COMPANIES and investors should not be "unduly concerned" about independence but Scotland will struggle to recreate the Stock Exchange it lost in 1973, according to a report which looks at an imagined "Scotsie 100" index.
Identifying 100 Scottish company stocks currently listed in London, Paul Marsh of London Business School and Scott Evans of Walbrook Economics compared their "Scotsie 100" with a parallel "Rest of the UK" index over the last 60 years.
They found that £1 invested in the Scotsie 100 in 1955 would have grown to £648 today (with dividends reinvested), a 5.7 per cent increase in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. However, £1 invested in the rest of the UK would have grown to £1,168, a 6.8 per cent increase.
But this included the "devastating" impact of the RBS and HBOS banking crisis, without which the report states Scotland out-performed the rest of the UK.
The academics state: "Despite the many uncertainties, we do not believe that investors in 'Scotsie 100' stocks should be unduly concerned, or be making contingency plans to rebalance their portfolios."
They observe that almost all countries which have achieved independence over the last generation have sought to create their own stock exchange, but the case for Scotland doing the same is "more nuanced," given the importance of the Stock Exchange in London.
It would be better, say the authors, to encourage a venture capital and private equity industry in Scotland.
Tony Banks, chairman of Business for Scotland, said: "One of the big problems Scotland faces is the gravitational pull of London and the south-east of England for UK businesses, which is a vital reason why we need the economic powers of independence so that we can exert a powerful pull in the direction of Scotland."
A Better Together spokesperson said: "Being part of the UK single market is essential for Scottish firms to thrive.
"Companies based here have barrier free access to a market of more than 63 million people in the UK, rather than just five million people in Scotland. Where is the sense in putting a barrier between Scottish firms and their customers elsewhere in the UK?"
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article