The Accidental Analyst asks why is a "wealthy" country like Scotland so poor?

And can it ever be like Singapore?

“Oh flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again?”. So goes the opening line of Scotland’s national song, always sung with great gusto at major sporting events. There is no doubt that the Scots are proud of and passionate about their country - I am struggling to think of another one with such a strong national identity and character, although Ireland might come close. Scotland is also often voted to be the most beautiful country in the world. Perhaps a bit of a stretch given the competition, but no question that it has much wonderful scenery, a lot of which I can see from my house.

But this isn’t a debate about the people or the countryside. I want to focus on what Scotland is like as a modern democracy. What the relentless focus on Independence by the main party of Government, the SNP, has created and how that compares with other countries of a similar size. And I am doing this precisely because the SNP likes to position itself in the same league as say Sweden, Norway, Denmark to support its claim that being independent will somehow catapult Scotland into a new world of prosperity and quality. The other reason is that the SNP has yet to set out how this will be achieved but, given its dismal record in office so far, it doesn’t look very likely that improvement of that scale is just over the horizon.

I do however want to be clear that this is not a putdown of Scotland or the Scots. I choose to live here when I could be anywhere in the EU (thanks to my Irish passport). I very much like the Scottish people who are friendly, funny and generous. I owe major steps upwards in my career to Scottish managers. The countryside is staggeringly beautiful. However the rest is underwhelming. Nobody comes to Scotland because of the cuisine, or the photogenic hilltop towns, or the buzzing café culture. Well, if they do, they’re going to be disappointed.

I would love to see Scotland become like a Denmark or a Singapore in many ways, but I simply don’t see it happening. Ever. So this is about why that is the case and why, given its current state and future trajectory, it will always be less than it could be. Let’s start with a few questions.

Why is Scotland so poor? Or is it?

The Government of Scotland likes to claim that Scotland is a prosperous, even wealthy country. But some simple comparisons show that claim to be more optimism than reality. The SNP likes to use several companies as parallels for what Scotland could be if only it was independent, but I’m going to use Singapore. Why? Because it has the same population (around 5-5.5 million) and has been independent (from Malaysia and the UK) since 1965. Plus I worked there for three years so I have some first-hand experience to call on. Scotland’s existence as a nation is rather longer of course but it has been part of the UK since the act of Union in 1701.

The GDP per capita for Scotland is ~US$37,000 a year. The GDP for Singapore is almost double that at around US$72k (OECD figures). So, in about fifty years of nationhood, Singapore has rapidly overtaken Scotland in productivity. If you take a look behind the figures, it’s interesting. Scotland could fit Singapore into the county of Perthshire. Singapore has no natural resources, Scotland has an abundance of them. Scotland relies heavily on services for its economic output, Singapore relies mainly on high tech manufacturing.

The Singaporean Government works closely with industry and commerce to create a vibrant, dynamic economy with almost full employment. It has a scheme to identify the brightest and best talent early on, nurture it and then place those people into various companies and sectors so they gain real life experience. They fund all their education for the best schools and universities. And then, when the time comes, they are “invited” to come and work for the Government in various roles that bring all that knowledge, expertise and experience back into running the country and creating a clear vision for the future direction.

The Scottish Government does none of this. Instead it nationalises businesses for what is supposed to be in the national interest, but then does not support them. Hence they fail. It does not charge tuition fees for its own students at Scottish Universities but it does little to attract those graduates back into either business or Government. Most of the main companies in Scotland are not necessarily Scottish - they are often offshoots of British corporations. A classic example is the former Royal Bank of Scotland, now owned by the UK Government after its near collapse during the financial crash of 2008/9, and rebranded as Natwest with HQ in London.

Singapore has many world class companies that are uniquely Singaporean. Singapore Airlines is regularly ranked #1 in the world. Changi Airport likewise. The Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) is the most efficient port in the world and coming close to being the biggest. Other countries that Scotland seeks to emulate also have indigenous businesses such as Sweden, with IKEA, Volvo, Ericsson, H&M, Saab, ABB, Electrolux, Skanska and so on. Scotland does not have any such companies. Which accounts for production only being 18% of the Scottish economy.

Despite the lack of high quality, profitable companies, Scotland still levies a high rate of personal income tax, compared to England. You will pay more tax at a lower threshold if you work in Scotland. Property transaction taxes are also higher - 10% compared to 5% in England for the majority of property. Scotland also gets a “subsidy” from the UK equivalent to around £2200 per head to be spent on public services. The average salary in Scotland is around US$44k compared to US$64k in Singapore. Higher in Denmark and Sweden - because those companies pay more than working in the tourist sector in Scotland.

So that puts some context around Scotland’s “wealth” but it does not account for why Scotland looks rather less wealthy and prosperous than any of the countries it cites as role models. Therefore the “poor” angle is not really about money, it’s something else. Let’s have a look at those other aspects.

Infrastructure

One of the clearest indicators of a wealthy and well developed country is the infrastructure, especially the most visible parts such as the roads, the footpaths, the buildings, the transport, the cleanliness and general feeling that it’s all working and well maintained. If you were to fly into Singapore you would pass through Changi Airport and probably use their MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) to get into the city or other places on the island. You would go past many high rise buildings and structures, and if you took a taxi, the roads would be well surfaced and smooth. There would be no litter, no graffiti, no broken walkways and everything would have an orderly feel to it. You would find similar in Sweden, Norway (Oslo is surgically clean), Denmark, most of Germany, Switzerland, Austria and so on.

But if you were to arrive into Scotland’s capital Edinburgh, or its largest city (Glasgow) or any of the regional cities (Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee for example - all with airports and mainline stations), you would have a very different experience. I’m going to focus on one, Edinburgh, as that attracts the most visitors. The tourist view is based on the well known landmarks of the Castle, Princes Street, the Scott Memorial and various other familiar points around both the Old Town and New Town (which isn’t “new”; it’s all Georgian) All very photogenic.

But the route into the city from the airport looks and feels like it has been shelled by the Russians. Walk along Princes Street and you’ll be stepping over beggars and rough sleepers, and likely to trip on one of the many broken paving slabs. The new tram may be “clean and green” but all the other transport is diesel buses and the air quality will have you reaching for your mask. Look up at the buildings and you’ll see that most of them are covered in grime and soot. Look down and see the chewing gum, cigarette buts and litter everywhere. Try to cross the quaint cobbled roads and you’ll see all the hastily and badly applied tarmac that has been used to patch it up.

As a welcome to one of Europe’s best known capital cities it’s not the most pleasant experience. If you try to find somewhere to eat or have a drink or a coffee, good luck as you will mostly find scruffy chain stores and outlets with very high prices. You might luck out and find a table outside but it will probably be next to a pile of black bin bags.

It’s no different in any of the other cities. What were once magnificent settings are now decrepit and run down. Princes Street used to be a great place to shop but now it is all low end chain stores selling the same, mostly tourist tat, stuff you can get anywhere.

As you travel around the country by road, you might be forgiven for forgetting that Tarmac was first developed by John Macadam, a Scottish engineer, as the lack of it in many places can cause a lot of damage to your car (mine has three buckled wheels courtesy of Scottish roads). You will not fail to be “impressed” , as in appalled, at the vast amounts of litter lying by the roadside. The Scots it seems are no better than the English when it comes to respecting their environment. To be fair, some of the main A roads are OK and some are resurfaced properly. But it is very inconsistent and even on the motorways, there are bits of broken surface that can make your journey very uncomfortable or turn it into a slalom course.

Train services are not what you’d call the most modern. There is little new rolling stock and much of the network is single track and not electrified. The line north to Inverness features the extinct Intercity 125 diesels. Scotrail operator Abelio had its franchise revoked for poor performance so now the Government has taken over. High speed rail? Not really, except on the electrified routes south to London and those are not in the TGV class.

Overall the impression is of a country in decline. A scruffy, down at heel place that seems uninterested in, or unaware of, the impression it creates. And certainly unable to do much about it. It is only made bearable by the inevitable Scottish friendliness and good humour.

Hospitality

I’ve said several times that the natives are genuinely friendly in Scotland and, by and large, hospitable and welcoming. That goes a long way of course but in far too many instances that really is all there is. There is much talk of Scotland having “the best larder in the world” but I have yet to find it, either in a restaurant, pub or café, or available to buy for myself. When pressed as to what this famous larder actually consists of, most people can’t get beyond salmon (all of which is farmed), shellfish (most of which is exported) and venison (again, almost all farmed - I know, I live next to one). There is of course Scotch beef but that’s hardly a differentiator. The growing season for fruit and vegetables is short and the climate does not lend itself to a wide variety. So we get the usual potatoes (tatties in Scotland), carrots, parsnips, sprouts, turnip and swede, and soft fruit like strawberries and raspberries from Tayside and Fife. In season it is all very nice but a “world class larder”?

Ingredients aside for a moment, it’s what is done with them that counts. I know that Edinburgh and Glasgow both have some good places to eat and a decent variety, along with local variations. There are some talented chefs and attractive venues. But not nearly enough of them to consider Scotland as a foodie destination.

Sadly it also falls well below that expectation. Almost every pub, hotel and restaurant serves up the same or similar menu. And there is nothing particularly Scottish about it unless you count haggis in its various incarnations (haggis bon-bons being the most ubiquitous). It is hard to find an establishment where there is any real “cooking” going on in the kitchen. By that I mean, not just grilling or frying a bit of protein and serving it with some veg and a sauce, I mean actually combining ingredients into a dish with interesting flavours requiring some chef-like skills. The vast majority of what is on offer seems to be done for convenience so that it does not actually need those skills to deliver it. Whilst all of this might be good for overheads and might feed hungry people, it’s not moving the needle much when it comes to creating an overall culture of innovative cooking.

I often see the words “fresh, local, seasonal” on menus or websites but when you look at the dishes, it’s hard to relate what’s there to the claims made. One establishment, allegedly voted in the top five in Scotland, had, in its small Perthshire restaurant offered Gressingham duck as local (produced in East Anglia) and Wye Valley asparagus as seasonal - in February? Some do make the effort and refuse to put out food that is not relevant or fresh. But they are rare.

The one sector that does a bit better is the café. There you will very likely find things made on the premises even if it is only simple fare like scones and biscuits. They can also serve up drinkable coffee (I’m told) and my local café even had at one point, the world’s most expensive tea (at £15,000 a kilo apparently). Very often in smaller towns there is very little choice and standards can be variable. Many visitors comment to me that they simply don’t understand why more provision isn’t made. They have the money, they are willing to spend it but far too often all they get is disappointment.

Housing

Nothing says more about a country than its public housing. This is where taxpayer money is spent for good reason but the results can be grim. Again, I contrast with Singapore where about 95% of the population is housed in tall blocks of apartments built by the Government Housing Development Board, and rented to local inhabitants. The startling thing about these blocks is how well made they are and that some considerable thought went into their design. They are a key part of local communities and there are often shops and restaurants around them that local people use. If you drive at night past any of these blocks, often four or five deep as seen from the road, you will notice that every single light is working on every floor on every building. Walk past them in daytime and they will be clean and free of litter.

Public housing (council houses) in many parts of Scotland is utterly dire. It is cheaply made, badly designed and mostly not maintained (by observation). They are usually a mess with all kinds of junk in the garden and outside. They are almost always in unappealing locations. The effect they have on the general ambience and appearance of a town or city is immense and depressing. It must be pretty grim for those who live there too. But nobody seems to care. Or worry about it. Whole towns can be like this (Cumbernauld being a good example). They have no aesthetic merit whatsoever and clash horribly with the more elegant earlier buildings around them. So whatever visual appeal the town might have had once, is destroyed instantly. The “Fair City” of Perth is a classic example of this. The older part that earned its moniker is cheek by jowl with some of the ugliest tasteless efforts of public building available. And the older parts are crumbling, their facades disfigured by garish over-large shop signs at street level.

Elsewhere private housing varies between the extremely expensive for the well off, to decent just about affordable Victorian villas in the Highlands to sprawling estates of identical boxes built by mass market developers who throw them together, pack them in tightly and sell them cheaply. A few years later they start to resemble the public housing. Some parts of the larger towns and cities do have some reasonable areas with handsome sandstone homes in decent sized plots. These were built some time ago and do lend an air of faded elegance to towns like Crieff and parts of Stirling, for example.

However the overall impression remains of a country that was once prosperous but is now struggling to make ends meet and unsure of what to do next, other than hunker down and wait for fate to intervene.

I think that should convey my sad feeling that Scotland isn’t as prosperous as its leaders like to make out and that the pride in their country needs to be revisited and realigned with reality. But the question hangs in the air. Why is it like this? And is it going to get any better? If so, who would make that happen?

Education

When Singapore was founded and Lee Kwan Yew became its first Prime Minister, he realised immediately that, having no natural resources on the island, their only true resource was their people. And that the potential of the country could only be maximised if he had a highly educated workforce. The foundations were laid and today Singapore is often ranked in the very top worldwide in subjects like science and maths.

There was also a time, not so long ago, when Scotland’s education system and standards were held up within the UK and around the world, as a great example of high quality education. I benefitted from it by attending its oldest University. However by wide consensus, the entire system is in freefall and at the mercy of the EIS (Scotland’s teaching Trade Union) who seem to be dictating policy, not the Government. Not that the Scottish Government would do any better as they appear to be in equal parts clueless and incompetent. The SNP and the First Minister in particular said they would be judged on Scotland’s performance in education. It’s very difficult to get objective comparisons as the various different methodologies and tests but many informed commentators all agree that it’s not what it used to be. Scotland has, I am led to believe, withdrawn from the PISA tests used for international comparisons. I have not been able to verify this however.

What are we to make of all of this? The pandemic has certainly had an impact and now with teaching unions wielding their power, education has once more been disrupted and assessments are now much more subjective. Its very clear that any country aspiring to greatness needs a good supply of talented, well educated and motivated people in its workforce. What is unclear is how well Scotland is able to provide that from within its own resources.

Law and order

The second thing Mr. Lee realised was that to attract the companies that would help build Singapore, there had to be a strong legal system free of corruption so that intellectual property was protected and investors felt safe and secure coming to what was then not much more than a tropical swamp.

We’re not talking here so much about serious crime but it is fair to say that Singapore’s strong stance on class A drugs, has prevented it from being overrun by users and dealers in these substances. Scotland on the other hand has the highest incidence in Europe of drug related deaths, which has not abated despite a lot of attention from the Government and police.

If you look at lower level crime (vandalism, littering, petty theft etc.) Singapore also looks a much better bet than Scotland. The retention of heavy fines and even corporal punishment for offences that regularly just get a caution in the UK and Scotland, ensures that the streets of Singapore are much safer than many parts of Scotland’s cities.

Singapore has also ensured that its regulatory frameworks actively encourage and support businesses in many ways. It’s truly hard to see how the activities of the Scottish Government operate to the same level as they are regularly accused of not being interested in business nor understanding it. There is some evidence for this as they have just announced a package of measures to restrict advertising for many alcohol related products (like promotional goods for whisky) in an attempt to stem Scotland’s love affair with its national drink. Given the importance of the Scotch whisky sector for Scotland’s economy, this looks uncomfortably like a double barrelled shotgun aimed at both feet. Still, it doesn’t stop the Scottish Government from pressing ahead, just as they have renounced the oil industry that was once the backbone of their future plans for Scotland.

Where does this leave Scotland?

I return to my original purpose here which is to highlight the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of modern day Scotland and try to find a way to close it. If you observe, as I have done for several years now, up close and personal as they say, the utterances of the Scottish Government, the SNP which forms its majority and the other also rans (Labour, Conservative, Green) two patterns quickly emerge.

The first is that every thing is Westminster’s fault. All of the country’s woes are because of those nasty people in the UK parliament who just want to control Scotland. Never mind that Scotland is well represented there with MPs (as well as its own devolved Parliament) and that Scotland receives over £2000 per head more than the rest of the UK in public money, somehow that is a bad thing which holds Scotland back from its true potential.

The second thing is that none of the independence supporting parties (SNP, Green, Alba) can actually say what an independent Scotland would look like, how it would be different and better than it is now, how they would get to that enhanced state and how much it will cost or how long it will take. All they put out is the usual “mom and apple pie” platitudes about being fairer, kinder, wealthier etc. Well, yes, who would not want that? Why does that require independence? Can that not be achieved whilst remaining in the Union? Are the English so awful that they impose unfair, unkind and poorer solutions on Scotland?

But hold on here. Scotland already has considerable devolved power under the Scotland Act and has been given more since that was made law. They have control over education, health, policing, income tax, transport, business policy and many others. OK they fall into line with everyone else when it comes to true UK-wide issues like defence, but for the most part of daily life, the things that matter are under direct local control. Therefore all the things I have highlighted as examples of where Scotland disappoints and lets itself down are nothing to do with Westminster and everything to do with the effectiveness of Government under the SNP. They could fix all of this but they don’t. They just ignore it or bat it away as something they will address once they get independence.

Why would the Scottish people put up with this - being constantly on hold until a minority (for that is what it is in support of independence) decide that the moment is right to do something? Why would Scotland suddenly be able to create the industrial powerhouses that it seeks to emulate in Sweden, Denmark and Norway when it cannot do it today? What is actually preventing them from building such a country now? It is certainly not the people south of the border.

So we are left with something else. Something the elected Government and the Scots do not want to hear. It’s simply this. A lack of ambition. Sure they talk the game, but they don’t DO anything about it. All the local people I speak with all seem perfectly content to bump along as they are, accepting things as they are and not really noticing the state of their country or appearing to care too much about what they see.

What you hear and feel, from all levels public and private, is that as long as they are not quite as bad as England, then that’s OK. At Government level they say they want to be as good as countries that are already light years ahead of them but don’t articulate how to achieve it. They certainly don’t tell the voters about the high levels of taxation required in those economies to deliver the quality and extent of services they are promising the Scots. They don’t mention the lack of an industrial tax base (because they don’t have the profitable companies that already exist in their target states) which funds a lot of that Government expenditure. In fact the current Government in Scotland seems to go out if its way to make life difficult for existing businesses and does little (apart from complaining) to generate inward investment - especially of the type that formed the foundations of growth for Singapore.

What I conclude from all of this is that, very sadly, I think Scotland will never improve. It says it has the wealth but there is no visible evidence to support the wealth being used to improve the lot for the average citizen. People seem indifferent to the state of the country (and judging by the amount of litter in areas of stupendous natural beauty, don’t seem to value what they already have) and disinclined to make the efforts to change. It all comes back to just being better than England. And with all due respect to my many pals there, that is not a very high bar to clear.

What next then?

I started this before the current First Minister surprised everyone by resigning. When the PM of New Zealand stepped down because she didn’t have enough in the tank, there was a significant outpouring of praise and appreciation around the world. Sturgeon has offered a similar reason - she’s had enough. But you won’t see accolades apart from within her die hard supporters. Her legacy is one of failure over many years including making progress on the only issue she cares about, independence. So it is with a grim satisfaction that I “celebrate” her demise. I see no prospect of her successor being any different or better or able to address the issues facing the country right now.

It’s hard to see any of the other parties making any impact either. The Scottish Conservatives are as clueless as their counterparts elsewhere and their only policy is as empty as the Nationalist one is to leave, namely- stay in the Union. They offer no vision of what that might bring so the Scots look at the circus act that is Westminster and the clowns that have lead the show and draw their own conclusions. Anyway there is no danger whatsoever of the Conservatives forming a part of any Government here any time soon.

The inevitable outcome of all of this is, and it pains me to say it, just as unappealing as it is for the rest of the UK - a continued slide into mediocrity and irrelevance. The lack of vision in Scotland is a carbon (sorry, net zero carbon) copy of whatever comes out of Westminster. All the policies seem designed, whether knowingly or not, to impoverish us all even more with high taxes, poor quality public services, lack of investment in vital infrastructure and an inward looking view of the world. As I said above, the talk is talked, but the walk is not walked. Self delusion remains the default setting.

My main saving factor is that I have the wonderful Scottish countryside on my doorstep and within minutes I can be in the hills surrounded by glorious vistas and breathing in clean, clear air. I no longer have to deal with the clogged roads and crowded trains that formed my daily life in England. Even the 50 minute drive to the supermarket is a joy because of what I see along the way - as long as I ignore the litter on the A9.

As for the rest of the UK, I can’t offer much prospect of improvement. I think we have peaked and our best years as a nation are behind us. I’m glad to have experienced some of them.