The Green Ribbon

The economic case for Scottish Independence

The subject of Scottish independence is creating some interesting ripples in the blogosphere today.

Stuart Dickson at Independence blog argues that Scotland is falling behind economically compared to many of its neighbours which are independent states, including Ireland.

Shuggy points out that while Ireland became independent as far back as 1921, its prosperity really only dates to the 1990s. Gareth at the Campaign for an English Parliament weblog also accuses Stuart of a leap of faith.

My view is that independence was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Irish prosperity.

The fact is the conservatism of many Irish politicians meant that for a long time they followed pre-independence policies. These had been designed to maintain social cohesion and reconcile the Irish to the British state rather than to achieve economic growth.

(A good book on this is Tom Garvin’s Preventing the Future: Why Ireland Was so Poor for so Long)

This really changed only in the 1960s, and the results only came through in the 1990s. in the meantime, Ireland suffered years of mass emigration (my parents were among the many who came to England.)

That population decline began in the 19th Century, and I would argue it as probably related to Ireland’s absorption into the expanding UK economy under the Act of Union. It is now being dramatically reversed.

I suspect Scotland is in the same position as Ireland in the 19th Century, in that higher level of public spending is aimed at reconciling people to the Union rather than economic growth.

Although, I suppose Scottish Nationalists could argue on the basis of oil revenue that they are actually losing out.

I would argue that both Scotland and England lose out from economic distortions which are designed to prop up the Union rather than achieve sustainable growth in either country.

I think it would be a mistake for the English and the Scots to be played off against each other, competing for the patronage of the central UK state. Instead nationalists from both countries should be allies in trying to recover control of their own destinies.

In some ways, I think the real case for Scottish independence is more an economic liberal one, than a socialist one.

It will involve hard choices but independence may be the only way for Scotland to emulate Ireland and reverse its population decline.

Posted

in

,

by

TomGriffin

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “The economic case for Scottish Independence”

  1. Shuggy avatar
    Shuggy

    “In some ways, I think the real case for Scottish independence is more an economic liberal one, than a socialist one.”
    This is an interesting idea. I think you’re right although the nationalist parties in Holyrood wouldn’t because they oppose the Lab-Lib coalition from the left.
    While I’m sure Scotland would do perfectly well economically on its own, I’m skeptical about this point you make:
    “My view is that independence was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Irish prosperity.”
    The other example I took from Stuart’s list was Hong Kong; political dependency doesn’t seem to have had a negative impact in this case.

    Reply
  2. Stuart Dickson avatar
    Stuart Dickson

    – “… Hong Kong; political dependency doesn’t seem to have had a negative impact in this case.”
    No, just an appalling human rights record, so that’s alright then is it Shuggy?
    The Scottish Cultural Cringe never ceases to amaze me. Opponents of Scottish self-government, like Shuggy here, point to a communist vassal state as a suitable model for Scotland. Recently Shuggy even likened Scotland to “a banana republic, except without the bananas or the good weather.” They should have a little more self-respect.
    – “… the nationalist parties in Holyrood wouldn’t because they oppose the Lab-Lib coalition from the left.”
    I also find that a flabergasting quote from Shuggy, because he has been busy telling his readers on Shuggy’s Blogspot how right-wing the SNP are. A little consistency is required if he hopes to be accepted as a reliable commentator.

    Reply
  3. Skint Student avatar
    Skint Student

    I’d like to add to the comments of independence for Scotland being purely economic. I think that indepedence would lead to a greater feeling of well-being for Scots. Taking responsibility for our country might make us more responsible in our outlook in other areas. Also might inject some positivity back into the Scottish psyche, something that is severly lacking. I have pointed that out to my friends in the past and they have replied that this is something that goes back hundreds of years. Really? I was sure that we were inventing some of the worlds most important inventions about 100 years ago. That must have taken some positive outlook!?

    Reply
  4. Tom Griffin avatar
    Tom Griffin

    I think that independence has certainly benefitted Ireland in that respect.
    However, there was a long gap between formal independence and economic take-off, something Scotland would presumably want to avoid.
    Garvin explains it parlty in terms of an inheritance of pre-independence polices which were designed to achieve social peace rather than economic growth.

    Reply
  5. Joe Middleton avatar
    Joe Middleton

    Hey Tom,
    I don’t think the primary motivation for independence should be the Scottish economy but rather Scottish democracy.
    Every other country around the world has normal national status ie is independent so why not Scotland?
    It is obvious that Scotland comes a poor second in decisions by the UK Government and it’s MP’s are vastly outnumbered at Westminster, the more powerful parliament.
    There is no good reason why the Scottish Parliament should not be able to use more effectively every current power available to the British Government.
    The union was not a union of equals, it happened at the barrel of a gun, after the UK King deliberately undermined Scotland’s attempts at colonisation.
    The people rioted against the decision and there were numerous petitions against the union and none in favour.
    Scotland was even officially re-named ‘North Britain’ in official documents, while England was still called England.
    Scotland’s people have never had a straight choice whewther they wish to be in the union or not.
    I think when we force a referendum on it, the Scots will vote in favour of independence as the most logical option for our future effective government.
    Thats why I am involved in the campaign for a referendum, Independence First http://www.independence1st.com
    Cheers JOE

    Reply
  6. Tom Griffin avatar
    Tom Griffin

    The Act of Union was certainly not a very edifying story. I wish you all the best of luck in reversing it.
    I agree that independence is primarily a political issue, but I think the economic argument is there to be won as well.

    Reply
  7. Steve avatar
    Steve

    But wasn’t Ireland’s prosperity partly a result of EU membership?
    Would an independent Scotland need to be in the EU to be viable?

    Reply
  8. Mukkinese avatar
    Mukkinese

    Scotland did have a referendum on independence, in 1979, but the yes campaign failed to get support from 40% of the electorate and so failed.

    Reply
  9. Tom Griffin avatar
    Tom Griffin

    Mukkinese,
    I believe the 1979 referendum was on devolution rather than independence, and as such, of course, the outcome has since been reversed.
    Steve,
    The EU was a certainly a factor for Ireland, and ‘independence in Europe’ is very much the SNP plan as I understand it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *