A meaningful comparison

Sir, – Your regular correspondent Derek Farmer last week suggested that Scotland is not fit to be independent, basing his argument largely on the fact that Scotland is a small country, and “smaller economies and smaller population numbers cannot match the performance of larger economies”.

In their 2017 “Inclusive growth and development report”, the World Economic Forum, the prestigious Swiss-based foundation Davos ranked the world’s advanced and developing countries on their “inclusive, advanced economies”, but, importantly, not on just how rich these countries are, but on how these riches benefit the people of that country.

Norway, with a population of five million, the same as Scotland, came top, followed by Luxembourg, Switzerland, Iceland and Denmark, all small independent European nations.

On average the top ranking countries have a population of just under four million.

The UK, with a population of 64 million, was ranked 21st.

Scotland is a similar small European nation, blessed with significantly more natural advantages than a country such as Norway, for example.

So why does Mr Farmer think that Norway, and these other small countries are the best in the world, while Scotland, as part of the UK, is an also ran?

The answer seems obvious to me: Norway is an independent country, managing its own affairs, for the benefit of its people, and Scotland is not. Les Mackay. 5 Carmichael Gardens, Dundee.