Cambria Magazine - Small Nation Economics

You are here: Home

Small Nation Economics

‘An independent Wales would not be economically viable.’ Funny, were Wales given a penny every time somebody said that, then Wales would certainly pay its way! Yet this ‘can’t afford independence’ is a common refrain by commentators and politicians alike, and is currently used with great gusto as an argument against Scottish independence. But a quick glance through the articles, editorials and letters pages of the past make it clear that Wales and Scotland haven’t been the only European countries ‘which can’t afford independence’.
Malta was one example. An editorial in The Times on 7 January 1959 noted gravely: ‘Malta cannot live on its own … the island could pay for only one-fifth of her food and essential imports; well over a quarter of the present labour force would be out of work and the economy of the country would collapse without British Treasury subventions. Talk of full independence for Malta is therefore hopelessly impractical.’
The Times published a letter on January 21st, 1964 by Joseph Agius of ‘Ta’ Xbiex’ who feared ‘... the folly of giving independence [to Malt] when we are not economically prepared for it.’
Yet Malta gained independence on September 21st, 1964: essentially a city state on a barren rock; which -
from a British point of view – was no more than a very large dock. By 2009 its GDP - at $23,800 per capita
- was similar to other former imperial port cities like Liverpool, Newcastle or Marsailles.
Norway was another country which – in the eyes of many - couldn’t afford the independence it eventually
gained in 1905. At the time it had limited selfgovernment within Sweden and one of the great bones
of contention was that the consular service and tariffs were biased towards the more agrarian Swedish economy rather than the export-biased Norwegian one. Calls for greater independence were widely felt across Norway, but there were still some who were afraid its consequences, as was illustrated by a letter from ‘R.H.’ in The Times of July 6th, 1892. Headed ‘A Warning from Norway’, it argued:
‘… as regards the immediate point of consular representation, the opinion of the commercial class in both
kingdoms, as expressed in the chambers of commerce, beginning with the Norwegian capital itself, is decidedly hostile to it. … At the same time it seems scarcely possible that the leaders of the movement can clearly realise the fate they are preparing for the country by what may well be termed a suicidal agitation … would not be a free national existence but subserviency, not to say bondage to Russia … [Norway] reduced to conditions of a central Asian khanate.’
More than a century later, it is certainly obvious to all that an independent Norway has not become a ‘central Asian khanate’.
To bring us closer to our present time, Slovakia gained independence in the famous ‘Velvet Divorce’ of 1993, an event which - in an otherwise generally balanced editorial - The Independent of December 31st, 1992 foretold with some gloom. ‘ … There is no shortage of potential disputes,’ it noted. ‘Currency union is doomed, with the Czechs determined to balance their budget and the Slovaks expected to head down the road of deficit financing and inflation.’
In a report on January 3rd, 1993 - two days after independence – The Guardian was equally pessimistic,
commenting that ‘many people see the split as a failure and others are nervous about proving themselves in an uncertain world.’
History tells us, therefore, that any move towards independence by a ‘colony’ or semi-independent state
almost entirely fails to consider the possible, subsequent economic success of these countries. Certainly, the general tone of the British mindset towards Welsh (and Scottish) independence varies from a mild scepticism to outright hostility. And both stances are, at times, more irrational and unscientific than those which the ‘romantic’ nationalists are accused of adopting.
There are now 193 members of the UN, the latest to join being South Sudan - yes, even South Sudan, so redolent of famine and political unrest, can ‘afford independence’. And there is also another country which is expected to declare independence this summer. It is the one country which in terms of its fractured geography, fractious politics and crippled economy you would expect not to ever ‘afford independence’. That country is Palestine.
And this has resulted in the British left-wing adopting a curious position. On the one hand, it uniquely
argues that politically-stable Scotland will be the only oil-producing country in the world to emerge the poorer from independence, yet on the other it never question’s Palestine’s ability to ‘afford independence’, regardless of the constant turmoil in which the state exists..So is there a deeper reason behind our ‘progressive’ friends’ opposition to independence for smaller European nations?
In January 1849, the co-founder of Communism, Friedrich Engels wrote about the ‘primitive’ and ‘counter-revolutionary peoples’ of Europe. He patronised nations such as the Basques, Bretons, Scottish
Highlanders and Serbians for not having even reached the stage of capitalism. He called them 'völkerabfälle’ (‘ethnic trash’ or ‘waste peoples’).and argued that ‘these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself
a protest against a great historical revolution.’
Dare I suggest that deep within the subconcious of the left there remain fragments of an hostility towards those nations which cannot (apparently) act – in Engel’s words - as ‘the main vehicle of historical development’?
That said, let’s discuss independence from another angle.
Maybe we should view any moves towards Wales’ potential economic independence as being part of just
another historical transition - in the same manner that it experienced the agrarian revolution of the early 19th century, the full force of the industrial revolution, and is now experiencing a managed (or badly managed) process of de-industrialisation. After all, no Welsh economist or politican would expect the Welsh economy to be the same in 20 years time as it is today, Even in the mid 1970s few would have dared predict that our coal industry would be all but destroyed within the next decade. So there will be change whatever happens: why not, therefore, make it a more fundamental economic change with independence as the vehicle?
There are, of course, those who argue that Wales is ‘too poor’ to achieve economic independence. However,
we must remember that the Welsh economy has been in historic decline since 1923, when the price of coal peaked. During that period, Wales has experienced three of the five stages of constitutional status. Until 1959, it was governed as an integral part of ‘the Realm of England’; then came the Welsh Office era, in which we remained a part of English Realm but enjoyed the ‘independence’ of some administrative functions. This was then, of course, followed in 1999 by the creation of the Senedd and the granting of some self-government There are two stages left - generally speaking – in the final transition to independence. The first is self-government with some taxation powers, followed by independence with full taxation powers. Since the first three constitutional settlements have not improved Wales’s economic well-being, why not - from an economic point of view - try the next two economic options?
Certainly there are numerous examples to illustrate that independence can be the best way to revive a weak
economy.
Look again at that barren rock in the North Atlantic:Iceland, the little country which earlier this year had the courage to tell their bankers where to go. On December 1st, 1938, some 20 years and a World War after The Guardian’s dire assessment of Iceland’s prospects, The Times wrote a glowing report on its 20th anniversary of independence from Denmark noting that: ‘Side by side with the political liberation of the country, developed the gradual economic emancipation of the island.’ The article then outlined the many benefits gained since independence, especially in the fields of modern communications.
In his recent article in the Harvard Kennedy Review, ‘Small is cute, sexy and successful: Why Independence for Wales and other countries makes Economic Sense’ Adam Price makes a compelling case for independence for ‘small’ nations. He compares the economic fortunes of independent Luxembourg and its neighbour, the German province, Saarland since the Second World War.
But we needn’t look to foreign lands for inspiration or precedent. In every parish in our land there’s a successful case of Wales not being ‘too poor to be independent’ – the Church in Wales founded in 1922. Like those new east European states such as Finland or Estonia, the Church in Wales could hardly have been formed at a worse time. It had to pay its way in the aftermath of the Great War and in the middle of the Great Depression.
The Welsh church became independent during what the Rev D.T. W. Price in his book on the history of the
church, calls ‘the locust years’. ‘Nonetheless,’ as the Rev Price notes, ‘by 1937 it was generally felt, and rightly so,that the financial condition of the Church in Wales was as sound as it had been before disestablishment.’
Independence would force politicians and us voters in Wales to grow up. We would be economically viable
because we would have to be. We’d have to learn to swim. Let’s look at ‘good practice’. After communism,
bling-capitalism, imperialism, state socialism, supra-national states or religious statehood, the nation-state and independence is the one political construct which not one state or people has turned its back on. Independence works for Malta, Iceland, Norway and Slovakia – as well as larger states. It’s time Wales made independence work for her too.