Understanding the Complexities of National Subsidies and Union Preservation: The Cases of Scotland and Missouri

The Case of Scotland

Why does the UK government want to hold on to a Scotland that it says it has to subsidise?

From a historical perspective, the UK and Scotland form one of, if not the greatest and most powerful unions the world has ever known. This union has generated an unprecedented history and economic success that would be challenging for Scotland to achieve on its own, especially with the diminishing oil reserves that are becoming less valuable every year.

Morally and practically, Scotland is an integral part of the British Isles. If Scotland were to break away, it would face numerous challenges. Defending itself from potential Russian interference, including sea and air infringements, would be a significant burden. Additionally, the economic challenges would be overwhelming, given that Scotland is already years behind its fiscal deficit targets, set when oil prices were much higher. With a population of around 5.5 million, it is unrealistic to think that Scotland would be able to sustain itself as an independent nation. Hence, it would have to join another union, and no one in their right mind would advocate joining the EU because it would only lead to immense harm and damage.

The Conservative and Unionist Party’s Stance

Interestingly, the Conservative and Unionist party, which often represents UK interests, is actually happy with the idea of Scotland leaving the union. This paradox exists because the party does not necessarily gain the votes from Scotland, thereby highlighting the complexity and often conflicting nature of political stances in such contexts.

The Case of Missouri

Why does the US government hang on to Missouri, a state which receives the largest net amount of federal money?

Missouri, like many other states in the US, receives more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes, making it a net recipient of federal money. This is a common trend across the country. The question then arises: why does the US government not simply dismantle such states to save money?

The simple answer is that the US is one country. It would be impractical to dismantle parts of the country based on financial considerations. If Scotland, among others, were to be discarded due to being too expensive, so would other regions like Cornwall, and in fact, a large part of the North. In a more extreme example, London would also face the same fate, providing a massive net subsidy to the rest of the UK.

However, the reality is that in most of these cases, people, including the majority of Scots, believe in the concept of a single country where wealthier areas provide a net subsidy to poorer areas. This principle applies at all scales, even within towns where wealthier areas support poorer ones. Rich London, for instance, subsidizes the poorer areas of the UK, including Scotland and Cornwall, much as richer neighborhoods subsidize poorer neighborhoods in terms of services and infrastructure.

Conclusion

The preservation of unions, whether in the UK or the US, is often complex and multifaceted, involving economic, political, and moral factors. While the financial dynamics at play in states or regions like Scotland and Missouri are significant, the overarching concept of a united nation where wealthier areas support poorer ones is a fundamental principle.

Both the UK and the US have systems in place to ensure that these principles are upheld, even as each region faces its unique challenges. The willingness to support and sustain each other is a crucial aspect that holds these unions together, much like the historical and economic ties that bind Scotland to the UK.