If, anti-independence fanatic, George Galloway had wanted to make an impression by further stirring up the, already rancorous, Scottish-constitutional-debate twitter over the past year, he has succeeded. It’s a truly appalling impression – repeatedly implying half the country are illogical Nazis and bigots for wanting independence and retweeting all the very worst, abusive, Unionist characters like they weren’t mad bastards- but it is an impression. So it was mildly amusing to see one of his RT talk show guests restate his claim that an independent Scotland could become the richest country on earth.
Dominic Frisby, the author, MoneyWeek commentator and presenter of the tv show Money Pit, said “I want to offer my 2p worth on the debate about Scottish independence. An independent Scotland could become the richest country on earth, on a per capita basis. I’m not joking when I say that, it has all the necessary ingredients”.
“There is one characteristic which is common to all of the top 10 ranking nations, bar one. It is that they are small. This is because there is a direct correlation between the size of the state and the wealth of the people. The bigger the state, the poorer the people. The more power is concentrated, the less wealth is spread”.
“But in a small nation, forced to live from a small tax base, there is more of a limit to how big state institutions can grow. Monitoring becomes more efficient- it’s hard to obfuscate, so there’s more transparency and accountability and less waste. Change is easier to implement in smaller organisations which makes the nation more flexible, more dynamic, more competitive. With fewer people there’s less of a wealth gap between those at the top and the bottom. And the evidence of history is that the free-est countries, with the widest dispersal of power have always been the most prosperous and innovative”.
“Scotland now has the opportunity, if it votes for independence, to enact the same legislation, taxation, regulation as the other top 10 countries on that list employ, following, I don’t know, the blueprint of Singapore or even Iceland. It already has a rich tradition in trade, finance and banking and it has the oil. And with just 5 million people it’s small. It has all the ingredients to be the richest country on Earth on a per capita basis, it has ‘the triple’. I can think of no other nation in the world with such a wonderful opportunity”.
Funnily enough, George didn’t want to ask him about this.
Small Is Beautiful
This idea of small being economically beneficial is backed up by research from the World Economic Forum in its ‘Inclusive Growth and Development Report’ which looks at how the economies of states actually benefit their citizens. It found Scotland sized, and smaller, countries do better and dominate the top of the list. Norway (1), Iceland (2), Luxembourg (3), Switzerland (4), Denmark (5)…
The UK was 21st out of 29 advanced economies.
Some awkward questions for Unionists quickly arise.
Namely, what good are those ‘broad shoulders’™ of the UK and that ‘5th largest economy in the world’™ Scots are constantly being told about, when people in smaller countries do so much better?
Westminster’s neo liberal ambivalence to the plight of great swathes of British people have, demonstrably, led to higher levels of inequality and poverty than in its neighbours.
We wonder if Unionists really expect Scotland to ever match the successes of its independent neighbours as a northern part of the UK. Where are their plans for it? How could it ever be done with so much of our economy controlled by the government in London? We know how ‘The North’ traditionally fairs in that arrangement.
Dominic Frisby is right about small countries, they do do better. If the bigness of shoulders and economy gross and access to the ‘UK single market’ and this particular currency – it all sounds impressive – were as absolutely vital to Scotland as we’re always being told, Unionists would be able show how we do better than our poor independent neighbours. They’re all Scottish sized or smaller and outside the UK’s ‘protection’ and market. That can’t be good, right.
But here’s the weird bit- they all do better for themselves than the Union does for Scotland. Why?
With the varied geographies, economic strategies and resources of our more successful neighbours, the Nat argument goes that it logically must be the difference in constitutional arrangement. They control their own economy. We don’t.
We’re not sure what the Unionist explanation is and we’ve been listening to them for years but, at its core, it can’t be very complimentary of Scottish people.
