Scottish Referendum debate - watch with Mumsnet

OOOH excellent. I'm with SirChenjin (seem to be saying that a lot today!), I want to hear from the organ grinders!

Admittedly who is the organ grinder for the No campaign is tricky - I can see David Cameron's point to an extent. I think he needs to lay out why he wants Scotland to stay but I think I prefer the people debating to be those who are directly involved.

Oooooh, that will certainly get you some website hits MN.

But Alistair Darling is a monkey not an organ grinder. He's just a backbencher FFS, he can say/promise whatever he likes - has not really in a position to do anything.

Alex Salmon's on the other hand, whatever else you may think, had successfully led the country for the past few years.

I wish David Cameron would debate him, rather than all this crap about how it's not his place to get involved.

So Cameron rather than back bench Labour MP Darling, then?

Missed the bit about inviting other speakers - nope, not interested. I want the organ grinders answering the questions.

No reason - except cost to bring ashore and process, taxation levels within Scotland, long term viability of fields, and so on. Either way, as oil revenues (inevitably) decline in the longer term and Scotland's population ages then an inde Govt would have to achieve a strong and sustainable economy. Imo the SNP haven't set out in detail how they would do this - and the idea that we would simply enter into negotiations for oil field ownership and get what we wanted if the Yes vote was successful seems like just another "och it'll all be smashing" SNP vision as opposed to a reality based on fact.

Patrick Harvie is a wonderful speaker, or, if it's women we're after, how about Carolyn Leckie of the Radical Independence Campaign? Any suggestions for the No side?

Patrick Harvie is my favourite Yes person.

Oh god, please not Johann!

Fyrefly, there are billions of pounds of new investment going into oil right now, why would they do that if it's running out next week? An estimated 39,000 new jobs are to be created in the next wee while, and strong rumour has it that recent tests have shown the Clair Ridge to have up to 3 times more reserves than previously thought; it may be the biggest field in the world. Then there's the potential new fields off the Ayrshire coast. Oil isn't running out any time soon, and while we have it we can be investing in new technologies and renewable energies.

Besides, even without any oil at all, our economy is strong; oil is a (massive) bonus.

As Itsall says, ownership of the oil fields is decided by international law, and not really an issue. The company may be called "British Petroleum" but it's not owned by the UK and operates all over the world; there would be no reason for them to pull out of Scottish waters and if for some reason they did, there would be a queue of other operators waiting to take their place.

Why don't you invite women on instead?
Nicola Sturgeon & johann Lamont or Ruth Davidson.

As a website mainly for women I would enjoy that much better.

You're right in that the standard default is the median line, ItsAll but like you also said, it's up for negotiation, and neither side is going to leave it uncontested - both sides have a lot of investment and interests in that area. That is going to take time and the uncertainty is likely to put off investors.

It's also worth remembering that whilst costs of oil and gas production are increasing as old wells are dried and focus moves to deeper and harder-to-access reserves, revenues from the UK Continental Shelf Area are falling year-on-year. Eventually, and probably sooner than we'd like to think, costs are going to outstrip revenue and North Sea oil and gas are going to become inviable.

Regardless of where the borders are drawn, I just don't think it's going to be the prop that Alex Salmond assumes it's going to be. And he used to be in oil before he went into politics!

People keep banging on about the oil and gas, but does anyone actually know how the North Sea is going to be divided? What will be British waters and what will be Scottish? Apologies if this has already been agreed and outlined, but I haven't seen it. I've seen maps of how Scotland WANTS the North Sea shelf divided, but I don't believe it's been formally agreed?

Like everything else it'd be up for negotiation, but under international law the border is drawn out from the land border equidistantly from the coastlines. This would be a starting point, and if there is any dispute this would be the default.

but it still leaves an independent Scotland with no credit rating.

Why? In the unlikely event that Scotland took none of the debt, it would be a negotiated position and not a default, and Scotland has a shit load of assets?

People keep banging on about the oil and gas, but does anyone actually know how the North Sea is going to be divided? What will be British waters and what will be Scottish? Apologies if this has already been agreed and outlined, but I haven't seen it. I've seen maps of how Scotland WANTS the North Sea shelf divided, but I don't believe it's been formally agreed?

I also believe most of the oil rigs and their employees are from British Petroleum. I don't think the UK would give those up without a fight. It would also mean Scotland would have a British company producing its largest asset. Unless they propose to oust BP, which would be disastrous. It would also be disastrous if BP left voluntarily, although I think the likelyhood of BP leaving Scotland is about the same as me winning the lottery - they have a lot of large future investments in Scotland that they don't want to jeopardise. That said, BP's CEO has concerns about independance.

ItsAll I agree completely with everything you've said, but it still leaves an independent Scotland with no credit rating.

OldLady if Scotland take none of the UK debt, then they have no credit rating. What percentage interest rate do you think they will need to pay while they establish one?

I'm not sure this is entirely true. The WM government is treating the possible independence thing as Scotland leaving rUK, as opposed to an equal separation of nations. In the former scenario Scotland is not entitled to any of the assets of the UK eg the pound, it is also not still as signatory in UK treaties eg the EU. However, in this case Scotland would also not be expected to take on any of the debt. Obviously it would be unreasonable for Scotland to leave with no assets and all the debt.

The debt like everything else is up for negotiation.

OldLady if Scotland take none of the UK debt, then they have no credit rating. What percentage interest rate do you think they will need to pay while they establish one?

I know I've said this before on threads on this subject, but the level of wilful ignorance of the economics of a 'Yes' vote is incredibly scary.

From a purely selfish point of view I would love to see Scotland say yes. 1.because I think it would be fascinating to watch what happened over the next few years, and 2.because it removes a significant proportion of Labour's natural majority in WM that it created for itself with boundary alterations.

However I would be very sad to see Scotland leave the Union, my gut emotional response would be to vote 'No' if I had a vote - along with the fact that I am genuinely concerned that Scotland could go bankrupt which would be awful for everyone living there.

old lady the Treasury said they would guarantee all existing UK debt, not that Scotland would not take responsibility for it. The reasoning is that lenders have lent to the current UK, and it is difficult/impossible to seperate out who Scotland would owe money to and who rUK would owe money to.
The debt/asset split is irrelevant to currency union.
Scotland cannot refuse to take on their share of UK debt as no-one would lend to them in the future due to them being irresponsible.

Agree again Statistically - we are not such a strong economy that it wouldn't take much for a few msjor companies to move south , or for a pipeline to be moved to Berwick, or for Grangemouth to close for us to get into serious financial difficulties.

And on thst note I must get to the shops to stock up on emergency supplies in the event of a Yes vote. Adios amigos

Statistically

Do we find ourselves agreeing on the federal system option?! Sadly neither side has the mandate on that one - I don't recall the SNP fighting for that one, or setting out the facts and figures for that option any more than any of the UK Govts ever have...so on that note, pur disagreement must resume I fear

I disagree oldlady -I do think in the long run that an independent Scotland could cope. But I think going downhill fast could easily happen - a.few big fs companies leaving, lack of investment due to uncertainty whilst everything is thrashed out, plus the costs of setting up everything that needs to be could see us in trouble. Especially if we end up flying solo currency wise. I don't think a sizeable recession in the shorter term is unrealistic as a potential outcome.