Since the historic election which gave the SNP a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, the constitutional future of Scotland has been brought to the fore. Scottish voters have demonstrated their determination to set out their own future and construct their own agenda for the first time, in the face of the vastly unpopular ConDem government in Westminster. Few issues in Scotland (indeed across the UK) have divided opinion as bitterly as this issue. However, now more than ever, Scots are increasingly questioning the ‘too poor, too stupid, too small’ mantra which proponents of the Union repeat with little evidence.
Indeed, the idea that Scotland’s oil has peaked appears to be inaccurate. As PricewaterhouseCoopers' study reporting that Scotland’s potential revenue from oil and gas could be around £375 billion over the next 40 years, it stands to reason that, if invested in a similar manner to the Oil Fund of Norway, this resource could provide a solid base on which Scotland’s economy would be secured. BP is investing an additional £4.5 billion in the North Sea, so clearly the potential is there for Scotland to reap significant gains were it to become independent. Between 2008 and 2009, nearly £13 billion in revenue was accrued from oil: the single biggest take in a single year since North Sea oil production began. Evidently, this will fluctuate over time. However, with oil prices in a perpetual upwards trend over the last three decades, the argument for Scotland to utilise this resource properly is stronger than ever.
It would be absurd to claim that an independent Scotland should only rely on a finite resource to sustain its economy, and this is why the nation has an eye to the future, with renewable energy production being actively championed. With the most ambitious carbon reduction targets in Europe aiming to have a minimum of 40% of energy generation coming from renewable sources by 2020 (with 100% being the desired goal), the investment to achieve these ambitions shows a clear vision for the future. A recent report from Citigroup suggested that over £4 billion of subsidies would be required for Scotland to achieve its goals if independent; it also claimed that investors would be unwilling to finance an independent Scotland. This was attacked by the Director General of the Institute of Directors, Simon Walker, who claimed that investment and jobs would be created regardless of Scotland being in or out of the union. “I think it is alarmist and overstating the problems to say don’t invest in renewable or any other area because of future constitutional possibilities,” he said. Furthermore, the report hinged on claims that England would not import energy from Scotland were it independent. Given that Scotland currently exports 20% of its total energy production to England, it seems that such a move would be highly unlikely.
However, regardless of where one stands on Scotland’s constitutional future, the behaviour of Michael Moore MP and the Scotland Office as a whole must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. In its own words, the very purpose of the Scotland Office is to represent Scotland's interests. It is therefore appalling that it should move to warn off investment in Scotland’s renewable energy sectors, particularly in light of the weak economic climate that hangs over the whole of the UK. To discourage investment in an emerging sector that will prove to be crucial in the coming years makes no sense and shows an unfortunate determination to keep Scotland in the Union at all costs.
This comes on the back of the Scottish Secretary claiming again that Scotland was too poor to fund itself and appearing to political point score by attempting to blame uncertainty over Scotland’s future as the cause of poor growth and economic uncertainty. Indeed, in releasing a press briefing headed ‘Scottish Government must explain £41 billion oil deficit’, Mr Moore conveniently ignored his own department’s figures that showed Scotland’s percentage of national debt (based on population) would be £60 billion pounds. Perhaps a press briefing from Mr Moore explaining why Scotland benefits from being a part of the United Kingdom when it is saddled with an additional £19 billion worth of debt is imminent?
The future of Scotland in or out of the Union must be debated in the coming years, but it must be done so in an honest and positive manner. The political point scoring and alarmist approach is unhelpful, misleading and non-constructive. The economic case for Scotland as an independent nation is sound and should not be undermined by those seeking to keep the Union together at all costs. If there is a positive case for staying within the union let that be the focus of the campaign, and not the politics of selling Scotland short.
Written by Owen Miller, EUSNA's Organiser and Director of Publicity
Monday, 27 February 2012
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Scottish Independence: The Economic Case
When the question is asked, which it frequently will over the next couple of years, “Could Scotland afford to become independent?”, there’s a much more important question to be answered: can Scotland afford to remain within the Union?
Within the U.K., Scotland is peripheral – it is geographically isolated from the centre of economic and political power, and can speak only with a minority voice. That makes the Union tremendously unequal. There are practical repercussions to this when it comes to economic policy. As Britain has become increasingly dependent on the financial sector to work as a growth engine, it was natural that the economic policy of successive governments reflected this, choosing to focus on the wealthy South rather than the rest of Britain. And what was the result of this? Communities across Scotland, and elsewhere, lost their traditional industries, replaced only by service jobs in supermarkets and call centres. This is Westminster’s legacy.
There are inherent advantages to running an economy the size of Scotland. The economy is likely to be more integrated, without the gaping regional differences that emerge in a country the size of Britain. Control of the economy is executed at a level closer to the people, with the government able to move with more haste and flexibility than would be possible on a larger scale.
Look at the current constitutional situation in Scotland. We are politically independent in most areas, yet are tied to another, much larger nation, with vastly different ambitions. We control our own healthcare system, our own police and judicial system, and our own education system, but are denied the ability to set our economic policy.
Let’s take the on-going economic difficulties as a case in point. The Scots have overwhelmingly rejected the austerity agenda of the Conservative party, both at Westminster and Holyrood elections, and chose instead to elect a social-democratic Scottish Government, who clearly have a desire to stimulate the Scottish economy. To the extent that they can do, the Government have brought forward capital spending on infrastructure – one of the surest ways to improve an economy, providing employment in the short-term and leaving the country better positioned to grow in the long-term.
Yet spending power will have only limited effect in isolation, and Scotland are denied the economic powers available to any other nation. We have two layers of government here: one layer able but unwilling to intervene in the economy, another layer willing but unable to. The Westminster coalition operates in Scotland without any political mandate – and so where is the wisdom in allowing them control of our economy?
If you want your government to be able to be able to make coherent policies, how can you separate its powers in the way we have done with devolution? How can one government control benefits while another controls healthcare, when they are so clearly linked? The same goes for taxes and spending – what sense does it make to separate these? In Scotland, we’re used to hearing the common refrain of ‘subsidy junkies’, to the extent that this has become conventional wisdom. It is believed, without any need for evidence, that Scotland can only pay the bills at the generosity of our English neighbours. The reality is very different.
Scotland has 8.4% of the U.K. population. Scotland pays 9.4% of the U.K.’s taxes.
Repeat those figures in your head until they are imprinted on your brain.
It is true that we Scots have a higher level of public spending per head than the English. But when this is raised, what’s never pointed out is that this is because we want this to be the case. We value the N.H.S. and our education system. We choose to have free prescriptions and free higher education. Westminster chooses to have nuclear weapons and to involve itself in wars like Iraq. This has never been a question of affordability – it’s about priorities. Which society do you want to live in? One in which the welfare state is valued, and access to education is provided based on ability and willingness to learn? Or one based upon the Thatcherite vision of the world, where individualism replaces community, the welfare state is slowly dismantled, and our purse strings are controlled by a government in London?
When we talk about the need for Scots to determine their own future, it’s more than just an abstract idea. It is a fundamental question which shapes every aspect of our government and our society. Which Scotland do you want?
Dan Paris is a member of Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association, who are colleagues and friends of EUSNA in the Dear Green Place. This article first appeared on National Collective.
Within the U.K., Scotland is peripheral – it is geographically isolated from the centre of economic and political power, and can speak only with a minority voice. That makes the Union tremendously unequal. There are practical repercussions to this when it comes to economic policy. As Britain has become increasingly dependent on the financial sector to work as a growth engine, it was natural that the economic policy of successive governments reflected this, choosing to focus on the wealthy South rather than the rest of Britain. And what was the result of this? Communities across Scotland, and elsewhere, lost their traditional industries, replaced only by service jobs in supermarkets and call centres. This is Westminster’s legacy.
There are inherent advantages to running an economy the size of Scotland. The economy is likely to be more integrated, without the gaping regional differences that emerge in a country the size of Britain. Control of the economy is executed at a level closer to the people, with the government able to move with more haste and flexibility than would be possible on a larger scale.
Look at the current constitutional situation in Scotland. We are politically independent in most areas, yet are tied to another, much larger nation, with vastly different ambitions. We control our own healthcare system, our own police and judicial system, and our own education system, but are denied the ability to set our economic policy.
Let’s take the on-going economic difficulties as a case in point. The Scots have overwhelmingly rejected the austerity agenda of the Conservative party, both at Westminster and Holyrood elections, and chose instead to elect a social-democratic Scottish Government, who clearly have a desire to stimulate the Scottish economy. To the extent that they can do, the Government have brought forward capital spending on infrastructure – one of the surest ways to improve an economy, providing employment in the short-term and leaving the country better positioned to grow in the long-term.
Yet spending power will have only limited effect in isolation, and Scotland are denied the economic powers available to any other nation. We have two layers of government here: one layer able but unwilling to intervene in the economy, another layer willing but unable to. The Westminster coalition operates in Scotland without any political mandate – and so where is the wisdom in allowing them control of our economy?
If you want your government to be able to be able to make coherent policies, how can you separate its powers in the way we have done with devolution? How can one government control benefits while another controls healthcare, when they are so clearly linked? The same goes for taxes and spending – what sense does it make to separate these? In Scotland, we’re used to hearing the common refrain of ‘subsidy junkies’, to the extent that this has become conventional wisdom. It is believed, without any need for evidence, that Scotland can only pay the bills at the generosity of our English neighbours. The reality is very different.
Scotland has 8.4% of the U.K. population. Scotland pays 9.4% of the U.K.’s taxes.
Repeat those figures in your head until they are imprinted on your brain.
It is true that we Scots have a higher level of public spending per head than the English. But when this is raised, what’s never pointed out is that this is because we want this to be the case. We value the N.H.S. and our education system. We choose to have free prescriptions and free higher education. Westminster chooses to have nuclear weapons and to involve itself in wars like Iraq. This has never been a question of affordability – it’s about priorities. Which society do you want to live in? One in which the welfare state is valued, and access to education is provided based on ability and willingness to learn? Or one based upon the Thatcherite vision of the world, where individualism replaces community, the welfare state is slowly dismantled, and our purse strings are controlled by a government in London?
When we talk about the need for Scots to determine their own future, it’s more than just an abstract idea. It is a fundamental question which shapes every aspect of our government and our society. Which Scotland do you want?
Dan Paris is a member of Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association, who are colleagues and friends of EUSNA in the Dear Green Place. This article first appeared on National Collective.
Mock Referendum
EUSNA members conducted a mock independence referendum the other week, obtaining a nail-bitingly close result of 47% in favour and 53% opposed!
With 2 years to go until 2014, there really is everything to play for in showing students across the country why with independence Scotland can be a better place!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)