One for the economists out there-Could Scotland survive economically as an independent nation?If so,how?

Question

Please give me as full an answer as possible,as I find this a totally fascinating subject.

Answer 1

Well, Scotland ownes much of the North Sea Oil production, and now with Russia cutting off Oil to Europe, and the Gulf of Mexico being hit by bad hurricanes every year, this is a very strong financial resource. And to those who say the north sea oil is about to run out - my dad worked on the rigs for 18 years. He said there was plenty of oil, just not yet the technology to go as deep as is needed.
Tourism - Edinburgh has the largest fringe festival in the world. The Edinburgh Tattoo sold out this year faster than ever before. Mr American Billionaire Rich man wants to build the best golf course in the world on Scottish soil - creating an abundance of tourism jobs.
Wave Power - Scotland is currently the world and market leader on wave power (machines that generate electricity by the power of waves). These are being built off of the west coast for other European countries to use.
Wind farms - remote scottish islands are perfect for building wind farms. They have little or no population or wildlife. We wouldn't have to be dependent on 'english generated power'.
Glasgow is consistently the second best city to shop in (after london of course).
Science. Scotland is constantly a world leader in medical and scientific research.

Answer 2

Yes, any area however small and poor could theoretically survive as a nation but could it survive successfully as a nation depends to a large extent on whether it was given ownership of North sea oil. This is a vital resource of the UK and there is a degree of disagreement about what belong to England and Scotland.
If Scotland could depart from the UK with all the North Sea oil it would be richer than it currently is but this would be highly susceptible to changes in oil price.
Also being independent Scotland could have its own currently which would give it greater monetary flexibility to control its own economy, setting interest rates that were suitable for itself rather than the rest of the UK. Alternatively Scotland could go join the Euro which I think would probably suit its economy far more than the rest of the UK.

Answer 3

I do believe the Scots do have their own oil, like the Norwegians, so that's a prime economic asset. There are plenty of countries smaller than Scotland who thrive, but in this era no country is truly independent, esp one based in EU, with open markets and globalisation.

Scotland would prob due better, as could change tax/vat laws, to attract foreign investment (like Ireland did in early 90s) and reduce taxes on petrol etc.

Also, with such high rural ratio you could even qualify for ERDF funding (European regional development funding)

Answer 4

Scotland would undoubtedly do a lot better if it were an independent nation.

There's a popular myth which is frequently bandied about by the London based media which is that Scotland is a nation of subsidy junkies and that England would be better economically if it were independent of Scotland.

The Scottish National Party looked into this and concluded that during the period in question, Scotland had subsidised England to the tune of between 80 and 85 billion pounds. Now, coming from the SNP you might think it was biased but the report was presented to the government who confirmed it's accuracy and came up with their own figure of 81.4 billion pounds.

Historically, whenever there were problems in the seas off the coast of Scotland such as territorial disputes, fishing rights, quotas, pollution etc these were Scottish problems in Scottish waters and were for Scotland to deal with. Then North Sea oil was discovered and suddenly it became a British concern in British waters to be controlled from London. If Scotland were able to reclaim control of Scottish waters then it would have 31 billion barrels of oil in reserve (plus an unknown quantity as yet undiscovered) which at today's price of $53.21 per barrel would give Scotland over 1.5 trillion dollars worth of oil revenues. That's nearly one million dollars for every household in the country.

Even after the Act of Union in 1707 the English have plundered Scotland. Back then it was the Clearances which saw the landlords (many of whom were English) forcibly evicting entire communities so as to give the land over to sheep farming which was deemed more profitable. Ironically it proved, in the long term, to be cheaper to import lamb from New Zealand. Even today this plundering continues, particularly of the natural resources. There are, for example, super-quarries in Scotland operated by English concerns where the quarried material is shipped to England and the profits remain in England. True, such quarries provide employment but the gains for Scotland are minimal compared to the gains for England. Super-quarries require government approval and are seen as desecrating the area, creating huge long term problems, leaving a costly legacy, having a major environmental impact etc. For this reason the government favours siting them in Scotland as opposed to England or Wales.

In areas where Scotland is free to manage it's own affairs it is doing very well. Education is a classic example. Not only is it free of charge at all levels but since devolution Scottish primary schools have risen to be the best in the world, the secondary schools are the 6th best and university graduation is second only to the US.

If the independence within the education system were to be extended to the whole of Scotland and it's success replicated then idependence would be the best thing that ever happened for Scotland. However, that would almost certainly bring large numbers of English migrants to the country as is already happening with the so called 'tuition fee refugees'.

Sadly the British media are very biased against Scotland and continually portray it as a country entirely dependent on England for it's survival. Even the history books are distorted - it wasn't the English that took over Scotland it was the Scots who took over the English. And as for crime... there's more than 10 times as much crime per day in London than there is in the whole of Scotland so why the media insist on portraying Scotland as a violent, crime-ridden cesspit is a mystery.

Unfortunatley, Scotlands economy is continually hammered by successive governments and the once mighty ship-building industry was effectively diamantled by the previous government. Large numbers of contracts that were tendered out to Scottish companies have, in recent years, been reallocated to companies largely in the south-east of England. Effectively subsidising the south-east with what could have been Scottish money. The Ministry of Defence is one of the worst offenders in this area and now awards over half of all it's contracts to companies in the south-east and less than 4% to Scottish companies; this being despite the fact that the British government relies very heavily on Scotland when it comes to the armed forces.

To summarise, if Scotland gained independence and was allowed to take back the oil in Scottish waters it would overnight become one of the most prosperous countries on the planet. However, without the oil it would have to rely on it's ingenuity and create new markets for export. Scottish inventiveness is world renowned and many of the things we use in every day life were born in Scotland - televisions, telephones, electricity etc.

Oh by the way, I'm not Scottish.

Answer 5

no, because for the simple reason being that an independant economy in scotland would collapse in a matter of hours because everybody knows that the scotch are renowned for their tight fistededness

Answer 6

I suppose it could. After all there are other countries smaller and with fewer resources that manage.

Answer 7

No it couldn't. It has no manufacturing base, no financial centre, no assets.
That is why it is subsidised by us English, Welsh and northern Irish.
Independence for Scotland? Yes please, asap.

Answer 8

**** u