Great to see that some people still realize that they have a choice in their fate.
I’m torn over this. One the one hand it’s sad to see a ripped apart UK, but that sadness would be compensated by a de facto exit by the UK from the European Union. Times are a changing, but if they’re going to change, I want it at the expense of Islamization, and the neo-statists / neo-aristocrats.
H/T: Fjordman
Scotland and de-globalization
The prospect of Scottish independence is further evidence that the era of increasing globalization, with all its benefits to capital, is waning fast. Support for independence, an issue to be put to a vote among Scots on Sept. 18, has surged in recent days, with those in favor registering their first opinion poll lead over the weekend, writes James Saft.
James Saft is a Reuters columnist.
The prospect of Scottish independence is further evidence that the era of increasing globalization, with all its benefits to capital, is waning fast.
Support for independence, an issue to be put to a vote among Scots on Sept. 18, has surged in recent days, with those in favor registering their first opinion poll lead over the weekend.
Not only would an independent Scotland have to come up with some plan for a currency and monetary policy, an area in which it has several options, each carrying its own dangers, but it also would make more likely a British exit from the European Union.
This is far from the only recent example of a retreat from globalization, a word used to describe a process whereby the movement of capital and goods, if not people, becomes more free and trade tends to rise. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine neatly dispels the canard that tight banking and trade links mean the end of military hostilities. Similarly Iceland’s refusal to make good the bubble era debts of its banks, and Argentina’s willingness to default yet again show an increased willingness on the part of some to take their chances and forgo some of the benefits of the global system of capital raising.
Scotland’s case is distinct, being, broadly, that of an electorate apparently being willing to exert more direct control over their own conditions, over the objection of elites and despite arguments that this higher level of control will bring with it economic costs. That’s pretty much the opposite of globalization, the gospel of which has preached that by surrendering local control in order to allow easier movement of goods and capital we can achieve better growth all round.
Whatever you think of the merits of the two sides of this argument (and I really would worry about the idea of being a state without a central bank), some implications are clear: it is bad for investors, who face more risks, for banking and finance, and probably for growth.
