Its completely understandable that many people view the Union as the safer option. They are looking for certainty, and only the NO campaign can offer any degree of detailed micro economic certainty. The YES campaign is unable to offer anything in the way of detailed projections, because its seeking to implement a future that is on a completely new trajectory, and its virtually impossible to predict the answers to any specific questions under those circumstances. Nothing in this life is absolutely certain. This may seem bizarre but not even death is certain until a person has experienced it. Its just a lot easier to predict the outcome when less variables are in the equation, and that is the key selling point of the Union. But what can we actually predict of the Union based on the variables at our disposal? Well we know that the UK remains mired in recession labouring under an enormous and exponentially increasing debt. Even with the best will in the world, thats not likely to change in a hurry. We know that we face ever more stringent austerity measures, over the coming years, and that those are likely to remain targeted at the most vulnerable in our society, because thats the approach that the three main UK parties are committed to implementing. We dont know exactly what form future cuts will take, but they are certainly going to be in addition to the present cuts, and both the NHS and the state pension appear to be the most likely targets, since theres not much more that can be trimmed from the present welfare budget. Its also reasonably certain that the Barnett Formula, which decides Scottish funding, will be altered or even scrapped. This suspicion is justified because Middle England, the floating voters who are pivotal in deciding the outcome of UK General Elections, are clamouring for it. A NO vote makes it much easier for the government to take this step as the threat of Scottish independence will all but be eliminated for the foreseeable future. With Scottish funding slashed then its likely to be impossible for the Scottish Government to remain committed to a free Public Health Service and free higher education, not unless they are prepared to drastically raise our income tax to pay for those things. Historically the UK has backed the US in overseas conflicts, so its safe to assume that this will continue. With the threat of Scottish independence quelled, its a certainty that Trident will be replaced with a new nuclear deterrent, again based on the Clyde. We would however retain both Sterling and the Bank of England, so every cloud has a silver lining. Those are the things that we can be most certain of, should we vote to remain in the Union. Those are essentially the things that wed be voting for. Many people believe that their jobs are more secure in the Union. Back in 1979 shipyard workers voted strongly against devolution, due to fears over job security. The UK government then presided over the greatest decline in ship building since ships came into existence. It wasnt that the world was building fewer ships, just that other countries, such as Norway, became more successful at it. The UK government didnt consider ship building to be important. The lesson being that employment is very much at the mercy of market forces, or in our case free market forces. Job security is far from certain. Only 100 years ago, one of the most common forms of employment was that of blacksmith, which had been the case for centuries. Blacksmiths didnt decline due to a shortage of horses. Likewise the Stone Age didnt end because we ran out of rocks, and the oil age is unlikely to end because weve run out of oil. The world economy marches ever onwards. Just look at how common place hybrid cars are becoming. Independence is a much more fuzzy proposition. Its not possible to make specific predictions about it, experts can theorise, but there is far less certainty, at least at a micro economic level. What we can be reasonably sure of is how things are likely to pan out is at a macro economic level, because there are existing situations elsewhere, which are broadly comparable. While the NO campaign focuses very much on worst case scenarios, these are quite rare occurrences in reality. Yes, Greece did implode, and the Weimar Republic did experience hyper inflation, but nether of those scenarios have anything in common with the present circumstances in Scotland. Instead as we look around our contemporaries in Western Europe, they are all doing quite well. The UK, is by most measures the worst performing nation next to the aforementioned Greece. All the speculation from 2011 that other counties would fail, turned out to have no substance to it. Compared to the rest of a Western Europe the UK appears somewhat dysfunctional, with a larger gap between the mega rich and everyone else. Although our productivity per head of population is very good, our standard of living is actually comparably low. Most of us have little to show for all our hard work, except a roof over our heads and far too much personal debt, particularly when it comes to mortgages. The nations that most closely resemble Scotland, in terms of geography, population, and resources, and the Scandinavian countries and Finland. Norway shares the boon of oil, whereas Finland has far less going for it on paper, but still manages a higher standard of living for its citizens despite less productivity per head of population. All these countries have far less debt that the UK, with Norway being one of the richest countries in the world. Therefore, should Scotland vote for independence, a scenario somewhere between Finland and Norway is the most likely outcome in terms of wealth and living standards, and thats far better than we are presently experiencing as part of the UK. Wed go from being close to the bottom of the league table to being close to the top. While not certain in terms of specifics, thats the ball park wed certainly land in. Worse off than the rest of the UK? Highly unlikely. Currency wise, wed certainly retain use of the pound for the foreseeable future. Its impossible to say precisely how, but that isnt actually a troubling issue. Panama uses the US dollar independently, and it has one of the most stable banking systems in the world, far more stable than ours. Many experts consider Panama to be the next Singapore. Yet Scotland is starting from a far more advantageous position than Panama. Hong Kong also uses the US dollar in this fashion, and its the worlds largest banking centre. Denmark benefits from a not dissimilar arrangement involving linking its currency to the Euro. The NO campaign tells is that none of the possible currency options are viable, yet all over the world there are countries already happily using these options. When pressed the NO campaign is also unable to suggest what it considers to be a viable currency option. Does it really sound plausible that Scotland would be the only country in the developed world unable to operate a form of currency? While there may be drawbacks with some of the currency options, there are also numerous advantages, and its for the experts to navigate us through this. All we can be certain of is that a viable solution will be found, because every other nation has managed to conquer than hurdle. There are some other things that are certain in an independent Scotland. Wed have a written constitution, drafted by our citizens, and one that is likely to make commitments to free public healthcare, free higher education, free childcare, and a guaranteed retirement age and state pension. Would Scotland be able to afford these things? Well obviously the figures are near impossible to accurately estimate, since the nation does not actually exist (yet), so any figures really are guesswork. However other comparable countries manage to fund similar rights for their citizens, and its a fair bet that a wealthy country like Scotland could afford things that the UK cant. Here in the UK, the treasury will only back the first £85,000 of savings held in any financial institution. The Isle of Man, which is exponentially smaller than the UK, makes a commitment to protect 100% of everyones savings, not just those of its own residents, but also those of foreign investors. The UK is really not very good at guaranteeing anything for anyone. Thats because it lacks a written constitution. So while its not possible to be specific about how a new nation would work on a micro economic level, predictions regarding the bigger picture are both robust and reliable. If we vote for an independent Scotland, then these are the things we are voting for. One thing that is certain whatever the outcome, is that half of out oil reserves remain untapped. Yes these will decline, but thats always a been a given. Everywheres oil reserves will ultimately decline. The UK has already benefitted from 40 years of ill production, and an independent Scotland could benefit from the same again, only distributed between less than one tenth as many people. The only question is, who gets the benefit of this pending windfall, and its up to is to decide that on the 18th September.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 01:35:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015