Scotland, could it survive independent of London?

RATM

Was just wondering about this earlier. It's always appeared to me that Scotland has an abundance of natural resources. They've oil galore in the North Sea and plenty of fishing grounds too. Then there is their whiskey industry, AFAIK there are well over 100 different whiskies exported worldwide and they outsell Irish whiskey by many multiples. Then there's their tourism, they do pretty well on that front too.

So my question is could Scotland survive (economically) independently of London?

Einhard

Yes. Yes it could. And not because of the whiskey distilleries either.

Terrontress

I think that if RBS and HBOS had not failed so spectacularly that Scotland would have a better shout for independence.

The oil fields were located and developed by nationalised UK industry so it would not be so simple as Scotland to simply start to take all revenue in the event of Scottish independence.

Would English companies who have invested in Scotland, eg BskyB, maintain their investment if it were a separate company.

Would Scottish companies who derive the majority of their profits from England, eg FirstGroup, consider moving their operations to England?

I am not sure that Whisky would be a major factor. A lot of the Scotch distilleries are very small. They are not on the scale of Powers or Jameson.

I suppose it is like asking if Ireland would have the same prosperity if not in the EU,

Lenny Lovett

Terrontress wrote: »

I think that if RBS and HBOS had not failed so spectacularly that Scotland would have a better shout for independence.

That fiasco could have happened anywhere (and did!) but would not have had much impact on Scotland's ability to survive independently. You would have to step back a bit and debate whether BoS would have merged with Halifax and RBoS with NatWest were Scotland Independent at the time. No reason why not, I suppose.

Terrontress wrote: »

The oil fields were located and developed by nationalised UK industry so it would not be so simple as Scotland to simply start to take all revenue in the event of Scottish independence.

It would be interesting to see whether, if an audit was done, Scotland would have been a net benificiary from oil reveune if the associated start up costs were deducted. I suggest they would have made massive profits. Gordon Brown asserted as much a couple of years back.

Terrontress wrote: »

Would English companies who have invested in Scotland, eg BskyB, maintain their investment if it were a separate company.

BSkyB's investment in Livingstone is substantial but not massive. They got major incentives to locate there. Scotland would have been entitled to major EU subsidies if it were an Independent state so subsidies to enterprise would have been freely available. So, Yes, I expect many and possibly more, English companies could have located above the border.

Terrontress wrote: »

Would Scottish companies who derive the majority of their profits from England, eg FirstGroup, consider moving their operations to England?

Is FirstGroup an indigenous Scottish company? I thought it originated in South/West Yorkshire?

Terrontress wrote: »

I am not sure that Whisky would be a major factor. A lot of the Scotch distilleries are very small. They are not on the scale of Powers or Jameson.

Agreed. However, if Scotland was Independent and reliant on it's own assets, they may have expolited the Whiskey industry and built it up more than it has done?

Terrontress

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

That fiasco could have happened anywhere (and did!) but would not have had much impact on Scotland's ability to survive independently. You would have to step back a bit and debate whether BoS would have merged with Halifax and RBoS with NatWest were Scotland Independent at the time. No reason why not, I suppose.

They probably would have merged / acquired but the question is what would have happened without Westminster's intervention following the crisis. One of Goodwin's biggest mistakes was the acquisition of a foreign bank, ABN AMRO.

It would be interesting to see whether, if an audit was done, Scotland would have been a net benificiary from oil reveune if the associated start up costs were deducted. I suggest they would have made massive profits. Gordon Brown asserted as much a couple of years back.

Well, they could have licensed out the exploration rights to the yanks, much as the UK did, and that would have been profitable for them. There has been a lot of benefits to the local economy of Aberdeen due to oil men being there. I have never been but apparently there are more strip clubs and prostitutes per head of population than anywhere else in the UK!

BSkyB's investment in Livingstone is substantial but not massive. They got major incentives to locate there. Scotland would have been entitled to major EU subsidies if it were an Independent state so subsidies to enterprise would have been freely available. So, Yes, I expect many and possibly more, English companies could have located above the border.

I just picked BSkyB out of the top of my head as having a Scottish voice answering the phone. But you know what I mean! I suppose and independent Scotland would benefit from a lot of what made Ireland so attractive to American companies, an educated English speaking workforce with good infrastructure.

Is FirstGroup an indigenous Scottish company? I thought it originated in South/West Yorkshire?

Definitely Scottish. They merged with a Bristol company but the senior management remains in Scotland. I read recently though that the CEO is leaving and an American is replacing him. Some guy who was previously head of London Underground.

Agreed. However, if Scotland was Independent and reliant on it's own assets, they may have expolited the Whiskey industry and built it up more than it has done?

Of the 100+ whiskies mentioned by the OP, what makes them so successful is the low numbers in which they are produced. There are big distillers as well such as Bells and Grants but I'd imagine 75% of Scotch distillers don't want to be in every supermarket. They are well aware of their market.

One thing I will say is that Scotland has a very negative image internationally. Heroin, battered Mars bars, fighting. There is no reason that Scotland should not have the same international reputation for hospitality and fun that the Irish have. Perhaps being independent could assist them with that.

Cú Giobach

Scotland is a country of 5,000,000 people, with major cities and good centers of industry. It is an exporter of electricity, with plenty of wind, and hydro-electric capabilities, and has an abundance of natural resources.
English companies based in or with large operations in Scotland aren't all going to "leg it", unless the Scots are stupid and make it untenable for them to stay, which is very doubtful.

The Scots could sustain themselves independently as well as any other country of comparable size, and if they remained in the EU they would do very well for themselves.
Certainly it would be a tricky and slow process economically disentangling, but not an impossible one.

Jeboa Safari

I think they could, and they would be big competitors with us for foreign investment, so it mightn't be in our interest to see it happen. I can see them lowering their coporation tax to something similar to ours for a start. Not sure what would happen with the oil, I assume income from it would have to be split some way with the rest of the UK. Don't think whisky would be a major thing for them, tourism might be though.
Would the UK continue on as it is with the remaining 3 entities, or split up further?

jackbenimble

Of course they could survive independently, as could NI. But why would they want to?

As for large banks - they're not really Scottish or British - they are multi-national public companies, whose ownership is scattered across world wide shareholders.

Manach

Yes it should be possible even if it would be a rather long dis-entanglation process as other posters have mentioned.
However, would Scotland itself remain whole. Historically it is a amalgamation of several entities such as the Hebrides, Orkanies, High and Lowland areas. Each of those might in turn develop either a separatist or re-unionist factions which would balkanise the region (Georgia as a modern example).

Terrontress

jackbenimble wrote: »

As for large banks - they're not really Scottish or British - they are multi-national public companies, whose ownership is scattered across world wide shareholders.

But where do they pay their corporation tax to?

OS119

Manach wrote: »

Yes it should be possible even if it would be a rather long dis-entanglation process as other posters have mentioned.
However, would Scotland itself remain whole. Historically it is a amalgamation of several entities such as the Hebrides, Orkanies, High and Lowland areas. Each of those might in turn develop either a separatist or re-unionist factions which would balkanise the region (Georgia as a modern example).

thats a good point - if you go the the Shetland they honk off about 'Edinburgh rule' as much as the central belt used to honk off about 'London rule' before devolution - Shetland is as far from Edinburgh as Edinburgh is from London, they have a rather different society to both London and Edinburgh, and their geography brings them money they'd rather not see floating off southwards...

obviously Scotland could happily survive entirely independantly of the UK, though you could question if it would get the same kind of revenues given the same tax rates (Barnett formula etc..), and so it would be interesting to see what kind of society/welfare state Scotland could afford without making itself far too expensive to attract outside investment. the other concern is what kind of atmosphere the new country/state would provide for the 500,000 English people who live and work in Scotland - independence referendums rarely take place without a bit of xenophobic shit-stirring, and then when, 30 seconds after independence, the new state hasn't been transformed into a sunlit valley of milk and honey, there's usually some unpleasant characters within politics and the media all to happy to find a 'foreign' scapegoat for all the ills of the new, 'betrayed' state: and who better than the resident English?

Eliot Rosewater

OS119 wrote: »

...and then when, 30 seconds after independence, the new state hasn't been transformed into a sunlit valley of milk and honey, there's usually some unpleasant characters within politics and the media all to happy to find a 'foreign' scapegoat for all the ills of the new, 'betrayed' state: and who better than the resident English?

That's an excellent point. Even in Ireland people explain the non-existence of the paradise promised by independence to be the result of partition. But I've always argued that unification of Ireland would be followed by one of the biggest anti-climaxes in history, in which nationalists would look around and realise "wait, nothing has actually changed". This is because nationalism is argued from the heart, and the woolly promises of happiness can never be realised in a tangible sense, because tangible things occupy the head.

Even so, if the Scottish people desire independence I would support it. In general I think that government should be brought down to the lowest level possible through devolution.

But there's a major problem: I think Scotland pays about £2000 less tax than it receives back in spending per person. Will the oil make up this gap? It doesn't seem likely to me.

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes it would survive although I meet loads of Scots who are not really interested in independence.

A Dub in Glasgo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But there's a major problem: I think Scotland pays about £2000 less tax than it receives back in spending per person. Will the oil make up this gap? It doesn't seem likely to me.

I am not so sure it is as much as that. Maybe Scotland will sell water to the south of England?

Denerick

Scotland could do so if it really wanted to. The average Scot on the other hand simply doesn't care. Even if Scotland does get independence nothing will substantially change, a case has to be made that a Scottish legislature will bring about a better standard of living than an English one.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Scots will have their independence the day after the oil runs out.

irishh_bob

RATM wrote: »

Was just wondering about this earlier. It's always appeared to me that Scotland has an abundance of natural resources. They've oil galore in the North Sea and plenty of fishing grounds too. Then there is their whiskey industry, AFAIK there are well over 100 different whiskies exported worldwide and they outsell Irish whiskey by many multiples. Then there's their tourism, they do pretty well on that front too.

So my question is could Scotland survive (economically) independently of London?

yes it could but it doesnt wish to , contary to what the media would have us believe , the majority of scotts dont wish to see the union broke , the most pro union of british people live in two places , northern ireland and scotland

ps , ive no opinion either way on the matter

Rabble Rabble

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But there's a major problem: I think Scotland pays about £2000 less tax than it receives back in spending per person. Will the oil make up this gap? It doesn't seem likely to me.

Sure it would.

Rabble Rabble

In response to myself: Almost:

Link to tax revenue from North sea Oil here

Oil prices are relatively high so the forecast this year is 9.3B sterling. Anyway that is £1,860 per person assuming a population of 5 million. It fluctuates, however. In 2008 it was 12.9 B.

So pretty much a wash. To be fair if Scotland is getting £2K per person, which is £10B a year transfers, it is doing ok. Do you have a source for that?

A Dub in Glasgo

The only info I have is from a few years ago showing the following

Eliot Rosewater

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The only info I have is from a few years ago showing the following

Excellent! That's exactly the picture I was thinking of! But obviously I remembered it incorrectly.

sfakiaman

From the map a couple of posts ago it's obvious that Scotland more or less breaks even financially. It's also interesting to note that the Scots pay more tax per capita than the rest of the UK outside SE England. Therefore even within the UK Scotland is financially viable.

Scotland has always had it's own legal, education, local government and other systems and now has a Scottish parliament, it has the experience of running it's own affairs.

Scotland is very different to England geographically and demographically so policies adopted for the benefit of England have often had an adverse effect on Scotland.

Scotland is self sufficient in food, energy and water, England has to import all three.

Scotlands main problem is control of the media from south of the border and unfortunately readers of the Sun and News of the World vote.

Based on facts, of course Scotland would be better off independant, but if facts aren't enough.

So cam' all ye
at hame wi freedom
Never heed
whit the hoodies
croak for doom
In your hoose
a' the bairns
o' Adam
can find breid
barly bree an'
painted room.

Hamish Henderson

Max Power1

jackbenimble wrote: »

Of course they could survive independently, as could NI. But why would they want to?

As for large banks - they're not really Scottish or British - they are multi-national public companies, whose ownership is scattered across world wide shareholders.

Ah here now, not a chance! The public service bill alone would bankrupt NI if it were to be independant.

jackbenimble

Max Power1 wrote: »

Ah here now, not a chance! The public service bill alone would bankrupt NI if it were to be independant.

I said survive - not maintain the same standard of living. In time NI would develop in the same way as The Republic did - only much quicker with EU help available from day one. I don't favour NI independence except in the case of The UK breaking up.

T runner

jackbenimble wrote: »

I said survive - not maintain the same standard of living. In time NI would develop in the same way as The Republic did - only much quicker with EU help available from day one. I don't favour NI independence except in the case of The UK breaking up.

You'll be in a small minority looking for NI independence then. I think the choices for NI are either in the UK or within the Republic. Only a small number of hardliners in NI rule out political settlements within a United Ireland under any circumstances.



The chart actually shows Scotland losing wealth as part of its Union with the rest of UK. Even with the political, economic and financial Capital based in SE England Scotland still breaks even. If it held a state capital retaining full access to the rest of the British market it would prosper.

NI status shows its anomalous situation within the UK and its complete dependency and lack of functionality within the overall UK structure.

Its geograohic, economic, cultural, political and societal distance from London is in proportion to its difference in earning power within the UK . It is quite clear the unfeasability of all Ireland remaining in the UK if it perfromed as NI does.

Rabble Rabble

Great thread this. Questions asked:Answers found and linked to. Kudos to empiricism.

So Scotland is at a loss, assuming that it would get all the oil money, by staying in the Union. To a large extent the thread has been answered.