The case for Scottish independence remains weak

Even the promise of wealth from North Sea oil and gas is not what it seems

Editorial
Monday 17 March 2014 19:42 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A mere six months from today, Scots voters will make their choice about whether to leave the United Kingdom. Given the public appetite for such a ballot, this newspaper can only support its being held. And yet it is clearer than ever that the interests of Scotland – and the rest of the UK – are best served by a No on 18 September.

There are two reasons for Scotland to stay, the first of which concerns the practicalities. Since the Scotland’s Future White Paper was published by the Holyrood government last November, any number of its promises have crashed back to reality. All three Westminster political parties concur that an independent Scotland would not be able to keep sterling and retain the Bank of England as the lender of last resort, torpedoing Alex Salmond’s easy assumptions of an automatic currency union. The President of the European Commission wreaked similar havoc with the suggestion that an independent Scotland would be assured of a place in the EU; such a transition would be “difficult, if not impossible”, José Manuel Barroso has warned. And a growing list of Scottish companies, beginning with insurer Standard Life, have voiced concerns about the impact on their businesses and warned that independence may force them to move operations to England.

Even the promise of wealth from North Sea oil and gas is not what it seems. Not only do Holyrood’s revenue estimates far outstrip those of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Treasury’s most recent tax receipts came in sharply down. It is not enough to claim that increased production will fill the gap, particularly in an area where supplies are dwindling. Only those with the deepest pockets can withstand the vicissitudes of global commodity markets.

All of which makes a compelling case for the status quo. Perhaps more important, however, are those things which cannot be easily quantified. For all Mr Salmond’s attempts to rekindle memories of the Battle of Bannockburn, the reality of the Union is 300 years of shared values and mutual advantage. No less important, in an ever more globalised world, the ties that bind the UK – economically, politically and socially – make more sense rather than less.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in