Well Bobby McKean. I have read this mans opinion as you asked and now I ask you and any one else who has read this to read my response to each of his points. Will be happy to read your response when you have read mine. 5 Reasons Why Scottish Independence Would Be An Economic Disaster Speaking as a Scot who lives in England, I have divided loyalties in this debate. But speaking as an economic commentator, I am amazed at the naivety and short sightedness of the Scottish National Party (SNP). Here’s 5 reasons why. 1 Currency confusion Not long ago (in 1999), SNP leader Alex Salmond described the pound as a ‘millstone around Scotland’s neck’ and derided the currency in 2009. Today he is desperate to keep it, realising that an independent currency would be so volatile and problematic that it would dissuade investors, reduce trade with the rest of the world and threaten to turn Scotland into an economic backwater. The European Union has effectively ruled out Scotland joining the euro (or even the EU) for many years, leaving Salmond exposed and blustering. Tony Gilmours response I am always hearing of this economic volatility and of it being problematic all of the time. No one has ever explained where all of this would come from. We are a long established nation with trading links and partnerships that go back for decades even centuries. We are a well respected, trusted and very wealthy nation. I have not seen or heard of any European country actually saying that they would officially object to 5 million current Eupoean citizens who have lived and worked with and under the existing European set for 40 years and are part of the aforementioned wealthy and trusted nation. 2 Delusions of oil grandeur The SNP’s main economic platform is that Scotland should own the revenue from North Sea oil and gas, making it a petro-dollar paradise equivalent to Norway. Although they have similar populations (5.05 million for Norway, 5.3 million for Scotland), the hydrocarbon revenues are massively different. Norway’s government gathered $40 billion in 2013 (according to the BBC) while the UK made $10.8 billion (according to the Financial Times), a fall of 40 per cent from 2012. Current predictions? Further falls, to £3.3 billion ($5.5 billion) in 2016/17, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. There’s no amount of careful stewardship that is going to magic $5.5 billion into $40 billion, when many of the North Sea rigs are at the end of their life and production levels are falling. Tony Gilmours response “North Sea oil and gas have a long and bright future.” (UK energy minister John Hayes, March 2013) “There are probably billions of barrels still to be found in Scottish waters, which is why we’re investing billions of pounds in looking for it.” (New York Times, March 2013) We cant hope to be the equivalent of Norway because successive Westminster governments Chose NOT to set up an oil fund. We are the only oil producing country that does not have an oil fund. We will use the oil income (Which has been continuously and deliberately undervalued by Westminster) to help, but not completely, finance a new and fairer society. And why should we believe the BBC when we are all now aware ( thanks to the freedom of information act) of the Gavin McCrone report presented to the Westminster government in 1975. This report suggested Scottish people would be more in favour of independence if they were informed about the true value of the oil reserves. So Westminster hid the report in the lead up to the fixed first vote on independence.. Just the same tactics as they are using now by UNDERVALUING EVERYTHING ABOUT SCOTLAND not just the oil in order to scare us into staying. 3 Financial mismanagement Scotland’s banks have become a byword for chaos and catastrophic losses, after the hubris of the 1990s turned into the near-collapse of the mid-2000s with massive rescue packages needed for Royal Bank of Scotland /companies/royal-bank-of-scotland/and Lloyds (both of them based in Edinburgh). The SNP announced in November 2013 that, under future independence arrangements, the Bank of England ‘would become a lender of the last resort’ following any future crises. This would mean taxpayers in the rest of the UK bailing out Scottish banks, despite them being in an ‘independent’ country. The evident nonsense of this position seems to be lost on the Scottish National Party. As one website remarked, Alex Salmond believes he still has the right to use gym equipment, despite giving up his membership. ‘I have been a member for many, many years, so why they think everything in the club is for the exclusive use of the remaining members is completely beyond me,’ the website imagined him wondering. Tony Gilmours response The banks in question were actually bailed out not just by the UK but by America as well because the bulk of the dodgy business that caused the collapse was carried out there. And despite them being officially based in Scotland a substantial amount of the decision making was and still is done in the London markets. Therefore the bailouts were multinational depending on where the actual trading is done. As for the gym membership analogy. I for one would like to think that my membership was for life if I had a key role in creating and building the gym in the first place. After all Scotland “owns” a fair share of the pound. 4 Loss of credibility The UK has sunk an awful long way since the height of empire /companies/empire/in the 19th century, but it remains the world’s sixth-largest economy and the second-largest in Europe behind Germany. This confers all kinds of useful benefits, including low interest rates, a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, leadership in NATO, a major role at G20 conferences and in the WTO, among many others. For decades, even centuries, Scots have been at the heart of this economic presence, as Chancellors of the Exchequer (Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling under Labour, Norman Lamont under the Tories) or as Prime Minister (Brown again, Tony Blair – even David Cameron has Scottish roots). They also helped to build and maintain the Empire. So instead of a seat at this high global table, Scotland seeks to become… what? The new Slovakia (population 5.4 million, average income $24,000)? It’s an instructive parallel. Slovakia became independent of the Czech Republic in 1993 because the Czechs wanted rid of their poorer partner under the forced communist marriage of Czechoslovakia. The SNP, by contrast, is under the illusion that Scotland would emerge a wealthier nation than it is today by ditching its richer partner. The logic is perverse. At least Slovakia is part of the European Union, with all the benefits that brings. An independent Scotland could not guarantee that its citizens would be able to live and work in the rest of the UK. Tony Gilmours response. The UK has sunk an awful long way since the height of the Empire. For a considerable time now financial journalist and institutions have made it public that they expect independent Scotland to be the 8th richest country in the world. NO ONE, that I am aware of, from the better together campaign, in that considerable time has ever even tried to dispute this. Lets face it if anyone of the better together bunch had tried to it would have made the headlines. I reckon 8th RICHEST country in the world would have a good credit rating and get perhaps even better interest rates than the rUK. The UK EMPIRE Was built up over centuries of conquering and then trading. I think you will find that the few decades presided over by the people you have actually named have been in the SUNK part of THE EMPIRE. All the more reason to get out fast. I for one want Scotland not to sit at these tables but to LEAD by example and build a society that DOES NOT WORSHIP THE WEALTHY. But instead creates a more caring and equal society where to coin a phrase from The Common Weal (a pro independence group), we put ALL OF US FIRST. You say that Slovakia became independent of The Czech Republic because the Czechs wanted rid of their poorer partner. I thought it was because of a fair and democratic vote. I would like to point out that at no point have I ever heard of the Slovakians asking to be allowed back in. But since since you introduced the comparison. Westminster is always saying that Scotland is a scrounger and living off subsidies from the UK. If that is the case why dont they do like you say the Czechs did and just dump us like a hot potato. It is because we are a strong and contributing partner who would be sorely missed. But the more you try to put us down the more determined we are to stand alone. Slovakia is a member of Europe but the UK may not be after the referendum promised by Mr Cameron. So if we want to be European do we vote YES or NO. A YES vote would virtually guarantee EU membership but a no vote would bring about that dreaded UNCERTAINTY. By the way. Scotland has been ruled by a government based in another country for 300 years. After such a long time and lots of same old same old, many of us have decided we want to rule ourselves. It only took England 40 years to want the same thing. 5 Lack of natural resources Once the oil runs out, what does Scotland have that will sustain its fabulously wealthy future? It has whisky, but even with this contribution of £3 billion ($4.8 billion) across the economy, as estimated by the Scotch Whisky Association, it’s small beer. The ability to attract major industries – manufacturing, IT, finance – to the country would be diminished by independence, for all the reasons listed above. The insurer Standard Life has already warned that it could relocate its headquarters in the event of a Yes vote for independence, endangering 5,000 Scottish jobs. Many more companies are doubtless thinking along the same lines. I once asked a politician who represented the Western Isles of Scotland why people living in these remote and hostile places should receive subsidies. ‘To keep a diversity of culture,’ he replied. You could say the same of Scotland as a whole. The rest of the UK is content to subsidise this rich and ancient culture. But take away that subsidy and there would likely be massive depopulation. ‘Go to Scotland and there’s nobody there,’ as the country’s best-known comic Billy Connolly succinctly put it. All these arguments pale into nothing for nationalists, whose blood is up and who scent a kind of revenge on the English for centuries of (as they see it) domination and exploitation. They’re determined to cut off their nose to spite their face. Tony Gilmours response Scotland has natural resources in the form of wind and tidal energy that could supply 25% of Europe worth about £14 billion. We have 5 universities that are ranked in the top 200 hundred in the world therefore we have a strong and vibrant financial sector of our own in Edinburgh because the skills are here. We have world renowned technical and medical research facilities that attract foreign investment because the skills are here. Our tourism and film industries would flourish because our embassies would actually promote Scottish culture and events. (None of our UK foreign embassies promoted St Andrews day this year). All businesses are wary of uncertainty and the ones with shareholders are required by law to state the risks they see in the near future and state their contingency plans. Standard life only says it “could relocate”. But since the White Paper says that there would be minimum changes to any taxes etc to allow the change over to run as smoothly as possible I think we can expect minimum disruption. And the bulk of any disruption would be caused by the UK refusing to have currency union. Are you implying that Scots only live in Scotland because the English subsidise us!!!!!. I dont understand how Billy Connollys remarks are relevant. I mean is he saying we are subsidised or is he saying that the subsidy is not enough to have a population here. Is he saying we are underpopulated. If we are underpopulated it is because our talented people are starved of opportunities in Scotland by the money and investment sucking souped up dyson that is London. Government tax figures show that Scotland contributes more per head of population than the other countries of the UK. As an economics journalist you will possibly have (should have) read the stories in the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times (you claim to have written pieces for both of these publications). These tell how in an independent Scotland we can easily keep the pound as our currency and may even be better off by not being in a currency union. And how the classic average family of 2,4 children could be £5812 per year better off. * * * * * As a Scot, a yes vote at independence would feel like my parents divorcing. As an economist, it would feel like a regressive, small-minded, self-inflicted act of exile from the 21st century. Tony Gilmour response You claim to be a Scottish journalist with divided loyalties. If your loyalties were truly divided or if you had any sense journalistic integrity you would have at least tried to present an unbiased opinion, instead of trying to use your journalistic credentials to promote your love of London without actually mentioning London. You should have researched and found these pieces and or others like them to present your divided loyalties in an unbiased form. Instead you present yourself to be a media fed English based and Westminster dependant who has been brainwashed into thinking that London is the centre of the world. Or it could be that as Pulitzer prize winner Upton Sinclair once said it is hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them NOT understanding it”. As for claiming to be a Scot. YOU KNOW that the remarks about depopulation and how the rest of the UK IS CONTENT TO SUBSIDISE are deeply offensive and as such (in my opinion) renounce the right to call yourself a Scot. These answers are provided by Tony Gilmour. A man who, apart from a few months of contracting in England, has lived and worked his whole life in Scotland and did not sit any O levels.
Posted on: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:35:58 +0000