Apparantly Scotland is "foolhardy" if it opts for "secession", but Ireland, which already did opt for secession (less pejoratively, secession is typically known as independence once it is acheived), is a resiliant example to us all, with its HDI and economy miles above that of Scotland, and that despite a total lack of oil, and despite a bad housing bust.
Funny, that. You have to be very careful with the Economist because they nearly always seem to have utterly transparent motiviations for the nonsense they peddle. In this case it seems like it benefits them to prop up the city of london and UK with a nice secure oil supply, and they have to perform weird intellectual handstands to justify why Scotland would be a basketcase while Ireland is inspirational.
You realize that North Sea Oil is well past it's peak ? - production has declined by nearly a half since 1999 and at current projections it'll be at a third of it's peak by 2020.
The UK has a whole has already become a net importer rather than exporter.
There are strong arguments in favour of scottish independence but largely they're down to cultural rather than economic reasons.
I'm not sure where to start where how wrongheaded this comment is.
First of all, as others have said, Ireland has been independent for 90 years. Secondly, Ireland had to go through 70 years of near-poverty, only briefly managing to getting close to digging itself out of its economic hole in the 1960s. Thirdly, with independence, Ireland lost most of its industrial homeland due to partition, as well has having to effectively buy itself back from the UK through the payment of land annuities, and the subsequent trade war that happened when the Irish state refused their payment, owing to the size of the amount demanded, utterly crippled the Irish economy.
Arguably, from an economic point of view, Irish secession from the UK was foolhardy. The fact that almost a century later The Economist now considers the Republic largely a positive example has zero relation to how they would consider and independent Scotland. Ireland was a basketcase for decades.
Also, 'secession' is the act of gaining independence. There's nothing pejorative about it.
Also, Ireland does have substantial oil and natural gas reserves off its coast. However, they're more difficult to tap than those in the North Sea, and were effectively sold out from under the Irish people by Ray McSharry.
Personally, I'd like to see Scotland give independence a chance. I just hope they stay withing the common travel area.
> Europe did not cause of the problems for Ireland; Ireland caused a problem for Europe, the head of the EU government said.
> Following the bailout exit, the Government's bid to get backdated funding for the banking sector was dealt a spectacular blow as the head of the European Commission blamed the Irish banks, regulators and government for the difficulties in the country.
> Categorically rejecting suggestions Ireland should now be helped by Europe, at least in the short to medium term, European Commission President Jose-Manuel Barroso cut loose on Ireland.
Barroso is far from a neutral observer in all this. Personally I think it is extremely disengeneous of him to say Europe wasn't a problem for Ireland (and indeed there were major efforts to row back on the above comments subsequently). While there's no doubt lax regulation of the banking sector was the major cause of Ireland's problems initially, it is now widely accepted that the Irish Government was told in no uncertain terms by the ECB that it must bail out the banks on its own and that private bondholders were not to be touched, so as to prevent further contagion in the wider European banking sector. Thus an Icelandic style solution to Ireland's problems was ruled out, on pain of withdrawal of all short term funding. Whatever the effects of burning private bondholders for Ireland's future reputation in the markets, it would have been a much more just solution (as well as being popular politically in Ireland). To completely ignore the hit Ireland was forced to take is thus a bit rich IMHO.
I agree that it would have been better to put more of the burden of the housing bust on bondholders. However, Ireland has benefitted tremendously from Europe over the past decades.
It has received tens of billions in direct financial aid (and I don't mean the loans that were part of the current bailout). Its European neighbors have tolerated Irish tax policies that have put Ireland squarely at the center of the most fanciful tax evasion schemes used by both European and US corporations.
But it hasn't just been shell companies and tax evasion that has made Ireland rich. There's also genuine success that wouldn't have been possible if Ireland hadn't become a gateway into the EU for US corporations like Google.
So before choosing a path that was possible for tiny Iceland, Ireland did have to ask itself whether a move that could have destabilized the global financial system and threatened the existence of the EU was consistent with the solidarity it owes to those who have supported it in the past.
Ireland made the right choice at the time, but I also think that as things stabalize, it would be a good idea to renegotiate some of the bailout terms. After all, some of the foreign counter parties that were effectively bailed out by the Irish government benefitted greatly from the Irish housing boom while it lasted.
Oh sure, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I was just trying to point out that Barrosso's comments are somewhat one-eyed and far from the final word on the matter.
The OP was probably referring to Northern Ireland, which is a devolved part of the UK (and uses GBP) - Whereas your article refers to the Republic of Ireland, which is in the Eurozone.
If OP was referring to Northern Ireland, then s/he should have said so, since "Ireland" generally refers to Ireland, and Ireland did secede, while NI did not.
Isn't this more complicated than that? Declaring you've 'Seceeded' doesn't mean a new state is created/recongnized; there's a county in Iowa that 'seceeded' but it didn't change anything. Just sayin, how many people on the street know about anything but their hometown much less than the internal politics of Ireland.
Nothern Ireland is a part of the UK. So it definitely did not seceed from the UK.
The Republic of Ireland, is a seperate country with completely different government and currency, that used to be part of the UK but isn't any more, so it has definitely seceeded.
That county in Iowa, it is actually still part of the USA and has not managed to separate itself either legally, economically, or through force of arms. It is clearly not a separate sovereign nation. It has not seceeded from the USA.
No. Northern Ireland didn't secede in any sense. It's the rump of the Kingdom of Ireland within the United Kingdom. The 26 Counties seceded from the UK to become the Free State, while NI stayed within. This is regarded as partition, not secession, and happened before the secession of the South. The partition was performed by an Act of the UK Parliament, and secession was performed by the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
All this is pretty well documented as it was of significant historical importance, much more so than the reorganisation of the borders within a US state.
Irish independence has more in common with Indian independence than with Scottish. Scotland isn't run as a colonial possession to generate wealth for the English ruling class, the inhabitants be damned Scots get votes and civil rights and all those goodies, the situations aren't comparable.
Compare Scotland with another 5-million strong European country with similar oil reserves which retained independence - Norway - and try and say that with a straight face. Norway is far far richer, with a huge oil fund and more developed economy. Scotland's oil was used to fund thatcherism and inflict industrial damage upon Scotland.
And by the way - Ireland had home rule prior to its independence and also elected MPs and had the vote, on the same terms as the rest of the UK, prior to its independence.
I'd always been skeptical of the SNPs (Scottish National Party) assertion that North Sea Oil means Scotland should be far richer than it is. After a bit of research it does seem like Scotland got screwed here. Also Norway is an excellent example as it does indeed have similar population and oil production.
>Ireland has come through its bail-out and cuts with exemplary fortitude and calm
That's not quite "resilient example to us all." I know that the Economist supports the kind of destruction that's been visited on the Irish economy, but they're not mentioning it here.
You're saying it's hypocritical to oppose the independence of Scotland, because there are examples of countries who have done well after their independence?
Not hypocritical, just demonstrating poor judgement due to a lack of objectivity. As a relatively right wing, conservative English publication they're opposed to independence for Scotland but of course express this in terms of it being a bad idea for Scotland. this despite all the evidence that smaller countries do better. I'll now most likely be down voted for pointing that out.
Yep, because choosing a country with strong socialist leanings that has legalised marijuana and a number of other similar liberal measures as 'country of the year' - whatever that means - makes sense if a publication can be entirely defined in terms of where one commenter feels they fit on the political spectrum.
Declaring them opposed to Scottish independence for being a conservative publication in a post regarding their seeming love for a left wing country doesn't cognitively mesh well.
Ireland has been independent for 95ish years? It's economy only really became something to be envious of around 20 years ago. 20 years out of 95 isn't a great record.
Scotland receives money from the UK in roughly the same proportion that the UK borrows money from gilt investors. Scotland would certainly have a budget deficit after independence, but not out of proportion with its size.
What interest rate they would have to pay on that debt is a different question...
Scotland receives money from the UK government in the form of a block grant. Scottish companies and residents also pay taxes to the UK government. At this point in time, Scotland contributes more in taxes than it receives through the block grant.
The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.
In other words, "if you ignore one of Scotland's major economic outputs."
I'm not a subscriber, but I read quite a few of their articles and I'm pretty sure I never noticed a sentence like "This is a change so obviously sensible that no other country has made it."
I was a subscriber, but got sick of their war-propaganda against everyone and everywhere.
Also, I noticed that you can trust the Economist on foreign policy articles that don't have to do with UK, US (always pro), Russia - China - Iran/q (always against)[2].
That said, it's still two rounds ahead of other major publications I have subscribed over the years:
* Newsweek: Shameful, really. I think most of their articles are either written to upset your stomach or directly sponsored.[1]
* Time: Just thinking about their person of the year story with Assange make me wanna vomit.
[1] Search for an article called: "In defense of Goldman Sachs". It the article that made me the stop subscription and get some money back. Their Apple (tech) commentary was awful also.
[2] See http://www.economist.com/node/12009678 - Everyone in Europe knows that what happened was: Giorgia's PM invaded S. Ossetia overnight, having the blessing of the US because (I assume) the USA thought that Russia will start the talks about S. Ossetia, in order to restore peace. Russia invaded S. Ossetia and kick Georgia's ass (never was a match really), which was left out crying to USA for help (which of course, never came).
Agreed, but compare it to Argentina of Brazil and the difference is clear. Everything is relative, and despite significant critiques, it seems to me that a lot of things are being done properly with a long-term outlook.
Can you talk more about this? I have some cousins who moved there who reported feeling very safe (and they were coming from Switzerland...). I had a contractor there for a while and the main issue he had with high prices was on imported electronics due to tariffs. Otherwise, everyone I've spoken to has said housing, food, etc are very affordable. What's the issue with education, IE: funding? access?
Depends on where you live. I was robbed twice this year (two laptops, a Kindle, and all my electronics, which as you mention are twice as expensive than in the U.S.).
Some neighbourhoods are really safe, I used to live in Punta Carretas for a while, and it's equivalent to an European city, but many others aren't - never ever go downtown after dark, and some other neighbourhoods are like the Brazilian favelas - police doesn't enter there.
Housing is in a bubble right now, it used to be affordable a few years ago but it's not right now (I had to move to a cheaper neighbourhood because I was priced out of my rent, went up 20% yearly). Food is a little more expensive than in Europe.
Education is universal, everyone has access. The country is doing consistently bad on worldwide tests (the PISA score) and that's being made a big deal.
Uruguayan here too. This makes me quite proud indeed too!
For people that aren't aware, we do have our fair share of problems, Uruguay is being being given a too romantic view by the international media IMO.
The main ones being IMO (no particular order, and many related):
- Cases of extreme poverty and "slums" where a lot of people grow up in very negative environments.
- Lack of security! Lots of problems with violence and violent robberies.
- In many cases, not good enough education for the non wealthy, same for the public health system.
- A big problem with drug abuse, specially with drugs like "pasta base", similar to crack.
Definitely gay marriage and cannabis legalization are steps in the right direction but we have a long way to go.
I agree with the OP though, life is pretty good over Uruguay, I've been living abroad for a year now and miss the hell out of my country :) It's a very unique little county, no place like home.
"Life here is good", I think this comment is what rabble says about Uruguay is not a country to change the world.
No it isn't for me, I'm young, I want to progress, do things that matter. I don't know if I want to change the world but I certainly want to change some things around but all the time you want to do it you get that calm voice that says "Oh but life is pretty good here, there are no much ups and downs".
I don't think a US person can stay here for more than a month were the realization of a human being is to buy a house, a car have kids and that's it.
We need to stop boast ourselves with this kind of oversized look we are getting from outside and start fixing our crap. Low the taxes, educate better our childs and provide money for the doers and not by political friendship anymore, we can start there.
The article doesn't really explain much as to why they chose Uruguay as CoTY, merely compressing a few sentences at the end and then just saying "job done"
Did they writer want to get out of the office early for christmas treats or something?
I'm from uruguay, and i don't really see this as a good thing. And don't }ook at our president Mujica as a great leader, he killed douzens during his youth.
You can say that about all of the current leaders of Latin America, whether they're from the left of the right (they were most likely either complicit or participated with the guerrillas, or they supported one of the many military governments).
But really, if you think about it most Western first-world leaders have most likely supported some form of unjustified military invasion or covert op designed to support their economic interests. That is not necessarily any better; hell I might prefer the people who got down and dirty to defend their ideals, however wrong they were, rather than the suits who signed the orders while they sat back and let soldiers kill for far less worthy causes.
I'm from Uruguay too, and while I didn't vote for Mujica, and probably wouldn't vote for his party, he did pay for his crimes, and in a pretty inhumane form too (11 years in a well) and we agreed as a country to leave those crimes behind for peace sake.
You can say a lot of things about him now, you might disagree with every single one of his political decisions, but you can't say he didn't got rid of his violent ways, in fact, for someone who used to be and extreme leftist, he is pretty centered now, and definitely not violent.
This quote is about "drawing wisdom from the past, to interpret current affairs". It's not about judging people by their past. In fact, if you research history you will find many examples of people who did grave mistakes and then went on to do great good later.
If he's good at organising a country, then a dozen people here and there really isn't anything compared to the benefits of his doing so. Someone can be a good leader and still be a horrible person.
Quite frankly, "killing dozens when you're young" isn't a predictor of good leadership when you're older, especially after you've been through solitary confinement for over a decade. In this regard Mujica's story is similar to Mandela's.
People in solitary confinement gather a lot of wisdom from the vast amount of time they have to meditate. And generally speaking, I believe people should be judged by what they are today, not by their pasts :)
The Economist sure are not too concerned about proper SEO (and probably don't need to be) - for an article titled "The Economist’s country of the year", the URL is "resilient-ireland-booming-south-sudan-tumultuous-turkey-our-country-year-earths-got".
I don't know how "sensible" the change is, other than you're not going to automatically be treated like a criminal. It is a step in the right direction only due to the latter. If we treated other things (alcohol, for instance) the way that Uruguay is treating cannabis, I think there would be outrage. A national registry of drinkers? Limits on the amounts that one can purchase? That's some heavy-handed bureaucracy at work, and shows that just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it is free-as-in-freedom.
I think you're right about the outrage that would follow a registry of drinkers. However, the degree of outrage something causes is not decided only by how sensible or not it is.
We tend to compare new developments with the status quo. "Sensible" is not used here as an absolute, but to congratulate a step in the right direction.
Production isn't regulated, only its sale, in small amounts. It's better than nothing, but it's still screwed up. If you want to run a coffee shop, you can safely sell weed without fear of getting in trouble (as long as you don't sell to minors and don't sell large amounts). However, you still need to buy what you sell. Growing it is illegal (and prosecuted), buying it is illegal (and prosecuted). Worse, if you decide not to grow it yourself (and that surely is the safest option), the only place you can buy it from is organised criminals.
The sad part here is that the majority of current big parties appear to lean towards criminalizing drugs entirely again, rather than follow Uruguay's lead and regulate or nationalize marihuana production.
That's a dated, but sticky image of us you have there. Fortunately, our leaders are doing their utmost best to rid ourselves of it, so it shouldn't take long.
Let's see, Uruguay. I'm from California but i've spent a few years living in Uruguay and started and ran a tech business in Uruguay. The country is a special unique place, but it's far from perfect.
Let's start with the good things:
Good Tech Policies
* Laptops for every public school child (over 1 million distributed)
* Free basic (64k 1 gb per month) internet on every phone line
* Good 3G/4G coverage over the country
* Fiber to the home finally provides good broadband
* No taxes for tech companies profits (there are pay roll taxes)
* Free education through university, no exams to get in.
* Goal of %95 renewable electricity production by 2015
* Lots of small startups / exits (about a dozen a year under $10 million USD)
* Strong freedom of information laws
* Good open source / open formats laws for all government data.
Other Positive things
* Very little corruption (i never came across any, but people complain)
* Legal Gay Marriage, Abortion, Marijuana, etc... Socially progressive
* Walkable cities, sidewalk cafes, beaches
* GMO's are banned, food is natural and unprocessed.
* Good electoral system, proportional representation
* Politicians care about building consensus and getting stuff done.
* Fantastic & cheap health care system
* Not consumerist, people care more about friends & family than things.
* No traffic / pollution problems related to cars.
* Uruguayans trust their institutions (banks, government, union, church)
* Atheist! Uruguayans are not religious and the state is officially atheist.
But Uruguay's not perfect. There's a lot wrong. The bureaucracy is complicated with more crazy rules than you can imagine. There's lots of paperwork. There's a lack of local credit and asset markets to get investment. You can get a new company easily, but opening a bank account is a real PITA. Credit card processing and things like that re very hard. Inflation has become a major problem in Uruguay and when combined with real productivity gains and a strong currency it means that real prices have risen a LOT. Pay roll taxes are high but salaries are low. That means many Uruguayans are broke. Car's are very expensive, gas is expensive, keeping traffic down, but it's a pain. The quality of things you buy in Uruguay are very very low. Things constantly break, the market is tiny and customs duties are high.
Uruguay's biggest problem, ironically enough given their being very socially liberal and open about good public policy, is that Uruguayans are very conservative. There's no desire to try something new or different. This makes Uruguay feel like it's living in the past. Stable families, sunday diners, stay at home housewives, summer vacations in the family beach house or camping in the same place every year, banks are open from 1 to 4pm, multigenerational house holds, etc... Uruguay feels like an alternate history version of the 1950's.
Uruguay's a great place to retire. It's not a place with people who want to change the world, or change their own country to keep up with the Joneses. It's got it's own path driven by good public policy and a desire not to rock the boat. It's definitely much better off than any of the other countries in the region. Few poor people, no rich people, decent quality of life for everybody.
PS, ignore then trolls. The right wing in Uruguay lost power because they mismanaged the country and are upset that things are getting better.
I don't identify as conservative, but I really like the extremely high social cohesion found in Austria. It feels wonderful. Everything works as it should, everyone acts as they should, everything seems quite wonderful in fact.
Plus you can drink beer in public in Austria. That's pretty "progressive" right? And doesn't Austria have legal prostitution (or am I thinking of Germany?)?
> GMOs aren't bad in principle, but they are risky
Yeah, but how can someone praise the legalization of marijuana and the prohibition of GMO at the same time? GMO and marijuana are not always bad, but it's important to let people make their own decisions about them. It's like he doesn't even know why he's pro-marijuana legalization, isn't it about individual freedom to put what you want in your body? Thought so. Also, the free laptops for all policy has been tried elsewhere and has always been a big and costly failure.
> it's important to let people make their own decisions about them
You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice.
This is also (to be blunt) a nonsense, because many of the potential threats that people are worried about are social, and not individual. For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals. No doubt South and Central Americans are particularly aware of the political implications of putting themselves in a position like that - see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala.
If you expect individual consumers to make their purchasing decisions on long-term foreign policy, you are, to put it mildly, setting yourself up for disappointment. They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes.
> You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice.
Of course they have a choice. They could only buy products that are fully labelled and guarantied to be 100% GMO free. Problem is for you, most people don't care about GMO so they buy GMO products anyway. This is why you want to ban GMO, to force people to care about the same stuff as you do. Don't want GMO? Buy GMO free products or grow your own food. Don't care enough to do so? Welcome to the rest of us.
> For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals.
Any examples please?
> see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala.
This has nothing to do with GMO. I've lived for 5 years in Peru so I know a bit about South America. People don't care about GMO.
> They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes.
That's a fancy way to say "they are well within their rights to impose their opinion on what we should be allowed to eat on everybody else". Leftists are just like conservatives, always want to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own body. No thanks.
> This is why you want to ban GMO, to force people to care about the same stuff as you do...Leftists are just like conservatives, always want to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own body.
Ah, I see. What else can you tell me about myself, generalizing from a selection of opinions? You should extend your logic to education policy, you could provide me with a devastating refutation of all of my new-found ideas.
I'm afraid you're not even wrong. Firstly, I don't want to ban GMO's, secondly, I'm not a 'leftist', thirdly, if you're going to widen the debate to drugs, leftists are overwhelmingly the driving force behind legalization and decriminalization.
The problem with GMOs are the unknown long time risks and the fact that you may lose the ability to decide because you don't even know that it is an GMO or you don't have a choice at all.
This theory has already proven to be wrong. Contaminated non-GMO fields, additives, processing aids, flavours, or meat/milk/eggs from animals fed by GMOs, etc. Strict food labelling laws would have been great before the product reached the market...
Could you explain to my why being “anti-GMO” necessarily implies being “anti-science”? What definitions of “GMO” and “science” are you using to make that proposition true?
I actually am anti-science, in the sense of “science-as-religion”. The comment I originally replied to is a good example of what I'm talking about: being anti-science is blasphemous, it's heretical. I'm against this kind of nonsense. Not that I think it necessarily is, but so what if being anti-GMOs is anti-science? What's the problem with that? We should be able to have a frank discussion about the merits of GMOs and indeed of science, but we can't, because science is a religion, and you get denounced as a heretic if you criticise its underlying assumptions.
My own position on genetic engineering is that I'm not inherently against it in an abstract way, but I'm against almost all of “actually existing” genetic engineering. Most of the debates about genetic engineering focus on whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe, or whether they provide better nutrition, but I think these are distractions from the real issue. The issue is about control: whether farmers save and choose their own seeds, or whether they must get them every year from a corporation.
Not like the US, Uruguayans never say they're celebrating easter, they call it tourism week. People say 'christmas' but the government calls it 'family day'!!!
Compared to the rest of latin america or the US, Uruguayans are much more like Europeans in terms of being very secular. That said, Uruguay is culturally catholic.
The link you provided shows that %40 of the population claims no religion at all, the highest numbers of any country in the americas. Then on top of that, looking at church attendance, most 'Catholics' in Uruguay haven't attended mass in years, and then only for christmas and easter.
Depends on what you mean by religious. Most Uruguayans are from Catholic backgrounds but they (at least the ones in Montevideo) behave in a secular way: No church on Sunday, and instead of having Carnival followed by Lent like all the other Latin American countries, they have Carnival that lasts for 40 days.
I was going to say much the same thing. We're 3 million people , not a billion like India :) .
But we do have a lot of people working in IT (about 15.000), we export 2% our GDP in Software, and Indian companies like Tata Consultancy Services have offices here, serving the US market.
I hope it will grow even more. One positive for uruguayans but negative for exports is that salaries are much higher than in India or some parts of Eastern Europe (but a LOT lower than in the U.S.), so we are not so competitive in the "lowest bidder outsourcing", we should aim to be a high-end and niche provider, but don't have the culture yet.
Graduates from both public and private universities are very capable but we need some more training to match U.S. expectations.
I've heard Google doesn't recruit much here because of the lack of PhDs in computer science (which is a definite lack), and there's a lot of emphasis on Java and .NET which doesn't help if the market is looking for iOS or Android or Ruby developers (the Java and .NET outsourcing market being cornered by indians?).
You have to take this from the point of view of the source - the Economist is the most Classically liberal (libertarian) source out there. As such they are pro-personal freedom and market freedom. So Uruguay gets it largely on the back of allowing gay marriage and legalized drug use. It also helps that the current leader is neither corrupt, nor a strongman.
Their comment about gay marriage was great - that it's a free way to increase mass happiness. Very profound economics on what I perceived to be a moral issue!
Funny, that. You have to be very careful with the Economist because they nearly always seem to have utterly transparent motiviations for the nonsense they peddle. In this case it seems like it benefits them to prop up the city of london and UK with a nice secure oil supply, and they have to perform weird intellectual handstands to justify why Scotland would be a basketcase while Ireland is inspirational.