Scottish independence- pros and cons from the economical point of view
Essay
Recently the Scottish referendum and especially the economic consequences of Scottish independence became one of the most interesting and controversial world topics.
The most common view is that Scotland needs the rest of the UK and the economic and social factors of independence would be too great to deal with. Many people think that going independent is an extremely large economic gamble and will lead to many unwanted consequences - lack of national resources, economic crisis because of investors’ uncertainty, higher tax and interest rates, currency problems, change in the economic and political relationships with European union and other countries.
In its unity with the UK, Scotland is part of a very powerful, rich and influential state. This confers all kinds of useful economic benefits, including low interest rates, a seat at the UN Security Council, leadership in NATO and other multinational organizations. So becoming independent would significantly decrease Scotland's global presence and influence.
The choice of currency will also lead to wide ranging economic implications. An independent Scotland would, in theory, have three main currency options: its own currency, using the Euro and continuing to use the pound. The European Union has ruled out Scotland joining the euro (or even the EU). So if an independent Scotland did not join a currency area with the rest of the UK, its main option would be to introduce its own currency. Economists say an independent currency would be so problematic that it would dissuade investors, affect fiscal policy (government spending and taxation), monetary policy (interest rates), policies related to financial stability. A new Scottish currency would also increase the costs of trading with other countries (including the rest of the UK) and potentially expose Scotland to exchange rate fluctuations.
According to the Institute for Fiscal studies more spending cuts and tax rises would be needed to ensure fiscal sustainability in an independent Scotland. They say that Scotland's immediate fiscal position would be in a worse state than the rest of the UK, because government spending per person is significantly higher in Scotland and mainly because of higher spending on public services rather than benefits.
Many Scotsman believe that Scotland will have full access to oil presently shared amongst Britain and this will bring more money and make Scotland a petro-dollar paradise equivalent to Norway. Scotland would get a 90% geographical share of North Sea oil and gas fields based on the division of the UK's territorial waters after independence. But many of the North Sea rigs are at the end of their life and production levels are falling. Once the oil runs out Scotland will have less to sustain its dreamy wealthy future. The ability to attract major industries – manufacturing, IT, finance – to the country would be diminished by independence, for all the reasons listed above, endangering thousands Scottish jobs. Investors hate uncertainty and a Scottish “Yes” vote means lots of it.
All things considered, Scotsman decided to keep the promise of the union, realizing the uncertain consequences of becoming independent. The economic and social problems as a result of independence would have been too deep to be solved in a year or two. If become independent Scotland will need decades to become economically stable and worldwide accepted country.