Scotland's Decision: The Economy

This week, we are highlighting the contributions of our fellows to Scotland's Decision: 16 Questions to think about for the referendum on 18 September.  Today’s topic is the economy. The book is available as a free download.

Our experts look at three questions on the economy:

  • David Bell - What would the outlook for Scotland’s economy be if the vote is Yes/if the vote is No?
  • Angus Armstrong and Monique Ebell - Which currency arrangement would an independent Scotland use?
  • David Phillips - What would the picture for the Scottish Government’s finances be if Scotland votes Yes? What if Scotland votes No?

David Bell sets out the difficulty of trying to predict Scotland’s future economic prospects - and questions the reliability of both the UK and the Scottish Government’s claims about how much better or worse off Scotland would be if it voted Yes:

“Trying to predict the economic consequences of constitutional change poses some difficulty, because nothing about Scotland’s economic future can be known with certainty. There may be a superficial appeal in predicting that you will be £1,400 better off within the union or £1,000 better off under Independence – as the two sides in the campaign have done – but both forecasts are almost certainly wrong.”

He discusses border effects, the public debt an independent Scotland might have, the impact of policies on inequality, but also the possibility that independence might set free what Keynes called ‘animal spirits’ of economic creativity and dynamism. He concludes:

“If there is a No vote the Scottish economy will continue to follow the fortunes of the UK economy. Whether this performance has been good or bad, and whether therefore its continuation is acceptable, is a judgement that people will likely make based on their personal circumstances. Under independence, animal spirits may prevail – or they may not. It is a difficult call. The evidence is much more difficult to gather and to interpret.”

David Phillips takes up these points, focused on public finances – and sees challenges whether Scotland says Yes or No:

“It looks likely that the Scottish Government’s finances will be squeezed in the years after 2016 whether the public vote Yes or No. If Scotland remains part of the UK, cuts to grants from Westminster are set to continue until 2018–19. If the vote is to leave the UK, an independent Scottish Government would likely have to make spending cuts or tax rises of its own just to balance the books. Delivering the promises in the White Paper would need further tax rises, spending cuts in lower-priority areas or higher borrowing.”

Focusing in on a Yes vote, he says: “Independence would give more freedom to pursue a different, and perhaps better, economic policy, to undertake the radical, politically challenging reforms that could generate additional growth.”

He then offers this advice for those weighing up the arguments:

“Whether you believe Scotland’s government finances would be in a better state if Scotland votes for independence, should depend on two things.

  • First, do you think the Scottish Government could find new policies to deliver a sustained increase in economic growth; and
  • second would that additional growth mean higher tax receipts that will more than outweigh the long run decline in oil revenues.

If so then an independent Scotland might be able to continue with its relatively high public spending without much in the way of additional tax increases. If not the Scottish Government’s finances would likely be weaker if the result is Yes.”

Angus Armstrong and Monique Ebell look at Scotland’s currency options in the event of a Yes vote. For them:

“The single most important economic question in the Scottish independence referendum is which currency arrangement would an independent Scotland use … The choice of currency arrangement matters far more than just the notes and coins in peoples’ pockets. It determines the menu of available economic policy options, the interest rates at which people borrow money and the capacity of the economy to deal with crises.”

They are sceptical about the durability of a formal currency union with the rest of the UK amid the challenges an independent Scotland would face in managing its public debt:

“Would a formal monetary union be stable? If there were any doubts that Scots, in these circumstances, would accept the austerity, investors would be less likely to lend to the Scottish Government. This is a slow form of capital flight (funds being withdrawn from the country) which, once it starts, is very difficult to stop without being rescued by another government or even the IMF.”

Another option is informal currency union in which Scotland would use the pound, but with no influence over rest of UK monetary policy (often known as ‘sterlingisation’ or, after similar examples in Latin America, dollarisation). They are sceptical about this too:

“The most likely outcome of dollarization is that Scottish banks would move to the rest of the UK where they would have the backstop of the Bank of England. UK banks would then provide banking into an independent Scotland through a branch network. Since the supply of loans into a foreign jurisdiction is generally a riskier proposition than at home, the cost of borrowing by private citizens is likely to be higher in Scotland under dollarization.”

Their conclusion is that a new Scottish currency is preferable to a formal or informal currency union:

While introducing a new Scottish currency has serious transitional challenges, it may be the best option for a prosperous independent Scotland.”

They explain:

“The currency option that an independent Scotland can unequivocally deliver is issuing its own currency. Having its own currency and controlling its own interest rates would provide the greatest amount of policy flexibility. The more flexibly Scotland can respond to shocks, the greater the stability of its economy. True, trade costs would rise as Scotland and the rest of the UK would no longer use the same currency, but these costs pale in comparison to the costs of financial instability. Many successful countries in Europe with similar wealth and population sizes (such as in Scandinavia) and dependent on neighbouring markets have their own currency.”

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Charlie Jeffery's picture
post by Charlie Jeffery
University of Edinburgh
5th August 2014
Filed under:

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts