By Professor Gavin McCrone FRSGS. This article first appeared in the spring 2014 edition of the RSGS's magazine, The Geographer.
There are reasons for thinking that
a small independent country may
sometimes do better economically
than if it were a region of a larger
country. This applies particularly
if it has a very different economic
structure or is at a different stage
of development. The ability to tailor
economic policies closely to its
needs can give it a better chance
of success than relying on the
one-size-fits-all policies of a larger
state. This applies particularly
to the exchange rate. A country
has to pay its way with its trading
partners, and movements in the
exchange rate are one of the
principle ways in which it
ensures it is competitive.
A region does not
have to do this:
its surplus or
deficit will be
evened out
by the larger
country of which
it is a part. A
competitive exchange
rate can ensure that
there is investment in
the economy and low
unemployment, but a region has
to work with whatever the exchange
rate happens to be for the larger
economy, whether or not that suits
it.
Scotland’s economy, without North
Sea oil, is similar to and closely
integrated with that of the UK as a
whole. Independence would affect
that integration and would involve
costs. Moreover, because of the
substantial but declining income
from the North Sea, Scotland
could be subject to very different
pressures from the rest of the UK.
Both its balance of payments and
the government’s budget would be
subject to volatility.
The Scottish Government’s
declared policy is to retain
monetary union with the rest of the
UK after independence. This is a
central issue in the independence
debate, but the intervention by
the Chancellor in a speech in
Edinburgh in February, and the
rejection of a currency union by
spokesmen for the other two main
UK parties, make it most unlikely
that a formal union, whereby the
Bank of England would act as
central bank and lender of last
resort for both countries, would
be negotiable. There could be
advantages in an independent
Scotland having its own currency,
even if it were pegged to the pound
to give it greater stability, because
it would mean that the exchange
rate could be altered in a major
crisis.
But it would also mean that
Scotland’s currency would be
exposed to many of the pressures
of a petro-currency. Moreover, those
doing business across the border
with the rest of the UK would face
transactions costs and at least
some degree of exchange risk.
This would also apply to
those who had mortgages
or pensions in sterling.
A mortgage with a UK
lender would be in
sterling, while the asset
against which it was
provided was in pounds
Scots. To avoid the
exchange risk, borrowers
would need to remortgage
with a Scottish
lender or a branch of a UK
lender able to lend in Scots
currency.
This is just one of a number of
major uncertainties as Scotland
goes into the referendum. Another
is whether or how quickly Scotland
could become a member of
the European Union in its own
right, thereby safeguarding its
position in the EU single market.
Would it have to take its place in
a queue of candidate countries
seeking membership, with much
uncertainty over its position in
the meantime? Or would it be
possible to retain membership by
the quicker and easier process of
treaty amendment? Whatever the
outcome, it would have to have the
agreement of the 28 existing
member states, any one of which
could exercise a veto.
Scottish Ministers have rightly
pointed to Scotland’s wealth of
resources, not only in offshore
oil and gas but also in renewable
energy. But, with the exception
of hydro electricity, renewable
energy has had to be subsidised
by consumers across the whole
UK. Onshore wind power is
becoming more economic and, if
present trends continue, may be
competitive later in this decade.
But this does not apply to offshore
wind or to wave and tidal power,
which are still at a very early stage
of development. Would consumers
in the rest of the UK be prepared
to continue subsidising renewable
power in Scotland after it became
an independent state? This would
probably depend on whether
they could get the electricity
they require from other cheaper
sources.
These are just some of the
uncertainties as the date of the
referendum approaches. It is only
realistic to accept that much is
likely still to remain unknown as
people go to cast their votes.
The Royal Scottish Geographical Society (RSGS) is an educational charity which promotes an understanding of the natural environment and human societies, and their interactions, making the connections between people, places and the planet, and aiming to inspire positive long-term change. Follow this blog to find out the latest news about the Society, keep up with 'Inspiring People' - our talks programme - and find out how you can become involved in our work.
No comments:
Post a Comment