The wealth of nations
More on money.
I know, I know, but this really matters.
It may have taken the Scottish Government nearly a week to show the working behind the first minister鈥檚 assertion that, with oil included, Scotland would be the third wealthiest nation in the EU.
It has taken the eager Scotland Office but a few hours to respond. And, guess what, they dispute the first minister鈥檚 interpretation.
In my last little posting, I drew attention to the caveat lodged by Dr Andrew Goudie of the Scottish Government.
He noted that his accounting exercise did 鈥渘ot make any further assumptions and does not model any wider effects which might be concomitant with the transfer of a share of North Sea output to Scotland".
Ever helpful, the political team at the Scotland Office are offering their own translation.
They reckon that phrase refers to 鈥渙ur old friend the fiscal deficit鈥: the assertion that Scotland requires more in cash from Whitehall than we raise in revenue.
By this version, Dr Goudie produced what was requested: a calculation of Scotland鈥檚 GDP per capita, with oil included.
He was not asked for an assessment of Scotland鈥檚 overall budgetary position under independence. Hence, he did not produce one.
Again by this (Labour) version, Scotland鈥檚 fiscal deficit would trump even oil.
The argument is that if Scotland gets the oil, then that would be under independence and London would remove the fiscal transfer implicit in the Barnett formula.
The Goudie calculations, it is argued, only take account of part one, the good bit.
Against that, supporters of independence dispute the deficit.
And, I suppose, some might also argue that most countries sustain a deficit by borrowing, that they can do so sensibly when their economy is strong.
Advocates of independence would, presumably, argue that Scotland鈥檚 growth rate would outpace any such borrowing.
Supporters of the present set-up say that Scotland would risk abandoning a stable, supportive fiscal set-up for the wasting and inadequate asset of oil.
If someone from the Scottish Government would care to comment, I鈥檓 open for business.
I'm 
Comments
Aren't Labour set today to say that Scotland /wouldn't/ be a fiscal dissaster if independent? Someone is off message in the Labour camp.
The GERS report that sir Goudie refers to is for 2005. The oil price has since increased from 30 dollars abarrel to over 90 and is projected to stay high, with increased global demands. This means that the treasury this year gains 30 billion in oil revenues not 10 as in 2005. So Scotlands spending does not run at a deficit. Other points on independance, If a company has its head office in London then thats where the tax goes, so telecoms, Whisky (deagio), MOD, etc
So Independance is for now a good deal
Brian. I suggest you read the Friday and Saturday editions of the Herald.
It has essentially turned all the "we'll go bust if we're independent" arguments completely on their head.
But it's about more than just bandying figures around. There is a real question as to to whether Scotland would get on better if it was out from under the repressive control of the Treasury and disconnected from the City of London.
The answer to that has to be a big "Yes".
Brian,
I mentioned the EU on your other thread about Scotland's wealth, but I missed something. An independent Scotland would be responsible for making its own contributions to the EU budget, presently paid for by the UK government. If it is true that an independent Scotland would be the third wealthiest nation in the EU, then its budget contributions would be even higher than that then paid by its bigger neighbour England. By the same token, EU subsidies would not be coming to Edinburgh, but sent to the poorer accession countries to the east. Alex Salmon does not talk about such matters of course, but someone should do the sums before anyone gets too carried away with all this talk about "wealth". As ever the devil is in the detail.
How then would the Scottish Office respond to the Herald's article yesterday ( ) that says that Scotland raises 拢49 billion in tax compared to 拢49.2 billion that is spent here. While this is certainly a deficit, it is not a large one and when one also considers that the figure was calculated with the price of oil running at $50 per barrel instead of the current $90, continued talk of a Scottish fiscal deficit is simply misleading and innaccurate.
Do we feel wealthier because an attribution of oil wealth to Scotland's GDP? Probably not, and it just illustrates the flaws that GDP has a measure of wealth.
If you give Scotland 90% of the oil wealth (instead of an administrative fiction such as the "UK Continental Shelf"), and not much extra population, then of course, GDP per head shoots up.
but...
1)It doesn't mean that those living in Scotland are actually better off.
2)Under fiscal autonomy, oil revenue will be substantially balanced by taking on the UK government expenditure in Scotland, and we're probably back where we started, but dependent on revenue from oil to maintain current expenditure (Evan Davis's analysis during the election campaign was spot on here).
Basically, it just means that a statistical sleight of hand has absolutely no effect on the money that most Scots have to spend, and if there is a case for independence it would have to rest on delivering superior economic performance, rather than correcting a perceived slight.
It is a matter of public record that the Westminster Government lied to the Scottish people to gain control over the revenues from North Sea Oil, offering as they did the chance of devolution as an alternative to independence; as these revenues were taken by Westminster by means of deception is it not the case that reparation is due to the Scottish Nation should they ever vote for independence.
Whilst it seems that plunder is only recognised as a war crime that is without statute of limitations surely this only requires some well chosen weaselly legally word to substitute for plunder, for plunder it surely was.
Why is t that no-one cited precedence when it comes to talking about Scotlands independence from the UK?
It took the Republic of Ireland almost 1000 years to ge rid of the British and at the start of last century - they got thier independence.
What happened to Ireland? Did it wither and die after being cut off from Whitehall and Westminster? No, it didn't - and TODAY it is one of the wealthiest and economically viable european states there is!
I'm disappointed in your apparent "neutrality" Brian, and from what I can see from the rest of your blog, your simply pandering to the whims and fantasies of those greedy westminster-based politicians who are intent on keeping thier cart on the gravy train intact.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I am totally for Scottish independence but Gary Hay's comments cannot go unanswered. Ireland is a tiny nation that has had million upon million of European aid thrown at it, yet even so it is a country that has virtually nothing to show for the money and looks likely to simply economically implode quite soon. Witness the "motoroway" from Waterford airport to Waterford, paid for by the EU. They built a few hundred meters, who knows where the rest of the money went.
Malcolm wrote that budget contribution to the EU from an independant Scotland would increase as we would be more wealthy. However, Malcolm also writes this in a tone which sounds negative (like it's a bad thing)...
Well Malcolm, I take it you will be turning down that promotion at work due to the extra tax on that large pay rise being offered???
Once again this weekend Labour are all over the place... 'Scotland will be worse off'... no... no... no... 'Scotland would NOT be worse off'!
Make up your mind Labour.
We all know you are simply trying to say what the people want to hear as a publicity stunt, rather than actually knowing what you are talking about. All spin and no substance as usual.
Saying Scotland should be part of the UK is not saying that Scotland isnt a great country. However, oil is volatile resource. Yes Scotland does do well from being part of the UK, and yes the rest of the UK benefits from Scotland's contribution to the union. But thats the point, all four parts of the UK support each other financially and politically. The UK really is a world class team, punching far aboove its weight on the world stage. The Union boils down to far more than money. Whatever the SNP say, most people in Scotland support the Union, more people vote in elections to Westminster than they do Holyrood.
Brian McHugh misunderstands me. I am simply pointing out that at present Scotland does not pay anything directly to the EU - the UK does. Once independent, Scotland will be liable in her own right, and if as rich as suggested, the amount will be high - that's the way it works. I just find it surprising that the SNP never mention any of this in their assessment of the Scottish fiscal position post-independence.
As I pointed out in the other thread, the way that voting at the EU works, small nations have less weight than big ones when the crunch comes. Scotland will only be judged as wealthy because she is small (in population terms). You can't have it both ways. Scotland will therefore be paying a high price for membership but will have less influence than as part of the UK. Just how that can be dressed up as a good deal for Scotland is a mystery, oil or no oil. As part of the UK Scotland (which has far more political influence at Westminster than any of the other Home nations on a per capita basis) punches well above her weight. As a small voice on her own at Brussels she will need a good many partners to achieve anything, even though she will be a huge net contributer. I just want to see the figures.
The real tragedy is that the political party which held Scotland's allegiance for decades believes that this country would "wither and die if it took its independence".
If we are really that bad, if that is what they really thought about this nation of David Hume, Adam Smith and the rest of us, shame on the Labour Party and, yes, shame on us for giving them our trust.
Malcom wrote that an Independant Scotland would pay more than its southern neighbour to the EU. It appears that he is making mischevous statements here in that any payment would be based on a GDP per head. He also forgets to mention that this would be outweighed by Scotland taking back its control of our Fishing Grounds and not allowing foreign based fishing vessels to fish our waters. Between our increase in income from all fishing monies coming into Scotland, there would be the added bonus of an increase in fish prices with Scotland being free to trade with other countries like China and Japan.
Lets not confuse the yesterdays situation where the promotion of Scotland was in the hands of a London Controlled New Labour Party who are being exposed on a daily basis as being unable to organise a raffle. The SNP has shown since its first days as Scotland's Government that fiscal competance and an outwardly view on recruitment of new investment in our homeland, are the priority.
Let us not settle for second best. If we, for one moment can stop thinking about ourselves and start to consider our future generations of Scots we will have shown that the whole policy of divide and conquer by Westminster is a burden we were finally able to shed.Every day Free Countries go out into the World and trade, that is life and in the main the Western ones do very nicely thank you very much. Brian is an old Unionist who fears for his own position. He bucks the trend in that most people in his age group actually support Independance Now. Is it possible that they might know things that many of the younger ones dont. After all they lived through some very bad times.
All this talk of Scotland being third richest in Europe doesn't appear to take account of many factors.
How much of the oil revenue would be used up when brining the UK competencies into Scottish competence? There is so much to change.
Then there is the vital issue of which currency would an independent Scotland use? This currency is unlikely to be very strong and stable to begin with - such economic instabilities are what cause businesses to leave a country. What happens when business leaves? Unemployment rises and the burden on the state goes up is the answer to that question.
The SNP have left so many of the post-independence questions unanswered and the answers to some of these questions could be costly in financial terms. They had better start addressing these issues fast (they of course don't want to as these are the very issues which divide the pro-independence front and the SNP want a united one)
Doesn't the Scotland Office make you proud? Working weekends to put Scotland down once again. I'm not sure that's what they are there for (in fact, what ARE they there for?), but what a selfless devotion they show.
hi brian,
once again a good blog,BUT,as usual
an inference of doubt, its so sad realy since the longer we "dither the
more we're being "screwed and conned
simple as that,
MALCOME NO.4, you say alex salmond
and the snp. are saying nothing,
wake up man, they've been telling
us for yrs. you just hav'nt been
LISTENING. NONE OF IT IS ROCKET SCIENCE,ITS JUST NOW IT EXPOSED THE GREADY INCOMPITANTS.
Brian,
Where are the figures and where is the reporting of this by the 大象传媒? Apart from your blog and the report on the Cairns speech there is nothing on the 大象传媒 website about this and although I have not heard/seen every 大象传媒 news programme over the last two days there has not been any mention of it on the ones I have caught.
As Labour seem to now accept the obvious that as a European nation, that we wo'nt all starve to death if we were Independant ,the argument seems no longer about economics.Makes one wonder what Labour's campaign pitch will be at the next Scottish Election.
The UK is the State that nobody loves ,at least a large minority of Scots and a majority of English people, are for disolving the UK.The only real "Britons" around these days seem to be Labour Politicians.
Why is it that the SNP claim that they are being undemocratically thwarted by the Unionist parties? Would they be the Unionist parties that the majority of people voted for in Scotland?
I would say there are always two problems with figures and reports as technical as these; the first is that only those with a very good grasp of economics can fully understand them, and even if you are one of those people, the figures are always open to interpretation. It is not possible to say in absolute terms Scotland will be economically superior or inferior to its current position were it to go independent, and it never will be.
Many of these conversations concentrate on the money question, and rightly so; it is very important. But can they not be widened to include the international status of an independent Scotland and how it would affect our culture? I am pro-independence precisely because I am aware that no matter if a report comes out saying absolutely Scotland will fail then the SNP would denounce it, while if one came out saying the opposite the Scottish Office would do the same. I thus look to international status (I belive it would be very high within the UN, EU and in general) and our own cultural status - I truly believe we can re-establish the country that produced thinkers like Hume and Smith without being in the Union.
Regards to all, and please lets keep the debate away from personal attacks - they do nothing but hinder. Brian, thank you for your thoughts
JM
P.S. If one wants to know why I am not so concerned with the economics, I would have to say it is because no-one in the EU starves. And we would certainly get into the EU.
More scaremongering! Scotland would be far better off independent. Yes there are set-up costs, but they are a fairly minor consideration when you have control of your own resources. Alistair - unemployment and instability ... Look at the booming economies of the other countries to go independent in Europe. Montenegro is experiencing growth the like of which it has never seen before. On issue of currency this stability is partly achieved by using an already established currency (as the SNP proposes - the Pound until a vote to adopt the Euro). Montenegro already used the Euro as its currency pre-independence, and it has certainly worked for them post-referendum! I also seem to remember McCrone calling a Scots currency "the hardest in Europe with the possible exception of the Norwegian Kroner" if it does decide to go its own way!
The figures widely available now from both the Scots Govt. and Oxford/Herald Report should be on the bbc website. Perhaps the beeb has been lent on again as happened before the election? How else can one explain the lack of these figures but the inclusion of Cairn's speech? Incidentally, if the SNP does not have a monopoly on the Saltire as Mr Cairns claims; then why was Wendy Alexander screaming the other day about "SNP propaganda packs" being sent out to celebrate St. Andrews Day? Said it before, will say it again now: Scottish/British Labour need to find out what their party line is, someone should phone Number 10!
Why model Scotland on Norway: the country with hyper inflation, the worst social problems in Europe and no voice in the world. Lets not even start about Montenegro!
Its time for the Unionists to be geard. lets have a balanced debate.
Pendragon I have to disagree. The UK is a much admired country, at home, in Europe and beyond. The majority of people in all parts of the UK support the Union.
Why do people flock to the UK from all cross Europe? I dont think its because we are a self loathing nation that has a victim complex.
There's a lot of misunderstanding here.
Jonathan say:
"If you give Scotland 90% of the oil wealth... GDP per head shoots up.
but it doesn't mean that those living in Scotland are actually better off."
Sorry, yes, it does. It doesn't increase your salary, but it does (greatly) increase the government's base income per capita, so the government can either provide considerably better services, or else considerably reduce your income tax while providing the same services.
Malcolm writes:
"An independent Scotland would be responsible for making its own contributions to the EU budget... If... Scotland would be the third wealthiest nation in the EU, then its budget contributions would be even higher than that then paid by its bigger neighbour England."
Yes, of course, that's true. Malcolm goes on to say:
"EU subsidies would not be coming to Edinburgh, but sent to the poorer accession countries to the east"
That's true, too. Of course it's true. EU subsidies are like income tax: if you're richer, you pay more. So would you prefer to live on the minimum wage and pay no tax, or would you prefer to have a very large income out of which you pay some tax? Yes, if we're independent we'll pay out more to the EU. We'll pay out more because we'll be richer.
In post 12, Malcolm goes on to write:
"...the way that voting at the EU works, small nations have less weight than big ones when the crunch comes."
This is true. In EU voting, Scotland will always have to make coalitions of interest with other nations, to get our interests across. But we will be able to, because there are many small nations in the EU who also need to make those coalitions of interest, and even the largest country in the EU, Germany, does not have a dominant vote. In the UK, however, things are very different. England is so much larger than all the other nations put together that it must automatically win every vote. And as, so long as we are in the union, our vote at the EU is represented by the UK in which we are always, automatically outvoted, then our voice can never even be represented in the EU.
Alistair writes:
"Then there is the vital issue of which currency would an independent Scotland use? This currency is unlikely to be very strong and stable to begin with..."
There is no Scottish currency. The Merk, and the Pound Scots, both essentially collapsed in the eighteenth century; the Pound Sterling isn't ours and never was. If we have any sense, our currency will be the Euro, which isn't showing much sign of weakness or instability. If we're less wise, we'll stick with the Pound Sterling, although that won't be in our interests in the long term. Only blind hubris would countenance the setting up of a new currency.
Beyond all this is the idea that an independent Scotland will be a 'small' country, somehow too puny to handle matters of national administration. Scotland, if independent, would be the 112th most populous country in the world, out of 221 nations and self governing terrirtories. That is to say, we're average. Mid table respectability. If 110 nations less populous can manage, why can't we? We'd be 104th on population density, again mid-table. As a nation, Scotland is a very normal size.
I am sorry, can we put the argument that Ireland's prosperity is down to the EU to rest?
First up, the transfer of cash was not for nothing - Ireland gave up things like fishing rights that have fiscal importance in return. Second, Ireland was in economic dire straits throughout most of the eighties - many years after they had signed up to Europe. Third, if money was the only thing that mattered then Northern Ireland probably had much more per capita poured in form both th British Government and the EU, but remain an economic basket case. Oh and people talk as if it was half the economy, but it was merely a modest but significant amount.
Ireland took its advantages - some EU cash, English speaking, reasonable time difference to the US, flexibility in fiscal policy and an education system that previous governments had the foresight to invest in, some luck - the tech boom which created industries in themselves but also made outsourcing more possible and combined then with good policy to produce the Celtic Tiger.
When looked at from this perspective- Scotland doesn't have some of those breaks, but has some of its own advantages that Ireland never had, not least oil, some world class research universities and an already successful financial industry. The question of whether Scotland carries a modest deficit or surplus in the short term should be secondary to the question of whether Scotland will get better government from a Edinburgh or Westminster
brian,
no23 simon,
you just get away with outragous statments like this england is bigger
than all the other countrys put
together,codswollop,man, are you
talking about BRITAIN,AND SCOTLAND
ALREADY PAYS FOR ALL HER SERVICES
INCLUDING SOME VERY SUSPECT ONES
THAT DESPITE MANY ATTEMPTS HAVE NEVER BEEN EXPLAINED
REGARDS MAIRI
23. At 12:42 PM on 04 Nov 2007, a unionist wrote:
"Why model Scotland on Norway: the country with hyper inflation, the worst social problems in Europe and no voice in the world."
Hyperinflation? Sorry, are we both thinking of the same Norway? The Norway I know of, located on the Scandinavian peninsula, only suffered hyperinflation once, and that was back during the First World War.
And what social problems exactly are you talking about? I'm not saying Norway doesn't have any social problems, but I don't think the sort of poverty, poor health, and functional illiteracy that we have in some areas of Scotland doesn't rank amongst them.
If you're going to make blanket statements, please back them up with some evidence.
Montenegro point is valid, not a perfect fit but helpful. Question of currency stability was raised earlier, and the Montenegro example answers that 鈥 in that the most recently independent state has successfully transferred.
"unionist" it would be interesting to hear your own opinions put forward rather than just dismissing others. This seems to be a problem afflicting parties of a unionist persuasion also - as they dismiss the national conversation and refuse to provide a blueprint for a unionist future. They must set out a 鈥渧ision鈥 of sorts sooner or later, as clearly the constitutional status-quo is no longer acceptable. Many in England seem to be coming round to this view also! It is simply a disgrace that Scotland cannot set its own budget or control its national resources ... it is equally disgraceful that hordes of Labour MPs from Scotland can pass measures that are deeply unpopular and don鈥檛 affect their constituents in the slightest.
As for slagging off Norway, it does a hell of a lot better in most respects than Scotland under the Union. "The worst social problems in Europe"?! Lets see: knife crime, obesity, teen pregnancy, high numbers of people 鈥渆conomically inactive鈥 (but not shown on unemployment stats), drug use, alcohol abuse, delinquency and child poverty 鈥 Scotland is at (or near) the top of the scale in all of these measures within Europe. Not seeing much in the way of a 鈥渦nion dividend鈥. Pretty poor deal for the people of the third wealthiest nation on the continent!
Finally, the UK is not "much admired across the world". We are despised in the Middle East. We are seen as the awkward partner in Europe. Irrelevant at best in Asia and Africa 鈥 unless you want to buy military hardware to repress your people or threaten neighbours. At home most Scots are just that: Scots. "Britishness" (to the extent it can be divorced from football and sectarianism - is just an optional extra). On the international stage the UK is seen by many as an imperialist bully of the past, now tagging along with the United States as chief lieutenant in whatever war of aggression they choose to perpetrate next.
As an English, not british citizen. I would celebrate the day when you get your independence, the common thought of friends and family here in England is that we have tired of funding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
More importantly we have tired of the influx of hundreds of sponging immigrants we have arriving daily.
Good Luck Scotland, hope you control your borders better than England has for the last 60 years.
I'm more than a bit fed up with this whole arguement.
Real people - that is the ones who vote and pay tax must be fed up too. Whilst the nations media and various ranks of government waste their time on this issue real people want better schools, safer communities and well paid better motivated staff in our NHS.
Why must the arguement about independance or not be reduced to economic ping pong, with each side digging up so called experts to argue the case for or against?
If its such a big issue - set up a truly independant body to look at the whole issue and work out once and for all the 'cost' of independance.
That way - todays government - what ever the colour can get on with running the country!
A Unionist thinks the UK is much admired. I beg to disagree. Most of the companies I deal with in Europe consider the UK to be an economic basketcase and in terminal economic decline.
They fail to understand how it is that despite the UK having such a powerful financial services sector we have failed miserably to invest in anything else, why we sell off our companies so readily and what on earth we think we're doing allowing them to dominate our industrial marketplace.
So not admired but ridiculed and best not to ever start them on Iraq.
Why do so many come here? To sell us stuff mainly.
The 大象传媒, like the rest of the UK media, is a disgrace and a gross insult to journalism.
Not a damn thing, other than the mealy-mouthed lies of David Cairns has been published in relation to recently released figures on Scotland's economic position within the UK.
The only people who show interest in the reported figures are the pervasive Unionist weeds who infest every available forum, north and south of the border, in their vile and determined campaign to stifle and strangle everything in the Scottish political and economic landscape.
I've been reading their virulent verbiage for over a year. The language is laughable, much of it reliant upon buzzwords borrowed from George Galloway's vocabulary - obfuscation and obscurantism are particular favourites.
Listen to Wendy Alexander, or any other Labour MSP, and mourn the passing of Scottish education.
What despicable non-entities they are but their disgraceful behaviour is to be expected.
Of much greater concern is the refusal of the 大象传媒 to report the facts and inform the debate. Their role, in this, is far more dangerous than the rantings of the poison pundits that are allowed and encouraged to air their prejudices at every opportunity.
I was born over sixty years ago. I spent close to a quarter of that time in the British Army.
Do you think I'm insulted, enraged and resentful when every media outlet in the country has joined forces to inflict a relentless barrage of lies and abuse upon me? Do you think I'm 'bovvered' when they conspire to disenfranchise me? Do you think I'm disgusted when an army of Unionist acolytes are determined to deny the hope I have for my grandchildren?
You better believe it, mate!
Shame! Shame! Shame!
A people who have surmounted every difficulty that life has thrown at them cast into the depths of despair by corrupt politicians and Internet blethers!
I don't think that's a 'guddle'. I think it's a crime and those responsible should be brought to book!
I've lodged an official complaint with the 大象传媒
its a Lilliput argument, what way up
does the egg go. Would an independant Scotland be better off. We will never know until we try. Nopoint argueing about the figures, as we all know they have been used and abused for many years to "prove" whatever the government of the day wanted proof of.
As for linking it, or comparing it to Irish independance,thats a bit of a flawed argument,as that has not yet been fully achieved. Britains presence in Ireland since its forced partition has not helped the Irish economy to fully develop at its own pace. This distortion, like the union will come to an end, its just the timescale that is in doubt
I understand that these comments all relate to Brian's Unionist blog but can we also take the opportunity to comment about - pride, self worth & dignity.
The Unionist argument up until Cairns comments have all been about Scotland being an economic basket case - and reveling in the fact. They crow about running huge fiscal deficients yet conveniently forget that they have presided over this "basket case" for at least 10 years and have had the levers to change it for many years previous.
Labour must apologize for 10 years of mismanagement - even their most ardent supporters will not continue to blame Thatcher for ever.
What Scotland needs more than independence is to reclaim its pride, its passion and its hope.
Once its people have been freed from the chains of this self imposed inferiority complex the case for remaining in or leaving the Union can be made.
The Scotland Office chipping away at the nations confidence on a weekly basis does no one any favours.
Why should Scotland get UK oil ?
The oil belongs to all in the Uk , Scotland ,Wales , NI and England.
It was never a Scotland only asset. The area of sea was claimed by the UK goverment it din't come with Scotland into the Union. So all independence figures only work if the UK govement rolls over and lets Scotland have everything its own way. Very unlikly as that party would have to win an election with England which would be very unhappy with losing part of the UK.
Indepeendence for the Scots with only a fair share of the oil, UK keeping bases within Scotland for Radar and Nuclear Subs, Scotland to have only a small defence force and must sign binding treats with UK goverment.
As a aside your further education system would go bang as you would have to give free Unversity places to English students once indepented under EU law.
Is it not great to see all this discussion, this incisive comment and yes, even bluster, about our nation? To see those who did not want to take part, instead take centre stage (often unknowingly). This is progress and, indeed, even a taste of independance. Is it not good to see politics, and politicians, opened up to the people like this? Why has it taken so long???
Simon Brooke.
Thanks for quoting my post. Please do so in full however.
A independent Scotland would have ability to use increased revenue for investment or tax cuts IF this is greater that the costs it will incurr by delivering services currently provided in Scotland by the UK government. The oil price is high, so maybe it might. It's been lower, or production may fall, so maybe not. Evan Davis suggested we'd be about average in fiscal terms. Either way, we're very dependent on that oil revenue, and may not have luxury of using it for capital investment or future endowments in the way that say, Norway has.
So quite simply the question is this - is independence going to deliver better productivity, higher growth etc. due to better governance? We need to know because the case for an immediate jump in prosperity on Independence Day is definitely not proved.
The argument pur forward by number 26 is at least an improvement on that put forward by some Scottish Nationalists that Ireland's success is ipso facto down to it seceding from the United Kingdom. If that were the case Ireland would have been successful 60 years ago. Those who only argue about the relative fiscal situation are missing the point. The question is not whether Scotland could survive as a seperates state, rather would it be desirable. Devolution affords decision making on a Scotland-wide basis over day to issues like health, education and justice while its participation in the United Kingdom allows it to be part of the fifth largest economy in the world, a member of the G8 (which allowed it to host one of its most important summits in recent years), a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the joint second largest Member State in terms of votes on the EU Council of Ministers. Indeed, in this respect Scotland punches well above its weight and the SNP argument that in matters European the interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK are opposed is their own undoing. The rump UK would always be able to outvote a seperate Scottish Member State. Number 26 is right to say that the issue of Scotland fiscal position with or without independence is a secondary issue but the argumnent that it is rather a question of whether Scotland would get better government from Edinburgh or Westminster is inherantly weak. Governments change and moreover it makes sense for certain decisions to be taken at different levels. Not just at Scotland or UK-wide level but action at local government or EU level can be more effective than that at either Scotland or UK-wide level. Government from Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels need not be mutually exclusive.
Scottish "Independence" is a politicians fantasy, kept going to give these hot-air merchants something to justify their exisitence. Having lived in England for 30 years, the Union is NOT of interest to the average English voter. It's always education, health and roads.
Being Scots/Irish I have seen the transformation of Ireland over the past 50 years and it has been good for them.
Those that want to go their separate ways will do so at a time that suits 80% of the UK population i.e when it starts to affect education, health and roads.
#4 So you complain, we would be treated as a rich nation (By EU) because we would be a rich Nation, is that the best argument Unionism can come up with. I don't know about you but I would prefer to be a rich Nation contributing to the development of others than a poor one recieving the aid or worse begging for the scraps from Westminsters table.
The economics of independence are an important aspect of the constitutional debate. Whatever you make of the latest figures, they clearly demonstrate that independence would by no means be disastrous in economic terms! The more fundamental question is whether we believe that Scotland would be "better off", in the broadest sense of the term (not merely economically), as an equal, independent, self-confident member of the EU and the international community. If you could prove to Ireland that it would be economically more prosperous as part of the UK, or to Denmark that it would be wealthier as part of Germany, do you really believe they would give up their independence?
You're right, Patrick #41.
Even if there was a net cost to independence - which these latest figures do not suggest, surely we can't ignore the VALUE of independence!
# 41 Patrick - what an excellent point. As someone said earlier, clearly no-one starves in the EU (and no-one goes without at all in the western half). I still believe Scotland would be more prosperous, even initially on independence, than it is now - nevermind after say a decade or so self-rule.
But independence, in my opinion, should be seen as a virtue and an end in its own right. Show the Irish they would be better off in the UK, show the Estonians or the Latvians that economic realities would be better under Moscow, even try to "undo" the velvet divorce (Czechoslovakia) - they would all tell you to go hang, they are far happier running their own affairs than having someonelse do it for them. Self-determination is the basis of all democracy, devolution recognises Scotland is a distinct polity - therefore independence is the best (most democratic and most economically & socially benificial solution).
Something that I very rarely see discussed when the issue of Scottish independance is raised is the following - What share of UK national debt would Scotland assume as part of the independance process and has this number and the interest thereon been factored into the can Scotland or can't Scotland afford to be independant debate?
It's quite wrong to base any projections of Scotland success or failure as an independant country on wealth alone and I think it's a little misleading to put so much emphasis on the argument. I give a lot of weight to the UN Human Development Index which takes into account life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living when measuring the well-being of a nation.
By these standards I imagine that Scotland would perform very poorly if judged in its current state. Our comparable neighbours on the other hand (Norway ranked 1st, Iceland 2nd, Ireland 4th, Sweden 5th) are considered among the countries with the highest levels of well-being.
Clearly, Scotland is underperforming in its current state to the detriment of its population. Is Independance really such a big gamble?
# 39 - "...Ireland's success is ipso facto down to it seceding from the United Kingdom. If that were the case Ireland would have been successful 60 years ago."
A bit simplistic, to put it mildly. I'm sure Ireland could have further improved its economic position 60 years ago but for small details such as a Civil War, the Great Depression, the Second World War, the protectionist policies of De Valera and an on-and-off economic war with Britain.
To look at things slightly more realistically, independence has allowed Ireland to decide it own future. And what if Ireland hadn't achieved its independence, would it have been "allowed" by Britain to develop in its own way? Would it be a major financial centre or would it simply continue to be "England鈥檚 Breadbasket"; a backwards-looking, underdeveloped, agrarian economy. You never know, we might even have the pleasure of the GERI report informing that almost all of Guinness's economic activity actually took place in Central London and that Ireland could possibly afford to become independent.
We're back to replanting Hackney Marshes with barley, again.
I have yet to read or hear of a single valid reason as to why Scotland is better off staying in the Union.
Independence can't come quick enough for me.
There's the small matter of how much North Sea oil and gas is actually in "Scottish waters" anyway.
The British government handed over vast amounts of English waters, with the accompanying natural resources, to Scotland in the 60's when they unilaterally decided to move the border to extend on a parallel instead of an extension of the land border in accordance with international law.
Nobody in England was asked if they consented to this massive transfer of English national resources to Scotland.
No one mentions the significant balance of payments account surplus that Scotland would have as a result of independance and keeping oil revenues. This is different to the taxes gathered from oil production and in many ways much more significant.
This surplus could be saved in foreign assets for the future.
The debate on whether we would survive as an independant nation is null and void, it is obvious that we would survive on our own. The pertinent issue is, would our financial position as an independant nation require us to get used to a lower standard of living. I am unsure of this, although on the whole i am anti-independance. Also, the fixation on the Oil issue is a dangerous one. Oil, and certainly the North Sea variety, is finite and any reliance on the revenues gained from oil should not form the basis for a decision to split or not to split. Make no mistake- independance is forever, and our calculations of future wealth should not take any account of Oil in the long term, it must be treated as a short-term bonus of independance, not a compelling reason for doing it in the first place. 10 years (which is the projected life left in the North Sea Oil Reserves) pales in significance to the prospect of never-ending independance from the UK. If we get the sums wrong, we won't be readily accepted back in to the UK for along time to come.
Wonko,my understanding is quite the reverse.I was told that the English Government TOOK Scottish waters as part of the devolution settlement.
We both can't be right, as someone out there will be more than willing to tell us!
Watching what's happening in the City of London I think independence sooner than later is the order of the day before this lot bring us all down.
How ironic for Desun (number 47) to claim it is simplistic to argue aganist the theory that Ireland's recent success can be primarily explained away due to it's succession from the UK in the 1920s. Quite some time has elapsed since the civil war and World War II to use that as an excuse for the long gap until its impressive economic growth since the 1990s and which was certainly not based on the price of a volatile commodity like oil (I speak as someone with an Irish "other half"). The SNP are masters at picking and chosing which "independent" country they want to emulate. They want to be Ireland when it comes to taxation, Norway when it comes to spending and Iceland when it comes to fisheries. They can't be all at once.
# 49 - what a bizarre comment! The UK has recently moved the maritime border to favour England and allow them a cut of what (by right) should be Scottish resources - should there be independence. The smallest estimate given in the current debate on what % of the oil & gas is "Scottish" is 75% - I could live with that ... if recent figures are to be believed then that would make us the 3rd wealthiest nation in Europe. (Of course, those calculation were done at a valuation of 50 a barrel not 90, as it now is).
It is disgusting that Scots will only go for the option that makes them richer. Independence if its the oil or the Union if its English taxes. So much for the Bravehearts.
I'm English and I want Independence just because it frees us of the Scots. It doesn't matter if it makes us richer or poorer, financially. If its the latter, we at least rid ourselves of the Scottish socialists who stifle our nation and the future would look a whole lot better immediately. If its the first one, then that's just a bonus, but the real issue is the festering boil on Enlgand's head. It definitely needs lancing.
Lets have a look at the benefits of the Union derived in England.
Channel Tunnel
Olynpics
Cross Rail
Extension of Tube to Croydon
St Pancras refurbishment
Heathrow Terminal 5
St Barts PFI
Wenbley
Millenium Dome
London Eye
- Versus -
Trident imposed on Clyde
UK Labour has domne well; well for England.
D McG
I don't think a lot of scots want independence because it would make them richer. I'm of the opinion that independence allows us to make our own mistakes. This would, I believe, improve our relationship with our southerly neighbours as we would no longer be able to blame others for our ills. To talk about a festering boil hardly does much to foster good relations between the constituent parts of these islands.
Brian,
Will you ever dispense with the Pro-Unionist stance. No-one believes in the Union anymore so your time would be more proffitable spent on arguing ways for Scotland to become a better country. Positive thinking is the reason why the SNP won the election.
You, and the other bloggers, need to start seriously thinking about a possible English backlash. They are not happy bunnys while Gordon Brown is in power. I will wager with you or anyone else that the Tories will win the next election. Why? Because there is a swelling number especially amongst their middle class who would rather see the back of us.