Home Currencies Scottish independence: The cost of breaking the union Scottish independence: The cost of breaking the union, Moneyweek

Could an independent Scotland become the next Singapore, or would a ‘Yes’ vote be an act of national self-harm? Merryn Somerset Webb investigates.

In the late 1690s, Scotland’s government granted a charter to the Company of Scotland to set sail and attempt to establish a colony on the coast of Panama.

The interesting thing about this adventure is not so much its miserable end (most people died and only one ship returned to Scotland)*, but the way in which Scots of all sorts took part in it.

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography puts it like this: “While Williamites and Jacobites remained implacably opposed over the monarchy, they came to be united in a belief that the Company of Scotland offered the prospect of national and personal prosperity. The original joint-stock company of 1695 was now the vehicle for the Scottish colony of New Caledonia, supported by a remarkably diverse group of Scots who had set aside their many and varied differences in pursuit of national glory and personal wealth.”

They didn’t get either, of course. The wealth was lost and the union (which allowed participants to recoup their losses via a payment from England to Scotland known as ‘the equivalence’) was found.

Read more here:

Independence referendum: Top economists spell out 13 ways a Yes vote will hit us in the pocket, Daily Record

Sep 15, 2014 08:25 By Torcuil Crichton

THIRTEEN experts have written a joint letter to the Daily Record explaining exactly why they fear Scotland will not be richer or fairer after a vote for independence.

A BAKER’S dozen of top economists have listed 13 reasons why the people of Scotland will be worse off if there is a Yes vote.

Academics from universities across the country joined forces to spell out why they believe

independence would be a “big mistake”.

The 13 experts include the heads of economics at Edinburgh and Glasgow universities.

They warn a Yes vote would require more austerity and harsher cuts than those planned by the Westminster government – a threat that would see the poor bear the brunt.

In a joint letter issued to the Daily Record, the economists say: “Our main contention is that Scotland is unlikely to be richer and fairer if there is a Yes vote in the referendum.

“The irony is that within the Union, Scotland has a higher level of income per person than the UK.”

The academics add: “When we add up these 13 reasons not to vote for independence, we are extremely concerned that to do otherwise would be to gamble with the economic prospects of the present generation.

“As experienced and respected economists, we would urge you to vote No on September 18.”

Get all the latest independence referendum news right here.

The warning came after a leading think-tank claimed Alex Salmond has severely underestimated the economic risks of independence.

Read more here:

Why destroy a united nation? Sunday Express, John Reid

Do we stay part of the family of nations which make up the United Kingdom or do we take a huge leap into the unknown and the uncertain by setting up a separate state?

I have fought many elections. I have knocked on doors, delivered leaflets, spoken at rallies and manned street stalls in town centres. In that sense, this referendum has qualities that are like an election but this is not like a normal election.

If we vote to leave the UK, it will be for ever, irreversible. There will be no changing our minds in four years if it turns out the promises made by the leader of a political party cannot, or will not, be kept.

That is why it is no time for a protest vote. It is not a time to gamble. This is not a lottery. There will not be another chance next week. The decision we take on Thursday is not just one for ourselves, it is for our children, for our grandchildren and for generations to come.

So, we have to get it right and the right decision is to say "no thanks" to separation. We do not need to take the risks of separation to change Scotland. Change is already coming with a No vote, faster change, better change, safe change.

We can strengthen our Scottish Parliament without losing the strength, security and stability that comes with being a member of the UK. A leap into the unknown with independence would be a huge risk for families across Scotland.

"The nationalists have not answered the fundamental questions. They cannot, or will not, tell us what currency we would use in the event of separation" 

John Reid

The nationalists have not answered the fundamental questions. They cannot, or will not, tell us what currency we would use in the event of separation. Currency matters.

It affects what our wages are worth, how much our mortgages and rents cost, what our credit card and shopping bills cost. It affects how we fund our pensions, how we fund our public services; our schools, hospitals and police. We cannot put that at risk. We can't risk a partnership which has benefited us all for three centuries.

Read more here:

Expert confirms ‘There will be no oil bonanza’,

12 September

The nationalists want us to believe that we are on the verge of another oil boom and that oil will pay for everything.

The problem with this argument is that it is simply wrong. Now one of the experts that nationalists rely on has corrected the record. Professor Alex Kemp the oil expert relied upon by Alex Salmond to give credibility to his oil estimates , has today said that a separate Scotland would have no oil bonanza.

In a letter to the Press and Journal Professor Kemp wrote;

“SIR, - In Wednesday’s Press and Journal, there was a headline attributed to myself predicting an “oil bonanza” from the North Sea. Nowhere did I say this.In our research, our economic model predicts that investment will fall off in the near future, while oil/gas production could increase for a few years, but then enter long-term decline. The total recovery we predict to 2050 is in the 15-16.5billion barrels of oil equivalent.

By 2050, production is in the 200,000-250,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. But production can continue well beyond 2050. Our current estimate of the ultimate potential is certainly less than the 21 billion barrels of oil equivalent which is at the upper end of DECC’s most likely range. There will be no bonanza.”

The timing of this letter will come as a blow to Alex Salmond who in recent weeks has used Professor Kemp’s name to deflect criticism that his oil forecasts have been overestimated .

Why not read more here?