What would be best for the Scots economically — staying within the UK or go for a separation? This question was raised in quite passionate tones during the recent referendum campaign, most notably by Alex Salmond, leader of the National Party, who resigned immediately after it was rejected by voters.
Those who belong to a federal state like the UAE are fully aware of what a union means. It means strength and the greater good of society. It also means strong economic capabilities that allow everyone to enjoy a decent life. This is why the late Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, founder of the UAE, made immense efforts to unite the various emirates in a federal state, an approach that has since proved his farsightedness.
The Scottish National Party had been promoting for years that 80 per cent of Britain’s oil and gas lies within Scotland, and that separation would allow the Scots to harness their natural resources for development and raise the living standards of the population. However, the good majority of Scots were not misled by the emotional, nationalist or sectarian arguments.
It is true that 80 per cent of oil resources lie off Scotland, but this natural wealth will be depleted inevitably. And while it is possible to achieve temporary gains, the long-term economic interests tend to be by staying on within the UK as the real economy is closely associated with the rest of the components.
For instance, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which runs 90 per cent of its activities outside of Scotland, threatened to move abroad if the Scots voted for separation.
Core activities
Scotland depends on the agricultural and fishing sectors, besides oil, and these mainly rely on the British market. This shows that the core activities are integrated with the greater British economy, and one in which the pound holds such sway as being the most stable global currencies.
The Scottish economy could have lost all these innate strengths if the independence campaign had won. Salmond was actually leading the Scottish economy into the unknown because it would have lost plenty of investment opportunities and thousands of jobs. This is apart from the problems it would have had to face from the need for an alternative currency. It would have meant the Scottish economy would have lost its strong economic foundations and future prospects without being compensated by oil and gas revenues.
The Scots realised these facts as they headed out to vote in the referendum. They put their economic interests and the future of their children over any other considerations. They put aside emotions and instead voted based on a practical sense, particularly the older generation among them.
The National Party managed to attract a large number of the young who were unaware of the economic importance of staying within the UK, which has the ability to attract substantial foreign investments. Moreover, it is the integrated UK that is favoured by investors around the world.
The positive outcome of the referendum is that London has promised to give Scotland, Ireland and Wales more powers, which would ease the calls for separation and allow the many local institutions to play a greater role within the union.
Apocalyptic divisions
Britain and the west have experienced the bitterness among the people of those countries occupied or divided into several states by the superpowers.
Consequently, not having gone through the bitterness of separation, Britain must review past policies and apply them in the Arab region, which is now suffering from apocalyptic divisions.
Now, countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen are subjected to the dangers of division and disintegration, in turn creating new maps and sub-territories. In fact, no one knows about these maps except that they are leaked by leading Western media sources.
Unfortunately, the Arabian Gulf region has not been excluded from such partition fantasies. The West must realise that without the Gulf’s cheap oil supplies, it would not have been able to rebuild the economy after the catastrophe of the Second World War.
