The problem with independence referendums...
On the day that Scotland is voting on whether to remain a part of the UK, I can't help but comment on a number of things that will have a tremendous impact should independence win over, which really have no right in such a debate. Those being external influence and political influence.
External influence makes a lot of sense. Here in Canada, I shouldn't be attempting to promote either side. I don't know the issues, I don't know the outcome and I won't have to live with the decision. My heartfelt belief is that this is a decision for the people of Scotland to make on their own. Nonetheless, this has attracted a TON of attention and a ton of national support for both sides, owing in large part to the Quebec separatist movement.
But, not only should Quebec separatists not be supporting a 'Yes' vote in a region where they no vested interest, they should also not even be paying particularly close attention to it. A victory there won't mean a victory here. But, more to the point, even the eventual outcome, positive or negative will have no direct reflection on what an outcome here would be under the same circumstances. For instance, whether or not Scotland is allowed to continue to use the Pound for currency, or what happens with their debts. These are HUGE decisions. In many ways as big as the referendum itself if it succeeds. And the outcomes there are also not indicative of what would happen elsewhere.
Furthermore, any region that might be considering this will have different reasons for wanting separation and, in addition, different economic situations and options available. The Crimean referendum for example weren't actually seeking independence. It wasn't even on the ballot. Their options were remain with Ukraine or become Russian. The outcome of which is totally different than a bid to become self governing and an independent entity.
So, external forces really should just keep their yaps shut. The same goes for the Scottish people living outside of Scotland. I respect you view it as your homeland. I also respect that the decisions may affect you in some much more direct ways than it does others if you have family or close friends in Scotland. But, your day to day life is largely unaffected if you aren't living there. Don't try to sway the vote.
Perhaps more contentious is that I don't believe in the political element here. Both sides paint a win as magic unicorns with rainbows shooting out their ass and a loss as a post apocalyptic nightmare. None of the portrayed outcomes are likely to end up anything near reality. Politicians are abusing their visibility to paint an unlikely scenario. And, yes, that is basically the heart of politics, but this is messing with people's lives on a grander scale than they normally do.
The 'Yes' campaign for instance would love you to believe that the oil revenue they hope to fund their government with is a sure thing, currency won't be a concern and potential debt issues can be ignored.
Realistically however, oil is a business and a single business. Even if they end up with the share of the profits that they want, there is no guarantee that prices will remain stable. Many have pointed to US fracking a possible way in which offshore oil concerns could rapidly lose value for instance. Then there is the fact that until the deal is settled no one can guarantee what share of the profits Scotland would receive.
On the currency topic... this isn't a guarantee. Many point to the fact that it is within both countries best interest to stick with the Pound. But that doesn't mean that they would retain that privilege for free. And that isn't to say that everyone in Scotland views it the same. There is talk of joining the EU and potentially adopting the euro for example. It is more of a risk, but it COULD have a bigger pay off. If they choose to stick with the Pound the 'Yes' group would like you to believe that it is all but a done deal that they would be able to play a significant role with regards to the currency. This seems unlikely to me. They had a better chance of effecting change as part of the union where it was just a matter of getting your candidates elected. As a much smaller country with direct ins to the body governing that currency they could be easily shut out.
And lastly is the debt issue. This is a gamble as well. It seems like the British government is ok with paying off their debts if they secede. But economists have said this might be as bad as it is good. It could be perceived as Scotland needing to bailed out which might hurt their initial ability to negotiate with lenders. But, taking on too much debt would also be disastrous.
Similar faults exist in logic on the 'No' side of the debate.
The problem being at the end of the day... neither side knows what a UK without Scotland will look like. And won't know for almost 2 years after the vote. And yet, both sides are willing to sell Scottish citizens a view of what things will look like if they cast their lot with either side. NEITHER side is being fundamentally honest and the people are being mislead to ends of winning one political agenda over another.
External influence makes a lot of sense. Here in Canada, I shouldn't be attempting to promote either side. I don't know the issues, I don't know the outcome and I won't have to live with the decision. My heartfelt belief is that this is a decision for the people of Scotland to make on their own. Nonetheless, this has attracted a TON of attention and a ton of national support for both sides, owing in large part to the Quebec separatist movement.
But, not only should Quebec separatists not be supporting a 'Yes' vote in a region where they no vested interest, they should also not even be paying particularly close attention to it. A victory there won't mean a victory here. But, more to the point, even the eventual outcome, positive or negative will have no direct reflection on what an outcome here would be under the same circumstances. For instance, whether or not Scotland is allowed to continue to use the Pound for currency, or what happens with their debts. These are HUGE decisions. In many ways as big as the referendum itself if it succeeds. And the outcomes there are also not indicative of what would happen elsewhere.
Furthermore, any region that might be considering this will have different reasons for wanting separation and, in addition, different economic situations and options available. The Crimean referendum for example weren't actually seeking independence. It wasn't even on the ballot. Their options were remain with Ukraine or become Russian. The outcome of which is totally different than a bid to become self governing and an independent entity.
So, external forces really should just keep their yaps shut. The same goes for the Scottish people living outside of Scotland. I respect you view it as your homeland. I also respect that the decisions may affect you in some much more direct ways than it does others if you have family or close friends in Scotland. But, your day to day life is largely unaffected if you aren't living there. Don't try to sway the vote.
Perhaps more contentious is that I don't believe in the political element here. Both sides paint a win as magic unicorns with rainbows shooting out their ass and a loss as a post apocalyptic nightmare. None of the portrayed outcomes are likely to end up anything near reality. Politicians are abusing their visibility to paint an unlikely scenario. And, yes, that is basically the heart of politics, but this is messing with people's lives on a grander scale than they normally do.
The 'Yes' campaign for instance would love you to believe that the oil revenue they hope to fund their government with is a sure thing, currency won't be a concern and potential debt issues can be ignored.
Realistically however, oil is a business and a single business. Even if they end up with the share of the profits that they want, there is no guarantee that prices will remain stable. Many have pointed to US fracking a possible way in which offshore oil concerns could rapidly lose value for instance. Then there is the fact that until the deal is settled no one can guarantee what share of the profits Scotland would receive.
On the currency topic... this isn't a guarantee. Many point to the fact that it is within both countries best interest to stick with the Pound. But that doesn't mean that they would retain that privilege for free. And that isn't to say that everyone in Scotland views it the same. There is talk of joining the EU and potentially adopting the euro for example. It is more of a risk, but it COULD have a bigger pay off. If they choose to stick with the Pound the 'Yes' group would like you to believe that it is all but a done deal that they would be able to play a significant role with regards to the currency. This seems unlikely to me. They had a better chance of effecting change as part of the union where it was just a matter of getting your candidates elected. As a much smaller country with direct ins to the body governing that currency they could be easily shut out.
And lastly is the debt issue. This is a gamble as well. It seems like the British government is ok with paying off their debts if they secede. But economists have said this might be as bad as it is good. It could be perceived as Scotland needing to bailed out which might hurt their initial ability to negotiate with lenders. But, taking on too much debt would also be disastrous.
Similar faults exist in logic on the 'No' side of the debate.
The problem being at the end of the day... neither side knows what a UK without Scotland will look like. And won't know for almost 2 years after the vote. And yet, both sides are willing to sell Scottish citizens a view of what things will look like if they cast their lot with either side. NEITHER side is being fundamentally honest and the people are being mislead to ends of winning one political agenda over another.
Comments
Post a Comment