If ever the words "economic" and "integration" dominate a news article in the UK, the odds are that they will be talking about the EU- aside from a usually pro-UKIP minority who tend to focus on closer ties with the Commonwealth instead. But an issue I would like to raise considers whether greater integration WITHIN the UK should be a higher priority than integration within another, larger, multinational organisation.
Over recent months, two high profile British politicians, Alex Salmond and Boris Johnson, have publicly and repeatedly made statements which advocate a greater focus on smaller units within the UK and at least some degree of separation. Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, is an unsurprising separatist, given that he leads the Scottish Nationalist Party. In the midst of the campaign for Scottish independence, Salmond is making the case for how strong Scotland's economy is: besides observing the clear assets the oil and gas supplies from the North Sea could provide an independent Scotland with, Salmond has also drawn attention to the success of other sectors in the Scottish economy, from tourism and exported goods, to powerful banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson always talks up London's economic success and strength, ranging from the arts (West End theatres, arts projects on London's South Bank...) and sport (the Olympic legacy) to world-leading companies in the finance sector, such as Lloyds and HSBC. Moreover, Johnson has argued that, given London's great economic contribution to the UK, London should be able to keep more of her own profits for her own improvement, e.g. for infrastructure, housing, etc.
Both politicians make valid points: the areas of the UK that they represent do indeed have many economic strengths, to the extent that London and Scotland undoubtedly would even have the ability to "survive" as independent countries, drawing inspiration from the likes of Singapore and Norway respectively. But across ALL of the UK there are many and various success stories which can be impressive individually, but are surely even more so when considered collectively. Rather than forming narrower viewpoints, trying to pull away their key sectors from the rest of the UK, surely it would make more sense to use the many economic assets found across the UK to consolidate their strength to compete in the global economy. Individually, HSBC and RBS are powerful banks and evidence of London's and Scotland's economic prowess- but surely by cooperating as British institutions, the collective force of the UK would be more impressive. And this could be done across all sectors in the UK, as Britain has leading or potentially-leading examples in every field, which would be stronger by pooling their resources and sharing good practice in the UK so that they are better equipped in the face of international competition. I would have thought this would prove to be more effective than attempting to break the UK into smaller and probably more vulnerable economic units, as the Republic of Ireland and Cyprus have demonstrated during this economic crisis. Despite strong international competition, the UK is still home to leading companies and respected institutions: from BP and HSBC, two of the largest companies in the WORLD, to institutions such as the BBC, NHS and Oxford University. Breaking up into smaller units would undoubtedly allow governments to tailor their structures towards their economic specialities- but surely specialising and prioritising certain industries and sectors means effectively putting too many of one's eggs in one basket, so if there is a slump in that key sector, the whole economy suffers. But by exploiting collective expertise in a variety of sectors allows for a broader economy and one that is less exposed to fluctuations in different sections of the economy.
