Freedom for Scotland
The Parliament and government of Scotland were ‘devolved’ in 1999 and in the third election, this week, the Scottish National Party has just won the largest number of seats. It’s likely to lead the new government and to call a referendum including the option of independence from the United Kingdom in a near future.
The ‘viability’ of small nations like Scotland relies upon the formation of large areas of free trade which make the protection of markets by traditional states unnecessary, as has been remarked by economists Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore. Indeed membership to vast units like the European Union makes broad self-government of a small community like Scotland possible without an own army, borders or customs. In fact, half the member-states of the European Union are smaller than Scotland in terms of population.
Viability, however, is not the same as desirability.
There can be two kinds of arguments in favor of small nations’ self-government.
First, the efficient provision of public goods requires diverse territorial scales. Due to the development of transport and communication technologies, the efficient scales for the provision of defense, security, communication, and market rules, which may be very large, do not necessarily coincide with those regarding local commerce, daily transports or the preservation of certain natural resources, nor with those for public education, health policy or personal services, which are better provided in small areas with homogeneous populations. In an ideal world of efficiency, each public good should be provided in an area encompassing its consumers, who should finance them. Multilevel governance with different areas of institutional jurisdiction within a vast territory, like the European Union, approaches the ideal. In contrast, the traditional model of sovereign state pretended that one size fits all –and, like in the Procustus’ bed, those not fitting were amputated.
Second, democracy can work better in small communities, which tend to have relatively more homogeneous populations than large states. As political scientists Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte remarked some time ago, small size and low heterogeneity make it relatively easy to develop public deliberation to identify common interests, the aggregation of citizens’ preferences into acceptable collective decisions, and consensual implementation of enforceable decisions. With small unit’s self-government a large minority can become a local majority, thus making the total number of individuals which can see their preferences satisfied by governmental decisions higher than within a large state.
From both an efficient and a democratic perspective, thus, collective decisions should be made preferably by the smaller possible community within a set of multiple institutional levels –that is, according to the classical criterion of “subsidiarity” which has been formally adopted by the European Union. Small nations like Scotland are now viable and, at the same time, better fit than large, heterogeneous states for democratic self-government.
VIDEO
See the Scottish National leader literally pointing out with his finger to Norway land, as an example to follow: CLICK
References
Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore, The Size of Nations, MIT Press, 2003: CLICK
Robert A. Dahl and Edward R. Tufte, Size and Democracy, Stanford, 1973: CLICK
See discussion of this subject in my forthcoming book
Great Empires, Small nations
Already available for pre-order at Routledge: CLICK
Also published in Catalan: CLICK
In Spanish: CLICK
And just awarded the Catalan Academy’s Prize to the best book in Philosophy and Social Sciences of the last five years: CLICK
COMMENTS
Rein Taagepera said...
Of course.
I very much agree that the national state no longer represents the optimal or actual unit on all dimensions -- cultural, economic, military, etc. It always was a somewhat artificial pretension, in a Westphalian system where states ranged in size from Russia to Montenegro. But in a European Union where economy is continentwide and defense arrangements range from intercontinental NATO to separate Finnish and Swedish armies, many present state borders clearly are relics of times past that no longer reflect present cultural, economic, and military needs.
Why should Scotland, Catalonia, Bavaria (who still had its own stamps less than 100 years ago), Corsica and Mezzogiorno be be forced to deal with the EU through some intermediary centers, if they should prefer direct access? This is not to say they MUST go separate. The decision should be up to them -- and only them.
Rein Taagepera
U. of California, Irvine, and U. of Tartu, Estonia
Gianfranco Pasquino said...
First of all, congratulations for your Prize.
Then, I disagree. A world ofsmall nations cannot exist. Scotland may never become independent. In any case, a majority of Scottish voters have not supported the SNP. Some may entertain the idea of independence because they feel in any case protected by the overall power of the United Kingdom and her democratic framework. Scotland will then have to face the consequence not only of opting out of the UK, but of finding itself out of the European Union as well. Small may be, in some cases,beautiful. In the contemporary world, it is rarely viable. I would bet that Scottish voters will prove unwilling to pay the price of complete independence.
Gianfranco Pasquino
(for the time being Visiting Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford)
Somebody said...
Vos idées sur l'Ecosse ne ma plaisent pas.
Nicolas Sarko,
président jacobin de la France.
Patrick Dunleavy said...
Gianfranco Pasquino has not got it right. An independent Scotland would of course remain part of the EU, and even still have the Queen as head of state. Currently Scotland gets a subsidy from England of around £11 billion a year. But the remaining North Sea oil has risen in value with prices increases, somewhat offsetting this.The Scots might also well receive a transitional subsidy deal from the English if they secede.
After all, suppose that you are running a large company with a loss-making northern division that cannot be got rid of but just stocks up pensions and sickness pay liabilities for you. One day its managers come to see you asking to undertake a management buy-out. Why would you not encourage them with a transitional subsidy, tapering down over 10 years?
Patrick Dunleavy
London School of Economics
Josep M. Vallès said...
I agree with Colomer and Taagepera when they suggest that political scientists should be less captive of obsolete legal categories and more ready to find out new institutional answers to the social challenges raised by the economic, strategic and technological developments of the 21st century. I am afraid that Spain, Italy or the United Kingdom –as political entities- are not longer ready to respond to these challenges. This is what the so-called “nationalist movements” show, although they also may be prisoners of those old concepts. Political science should help to design a new pattern of political relations beyond the shaky inter-state monopoly we have inherited from the Westphalian model and which is now a constraint to give efficient responses to collective needs.
Josep M. Vallès
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Andrew Davis said...
Professor Colomer,
You wrote that 'It’s likely to lead the new government and to call a referendum including the option of independence from the United Kingdom in a near future.'
With respect, I disagree. The hurdles to independence for Scotland are many and high.
First, the SNP has formed a minority government, principally because the price for a coalition for the other parties was too high for any political party to pay, namely, acceding to a referendum in 2010.
Second, a referendum assumes that a) the SNP is still in power in 2010 b) that it has done well enough during those three years - the first time in its history that the SNP has governed at all - that it maintains popular support (support for independence will dip if an SNP government proves ineffective) c) that it can ask a 2-part rather than a 3-part referendum question (asking yes or no to independence, rather than independence, more autonomy or status quo) as this is the only way a referendum would pass (on top of the fact that no polls have ever shown much more than 25% of the population which supports independence).
Finally, the government would have to, in fact, call 2 referendums, and win both. One would be to ask the Scottish populace for the authority to negotiate independence with Westminster, the second would be to ratify the deal struck with Westminster.
It's possible on paper, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Andrew Davies
University of Nottingham
The Parliament and government of Scotland were ‘devolved’ in 1999 and in the third election, this week, the Scottish National Party has just won the largest number of seats. It’s likely to lead the new government and to call a referendum including the option of independence from the United Kingdom in a near future.
The ‘viability’ of small nations like Scotland relies upon the formation of large areas of free trade which make the protection of markets by traditional states unnecessary, as has been remarked by economists Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore. Indeed membership to vast units like the European Union makes broad self-government of a small community like Scotland possible without an own army, borders or customs. In fact, half the member-states of the European Union are smaller than Scotland in terms of population.
Viability, however, is not the same as desirability.
There can be two kinds of arguments in favor of small nations’ self-government.
First, the efficient provision of public goods requires diverse territorial scales. Due to the development of transport and communication technologies, the efficient scales for the provision of defense, security, communication, and market rules, which may be very large, do not necessarily coincide with those regarding local commerce, daily transports or the preservation of certain natural resources, nor with those for public education, health policy or personal services, which are better provided in small areas with homogeneous populations. In an ideal world of efficiency, each public good should be provided in an area encompassing its consumers, who should finance them. Multilevel governance with different areas of institutional jurisdiction within a vast territory, like the European Union, approaches the ideal. In contrast, the traditional model of sovereign state pretended that one size fits all –and, like in the Procustus’ bed, those not fitting were amputated.
Second, democracy can work better in small communities, which tend to have relatively more homogeneous populations than large states. As political scientists Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte remarked some time ago, small size and low heterogeneity make it relatively easy to develop public deliberation to identify common interests, the aggregation of citizens’ preferences into acceptable collective decisions, and consensual implementation of enforceable decisions. With small unit’s self-government a large minority can become a local majority, thus making the total number of individuals which can see their preferences satisfied by governmental decisions higher than within a large state.
From both an efficient and a democratic perspective, thus, collective decisions should be made preferably by the smaller possible community within a set of multiple institutional levels –that is, according to the classical criterion of “subsidiarity” which has been formally adopted by the European Union. Small nations like Scotland are now viable and, at the same time, better fit than large, heterogeneous states for democratic self-government.
VIDEO
See the Scottish National leader literally pointing out with his finger to Norway land, as an example to follow: CLICK
References
Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore, The Size of Nations, MIT Press, 2003: CLICK
Robert A. Dahl and Edward R. Tufte, Size and Democracy, Stanford, 1973: CLICK
See discussion of this subject in my forthcoming book
Great Empires, Small nations
Already available for pre-order at Routledge: CLICK
Also published in Catalan: CLICK
In Spanish: CLICK
And just awarded the Catalan Academy’s Prize to the best book in Philosophy and Social Sciences of the last five years: CLICK
COMMENTS
Rein Taagepera said...
Of course.
I very much agree that the national state no longer represents the optimal or actual unit on all dimensions -- cultural, economic, military, etc. It always was a somewhat artificial pretension, in a Westphalian system where states ranged in size from Russia to Montenegro. But in a European Union where economy is continentwide and defense arrangements range from intercontinental NATO to separate Finnish and Swedish armies, many present state borders clearly are relics of times past that no longer reflect present cultural, economic, and military needs.
Why should Scotland, Catalonia, Bavaria (who still had its own stamps less than 100 years ago), Corsica and Mezzogiorno be be forced to deal with the EU through some intermediary centers, if they should prefer direct access? This is not to say they MUST go separate. The decision should be up to them -- and only them.
Rein Taagepera
U. of California, Irvine, and U. of Tartu, Estonia
Gianfranco Pasquino said...
First of all, congratulations for your Prize.
Then, I disagree. A world ofsmall nations cannot exist. Scotland may never become independent. In any case, a majority of Scottish voters have not supported the SNP. Some may entertain the idea of independence because they feel in any case protected by the overall power of the United Kingdom and her democratic framework. Scotland will then have to face the consequence not only of opting out of the UK, but of finding itself out of the European Union as well. Small may be, in some cases,beautiful. In the contemporary world, it is rarely viable. I would bet that Scottish voters will prove unwilling to pay the price of complete independence.
Gianfranco Pasquino
(for the time being Visiting Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford)
Somebody said...
Vos idées sur l'Ecosse ne ma plaisent pas.
Nicolas Sarko,
président jacobin de la France.
Patrick Dunleavy said...
Gianfranco Pasquino has not got it right. An independent Scotland would of course remain part of the EU, and even still have the Queen as head of state. Currently Scotland gets a subsidy from England of around £11 billion a year. But the remaining North Sea oil has risen in value with prices increases, somewhat offsetting this.The Scots might also well receive a transitional subsidy deal from the English if they secede.
After all, suppose that you are running a large company with a loss-making northern division that cannot be got rid of but just stocks up pensions and sickness pay liabilities for you. One day its managers come to see you asking to undertake a management buy-out. Why would you not encourage them with a transitional subsidy, tapering down over 10 years?
Patrick Dunleavy
London School of Economics
Josep M. Vallès said...
I agree with Colomer and Taagepera when they suggest that political scientists should be less captive of obsolete legal categories and more ready to find out new institutional answers to the social challenges raised by the economic, strategic and technological developments of the 21st century. I am afraid that Spain, Italy or the United Kingdom –as political entities- are not longer ready to respond to these challenges. This is what the so-called “nationalist movements” show, although they also may be prisoners of those old concepts. Political science should help to design a new pattern of political relations beyond the shaky inter-state monopoly we have inherited from the Westphalian model and which is now a constraint to give efficient responses to collective needs.
Josep M. Vallès
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Andrew Davis said...
Professor Colomer,
You wrote that 'It’s likely to lead the new government and to call a referendum including the option of independence from the United Kingdom in a near future.'
With respect, I disagree. The hurdles to independence for Scotland are many and high.
First, the SNP has formed a minority government, principally because the price for a coalition for the other parties was too high for any political party to pay, namely, acceding to a referendum in 2010.
Second, a referendum assumes that a) the SNP is still in power in 2010 b) that it has done well enough during those three years - the first time in its history that the SNP has governed at all - that it maintains popular support (support for independence will dip if an SNP government proves ineffective) c) that it can ask a 2-part rather than a 3-part referendum question (asking yes or no to independence, rather than independence, more autonomy or status quo) as this is the only way a referendum would pass (on top of the fact that no polls have ever shown much more than 25% of the population which supports independence).
Finally, the government would have to, in fact, call 2 referendums, and win both. One would be to ask the Scottish populace for the authority to negotiate independence with Westminster, the second would be to ratify the deal struck with Westminster.
It's possible on paper, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Andrew Davies
University of Nottingham
Labels: Freedom for Scotland
posted by Josep M. Colomer at 5.5.07
2 Comments:
Gianfranco Pasquino has not got it right. An independent Scotland would of course remain part of the EU, and even still have the Queen as head of state. Currently Scotland gets a subsidy from England of around £11 billion a year. But the remaining North Sea oil has risen in value with prices increases, somewhat offsetting this.
The Scots might also well receive a transitional subsidy deal from the English if they secede. After all, suppose that you are running a large company with a loss-making northern division that cannot be got rid of but just stocks up pensions and sickness pay liabilities for you. One day its managers come to see you asking to undertake a management buy-out. Why would you not encourage them with a transitional subsidy, tapering down over 10 years?
Professor Colomer,
You wrote that 'It’s likely to lead the new government and to call a referendum including the option of independence from the United Kingdom in a near future.'
With respect, I disagree. The hurdles to independence for Scotland are many and high. First, the SNP has formed a minority government, principally because the price for a coalition for the other parties was too high for any political party to pay, namely, acceding to a referendum in 2010.
Second, a referendum assumes that a) the SNP is still in power in 2010 b) that it has done well enough during those three years - the first time in its history that the SNP has governed at all - that it maintains popular support (support for independence will dip if an SNP government proves ineffective) c) that it can ask a 2-part rather than a 3-part referendum question (asking yes or no to independence, rather than independence, more autonomy or status quo) as this is the only way a referendum would pass (on top of the fact that no polls have ever shown much more than 25% of the population which supports independence).
Finally, the government would have to, in fact, call 2 referendums, and win both. One would be to ask the Scottish populace for the authority to negotiate independence with Westminster, the second would be to ratify the deal struck with Westminster.
It's possible on paper, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home