• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

September 15, 2014|EU, Federalism, Scottish Independence, subsidiarity

The Scottish Earthquake

by John O. McGinnis|3 Comments

The  effects of the vote on Scottish Independence, like the French Revolution, will not be contained within its borders. Whatever the outcome in Scotland, its referendum will reverberate across Europe, energizing the many culturally homogeneous peoples who view themselves as trapped within distantly governed and soulless nation states. The consequences will likely be the creation of more nation states within Europe and certainly more devolution to subunits within nation states. It is a revolution of both cultural solidarity and political subsidiarity.

The European Union, European peace, and the affluence and anonymity of the globalized market economy are the tinderbox for the coming conflagration. For all its faults, the EU has created a zone of relatively free trade that makes integrating markets within nation states less important.  Historically, the benefits of freer trade led to customs unions that in turn generated many of today’s nation states from much smaller entities. Now smaller culturally homogenous localities can get the prosperity trade brings without giving up their cultural identity.

The security advantages from being part of a larger European nation state are also perceived to have declined.  Nations within the EU have not fought a war among themselves since World War II.  Russia’s recent incursion into Ukraine should be a wake-up call, but for most Europeans Ukraine is faraway nation of which they know nothing.  And others in prospective breakaways may think they can free ride on the many nations already in NATO that are closer to the Russian bear.

Finally, globalization has made citizens richer, but more desirous of institutions that distinguish them from the rest of the world. Thus, even if going it alone costs some economic growth, already well-off peoples may gain more at the margin in cultural solidarity than they lose in their material livelihoods. The reviving independence movements respond to that third human thirst – fraternité – which neither the liberté  of the free market nor the egalité of the welfare state quenches.

I believe it nevertheless probable that the Scotland independence vote will fail. Economic arguments seem overwhelmingly to cut in favor of a “No” vote.  Scotland is a net beneficiary of transfers within the UK, and, more importantly, it has no good currency option, apart from the pound, which the UK would not share after independence. The Euro has hardly worked out well, and Scotland would face a run on their independent currency.

But other subunits, like Catalonia or Northern Italy or the Flemish section of Belgium do not suffer from these disabilities. They provide net transfers to the rest of their nations and are already in the Euro.  They will be emboldened simply by the fact of the referendum. Moreover, the UK has created a European precedent by offering a new package of even greater autonomy to the Scots to persuade them to stay.  Other nation states will have to do the same for their own cultural minorities.

Thus, even if  European nations states manage to stay together, constitutional federalism likely has a greater future in Europe than in the United States where, with a few exceptions like Texas, geographical areas increasingly do not map onto very distinctive cultures.  While federalism has many virtues beyond its capacity to preserve cultural diversity, constitutional structures are matters not only of the intellect but also of the heart.

John O. McGinnis

John O. McGinnis is the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University. His book Accelerating Democracy was published by Princeton University Press in 2012. McGinnis is also the coauthor with Mike Rappaport of Originalism and the Good Constitution published by Harvard University Press in 2013 . He is a graduate of Harvard College, Balliol College, Oxford, and Harvard Law School. He has published in leading law reviews, including the Harvard, Chicago, and Stanford Law Reviews and the Yale Law Journal, and in journals of opinion, including National Affairs and National Review.

About the Author

The Perverse Effects of the “All Comers” Requirement
Halbig: Another Expert View

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • Superman and the Drive-By Media April 20, 2018
  • Chappaquiddick Rescues the Truth: Kopechne Needn’t Have Died April 20, 2018
  • Reading the State of Britain with Roger Scruton April 19, 2018
  • Explaining the New Illiberal Liberalism April 18, 2018
  • The Constitution and Executive Privilege July 12, 2012
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. gabe says

    September 15, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    C’mon, really!
    What you assert is possible only if one takes a purely economic view of the EU.

    Federalsim – the EU is nothing more than an administrative bully on steroids where each and every little aspect of life is regulated by the geniuses in Brussels. Speech, pasta, parmesan cheese, autos, air quality, etc etc etc is regulated by the bureaucrats and woe be to anyone who steps out of line. Each little part of the “federation” has absolutley nothing to say. Perhaps, this can be a topic for Phillip Hamburger’s next book.

    As for the security benefits of NATO, this is rather hilarious. NATO is an empty shell without sufficient resources, energy or motivation to confront or protect anyone. It is NATO and all of Europe that has subsisted off American power and wealth for six decades. Now that the Big O has decided that we are evil buggers and we should be restrained via enormous budget cuts in defense, how is that NATO will be able to provide anything resembling security?

    Reply
    • john mcginnis says

      September 18, 2014 at 12:01 am

      Gabe– I think you have misunderstood my post. I am talking about the benefits of federalism within nation states that may come from the Scottish vote. I completely agree with you that creating more states within the EU has no benefits for federalism. http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/09/16/for-constitutional-federalism-but-not-the-dissolution-of-nation-states/

      Reply
  2. Darragh McCurragh says

    October 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    The all comers policy falls only short of another fallacy: that the customer should set the price, not the seller. I wonder when will we see this happen? The result of course if dwindling supply once customers can demand wares for below cost. Although not similar a prima facie, this decision upholds a similar doctrine: the the supplier may not set his terms for an offer, in this case membership.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

John C. Calhoun, Madisonian Manqué

by Thomas W. Merrill

His institutional innovations were geared toward preserving slavery.

Read More

The Road to Iranian Democracy

by Luma Simms

The suppression of the Green Movement last time around widened the gulf between Iran’s elite and its people.

Read More

Podcasts

The Solid Ground of Mere Civility: A Conversation with Teresa Bejan

A discussion with Teresa M. Bejan

Teresa Bejan discusses with us how early modern debates over religious toleration are an example of how we can disagree well.

Read More

Leading a Worthy Life in a Scattered Time: A Conversation with Leon Kass

A discussion with Leon Kass

Leon Kass discusses Leading a Worthy Life.

Read More

Eric Voegelin Studies: A Conversation with Charles Embry

A discussion with Charles Embry

What did “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” really mean? An intro podcast on the formidable mind of Eric Voegelin.

Read More

Republican Virtue, Interrupted: A Conversation with Frank Buckley

A discussion with F.H. Buckley

The real conflict in our politics centers on reforming massive levels of public corruption.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Chappaquiddick Rescues the Truth: Kopechne Needn’t Have Died

    Mary Jo Kopechne perished not because Ted Kennedy crashed his car, but because the legacy was more important than telling the authorities she was in it.
    by Nathaniel Peters

  • Superman and the Drive-By Media

    Prime territory for Clark Kent to investigate: the biased and superficial work done by our most prominent journalists.
    by Mark Judge

  • Partisan Gerrymandering and The Original Meaning of “Election”

    States are responsible for the nature of elections: without a strong historical argument to the contrary, partisan gerrymandering is constitutional.
    by Mike Rappaport

  • Reading the State of Britain with Roger Scruton

    In Where We Are, Roger Scruton helps us see Britain's possible futures, but the question remains: is he pessimistic enough?
    by Theodore Dalrymple

  • Is Partisan Gerrymandering of Congressional Elections Unconstitutional Under the Original Meaning?

    Professor Ned Foley argues that the Constitution limits congressional gerrymandering. Why is this?
    by Mike Rappaport

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks