In September this year, the Scottish people will vote in a referendum that could see the country break away from the rest of the UK. While politicians and pundits debate the consequences of big-impact economic decisions such as the country's currency or pensions, Professor Sir Paul Collier brings dire warnings of the risks of fuelling conflict and inequality if there is a Scottish resource grab.

Writing in the Financial Times (22 April 2014), Collier states:

"Amid the wrangling over sterling and the division of the national debt, one idea is unchallenged: that the oil in Scottish waters would belong to an independent Scotland. If so, however, it would not only be unethical but also set a dangerous global precedent with potentially lethal consequences."

He notes that in most societies, in both principle and practice, ownership rights to natural resources are assigned broadly to the citizens, rather than the local few who happen to be situated close by. Once this principle has been established, it cannot legitimately be challenged by those who turn out to be "fortunately endowed". In Africa, these are matters of life and death, as communities fight over the rights of the nation at large to claim natural resource discoveries.

However, there are some very serious implications in the case of Scotland, if its people choose to break away from Britain and stake their own national claim to the region's resources. There are no international legal precedents for the secession of a resource-rich region in a democracy, Collier writes.

"If it is established as a principle that local populations that turn out to be fortunately endowed can secede, there will be two consequences. One is inequality: it will create oases of wealth in deserts of poverty. The other is conflict: as in Nigeria, the dispossessed majorities will not graciously acquiesce to this precedent."

Collier's cautions are also explained in an article with the Scottish Herald: "Oxford Economist cautions against North Sea oil grab" (25 April 2014)