Here was the cover from The Economist, in April 2012.
The UK magazine, in editorializing against Scottish independence, argued:
“The future, however, looks much dicier [for an independent Scotland]. This is a stormy economic world, and an independent Scotland would be a small, vulnerable barque. It would depend on oil for some 18% of its GDP, making it subject to shifts in global commodity prices. Though high oil and gas prices have pushed up tax revenues, if they drop production as well as receipts would plummet. The richest reserves have already been exploited, leaving inaccessible oil that becomes uneconomic when prices fall. North Sea production has been falling by about 6% a year for the past decade. Eventually the oil will run out entirely.”
“A small country is more vulnerable to other shocks. In 2008 the British government had to bail out Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and HBOS, Scotland’s two biggest banks.”
“…if they vote for independence they should do so in the knowledge that their country could end up as one of Europe’s vulnerable, marginal economies.”
Now, close your eyes, and imagine if the Economist had employed similar logic with another group’s national aspirations.
While Scotland had a Gross Domestic Product in 2011 of $186 billion, the West Bank’s was $12.79 billion.
More facts to consider which may make you wonder why the push for Palestinian statehood has taken on something of a religion among the activist class:
- The PA receives an enormous amount of aid each year from Western states, largess unlikely to end, or even decrease, in the event of statehood.The UK provided £78.8 million. Other countries which provided the PA with enormous amounts of aid are as follows (all calculated in U.S. dollars: U.S.: $667 million, EU: $600 million, UNRWA: $476 million, Arab countries combined: $110 million, Norway: $108 million Spain: $101 million, Germany: $89 million.
- While the Palestinian economy remains in a state of “severe fiscal crisis”, wages for Palestinian Authority staff eat up a remarkable 20 per cent of their total GDP, according to a World Bank report recently released.
- Despite this continuing budget crisis of their own making, Palestinian Media Watch recently reported on the salaries paid by the PA to terrorists and their families – which, in total, is the equivalent of over $51 million per year.
In short, there is every reason to believe that the new state of Palestine would be an economic basket case, at the very least, and dependent for years to come on foreign largess.
However, the Economist was only expressing skepticism towards Scottish independence due to such economic factors, not, as in the case of Palestine, fears of a newly sovereign state which could launch deadly terrorist attacks, continue fomenting a culture of antisemitic incitement – a nation which indoctrinates their citizens with the belief that they can never, ever, live at peace with a Jewish state.
“Palestinianism” has never been, for all but a small number of its proponents, a sober reflection of the social, economic, political, and military costs and benefits of creating the 23rd Arab state (next to the world’s only majority Jewish state).
No, such advocates typically can’t be bothered with such quotidian concerns, messy realities and real world consequences.
The chic Palestinian political badge they wear so proudly will not be parted with so easily.