On Thursday the people of Scotland will vote on whether or not to leave the United Kingdom.

The usual classical liberal view of secession is that it’s a good thing. After all, if all association should be voluntary, then if a group of people wishes no longer to be part of a larger group then they should be allowed to leave. So, classical liberals should favor Scottish independence.

But it’s not clear to me that things are that straightforward.

Let’s put to one side secessionist movements that are based on a desire to oppress a particular group within the geographic area some of whose population wishes to secede. And let’s also put to one side secessionist movements that are based on the desires of members of a culturally homogenous group located in a particular geographic area to secede from a larger political entity in which they are distinct minority. (Even in the first case secession might be justified—it’s not secession, but the oppression, that we should condemn.) So, we’re focusing on the question of how we should assess the secession of a group of people located in a particular geographic area, some of whose members wish to secede, and some of whose members do not. Without taking sides on the particular issue of Scottish independence, here are a few reasons that make me pause before endorsing any secession movement:

• It might be orchestrated by a well-organized and well motivated minority, and opposed (albeit relatively weakly) by a majority of the population. Given well-known collective action problems the well-organized minority could secure secession even though this would on balance make the population of the seceding territory worse off, at least with respect to the satisfaction of their desires concerning secession.
• The above point was neutral on the values that the pro-secession minority held. But what if they were pro-secession because they were pro-State, and wished to secede because they thought that the State from which they wished to secede wasn’t statist enough? Secession could thus lead to a State that (plausibly) could make the lives of the population in the geographic area that seceded worse off. (What if the pro-secession minority was pro-liberty? This raises a nice concern: Should such a minority impose secession on the [more pro-State] majority for what they believe to be both its and their own good?)
• By creating a new border secession could serve further to restrict person’s freedom of movement, freedom of employment, and freedom of trade. This could occur even if the seceding population merely desire political autonomy and embrace having an open border with their former compatriots.
• If the seceding population installs a Government (or enlarges what was previously a regional Government) and the State from which it seceded retains its Government at its prior size, secession would increase the overall size of Government.
• For some people—perhaps even most people—a successful secession will simply mean that they are subjected to the will of a political class that’s different from the former political class they were subject to. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss…..

I don’t think that any of these issues are by any means conclusive reasons to oppose any given secession movement, in either theory or practice. And I do think that a concern with voluntary associations gives at least a prima facie reason to favor secession. I just don’t think that the classical liberal case for secession is as simple and straightforward as it’s often held to be.

And now here’s a picture of me in a kilt: