Mr Reid
SCOTTISH ECONOMIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT
New St Andrew’s House
St.James Centre, Edinburgh, EH13TA
Telephone 031-556 840. ext, 4017
J Garlcik Esq
Cabinet OfficeGreat George Street
London SW1
23 April 1975
At the meeting which you held last week on various aspects of North Sea oiland devolution I suggested that I might send in the attached paper in the hopethat it would serve as a starting point for any assessment the Unit may wish tocarry out on the economics of Scottish Independence.
The Paper was written over a year ago in the weeks immediately before the
February 1974 Election. This will be particularly apparent of page 5 where, ofcourse, the Ministerial pronouncements referred to relate to the Conservative
Government. I have not attempted to update any of the figures, since although
there would be differences these do not seem to me to be such as to alter theargument.
As you will realise, the debate on Scottish nationalism has been founded to asurprising extent on economic arguments ad the purpose of this paper was to
examine how far this was affected by North Sea Oil. The first part goes
through most of the usual arguments which have been used against the
Nationalists in the past with fairly convincing effect; the second part sets out
the sort of economic strategy which an SNP Government might try to follow
indicating both the dangers and the possibilities. As I said at the meeting, one
can reach almost any conclusion depending upon the assumptions that are
made about tariffs, a common currency, a Scottish Government’s spending
priorities and its success in controlling inflation. My paper may give an SNP
Government the benefit of too many doubts, but I was anxious to see whether
a credible economic strategy could be put together which would appear to be
more convincing in terms of solving Scotland’s traditional economic problems
than the regional policies of the Unionist Governments have been up until
now. I think the conclusion is that the most convincing way of taking the windout of the SNP’s sails is by demonstrating that we now have policies which
can make major in-roads into these problems.
When my paper was written it was classified “secret” and given only a mostrestricted circulation in the Scottish Office because of the extreme sensitivityof the subject. I am copying it now to Leo Pliatzky, Dick Ross, Jim Hamilton,
John Liverman and Stuart Scott Whyte.
R G L McCrone

SECRETTHE ECONOMICS OF NATIONALISM RE-EXAMINED
It is commonplace that the discovery of North Sea oil and entry to the EEC
are factors of major economic significance for Scotland. Already both issues,
especially the former, feature widely in the SNP’s election material. The
purpose of this paper is to reassess the economic arguments for an
independent Scotland in the light of these developments, especially thediscovery of oil. It will be shown that the whole framework within which theeconomic implications of nationalism were argued has indeed been altered.
The importance of this is probably greater than is recognised at present by the
majority of the public and it may well be, therefore, that the discovery of North
Sea oil will come to be seen as something of a watershed in Scotland’s
economic and political life.
The case for Scottish nationalism is, of course, very much more than an
economic issue. This paper makes no attempt to examine the wider
questions. Suffice it to say that Scottish nationalism has been much moreconcerned with economic prosperity than nationalist movements in othercountries. Unlike Wales there is no great cultural movement attaching to thepreservation of a language. The main cause of discontent is the country’s
unsatisfactory economic performance over the last half century, especially thepersistent unemployment and net emigration above all in the West of
Scotland. Poor social and environmental conditions, especially in and aroundthe city of Glasgow, accompany this outdated economic framework and are
as much a source discontent. Despite regional policy and the efforts ofplanners, these problems have not been overcome, nor do they look as if they
will be in the foreseeable future. The SNP have therefore based theircampaign on the assertion that Scotland would be economically better off
independent; and it is for this reason that budgetary estimates have always
featured so large in the controversy. Yet in spite of Scotland’s undoubtedly
poor economic performance the SNP case until recently lack credibility. Most
people regarded both their statistics and arguments suspect, and they
continued to believe that Scotland derived more economic advantage thandisadvantage from the Union. The importance of North Sea oil is that it raises
just this issue in a more acute form than at any other time since the Act ofUnion was passed.
[PAGE1]

The Case Against Nationalism
The traditional economic case against nationalism has always been that apolitically independent Scotland would be unable to gain sufficient economic
sovereignty to solve her problems successfully. This is partly a question of thescale of the Scottish economy, but more of the extent to which it has become
integrated with that of the rest of the UK over the last 270 years.
Scotland needs a faster rate of economic growth than wither she or the UK
has had in recent years if she is to absorb her excess labour resources andthereby cut down both unemployment and migration, There are three principal
way in which an independent Government might seek to bring this about. First
it could seek to foster and protect Scottish industry by means of tariffs andimport controls. But such measures would risk retaliation from England which,given Scotland’s close trade ties with England, could cause damage far inexcess of any benefit that may be hoped for. Such policies would also be
incompatible with continued membership of the EEC and withdrawal,
especially with England, Wales ad Ireland remaining members, would clearly
have very damaging consequences.
Secondly, fiscal policies might be used to give especially large benefits to newindustrial investment or tax relief and subsidies to existing industry. This might
involve the imposition of a tax frontier at the border, as still exists between
most EEC countries, but this need not to make it impractical. Such policies
have been used with considerable success by the Irish Republic since themid-1950s. The main disadvantage is that England would probably feel
obliged to match the Scottish measures with equivalent in grants or tax
allowances for industry in English and Welsh Development Areas. Up to now
England has always been in a position financially where, if she wished, she
could have more than matched any measures which a Scottish Government
would be able to afford.
It is here that the budgetary position of a Scottish Government becomes
important. Various studies, notably the Treasury’s Scottish Budget of 1967/68
and the work of the Kilbrandon Commission have shown that public
expenditure per head in Scotland is generally above the UK average, whereas
public revenue is Scotland is slightly lower, largely because Scottish incomesare below the UK average. The result is that budgetary estimates for Scotland
show a proportionately larger borrowing requirement than for the UK as awhole. His position is confirmed in the most recent estimate of Scotland’sbudgetary[PAGE2]

position carried out by the Economic and Statistics Unit of SEPD for 1971/72.
This shows a Scottish current account surplus of £24m. but a net borrowing
requirement of £447m. overall.
There are, of course, various ways in which this could be tackled. In the firstplace it is not necessary to balance the budget. To finance loans and various
items of capital investment, particularly those which yield a return byborrowing is quite reasonable; other items too may be covered by borrowing
form time to time particularly if an expansionary budget is necessary to
generate a higher level of economic activity in the economy. For these various
reasons the United Kingdom budget normally involves a net borrowing
requirement and whilst this will normally be fairly small this is not always so; inthe present year, for example, the borrowing requirement reached the record
figure of £4,000m.
If allowance is made for the capital items that it would normally be reasonable
to finance by loan, this would still lave a Scottish deficit of over £200m., a very
similar figure in 1971/72 to what it was in 1967/68. Whilst such a figure could
be covered if it arose only exceptionally, it could not be tolerated as a regularfeature of the budget. It would involve a steadily increasing Scottish debt andit would have serious implications both for interest rates and monetary policy,
unless a substantial part of it could be financed from abroad. A Scottish
Government would therefore have to take steps to reduce the deficit either byraising taxes or cutting expenditure. Such measures are perfectly possible,
and on the scale necessary, need not provoke a intolerable situation,
especially if defence was one of the items cut; but they would create abackground of acute budgetary stringency against which it is hard to see it
being possible to provide a major fiscal stimulus to encourage economic
expansion.
The third possible course of action would be to devalue the Scottish currency.
This would stimulate economic activity by increasing the demand for exports
and making Scottish goods more competitive against imports in their homemarket. In many respects devaluation would be the obvious measure for an
economy in Scotland’s condition with persistent unemployment, a budgetary
deficit and probably a serious adverse balance on the balance of payments.
Indeed, if the later was persistent, it might be that devaluation would beinescapable.
Exchange rate adjustment is, of course, the ultimate and most effective
weapon by which an economically sovereign state maintains approximately
full employment while at the same time avoiding balance of payments
disequilibrium. Indeed, if Scotland could have devalued by a good thumping 2
percent and made the[PAGE3]

adjustment effective in terms of costs, this would be by far the best way ofsolving Scotland’s economic problems of the last two decades. It has beenargued that the ‘regional problem’ only arises because exchange rateadjustment, the normal way of dealing with disequilibria between countries, is
not possible between regions.
However, the economic case against Scottish nationalism has always atbottom come down to the proposition that an independent Scotland would not
find it possible to carry out an effective devaluation. To be effective,
devaluation involves a country in making a cut in its real living standards atleast until such time as production is able to catch up. But the Scottish labour
market is so closely linked with that of the rest of the UK that it is hard to see
how real earnings could be adjusted downwards without giving rise to themost serious difficulties. For such a small country heavily dependent ofinternational trade, devaluation would, of course, have serious inflationary
consequences, since all imports would rise in price. Trade Unions are to alarge extent on a Great Britain basis and it is hard to see them accepting adeliberate attempt to cut real wages in Scotland compared with England
whatever the reason for it may be. Furthermore, even with independence,
freedom of labour movement between England and Scotland would be likely
to continue, a common language and two and a half centuries of freemovement make this easy. Changes in real wage levels would therefore be
likely to be reflected in migration figures and could lead to a shortage of
certain types of skilled labour in Scotland even while a surplus among the lessmobile unskilled persisted.
It is for these reasons that many economists have in the past concluded that
Scotland, if she were independent, would probably be unable to devalue
effectively against the rest of the United Kingdom. Lacking this ultimate
weapon of economic sovereignty and limited by the budgetary situation in theuse she could make of fiscal policy, it did not seem that political independence
would give Scotland sufficient economic sovereignty to enable her to tackle
her economic problems successfully, At the same time, whatever theconstitutional set-up, the Scottish economy would remain closely integrated
with that of the rest of the UK and would be greatly affected by policy
decisions taken in London, though as an independent state her ability to
influence those decisions would be greatly reduced.
The Implications of North Sea Oil
The analysis in the last section is based on the situation as it appeared before
the discovery of North Sea oil. Even after its discovery the full significance of[PAGE4]

North Sea oil was not immediately apparent and it still remains in large
measure disguised from the Scottish public by the DTI’s failure to makeprovision for a proper Government return when the fourth round of licences
was issued. So far all that Minister have said is that they expect North Sea oil
to be yielding 70-100m. tons of oil per annum by 1980 and that on that basis
the Government revenue from rent and royalties from the whole of theContinental Shelf including the gas fields in the southern sector may be of theorder of £100m. per annum at that time. It has been explained that thisestimate does not include the yield from ordinary taxation on the oilcompanies and it has been stated that licensing policy is currently underreview but the significance of this has probably not been fully appreciated by
the public.
The SNP countered these figures by claiming that North Sea oil should by
1980 be yielding a Government revenue of approximately £800m. and havecharged the Government with giving Scottish oil away to the international
companies ridiculously cheap. Up to now much of the Scottish public may
have regarded the SNP figures as pretty wild and they have been publicly
condemned as such by Ministers. But authoritative support for the charge that
the Government has failed to do a satisfactory bargain with the companies isprovided in the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee which so far
remain unanswered. The example of Norwegian policy on Government
revenue from oil likewise shows up the failure of British.
The Government’s reveiw of licensing policy has been in progress since theearly summer of 1973. This has confirmed the total inadequacy ofarrangements to secure Government revenue and shows that some of themost attractive measures to put this right would involve breaking the terms on
which the licences were given. It is partly for this reason that the Government
has so far failed to take a decision, the choice lying between carried interest(ie state participation), which would provide the biggest revenue and also givesome power of control but would go back on the terms of the licences, andexcess revenue tax, from which the return in 1980 would be some £200m.
less but would be defensible in international law. The DTI estimates of lastsummer showed that total Government revenue following adoption of thesemeasures would have been between £800m. and £1,200m. a year in 1980
depending on the system used and the prices prevailing in 1980; today,
following the huge increase in international oil prices of recent months thecorresponding figures are in the range of £1,500m. to over £3,000m. Thus, allthat is wrong now with the SNP estimate is that it is far too low; there is a
prospect of Government oil revenues[PAGE5]

in 1980 which could greatly exceed the present Government revenue in
Scotland from all sources and could even be comparable in size to the wholeof the Scottish national income in 1970.
As well as the gain to the Government Revenue, North Sea oil will of course
make a massive contribution to the balance of payments; indeed these two
aspects are closely linked. At present world prices the expected output of
100m. tons of oil in 1980 is worth approximately £3,000m.; assuming pricerises from the present £33 a ton to £51 a ton as in the Government revenue
calculations the value could be as high as $5,000m. Part of this will, of course,
be repatriated by the international companies in the form of profits distributed
to their shareholders or reinvested in projects in other areas. The balance of
payments gain to Scotland would therefore depend critically on the amount ofGovernment revenue secured from the profits. Indeed, since none of the
major companies operating in the North Sea are predominantly Scottish
owned, the Government revenue would be the major element, apart from theexpenditure of the companies on goods and services produced in Scotland,
which would accrue from the value of oil produced as a balance of payments
gain. Thus assuming measures which would yield Government revenue ofthe scale referred to in previous paragraphs, plus some additional revenue toshareholders in Scotland and to suppliers of equipment, then the net balanceof payments gain might be expected to lie very approximately in the range of£2,000m. to £3,500m. a year, depending on prices and the share of theGovernment ‘take’.
It is not possible to compare these figures with an accurate estimate of
Scotland’s present balance of payments position. From the state of Scotland’s
economy one would expect a balance of payments deficit on current accountand a rough comparison of income and expenditure estimates for GDP
suggest that this could be of the order of £300m. a year in 1970/71. Plainly
this is a most unreliable figure and it will vary from year to year, but it isprobably sufficient to suggest the orders of magnitude. What is quite clear isthat the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp theexisting deficit whatever its size and transform Scotland into a country with asubstantial and chronic surplus.
All the above figures are, of course, based on the estimated output of 100m.
tons of oil in 1980. This was the DTI’s revised estimate in the early summer of
1973.
[PAGE6]

Already it is beginning to look as if these estimates may be too conservative.
Recent finds and the plans of companies appear to indicate that the Shetlandbasin may prove very productive indeed. Zetland County Council’s
consultants worked on the assumption that 70m. tons a year might actually be
piped ashore in the county. It is now known that Shell expect to land 50m.
tons a year through their own pipe alone and pipelines may also be expectedfrom Total’s Alwyn field, Conoco’s Hutton and the recent BP and Burmah
finds. In addition to this there are, of course, substantial finds further south,
particularly BP’s Forties field and Occidental’s Piner. Whether or not this, plus
any new finds that are made, result in the 1980 estimate of 100m. tons being
exceeded largely depends on how quickly newly discovered fields are brought
into production, but it does now seem extremely likely that production during
the 1980s will use well above 100m. tons a year with consequent increases inrevenue and gain to the balance of payments.
Can one be certain that the oil is without doubt a Scottish asset or, even if it
is, that these substantial revenues and balance of payments advantages
would indeed accrue to an independent Scotland? Clearly these questions
raise complicated issues in international law which could, if allowed, occupy
the legal profession for many years. Two possible lines of argument may be
expected: either that Scotland should pay England some compensation for
appropriating the most productive part of the Continental Shelf, or that thewhole shelf should be regarded as the common property of the nations of theformer United Kingdom with revenue distributed in accordance with some
population based formula irrespective of where oil is discovered. As regards
the first of the arguments, the prospective return from oil revenue would at thevery least be one of the factors taken into account in determining the financial
settlement between the two countries when they become independent. To
argue the second would be directly counter to the line that the UK
Government has taken with the EEC, that the resources of the Continental
Shelf are as much a national asset as are those on land, like coal mines, andthat there is therefore no question of the Europeanisation of North Sea oil.
Disputes on these matters might well occasion much bitterness between thetwo countries, but it is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland
to have that part of the Continental Shelf which would have been hers if she
had been independent all along.
There might be some argument about where the boundary between English
and Scottish waters would lie. At present this is considered to be along theline of latitude which lies just north of Berwick on Tweed, and it might perhaps
be held that it should run NE/SW as an extension of the Border. This could
have the effect of transferring the small oilfields in the south, Auk and Argyll,
to the English sector, but would not affect the main finds.
[PAGE7]

It must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments
gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of
independence provided that steps were taken either by carried interest or bytaxation to secure the Government ‘take’. Undoubtedly this would banish any
anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its
balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to aquite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in
Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposedmonarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as ahaven of security, so nowwould the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge
against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to findthemselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.
[PAGE8]II
A Policy for Development
The situation described in the first part of this paper is indeed an astounding
reversal of the problems which are usually considered in a Scottish or British
context. But it could nonetheless give rise to some serious difficulties andwould require careful handling if Scotland was really to derive maximum
benefit from it. It is, of course, perfectly possible that these difficulties would
not be overcome and that an independent Scotland despite its wealth would
continue to have an unsatisfactory economic performance. It takes more thanmoney to eliminate the traditional problems of the Scottish economy andnationalist movements, dependent as they are on strong emotional pressures,
have not always been notable for their economic realism. In this respect theexample of Ireland’s poor economic performance between 1922 and 1956
comes immediately to mind and the SNP is already showing signs of making
promises which could be an embarrassment to its economic management.
Nevertheless it is obvious that the surpluses from North Sea oil would open
up new opportunities for a nationalist Government. The purpose of thissecond part of the paper is therefore to consider in very brief outline some ofthe policies a nationalist Government could follow to try to bring about thedevelopment and prosperity of the country as a whole.
Scotland’s central economic problem is to secure a faster rate of economic
growth so that she can raise income levels and absorb the excess labour
which presently appears as high unemployment and emigration. As has been
explained, this is a situation which would normally point to devaluation as apossible remedy. North Sea oil, however, by giving the country a chronicbalance of payments surplus, would rule out any possibility of devaluation.
Indeed, it is hard to see how an upward valuation of the currency could be
avoided. Obviously this pressure should be resisted as far as possible; but
unless there was a remarkable change in the strength of sterling, it must be
expected that the Scots pound would rise in relation to it fairly soon after
independence, especially if the latter continues its downward slide. A
revaluation would give rise to none of the difficulties which were argued earlier
to apply to a Scottish devaluation. Since the effect would be to reduce prices
and raise incomes there would not be the same resistance to making it
effective in Scotland. An exchange rate of £1 Scots to 120p sterling within two
years of independence therefore seems quite probable.
This exchange rate movement would improve Scottish real incomes; imports
would all become cheaper, and GDP per head in Scotland, which would
include the value of the oil produced, would rise smartly. The gap between
Scottish income per head and English would probably soon be eliminated andmight well be reversed. The danger is that with a rising currency Scotland’s
traditional economy would find it more andmore difficult to[PAGE9]compete; manufactured exports would be priced out of foreign markets andimports would become highly competitive at home; tourist would find that therate of exchange made Scotland a very expensive country for holidays; andScottish farmers would find that the EEC’s Common Agricultural Policy gavethem a much less satisfactory level of support than expected. Thus there
would be grave risk that the economy would be driven more and more todepend on the oil industry and other activities would tend to wither. But while
oil would give Scotland a good income, it could never be an adequate sourceof employment with the rest of the economy in decline. Scotland, therefore,
could face the danger of prosperity coupled with continuing or even worsening
unemployment and emigration.
To counteract this situation it would be essential to try to keep the surpluseson the balance of payments down and thereby reduce the upward pressure
on the exchange rate. This could involve extensive lending abroad, whether toEngland, the EEC or under-developed countries. Such lending could well be
in Scotland’s interest rather than face the prospect of an intolerably highexchange rate; it might also do much to help cement relations with other EEC
countries and, coupled with the supplies of oil for export, would make
Scotland a highly desirable member of EEC with a strong bargaining position.
The first priority, however, would be to spend the surpluses as far as possible
in developing Scotland’s domestic economy and providing a modern
infrastructure. The following paragraphs suggest how this might be done.
a.

Manufacturing Industry
Output per head in most sectors of Scottish industry is well below
European levels. This is largely because the British economy has
invested much less than other European countries over the last 25
years. A substantial increase in manufacturing investment istherefore necessary if this is to be put right. Only then will Scottish
industry be able to compete effectively with other members of EEC
at anything other than low exchange rates.
Part of the reason for the low investment in Scotland in the past has
been the persistence of ‘stop-go’ in the UK economy. Every time
investment has begun to rise satisfactorily, as it was doing in 1973,
the emergence of a balance of payments deficit has forced theGovernment to take strong[PAGE10]deflationary measures with the result that the investment boom has peteredout again. Scotland made good progress in 1973, but ideally from her point ofview the 5 per cent growth rate needed to go on for another couple of years.
As an independent state, Scotland’s balance of payments position would
enable her to break out of the ‘stop-go’ cycle and a sustained rate of growth
could be planned on the basis that it could be carried on for at least a decade.
The strength of the currency coupled with the budgetary surplus would help tokeep interest rates down and there would be no need for sudden increases intaxation or massive cuts in public expenditure. Admittedly, since Scotland is
so closely tied to the English market, her economy would continue to beaffected by measures taken in London, but this effect would diminish the more
Scotland expands trade with other EEC countries. Furthermore, it would bequite proper for a Scottish Government to take countervailing measures tostimulate the Scottish economy at times when England was going through arecession. Such measures would help to keep Scottish output up and would
help the English economy by reducing the Scottish balance of payments
surplus. It can be expected therefore that the prospect of sustained expansion
and an end to ‘stop-go’ would do more than anything else could both to raise
investment in domestic industry and to encourage foreign investment to cometo Scotland.
However, this expansionary macro-economic policy would need to be backed
up by firm regional policy measures. The position in West Central Scotland
has deteriorated vis-à-vis the rest of Scotland over the last decade and this is
likely to be even more accentuated by North Sea oil developments.
Furthermore, as an independent state, it would seem to be quite inappropriate
for Scotland to regard the whole of the territory as subject for regional policy.
Something along the lines of the following package of measures therefore
seems to be most appropriate:i.

[PAGE11]For Scotland as a whole the Regional Development Grant would be
abolished, but to stimulate investment Corporation Tax would either
be abolished or reduced to a purely nominal rate. This would havethe effect of more or less removing the tax from industry’s retained
profits while leaving distributed profits taxed roughly as they are atpresent. As a national fiscal policy

measure it would not come within the control of the EEC’s ceilings
on regional aids. The cost of abolishing Corporation Tax would be£120m.

b.

ii.

West Central Scotland would be scheduled as Scotland’s
Development Area and the definition could be extended to certain
smaller areas in the Highlands and Islands if necessary. Within thisarea there would be a 20 per cent Regional Development Grant
paid as at present in addition to (i) above.

iii.

There would be a Scottish Development Authority covering thewhole of Scotland but with instructions to give particular priority toWest Central Scotland. Its budget would at least be on a scaleequivalent to the funds which previously went into REP and SIDO. It
would be empowered to give discretionary grants and loans andwould be equipped to provide advice to companies. It would be
responsible for working out a strategy for developing Scotland’s
domestic industry as well as promoting foreign investment. The
HIDB would continue to operate with its own much wider remit in
the Highlands.

iv.

Steps would be taken to strengthen the shipbuilding industry byadopting a scheme for insurance against inflationary risk as
operated in France and approved by EEC. The new SDA would be
especially charged with the preparation of proposals for themodernisation of the industry.

Construction
The construction industry employs a substantial part of the labour force
and its fluctuations have been a major factor in unemployment. In 1971
no less than 25,000 of the 100,000 unemployed were registered as
construction workers. In times of boom the shortage of skilled labour inthe industry becomes a serious bottleneck in the economy although
coupled with continuing large numbers of unskilled unemployment.
The industry does not play as large a part in the British economy as inmost other European countries as the followingtable shows and thiscoupled with the manifest need for urban rebuilding and housereplacement suggest that, with the proper policy, the industry could playa much larger part in[PAGE12]

providing steady employment for the Scottish labour force. Indeed, if theScottish construction industry employed 10 per cent of the labour force,the EEC average, this would mean employment for an additional 40
thousand.

Construction
Percentage Shareof GDP
Percentage Shareof Employment

FranceGermany

Belgium

HollandItaly

The Six

UK

Scotland

9.4

8.4

6.7

7.5

7.4

8.4

6.2*

-

8.5

10.7

12.4

10.3

5.7

7.9

10.6
8.8
*GDP at factor cost

With North Sea oil revenues, public expenditure on construction projects
could be greatly stepped up and a major operation should be mounted tocarry on the rebuilding of Glasgow and do much more than has been
done in the past for environmental recovery. This would probably requirea special Environmental Recovery Agency to assist the local authorities
rather in the way that SSHA operates.
Housing policy has been bedevilled in the past by the subsidisation ofcertain types of housing. This has led to the colossal public housing
sector in Scotland with the emphasis on quantity rather than quality. It
seems desirable to subsidise housing for many years to come both toimprove the living conditions of the Scottish people and to keep up thedemand on the construction industry. Instead of subsidising rents at one
extreme and at the other giving tax relief on mortgages which is greater
the larger the mortgage, it would seem much more appropriate to givethe assistance to individuals regardless of the type of house they occupy
or whether they are tenants or owners. This could probably be done
under the new tax credit system and it would have the effect of providing
a housing subsidy or negative tax to those with low incomes and a
housing tax allowance to others. In this way demand for housing as awhole could be encouraged while avoiding the distortion between
different types of housing which has been such a feature of the past. It
would be likely that local authority housing would then gradually decline
in importance and housing associations would assume greater
prominence. As competition between different forms of housing
increased, so the quality of housing would improve.
[PAGE13]c.

Service Industry
In the past service industry has received much less assistance fromregional policy than manufacturing. In part this is right because many
service activities, such as medical services, education, accountants,
distribution, are governed simply by local demand. But there are service
activities, notably major offices, which have a choice of location andevery effort should be made to attract them to areas where labour isavailable.
Following independence the increased Government activity would largely
wipe out any spare labour resources in Edinburgh, but major efforts
would be needed to promote commercial and office development in
Glasgow. The Scottish Development Authority should be empowered tooffer assistance, comparable in scale to that available to manufacturingindustry, to encourage such development in the Glasgow conurbationand the system of property rating should be revised, if not abolished, toprevent high rates being a brake on commercial development as they
have been in the past.
Tourist development would obviously assume major importance for any
independent Scotland and the financial resources available to the Tourist
Board could be increased.

d.

The Pace of North Sea Oil Development
On the face of it the pace of development of North Sea oil appropriate for
Scotland would be very different from that now being demanded by the
UK. Apart from the need to avoid piling up excessive surpluses, Scotland
would wish to extend her North Sea oil revenue over a much longer
period than the 30 or so years which seems likely at presently planned
rates of extraction. It is also desirable to avoid the frenzied peaks ofactivity which seem likely in Shetland, the Moray Firth and Loch Carronon present plans. These will impose immense infrastructure demands,
lead to a substantial inflow of population and leave in their wakeproblems of readjustment and unemployment which it may take years ofregional policy to overcome. In addition the contribution of Scottish
Industry to oil developments, which is so far disappointing, might beincreased substantially if the whole programme is not required to go at
the maximum possible speed.
From a purely Scottish point of view this suggests that a production flowof, say, 50m. tons a year might be ideal. Even this would be five times
Scotland’s present consumption and yield and annual revenue of
between £700m.

[PAGE14]and £1,500m. However one cannot look at the Scottish position in
isolation. If, because of action in the Middle East, there is a serious
energy shortage in Europe, Scotland would undoubtedly suffer severely
from the resulting slump. It would therefore be in Scotland’s interests toincrease her oil production well beyond what would otherwise seem
desirable. If however there is no serious shortage in physical terms,
merely a crisis of price, then action by Scotland is not going to affect theinternational price of oil, nor will it matter to the other countries what thesource of their oil is.
e.

Inflation, Income Policy and Training
The strength of the Scottish exchange rate and the low interest rates
which would result from the budgetary and balance of payments position
would do much to reduce inflationary pressure. A major part of the British
inflation has resulted from the downward drift of the currency and theconsequent rise in import prices. The absence of this, relaxations intaxation and subsidies for housing would no doubt help to reduce thepressure of wage increases. Nevertheless as Scotland moved nearer full
employment serious shortages of certain types of skilled labour would
occur and this would tend to produce acute inflationary pressure. Someform of incomes policy is clearly going to be a continuing feature ofadvanced economies and would be essential in Scotland if the economy
if the economy was not to price itself out of international markets. It is
important to recognise, however, that the labour shortages which giverise to the pressure could be avoided to a considerable degree if training
schemes were more flexible and if a substantial increased effort was put
into retraining. A full-scale examination of training is clearly an earlypriority.

The European Community
Membership of the EEC affects the economics of Scottish independence inseveral important respects. It guarantees access to English and Continental
markets in a way which would not be possible otherwise. Without EEC
Scotland would always run the risk that England might find it expedient toimpose an import surcharge, a quantitative control or even a tariff on goods
coming from Scotland. It was largely to eliminate this that Scotland accepted
the Union of 1707. New EEC rules would have the same effect and for all nine
member states. In the unlikely event of England leaving the EEC, Scottish
access to the other countries could in time largely compensate for any
restrictions that might arise on English trade.
[PAGE15]

Access to EEC should also help to provide a major stimulus to Scottish
industrial investment. The EEC is not only a bigger market than the UK but its
economy has been much more buoyant than that of Britain. There is no doubtthat the exclusion of the United Kingdom had a damaging effect on
investment and that foreign firms in particular preferred development within
EEC. To gain the full advantage of this stimulus from membership it will, ofcourse, be necessary to have a stable domestic economy. High rates ofinflation and a declining currency such as the UK has had recently would domuch to discourage foreign companies from coming to Scotland.
North Sea oil could have far-reaching consequences for Scottish membershipof EEC because of the tremendously increased political power it would confer.
Without oil other members might pay little enough regard to Scotland; hervoting power would not be large and it might indeed be argued that she could
exert more leverage on the Community as part of the United Kingdom. As the
major producer of oil in Western Europe, however, Scotland would be in a key
position and other countries would be extremely foolish if they did not seek to
do all they could to accommodate Scottish interests. For Scotland the net costof Common Agricultural Policy, which features so large in British discussions
would be at most some £40m. a year, a small sum compared with the balanceof payments gain from North Sea oil. The more common policies come to be
decided in Brussels in the years ahead, the more Scotland would benefit fromhaving her own Commissioner in the EEC as of right and her own voice in theCouncil of Ministers instead of relying on the indirect, and so far hardly
satisfactory, form of vicarious representation through UK departments.
Conclusion
This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely
overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish
nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive
surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with theproper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time
into the future.
Wealth does not automatically mean full employment and the end of net
emigration. But provided sensible policies are pursued, it is possible to see
how this situation could be used to re-equip Scottish industry and renew
outworn social capital thereby providing the expansion necessary to absorb
Scotland’s excess labour and the increase in productivity required to raise
incomes. Thus, for the first time since the Act of Union was passed, it can now
be credibly argued that Scotland’s economic advantage lies in its repeal.
When this situation comes to be fully appreciated in[PAGE16]

the years ahead, it is likely to have a major impact on Scottish politics, since itis on social and political grounds alone that the case for retention of the union
will in future have to be based.
Nationalist policy as outlined in this paper can, of course, be regarded as
extremely selfish. Undoubtedly it is, butit can be argued in reply that so longas Scottish GDP per head is only 70 per cent of the European average, theunemployment and emigration rates among the highest and the country
regarded by the EEC as one of its worst problem regions, then Scotland isjustified in using her own resources to rectify these problems rather thanrelying on the generosity of others at least until she has managed to catch up.
Yet undoubtedly the greatest weakness in the nationalist economic case isthat Scotland, even withits oil, cannot expect to prosper in isolation. Economic
conditions in Europe and above all in England, with whom Scotland willremain closely tied in trade, are of particular importance. Even with greater
diversification of Scottish trade to Europe and to North America, an
impoverished England or one perpetually suffering the rigours of demand
restraint would have most serious consequences for the Scottish economy.
Britain is now counting so heavily on North Sea oil to redress its balance of
payments that it is easy to imagine England in dire straits without it. The oil
prices since the Yom Kippur war make this a much more serious matter than
could have been imagined before; and it is now likely that transfer of North
Sea oil to Scottish ownership would occasion much bitterness in England if
not an attempt to forcibly prevent it. England would, of course, be no worse off
than most of the Continental EEC countries in this respect; indeed, probably
there are better chances of finding oil in the Celtic Sea or the English Channel
than are open to most of them. If therefore the other countries can adjust to
the new energy situation, England should be able as well.
Nevertheless it is now clear, as perhaps never before, that Europe could bringabout its economic ruin by disunity. If supplies of oil become seriously
restricted or the burden on the balance of payments of importing countries
proves more than the international monetary system can cope with, a serious
breakdown in the economic system of Western Europe could well result. This
danger imposes serious international responsibilities on those European
countries which are likely to be exporters of energy, Norway, Scotland if
independent, and Ireland where oil is likely to be discovered. A spirit ofEuropean co-operation is not very evident yet either in[PAGE17]

discussions or plans for the development of energy and the rather nationalistic
attitude so far followed by Britain would hardly be a good example to anindependent Scotland. Yet the situation offers the energy producers a realopportunity to contribute to the economic strength of Europe and in so doing
to ensure their own prosperity; if instead they retreat into narrow nationalism,
developing their energy resources with regard to their own interests alone,they could undermine the whole European economy and seal their own fate in
the process.
Perhaps the most important conclusion is that time is now extremely limited.
British regional policy has been in operation for forty years and the annual
cost of the measures applied to Scotland is now about £100m. a year. But,
although there have been undoubtedly been notable achievements and theScottish economy would have been in a much worse state without such a
policy, there is still little prospect that it will solve the problems of West Central
Scotland in the foreseeable future. High hopes have been held out for
European regional policy but any impact form this is likely to be very small fora long time to come. In much the same way agitation for a workable form ofpolitical devolution has persisted amongst a substantial part of the Scottish
electorate for a considerable time but without any practical result so far and it
is still far from clear whether anything sill stem from the consideration of theKilbrandon Report.
If, in five years’ time North Sea oil is contributing massively to the UK budget,
while the economic and social condition of West Central Scotland continues in
the poor state that it is today, it would be hard to imagine conditions morefavourable to the growth of support for the nationalist movement. Verydetermined steps to urgently transform economic conditions in Scotland will
therefore be necessary and the Scottish people will have to be persuaded that
their problems really have received the attention and expenditure they
deserve if this outcome is to be avoided.
[PAGE18]