After the Brexit we saw Scottish nationalists pushing for another referendum on Scottish independence. A question that is raised often in the debate is if Scotland is not to small to be an independent country. But if we look at the facts than is it clear. Small countries are richer and safer than big ones.

If we look at the size of the Scottish economy than it would be a moderate country. Compared to other OECD member states. So not to bad. They would be poorer than in England. But that is the price the voters would have to pay.

But why are we pushing for bigger countries? Where is the evidence that bigger is better? Just look at Europe richest countries. Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Norway. Two are not a member of the European Union.

One of the reasons that small countries succeed is due to the social cohesion of society. Less major ethnic groups in the country. So less tension and special interest groups which need to get special benefits to keep them in society. When it comes to this then we need to have a look at Finland as a perfect example.

One reason small countries are economic more vulnerable is the fact that they are more interconnected. They have more international (trade) relationships.

One reason that many are against small states is the geopolitical implications. Small countries have the same rights as big ones within the United Nations. Next to this are small countries having a smaller army. If they have one at all.

So in times of a war, they can’t defend themselves. Militarists will also point out that there are scales of the economy when it comes to the big army. But they ignore that war is very destructive. Do we fight with each other? Why not trade and all have a nice life?

This is not what is preached. Big is beautiful. Due to inefficiency and destruction. But will we soon return to the path of economic success, safety, and prosperity?

Join Waitlist We will inform you when the product arrives in stock. Please leave your valid email address below.