Posted on 09/14/2014 7:49:39 PM PDT by Lorianne
In a curious coincidence, 2014 Scotland and 1994 Quebec have nearly the same population: about 5–6 million. About the same as Denmark or Norway, and half-a-million more than Ireland. Even on physical area Scotland’s no slouch: about the size of Holland or Ireland, and three times the size of Jamaica. The fact that Ireland, Norway, and Jamaica are all considered sustainably-sized countries argues for the separatists here.
So small is possible. But is it a good idea?
The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is resoundingly “Yes!” Statistically speaking, at least. Why? Because according to numbers from the World Bank Development Indicators, among the 45 sovereign countries in Europe, small countries are nearly twice as wealthy as large countries. The gap between biggest-10 and smallest-10 ranges between 84 percent (for all of Europe) to 79 percent (for only Western Europe).
This is a huge difference: To put it in perspective, even a 79 percent change in wealth is about the gap between Russia and Denmark. That’s massive considering the historical and cultural similarities especially within Western Europe.
Even among linguistic siblings the differences are stark: Germany is poorer than the small German-speaking states (Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein), France is poorer than the small French-speaking states (Belgium, Andorra, Luxembourg, and Switzerland again and, of course, Monaco). Even Ireland, for centuries ravaged by the warmongering English, is today richer than their former masters in the United Kingdom, a country 15 times larger.
Why would this be? There are two reasons. First, smaller countries are often more responsive to their people. The smaller the country the stronger the policy feedback loop. Meaning truly awful ideas tend to get corrected earlier. Had Mao Tse Tung been working with an apartment complex instead of a country of nearly a billion-people, his wacky ideas wouldn’t have killed millions.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
Largest oil reserves in the EU.
Leading producer of haggis.
I’m sure the EU are lickin’ their chops.
I am wondering if they’ve grown tired of Great Briton’s group hug with Islam. I know I would be sick of it.
Not to mention awesome Scotch, Highland wool, shortbread, and salmon. :)
I think this is more of an EU move since the pressure has been on Cameron because a large majority in the UK HATE the EU.
We need. To take a cue. Perhaps a left US,and a RIGHT US?
Why would this be? There are two reasons. First, smaller countries are often more responsive to their people. The smaller the country the stronger the policy feedback loop. Meaning truly awful ideas tend to get corrected earlier.
Sounds like this liberal group is making a strong case for state’ rights.
As the author points out, any small nation can succeed, but Scots will need to lose their addiction to welfare and government employment first.
These things are based on debt and money printing - and that would quickly turn small Scotland, without the ability to issue debt in their own currency, into Zimbabwe.
And that’s where the SNP is lying to the people.
There are downsides to Scotland's prospects as well, not the least of which are what appears to this outsider as a shocking lack of actual planning for success on the part of the separatists and failure on the part of the unionists. If at this late date all any of these can speak about is what "might" happen there is very little room for an informed vote. Forming a newly separate country is not really a time for winging it.
Scotland has, to be sure, enough natural resources to provide a cushion provided they are not squandered in the name of ideology as they have been in Venezuela. Were it not for the EU and the Euro one might suspect this to be the day of the Scottish Pound; that will be one of the first things that will need to be worked out in the event of a separatist victory. One hopes that somebody in a position to do something about it has thought the matter through.
Either way it works out, my best to both parties. It is always awkward watching friends orbit around a divorce.
Imagine the uproar in England if Scotland and Ireland combine into a commonwealth and even Wales makes a bid for this. The Queen will wet her pants.
Yep ... but they often don’t know they are making that connection
What I have seen, the Scots too have their portion of bearded barbarians.
A very astute point.
“I am wondering if they’ve grown tired of Great Briton’s group hug with Islam. I know I would be sick of it.”
Not sure about that. I found this article about popular baby first names in Scotland for 2012
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/vital-events/births/popular-names/babies-first-names-2012/index.html
and 2013.
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/popular-forenames/2013/babies-first-names-2013.pdf
In 2013 the name Muhammad was #52 but the previous year it was the 68th most popular. It broke into the top 100 in 2003.
At this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Scotland
it shows that in 2001 there were 42,557 Muzzies. In 2011 it was 76,737.
The population growth rate of Scotland as of 2011 was estimated at 0.6% per annum.
Scotland is going to attempt to separate without having any of the basic institutions in place to support the social democratic state they seek.
they don’t currently have any way to collect their own: income tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, excise tax. they admit they will be dependent on britain to collect these taxes after “independence” for years to come.
they don’t have any of their own programs to pay unemployment benefits or welfare benefits, or nhs payments or even social housing payments.
forget about passports, an “independent” scotland might not be able to issue its own drivers licenses for years
in 1980 Quebec was all ready to go, at least on all of the above.
this is a joke, scotland is in no way ready for independence.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/independent-scotland-set-up-cost-200million.1403436655
For a country with only 5-6 million people, it is amazing how many Scots are all over the world, especially in North America, Australia and New Zealand.
Benjamin Disraeli made an interesting statement many years ago: “It has been my lot to have found myself in many distant lands. I have never been in one without finding a Scotchman, and I never found a Scotchman who was not at the head of the poll.”
This cannot happen first. People are not interested in abandoning an endless supply of goodies. But if the supply ends, then the people will have no choice but to become productive.
Financing the country with debt is a dead end. The sooner the country gives up that drug, the better. Just look at the USA - the debt is so high that it cannot be ever paid back, and that undermines the souvereignity of the country.
Zimbabwe is different because the population there is (a) porly educated, (b) brainwashed, and (c) racist, led by a racist party with a communist-like leader for life. This is not how one builds a prosperous country.
As Scotland has valuable supplies of oil, there is every financial reason for them to declare independence and use that oil for themselves. Norway is not complaining, at least.
Well, of course where ever there are sheep one will find a Scotsman, tending them. Lonely Scotsmen and sheep connotes an interesting picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.