http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121

I'd love to know your thoughts on that, devolution didn't change much here but then we haven't got much to sell

Independence Yes/No?
They'll vote no

Yes/No/More powers?
They'll vote more powers. I hope we won't give it to them. They seem to expect the English to keep paying the now imbalanced Barnet formula, but have no say over any decisions north of the boarder.

If they do vote yes Westminster will still have to agree how to share national debt etc and share assets, armed forces etc. What would happen if they didn't agree?

However they work it out, I suspect Scotland will come out of it less well than they hope. Westminster is likely to make Scotland 'pay' for it's independence, one way or another. To be honest, I rather wonder about the viability of Scotland as a nation in the current economic climate. 20 or 30 years ago maybe, but the way things are right now, I think they'd be quickly much more Italy than Scandanavia.

I for one am actually for it - I think any nation deserves to govern itself and anyone who has been there knows Scotland is a separate nation to England - but I worry that it might be a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.

Jon

They'll take their oil with them.

What happens to the military installations etc. in Scotland? Charged rent?

Thing is, the oil

a) Is actually mostly in Norwegian waters anyway, or at least what's left of it is.

b) Isn't actually worth as much as you'd think - Brent crude isn't actually very good oil, and the North Sea fields are I believe rather played out. Whatever the governmental income is now, it's less than it was. And whatever it is now, it's more than it will be. If Scotland wants to be a viable nation state for more than say 30 years, it's going to have to find something else to rely on than oil.

To quote wikipedia



The wealth of oil money has really mostly already been spent.

c) Isn't a national asset anyway. It's not owned by 'Scotland', it's owned by BP or whoever. The putative scottish government can't 'keep' the oil, any more than it can 'keep' the fish that get pulled from the sea or the crops that get harvested off the land. European governments don't make money off oil drilling. They make it by taxing the profits made by the companies that drill for the oil and the workers who drill for the oil. Obviously, when lots of oil is drilled and lots of profits are made and lots of workers are paid lots of money, then the government gets very rich. But if the company's head office isn't in your country, you don't make very much - just income tax off the local workers. Have a guess where most oil production company's offices aren't...

That's not the situation Scotland is in. The oil industry in Scotland is still lucrative but it's not the golden goose it once was by any stretch. Most of the money the UK government earns from the oil industry is corporation tax, which would be still be paid in England.

Bear in mind Scotland also has much higher government spending per person than the rest of the UK - free university tuition (for a year longer than in the UK as a whole as well) free prescriptions, higher NHS spend per person. On an economy which has really only one major product which is of diminishing value. If the Scots really think they could get rid of Westminster and everything will be rosy, they may get a pretty severe shock.

As I say, I'm in favour of Scottish independence. But looking at the picture dispassionately, there are many problems to be resolved before it becomes a reality, yes vote or no vote. There are all sorts of things the Scottish nation would have to have available to truly function that they really don't have at this point. It may end up being a vote of 'do you want Scotland to regain it's independence on this date some years into the future.' Becoming a separate nation for Scotland will be a bit like hosting an Olympics - you don't get the jobs and be ready on day one, you need like 8 years to prefer for it and it'll cost you a lot of money.

Jon

There seems to be a public misconception that all oil/gas is in Scottish waters. A lot of the gas fields we have are off the coast of England. (CLICKY)
Even with the oil revenue from Scottish waters, it wouldn't compensate for the Barnet formula funding they's lose.

Can they afford to take on the RBS debt? Because they can bloody well have that back if they leave.

Personally I'm all for Scotland having a binding referendum on wether it wants to remain in the UK or not.
If they chose to go it alone then they will have to face up to the consequences good or bad.
If the estimations on the wealth oil and gas can generate for scotland then they will have an easier time as an independant nation, if they dont they are well and truly up the creek with no paddle and the canoe is leaking. oh and by the way it looks like theres a three way batlle between the sharks, crocodiles and piranhas on who get to eat the corpse.

The things that need to addressed is:
Actually how much oil/gas revenue is "scottish"?
How much of the national debt would they have to share (the last figure I saw, from a very pro independance site, was over £67 billion and that was from 2008!).
What would Scotlands credit rating be as an independant nation?
Scotlands place in the EU?
Faslane, the SNP is a very anti nuclear party and have said on may occasions that they want the nuclear subs removed from there. Well suddenly a lot of people will get relocated or lose their jobs, devastating the local economy.
Scottish shipyards, there would be no more contracts from the UK to build/refit warships, good news for Devonmouth and Portsmouth!!

My thoughts is the SNP would like the third option on the referendum question, more power but still be able to blame England and Westminster for everything that goes wrong.
Labour do not want Scotland to become independant as they will lose a huge amount of MP's IIRC 41 of them at the last election.
Conservative ideologically do not want Scotland to become independant as a unionist party but would love it as it would increase the chance that labour couldnt get enough seats for power.
Liberals.... do they exist anymore?

The discussion of ownership may open a whole can of worms.

Interestingly, the Shetlands and Orkney Isles have never truly, nor legally, entered into UK or Scottish Law since the dowry payment by the Danish King in the 1400s (where sovereignty was not passed over).

Under Udal Law, they were merely left in Trust of Scotland (and later the UK) and any seabed around those Isles, and therefore their oil could be argued as still being Danish/Norwegian.

I presume those Laws are so old they wouldn't make much of a difference, the amount of oil there is probably not worth the time arguing about.

I think the it's a great idea for them to become independent. I wonder if history will repeat itself and they end up in debt to England and end up wiping off that debt in exchange for joining the UK again in the future? If they leave the UK do they have to pay that back?

Sorting out the Barnett formula, something that Barnett himself has argued for years now, is essential. Scotland getting independence will mean England and Wales can have independence from Scotland as well and remove the ability of Scottish MPs to vote purely on matters affecting England and Wales. We can give RBS bad debts back to them and carry on our merry way.

Would they join the Euro? Would the UK move its Armed Forces and their jobs back South? Would Scots continue to serve in the UK Forces? Lots of things to iron out that Salmond seems to glaze over.

One positive is that it may help stop the petty bitching between Scotland and those of us South of the border.

We're doooooomed

Al

Alex Salmond is doing to Cameron what Cameron is doing to Europe. Niggling about getting out or wanting more control.

The immense cost of relocating dozens of military bases has to be a concern for the Government, and I'm sure the people of England will welcome the relocation of the numerous Live-Fire testing grounds too. What about moving Faslane? To Southampton? Portsmouth? The Thames Estuary? That'll go down well.

From what little I understand of the whole debate, the idea of breaking up the union is the last thing any of us need, for many years to come.

My view of Alex Salmond hasn't changed a jot - I still think he's a self serving bigot, even though I'm not naive enough to swallow the extreme anti-English bigot portrayal by the tabloids. He comes across more as suffering from a small man syndrome, and I cannot shake the fact that he reminds me of Nick Griffin.

If the nuclear subs were relocated they would be moved to Devonmouth, as they currentyl service the non-nuclear missile nuclear boats there.
There are allso numerous live fire ranges in England as well, Dartmoor being a nice large one.
The actual cost of relocation wouldnt be that much as the MOD has a massive surplus of bases in England as it is, but then again it would be the MOD doing the move so it would cost the earth

Excuse my ignorance on this subject and hopefully someone can enlighten me (hopefully in a paragraph and in plain English), why does Scotland what independence and why now?

Do Wales and Northern Ireland what independence?