Pointless referendum on Scottish independance set for 2014

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Huh - just checked this a bit, and apparently 90% of UK crude is coming from Scotland! This independance is a slamdunk economically, I thought it was majority English and minority Scottish oil, which would still be in favour of Scotland given it's relatively small population, but it is actually 90/10 for Scotland... they feed London even more than the rest of UK, and can be a proper oil nation once they leave the union. They only need to employ a dozen of Norwegians to show them how it's done .

[C0ckney]

Are they doing this so they can have all the oil money to themselves while offloading most of their debts on the English?

that's too cynical in my view. however it's fair to say that the economic case for independence looks better now than it (most likely) will in 20 years time...

[C0ckney]

It's pointless because it won't pass. You'd think during an economic crisis we might have better things to spend the inevitable millions on.

a party which has independence as a major part of its platform has won the last two elections in scotland. in fact they won the last one with a specific promise to have this referendum. it's absolutely right that the referendum happens. it's clear that the people of scotland want it, even if they are likely to vote no.

No, I'm from England.

fair enough, don't why i thought you were scottish.

[kentonio]

a party which has independence as a major part of its platform has won the last two elections in scotland. in fact they won the last one with a specific promise to have this referendum. it's absolutely right that the referendum happens. it's clear that the people of scotland want it, even if they are likely to vote no.

You're right, they should hold it as it was part of their platform, but it doesn't mean the people of Scotland particularly wanted it. They were voting against Labour quite strongly and also felt the SNP had done a decent job in their first term. It wasn't about the nationalism, otherwise why wouldn't a majority want independance?

[Dinner]

There should be some rule that if a referendum fails then it shouldn't be allowed back on the ballot for at least another 25 years.

[Dinner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-19942638

Devo Max is obviously off the table as the rest of us would have to agree to it (not going to happen), and as only about 35% of Scots actually want independance it's going to turn into a pointless waste of money.

Most discussion boards on this seem to be currently full of Scots being pissed off that the English don't care if they leave or not.

And those 35% are stupid as Scotland gets a metric **** ton of money each year from the English as a bribe to keep them in the Union. If Scotland ever got independence those transfer payments would end and the dwindling amount of north sea oil won't even come close to making up for losing that money.

[C0ckney]

And those 35% are stupid as Scotland gets a metric **** ton of money each year from the English as a bribe to keep them in the Union. If Scotland ever got independence those transfer payments would end and the dwindling amount of north sea oil won't even come close to making up for losing that money.

this (as i have already pointed out) is a myth and the financial position of an independent scotland wouldn't be very different from its position now.

[C0ckney]

You're right, they should hold it as it was part of their platform, but it doesn't mean the people of Scotland particularly wanted it. They were voting against Labour quite strongly and also felt the SNP had done a decent job in their first term. It wasn't about the nationalism, otherwise why wouldn't a majority want independance?

of course in national elections there are many issues which people vote on. nevertheless, the people of scotland backed a party with this referendum at the centre of its manifesto. even if they weren't especially enthusiastic about it, they must have known that it was part of the package when voting SNP.

i see it as similar to quebec. the bloc, which is committed to independence, often wins power at a provincial level, even though the people of quebec have so far rejected that independence when the question is directly put to them.

[Ben Kenobi]

There should be some rule that if a referendum fails then it shouldn't be allowed back on the ballot for at least another 25 years

Pity Poly wasn't around for the last round with Quebec. If Scotland wants to leave, the UK should let them. If they want to stay then they should agree that this referendum is binding and they have to put up with being in the UK. No takebacks either way.

[Dinner]

this (as i have already pointed out) is a myth and the financial position of an independent scotland wouldn't be very different from its position now.

That sounds like BS independence propaganda to me. Let's see some links from creditable sources.

[C0ckney]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/9525

In 2010-11, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £63.8 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.

....

In 2010-11, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £45.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £45.9 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.6 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).

[Dinner]

So if they got 100% of all oil tax money then they'd only be out £10 billion or ~20% of total government expenditures. Then again the oil is declining fast so really it is a drop from 64 to 45 or £19 billion of a drop though you would have a nice cushion of a rapidly declining £10 per year for 10-20 years before it finally drops to zero. It looks like the real drop in public revenue would be pretty close to 1/3rd unless they magically find some new oil wells to replace the rapidly declining half century old fields.

To compare there would be no drop what so ever if they stayed in the union and since the population and revenues of England are growing faster than Scotland the per person transfer payments are only going to get bigger over time instead of smaller like the oil money.

[C0ckney]

i think about 93% of the oil and 64% of the gas would be in scottish waters.

as the figures imply, the UK is currently borrowing a lot of money to cover the difference between its tax revenues and expenditure. presumably an independent scotland would do the same. if this were not possible, they would have to find more revenue or spend less.

as i have already said, the economic case for an independent scotland looks much better now than it will in 20 years.

[regexcellent]

...Which means it actually doesn't really look better now than in twenty years for anyone thinking with some kind of long term focus since it's presumably permanent, or at least supposed to be a lasting separation.

[C0ckney]

indeed. an independent scotland could well find itself very constrained in the medium to long term.