Nuuk of the North
The 'arc of prosperity' argument is alive and well if you say it in Kalaallisut, soon to be established as the official language of Greenland.
Last year, Alex Salmond argued, very successfully, that Scotland could be like those other vibrant, dynamic, flexible wee countries arcing around our coast; Ireland, Norway and Iceland. That doesn't look quite so persuasive these days.
But using the Obama/Salmond slogan of "yes we can", it has proven persuasive to the 57,000 or so people of Greenland, who voted this week for Nuuk, their capital, to have more autonomy from Denmark.
The particularly persuasive bit of it is that Greenland's oil and other mineral extraction potential now seems to be improving.
Without that, the 94% of its export earnings derived from fish has left it heavily dependent on subsidy from Copenhagen.
Global warming and some ice melt could help access inhospitable areas of the world's largest island - eight times the size of Britain - and Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy is to the fore in taking the new frontiers of offshore drilling and applying it to the ferociously stormy waters off the Greenland coast.
The company's new business director Mike Watts was in Nuuk this week signing off a deal on two giant exploration blocks.
That's Greenlands plan anyway. The oil price is bound to have oil companies thinking twice about risky investments until it stabilises.
But just as Greenland wants more autonomy, two neighbours are looking for more protection.
Reports from Iceland say it is extremely keen to get into the European Union to help provide some protection from its dire economic state.
The negotiations about its role within the Common Fisheries Policy would be fraught.
And Denmark, which controlled both these territories for centuries, is having second thoughts about its previous rejection of the euro.
So small countries need protection from larger countries or combinations of countries.
Applied in Scotland, that could cut two ways - the nationalist argument is that an independent Scotland could take cover under the protection of the eurozone, while unionists argue the current crisis shows the need to stick with larger and closer unions as a national insurance policy.
The same Danish debate applied in Britain also raises the question of whether it should think again about joining the euro.
European chiefs have been rather pleased with themselves at how well their currency has survived recent events, as a rare safe haven for investors.
If the UK's recession is substantially worse than the rest of the eurozone - and it could well be - there is a risk of the pound dipping below the value of the euro.
Currencies should not be virility symbols. They are merely a mechanism for pricing, and weak sterling has positive benefits for helping Britain grow out of recession.
But in Britain, sterling has been a virility symbol. And at what value could it become more attractive to give it up?
Hullo, I'm Douglas Fraser, and I'm business and economy editor at ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Scotland. Welcome to my blog, where you can read my take on money matters, viewed from a Scottish perspective.
Comment number 1.
At 28th Nov 2008, minceandmealie wrote:Tiny Iceland (population 300,000) has had a bit of a meltdown because of its extreme overexposure to the financial sector (who would have thought that 300,000 British citizens had accounts with an Icelandic internet bank?)
Norway and Ireland, however, continue to do beetter than the United Kingdom. Ireland will come out of recession with a GDP per capita still well ahead of Scotland's and the UK's; and as for Norway, they have no schemes, no neds, are always near the top of any quality of life index, and they have that enormous rainy day oil fund, which even allowing for stock market slumps must be worth more than 200 billion. As opposed to running a 100 billion plus deficit, as is the government of the United Kingdom.
Greenlanders are obviously unimpressed by scare stories, unlike some politicians I could mention.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 28th Nov 2008, oldnat wrote:"the nationalist argument is that an independent Scotland could take cover under the protection of the eurozone, while unionists argue the current crisis shows the need to stick with larger and closer unions as a national insurance policy."
Douglas, you are confusing two separate arguments -
1. Should our country (Scotland or the UK) join the eurozone?
2. Should our country (Scotland or the UK) be part of a larger economic union?
For Nationalists both answers are quite clear. Yes, we should be in the eurozone. Yes, we should be part of a larger union, but it should be the EU, not the outdated UK.
It's the Brits who are split. Some clinging to the past by pretending that the wee UK can go it alone, with a pretendy wee currency, in a big world, while others are willing to embrace Europe.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 28th Nov 2008, NConway wrote:The union between Scotland and England has served its purpose,security for England from invasion and a common market with free trade with a single currency for the Scots (long before the EU ). Its a natural progression for Scots to embrace the European Union as our future.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 28th Nov 2008, oldnat wrote:has some interesting information on Greenland politics etc.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 28th Nov 2008, Anaxim wrote:Repeating myself from Brian's blog, Greenland, unlike Scotland, actually is resource-rich, so the comparison is a bit off.
It's Greenland's misfortune, of course. Anyone who knows anything about history and economics will know about the resource trap, dooming mineral-rich societies to endless conflict and poverty. Scotland's relatively meagre resources are a blessing.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 28th Nov 2008, oldnat wrote:#5 Anaxim
I wouldn't particularly disagree with you about the dangers of the resource trap, although Norway and Australia seem to have avoided the trap. It's not an inevitability as you suggest.
The bigger difference between Greenland and Scotland is that the Greenlanders are ethnically and linguistically different from the Danes. They are a "colony", whereas Scotland is a nation which entered into union with its neighbour.
Some Nationalists, who are "grievance minded" will disagree with my terminology, of course!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 29th Nov 2008, Anaxim wrote:Norway has, and it would be to the SNP's merit if they explicitly adopted this model, rather than the Mexico-style 'erode the tax base with oil cash' model.
IIRC, Australia was running a deficit at the height of the commodities boom, so they're not a great example.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)