Independence is good for Business: International Trade

As an unequal partner in the United Kingdom, Scotland has no say over trade. Westminster sets trade policy and it does that in line with the needs of London and the south of England and with what the English people vote for.

This is detrimental to Scotland’s economy, for Scottish business and for Scotland’s people. An independent country would be able to build on Scotland’s great resources and business culture to build prosperity and the wellbeing economy. 

Here are four key points on why an independent Scotland would do better on trade

1 – An independent Scotland could regain its strong ties with Europe

Scotland has historically had an outward-looking approach and strong links with Europe. Many Scots valued the freedom they had to live and work in 27 EU countries. Businesses in Scotland, from the care sector to the university sector, valued the specialist workforce they could access. 

Every region of Scotland voted to remain in the EU. But EU membership was taken away from Scotland because of the result of a referendum in the rest of the UK.

There was no concession or consultation with Scotland over that. Years later, we see the result as red tape piles up, small businesses in particular struggle to trade with Europe and even with Northern Ireland as the trade barriers mount across the Irish Sea.

2 – Independent Scotland could have its own immigration visa – now Westminster only sneers at the idea

Scotland needs skilled workers with different skills and in different sectors – so the Scottish government suggested setting up a separate visa for Scotland – like the arrangement Quebec has with Canada. 

But Westminster politicians only scoff and sneer, saying people given skilled professional jobs in Scotland would prefer to go to England and work illegally in the black economy. 

Westminster has set salary levels for skilled workers to get visas that are way out of line with what businesses in Scotland asked for. Westminster stopped care workers being allowed to bring their children – children that parts of rural Scotland with falling school rolls desperately want. And they are threatening the post-study work visas that Scotland would like to offer to university graduates.

Limiting access to these workers and skills doesn’t just disadvantage public services, it undermines Scotland’s businesses ability to be competitive and trade internationally. Many of these graduates could have gone on to start companies or contribute to technology and engineering sectors – high-value industries where Scotland has export potential.

An independent Scotland in control over immigration policy, could design a system that supports both its social needs and its trade ambitions, ensuring businesses have the talent required to compete internationally and put Scotland’s economy ahead. 

3 – Independent Scotland could avoid its interests being sacrificed in international trade deals 

The promise of Westminster after Brexit was that they would make trade deals that offered a better prospect for Scottish businesses. But they have failed to consult Scotland over any of these deals. 

Deals with Australia and New Zealand were made by the UK that will eventually hurt Scotland’s food and farming sector. These deals, after a transition period, allow tariff-free access for foreign farmers with lower welfare standards. It is not yet clear if the deal with the US will do the same. 

These deals echoes the “Great Betrayal” of the 1920s when the UK abruptly cut support for Scottish farmers in favour of cheaper imports from the colonies, when freezer ships were invented. The result was abandoned farms and biting rural poverty.

In the era of tariff wars and global uncertainty, EU members rest secure in the knowledge they have the right to trade freely with each other. Meanwhile, thanks to Westminster, Scotland is part of a vulnerable and isolated UK forced to grovel to Donald Trump. 

4 – An independent Scotland would have a real capital city within its borders

Because London is where the real power is, most big “Scottish” businesses are owned and managed from London. Money, power, and resources flow down to London.  

Take whisky. The headquarters of Diageo, which owns about 40% of the Scotch whisky business, is in London. The UK headquarters of Bacardi and Pernod Ricard, which also own significant portions of the Scotch whisky industry, are also in London. Very little of the profit from any bottle of whisky comes to Scotland. 

Scotland is not alone in experiencing this outflow of money, resources and talent while being controlled by a neighbouring country. A brain drain, and loss of control of its resources was one of the reasons that Norway chose to become independent from Sweden. 

In the past, Norway was often portrayed as a poor country, on the periphery of Europe, mountainous and hard to farm. Its people were looked down on by the Danish and Swedish elites who governed it for centuries. But Norwegians decided that they wanted to take the levers of power into their own hands and they have demonstrated that they were able to make decisions in the interests of their people. 

Conclusion

An independent Scotland would still trade with the rest of the UK but on fairer terms that reflect mutual benefit rather than Westminster’s dominance. Independence would allow Scotland to set its own priorities, build stronger trade links with Europe, and take advantage of its reputation for quality goods and services. Back in the EU alongside other successful small nations, Scotland would have frictionless access to the world’s largest single market while continuing to trade freely with its closest neighbours. Westminster would no longer be able to ignore Scotland’s needs; it would have to negotiate.