Various leading economies have recovered reasonably well from the great crisis of 2008.
Even the US, where it all started, is reviving. Britain isn't. Fixing the UK's ailing economy was the main challenge facing David Cameron and George Osborne in 2010.
Despite a promising start, they have failed dismally. There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that Britain is not exporting anything like enough. In the league table of exporting nations, Britain languishes in 12th place.
Superficially that might not seem too bad, until you recall that Britain's prosperity was built on exporting. Now that inheritance is being frittered away. There is an insidious little fact that spells doom. We import far, far more than we export. The UK is world class at importing. These days we import, in value terms, well over £100 billion more than we export each year.
To be fair to Mr Cameron, he understands that if this continues, Armageddon indeed lies ahead. He has personally led a trade mission to India, exactly the kind of market we should be exporting more to (though we still send India aid).The Prime Minister knows that it is countries such as Russia, India and Brazil that we should be exporting to, instead of the likes of Belgium. Yet we actually export more to Belgium than we do to Russia, India and Brazil – all of them crucial, growing world markets – combined.
Mr Cameron, in his somewhat frosty, if not downright disastrous, pre-G8 summit chat in London with Russia's leader Vladimir Putin, should have been trying to open the way for more British exports to Russia. Instead he patronised Mr Putin, lecturing him about Syria, and taking the high moral ground when he had no particular justification for doing so.
Syria has nothing to do with the British economy or the future of the British people. This was inept politics, and inimical to Britain's best interests.
There is one part of the UK that is particularly well suited to grow its exports. This of course is Scotland, and I think we have here one of the more persuasive arguments for Scottish independence. I know we are currently part of two single markets, the UK itself, and also the bigger one of the EU (which is in some respects more theoretical than real).
Scotland is used to exporting to the rest of the UK, rather than further afield. Indeed on some calculations Scotland exports twice as much to the rest of the UK than it does to all other countries.
Yet it is quite possible that an independent Scotland's greatest trading opportunities would be beyond the rest of the UK, and indeed beyond the EU. Instead of being locked into a bigger economy whose very survival is threatened by its calamitous, continuing trade deficit, Scotland could become a very successful exporting nation.
And I'm not thinking only of our oil, although this should last for at least a couple of generations, and quite possibly longer. Our oil must be seen as a resource that will inevitably decrease in time, but there will be a long period to build up our exporting strength in other areas.
We are already very good at exporting high end produce, such as our whisky. Scotland's whisky exports amount to a spectacular success story that is too rarely celebrated. The whisky is not just going to Europe, where so many British exports end up, but to countries like Brazil and India. (The only problem with whisky is that the distilling process is not labour intensive.)
And as well as whisky we have world class food and, in particular, seafood. There is almost unlimited export potential here.
At the same time we are building expertise in areas like electronics and life sciences. Our universities are growing in confidence and reputation as they develop these areas.
Meanwhile I do not wish the rest of the UK any ill, but it is beginning to look as if the malaise caused by an inability to export sufficiently, combined with frenetic importing, is incurable.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article