Escocia: depois do referendo sobre a independencia, agora o mais duro, saber quem paga a conta...

Um Reino menos Unido...
Abaixo a declaração do primeiro-ministro britânico David Cameron sobre a situação pós-referendo que assegurou, pelo menos por enquanto, a permanência dos escoceses nesse reino que no futuro virá a termo. Isto me parece evidente, sobretudo pensando em termos de recuperação de autonomia política no contexto de um processo econômico mais amplo, que envolve a integração nos esquemas respectivos de mercado na Europa continental e na América do norte.

Sim, estou convencido de que esses instintos pró-independência, essas pulsões autonomistas vão continuar com força considerável, tantonna Escócia, quanto na Catalunha, quanto no Québec, por exemplo. E, no entanto, todos eles, se finalmente independentes, vão preferir continuar em seus respectivos esquemas de integração, a União Europeia por um lado, o Nafta por outro, este bem mais simples e sem implicar pagamentos e recebimentos de e para o monstro burocrático, custoso, em que se transformou a UE.

Fica pendente, porém, a questão crucial de saber quem paga todas as bondades estatais que cada um dos povos espera ter com uma maior autonomia política. Hoje a Escócia é uma recebedora líquida no orçamento comunitário e mesmo no esquema político do Reino Unido. Muito provavelmente, sendo independente e escolhendo ficar na UE, se torne uma pagadora líquida, por ter uma renda per capita superior à média comunitária, o mesmo acontecendo com a Catalunha. E aí, quem vai pagar as pensões e benefícios sociais e cuidados médicos de suas populações mais idosas? Quem vai pagar transportes e outros serviços públicos.

No final do dia, alguém sempre precisa pagar a conta.

Governos irresponsáveis costumam deixar a conta para as gerações futuras, seja em termos de mais inflação, seja como dívida pública aumentada e prestações diminuídas.

E isso vale para o Brasil também, sem qualquer separatismo. Aliás, aqui já temos uma federação de mentira, com total esquizofrenia orçamentária, e uma conta que cresce, a ser paga por nossos filhos e netos.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

A better, brighter future for our entire United Kingdom

10 Downing Street, September 20, 2014

On 18 September 2014 the Scottish independence referendum took place and Scotland voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. 

Voters in Scotland were asked to answer Yes or No to the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” 55.3% voted No and 44.7% voted Yes.

Prime Minister David Cameron gave a statement at Downing Street following the outcome.

Watch a video of David Cameron's statement.

Read the statement

"The people of Scotland have spoken. It is a clear result. They have kept our country of 4 nations together. Like millions of other people, I am delighted. As I said during the campaign, it would have broken my heart to see our United Kingdom come to an end.

"And I know that sentiment was shared by people, not just across our country, but also around the world because of what we’ve achieved together in the past and what we can do together in the future.

"So now it is time for our United Kingdom to come together, and to move forward. A vital part of that will be a balanced settlement – fair to people in Scotland and importantly to everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

"Let us first remember why we had this debate – and why it was right to do so.

"The Scottish National Party (SNP) was elected in Scotland in 2011 and promised a referendum on independence. We could have blocked that; we could have put it off, but just as with other big issues, it was right to take - not duck - the big decision.

"I am a passionate believer in our United Kingdom – I wanted more than anything for our United Kingdom to stay together.

"But I am also a democrat. And it was right that we respected the SNP’s majority in Holyrood and gave the Scottish people their right to have their say.

"Let us also remember why it was right to ask the definitive question, Yes or No. Because now the debate has been settled for a generation or as Alex Salmond has said, perhaps for a lifetime.

"So there can be no disputes, no re-runs – we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people.

"Scotland voted for a stronger Scottish Parliament backed by the strength and security of the United Kingdom and I want to congratulate the No campaign for that – for showing people that our nations really are better together.

"I also want to pay tribute to Yes Scotland for a well-fought campaign and to say to all those who did vote for independence: “we hear you”.

"We now have a chance – a great opportunity – to change the way the British people are governed, and change it for the better.

"Political leaders on all sides of the debate now bear a heavy responsibility to come together and work constructively to advance the interests of people in Scotland, as well as those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for each and every citizen of our United Kingdom.

"To those in Scotland sceptical of the constitutional promises made, let me say this; we have delivered on devolution under this government, and we will do so again in the next Parliament.

"The 3 pro-union parties have made commitments, clear commitments, on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. We will ensure that they are honoured in full.

"And I can announce today that Lord Smith of Kelvin – who so successfully led Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games – has agreed to oversee the process to take forward the devolution commitments, with powers over tax, spending and welfare all agreed by November and draft legislation published by January.

"Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs. The rights of these voters need to be respected, preserved and enhanced as well.

"It is absolutely right that a new and fair settlement for Scotland should be accompanied by a new and fair settlement that applies to all parts of our United Kingdom. In Wales, there are proposals to give the Welsh government and Assembly more powers. And I want Wales to be at the heart of the debate on how to make our United Kingdom work for all our nations. In Northern Ireland, we must work to ensure that the devolved institutions function effectively.

"I have long believed that a crucial part missing from this national discussion is England. We have heard the voice of Scotland - and now the millions of voices of England must also be heard. The question of English votes for English laws – the so-called West Lothian question – requires a decisive answer.

"So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland.

"I hope that is going to take place on a cross-party basis. I have asked William Hague to draw up these plans. We will set up a Cabinet Committee right away and proposals will also be ready to the same timetable. I hope the Labour Party and other parties will contribute.

"It is also important we have wider civic engagement about to improve governance in our United Kingdom, including how to empower our great cities. And we will say more about this in the coming days.

"This referendum has been hard fought. It has stirred strong passions. It has electrified politics in Scotland, and caught the imagination of people across the whole of our United Kingdom.

"It will be remembered as a powerful demonstration of the strength and vitality of our ancient democracy. Record numbers registered to vote and record numbers cast their vote. We can all be proud of that. It has reminded us how fortunate we are that we are able to settle these vital issues at the ballot box, peacefully and calmly.

"Now we must look forward, and turn this into the moment when everyone – whichever way they voted – comes together to build that better, brighter future for our entire United Kingdom."

David Cameron
Prime Minister

What happens next?

• Scottish independence referendum - what happens next?
• More powers for the Scottish Parliament

Uma pequena Escocia seria viavel? Parece que sim - Peter St. Onge (Mises)

Gostei desta frase: 
An independent Scotland, or Vermont, is unlikely to invade Iraq. It takes a big country to do truly insane things.
O Brasil como é grande também se arrisca a fazer muitas bobagens, aliás já faz; não contra os seus vizinhos, invadindo outros países; ele faz mal a si próprio, ou melhor, seus dirigentes fazem mal aos brasileiros, com toda essa mania de grandeza, esse ufanismo idiota, essa arrogância dos ignorantes verdadeiros e inconscientes de sê-lo.
Será que eu sou contra as pátrias, só gostando das comunidades integradas?
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
 
Is Scotland Big Enough To Go it Alone?
by Peter St. Onge
Mises Daily, September 12, 2014

Back when Quebec was weighing secession from Canada, I was a lowly American undergrad living in Montreal. It was an exciting time, since in America we have our railroads torn up and population starved when we secede. Now that Scotland is going through the motions, I figured I’d stir the pot, economically.

The question in 1995 was whether Quebec should secede from the Canadian Confederation. Passions were high; one secessionist leader unwisely argued that a "Yes" win would lock voters into secession like "lobsters thrown into boiling water." Fueling the drum-beat were federalist of impending economic, political, and currency chaos. At the end, the vote was incredibly close: 49.4 percent voting for secession, 50.6 percent voting no.

As Scotland goes to the polls to decide on its own separation from the United Kingdom, the tone of the campaign is, again, high on passion and, again, secessionists are inching toward the magical 50 percent line. But don’t uncork the single malt quite yet: as of today (September 2, 2014), bookies in London still put the odds at 4-to-1 against the non-binding referendum. But it remains a real possibility.

One core debate is whether Scotland is too small and too insignificant to go it alone. During the Quebec referendum there was a nearly-identical debate, with secessionists arguing that Quebec has more people than Switzerland and more land than France, while federalists preferred to compare Quebec to the US or the “rest-of-Canada” (ROC, in a term from the day).

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.

Second, small countries just don’t have the money to engage in truly crazy ideas. Like Wars on Terror or world-wide daisy-chains of military bases. An independent Scotland, or Vermont, is unlikely to invade Iraq. It takes a big country to do truly insane things.

Of course there are many short-term issues for the Scots to consider, from tax and subsidy splits, to defense contractors relocating to England. And, of course, the deep historico-cultural issues that an America of Franco-British descent should best sit out.

Still, as an economist, what we can say is that Scotland’s big enough to “survive” on its own, and indeed is very likely to become richer out of the secession. Nearer to the small-is-rich Ireland than the big-but-poor Britain left behind.

Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Uma outra Escocia e' possivel! Sim! Mais pobre, e mais confusa... - Mark Blyth

Populistas, oportunistas, ou seja, políticos, estão sempre querendo conquistar o seu reino, ou seu principado. Depois dão com os burros n'água, ou seja, trocam os pés pelas mãos, e acabam deixando o povo pior do que estava: com menos serviços sociais, e mais dívidas.
Os escoceses vivem hoje de mensalão britânico, isto é, recebem mais do Reino Unido do que contribuem. Também pudera: não elegem respresentantes conservadores para o parlamento da Grã-Bretanha, só trabalhistas, que são distribucionistas por excelência (com o dinheiro dos outros, claro).
Em síntese, o Reino Unido vai deixar de ser o Reino Unido, e vai virar uma potência de terceira classe, quase na companhia da Etiópia (estou exagerando, claro...). Enfim, vão voltar a ser o que eram até o século XV, ou seja, dois séculos antes da absorção da Escócia por aqueles ingleses arrogantes.
Os escoceses vão estar melhor?
Duvido. Mas vão ficar orgulhosos de seu cantinho, vendendo uisque e salmão para todo o mundo. O difícil vai ser dividir o petróleo do mar do Norte, pois nessas horas todos os políticos são rentistas.
Quem sabe uma nova guerra resolve os problemas?
O que diria Adam Smith disso tudo?, ele que não ligava para as fronteiras e apenas queria comércio livre e sobretudo nenhuma colônia para sustentar...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

It's Not About the Money

Why Scotland Might Just Say Yes to Independence

By Mark Blyth

Foreign Policy, September 9, 2014

Manpreet Sing Makkar -- active in the Yes campaign -- poses for a photograph in Edinburgh, July 16, 2014. (Paul Hackett / Courtesy Reuters)

Debates over national independence are seldom rational. Since they deal with what may happen in the future, each side must convince voters that it is the better soothsayer. In the political battle over Scottish independence, which will come to a popular vote on September 18, two competing visions are clashing hard.

The “No” camp, which goes by the slogan “Better Together,” has run a campaign that focuses primarily on the costs of separation, which are hard to price but estimable. The “Yes” campaign’s response has been to dismiss such concerns as “fear-mongering,” highlighting instead how much better Scotland would fare after independence. In so doing, the Yes camp has rested its case on a counterfactual that can never be proven, seemingly a weaker hand to play.

Yet the key nationalist claims are not without merit. First, since the 1980s, Scotland has overwhelmingly voted for the Labour and the Scottish National Parties, whereas the United Kingdom has voted Conservative. As a result, most Scots feel that they often end up with a government they didn’t vote for. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 went some way toward addressing the democratic deficit. But since the body has limited fiscal powers -- and no independent monetary powers -- it has provided only a partial fix. Second, Scottish voters, the Yes campaign argues, favor a generous welfare state backed by a government that defends public institutions from austerity. And third, most Scots, so says the Yes camp, want to be part of the European Union at a time when the British government is thinking about parting ways with Brussels, so independence would safeguard ties to Europe.

As a wish list, such priorities may seem admirable, especially if one’s politics stand center-left. But to what extent are they achievable? That question has formed the crux of the No campaign, which has shied away from extolling the benefits of the union and stressed instead the economic risks that would come with independence. The core dispute in the independence debate has been over what currency an independent Scotland would use; after all, if you are not in charge of your own money, one has to question the extent to which, like a teenager who never leaves home, you are truly independent and can set your own goals.

Three hundred years is a decent run for any political project.

As the polls narrow and the referendum nears, the money question has become all the more pressing. According to the latest poll, the Yes camp is trailing by only six points, with eight percent of voters still undecided. The result, in other words, remains very much up in the air. Markets are starting to get nervous, suddenly waking up to the fact that if Scotland goes, neither the British pound nor sterling securities will be what they once were. If sterling’s backers, the British taxpayers, are suddenly reduced by ten percent, should UK bonds reflect that risk?

The Yes campaign wants a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom that retains the pound. (Although London has ruled that out, how Westminster could prevent such a union without removing the coins and notes already in circulation remains an open question.) Yet a currency union would not do an independent Scotland any favors. The United Kingdom’s electoral politics would ultimately determine monetary policy, and Scotland could find itself facing an even tougher macroeconomic and monetary environment than it already does. If the Labour Party was deprived of its Scottish seats, it would struggle to form a majority in the House of Commons, strengthening Conservative control. And with Scotland gone, London’s finance-centric economy would have greater influence still. 

London could turn the screws on Edinburgh further, and not without reason. An independent Scotland would have a massively oversize banking system, with assets possibly exceeding 1,000 percent of GDP. This would represent an Icelandic-sized risk to British taxpayers, who would have to stand behind the liabilities of the Scottish banks if they ran into trouble. As the Financial Times put it in a recent editorial, no British government would back those banks “unless Scotland were to accept very heavy constraints over its public finances.” In short, budgetary austerity and conservative policies would remain the only game in town, even after independence. 

To get out of this bind, an independent Scotland would need its own currency, an option the Yes campaign has only recently acknowledged as a possible “plan B.” Without monetary sovereignty, a country can neither print nor devalue its way out of trouble. And if it doesn’t want to default, austerity is the only way forward.

Create Infographics

Yet to establish an independent currency, Scotland would need three things: a central bank, a bond shop, and independent tax institutions. For now, Edinburgh has none of these. And it would take five to ten years to build them. In the meantime, the country Scotland just broke up with would be raising the taxes, paying the bond investors, and running the currency -- and charging a pretty penny to do so. Joining the euro, the only other alternative, would simply mean austerity would come from another direction, from Berlin rather than London.

Given all this, if Scotland votes in favor of independence, the United Kingdom’s reaction would not likely be the velvet divorce the Yes campaigners envision. Nationalism, like most forms of identity politics, thrives only in the face of a foreign other. Far from safeguarding Scotland’s position in Europe, the United Kingdom’s already resurgent nationalism will likely grow fiercer. Edinburgh’s exit would probably make London’s withdrawal from the EU more likely, complicating the Yes campaign’s desire to protect European interdependence.

Yet perhaps the oddest thing about the Scottish debate has been its lack of concern for issues of language, culture, or past sins -- all central features of Basque, Catalan, and other independence movements. On the surface, it’s been all about the money, which makes the recent turn at the polls all the more telling. Although the No camp has largely won the economic arguments, the Yes campaign has gained the upper hand. The question is why?

The journalist Paul Mason noted recently in The Guardian newspaper that age is becoming a key factor in determining how Scots vote, with older people being more likely to vote no. This sits well with the famous observation (falsely attributed to Winston Churchill) about being a liberal at 25 and a conservative at 35. Those with assets in the current system don’t want the system to change. Those with no or few assets are willing to see it transformed. Generational, rather than monetary, politics may well be the determinant of the final result.

Raised in a country where the policy choice of the past 30 years has been neoliberalism with airbags (New Labour under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) or neoliberalism on steroids (under the Tories), and faced with falling real wages and diminished opportunity, young people in Scotland want another choice. This is perhaps why nationalism retains the capacity to surprise. It’s not about costs, risks, or uncertainties; it’s about the idea that a different future is possible. 

As Mason noted, “Once established, political psychologies like this do not go away. History shows they intensify until something gives, and at some point it is usually the borders of a nation state.” Three hundred years is a decent run for any political project. If the United Kingdom’s borders give way in a few days’ time, nobody should be surprised that those who said Yes ignored the warnings about what their vote would cost them. For Scotland’s young, those who yearn for a different future, it was never really about the money.