That's it, final straw, I'm voting in favour of Independence next year.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Yodhrin**

Ketara wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Let me get this straight. An 'exclusive poll' by a Scottish newspaper that refuses to give the numbers of people quizzed?

Sorry. Colour me a little dubious, as IIRC, a poll on the subject taken about thirty years ago filled in by the majority of the islanders came out 9 to 1 in favour of Union. The results being shown by this 'poll' seem like a rather shocking shift to say the least, wouldn't you agree?

I'll have a dig about to see if I can find the methodology for the poll for you. I will note that "refuses to give the numbers" is a bit misleading, the full story is behind a paywall, just as similar stories are on other newspapers like the Herald and the Times.

I would agree they were a "shocking" shift if, as you yourself note, the original poll was not thirty years old. It's been a rather eventful few decades, perhaps the Islanders have come to believe they have a better chance of getting devolution/home rule from an independent Scottish government than they would from the UK?

I'd be more inclined to believe that had a) the question actually been a 'scots, UK, or Independent' question as opposed to 'Independent or Scottish', and b) they'd actually been able to get a single bloke between 26-35 on the poll.

I'll wager this poll was made up by a bloke sitting in the office one evening phoning people randomly out of the phonebook. And as a result, is probably based on the input of about twenty people (because very few people ever actually say 'yes' when asked to do a phone survey).

I'm more inclined to believe the supposed representatives, than this poll.

You can of course believe what you like, personally I tend to refrain from making up completely fictional scenarios in my head and then basing my opinions on them, but to each their own. I will note that the P&J has historically been a firmly Unionist paper, so the idea that they'd just invent a poll out of thin air in order to provide a story that rubbishes two pro-Union politicians and emboldens the independence movement is....well, questionable.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Medium of Death wrote:
Not exactly sure how Shetland and Orkney get to back out of an Independant Scotland? What's the Logic based on that?

The same logic that lets Scotland split off from the UK?

**Medium of Death**

You are aware of what Shetland and Orkney are, yes? Small Islands that would be incapable of self sustaining without the infrastructure of the larger mainland.

If you quote the next part of what I said it puts it a bit more into context. These islands are most certainly part of Scotland, to claim otherwise just seems... strange.

**Yodhrin**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
Not exactly sure how Shetland and Orkney get to back out of an Independant Scotland? What's the Logic based on that?

The same logic that lets Scotland split off from the UK?

In which case they can do what Scotland has done and elect political representatives who stand with independence as their primary goal with the support of a large enough majority of their voting populace in order to give those politicians a mandate, and said politicians can then negotiate with either the UK or an independent Scotland(depending on the outcome of the referendum) to grant them the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which puts the question to their populace.

Or we could accept that this "issue" has been largely fabricated by a couple of Unionist newspapers based on the point-scoring of a couple of Unionist politicians in order to try and poke artificially large holes in the argument in favour of Scottish independence, and that a far more likely scenario is that Scotland either becomes independent or doesn't, and the Islands seek some modest form of devolution from whichever government applies.

**Orlanth**

Palindrome wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
-snip-

We're done here, I'm not going to keep trying to have a good-faith debate with someone who can't manage to go a single post without calling me delusional.

If anyone else would care to look through Orlanth's post and pick out any arguments they feel are legitimate and re-present them with less hostility, I'll happily discuss them.

There is very little point discussing things with Orlanth, he seems to have great difficulty remaining civil.

I am civil enough, however when people straight faced accuse the UK of plotting to invade Faslane, its plain as day that the argument belong to someone away with the faeries.

Medium of Death wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:

Dispute the arguments if you can and wish to, but constantly resorting to cheap shots at one of the most trusted and respected politicians in the country just makes your position look weaker, not stronger.

Trusted? Really. Haven't you heard of the problems with Salmond calling in the Menie estate bid and the way the police were mobilised to harass those opposed to the development. Police brutality for profit is the reality of Salmond in authority.

It offered a massive financial incentive, jobs and investment for Scotland. Aberdeenshire Council made the wrong choice.

Sorry thats wrong, first the Menie site is an SSI, which means there is a EU and well as UK preservation order on it, the loss of the Menie dune ecosystem is a blow to Scottish natural history.
Second the planning application for the dunes project was rejected on those grounds with caveat that Trump could have amended his proposal and reapplied. Trump however doesn't want to amend anything.
Third the 'employment opportunities' are largely vapour, Trump brought in workers from outside the country for construction, it did next to nothign for the local economy.
Fourth, heavy handed methods have been used to victimise locals who refuse to sell up, including but not limited to harassment by Trump employees, one sided policing, vandalism and destruction of property, ignoring even those planning restrictions that the called in proposal did maintain, etc.
Fifth, in one looks at Trumps other schemes, the economic aid promised rarely materialise, planning and civic restrictions is often circumvented by force majeur.

One would have to be a complete numpty to trust Trumps proposals.

Meanwhile if you still think it was a great move to call in the project:
http://www.youtube.com/user/youvebeentrumped

Medium of Death wrote:

I'm not overly fond of Salmond, I just think the Police brutality point is a ridiculous one and I don't ever remeber hearing much about Police harassment. Certainly that stubborn farmer has been "tree'd in" IIRC.

Look again, there was a lot of police harassment, including a violent arrest of a journalist while on the property of a Menie resident, and one side policing, protecting Trump workers while they damaged property owned by Menie residents on sprious grounds, while acting very heavy handedly against the residents if they tried to protest such actions.
In one incident Michael Forbes land was tresspassed on by Trump workers, they placed border markers on his farm territory, while police watched, so as to claim a portion of Mr Forbes land. When Forbe removed the boundary flags placed withouit permission on his own territory he was immediately arrested for 'theft'.

Anthony Baxter (Journalist covering Menie estate development) wrote:I began work, by speaking with the local residents and filming the tycoon’s visit to Aberdeenshire in 2010. Mr Trump had publicly said local resident and farmer Michael Forbes lived like ‘a pig’ and slated his home as a ‘slum.’ But Aberdeen’s newspapers had more pressing questions for the billionaire. ‘Is this turning out better than you’d imagined?’ ‘It’s better than I could have hoped in my wildest dreams,’ replied Mr Trump. And later on the dunes, ‘Is my hair OK? Give me a mirror.’ The words ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ were never recorded on my camera’s microphone that day. This was clearly a man used to getting his way. And it appeared to me, Mr Trump was determined to flatten anything standing in his path.

Shortly after the bulldozers moved in to destroy the Menie Estate dunes, we discovered Mr Trump’s workers had cut off the water supply to 86-year-old Molly Forbes – Michael’s elderly mother – for nearly a week, and so my Producer Richard Phinney and I went to interview Mr Trump’s chief greenkeeper who also doubled as head of building works.

After the interview, Richard and I were both suddenly arrested on the property of another local resident – Susan Munro. We were then driven miles to Aberdeen, banged up in separate prison cells for several hours and stripped of our possessions. DNA, fingerprints and photos were all taken and camera equipment and footage impounded. We were both charged with ‘a breach of the peace’ a criminal offence which you can go to jail for in Scotland.

The National Union of Journalists was furious and called our arrest ‘a blatant example of police interference stopping bona fide journalists from doing their job.’ The criminal charges were eventually thrown out by the Crown Office. But my arrest was a turning point, in what had become an extraordinary journey. I was now unwittingly part of a deeply disturbing and troubling story. And what had begun as an exercise to purely document what was happening, had now become a feature film – and I was in it.

**Ketara**

Yodhrin wrote:

You can of course believe what you like, personally I tend to refrain from making up completely fictional scenarios in my head and then basing my opinions on them, but to each their own. I will note that the P&J has historically been a firmly Unionist paper, so the idea that they'd just invent a poll out of thin air in order to provide a story that rubbishes two pro-Union politicians and emboldens the independence movement is....well, questionable.

Made up? Mate, there's the poll from thirty years ago as the first bit of proof that there could potentially be an issue of this kind. And then there's the fact that two prominent people from those locales have spoken out about it being an issue. Where two in the public eye will speak, the odds are pretty good that it is at the very least a divided issue. Odds are probably that it's not cut and clear in favour of one thing or another.

But to try and wave it off as a 'fictional scenario' is just ignoring a potential issue that could very well unfold in a few years with the referendum, and blatantly intellectually dishonest.

As to the poll, without calling into doubt the potential bias of the data gatherers/report compilers in the slightest, it is still reduced to irrelevancy on this point by two factors, both of which you continually ignore. Namely:-

a) The number of people (or lack thereof) taking part skewing the reliability of the data. No numbers of participants are given, people generally do not have a habit of filling in random newspaper polls, and the sheer fact that absolutely no men between 26-35 took part indicate an incredibly small of participants.

b) The wording of the poll was whether the islanders wished to be 'Independent' or 'Scottish'. Remaining part of the Union was not a part of the poll, and not an option given. Therefore the very poll itself in no way helps to validate your viewpoint that 'More islanders would rather be Scottish than British'.

No. The poll helps support the theory that, 'More Islanders would prefer to be Scottish than Independent'. Nothing more, nothing less.

Therefore to summarise, to support there potentially being an issue along these lines there is a full survey done thirty years ago, and the comments of two prominent personages on the islanders raising the possibility of them staying with the UK. To oppose, you have presented a poll that is on a different subject, with doubtful participation figures. Which to be frank, is pretty weak evidence. The evidence to show that there could be an issue isn't overly strong, but so far, you have yet to present a credible piece of evidence to the contrary.

If you have some though, please share.

**Rick_1138**

Well I have the great privelage of now being in king salmond's constituency after moving house next week, I was in a Lib Dem area of Aberdeenshire as I live about 8 miles from my new house currently.

I have spoken with quite a few friends who are very pro Yes vote, and in my experience, without fail, their comments and debates, facebook posts etc etc, all basically end up in a massive foam at the mouth lets get rid of the tories gig.

This is not in any way a sound reason for thinking independence is a good idea.

Watching the TV debate last week or so with SNP, Green, conservative and lib dem reps, the sheer lack of information about monetary policy and oil reserve control was frightening from the SNP. Basically they are of the belief that we will share the pound (Sterling) with England via the bank of England reserves. However this wont be the case, simply because it would be a Scottish Sterling, so not actually backed by English\UK gold reserves, so they would be worth less, confidence would be very low on the markets for some time and the one thing that stood out specifically was that the SNP wouldn't even acknowledge that the UK govt could simply say 'No' to a currency share, as its their football, they don't have to let us play with it.

The belief that these questions are seen as 'fear mongering' or simply 'that wont happen' is childish in the extreme, these are decisions which will effect our country for years and any educated, well meaning question that possibly poo poo's the idea of independence is shouted down and basic insults start flying, my fave being 'well you are not a true scot anyway' I was born in Aberdeen and lived here all my life.

The levels of Jingoism and braveheart enduced idiocy is frightening, the Govt of Holyrood basically have no policies other than independence, and it shows, a debate in the chamber recently showed that every politician other than the SNP have said that unless they are debating independence, the SNP have nothing to talk about.

Also on the subject of Oil, many of the Yes camp seem to conveniently forget that if Scotland becomes independent, the national boundry lines will be brought into force, the area ofnorth sea that belongs to the UK will very quickly be measured out and it wont be a friendly exchange, it never is with money, and Salmond and chums seem to be under the allusion that Shetland (which has some of the largest oil reserves of the north sea) will be happy to join an independent Scotland, it has gone on record many times stating that Shetland would seek to stay part of the UK as a separate island from Scotland, so that's the oil calculations out the window.

Any questions about taxation, defense spending (apart from the belief that faslane will be shut and 10,000 people will happily move to England as they will no longer have a job in Scotland) it creates no confidence in what we are supposed to believe is going to be monacco on a larger scale.

Salmond simply wants to go down in history and get his name on a plaque, he does not care a jot for you or me, and this whole thing is a folly that was simply to get votes. The recent Aberdeen Donside by-election where the SNP lost 5000 of a majority was kept awful quiet, the public know that the SNP are onto a loser and I personally cannot wait till the 18th to come to tell salmond and chums to **** off and put this whole farce to bed.

TL;DR.....Salmond has no clue

**Agent_Tremolo**

Miguelsan wrote:
...the fishing industry does not even enter the Spanish calculations.

Basically this, as opinion polls are our government's sole concern in this and any other issue. Whatever the cause, between the best interests of Spain and cheap populism, the spanish People's Party will always opt for the latter. They will veto.

**jamin484**

Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Miguelsan wrote:
...the fishing industry does not even enter the Spanish calculations.

Basically this, as opinion polls are our government's sole concern in this and any other issue. Whatever the cause, between the best interests of Spain and cheap populism, the spanish People's Party will always opt for the latter. They will veto.

...and they'd be doing us a favour if they did. I don't think that joining the EU is in Scotland's best interests but I'd be ok with it if she did. Win win. A wee transitional phase will give us the chance to nationalise some industries before we join the EU and lose the legal right to do so.

Orlanth, where is my apology? You called me a racist which is offensive. I don't want to report you but I will if you don't apologise.

**Mr Hyena**

Salmond simply wants to go down in history and get his name on a plaque, he does not care a jot for you or me, and this whole thing is a folly that was simply to get votes. The recent Aberdeen Donside by-election where the SNP lost 5000 of a majority was kept awful quiet, the public know that the SNP are onto a loser and I personally cannot wait till the 18th to come to tell salmond and chums to **** off and put this whole farce to bed.

But then we end up with Labour, Lib Dems or Tories, who, like England are VERY discriminative towards Scots. The SNP aren't great but they are the only party who cares about Scottish interests.

**Rick_1138**

Labour and Lib dems aren't discriminatory, they love Scotland as we basically keep them in power, if Scotland left, it would be Tory rule in England for years.

However the Scottish parliament was a good idea, but the idea that we should be going into independence with the lack of detailed info like tax, things like the DVLA, defence etc basically being ignored really worries a lot of people i know up here, the fear is jingoism and the 'we hate the tories' culture will lead people to vote not actually thinking how this will all be governed and run as at the moment most of the things that run a country like treasury, tax etc are based in England with no offices in Scotland.

**Mr Hyena**

at the moment most of the things that run a country like treasury, tax etc are based in England with no offices in Scotland.

This, is discriminatory.

**notprop**

But you seem to have allot of the Dole offices so its swings and round abouts really.

Now that's how you do discriminatory you damn whiney sweaty socks!

**Yodhrin**

Ketara wrote:
-snip-

The fiction I was referring to was your suggestion that the poll I posted was the work of a bored employee who just rang up twenty random people in the phone book.

The two "prominent people from the locale" are Lib Dem MSPs who were using an inaccurate and childish parody of pro-independence arguments to score political points against their SNP rivals, motivation has to be taken into context when considering validity as evidence, particularly in politics.

I actually agree that there isn't enough evidence to support either position, that's why I've been advocating that the next crowd-funded Panelbase poll should actually be two polls, one specific to the Islanders and their situation, to clear the matter up. However, you did not present in your original post an unclear scenario, you presented a series of links which asserted as-fact the idea that there would be issues. I do find it a wee bit funny that you can seriously consider a poll conducted three decades ago as valid evidence; at best, it's interesting historically.

Rick_1138 wrote:
Watching the TV debate last week or so with SNP, Green, conservative and lib dem reps, the sheer lack of information about monetary policy and oil reserve control was frightening from the SNP. Basically they are of the belief that we will share the pound (Sterling) with England via the bank of England reserves. However this wont be the case, simply because it would be a Scottish Sterling, so not actually backed by English\UK gold reserves, so they would be worth less, confidence would be very low on the markets for some time and the one thing that stood out specifically was that the SNP wouldn't even acknowledge that the UK govt could simply say 'No' to a currency share, as its their football, they don't have to let us play with it.

Would you happen to have a link to that debate, or know which channel/programme it was on? I always enjoy seeing the discussions on this subject. Regarding the currency issue, I'll refer you to the video series I posted earlier called "The Economics of Independence", as it answers this issue.

The belief that these questions are seen as 'fear mongering' or simply 'that wont happen' is childish in the extreme, these are decisions which will effect our country for years and any educated, well meaning question that possibly poo poo's the idea of independence is shouted down and basic insults start flying, my fave being 'well you are not a true scot anyway' I was born in Aberdeen and lived here all my life.

I'm not sure who it is you're discussing the issue with, but this isn't something I've experienced beyond the few dafties on twitter. Indeed having watched several TV discussion recently that included Anas Sarwar of Scottish Labour, "shouting down" the opposition is not something confined to either camp.

The levels of Jingoism and braveheart enduced idiocy is frightening, the Govt of Holyrood basically have no policies other than independence, and it shows, a debate in the chamber recently showed that every politician other than the SNP have said that unless they are debating independence, the SNP have nothing to talk about.

Frankly, I find it a little disingenuous that you will make a post that repeatedly criticises those with the opposing point of view for being childish insulters incapable of engaging with "educated" questions, and can then with a straight face not one paragraph later brand those same people as Braveheart-addled idiots. As for the current Scottish government, as I've said I'm not an SNP voter, but I find that claim ridiculous. Prescriptions, elderly care, education - all remain free at the point of access due to the policies of the current government. Arts funding has been cut by 35% in England and Wales by the current Coalition, the current Scottish government protected Scottish arts funding from all but 2% of those cuts. With the introduction of the Bedroom Tax, the Scottish government found £20million in funding from their limited block-grant budget to try and mitigate its effects, and SNP and SSP-led votes in many local councils have suspended evictions of vulnerable people who have been told they are now in arrears because of it, while Labour-led councils still refuse to do so to their great shame and mine as I voted for them. You can agree or disagree with the Scottish government's policies, but to say they have none at all other than independence is patently false and more than a little absurd.

Also on the subject of Oil, many of the Yes camp seem to conveniently forget that if Scotland becomes independent, the national boundry lines will be brought into force, the area ofnorth sea that belongs to the UK will very quickly be measured out and it wont be a friendly exchange, it never is with money, and Salmond and chums seem to be under the allusion that Shetland (which has some of the largest oil reserves of the north sea) will be happy to join an independent Scotland, it has gone on record many times stating that Shetland would seek to stay part of the UK as a separate island from Scotland, so that's the oil calculations out the window.

Regarding the boundary lines, there has for a long time now been a strong case made by the Yes Campaign that international law will result in a favourable Scottish maritime border, I have yet to see their arguments contradicted by anyone with credible academic or legal knowledge, nor have Better Together campaigners questioned on the subject been able to provide any citations to my knowledge which would support another view. You may note we are already discussing the Shetland issue in this thread, and that it is far from as clear cut as you suggest.

Any questions about taxation, defense spending (apart from the belief that faslane will be shut and 10,000 people will happily move to England as they will no longer have a job in Scotland) it creates no confidence in what we are supposed to believe is going to be monacco on a larger scale.

Which questions about taxation have not been satisfactorily answered in your view? Regarding defence spending, the current SNP government have put forward the figure of 2.5billion as their target for a post-independence defence budget(Scotland currently contributes approx 3.3billion to defence spending in the UK, of which approx 2billion is spent within Scotland), a couple of the academics in the Royal Society debate on defence put forward the idea that 2.5bil is actually far too much, and a more appropriate figure would be between 1.75 and 1.86 billion(the Rt Hon Lord Robertson on that same panel, being a staunch unionist, disagreed and suggested we would be monstrously vulnerable without at least 4billion in defence spending, but his rhetoric at the discussion included attempting to brand the Irish as cowards for remaining neutral during WW2, and implying that anyone who doesn't support the UK's interventionist foreign policy is pro-dictator and pro-massacres of civilians, so I tend to regard his claims with some skepticism). Faslane would not in fact necessarily be shut down; firstly such a decision would depend on which government we chose to elect following a pro-independence result in the referendum, but the SNP have stated they would prefer to keep Faslane open as the joint-forces HQ of the new Scottish Defence Force, although they have not given specific figures on how many would remain employed there. One of the academics on the panel I mentioned regards the defence budget seems to think that Faslane would remain open as the SDF joint forces HQ and the Navy's NATO-ops base, while the home defence portion of the Scottish Navy would have to be relocated to an East Coast base, perhaps at Rosyth, as travel time from Faslane to existing oil fields and fishing areas would be too high.

If you have any other questions, I'm more than happy to try and find answers.

Rick_1138 wrote:
Labour and Lib dems aren't discriminatory, they love Scotland as we basically keep them in power, if Scotland left, it would be Tory rule in England for years.

However the Scottish parliament was a good idea, but the idea that we should be going into independence with the lack of detailed info like tax, things like the DVLA, defence etc basically being ignored really worries a lot of people i know up here, the fear is jingoism and the 'we hate the tories' culture will lead people to vote not actually thinking how this will all be governed and run as at the moment most of the things that run a country like treasury, tax etc are based in England with no offices in Scotland.

I think you'll find if you read back through this thread a little that I've already addressed the misconception that Scottish votes decide Westminster elections.

I will also note that in fact there is quite substantial information and discussion surrounding all the points you mention, and much more will come to light in November when the current government publishes their Independence white-paper - these issues are most definitely not being ignored, several of them are addressed in the videos I have posted in this thread.

Mr Hyena wrote:
at the moment most of the things that run a country like treasury, tax etc are based in England with no offices in Scotland.

This, is discriminatory.

It's really not, and lets not start using terms like that, it only feeds into the conception some people have that any independence supporter is incapable of reasoned discussion.

**Ketara**

Yodhrin wrote:

The fiction I was referring to was your suggestion that the poll I posted was the work of a bored employee who just rang up twenty random people in the phone book.

It quite possibly was. The lack of substantive data provided combined with the popularity of the issue in the rest of the media means that it would be far from a stretch to imagine an editor telling an underling, 'Go ring as many people as you can get to fill out a survey tonight and make a story out of whatever results you get'. That kind of stuff happens in mainstream media a lot more commonly than you'd think, especially on a slow week.

The two "prominent people from the locale" are Lib Dem MSPs who were using an inaccurate and childish parody of pro-independence arguments to score political points against their SNP rivals, motivation has to be taken into context when considering validity as evidence, particularly in politics.

This is true, but does not automatically invalidate what they have to say. Ed Miliband is currently going on about capping power bills at the moment, and there's a lot of rhetoric on all sides of the political fence. But that rhetoric does not affect the fact that there is an issue with steadily rising power bills.

I actually agree that there isn't enough evidence to support either position, that's why I've been advocating that the next crowd-funded Panelbase poll should actually be two polls, one specific to the Islanders and their situation, to clear the matter up. However, you did not present in your original post an unclear scenario, you presented a series of links which asserted as-fact the idea that there would be issues. I do find it a wee bit funny that you can seriously consider a poll conducted three decades ago as valid evidence; at best, it's interesting historically.

I must admit that I quirk an eyebrow at your amusement on surveys, considering how relevant they've recently proven in similar situations. You had the case of the Gibraltar sovereignty referendum in 1967, which bore amazingly similar results to the one recently taken in 2002. You also have a running similar trend in the Falklands over several polls/surveys. Whilst it is not a gurantor of strife and discord in the case of the Shetlands in the event of Scottish independence, it is far from absurd to assert that a (relatively speaking) recent survey should be used as a logical starting ground for prediction of future opinion.

**Yodhrin**

Ketara wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:

The fiction I was referring to was your suggestion that the poll I posted was the work of a bored employee who just rang up twenty random people in the phone book.

It quite possibly was. The lack of substantive data provided combined with the popularity of the issue in the rest of the media means that it would be far from a stretch to imagine an editor telling an underling, 'Go ring as many people as you can get to fill out a survey tonight and make a story out of whatever results you get'. That kind of stuff happens in mainstream media a lot more commonly than you'd think, especially on a slow week.

Conceded, I admit it's not exactly a weighted demographically-accurate poll with clear methodology by all appearances. I've actually put an email in to the Press and Journal to ask for the details of the poll since that particular digital edition is no longer available, if I don't get a reply tomorrow I'll give their archives office a call on Monday - since this is the only recent data, I'd prefer to establish its validity one way or the other.

The two "prominent people from the locale" are Lib Dem MSPs who were using an inaccurate and childish parody of pro-independence arguments to score political points against their SNP rivals, motivation has to be taken into context when considering validity as evidence, particularly in politics.

This is true, but does not automatically invalidate what they have to say. Ed Miliband is currently going on about capping power bills at the moment, and there's a lot of rhetoric on all sides of the political fence. But that rhetoric does not affect the fact that there is an issue with steadily rising power bills.

True, but by the same token posturing on the part of politicians doesn't necessarily mean much either. I just think it's important to emphasise that there is a dislike of the SNP among the Westminster parties and their Scottish derivatives which borders on tribal hatred, strongest among Labour as the SNP are seen as having usurped their rightful place at the head of the Scottish people, but present in the others as well. Even when I still affiliated quite strongly with the Labour party I always found the attitude of Lib Dem and Labour MSPs to be bordering on the ridiculous when considering just how far they will go to invent controversies to try and discredit the SNP in general and the First Minister in particular. I don't doubt there is some desire for self-determination among the Islanders, as I mentioned before the SNP made a deal with the OSM to avoid standing a candidate against them because they considered them as natural allies, I just don't buy this idea being put about by certain staunchly Unionist sections of the press that the Islanders are going to gather up 20% of the oil and go off in a huff if Scotland dares to vote to dissolve the Union.

I actually agree that there isn't enough evidence to support either position, that's why I've been advocating that the next crowd-funded Panelbase poll should actually be two polls, one specific to the Islanders and their situation, to clear the matter up. However, you did not present in your original post an unclear scenario, you presented a series of links which asserted as-fact the idea that there would be issues. I do find it a wee bit funny that you can seriously consider a poll conducted three decades ago as valid evidence; at best, it's interesting historically.

I must admit that I quirk an eyebrow at your amusement on surveys, considering how relevant they've recently proven in similar situations. You had the case of the Gibraltar sovereignty referendum in 1967, which bore amazingly similar results to the one recently taken in 2002. You also have a running similar trend in the Falklands over several polls/surveys. Whilst it is not a gurantor of strife and discord in the case of the Shetlands in the event of Scottish independence, it is far from absurd to assert that a (relatively speaking) recent survey should be used as a logical starting ground for prediction of future opinion.

**Rick_1138**

Yodhrin wrote:

Would you happen to have a link to that debate, or know which channel/programme it was on? I always enjoy seeing the discussions on this subject. Regarding the currency issue, I'll refer you to the video series I posted earlier called "The Economics of Independence", as it answers this issue.

I don't have a link but it was on BBC 1 Scotland last week or the week before I think. It was a good debate, it was held in Inverness but apparently there are going to be more. It banged on and on about Royal mail privatisation for too long though.

Yodhrin wrote:

I'm not sure who it is you're discussing the issue with, but this isn't something I've experienced beyond the few dafties on twitter. Indeed having watched several TV discussion recently that included Anas Sarwar of Scottish Labour, "shouting down" the opposition is not something confined to either camp.

TBF most of the Yes bunch I have met up here in Aberdeenshire have mostly come in the 'daftie' camp and tbh its very draining when you are basically just getting shouted at and any serious questions are called 'project fear' so I just give up. so you are a refreshing change

Yodhrin wrote:

Frankly, I find it a little disingenuous that you will make a post that repeatedly criticises those with the opposing point of view for being childish insulters incapable of engaging with "educated" questions, and can then with a straight face not one paragraph later brand those same people as Braveheart-addled idiots. As for the current Scottish government, as I've said I'm not an SNP voter, but I find that claim ridiculous. Prescriptions, elderly care, education - all remain free at the point of access due to the policies of the current government. Arts funding has been cut by 35% in England and Wales by the current Coalition, the current Scottish government protected Scottish arts funding from all but 2% of those cuts. With the introduction of the Bedroom Tax, the Scottish government found £20million in funding from their limited block-grant budget to try and mitigate its effects, and SNP and SSP-led votes in many local councils have suspended evictions of vulnerable people who have been told they are now in arrears because of it, while Labour-led councils still refuse to do so to their great shame and mine as I voted for them. You can agree or disagree with the Scottish government's policies, but to say they have none at all other than independence is patently false and more than a little absurd.

TBF I don't think the Scot Gov is doing nothing but Independence stuff, there are policies being put in place, the issue is for the next year its all we are going to hear and I know a lot of people who are sick of it already, its basically going to bore people to death by the time the vote actually comes up. I would have more time if the Scot Gov did things like stop free prescription for those who can afford it, i.e. means test, I have Cronh's disease and need a monthly prescription for life and paying £6-12 a month is fair as I can afford it...hell I can afford GW stuff

.

Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding the boundary lines, there has for a long time now been a strong case made by the Yes Campaign that international law will result in a favourable Scottish maritime border, I have yet to see their arguments contradicted by anyone with credible academic or legal knowledge, nor have Better Together campaigners questioned on the subject been able to provide any citations to my knowledge which would support another view. You may note we are already discussing the Shetland issue in this thread, and that it is far from as clear cut as you suggest.

This is fair enough but what bothers me most is that they are making quite large claims on economic resources on something that no one knows what will happen after it all shakes out.

Yodhrin wrote:

Which questions about taxation have not been satisfactorily answered in your view? Regarding defence spending, the current SNP government have put forward the figure of 2.5billion as their target for a post-independence defence budget(Scotland currently contributes approx 3.3billion to defence spending in the UK, of which approx 2billion is spent within Scotland), a couple of the academics in the Royal Society debate on defence put forward the idea that 2.5bil is actually far too much, and a more appropriate figure would be between 1.75 and 1.86 billion(the Rt Hon Lord Robertson on that same panel, being a staunch unionist, disagreed and suggested we would be monstrously vulnerable without at least 4billion in defence spending, but his rhetoric at the discussion included attempting to brand the Irish as cowards for remaining neutral during WW2, and implying that anyone who doesn't support the UK's interventionist foreign policy is pro-dictator and pro-massacres of civilians, so I tend to regard his claims with some skepticism). Faslane would not in fact necessarily be shut down; firstly such a decision would depend on which government we chose to elect following a pro-independence result in the referendum, but the SNP have stated they would prefer to keep Faslane open as the joint-forces HQ of the new Scottish Defence Force, although they have not given specific figures on how many would remain employed there. One of the academics on the panel I mentioned regards the defence budget seems to think that Faslane would remain open as the SDF joint forces HQ and the Navy's NATO-ops base, while the home defence portion of the Scottish Navy would have to be relocated to an East Coast base, perhaps at Rosyth, as travel time from Faslane to existing oil fields and fishing areas would be too high.

Tax wise, the basic things like, who would take my tax out of my pay, do we just create a Scottish treasury, well fair enough, but who would run it, where, how would funds be transferred, would the rate of tax xhange. Basic things that even saying something like 'Scottish taxation will be rolled over from the union into a new office based in Edinburgh with staff from HMRC if they wanted to join or as contractors etc' just something to show the voters that they have thought about the day to day running of an economy, after all they are going from a pot of 66million people to a pot of 5.5 million people so tax take will be less.

Defence wise, the Big claim SNP's make is they want nukes out of Scotland. Fair enough, but Faslane is a submarine base, the submarines are there because they are the nuclear deterent, if the subs go, faslane is useless as a naval base as it cannot handle surface shipping. so it would be pointless keeping it, a NATO base would be difficult as NATO wont see the Scottish armed forces as a big player and we would lose any decision making rights we have as part of the UK, so NATO would not have a need for a Scottish based NATO base, it would be based in the UK, security concerns alone dictate that be so. Yes its a bit paranoid but the military and military orgs are not in the habit of sharing their info etc.

Also Salmond has on several occasions stated that the Scottish army would be a large group creating jobs and be a very well trained army. However many defence analysts have stated that Scotland would need a larger Navy and Air force as our assets (oil fields) will be our main concern, so a large army (per % of population) would be rather redundant. Its policy discusions like this that bother me about the idea of independence, its a bit like Milliband saying he would cap utilities costs, its a populist vote winner, but under scrutiny its a disaster, the same with army job creation, Salmond would be better claiming he would bulk up the navy, create jobs in Glasgow and Edi for ship building etc.

If you have any other questions, I'm more than happy to try and find answers.

Yodhrin wrote:

I will also note that in fact there is quite substantial information and discussion surrounding all the points you mention, and much more will come to light in November when the current government publishes their Independence white-paper - these issues are most definitely not being ignored, several of them are addressed in the videos I have posted in this thread.

I look forward to more information as a good informed populace will make an informed vote, at the moment its a lot of populist policies that sound good but fall down after scrutiny.

**Orlanth**

jamin484 wrote:

Orlanth, where is my apology? You called me a racist which is offensive. I don't want to report you but I will if you don't apologise.

The accusation of racism came from saying that the UK should be forced to give up Trident externally by an independent Scotland to 'stop British warmongering', in the context of defending an SNP policy which is clearly being voiced for anglophobic reasons, putting pressure on what would then be a foreign government to give up what it is entitled to have can only be realistically described as spiteful. The Submarine fleet can be moved, the relocation of facilities is possible unless blocked by a hostile Scottish government.

By defending an anglophobic policy with a racist epithet it is reasonable to suggest that the comment was racist, as it flatly assumes that the British are warmongers and that said warmongering is a phenomena limited to the rump UK, it also implies an independent Scotland is somehow absolved of the actions of the whole, aka those British (?English?) are warmongers, but us Scots aren't. This I found offensive.

Perhaps if you reworded your critique without denegrating the British people or nation as warmongers, then there would be no need for my response and it would be withdrawn. There are plenty of arguments to choose from to call for supporting nuclear disarmament without resorting to racist epithets. For the record a nuclear deterrent is not warmongering unless there is a first strike policy, as the UK has never gone on record of threatening a country with annihilation, the deterent should be justly seen as defensive.

**Ketara**

Yodhrin wrote:

Conceded, I admit it's not exactly a weighted demographically-accurate poll with clear methodology by all appearances. I've actually put an email in to the Press and Journal to ask for the details of the poll since that particular digital edition is no longer available, if I don't get a reply tomorrow I'll give their archives office a call on Monday - since this is the only recent data, I'd prefer to establish its validity one way or the other.

I'll be interested in seeing the response you get. If it turns out that 400+ people were polled, I'd accept it as being highly relevant to the question of whether or not the Islanders would rather be Scottish or completely independent. Although I still would not regard it as particularly applicable with regards to the question of staying with the UK in event of a split (as that was not the question supposedly asked).

True, but by the same token posturing on the part of politicians doesn't necessarily mean much either. I just think it's important to emphasise that there is a dislike of the SNP among the Westminster parties and their Scottish derivatives which borders on tribal hatred, strongest among Labour as the SNP are seen as having usurped their rightful place at the head of the Scottish people, but present in the others as well. Even when I still affiliated quite strongly with the Labour party I always found the attitude of Lib Dem and Labour MSPs to be bordering on the ridiculous when considering just how far they will go to invent controversies to try and discredit the SNP in general and the First Minister in particular. I don't doubt there is some desire for self-determination among the Islanders, as I mentioned before the SNP made a deal with the OSM to avoid standing a candidate against them because they considered them as natural allies, I just don't buy this idea being put about by certain staunchly Unionist sections of the press that the Islanders are going to gather up 20% of the oil and go off in a huff if Scotland dares to vote to dissolve the Union.

I'll happily the concede the concept of political point scoring. I'm just saying that one should be wary of discarding/dismissing something someone from the opposition says, simply because someone from the opposition raised it as an issue. It could well be the case that the islanders would go with the Union.

It could well be a majority opinion over there. I wouldn't know, I've never been there. But as it has been raised as a potential issue, at least a few people think that way, and if at least a few vocal people have mentioned it, the odds are pretty good that they are not the only ones. As such, I am currently personally inclined to regard it as a real issue, until it is proven otherwise.

I wasn't aware of the Gibraltar example, do you have any links? I will note that they're not quite so similar as you suggest, since you're comparing a single poll conducted some time ago with multiple polls conducted over the same period showing a trend.

For Gibraltar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002

Thirty five years between the two referendums, and barely a percentage shift the other way.

I do not point it out as proof that there is an issue with the Islands in the case of Scottish independence. Nor do I claim that the results and demographics will not have shifted in the period since.

No, I point out it to show that a survey taken thirty years in the past can be used as an indicator for potential contemporary opinion or issues.

Again I don't argue that issues may not arise surrounding the Islands, I just reject the hysterical case being made by elements of the Unionist press, based on the point-scoring of anti-independence politicians, that "the Shetland question" is a mortal wound to the case for Scottish independence.
.

I do not think it a mortal wound. Or really even a wound at all to the question of independence. If the Scots want to go, they can go.

What I would consider it as, is a blow to the supposed economic plan laid out by the SNP, and as a result, Scotland's economic situation post-independence. I spent half an hour or so researching the question of Scotland's economy separate from Britain six months back, and whilst I cannot remember the exact ins and outs anymore, the conclusion I came to was that a vast chunk of it was based upon oil revenue.

If we presume Scotland keeps all of it, a favourable settlement towards Scotland is worked out upon leaving the Union (such as staying in the free trade zone and the majority of national debt is abandoned/left with Britain), Scotland does okay. Not really much better than they do now (I think it was a question of an extra 2% of income per household), but everything is cool.

If we're in a position where 30% of the oil is removed, an equivalent amount of the national debt remains with Scotland, the EU isn't interested in instant acceptance, and so on, things start to look a little worse. All that free healthcare and University tuition suddenly looks somewhat precarious. If the defence budget is slashed viciously, that'll help mitigate the worst of the effects, but Scotland does end up worse off for the forseeable future.

Of course, if independence is what people want, they';ll take it. For Britain, the rest of us are more or less unaffected. Scotland currently chews up a fraction more in subsidy than they put in, so we actually do slightly better if anything.

Orlanth wrote:
jamin484 wrote:

Orlanth, where is my apology? You called me a racist which is offensive. I don't want to report you but I will if you don't apologise.

...it flatly assumes that the British are warmongers and that said warmongering is a phenomena limited to the rump UK, it also implies an independent Scotland is somehow absolved of the actions of the whole, aka those British (?English?) are warmongers, but us Scots aren't. This I found offensive.

I'm going to be honest, that's kind of my take on it as well. Our last Prime Minister was Scottish, for heaven's sake.

**jamin484**

Orlanth wrote:
jamin484 wrote:

Orlanth, where is my apology? You called me a racist which is offensive. I don't want to report you but I will if you don't apologise.

The accusation of racism came from saying that the UK should be forced to give up Trident externally by an independent Scotland to 'stop British warmongering', in the context of defending an SNP policy which is clearly being voiced for anglophobic reasons, putting pressure on what would then be a foreign government to give up what it is entitled to have can only be realistically described as spiteful. The Submarine fleet can be moved, the relocation of facilities is possible unless blocked by a hostile Scottish government.

By defending an anglophobic policy with a racist epithet it is reasonable to suggest that the comment was racist, as it flatly assumes that the British are warmongers and that said warmongering is a phenomena limited to the rump UK, it also implies an independent Scotland is somehow absolved of the actions of the whole, aka those British (?English?) are warmongers, but us Scots aren't. This I found offensive.

Perhaps if you reworded your critique without denegrating the British people or nation as warmongers, then there would be no need for my response and it would be withdrawn. There are plenty of arguments to choose from to call for supporting nuclear disarmament without resorting to racist epithets. For the record a nuclear deterrent is not warmongering unless there is a first strike policy, as the UK has never gone on record of threatening a country with annihilation, the deterent should be justly seen as defensive.

It is not Anglophobic to dislike nuclear weapons. British warmongering is made possible by a union which has a long tradition of going to war. Various people from all four nations have advocated going to war which has been facilitated by a British Military–industrial complex. It would be no bad thing if that was inhibited by the break up of the Union.

I will clarify as I accept your point about how the statement could be misunderstood. Successive British governments have been warmongers in that they have gone to war and advocated going to war very often. That is the definition of warmonger. British people are not warmongers. I'd like to reiterate that my mother is English and my grandfather is Welsh. My political views may make you uncomfortable but they cannot be construed as racist and to do so is offensive. Many people feel uncomfortable with the debate about Scottish independence and show hostility to open discussion by throwing lazy accusations of racism around. It is a loaded term and should not be used lightly as you have.

**Yodhrin**

Ketara wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:

True, but by the same token posturing on the part of politicians doesn't necessarily mean much either. I just think it's important to emphasise that there is a dislike of the SNP among the Westminster parties and their Scottish derivatives which borders on tribal hatred, strongest among Labour as the SNP are seen as having usurped their rightful place at the head of the Scottish people, but present in the others as well. Even when I still affiliated quite strongly with the Labour party I always found the attitude of Lib Dem and Labour MSPs to be bordering on the ridiculous when considering just how far they will go to invent controversies to try and discredit the SNP in general and the First Minister in particular. I don't doubt there is some desire for self-determination among the Islanders, as I mentioned before the SNP made a deal with the OSM to avoid standing a candidate against them because they considered them as natural allies, I just don't buy this idea being put about by certain staunchly Unionist sections of the press that the Islanders are going to gather up 20% of the oil and go off in a huff if Scotland dares to vote to dissolve the Union.

I'll happily the concede the concept of political point scoring. I'm just saying that one should be wary of discarding/dismissing something someone from the opposition says, simply because someone from the opposition raised it as an issue. It could well be the case that the islanders would go with the Union.

It could well be a majority opinion over there. I wouldn't know, I've never been there. But as it has been raised as a potential issue, at least a few people think that way, and if at least a few vocal people have mentioned it, the odds are pretty good that they are not the only ones. As such, I am currently personally inclined to regard it as a real issue, until it is proven otherwise.

Fair enough, for myself I consider it a bit more of a storm in a teacup; something interesting that needs to be explored, but not a crisis scenario in the way it was presented by the press.

I wasn't aware of the Gibraltar example, do you have any links? I will note that they're not quite so similar as you suggest, since you're comparing a single poll conducted some time ago with multiple polls conducted over the same period showing a trend.

For Gibraltar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002

Thirty five years between the two referendums, and barely a percentage shift the other way.

I do not point it out as proof that there is an issue with the Islands in the case of Scottish independence. Nor do I claim that the results and demographics will not have shifted in the period since.

No, I point out it to show that a survey taken thirty years in the past can be used as an indicator for potential contemporary opinion or issues.

Aye you're right on that, I think I was reacting more to the tone of the articles than yours, conceded.

What I would consider it as, is a blow to the supposed economic plan laid out by the SNP, and as a result, Scotland's economic situation post-independence. I spent half an hour or so researching the question of Scotland's economy separate from Britain six months back, and whilst I cannot remember the exact ins and outs anymore, the conclusion I came to was that a vast chunk of it was based upon oil revenue.

If we presume Scotland keeps all of it, a favourable settlement towards Scotland is worked out upon leaving the Union (such as staying in the free trade zone and the majority of national debt is abandoned/left with Britain), Scotland does okay. Not really much better than they do now (I think it was a question of an extra 2% of income per household), but everything is cool.

If we're in a position where 30% of the oil is removed, an equivalent amount of the national debt remains with Scotland, the EU isn't interested in instant acceptance, and so on, things start to look a little worse. All that free healthcare and University tuition suddenly looks somewhat precarious. If the defence budget is slashed viciously, that'll help mitigate the worst of the effects, but Scotland does end up worse off for the forseeable future.

Of course, if independence is what people want, they';ll take it. For Britain, the rest of us are more or less unaffected. Scotland currently chews up a fraction more in subsidy than they put in, so we actually do slightly better if anything.

Hnnng, there's a few wee issues here I feel the need to engage with.

Regarding the Scottish economy's dependence on oil; it's really not. Currently, within the UK, Scotland raises 99% of the average tax per-head of population without including oil revenue. Discounting oil, it is the third wealthiest part of the country after London and the South East. If you factor the oil in to those two points, it goes up to between 115% and 118% of the average tax, and the second wealthiest after only London. Current estimates are that factoring in the oil industry in its entirety(including dependent services/suppliers) would increase the size of the Scottish economy by 20%, meaning it would take up about 16% of the overall independent economy. That compares favourably with the UK economy's dependence on the financial services sector. Even if the Islanders found some legal loophole and the political and popular will to remain within the UK with their 20-30% of oil reserves, it wouldn't even come close to crippling an independent Scottish economy - it would have to be accounted for certainly, it would likely take us a few extra years to build our sovereign wealth fund, but it's not a disaster.

Regarding the debt; it is highly likely that Scotland will take on a population share of the UK's debt, although it's possible the UK will concede some proportion of that during negotiations in lieu of giving us a population share of other assets that they would prefer to keep or it would be impractical to split. That fact has been factored in to every analysis of the post-independence economy I've seen, and even if we took the full-whack of a population share, it would still be less of a burden on our economy than our share of the UK's debt is currently. Our deficit is also estimated, assuming a full population share etc, to be a slightly smaller percentage of GDP than the UK.

The panel debate I posted earlier really does handle the whole EU scenario rather thoroughly, but again, the gist of it is that there are unlikely to be any unresolvable issues with entry into the EU. Even then, it's a struggle for me to accept uncertainty over EU membership as a point against independence, since the UK as a whole will likely be having an in-out referendum on the EU by 2017, and all indications are that the anti-EU sentiment which is at its most fervent in England will take us out with no regard at all for Scotland, which will have just as damaging an effect on our economy within the UK umbrella as failure to achieve continuing EU membership would to a potentially independent Scottish economy. "Rolling the dice" on independence looks more and more like it will give us a better chance of retaining EU membership.

Finally we come to the seemingly inextinguishable myth of Scotland as Subsidy Junky(I'm aware you didn't resort to the hyperbolic terminology of the press, but I feel it important to point out where this concept has come from). The common way of explaining why this is false is with the percentages.

Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population.
We receive 9.3% of the spending.
And we contribute 9.9% of the tax.

Now that has to be qualified of course; because the UK runs at a deficit, in absolute terms 9.3% of the spending is actually more money than 9.9% of the tax. But that fact leads logically into the other, the one which Unionists when bringing up the absolute numbers always fail to mention; since the whole of the UK is running the deficit, the proportions remain constant across the country, and so all regions with a similar percentage profile gain more spending in absolute terms than they contribute in tax. In some regions the gap is actually much, much larger. As such, the percentage values are an accurate reflection of Scotland's contribution to the economy, since we service our share of the nation's debt out of that taxation like all the other regions.

Further qualification needs to be made as to what exactly constitutes that 9.3% of spending "on Scotland". We have to remember that the Scottish government only gets to control a portion of that spending, as part of the block-grant, the rest is controlled by the UK Treasury, and they've shown they have an extremely flexible definition of what goes into that 9.3%. For example; HS2, the new high-speed rail system which will stop almost 200 miles short of any Scottish train station, which will provide no jobs in Scotland, and which will actually accelerate the accretion of talent, jobs, and revenues within London and the SE? Yeah, we're paying a population share of that, because the Treasury have declared it within "our" spending allocation. We paid a population share of the funding for the Olympics, and saw very little economic benefit, but it still counts towards that 9.3%.

Scotland spends more per-head on social security than the UK average, but in an independent Scotland(even without factoring in oil), it would form a lower percentage of our GDP than the UK.

Scottish exports are what prevents the UK's trade deficit from becoming unmanageable, and if that did happen the value of Sterling would be in an extremely precarious situation, which itself could cause a serious dip in the markets and put the rUK right back into a deep recession, hence why the idea of a Sterling-zone is rather more plausible than the No campaign would suggest - it would be in the best interests of the rUK to have the Scottish economy tied in to the pound.

There was a time, in the wake of Thatcher's massacre of UK industry when Scotland, like many other parts of the UK, was "dependent" on "hand outs" because of mass unemployment(much of the costs of the UK's unemployment benefit in those times was of course covered by the UK Treasury's use of....Scottish oil revenues), but that's ancient history in economic terms. Scottish economic productivity is the same as the UK as a whole, our rates of employment and unemployment are actually slightly better, we have a modern service economy capable of functioning independently even without oil revenues, and in many regards the UK is more dependent on our participation in it than we are upon it.

That doesn't mean all indy supporters are delusional optimists who see a golden land of milk and honey popping into existence the moment we leave the UK; our economy is just as dependent as the rUK's on low-skill, low-wage jobs, we will need to substantially rework our tax regime and spending allocations in order to address that, as well as our issues with concentrated pockets of low-life expectancy and associated poverty. But we are not subsidised by the UK.

EDIT: Fixing stupid formatting, will get to Rick's points in a moment...

**Ketara**

Yodhrin wrote:

Hnnng, there's a few wee issues here I feel the need to engage with.

Regarding the Scottish economy's dependence on oil; it's really not. Currently, within the UK, Scotland raises 99% of the average tax per-head of population without including oil revenue. Discounting oil, it is the third wealthiest part of the country after London and the South East. If you factor the oil in to those two points, it goes up to between 115% and 118% of the average tax, and the second wealthiest after only London. Current estimates are that factoring in the oil industry in its entirety(including dependent services/suppliers) would increase the size of the Scottish economy by 20%, meaning it would take up about 16% of the overall independent economy. That compares favourably with the UK economy's dependence on the financial services sector. Even if the Islanders found some legal loophole and the political and popular will to remain within the UK with their 20-30% of oil reserves, it wouldn't even come close to crippling an independent Scottish economy - it would have to be accounted for certainly, it would likely take us a few extra years to build our sovereign wealth fund, but it's not a disaster.

Like yourself, I don't believe the oil to be overly integral to Scotland's independent capacity for being financially stable. I do however, think that without it, the amazing economic boom the SNP seem to be predicting is somewhat.....threatened. Without retaining all of those oil reserves, things will at best stay the same with regards to finance per head. And if that is the case, where indeed is the economic incentive/motivation to become independent?

Hence why I believe that losing that thirty percent is relevant, as it may well impact negatively on the SNP's rosy financial vision.

Regarding the debt; it is highly likely that Scotland will take on a population share of the UK's debt, although it's possible the UK will concede some proportion of that during negotiations in lieu of giving us a population share of other assets that they would prefer to keep or it would be impractical to split. That fact has been factored in to every analysis of the post-independence economy I've seen, and even if we took the full-whack of a population share, it would still be less of a burden on our economy than our share of the UK's debt is currently. Our deficit is also estimated, assuming a full population share etc, to be a slightly smaller percentage of GDP than the UK.

The problem is that the proportion of national debt to be split seems to be somewhat in doubt. I recall reading something from the SNP about them more or less just leaving it all to us, and someone else commenting about how that was how they worked out their economic strategy. I'll concede that I cannot remember precisely where I read it though, so I won't contest/debate along those lines.

The panel debate I posted earlier really does handle the whole EU scenario rather thoroughly, but again, the gist of it is that there are unlikely to be any unresolvable issues with entry into the EU. Even then, it's a struggle for me to accept uncertainty over EU membership as a point against independence, since the UK as a whole will likely be having an in-out referendum on the EU by 2017, and all indications are that the anti-EU sentiment which is at its most fervent in England will take us out with no regard at all for Scotland, which will have just as damaging an effect on our economy within the UK umbrella as failure to achieve continuing EU membership would to a potentially independent Scottish economy. "Rolling the dice" on independence looks more and more like it will give us a better chance of retaining EU membership.

I do not think that entering the EU will prove an insurmountable problem for an independent Scotland. I do however, believe the process would take somewhere between three to five years. And that that period of time without access to a free trade market would initially impact quite negatively on Scottish exports.

Whilst it would be more of a temporary initial adjustment that would soon be corrected, I believe it would initially leave Scotland rather worse off than it currently is in several fields financially speaking. And that this fact is one that the SNP seems keen to overlook.

Finally we come to the seemingly inextinguishable myth of Scotland as Subsidy Junky(I'm aware you didn't resort to the hyperbolic terminology of the press, but I feel it important to point out where this concept has come from). The common way of explaining why this is false is with the percentages.

Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population.
We receive 9.3% of the spending.
And we contribute 9.9% of the tax.

Now that has to be qualified of course; because the UK runs at a deficit, in absolute terms 9.3% of the spending is actually more money than 9.9% of the tax. But that fact leads logically into the other, the one which Unionists when bringing up the absolute numbers always fail to mention; since the whole of the UK is running the deficit, the proportions remain constant across the country, and so all regions with a similar percentage profile gain more spending in absolute terms than they contribute in tax. In some regions the gap is actually much, much larger. As such, the percentage values are an accurate reflection of Scotland's contribution to the economy, since we service our share of the nation's debt out of that taxation like all the other regions.

One does have to consider though, what would Scotland's credit rating and economic clout be without the rest of Britain? Would it still be capable of borrowing at the same interest rates? What part of Government bonds (gilts) would Scotland be liable to keep paying, and would those gilts be as highly valued?

Allow me to hypothesize a potential (and indeed, likely) scenario involving the above points. Imagine Scotland goes independent. The Islanders have stayed with the British, and 30% of the oil remains in the hands of the Britain, and a proportionate amount of debt has been passed to Scotland. The EU begins the process of membership, but it will take four years total for membership to be granted.

So, Scotland is excluded from the free market. Scotland's imports/exports are suddenly liable for varying tariffs and taxes throughout Europe. The new SNP Government has massive administrative costs to meet in setting up the new institutions and apparatus of Government. As a result, Scotland looks to make up and subsidise these shortfalls through taking out loans (naturally).

However, no longer being tied to the Bank of England and the varying financial treaties, laws, and preconditions, Scotland is not seen as being as good a financial security as Britain. Lacking access to the common market also works against views as to its capacity to repay. It receives a lower credit rating, meaning it pays more interest on loans, and the gilts are worth less. When you consider it is already spending beyond its means (like most countries), independent Scotland is now already facing massive budgetary problems. Even by slashing defence funding savagely, Scotland will still not be able to make up the shortfall.

Unfortunately, being on the tail-end of a recession, this all hits industry rather badly. The Scottish currency devalues, and next thing you know, Scotland is back into recession.

Now I concede that these are temporary issues and problems. Balanced well, they could be worked through by a good administration and reversed in a period of ten or so years.

The problem is that the population of Scotland is currently being sold this idea of every household being better off the moment independence is acquired, not a period of financial instability and turbulence.

Further qualification needs to be made as to what exactly constitutes that 9.3% of spending "on Scotland". We have to remember that the Scottish government only gets to control a portion of that spending, as part of the block-grant, the rest is controlled by the UK Treasury, and they've shown they have an extremely flexible definition of what goes into that 9.3%. For example; HS2, the new high-speed rail system which will stop almost 200 miles short of any Scottish train station, which will provide no jobs in Scotland, and which will actually accelerate the accretion of talent, jobs, and revenues within London and the SE? Yeah, we're paying a population share of that, because the Treasury have declared it within "our" spending allocation. We paid a population share of the funding for the Olympics, and saw very little economic benefit, but it still counts towards that 9.3%.

This is not a new complaint. Look up the protests about the second writ of ship tax in 1635. I could use it to complain about my tax going to fund hospitals in Scotland, benefits in Scotland, renewing historical sites of importance in Scotland, etc etc. When you're part of a country, you more or less sign up to the fact that your tax paid does not always benefit you directly.

Scottish exports are what prevents the UK's trade deficit from becoming unmanageable, and if that did happen the value of Sterling would be in an extremely precarious situation, which itself could cause a serious dip in the markets and put the rUK right back into a deep recession, hence why the idea of a Sterling-zone is rather more plausible than the No campaign would suggest - it would be in the best interests of the rUK to have the Scottish economy tied in to the pound.

I'm not convinced that Scotland's industrial capacity is propping up the pound. I think there would be some minor tremors on Scotland leaving, but they'd steady within six months for Britain.

I also think another result would quite possibly be a revival of industry in the north of england in mid-to long term.

There was a time, in the wake of Thatcher's massacre of UK industry when Scotland, like many other parts of the UK, was "dependent" on "hand outs" because of mass unemployment(much of the costs of the UK's unemployment benefit in those times was of course covered by the UK Treasury's use of....Scottish oil revenues), but that's ancient history in economic terms. Scottish economic productivity is the same as the UK as a whole, our rates of employment and unemployment are actually slightly better, we have a modern service economy capable of functioning independently even without oil revenues, and in many regards the UK is more dependent on our participation in it than we are upon it.

I think Scottish productivity is generally better than the worse areas of Britain, but not quite so good as London and the South East. In terms of a service economy, the SNP's idea that Scotland would suddenly become a new global financial hub is so ludicrous as to barely merit an answer.

In other words, to summarise, I think that independence would initially be a financial pitfall for Scotland. Provided competent action is taken to nullify the worse effects, Scotland would emerge into a stable and perfectly fine economy again within ten years, but that period beforehand would be turbulent and painful. And the people at the other end would ultimately be more or less just as well off as they are now.

So having removed the economic argument for me, the other ones for independence more or less fall flat. The idea of, 'those pesky Englishmen running our country' is rubbish, the last Prime Minister was Scottish. The idea of 'We want more say over our own governance', is one that could be echoed by anyone living in Bristol or Cornwall (we have yet to see them chasing independence). For me, I think independence is a more or less nationalist bugbear. And that makes me oppose it.

**Yodhrin**

Given the lengths of these two replies I've spoilered them. First is my response to Rick_1138:

Spoiler:

And to Ketara;

Spoiler:

EDIT: Fixed formatting.

**Ketara**

Yodhrin wrote:
Given the lengths of these two replies I've spoilered them. First is
I don't see how you're working out that. Lets say Scotland only gets 65% of the oil, meaning the economy will only receive a 13% boost rather than 20%. As I say, that would certainly slow down the creation of the sovereign wealth fund, but I don't see how it would ruin the financial case for independence given the case for Scotland's potential prosperity as an independent nation state is not predicated on oil revenues, but rather upon the positive effect we could have on our existing(oil-excluded) economy with full tax&spend powers at our disposal.

I don't believe it would 'ruin' it, but rather that it weakens the claim that every Scottish household is suddenly amazingly better off. And since that claim is part of what drives the 'yes' camp, I believe it weakens it overall somewhat. Not much, not even a large amount, but enough to be relevant.

As regards the idea that a new Scottish Government composed solely of Scottish interest driven Scotsmen would suddenly be able to realise the 'potential' of Scotland...well. I know I keep saying it, but our last Prime Minister was Scottish. No, he doesn't take decisions with Scotland first and foremost in his mind, but nor does he make them with Wales or England. He's the collective first minister amongst a group of equals of our United Kingdom. His job is to realise our collective potential, which includes Scotland.

If he's not doing it right, vote for someone else. Scotland alone won't be able to change the Prime Minister, but then again, neither can people from Devon or Northern Ireland. People living a mile north of the border are no different from the people a mile south of it. What makes their 'potential' suddenly so much greater that it's being restrained by being part of the Union?

I think someone's been yanking your chain on that one, every investigation or comment I've seen on the subject assumes somewhere close to a population share of the debt.

If I recall correctly, it was when the question was first floated some time back. It could well be they tabled an amended press release a week later and I missed it (like with the Shetlands thing).

I'm afraid the UK government's own legal advisor Professor James Crawford would disagree, as he considers the idea of negotiating full accession into the EU within the 18 month period between the referendum and proposed Independence Day as "realistic".

From 1995, the average acession period to the EU has been 9 years. Whilst it is not expected for it to take so long, the SNP's prediction of 16 months is somewhat...optimistic. I do expect it to be fast tracked, but 18 months? Pull the other one. Professor Crawford's opinion is just that. Several countries within the EU have had their foreign Ministers disagree on that particular timeframe, and as diplomats in the EU, have equally relevant opinions.

Ultimately, the fact is that nobody knows. Crawford made his estimate, other people have said differently. Like with most things in this debate, a lot of 'facts' are bandied about on both sides, but nobody really knows until it comes to the crunch. Hence my prediction of three to five years (as the average is currently nine years). I could be wrong, but ultimately it comes down to guesstimation on just about everyone's scorecards.

On the contrary, the negative impact lack of EU membership would have on Scottish exports comes up often, especially at debates. The issue isn't that Yes advocates(and remember a large plurality of us don't identify with the SNP) are avoiding the question, it's that we've investigated the question and don't find the scenario plausible.

No? Why not? I'm curious. Considering you just told me how Scotland's strength is in its industrial base, why will suddenly falling foul of many, many trade laws and tariffs not be a problem? Why will exclusion from the common market for a period of years not be a 'plausible' problem?

I'm sorry, but this is really a wee bit of nonsense. First as I, the government, the UK government's legal advisor, and an endless cavalcade of academics and former EU bureaucrats have said; the idea that Scotland will fail to be granted accession into the EU is not even remotely likely. Since that is the point on which your whole doomsday hypothetical turns, the rest rather evaporates.

No. The point is not that Scotland will fail to gain entry. I think it will gain entry, and fast track entry at that. It will simply take a period of years rather than walking up to a table and signing a bit of paper. And Scotland will suffer troubles in the duration. If you intend to call it 'nonsense', please do not erect strawmen to beat it with.

Nobody is being "sold" the idea you say, every time I watch a debate or read a paper on the subject, great pains are taking by pro-independence speakers to point out that nothing is guaranteed and cannot be, from either camp. That this isn't about taking one magical step to grant us everlasting prosperity, but rather about giving us the tools which will let us reshape our economy and society in the way we choose. The only people asserting that the Scottish people are being sold a lie by the Yes Campaign are the No Campaign.

That's surprising. It could be a difference in press coverage, but most of what I seem to see and hear on the matter are ludicrous statements by the SNP on how much more amazing absolutely everything will be upon independence from Britain. But I'm relying primarily on The Times and the BBC website there.

That is a given, I was attempting to explain the reasoning why the percentage figures are more important to the debate than the absolute money figures; it is often asserted that because the absolute value of the 9.3% is larger than the absolute value of the 9.9%, Scotland is being subsidised by the UK. The fact that some of that 9.3% is not actually spend to the benefit of the Scottish economy is one of several reasons given to undermine that specific accusation. We're not complaining that we pay into the UK economy, we're complaining that people turn around and try to use that positive contribution to smear us as leeches dependent on English subsidy.

I never accused Scotland of leeching off the UK. I think that Scotland takes, and I quote from my original statement a fraction more in subsidy then it generates, but I'm well aware that Scotland doesn't do too badly for itself economically. No need to lump me into in the same camp.

I was however, responding to the concept that you guys paid into something you never got any benefit from, and that this was somehow unfair.

And I think that is an extremely optimistic idea given the policies of both this and the prior UK governments, as well as the massive financial and social influence wielded within the UK government by City financiers.

I think it might actually be a result of global shift in the long term anyway. As labour prices in the rest of the world are rising steadily, we're actually already beginning to see a migration of small business back to Britain anyway. Sourcing abroad only works so long as the pay there is a pittance and shipping combined with it costs less than producing domestically.

So you agree with exactly what I stated; Scotland is the third wealthiest part of the UK even without oil revenues of any kind, and we are within 1% of the UK average. Regarding this SNP idea; source? Not something I've heard before, and regardless not what I meant by service economy; there's more to a service economy than the financial sector, as evidenced by the many similarly-sized EU nations with a service-based economy not dependent on their financial sectors.

Fair enough. Like my comments earlier, it was something I read some time back (4-5 months in this case), and it was by a SNP minister. But as I can't recall the date from the top of my head, you're not arguing it, and I cannot quite be bothered to go digging, I'll leave it there.

In regards to your summary, I evidently disagree. I think the case for an economically stable Scotland is solid, I think the scenarios put forward by opponents of independence to try and dispute that case range from vastly overstated to outright ludicrous(not yours, I refer to some of the more tabloid-esque versions I've read), and I think the reason those vastly overstated disaster-movie scenarios keep being put toward is that Better Together are unable to formulate a plausible, reasonable, rational challenge to the idea of an economically stable independent Scotland.

And it's funny you should mention the Cornish...[/spoiler]

I mentioned the Cornish ironically, wondering if you'd pick up on it.

To quote a Cornishman on the issue, 'Nobody takes it seriously, it's just something we say when we want to pick on a rowdy visitor in the pub, or the Government's done something specifically to hack us off'.

**Yodhrin**

Ketara wrote:

As regards the idea that a new Scottish Government composed solely of Scottish interest driven Scotsmen would suddenly be able to realise the 'potential' of Scotland...well. I know I keep saying it, but our last Prime Minister was Scottish. No, he doesn't take decisions with Scotland first and foremost in his mind, but nor does he make them with Wales or England. He's the collective first minister amongst a group of equals of our United Kingdom. His job is to realise our collective potential, which includes Scotland.

No, his job is to grow the UK economy as a whole, that's why money, jobs, inward investment efforts and so forth have all been sweeping towards London for years now, while there are parts of Glasgow where nearly 3 in 5 children are in poverty, or where the average lifespan of a man is 58 years old.

It's not about "being Scottish", it's about being able to make policy decisions based on our immediate needs rather than being lumped with whatever policy goes down well in the south of England, and make no mistake that is what's happening. The "Bedroom Tax" deal that's been going on recently exists because the massive property bubble in London drove up rent so much that the housing benefit bill was becoming uncontrollable, so they brought in this idiotic policy; but Scotland doesn't have that problem, and more importantly, we don't have it to such a degree that there literally aren't enough smaller social housing units for people to move into, so they are stuck in a home that the UK government has decided, on the basis of an issue almost exclusively confined to London and the SE, is "too big" but have nowhere to go, so they're now unable to afford their rents and are going into arrears.

And it isn't just about being able to avoid policies that make no sense for us, it's about being able to stimulate parts of the economy that are more important to us, it's about being able to encourage travel by reducing or eliminating airport passenger duty, it's about being able to focus our resources more effectively.

If he's not doing it right, vote for someone else. Scotland alone won't be able to change the Prime Minister, but then again, neither can people from Devon or Northern Ireland. People living a mile north of the border are no different from the people a mile south of it. What makes their 'potential' suddenly so much greater that it's being restrained by being part of the Union?

If people in Devon or Northern Ireland want to be independent from Westminster, they can do exactly what we have done; form a political party with that as their primary policy, stand that party in Westminster elections and lobby for devolution, stand and elect a party with the same platform to their new devolved parliament, and do so with a convincing enough majority that said party has a mandate to seek an agreement from Westminster to hold a legally binding referendum.

As for voting for someone else; the point is that we're past that point. Many of us no longer believe that Westminster can be fixed, nevermind if it should or not. Westminster politics are becoming ever more like Washington politics; two big parties with barely a tissue paper between them, appealing to different voting blocs in their rhetoric, but in practice they will both borrow, spend, cut, war, and vilify whenever it suits their interests. We have an opportunity to build something better.

I'm afraid the UK government's own legal advisor Professor James Crawford would disagree, as he considers the idea of negotiating full accession into the EU within the 18 month period between the referendum and proposed Independence Day as "realistic".

From 1995, the average acession period to the EU has been 9 years. Whilst it is not expected for it to take so long, the SNP's prediction of 16 months is somewhat...optimistic. I do expect it to be fast tracked, but 18 months? Pull the other one. Professor Crawford's opinion is just that. Several countries within the EU have had their foreign Ministers disagree on that particular timeframe, and as diplomats in the EU, have equally relevant opinions.

Ultimately, the fact is that nobody knows. Crawford made his estimate, other people have said differently. Like with most things in this debate, a lot of 'facts' are bandied about on both sides, but nobody really knows until it comes to the crunch. Hence my prediction of three to five years (as the average is currently nine years). I could be wrong, but ultimately it comes down to guesstimation on just about everyone's scorecards.

How many people would it take to convince you, out of interest? We've had the UK government's own legal advisor, we've had the experts in the video I posted earlier one a distinguished academic the other a former EU bureaucrat with decades of experience as part of accession negotiations, we've had politics professors from half a dozen universities - at what point would you accept that "nobody knows" is not the same thing as "all possibilities are equally likely"?

No? Why not? I'm curious. Considering you just told me how Scotland's strength is in its industrial base, why will suddenly falling foul of many, many trade laws and tariffs not be a problem? Why will exclusion from the common market for a period of years not be a 'plausible' problem?

It won't be a problem because I don't think the idea we'd be forced out of the common market for even a few weeks is plausible, let alone several years.

I'm sorry, but this is really a wee bit of nonsense. First as I, the government, the UK government's legal advisor, and an endless cavalcade of academics and former EU bureaucrats have said; the idea that Scotland will fail to be granted accession into the EU is not even remotely likely. Since that is the point on which your whole doomsday hypothetical turns, the rest rather evaporates.

No. The point is not that Scotland will fail to gain entry. I think it will gain entry, and fast track entry at that. It will simply take a period of years rather than walking up to a table and signing a bit of paper. And Scotland will suffer troubles in the duration. If you intend to call it 'nonsense', please do not erect strawmen to beat it with.

When I say "fail to be granted accession" I should have added "immediately", apologies. I've said this before, but just for a moment, consider exactly what impact shutting Scotland out of the EU could have on the rUK and on the continent, and then consider whether it's in the best interests of Spain or anyone else in the EU to have a second potentially Greece-level economic collapse right on their doorsteps. If Scotland fails to gain EU membership as part of the 18-month negotiation period, energy costs in rUK are going to go through the roof, businesses are going to fail north and south of the border, at the very least the UK's pitifully slow recovery would halt, if there was a serious drop in the value of the pound or a large enough fluctuation in the shares market rUK could find itself right back in the depths of a serious recession again, and this time we're talking about an economic crash in a nation with the highest combined public-private debt per-capita in the developed world - more than Greece, more than the USA. A national debt to which Spanish, French, and German banks are still heavily exposed. Would that happen? Who knows, as you say everything is uncertain, every moment in time a critical mass of potential that could unfold in any way. The point is that the idea politicians in other EU nations could look at the potential outcomes of independence, including the possible economic consequences for themselves of each course of action they could take, and conclude that obstructing Scottish membership would be a good idea just doesn't fly.

Please, watch the video I posted, it is long but it goes through this whole issue step by step in serious detail and outlines exactly why the accession process being complete within 18 months is entirely plausible.

I mentioned the Cornish ironically, wondering if you'd pick up on it.

To quote a Cornishman on the issue, 'Nobody takes it seriously, it's just something we say when we want to pick on a rowdy visitor in the pub, or the Government's done something specifically to hack us off'.

70% in favour of a Cornish or South West Region assembly doesn't sound like baseless grumbling to me, but maybe that's because people used to say the same thing about Scots and the SNP, right up to the pointy that they won a majority.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Considering that the EU is eroding the national sovereignty of all its members, I think the question of Scottish Independence from the UK is a moot issue.

Why the Scots are so eager to declare their Independence from the UK only to then surrender it to the Bureaucractic and anti-democratic EU beats me.

A few more decades, I expect the EU will resemble the Imperium of Man.

**Yodhrin**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Considering that the EU is eroding the national sovereignty of all its members, I think the question of Scottish Independence from the UK is a moot issue.

Why the Scots are so eager to declare their Independence from the UK only to then surrender it to the Bureaucractic and anti-democratic EU beats me.

A few more decades, I expect the EU will resemble the Imperium of Man.

Ah, hello there Mr Farage, didn't know you were a wargamer; next time you're up in Scotland we should set up a game....if you don't get run out of town by protestors again

Seriously though, you're being a bit hyperbolic, all that's missing is one of those made-up stories about "EU Bureaucrats demand all bananas be straight!" and I'd be having flashbacks of that time I made the awful mistake of reading the comments on a Daily Mail story.

As for why we're so eager to "surrender" to the EU, there are a few reasons, a good starter being; which is better, controlling 99% of your national tax&spend, or 15-20%? The EU might have some additional regulations(which Scotland already adheres to), and you might have to pay the membership fee as it were, but that's a fairly big step up from the situation we're in now where Westminster takes all the taxes, then grudgingly gives us back an ever smaller portion of them as a block-grant. Beyond which, you don't find Euroskepticism here to anywhere near the same degree as some parts of England - ask most people what they think about Eastern European migrants and the typical response is "hard workers, and they have that really tasty kind of smoked ham", rather than the "DEYR DUR TUK URR JURRRBS"-style rhetoric that seems so popular down south. Scotland's had closer ties to the continent than England for a long time, right back to the Auld Alliance.

Besides which, if the EU does continue to "pool sovereignty" it will likely be along a Federal system, which seems perfectly sensible to me - if Westminster wasn't so obsessed with micromanaging every part of the UK and had offered a proper federated model of devolution, I doubt the SNP would ever have had a sniff of the chance to hold a referendum, never mind a majority government in Scotland, but instead they decided to try giving us ungrateful Jocks the absolute bare minimum they thought they could get away with in the hope of turning us into a wee private fiefdom for Labour to rule over in perpetuity regardless of Westminster election results.

The EU could do with some reform to be certain, particularly regarding the deficit of democracy in the Commission, but we'll actually be better placed to push for such reforms as an independent nation within the EU than we are right now with our voice subsumed into the UK's schizophrenic negotiating position, unable to decide if it even wants to be a member at all.

**Yodhrin**

Some interesting figures today as HMRC released their first disaggregated breakdown of UK tax revenues for each constituent country, the PDF can be viewed here.

Most interesting in my view are these graphs;

Which illustrate some of the difference between the taxes Westminster claims are raised in Scotland, and the taxes actually raised here; and even these figures are not complete, as they don't appear to account for oddities like the fact that Customs Duty on Scottish whisky is almost always attributed to English tax receipts, since they are recorded at the port where the product is exported from not the place of manufacture, and it may attribute VAT and corporation tax generated by sales within Scotland to the English total if the company has its HQ in England(a few people have put in requests for HMRC to clarify whether that is the case). Based just on these incomplete figures though, we find that Scotland contributed approx £42.5 billion more than its population share of tax over the last 14 years, slightly over £3 billion a year on average.

Further interesting information comes from the latest paper from the Fiscal Commission Working Group, which recommends that an independent Scotland should set up a long term sovereign wealth fund plus a short term stabilisation fund using oil revenues, details how they could do so, and posits that, contingent on the spending plans of whichever government is elected in the first independent General Elections in 2016, Scotland could begin investing into such funds as early as fiscal year 2017/2018.

Better Together have tried claiming that this would be impossible, as Scotland operates in deficit at the moment like the rest of the UK, however that argument falls apart when you examine the situation in Norway, who were in deficit in 1990 when they established their fund. If Scotland were to replicate their model with whatever adjustments are necessary for our own economic quirks, we too could have one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world within 25 years, which you will note is long before even the more conservative plausible estimates of remaining years of North Sea oil production.

I think I'll do a bit of work over the next couple of days pulling together info and then rewrite the first post as a one-stop-shop for info on this subject, since there should be a lot to discuss over the next few months as the complete white paper is released.

**SilverMK2**

I just hope that if you guys vote to split from the Union, the rest of the UK fight you tooth and nail to ensure that we get the best deal for us. Not that I have anything particular against Scotland, just I don't want the rest of the UK to get shafted in any deal that is made.

Personally I think it is pretty stupid for Scotland to split and don't think the vote will come out in favour of independence.

**Yodhrin**

SilverMK2 wrote:
I just hope that if you guys vote to split from the Union, the rest of the UK fight you tooth and nail to ensure that we get the best deal for us. Not that I have anything particular against Scotland, just I don't want the rest of the UK to get shafted in any deal that is made.

Personally I think it is pretty stupid for Scotland to split and don't think the vote will come out in favour of independence.

Would you care to elaborate on why it would be "pretty stupid"? I'm not being sarcastic I'm genuinely interested in your perspective; I believe constant exposure to opposing opinions is necessary to avoid slipping into groupthink.

As for the negotiations, I doubt you'll have anything to worry about; Cameron may be a bit of a berk and Salmond a bit of a grandstander, but they'll be fairly well surrounded by subordinates, advisors and civil servants of every stripe and they'll be the ones doing the actual graft. I suspect the negotiations will begin around the concept of Scotland taking on a population share of national debt, and that the final result of how much we end up taking on will be determined by how much of all the other various population shares of stuff the rUK wants to give up, it'll probably be a bit extra here, a bit less there, all amounting to much the same thing overall.