There is no reasonable and sound political ground available on which Scottish leadership can demand independence.
LAHORE: A few months ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. According to this, in the summer of 2014, a referendum will take place in Scotland to ascertain whether it wants to be part of the UK or wants to become independent. Lots of questions need to be answered before the referendum. What currency would an independent Scotland adopt? How would the division of natural resources under the sea happen?
The Scottish First Minister on several occasions has said that an independent Scotland will automatically qualify for membership of the European Union (EU). To me, this argument has little merit. The Lisbon Treaty stipulates that all member states of the EU have to approve if any European country applies for membership. Yes, an independent Scotland could apply for the membership but the decision would rest with the member states. As far as Nato membership is concerned, it would again be tough for an independent Scotland to acquire it.
Now, the question comes of currency. This choice would be an important one for an independent Scotland. There seem to be three options: it could adopt the euro; it could retain the pound, either by agreement or through unilateral action; or it could have its own currency.
Here, I would like to give the example of the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Two sovereign countries came into being from this, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Initially, both used the Czechoslovak koruna as its currency but later both sides decided to adopt their own national currencies. At the beginning, these two currencies had a parity exchange rate, but later on the value of the Slovak koruna was lower than that of the Czech. Eventually, Slovakia was admitted into the eurozone and the euro became its currency. If an independent Scotland adopts its own currency, it might depreciate and this would result in a high rate of inflation. That will have a negative economic impact on an independent Scotland. Many Scots believe that an independent Scotland can deliver and might have better economic conditions than if it were to remain in the UK.
Another important question is who would get the oil revenue if Scotland becomes independent? The North Sea is a resource jewel. There is a feeling that Westminster has always robbed Scotland of its due share of natural resources. According to the (London-based) National Institute of Economic and Social Research, there are two ways to do this. One would be to draw a median line across the North Sea from the border and if this were done, 90 per cent of oil revenues will accrue to Scotland. If the calculation is done on the basis of population, then that figure will be reduced to nine per cent. The Geneva Agreement on Natural Resources Under the Sea dictates that they be divided under the median line approach.
I believe that the issue of Scottish independence has been raised by the Scottish National Party to gain political support in Scotland and mobilise people against the UK parliament at Westminster. There is no reasonable and sound political ground available on which Scottish leadership can demand independence. The demand for independence is based on emotion and does not seem to have adequate justification. Scotland already has a devolved parliament which can make laws and financial decisions on its own.
Sarmad Ali
Published in The Express Tribune, August 18th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
