"Scottish Labour does not believe that Scotland would wither and die as an independent country."
Of course, Scotland would not "wither nor die" under independence, even in Europe there are several countries, which having received independence in the last couple of decades (Moldova springs to mind here), keep chugging along, head above water with very little apparent means of support. If Moldova can "survive", then so could Scotland, the question is what that "survival" would mean financially for its citizens.
Salmond last week claimed that a newly independent Scotland would (thanks to the North Sea Oil) rank as third richest country (in terms of GDP per capita) in Europe.
Which would appear to be true, if the newly Independent Scotland continued to get its deficit funded from the central Exchequer at Westminster.
Which means it wouldn’t be a "newly independent" Scotland then would it?
Of course, there's a dispute over the size of this net borrowing but really,if the size of the state deficit is disputed, then it shouldn’t be that difficult to work it out; how about for a start:
Amount of tax revenue paid by Scottish Taxpayers minus the amount spent on public services (health, education, pensions, etc etc) and general all-round governmental bureacracy/quangos in Scotland.
Is that net figure a positive or a negative one?
I've no idea, but then I don’t work for the Scottish "Government’s" finance department.
According to the latest information available, what I can find is that:
Scottish net borrowing in 2005 was £11.2 billion
Factor in 100% of the oil revenues and that figure drops to 6 billion.
6 billion as a Net Borrowing is not the end of the world and more than a few countries within the EU (including the UK) cope fine with financing similar per capita debt...but that’s not the point surely?
It’s logically got to be included in any potential wealth calculation (as would be the removal of any EU funding until Scotland was re-admitted to the organisation as an independent nation).
Let’s have a more realistic breakdown of the figures, it shouldn’t be that difficult surely for someone a bit more gifted in the dark art of statistics than myself..... unless there’s something they want to hide.
6 comments:
All the Unionists do is insult the Welsh and the Scots and say we're living on English charity .... seems like a good reason to go it alone and gain a little self-respect.
I was only asking for the figures....they may even help other Scots to prove wrong that accusation you've just stated.
In the end, it's them (the Scots) you have to convince not me, otjer unionists or the "English",
I think Anonymous makes a fair point. I take a passing interest in UK politics and pass my eye across a variety of blogs that often cover this topic. Invariably the argument comes down to whether or not the Scots are scroungers or not, this being in an attempt to attack Scottish claims that they would do better as an independent country as London is not focusing enough on Scottish concerns.
Very few blogs will argue the benefits of the Union, as they perceive them. Could it be that the conditions that existed in the 1700's and 1800's which were used as arguments in favour of Union just do not exist any more.
For example the the UK is pretty safe from a French invasion now. Catholic dominance is no longer a threat and with the advent of the EU trade benefits exist within the EU which are far more lucrative then the UK market might offer. The empire is gone, the UK's influence in world affairs, while still significant, is but a shadow of itself from times gone by.
Does it come down now to tradition. Why break 300 years of tradition. Why fix whats not broken? Are those the sole arguments. Just askin ?
For me, looking in, I see Scottish independence offering them something that devolution currently does not offer.. fiscal control. The ability to compete in the EU and on the world stage for inward investment by setting favourable economic policy. This cannot be achieved within the UK as it stands. A federal UK could possibly address this problem.
I also find those arguments which tell Scots that they get more then enough from the UK budget as a tad self defeating. Im sure every proud scot, like every proud person in their own right, would want to be self sustaining. The Scottish economy should not need to be subsidised by the UK economy. It should be self sustaining surely. Why would the Scottish, or indeed the Welch or NI economies want to be seen as dependants.
That said, I wonder if scottish nationalism has fully thought through the consequences of exiting from the UK. Divorces tend to be painful. Yes, they might have the oil, but oil alone will not sustain their economy. It will not provide the jobs or attract the investment.
Social cohesion is likely to be greatly affected as well. As in Ireland, there will be sizeable minorities who will not be in favour of independence. Where will they fit into the new Scotland. Could Scotland be partitioned in an agreement?
The SNP tend to look at the Irish economy as a model. Thats fine, but they would be wrong to assume that Irish economic success just happened along and occurred overnight. The steps required to produce the conditions that allowed the celtic tiger to flourish started in the 60s and required massive cuts in the public sector. Spending was massively cut. Cutbacks were the order of the day. Hospitals closing, benefits cut. Capitalism accepted as being the future.
If Scottish people choose to go down the route of independence then the best of luck to them. I hope that the EU will provide them with any assistance they may need and that they make a success of it. Hopefully their English, Welch and NI neighbours will wish them well and not hold too big a grudge. Somehow though I think that Scottish nationalism could still achieve its goals within the UK but only in a federalist model which gives them more control of their economy and offers them a position on the world stage. Time will tell. Its unlikely that the boat will be rocked unless the conditions are favourable enough to convince a lot of moderates.
Anyway, that's just my passing thoughts
Kloot
That's quite a detailed commentary for "passing thoughts"!
I'll try to come up with a more detailed response tonight, when I've a little bit more time.
O'neill,
That's quite a detailed commentary for "passing thoughts"!
It wasnt till I re read my own comment that id realised that id rambled for a bit :). I find interesting connotations between the events currently undergoing in Scotland and the events that unfolded in Irish history, hence my interest. Its arguable that had a reform of the Union taken place in the 1870s/1880s, towards a more federal UK, as was talked of at the time, that Irish nationalist may, just may have been kept happy and armed nationalist may have been kept at bay. Its a big maybe, but it certainly might have addressed the concerns of the more moderates.
Hence when looking at Scotland, one wonders if the slowness of change may mean that any possible changes to the UK may come too late to keep pace with the rise of nationalism.
I look forward to reading your comments later.
Just a short note: the main reason the Scottish government cannot give an answer to the simple sum:
Tax income - public expenditure
is that the London Treasury refuses to disclose how much the tax income is in the different countries. It's possible to guesstimate, but ever guesstimate will be different so every calculation will be different.
Post a Comment