The fact remains that while I won’t agree with lots of what the SNP have in their final manifesto, they are still the most ‘business friendly’ and thus most economically progressive party in the Scottish Parliament.

You use the same argument at the end that basically says “Where does nationalism end? Why don’t the Highlands become independent?” The same goes for what I said earlier, if the Highlands wanted to campaign for independence in order to have a lower tax regime etc then they have a right to. In the same way for Scottish nationalists it’s up to them to make the case. It’s no good asking where does it all stop, you need to show why it’s not in their interests to do it.

As for world influence, I would put it to you that the UK has very little, and that is constantly declining. On the global stage, it is blocs that matter and the UK is not going to be competing with the might of the US, China and India – let’s face it. This is why the EU is important. And I know there’s the whole “how can you be independent when in the EU” thing, but it is clear that member states’ relationship with the EU is completely different from that binding together the UK.

The point surely with Norway, Iceland and Ireland, as economists will point out, is that smaller nations can outperform bigger ones by virtue of their ability to be robust, flexible and adaptable to the needs of their people.

It depends on how you mean by “outperform”. Certainly in per capita terms smaller countries tend to be richer than larger countries — but this comes at the expense of influence on the world stage. In an increasingly globalised world this is very important. Everybody is looking towards China, Brazil and India as the economic powerhouses of the future. Not Norway and Iceland.

When it comes to business, the fact is that there is no competitive advantage to locating yourself in Scotland when London is nearby.

In an independent Scotland, why would anybody locate in, say, the Highlands when you can locate yourself in nearby Edinburgh or Glasgow. Or London?! Independence will bring little comfort to people in genuinely poor areas of Scotland in this regard.

When it comes to business, the fact is that there is no competitive advantage to locating yourself in Scotland when London is nearby. Ireland is attractive to business despite this proximity to London because it realised it had to compete in order to survive.

So when you speak about policies that are pursued being the fount of success, you are absolutely right. The more clunking a structure is, the less likely it is to be relevant to the needs to all its people. This is what we have in the UK at the moment, and this I would submit is why for the first time we have business leaders climbing en masse into the independence bandwagon.

1. That’s okay because my post wasn’t talking about you. It was talking about the SNP as a whole.
2. I am quite aware that most economies run a deficit. But the SNP claims that Scotland would not, or even that it would run a surplus — this is a lie. If running a deficit isn’t a big deal, why would running a surplus?
4. I said in my post that I was probably going to vote SNP precisely because of my anti-Labour feelings. So I’m not sure what your point is there.

Osama:

I’d be interested in your thoughts why similarly sized countries nearby like Iceland, Norway and Ireland outperform the UK, but an independent Scotland could not.

It’s because of the individual policies they pursue. Any government — no matter where it is based or how large the country is — can set good policies.

I simply do not believe the notion that “we have an underperforming economy because of the Union”. What a load of nonsense. As if anybody says to themselves, “This country is called the United Kingdom and not Scotland as I would prefer. I guess I won’t set up a business then!” What a strange mindset that would be, and if the majority of Scots did have it then it is just as well we are not independent.

Nationalists would defend the principle of a people’s self-determination.

This is a tautology. By this logic, given that a majority of people would prefer to remain in the union (no matter what supporters of independence tell themselves), this means that we should remain in the union. I agree with that as well.

…it’s abundantly clear there is a Scottish national tradition and a feeling of nation dating back centuries.

I don’t deny that. But that does not mean that Scotland cannot be part of a larger union. After all, the SNP would have us remaining in the EU and don’t see this as such a traitorous position.

I’d like you to reflect on these points before rushing to pain yourself with the post above.

Relying on economic statistics and relative deficits while in the Union is useless, as surely the SNP’s point is we have an underperforming economy because of the Union.

Regarding the arguments about the figures, as Richard said above, the UK regularly runs an annual deficit of billions of pounds – as do many countries. It’s not a big deal.

WRT your question as to why SCOTLAND should be independent. Nationalists would defend the principle of a people’s self-determination. If Aberdonians see themselves as a nation then let them campaign for it. If a majority support it, they get it. Your point is very flippant if you don’t mind me saying so, it’s abundantly clear there is a Scottish national tradition and a feeling of nation dating back centuries.

To David, the Norwegians have put aside a fund where a proportion of oil revenues was directed each year. The fund is currently sitting at £100bn, the growth on which (10% annually let’s say) is providing more than oil revenue itself and will last in perpetuity. By contrast, Scotland’s wealth has been frittered away for decades while we could have been enjoying, as a Whitehall economist put it “chronic surpluses to an embarrassing degree” in that time. It’s not too late to salvage quite a bit though.

On Norway, you’re correct in suggesting that I don’t like their over-generous welfare system. I can’t remember where, but I’ve seen Norwegians expressing their concerns about the resulting lack of entrepreneurial drive. This will have dire effects once the oil money slows down and eventually runs out.

As I said, spending on Norwegian infrastructure will have better long-term benefits than encouraging individuals to be overly dependent on the state. The same goes for Scotland.

I have some sympathy with the environmental argument you make, but since every developed economy is currently dependent to some extent on hydrocarbons, I’m not sure how much it advances the argument for or against independence. In any case, for me one of the strongest arguments for independence is how you can use the resulting powers to help reduce Scotland’s dependence on a few narrow markets and grow the rest of the economy so that, for example, oil and financial services become less important in the context of an economy which is growing overall.

Midwinter’s report, which I have read word for word, is hardly the touchstone of objectivity that its cheerleaders would have you believe. He is almost entirely uncritical of the GERS figures, but rather than properly critique the SNP critique of GERS, he uses the differences between the two to assert that since he believes that GERS is substantially correct, the SNP must be wrong. A very circular kind of logic, which as someone on the Scotsman board (not me) pointed out yesterday, would have had him evaluating claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD solely by the contents of the 2 government dossiers.

In that regard, he seems to have more confidence in GERS than the GERS authors do themselves, when they generously concede on p6 of the most recent edition that ‘it is emphasised that there is no uniquely correct way to undertake the exercise. And if you want ‘economist after economist lining up to give the same opinion’, how about Professor David Simpson, founder Director of the Fraser of Allander Institute and senior economic adviser to Standard Life; John Blundell, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, Prof Robert Wright of Strathclyde University; Ronald MacDonald, the Adam Smith professor of political economy at Glasgow University, all of whom have come out in favour of Independence in recent weeks?

In any case, lots of countries run deficits. The UK, for example, is chucking £35bn down the chute this year on the same basis, taking us to a projected £700bn deficit by 2010/11. And if you’ve never heard of that before, I don’t blame you. It’s not one of the figures published by the Treasury which they are particularly anxious to advertise for some reason.

I’d agree with you that it matters more about how you are governed than from where, but surely the two are linked?

For me, independence represents the constitutional settlement for Scotland superior to all others, since it gives maximum scope for a government of whatever persuasion to pursue its policies and to be held accountable for its actions. That’s not something which can be said about the present hotch-potch. Federalism might improve matters, but since England is too large in relation to the rest of the UK to make that work and England has so far resisted being broken into regions, I can’t see it happening any time soon.

Anyway, you do always have the option of voting SNP, then voting ‘no’ in any independence referendum – it would be a perfectly legitimate choice and a perfectly coherent use of your vote. Nats like me might not like it much, but if it happened, ultimately we’d just have to lump it and get on with running the country as best we could

Cheers,

Richard