Slashdot Mirror


Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

dcblogs writes: Scotland is not a major high-tech employment center, but it has good universities and entrepreneurial energy. About 70,000 people work in tech out of a total workforce of about 2.5 million, or about 3%. By contrast, financial services accounts for about 15% of employment in Scotland. But passions are high. "Honest, I've never been so scared in my life," said Euan Mackenzie about the prospect of separating from the U.K. He runs a 16-employee start-up, 1partCarbon, in Edinburgh, a platform that builds medical systems. "For tech start-ups, funding will be tougher to find and more expensive, there will be no local banks, access to EU markets and the freedom of movement will be curtailed," said Mackenzie. "As someone who enjoys risk and new opportunities, my company will remain in Scotland and make the best of whichever side prevails on Thursday, but the effect of independence on tech start-ups and the whole Scottish economy will be cataclysmic," he said.

19 of 494 comments (clear)

  1. Re:at least the nuclear weapons will be gone by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While continuing to be protected by UK's nuclear deterrent, so the principle of the stance is somewhat compromised.

  2. This isn't scaremongering. by jez9999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of "yes" campaigners seem to have been sold on the idea that any warning of economic doom upon a "yes" vote is scaremongering, bullying, or "undermining the Scottish democratic process." Bullshit. Many intelligent people looking at this from a rational perspective have concluded that the "sweet spot" for Scotland is staying in the union and having devo-max; basically getting it both ways, with lots of self-government combined with a net financial income from the rest of the UK, as well as obviously ease of trade.

    However, the pro-independence SNP are 100% blinkered on independence, at any cost. They will therefore paint warnings like this as lies designed purely to scupper their frankly loony picture of a prosperous independent Scotland, and a lot of Scots buy into it. Shame, really.

    Americans might look on with bemusement; I can understand that. I guess it's a bit like Florida choosing to break away from the US, having a pro-Florida political party endlessly demonizing "them" (the rest of the US) as causing pretty much every economic and political woe Florida has going for it. As an English guy, I think this whole situation really sucks. If the UK breaks up, the whole of Britain will be worse off for it, but I suspect Scotland will take the bigger brunt of the pain. And given that it will have made the decision, it will deserve to.

    1. Re:This isn't scaremongering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a fellow European (Belgium, not UK) it's funny to see the arguments being used by the "better together" campaign. They are all typically the same arguments used by the rest of Europe for increased European integration, which the same UK people are typically opposed to. I've heard people say "access to the larger common market within the UK is crucial for Scottish businesses" - with those same people asking for all kinds of exemptions on the European common market.

      Your example of "Florida trying to break away from the US" is an interesting one. To me, it feels more like North Dakota splitting from South Dakota while staying within the US, which a lot of people would consider mostly a non-issue. If Scotland chooses to go for a future as an "independent state within Europe", I would imagine them functioning somewhat similar to Ireland, which is not functioning too bad as far as I know.

    2. Re: This isn't scaremongering. by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, THAT was like the Brits making us house and quarter soldiers, taxing us unduly for a war we helped fight for land we could not keep, and in general treating us like non-citizens. The Scots cannot say that without hyperbole; they're just bored, and this is something new and interesting.

    3. Re:This isn't scaremongering. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see what the beef over immigration is -- it actually works both ways. There are about 1 million Britons living in Spain right now under the same rules.

      I've never met anyone in the UK who has a problem with immigration from west European countries that are culturally similar to themselves. Most of the problems crop up with poorly integrated Islamic integration where you get entire neighbourhoods in some cities that look basically like Pakistan: people wearing veils, not speaking English, etc.

      The other issue is economic, the UK didn't use transitional controls when Poland entered the EU to delay immigration, so it got a really really large number of Polish immigrants because they had few other places to go. The evidence suggests the UK benefited from this economically but given the sheer speed and scale of the migration it's not hard to see why people got antsy.

      The same did not happen when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU so I'm hoping immigration will blow over in the coming years if the economy continues to recover. But we'll see. It's not a UK specific problem, there's anti-immigration sentiment in populations all over Europe.

    4. Re:This isn't scaremongering. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thatcher destroyed manufacturing and industry in the whole of the UK. The north of England and Wales were trashed just as badly. She did that to Scotland, as well as the Poll Tax which caused riots. All the stuff she privatised has gone to shit - energy companies, the railways, British Telecom... Now they see Cameron privatising Royal Mail and the NHS too.

      Her policies failed utterly and lead to the global financial crash a few years back. In the end she was such a liability her own party had to get rid of her. Scotland would do well to get away from her legacy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:This isn't scaremongering. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Scotland has been treated very well indeed. When it joined the Union its people were piss poor and its "government" was bankrupt. It's now a wealthy first world country, with lots of MPs ...and Iceland accomplished the same thing without anybody's help. They were by far the poorest nation in Europe a century ago and now they are one of the richest. They even recovered from one of the worst financial shocks any country has suffered, and they did it faster than anyone thought remotely possible. The best thing they ever did for themselves was freeing themselves from Denmark. They never would have had the legislative freedom to solve their own problems if they had to get Copenhagen's approval.

      The viability of small homogenous countries is an artifact of globalization and an educated populace. The world has changed in 300 years. Scotland can do just fine on its own. England needs them more than they need England.

    6. Re:This isn't scaremongering. by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We do have something similar, although it is called Texas.

      Not quite. The treaty under which Texas-the-Lone-Star-Republic joined the USA gave it the right to secede at will... and it did.

      After declaring independence, Texas proceeded to join the Confederate States of America, actively participated in warfare against the USA, and was conquered along with the rest of the CSA by Union troops & annexed by the USA as a vanquished military district.

      Had Texas remained neutral & kept out of the war, it could have legitimately asked to rejoin the USA after (or during) the Civil war under freely-negotiated terms. As a conquered enemy land, Texas was in no position to negotiate anything.

  3. Re:at least the nuclear weapons will be gone by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which would make it different from the majority of Europe's nations in what way?

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  4. Thinly veiled campaigning by codeButcher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ahhh, so the one-sided emotional campaigning ("Think of the ch... checkbook!") has made it to /. too.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  5. Re:at least the nuclear weapons will be gone by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You seem to have misunderstood. Most of Europe's non-nuclear states are protected - de factor if not by treaty - by the European nations that are armed. Scotland would be an unremarkable addition to that list.

    Part of being a nuclear power in a geographically close-knit federation is that your umbrella will cover people other than your allies. That's just the lay of the land.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  6. Re:FUD from start to finish... by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's all well and good, but Kickstarter campaigns, banks, and EU membership don't happen overnight. I imagine that the interviewee is thinking about his business situation twelve months from now, not four years down the road.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  7. Take the long view by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Charlie Stross recently posted a very good take on this: This is a permanent change. Whatever happens during the first few years is basically irrelevant, compared to the long-term results. Did Norway separating from Sweden cause short-term economic upheaval? Does that matter at all a century later?

    This is a long-term change, not a short.term one. Any voter should consider the probable situation twenty or fourty years from now, not whatever happens in a year or two.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Take the long view by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any voter should consider the probable situation twenty or fourty years from now, not whatever happens in a year or two.

      What, you mean when they're on their deathbed? Yeah, that'll be really useful for them during the bulk of their lives.

  8. Re:it is all going to go horribly wrong by Noryungi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The yes campaign is telling people they can keep the pound and join Europe. Not gonna happen, it isn't for Scotland to decide.

    It is for Scotland to decide! They can apply for membership any time, just like Turkey, for instance.

    28 countries have to decide they are totally cool with a bit of the UK splitting off and joining Europe. That means 28 countries have to want to set a precident for bits of themselves splitting off, declaring independence and joining Europe.

    Errr... Ever heard of the Czech and the Slovaks?

    Czechoslovakia split in two (peacefully) and both halves joined the EU right away, and were welcome with open arms, if memory serves well.

    I don't see why Scotland would be rejected, especially since the UK has been a pain in the arse ever since it joined the EU. As a matter of fact, many countries in the EU would welcome Scotland just to piss off the Brits. And even more so since the UK is set to vote on leaving the EU in a couple of years!

    They have to also decide that they are totally cool on Scotland having an opt out on the Euro that nobody else apart from the UK has and nobody else likes.

    The Euro is not the EU, and vice-versa. There is a ton of countries that are EU members, but still have their national currencies. But don't take my word for it, click here instead

    The rest of the UK doesn't particularly want a currency union with Scotland, and it wouldn't be popular with the Eurozone countries to have a more formal sterling zone (they don't care about the small overseas territories, but a second full size country in a currency union would be a big deal).

    You are not making any sense - again, the currency you use is totally independent from EU membership itself.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  9. Re:at least the nuclear weapons will be gone by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The UK's nuclear submarines are based in Scotland.

    All of the jobs at the naval base in Faslane will be gone along with the nuclear weapons. A future Scottish government might, therefore, decide to allow the UK to continue to keep its submarines there.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  10. Re:this issue transcends money by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you think that when the Irish Republicans were fighting (and dying) for their independence from the UK that they ever once thought, "But what will the economic implications of our independence be? What will our credit rating become??"

    Probably not, but it's hardly a surprise that people who were practically Marxist guerillas didn't fully think through what they were doing.

    Post independence Ireland's economy went down the shitter for a loooooong time and lots of people were very miserable. Emigration was rampant and Ireland became a place supported by remittances, like a third world country. It wasn't until they modernised their economy that things started to improve.

    Scotland MUST vote for its independence. If things don't work out, they can always rejoin with England (England would bend over backwards to welcome Scotland back if it ever came to that).

    This is like saying someone MUST divorce their spouse because they can always just get back together. I think you'll find this campaign has huge potential to wreck relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In the short run it won't just make Scotland poorer, it'll hurt everyone. Not to mention that the most common justification for independence can be summed up as "the English are nasty and unfair and everything wrong with Scotland is their fault".

    With respect to trade, unfortunately the independence negotiations could be very complicated and nasty if they vote yes, as Salmond has promised the moon including things he knows he can't get. When he's told - again - he won't be able to get the things he wants, he'll once again blame the English and start trying to make the breakup as nasty as he can to try and save face. A trade war or widespread unofficial boycotts are not exactly unthinkable.

    Heck, I wasn't planning on going on vacation to Scotland any time soon but I wouldn't have been against the idea. But after watching all of this?? Why would I go somewhere where apparently 50% of the population are quasi-Marxists who think all English people suck?

  11. Re:Not going to be as rosy as the YES! campaign sa by u38cg · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No, I'm afraid you don't understand a few things. Firstly, Scotland's oil is small beer on the global stage. The North Sea produces ~1.5m bpd, OPEC alone is something like 30m. Scotland could turn off the taps and the planet wouldn't even blink.

    So, the inrush of global partners wouldn't happen. More to the point, why would they rush to jump into bed with a government that has already stood up and said it is seriously considering reneging on UK debt? Which, by the way, is not the norm for newly independent countries and would be remembered by the markets. If they lent at all, they would certainly require paying for it. You really want to pay Greek interest rates on your government debt?

    Think Venezuela, not Norway.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  12. Re:This is bullshit from start to finish by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There are and will continue to be plenty of banks in Scotland."

    In order for banks to lend, they must have deposits. Given the risk of holding money north of the border, a 'Yes' vote will generate a stampede of cash south on Friday. There may be banks, but they won't have any money to lend

    "There is and will continue to be freedom of movement".

    Really? If Scotland has left the EU, then it will be necessary to impose border controls

    "There is and will continue to be access to European markets."

    Only if you get to renegotiate membership of the EU. Good luck with that until you've agreed to pay your share of the UK's debts, and then only if you are nice to the Spanish

    "Scotland has and will continue to use The Pound, and there is nothing the UK government will be able to do to stop them."

    Sterlingisation will result in substantially higher interest rates for all bank loans as the risk of holding money in a country without a lender of last resort is significant.

    "Prices are will remain competitive; arbitrage and competitive pressures will prevent large price rises."

    This, at least, is accurate because you admit there will be price rises. If you are very lucky there won't be a toll on the M6 north of Carlise and the A1 north of Berwick, but it would certainly be rational for us to impose one to pay for the cost of maintaining roads to enable good to travel to and from Scotland.

    "Russia will NOT invade Scotland... FFS! Why do I have to comment on this kind of purile shit?"

    Given Putin's ambition and Scotland's oil, an attempt seems like an entertaining prospect. Not a visible invasion at first of course; Scottish socialists would start rioting as a result of the economic chaos following Scotland's ejection from the EU and then invite Russian peacekeepers to restore order. A referendum would be organised for Scotland to join the Russian Federation.

    Of course that's not likely - but the idea that Scotland should become freeloaders like many other European countries, dependent on Uncle Sam to protect them from a bear that is demonstrably on the prowl is disappointing.