THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND ECONOMY‐A CASE FOR REDEVELOPMENT?1
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1965.tb00744.x |
| Author | D. I. Mackay,N. K. Buxton |
| Date | 01 February 1965 |
| Published date | 01 February 1965 |
THE NORTH
OF
SCOTLAND ECONOMY-A CASE
FOR REDEVELOPMENT?’
D.
I.
MACKAY and
N.
K.
BUXTON
1.
INTRODUCTION
THE
proposed plans‘ for the development
of
the Highlands and Islands
and North-East Scotland3 make it desirable to examine the
economic
case for redevelopment
of
these constituent parts
of
the North
of
Scot-
land economy.
To
date, there has been little investigation
of
the
economic problems
of
the North-East, which contrasts surprisingly
with the plethora of literature on the ‘Highland problem’. This
dichotomy
of
approach would seem to be the result
of
a
guilt complex
dating from
‘
the Clearances
’
and of the romanticism that somehow
attaches to ‘the Highland way
of
life’, two influences which might
also explain why the extensive literature on the Highlands has failed
to present an examination of the economic case
for
Highland redevelop-
ment.
It
is the contention
of
this paper that what evidence there is
available suggests that there is no economic case for the development
of
the Highland area; that the economic solution to the
‘
Highland
problem’ is to induce the movement
of
labour out
of,
and not the
movement
of
capital into, the area; and that excessive preoccupation
with the Highlands has concealed the greater possibilities
of
develop-
ment in the North-East region.
The numerous attempts to prescribe for Highland problems have
failed to carry out the
most
fundamental diagnosis, both legislators
and economists accepting, with little discussion, the need to provide
sufficient employment
in
the Highlands and Islands to prevent future
population migrati~n.~ Only Collier posed the question:
‘
Why should
The
authors wish
to
record their appreciation
of
the assistance provided
by Ministry
of
Labour officials and by
Mr.
K. Openshaw
of
the Aberdeen
University Forestry Department, This contributed materially to the publication
of
the paper. The arguments and conclusions presented, however, remain the
sole responsibility
of
the authors.
See
Hansard
685.
Written Answers,
col.
140
(2
Dec.
1963)
and
691 /692
col.
212 (23
Mar.
1964).
3For the purpose
of
this paper, the Highlands and Islands are taken as
the mainland and island areas, comprising the shires
of
Argyll, Inverness,
Ross
&
Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orknev
&
Shetland. The North-East
consists
of
the counties Kincardine, Aberdeen, Banff, Moray
&
Nairn.
4See
A
Programme
of
Highland Development.
Cmd.
7916,
1950
Review
of
Highland Policy,
Crnd.
785,
1959;
Report
of
the
Commission
of
Enquiry
into Crofting Conditions,
Cmd.
9091,
1954,
p.
9.
The
Hiqhlands and Islands
of
Scotland
(Scottish Economic Committee,
1938),
p.
25;
T.
A.
F.
Noble,
‘The
Economic Development
of
the Highlands
’,
Marichester School,
May
1951.
23
24
D.
I.
MACKAY AND N.
K.
BUXTON
we help the Highlands?
'5
The question, unfortunately, was never
answered. By 1938 policy prescription envisaged the maintenance
of
the existing social order. Thus, with differing emphasis, it was suggested
that the primary industries
of
farming, fishing and forestry should be
developed, this narrow base
to
be broadened by encouraging tourism
and industries utilising existing Highland resources. The Government
was urged to facilitate such development by subsidies and by providing
the infra-structure
of
the economy, with particular emphasis on hydro-
electric power.6 The White Papers
of
1950 and 1959 endorsed this
intellectual heritage uncritically, and policy remains orientated towards
propping up, with increasing Government expenditure, a decaying
social and economic order. Simpson' had no difficulty in demonstrating
the inadequacy of this approach, but his conclusion, that
'
discrimina-
tory capital subsidies and current subsidies limited in time
'
must be
offered as an inducement to private industry,' is arrived at purely by
a process of elimination. There is no indication
of
how many jobs
would have to be provided, nor any attempt to indicate what economic
costs such a policy would involve.
The North-East has received surprisingly little attention; the only
systematic analysis being limited both spatially and in the type of
problems c~vered.~ With respect to development districts, the recom-
mendations
of
the report on 'Unemployment in Aberdeen and District',
implemented by the Government, were the antithesis
of
present growth
policy. The lack of available labour in the districts'O scheduled for
'
development
'
was discounted in the hope that previous migration
of
labour would be reversed and the admitted advantages
of
Aberdecn
as a growth centre were overlooked. Events since 1952 have amply
demonstrated the inadequacy of this approach, a fact recognised in
1960, when Aberdeen became a development district. The possibilities
of development in the North-East, continually neglected. should be
examined in view
of
the intensifying economic difficulties faced by the
area.
Should economists and legislators persist
in
formulating policies
designed to prevent population drift from the North
of
Scotland. then
it is incumbent upon them to give some estimate, however crude,
of
'I
The
Croftinq Problem
(A.
Collier. Camb. 1953).
p.
2. This work although
See,
for
example.
The
Highlands
nnd
I~Innds
of
Scotland
(Scottish
'
D
Simpson.
Investment, Emlployment and Government Expenditure
in
Op.
cit..
pp.
277-278.
Repori
of
the Committee
on
Unemployment
in
Aberdeen
and
Disirict,
not piiblished until 1953 had been completed
by
1938.
Economic CommittFe, 1938) and
A.
Collier,
The
Croftirig
Problem.
the Highlands, 1951-60
',
S.J.P.E.,
Nov.
1963.
The Scottish Council lDevelopment and Industry), 1952.
lo
Peterhead, Fraserburgh,
Banff
and Buckie.
To continue reading
Request your trial