely), every existing EU nation will have to vote to accept an independent Scotland. For that to happen it would appear that something will have to be done to placate those with similar potential domestic issues themselves if it's too happen. Whether of not such a something realistically exists or not I don't know.
notahacker 12y ago
I'd agree that the "ideal size of a state" is pretty fundamental to the debate but don't see much of an argument for independence improving matters in the original post I'd argue that where is Scotland's economic power base going to come from, and what sort of economic freedom will they actually get[1] is a much more fundamental, long term issue than the present set of Westminster politicians being uninspiring careerist with a lack of radical ideas, which this article discusses at great length. For better or worse a similarly sized and distributed UK electorate produced much more conviction politics and polarisation in the 70s and 80s. As for the consensus politics, the only guaranteed outcome of the referendum is that 40-49% of the electorate is going to be bitterly disappointed. Even the arcane philosophical question of the present level of devolution waters down the allegedly-obsolete Westphalian system whereas a fully independent Scotland freed from any Westminster tinkering reestablishes it[2] is open for debate. [1]The only problem I have with the debate about whether Scotland will be economically better off is that neither side is willing to openly admit the most likely outcome of post-independence negotiations (Holyrood ceding rather a lot of oil revenue and fiscal handcuffs for formal currency union in the form of token representation on the Bank of England's committees) [2]The actual Westphalian treaty, amongst other things, established the formal independence of the Netherlands and Switzerland from larger empires

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago

> There's simply too much handwaving. Welcome to the Scottish independence debate. On one level it's been extraordinary - pretty much everyone has an opinion and the turnout rate is likely to be 80%+. On a more depressing level the quality of the debate and information made available has largely been extraordinarily poor.

scythe 12y ago

Non-speculation is not necessarily any better than speculation. The wisdom of crowds requires people to think for themselves[1] rather than subscribing to the status quo; only a democracy of independent thinkers avoids groupthink. In this case, we don't have any choice. People are voting, they're voting about changes, and they're voting about changes now, so it's good to see that people are coming up with original thoughts, because this aggregation of opinions is the only solution available to human society -- nobody, not Alfred Wohlstetter, not Noam Chomsky, not even Ludwig Wittgenstein -- knows what the world will look like in 200 years, and really, there isn't any[2] scientific knowledge on how borders ought to be drawn. "If you don't know how to vote, vote for nothing" -- this impulse will be the death of democracy. Simple ideas are better than no ideas; intuition is worse than reason but still better than nothing. The opinion I am espousing in this post stands in direct contrast to many previous arguments where I called for rigor and caution. This is because I think elections are a fundamentally different process than top-down policies: an election needs to incorporate the information possessed by every individual in the society, if I'm working for the NSA and -- even if I have a family to support, or ideological opposition to pulling a Snowden -- if I know what we're doing is wrong I can vote against it, because the sanctity of the voting booth is the cornerstone of [every] democracy[3]. So it's also interesting to wonder if the Internet -- all this connectedness -- might lead us into social biases that would never have previously affected us. The ideas which become popular these days are the ones that you can learn about in five minutes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd#Problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd#Problems [2] it's not rigorous [3] http://www.tv.com/m/shows/the-wire/margin-of-error-898885/trivia/ http://www.tv.com/m/shows/the-wire/margin-of-error-898885/tr...