CAMPAIGNING FOR SCOTLAND (Owned, Edited and Printed in Scotland since November 1926) "Promoting all that is best in Scottish Nationalism and all that is best in Scotland." Content of the Flag in the Wind Web Site is the copyright of the Scots Independent Newspaper. [ Issue 353 -  9th March 2007]

Compiled by Ian Goldie

INTRODUCTION

This is a brief intro just to say that this week’s edition has three short pieces and a much larger one that contains 11 statistical tables.  I hope that that doesn’t put you off!  Why not print them out so that you are armed with facts to use in some of the arguments about independence!
 

A FANTASTIC WEE BOOK

There is one book that every member of the Scottish National Party should possess and refer to constantly.

 
It is the The Economist Pocket World in Figures.  I have before me as I write the 2007 edition and a quick look at it will resolve any arguments over economic performance of almost any country.
 

I cannot recommend it strongly enough, and the summary of economic data in section four below is taken almost entirely from this goldmine,

 

WHAT LORD FORSYTH THINKS OF SCOTLAND
 

Speaking on 25 January this year at the House of Lords debate on the Union between England and Scotland:
 
“An independent Scotland would struggle to catch the waiter’s eye in Brussels.  It would be a country of 5 million in a community of half a billion.”

His is a statement that reeks of arrogance and of contempt - contempt, not just for Scotland, but also for all our other small nations.  I wonder if the Tories broadcast this kind of opinion to the people of Denmark, Finland, Sweden and other small countries.
 
For Lord Forsyth, small countries cut a pathetic figure, have no voice, and seem to skulk in some downtown Brussels joint, trying to order a crumb – without success.
 
I wonder if Lord Forsyth ever conveys his opinions of small countries to the successful and prosperous Danes, Norwegians or Swiss. Probably not – after all it was little Switzerland that helped to bail Britain out in the 1970s.
 

AMAZING, REALLY! 

I am often amazed at the sheer cheek of some people. Apparently, some economists at an outfit called Oxford economics have turned out a report that claims that Scotland was subsidised in 2004-5 to the tune of £2,000 per person from the rest of the UK, showing a deficit of almost £11 billion for the year.
 
Incredibly, the headline to this states that this shows that independence would cost Scots billions and that this is a blow to the Scottish National Party and the cause of independence.
 
But hold on a minute.  In 2004-5 Scotland was not independent.  This deficit was not run up because Scotland was independent.

In fact, the deficit was run up after almost three hundred years of the Union, during which Scotland has been ruled from Westminster as part of the United Kingdom.

This is not a damaging blow to independence – the very opposite. It is dreadful indictment of the present set-up.  It appears that after all this time, that the so-called and trumpeted “Union dividend” has in fact left Scotland in a pathetically weakened condition.
 
If you really want to see the effects of independence, take a look at how the prosperous and successful small countries of northern Europe are doing.
 
You can compare for yourself in the next section, where the performances of the UK and these small European states are compared.  And don’t forget as you read that Scotland performs worse than the UK on average – as does Wales.  Surprise!  Surprise!!
 

AND NOW THE REAL FACTS

Now here are some of the facts from The Economist book I mentioned at the beginning of this report.  If you don’t like statistics, then sorry.  Knowledge is a vital weapon in the struggle for independence, and far too few people are aware of just how strong the facts are in favour of independence and against the Union.
 
Let’s look at the relative performances of the fourteen north European countries.

Six of these countries, like Scotland, have populations under 5.5 million.  They are: Iceland (0.3 mill.), Luxembourg (0.5), Ireland (4.0), Norway (4.6), Finland (5.2) and Denmark (5.4).
 
There are three others between seven and nine million, Switzerland (7.2,) Austria (8.1) and Sweden (8.9).
 
Two of them are between ten and seventeen million, Belgium (10.3) and the Netherlands (16.2).
 
And three are relatively large:  UK (59.4), France (60.4) and Germany (82.5).
 
And just note how well the small independent countries do on average, by contrast with the UK, and of course it will be an even greater contrast with Scotland.
 
 
Now let’s take it slowly, section by section.  For headings, I’ll use The Economist’s own terminology, starting with

1          Living Standards as measured by (a) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head.

1  Luxembourg	6   Iceland	11  Netherlands
2  Norway	7   Sweden	12  Belgium
3  Switzerland	8   Austria	13  France
4  Ireland	9   UK	14  Germany
5  Denmark	10 Finland

1  Luxembourg	6   Austria	11  Finland
2  Ireland	7   Denmark	12  Sweden
3  Norway	8   Netherlands	13  France
4= Iceland	9   Belgium	14  Germany
4= Switzerland	10 UK

Now GDP and PPP are good rough measurements of a country’s economic performance, but it does not claim to be everything.  The next thing we shall look at is the

3          Quality of Life as measured by the Human Development Index.
 
 

1  Norway	6   Ireland	11  UK
2  Iceland	7   Belgium	12  France
3= Luxembourg	8   Netherlands	13  Austria
3= Sweden	9= Denmark	14  Germany
5= Switzerland	9= Finland

Other interesting economic indicators that are highlighted by Pocket World In Figures 2007 Edition are:
 
4a       Balance of Payments: Current Account – surpluses as % of GDP (largest to smallest)
 

1  Switzerland	5= Finland
2  Norway	5= Netherlands
3  Luxembourg	8  Germany
4  Sweden	9  Denmark
5= Belgium	10 Austria

4b       Balance of Payments: Current Account – deficits as % of GDP (smallest to largest)
 
1  France                  2  Ireland                   3  UK              4  Iceland
 
 
5          Consumer Price Inflation, 2000 - 2005 (lowest inflation to highest).  There are only 12 countries shown, as the Pocket World does not list Iceland or Luxembourg).
 

1  Switzerland	5  France	9  Belgium
2  Germany	6  Norway	10 UK
3  Sweden	7= Austria	11 Netherlands
4  Finland	7= Denmark	12 Ireland

It is interesting to note that some of the Nordic countries, which manage to provide very high quality social services for their people (see table 8 below) and which raise taxes accordingly, are nevertheless among the most globally competitive.

6          Global Competitiveness

1  Iceland	6  Ireland	11  UK
2  Denmark	7  Norway	12  Germany
3  Switzerland	8  Austria	13  Belgium
4  Luxembourg	9  Sweden	14  France
5  Finland	10 Netherlands

Perhaps it is because most of these countries spend most on research and development.
 
7          Total Expenditure on Research and Development, 2003 (% of GDP)
 

1  Sweden	6  Germany	10= UK
2  Finland	7  Belgium	12  Luxembourg
3  Iceland	8  France	13  Norway
4  Switzerland	9  Austria	14  Ireland
5  Denmark	10= Netherlands

8          Employment Costs (pay, social security and other benefits), highest to lowest.  Only 12 countries shown, as no figures are listed for Iceland or Luxembourg.)
 

1  Norway	5  Netherlands	9  Sweden
2  Denmark	6  Switzerland	10 UK
3  Germany	7  Belgium	11 France
4  Finland	8  Austria	12 Ireland

There is also an interesting index on how much corruption is perceived among politicians and public officials.
 
9          Corruption Perceptions Index, 2005, from perception of least to most corrupt
 

1  Iceland	6  Norway	11 Germany
2  Finland	7  Austria	12 France
3  Denmark	8= Netherlands	13 Belgium
4  Sweden	9= UK	14 Ireland
5  Switzerland	10 Luxembourg

As a general rule, countries that spread their wealth broadly among their people tend to be perceived as less open to corruption than others. Switzerland is the exception here. The following figures for income inequality are taken from the UN/CIA Income Inequality Indices, latest year. There are no figures for Iceland or Luxembourg.  Interesting that the UK has the greatest income inequality in northern Europe.
 
 
10       Income Inequality Index (from most equal to least equal)
 

1  Denmark	5  Germany	9  Belgium
2  Sweden	6  Netherlands	10 Switzerland
3  Norway	7  Austria	11 Ireland
4  Finland	8  France	12 UK

It is also interesting to note how the world’s richer countries share their wealth with poorer countries.  One way of showing this is by how much aid they donate per head of population.  Here, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg and Sweden are far ahead of the others. Norway, of course, has used its vast oil revenues to create a massive new infrastructure and put billions away in a fund for future generations, but it is also clearly sharing some of this wealth with poor countries.
 

11       Aid – Largest Bilateral and Multilateral Donors
 

1  Norway	6= Belgium	11 Finland
2  Denmark	6= France	12 Germany
3  Luxembourg	6= Switzerland	13 Austria
4  Sweden	9  Ireland	14 Iceland
5  Netherlands	10 UK

So there you have it, folks.  Eleven basic statistical tables for northern Europe, and the UK does not make it into the top half of any single table.

And you could go on and on – relative to the position of women elsewhere, British women do poorly, we have a  poorer infant mortality than most others, we spend less on hospitals and education.
 
In fact, contrary to there being a “Union dividend”, there is indeed a “Union deficit”.
 
The continuation of the Union is a continuing threat to the progress, prosperity and success of the Scottish nation.
 
The vast differences between the rich, small countries of northern Europe and the present state of Scotland show dramatically that the much-vaunted Union is definitely not “fit for purpose”.