There is a matter that is of interest to the commonwealth at large. As time progresses we see more and more in regards to the Commonwealth upcoming baby brother Scotland. For now still part of the motherland of the British Empire, our baby sibling is about to stretch its own feet. The need for junior to become its independent member is one that has been voiced (especially by the local population) for a long time. I in all honestly remain on the fence. I have nothing against this change, but as I state before, the timing is not right. However, in all fairness, it is likely never to be a great timing is it?
Yet, the Guardian will give us our daily ‘need’ for information. There are however a few issues that also rise at those events. Let’s take a look.
The first one is in regards to yesterday’s news with former PM Gordon Brown (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/15/gordon-brown-independent-Scotland-neocolonial-ties-uk).
Here it is stated “An independent Scotland that kept the pound would have a neo-colonial relationship with the rest of the UK because it would have no say over key economic and monetary decisions, Gordon Brown said on Friday“. I find it had to disagree with that. And let us be fair, would we want this? Absolutely not! Yet, will Scotland start its own currency? It is the statement from Professor Ronald McDonald (yes, the economist, not the clown) which is the strongest voice “Professor Ronald MacDonald, a currency expert who advises the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, said the Scottish government’s plans to use sterling after a yes vote were fundamentally flawed, even if Alex Salmond’s proposals for a currency union were accepted by the UK. The Scottish economy would shrink by up to £100bn by 2023, MacDonald said” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-Scotland-economy-crash-sterling-ronald-macdonald).
It is in opposition to this quote “During ill-tempered exchanges in the Scottish parliament, Salmond cited evidence from Sir Donald MacKay, a former economic adviser to the UK government, that a currency union was ‘perfectly possible’ and was in the UK’s long-term interests” I am not sure how Sir Donald got to this, and his history in economy is a lot stronger than mine (my economic education level is ZERO). Yet, as an analyst I foresee several issues, logistics being the strongest but not the biggest one. If any currency union was to occur, then it can only happen as Scotland and the UK are 100% open about ALL economic events. How about (even if we ignore little issues like ego), that the chance of this happening is absolutely 0%?
There is also the small notion that independence is about, being by yourself, a currency union is not that. So I tend to agree with Gordon Brown. There are other issues where unions are to be maintained to some degree, so is there true independence or a new ‘state’ of autonomy?
This is on the front of my mind. I am pretty sure that Mr McDonald, or to take the image of the bad food clown away let us call him the Behavioural Equilibrium Exchange Rate Model Expert (BEERME for short, I need to avoid becoming too serious here), then there are several other issues that I have not even begun to comprehend and are likely secondary reasons on this man’s mind.
If the professor is even half right, then a 50 billion shrinkage of Scotland’s economy would sink it, which is also extremely counterproductive, so what can Scotland do?
Delay for another few years? Even though this is the most likely event, Scotland would not be Scotland if it stopped without a massive fight, considering that one Scotsman tends to toss a log that requires 10 US Marines to carry is not a nation that whinges at the first hurdle.
So what if it uses the UK coin for now? Is that such a large issue, as Scotland grows its independent economic power? Consider this final quote from the article “They were already different, he said. Excluding oil revenues, Scotland had an average trade deficit of 11% over the last 15 years, which became a trade surplus of 2.7% if a geographic share of North Sea oil was included”. So the grace of Scotland is their oil reserves and what happens afterwards? This needs to be tackled first, because if Scotland is to avoid falling apart in the first setback (oil issues being just that when it happens), then Scotland must take care of its 11% deficit. In my view, that deficit must be turned to a 3% surplus (without oil) for Scotland to be a contender at the Commonwealth table, so how to go about it?
First it needs to change its political look on matters (not change its politicians). I will admit that the next part will sound a little dicey, but please hear me out. The headline “Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson: ‘I’m quite a cussed person’” (at http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/aug/15/ruth-davidson-interview-Scotland-tories-leader) reads nice, but there is a massive issue when we read the first part “Ruth Davidson is 35, a working-class Glaswegian, a kick boxer and a lesbian. Are these unlikely credentials just what the party needs to rescue it from 25 years of stagnation?” Why was there a reference to her Lesbianism? I personally do not care what her life’s choices are, truly I do not. But is this a political lesbian or a lesbian politician? Why could she not have been just a conservative? Did we see a headline on “Gordon Brown is a 63, working class sport less hetero sexual” Did we ever see that headline?
It seems that Ruth Davidson has supported state-funded Roman Catholic schooling in Scotland, and she also seems to believe (as far as I could tell) that the Church of Scotland should open its own faith schools as well, which seems a decently pragmatic approach to the ‘dangerous’ controversy called ‘Churches in the UK and Scotland’.
Because she is only 35, her most important events and achievements are still in front of her. She could be the inspiration the Scots need. Time will tell whether this is so. Yet there are issue with this article, there is little on her stance in regards to Scottish independence. If that is next on the agenda, should Scottish Tories not be outspoken about her views in that future? It seems to me that the journalist doing that interview kept the interview way too shallow, especially in this day and age.
There are a few other issues, like Ferguson, the last of the Scottish shipbuilders to shut down, so where are the economic options for Scotland, when we ignore oil. You see, I have nothing against the oil, yet the fact that a new nation will be totally dependent on only ONE product, such a place would need to have several alternatives if something went wrong there, so that is why it should not rely on the oil industry.
As a solution, I still believe that India has options here. As the Indian generic pharmaceutical industry grows for Europe, it will need alternatives for both manufacturing, shipping (read distribution) and perhaps to a smaller extent research. Whilst everyone seems to stare blindly to London area’s where prices are through the roof, Edinburgh offers a much cheaper and no less sturdy solution. Its harbour would allow for direct access to the Netherlands (Rotterdam), which would then grant access to Germany and Eastern Europe, there is access to Scandinavia as well as the option to nurture South American trade routes. All of them are markets that India could become the main supplier to.
It could change the Scottish deficit from 11%, to less than 3% in one blow, once the South American routes are a given, the deficit would turn to surplus. The stronger the growing need for generic medication, the more powerful this branch will grow in Scotland. After that, the tax breaks this industry could have would turn the UK into a much stronger market making for an entirely new dynamic in the pharmaceutical economy. Am I overly optimistic? Perhaps a little, yet so far, my predictions have held up and the current course is not getting us anywhere. It only takes one innovator to truly change the game, Scotland is roaring to be its own wielder of futures and India is roaring to be master of generic medication. Two innovators, a match, which is definitely not made in heaven, but as both want to make it work, the created future could be one that stands long and tall.
But is that with or without an independent Scotland? This is where the shoe starts getting a little tight for the dance floor. I personally do believe that this is not the best moment to become independent. I do believe that for now ‘better together‘ is the way to go. Consider the despair when Scotland does go it alone and within 24 months, both Japan in full and US in part become insolvent? I still believe that the US course is one that will sink its future, especially as the mention of well over 500 billion in undocumented spending in healthcare could set America well over the 18 trillion mark (the fact whether the healthcare billions were part of the deficit could not be confirmed), which makes for a dangerously unstable situation. So whether these facts stop Scotland from going independent is to be determined, yet that should not stop Scotland to become a lot more autonomic in growing its economy into the strong version it requires when the Scotland becomes one independent nation under this sky within our large Commonwealth.
Whether in the end there is a yes or no to independence, the fair question remains how to grow the Scottish economy, which will be a good thing for the entire Commonwealth.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 