|
Highly topical debate in Scotland. Independence, nay or yay? I'd like to have a look at the arguments for and against for an economic point of view. Those that are pro-independence see no question here, there is really only one solution. Those that doubt independence mostly cite economic reasons which is why I decided to think through some rough numbers. No one gets to see the official numbers and we're essentially fed a line by the media and from the politicians telling us what they want us to know. If Scotland is not able to support itself then one has to ask why not? How can a affluent first world country not support itself? I'd like answers to that and know why we've been crippled. If our nation is not able to support itself then there has been a failure of leadership, in this case there is only one real source of blame. I see no reason that any nation should not be able to rule themselves without outside intervention, certainly no first world country.
I posted the following text on Facebook and received some interesting comments. One poster added more facts / figures that I had to hand. I've posted (with mild editing for ease of reading) the comments from Facebook below.
My post:
Finland. Pop: 5,3m. GDP (PPP) per capita: $35k. HDI: 0.87. Largest economic sector: services (66%).
They seem to be doing just fine, without oil.
Scotland. Pop: 5.2m. GDP (PPP) per capita: $39,6k. HDI: ??. Largest economic sector: services (74%). The comparison is naive.
We do have oil and Edinburgh is the 6th largest financial centre of the world. The service sectors are larger (in both countries) than I'd prefer but the two countries are similar to first order.
I've yet to see some solid numbers from either side of the debate of economic independence. There is a perception of failure, or a fear of failure. Yet from the naive numbers above it seems theoretically possible that Scotland could be as prosperous as Finland. I would have made the comparison to Norway (pop 5m) but people would point out their huge SWF fund created from oil revenue. I could have also compared to Iceland (pop 300k) but didn't as their future is currently hanging in the balance.
So, with the least dogma/ most quantitative statements possible, point to me why Scotland can/ can't be economically autonomous?
The Facebook comments:
Person 1 (pro-independence):
Firstly I have to mention that it is (intentionally) very difficult to get figures for Scotland re GDP, taxes, expenditure, basically anything. I say it is intentional because I have that on good authority from someone now retired from a high position in the major HMRC place in Scotland. Obviously you can feel free to disbelieve this personal account. Everything else I have to add is verifiable though.
The headline figure I think we should start with is the following: for the most recent year that the figures are available (2009-10 tax year), the UK treasury's own GERS (government expenditure and revenue Scotland, nothing to do with the Rangers takeover) showed that WITHOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH OIL Scotland was in economic surplus to the tune of £1.3billion. Let's also note that the corporation tax take related to oil extraction was of the order £10BILLION, and that figure does not include tax at the petrol pump. Indeed, GERS figures have shown Scotland to be in economic surplus for each of the last 20-something years (can't remember exactly, but it's definitely of that order). Contrast that with the same figures showing the UK as a whole to be in deficit for each of the same, hence the current financial clusterfuck we are getting dragged into with them. The UK deficit for the 09/10 period was of order several tens of billions.
Trident submarines are recorded as being £billions of Scottish expenditure. Remember that defence spending in Scotland is already disproportionately less than it should be, and that's INCLUDING this mistake. Also, most UK-wide businesses are registered in London, but the income to the UK treasury from e.g. VAT is identified as UK-wide (which in a budgetary/revenue context means English by default). Imagine what 9% (Scotland's per capita share) of Tesco's VAT receipts would add up to alone...
Person 2 (sceptic):
The question is, how long is oil going to be a good source of money. I know, that from Scottish point of view: the longer the better. However, for me the sooner the oil gets disregarded as the only valuable source of energy the better for the world. And that is going to happen sooner or, most probably, later. Considering that possible independence is supposed to run for a long period of time, it is really important to have other sources of income. I know I am being really down to earth, but it would be really sad to choose between being rich or independent. It would be particularly painful for people here, as you are used to the highest standard of life.
|
Thoughts 
