SHOULD you be at a lose end this bank holiday and need cheering up, there are plenty of laughs to be had from reading Scotland's Economy: The case for independence, published earlier this week by the Scottish Government. One thing made immediately clear is that a go-it-alone Scotland may achieve political independence, but its political classes will still remain hooked on the have-it-all wishful thinking of their Westminster counterparts.
Thus the economy of an independent Scotland will be dynamic and fast-growing while simultaneously fairer and more equal. There will be 'green growth' and lots of jobs in 'life sciences' (I think that is what we used to call 'medicine' in the days when Britain spoke English) while Scotland's financial services sector will be the 'gold standard', although not on the gold standard, as Scotland's currency will actually be part of the Sterling area, despite George Osborne having, perhaps, other ideas.
I'd have a little more respect for Alex Salmond and his chums were they advocating an independent Scottish economy based on coal mining, shipbuilding, bog-standard metal bashing and steel production. At least that would be original.
As it is, the Scottish Government seeks the same economic desiderata as pretty much every other jurisdiction in the developed world: green industries, vaguely scientific-sounding employment, tourism, a thriving albeit 'responsible' financial sector and high-quality food, drink and tourism industries. What makes the Scottish national Party and other independence-seekers outside the party's ranks imagine that an independent Scotland would be any more successful than anyone else?
2) As we were saying earlier...
LAST year, as our most recent book was being published (see below), Larry Elliott and I wrote a feature for the Scottish newspaper The Herald, on the topic of Scottish independence within the wider context of (as we saw it) Britain's imminent relegation to developing-country status. We noted:
Recent history is full of regions and nations within developing countries who have decided that, with countries as well as with individuals, ‘he travels fastest who travels alone’. In this category, Singapore remains the outstanding success story since it seceded from Malaysia in 1965. For students of trivia, the Malayans had sportingly inserted ‘SI’ into the country’s name to represent Singapore and, even more sportingly, retained it after Singapore’s independence.
Other stories have ended less happily: Bangladesh, for example, remains a poor country with an erratic economy more than 40 years after it ceased to be East Pakistan.
2) ...and we concluded in this way...
Ultimately, the question of independence can never be a purely economic question. Indeed, some immediate drop in living standards post-secession may not matter very much. On a personal level, most of us experienced quite a sharp reduction in our standard of life when we left the comforts of home for the dubious delights of university residences, house sharing or bedsit-land. The thrilling (and terrifying) experience of taking control of your own affairs can not be purely a matter of pounds and pence, a point we would make equally in relation to Britain’s future engagement or otherwise with the European Union.
It is therefore puzzling for us to hear independence campaigners in Scotland and elsewhere insist that independence is largely a matter of more effectively ‘delivering the goods’ for their electorates.
4) Something completely different
DOES anyone know what happened to a late-Seventies power-pop band called The 45s? Please let me know if you do.
Thanks again for reading and enjoy the bank-holiday weekend.
Going South: Why Britain Will Have A Third Word Economy By 2014, by Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson is published by Palgrave Macmillan
Feel free to e-mail me at dan.atkinson@live.co.uk