If Scotland can secede, so can Texas

[GBCW 397]

Global markets are suddenly jittery about the prospect that Scotland, after 307 years as part of the United Kingdom, could become its own country if Scots vote for independence in a Sept. 18 referendum. If proud but tiny Scotland can do it — which polls suggest is a distinct possibility — then America’s 28th state, Texas, will certainly take notice.

...

The case for Texas existing as an independent nation is considerably stronger than it is for Scotland. Here are some of the reasons Texas might thrive as an independent nation:

It’s big. With a population of nearly 27 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion, an independent Texas would be the 13th biggest economy in the world, between Australia and Spain. That’s plenty of heft to play in the big leagues. Scotland, by comparison, is puny, with 5.1 million people and GDP equivalent to about $210 billion--which would rank around 50th.

Texas could lure companies from America. The corporate tax rate in Texas is 0, which would instantly make Texas the most tax-friendly country in the developed world if it became a country. Instead of fleeing to Canada or Ireland, U.S. firms seeking a better deal than the federal government’s 35% corporate rate could just head to Dallas or Houston. Scotland, by contrast, would have no particular tax advantages as a nation, since its tax rate — 21% for big firms — is the same as in the U.K. overall.

Texas has a healthy, diverse economy. It has energy galore, along with Big Ag, a tech hub centered on Austin and a few corporate giants such as Exxon Mobil (XOM), AT&T (T) and American Airlines (AAL). Scotland also enjoys oil wealth due to long-established wells in the North Sea, but oil extraction is declining and Scotland has little of the oil infrastructure or home-grown energy firms Texas does.

Adios, Federal Reserve. Splitting from the United States would allow Texas to wriggle free of the Fed’s loose-money policies, which have rankled Perry and other prominent Texans. If Texas adopted a new currency, meanwhile, it could make it as weak (good for exports) or as strong (good for egos) as Texans wanted. Scotland will have to wean itself off the Bank of England if it becomes independent, which is more problematic since the financial sector is a bigger part of the economy in Scotland than in Texas, and Scottish financial firms could suffer without the BOE’s implicit backing.

Independence would produce a few disadvantages for Texas, too. Here are the cons:

No more federal funds. Texas gets a good deal from Washington, receiving about 43% more from the federal government than its citizens pay in federal taxes. If it were to become independent and lose highway funding, U.S. military establishments and other types of federal spending, it might have to impose corporate taxes after all. Scotland is in a similar position, since it accounts for more public spending per person than in other parts of the U.K. and would suffer a net loss if it became sovereign.

The Texas Dept. of Defense. Texas would have to establish its own national security force to deal with problems such as illegal immigration, coastal defense, terrorist threats and of course any territorial incursions from New Mexico, Oklahoma or Louisiana. The good news is Texas has a well-armed citizenry it can tap to form local militias. (Scotland doesn’t.)

Political opposition. Texas has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980. Losing the state’s 38 electoral votes would severely impair Republican chances of retaking the White House in future elections, which could make the kind of small-government Republicans who run Texas intent on keeping the state in the union. In the U.K., leading politicians want Scotland to stay, too. Threatening to secede is one way to find out who really cares about you.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/if-scotland-can-secede--so-can-texas-185536102.html

[Curmudgeon 227]

Go for it Texas, I dares you to!

[GBCW 397]

Texas could and they'd be just fine if they did.

You know who would suffer?

American border states that currently benefit from their proximity to Texas but have no unique offerings of their own.

I'm looking at you, Oklahoma.

[Curmudgeon 227]

Fantastic, I look forward to that eventuality

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So we are saying that there's still hope, yes?

[Karee 4,190]

I wonder if the Federal govt. would want to be repaid for all the infrastructure investment they've made over the years in Texas. That's what the Canadian govt. was threatening to do back in 1995 when the Qubecois were talking about splitting.

[Darnell 8,478]

Yay For Scotland ! Alba Alba Alba !

[GandD 5,966]

[Dan and Judy 614]

Yay For Scotland ! Alba Alba Alba !

I enjoy looking at your post.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Dan and Judy

[Pooky 3,781]

If Scotland secedes, Celtic and Rangers will be forever condemned to play their league football against other Scottish teams, forever abandoning any (false) hope of joining the elite teams in the English Premiership (like Hull). It will be a tragedy the like of which has not been seen since Macbeth.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Wouldn't it be cool if Texas seceded and then The Hispanics started voting and decided to rejoin Mexico. They'll be in the drivers seat soon.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wouldn't it be cool if Texas seceded and then The Hispanics started voting and decided to rejoin Mexico. They'll be in the drivers seat soon.

Then we'll have to build a huge fence on the US - Texico border to keep them Texicans out.

[GBCW 397]

Then we'll have to build a huge fence on the US - Texico border to keep them Texicans out.

and then, suddenly, the libs will love the idea of a fence.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and then, suddenly, the libs will love the idea of a fence.

Only if it's electrified - high voltage. And for good measure, we should add a mine strip.

[GBCW 397]

i see the idea of dead texan women and babies really excites you.