Can someone please explain why UK is trying to keep Scotland?

The trident programme is just one of the headaches (and a very serious one).

The UK government would be tied up for years in the legal wrangling and bitter arguments about asset splitting and then it will cost billions to implement all the changes. This will impact on the time spent running the country. Its will be the ruin of Scotland and will negatively impact the rest of the UK just as we're getting back on our feet. The pound is already being impacted. The rest of the world are looking at us thinking we've gone mad.

I teach economics at a university so I apologise if this seems like me trying to lecture people. I actually see costs and benefits in both a Yes and a No vote even though I have weighed it up and think No is better for the country and my family.

The real problem with this argument is that the economy is more complicated than just a debate about whether Scotland subsidises or is subsidised by the rest of the UK. It's not as though we have a certain amount of money and chopping the country in two will simply give one bit more money than they have now. The real point in the UK is that it's supposed to be in everyone's interest and that's largely true in my opinion whether one bit pays more than it receives in spending. Getting rid of it will likely make us both a bit worse off at least in the short-term.

The subsidy question is quite difficult to answer but using the Scottish government's figures we can make a good stab at it. Basically, in the days before we had hit peak oil production, it would have probably been correct to say the oil (which is mostly - over 90% - in Scotland's territory) would have "subsidised" the rest of the UK. However today and in the future this is a somewhat different picture. Last year, for instance, the Scottish government's figures (with oil included) showed Scotland generated around 9.1% of UK taxation revenue but received around 9.3% of UK spending. So it was getting more in spending than it put in during that one year. In previous years however the trend was usually the opposite.

We can expect this from now on to hover around where it is now for perhaps another 15 or so years - with perhaps in some years Scotland generating more than it receives and in other years generating less. After this the oil production is projected to decline quite sharply after 2030 (so about 14 years after independence) at which point unless there is another discovery of oil, Scotland would be generating quite a lot less UK taxation revenue than it currently receives in spending. If you look at the last 10 years or so Scotland has consistently generated about 8.3% of UK taxation revenue (without oil) and received around 9.3% of UK spending. So after 2030 that situation would be a very good deal for Scotland.

This is what the politicians don't tell you. The No side doesn't want to admit that in the past Scotland generated more than it received in spending, but the Yes side doesn't want to tell you that in the future, when oil declines, the figures don't really add up. As we can't rerun the 1980s/1990s as an independent country that leads me to vote No.

There would be some short-term problems (the currency, the market reaction, businesses relocating from uncertainty and so on) that I think we would get over eventually, but by then when the oil declines (and we only have about 14 years until the point it starts falling quickly) it really is hard to see it making us better off than we are now. I think we can get most of the benefits without the risks just by voting No - I know some people don't trust Westminster (I'm one of them) but I think really looking at the figures it's the best option for me.

Bumpy .... so a 110% raise in Council Tax and raising Stamp Duty in 1997 from a Flat 1% by Labour was fairer to family homes, far more plentiful than rich people living alone, no doubt just counting their money?

If memory serves, before Thatcher came in, the basic rate of income tax was around 32%, the higher rate started in the mid 60%, tax on the income from investments was in the mid 90%'s and if any company dared make a profit, they paid 50% in Corporate Tax.

Yet funny old world, the Poll tax, the Labour politicians chose to march for as had sod all else to offer the country, not the lowering of everyones taxes, is STILL mentioned by the Scotland to this day.

Currently the 'bedroom tax' as a blunt emergency policy to free up around 820,000 unused council/social housing bedrooms for the 1.7 million families (5 million individuals) needing social housing by 2010 floats the socialist boats that CAUSED a social housing problem, but no one mentions that, do they.

We had the poll tax here in Wales too funnily enough. We had protests too. See, this is one of the issues I have. If Scotland go, then Wales and NI become increasingly forgotten about and it becomes England all the way.

The issue the Scottish have with the poll tax was that they used Scotland to trial it out.
It wasn't just the Scottish protesting about it once they'd rolled it out in England. It was very unpopular (except for the well off living alone in a large property) and the backlash against it and the results (increased costs in collecting it, and chasing the protesting non-payers) ultimately brought about the demise of Thatcher.

Well said Mimsy' that is what I was trying to say but you put it so much better.

Custardo, you say If they cost us so much why are we bothering? as if everybody on Mumsnet is from the rest of the UK and there are no Scots here. Wrong. I am a Scot but I have no vote in the referendum because I live in England. There are any number of English, Welsh and Northern Irish people living in Scotland who will have a vote. We are all intertwined and cutting those ties would be massively complicated and expensive, for the rest of the UK as well as Scotland.

I have every digit crossed that the NO campaign wins.

It'll take about 20 years to establish a new permanent base for Trident (and I think that timeline is based on both replacement date that's needed anyhow and actual site-finding and building time).

But Trident could be temporarily docked at another NATO/nuclear nation's naval base (I've seen both France and US mooted as possibilities) and so I don't see impact on UK's military reputation as quite so serious.

I think 'Better Together' is based largely on the idea that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" - a view that opinion polls suggest about half of Scots share. If Scotland secedes, it will be expensive (probably worse for Scotland, but hardly insignificant for UK either) and will tie up an immense amount of bureaucratic effort. Some might say 'good' to that, but I'm not so sure the opportunity cost would be largely unnoticed.

www.yesscotland.net/sites/default/files/resources/documents/democracy_briefing.pdf Scotland's voters really can't make much of a difference in that, sadly.

Please don't leave us stuck with UKIP Scots!!

What's with the 'cost us money' business anyway? Who do we mean by us? England?

UK government will swing far right and probably leave EU.

Everyone totally fucked.

Because as the boundaries stand it looks as if the rest of us will have to put up with a Tory government forever including us here in Wales. Please don't leave us Scotland.

There is an excellent article in this week's Economist if you are prepared to buy it. In an nutshell:

1. International gravitas - rUK unlikely to sit at top table anymore
2. To avoid financial chaos which will ensue in Scotland and will have a knock on effect in Scotland.
3. Currently, scottish oil subsidises UK
4. Trident - it will have to be relocated from Scotland - it will take around 20 years prob to do this (and will impact UKs NATO status
5. They like Scotland
6. A "no" vote may mean the lying, disingenuous toad Salmond crawls into obscurity (this is wishful thinking from me, it's not in the Ecnomist!)

But I am a "no" so it's best to read the article yourself as I am biased!

Independence is bad for everyone - it really, really is.

Because like the ridiculous Welsh assembly all an independent Scotland will do is provide jobs for second rate politicians and bureaucrats, who couldn't cut it in Westminster.

Oh and no doubt, they'll join the EC and we'll end up subbing yet more usless paper pushes there too.

There are costs involved in separating, and I guess we'd lose the economies of scale. I also think lots of people want the union to be maintained for emotional reasons.

I have thought a lot about this in recent weeks. My BIL and DSis will be voting yes, and I completely understand their reasons. Personally, though, I hope it's a "no" vote because I genuinely think people would regret a "yes" further down the line - and I want what's best for my nephew's future. Having said that, if I forget about the individuals involved, a "yes" would be really exciting and interesting, and there is a part of me would just love to see how it all works out!

From a purely selfish point of view because I love visiting Scotland , how would they keep the highlands so spectacular with such a small population's taxes? All those deserted roads with amazing views to maintain, protecting the indigenous animals, forestry etc.

SoonToBeSix ….. the oil is both running out and will get harder to lift, you’ll have sod all else to balance the Scottish economy and when was the last time in several decades did a socialist government leave the country in a better shape than they found it?

Oil came ashore here around 1976, around the time Labour called out the IMF to financially bail us out, when manufacturing had fallen from around 29% of our economy throughout the 1970’s.

For those Scots who hate the Conservatives, they seem to forget what happened after 1979, the economy they handed over to socialism in 1997, and what they have had to try fix, inheriting a £157 bil overspend.

Scotland at the moment just needs to know how to SPEND their money from Westminster, they don’t have to worry how to MAKE the annual cheque that comes in – and listening to all their threats to ‘stimulate’ the private sector investment and jobs creation by nationalising, splitting, and god knows what else, there is no reason to think they’ll be any more successful in running a sustainable economy than Labour.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2180124-Scotland-can-NOT-keep-the-Pound-does-Scotland-England-France

P.S. As Scotland still pathetically mentions the Tory Poll tax (which arguably allocated per person was a better idea), why didn’t they complain when under Labour, the Council Tax alternative, went up over 110% in 13-years – or were the you all let off Scot free on that bill as well???

International heft. Security. Pooling of resources. So yes UK as a whole may now benefit from oil and as oil reserves get more expensive to access, and with an ageing population Scotland may be in need of support in the future.

Queen has said it is up to the Scottish people.

In the short term the uncertainty and costs of a separation would (most likely) mean economic slowdown for both parties, for a few years.

We want to keep the oil and lose the Tories.

They don't cost us so much, it brings in less revenue then England, more then Wales. Population per space goes up massively without Scotland, as before money per person goes up minimally. Is it that we have more 'clout' as a nation? I still think a lot is to do with natural resources tbh. Has the queen said anything about it yet?

I think this is a really interesting question and I haven't thought of it this way before. If they cost us so much why are we bothering?

We shall just have to wait &see

Do they fanny ?

It's because Scotland are actually the ones who subsidise the rest of the UK.