Scotland independence an oily vote: Our view

For all the wealth and power oil can bring to a country, it can come with a host of problems. It can retard social progress, as happened in Saudi Arabia; invite corruption, as in Nigeria; or fund military adventurism, like Russian President Vladimir Putin's bloody venture in Ukraine.

Now a new entry can be added to this list of dubious blessings. Oil can initiate national disintegration.

Witness Scotland. In 1707, with a weak economy and lacking trading partners, it put aside its differences with England to join a new nation called Great Britain. Fierce Scottish pride never disappeared, but in the intervening centuries, Scots rarely gave serious thought to breaking up the union. Not, that is, until vast amounts of oil began flowing from Scottish waters in the 1970s. And Thursday, Scotland will vote on secession in what polls indicate is a very close call.

One of the main selling points for such a breakup is that an independent Scotland would be able to keep billions of dollars in oil revenue to itself.

Minus the oil, the argument for independence is a non-starter. Scotland would be a nation of 5 million, reliant on whiskey, tourism and textiles. It would also be isolated from its neighbor to the south, which has become a financial hub and a gateway to European commerce. That has prompted Scotland's major banks to say they will relocate if the nation votes for independence.

Even with oil, the argument is weak. Production is already in decline, and current projections have it running out in 20 years or so, just when the new nation would have grown addicted to its revenues.

Scotland's flirtation with independence is not unique. The Catalans and Basques are eager to break free, in their case from Spain. There is some talk of Belgium dividing into two. And, of course, much of the Middle East is riven by ethnic and religious animosities that might redraw maps.

But as emotionally appealing as splitting countries into ethnically pure compounds might be, it makes little practical sense.

In a globalized economy, nations benefit from scale, access to other markets and the ability to attract foreign investors. Breaking up runs against all those objectives.

Since the end of the Cold War prompted a major redrawing of national borders, secessions have been rare. Quebec, for instance, had strong cultural reasons for going it alone, stronger in fact than Scotland's. But in 1995, it decided that the disruption and isolation of leaving Canada would be too great.

The easy money of oil riches changes the calculus. It's no coincidence that in America, the state with the most secessionist sentiment is oil-rich Alaska, where gubernatorial candidates from the Alaskan Independence Party have received as much as 20% of the vote. And it's no coincidence that Scotland is seriously considering doing now what it hardly gave a thought to before.

It's a bad idea. Oil can raise false expectations. and it has a way of running out. If the Scots want to remain part of the 21st century world, they would be wise to remain part of Britain.

Paste BN's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique Paste BN feature.