AN independent Scotland that ran into financial difficulty might have to be bailed out by the rest of the UK, one of Britain's top economists has suggested.
Alternatively, Robert Rowthorn, Emeritus Professor of Economics at Cambridge University, also suggested a prosperous independent nation would not need outside help and would be a valuable trading partner for the rest of the UK.
In evidence to a House of Lords inquiry on the economic implications of Scottish independence for the UK – which is hoping to call First Minister Alex Salmond later in the year – the academic estimated an independent Scotland could face a national debt as high as £120 billion with annual interest payments of more than £5bn. In such circumstances, he told peers: "It would be rational for the Nationalists to seek to minimise Scotland's responsibility for the national debt."
Emphasising how much of an independent Scotland's financial future would rest on oil and gas revenue, Mr Rowthorn posited three scenarios – best case, worst case and intermediate case for 2015/16, potentially the first year of independence if Scots vote yes in the 2014 referendum.
The best-case scenario would lead to a fiscal surplus of £1.1bn or 0.7% of Scotland's GDP, and is based on a future Scottish Government taking no responsibility for Scotland's share of UK national debt (currently around £1 trillion); buoyant North Sea revenues; and having modest Nordic-style armed forces with no Trident submarines.
Scotland's fiscal deficit would be "manageable and the country would not require external support" and would prove to be a valuable trading partner for the rest of the UK.
The worst-case scenario would leave Scotland with a deficit of £9.4bn or 5.9% of GDP. It is based on Scotland taking its per capita share of UK national debt; Orkney and Shetland (with a 30% slice of North Sea revenue) remaining in the UK; and oil and gas prices lower than expected.
In these circumstances, Scotland might be "compelled to implement another round of austerity. In extremis, the UK might have to step in to help bail out Scotland just as it is currently helping to bail out Ireland".
The intermediate scenario would leave a newly independent Scotland with a fiscal deficit of £4bn or 2.4% of GDP. This scenario is based on it accepting a per capita share of national debt; buoyant hydrocarbon prices; and Orkney and Shetland being part of an independent Scotland.
Mr Rowthorn explained that, economically, much centred on the issue of oil and gas revenue. If revenues remained high, then the fiscal position would be fine but if they did not, then an independent Scotland could be in "a lot of trouble".
He noted how in the past 25 years oil prices had shown a great deal of volatility. Up to the early 2000s a barrel was $25, then it jumped to $150, dropped to $50, rose back up to $150 and was now around $100.
Mr Rowthorn told the Lords Economic Affairs Committee price uncertainty was "one of the strongest arguments against independence".
He said: "Independence could be a great success if oil remains very expensive for quite a long time. Though it must be said, if you look over the 25 to 30-year perspective oil revenues are going to decline almost whatever happens to the price of oil."
The economist said if an independent Scotland had a record for fiscal reliability like Denmark, then the markets would expect it to take action in troubled times and borrowing rates could be kept low. However, if oil and gas prices fell and "they experienced serious fiscal problems with maybe conflict at home – I'm not saying riots in the streets but some kind of political instability – then they would have to pay a lot higher interest rates".
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