Former War Bureaucrat Whines About Scotland's Independence Drive

It is absolutely certain that not only the UK establishment, but the political elite of all of Europe is looking forward to Scotland's independence referendum with great trepidation. If Scotland votes 'yes' to independence, it will likely be the first of many dominoes. It is a step toward greater freedom for citizens and less power for the ruling elite. In other words, it is definitely a step in the right direction and very likely will set an example.

Spain's central government is trying to deny Catalonia a similar referendum (more on that in the next article), and we bet if Scotland succeeds and secedes, it will inter alia have the effect of invigorating the Catalonian independence campaign.

Opponents of Scottish independence are falling back on tried and true scaremongering tactics, which are usually also heavily deployed whenever EU-related referendums come up. Loud whining coupled with straw man arguments could (once again) be heard from a former war bureaucrat, retired NATO general secretary and defense minister under Toni Blair, Lord George Robertson:

“Scottish independence would have a "cataclysmic" impact on the world, a former Nato general secretary has warned in a stark intervention in the referendum debate. Britain's enemies would "cheer loudest" and "the forces of darkness would simply love it" if the UK broke up, Lord (George) Robertson said.

Allowing the West's second military power to be plunged into a "difficult and debilitating divorce" would rob allies of a crucial partner in an era of international turmoil, he added.

Lord Robertson, defense secretary under Tony Blair between 1997 and 1999, also suggested Alex Salmond's pro-Nato stance was an "electoral fix" which contradicted the SNP's opposition to nuclear weapons. He said the 28 Nato members were unlikely to allow a country join which specifically barred ships carrying nuclear weapons from entering its waters, as outlined currently by the SNP.”

The 'forces of darkness' would rejoice! Verily, it would be a cataclysm! Presumably it would also start raining dead frogs, the rivers would run red, and a plague of locusts would soon descend on the fertile fields of Albion.

What utter hogwash. Given that he was once a powerful military bureaucrat, it is probably only natural that a looming 'loss of territory' would appear worrisome to the good Lord Robertson. We would suggest that the putative 'enemies' mainly reside in his imagination, and even if they didn't, they couldn't possibly care less whether Scotland remains part of the UK or not. As to the idea that a country that is against nuclear weapons is unable to join NATO, it makes one wonder how Germany manages to be a NATO member. Besides, there is zero mileage in NATO membership for Scotland anyway – it will only going to cost it money that could be put to better uses and suck it into wars in far-away places. Scotland should actually think twice about joining that particular club. After all, who's going to invade it? The Vikings?

No longer a full-spectrum military partner when Scotland leaves? Boo-hoo! (Cartoon by Steve Bell)

Scotland's first deputy minister Nicola Sturgeon had this to say to Robertson's incoherent outburst:

“The contribution George Robertson made last night, and in particular the language he's used to make it in, I think does a real disservice to the debate," Ms Sturgeon told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland program.

"Look at some of the language: 'It would be cataclysmic for Scotland to become independent, it would aid the forces of darkness, it would threaten the stability of the western world'.

"That just completely moves away from any semblance of rational debate and I think many people, whether they're Yes or No, will find these comments insulting and offensive."

That's because they are 'insulting and offensive'.

Worried Political Elites

Daniel Larison at the American Conservative rightly wonders as well what all the fuss is about – interestingly in a comment that refers to a previous jeremiad of Robertson's that was published in the Washington Post. First an excerpt from Robertson's paranoid rant in the WP:

“The ripple effects would not be limited to the United Kingdom. Other separatist movements in Europe are watching the Scottish debate with undisguised interest. In Spain, more than a million Catalans have turned out in the streets calling for independence. In the Basque Country, separatist violence has waned, but the desire for a separate state remains. In Belgium, whose unity hangs on a thread, Flemish nationalists have made it clear that if Scotland has a free pass to the European Union and NATO, they would be next in line. There could be more breakaways to come.”

Reading this, our first reaction was: Good! Let's hope others are watching closely and are inspired to achieve independence as well! The more the merrier!  Alternatively one might also ask: So what? Who cares? What's better about a Catalonia under Madrid's rule compared to an independent Catalonia? If it makes the Catalans happy, why would anyone but the Catalans have anything to say about it, or have reason to worry about it? The same applies of course mutatis mutandis to the Scots or any other group that wishes to split from a larger nation state. Maybe one should ask Robertson whether he is worried that the Ukraine is no longer part of the Soviet Union, or Kosovo no longer part of Serbia. You have exactly one guess as to what his reply would be.  Larison adopts the appropriate 'so what' attitude:

“The assumption behind all of this is that the fragmentation of some or all of these states would be a bad thing. That’s possible, but it’s not clear why this is taken as a given. It is understandable after the last century that Europeans would be wary of redrawing territorial boundaries, but the peaceful division of democratic states by referendum is a very strange thing to oppose. Suppose that Scottish independence triggered a wave of other successful separatist votes that created several new states out of a few existing ones. What would be the harm in that? Is there really very much to be feared from an independent Catalunya? It makes sense that some European governments wouldn’t want to encourage separatist movements in their own countries, but it frankly doesn’t matter that much to other countries.

[…]

Despite Robertson’s use of “re-Balkanization” to scare people into thinking that Scottish independence could mean the return of armed conflict to western Europe, there is little reason to think that the independence of a few new countries would lead to “more strife and dissension.”Scottish independence may indeed not be in the interests of most Scots, in which case they will vote it down and the issue will be resolved for the foreseeable future. Even so, it is the most pathetic kind of fear-mongering to suggest that it would be a serious danger to anyone.”

Of course Larison forgets an important point: the ruling class does believe it to be a 'serious danger' – namely to its own power. The State and its minions are not unlike the mafia in this and many other respects. A territory that contains a population that can be looted must not be allowed to slip away.

It is frankly something of a miracle the Scots are actually finally free to vote on their status. They have been in a clinch with England for large stretches of their history (although it took a lot of liberties with the historical facts, the movie 'Braveheart' does give one a good general idea of an important slice of this historical struggle). The motives of the English kings of yore who wished to subjugate the Scots were in principle no different than those of today's political and bureaucratic elites. However, we reiterate that from the point of view of the average individual citizen, it is definitely better to live in a small nation rather than a large one (for more color on this see our recent article “Are Nation States Beginning to Splinter?”).

Financial and Economic Effects

There are a number of interesting points to consider with respect to UK public debt, banking sector assets, and the future currency regime if Scotland becomes independent. Scotland's SNP wishes to remain in a currency union with the UK, but this has actually been ruled out by the three major parties in Westminster. After Scotland splits, UK public debt would at least temporarily soar. It would have a claim on Scotland's share of the public debt, which presumably would be paid over time, but would represent a credit risk, and quite possibly also a currency risk.

If the major Scottish banks were to relocate their headquarters to London, the UK's bank assets/GDP ratio would soar from an already extremely high level. If these banks were all to remain based in Scotland, their assets would amount to a almost 1,250% of Scotland's GDP.

The UK would also lose the bulk of its oil revenues (which are however declining anyway), as most of the North Sea oil is situated  off the Scottish coast.

Scottish banking sector assets as percentages of GDP (various permutations) – click to enlarge.

Conclusion:

There is nothing to fear from Scottish independence. Those who cherish individual liberty should in fact root for its success. As a rule, individuals liberties are likely to be far better protected in a world consisting of many small independent territories than in one consisting of large centralized nation states. The more centralization there is, the less competition there is between polities. By contrast, a plethora of smaller territories will be in competition, and will have to strive to keep their inhabitants happy, lest they simply vote with their feet.

Former NATO general secretary George Robertson thinks Scottish independence would be a 'cataclysm'. He also looks like he doesn't laugh very often and has a stick up his a**.

(Photo via AP)

UK chancellor of the exchequer George Osborn is not happy with SNP leader Alex Salmond's plan to hang on to the pound  (cartoon by Steve Bell)

Chart by Fitch, cartoons by Steve Bell