Are you in favour of Scotland leaving the UK?

[LadyMaryCreepyCrawley]

Lucky bastards!

LadyMary unfortunately that is not a devolved issue, so it's currently pretty shit here too.

costs even not cots

'No one in Scotland whether they are pro or anti independence expects or wants subsidy from anyone. That kind of chat only fuels resentment an isn't helpful.'

It's not what's 'expected' or what's 'wanted' it's what IS.

Do you seriously believe Scotland can 'afford' its free HE, its free prescriptions, its free care for the elderly based on what Scottish taxpayers alone contribute? And I have made the point that the same argument holds true for the Cornish, for example.

The North Sea Oil thing is actually a bit of a red herring. The profits of same won't be flowing freely into Scottish pockets, like they don't flow into English pockets now. They disappear into the maw of multinational oil companies, the ones who put up billions over the year exploring for oil and then pumping it once they find it. So while Scotland might then 'own' the oil itself, they can't 'own' (or afford) to pay out the costs of pumping it. If I were a nascent Scottish government, I certainly wouldn't be pinning my hopes on such a bonanza!

I also suspect that the English government wouldn't, for fear of pissing off a lot of English voters, allow Scotland to retain Sterling without political union. And yes, of course the Scots will need to pay out their 'share' of the national debt. Why wouldn't they?

Do you seriously believe Scotland can 'afford' its free HE, its free prescriptions, its free care for the elderly based on what Scottish taxpayers alone contribute

Yes. Scotland puts more into the pot than it takes out.

Scotland has about 8.4% of the UK population and gets 9.3% of UK spending. However, Scotland also generates 9.6% of UK tax revenues.

We generate over £1,000 more tax per person than the average across the UK. Over each of the last 6 years Scotland?s finances have been stronger than the UK. And over the past 30 years, we have had a relative surplus of £19 billion.
www.yesscotland.net/afford_to_be_independent

The North Sea Oil thing is actually a bit of a red herring. The profits of same won't be flowing freely into Scottish pockets, like they don't flow into English pockets now. They disappear into the maw of multinational oil companies, the ones who put up billions over the year exploring for oil and then pumping it once they find it. So while Scotland might then 'own' the oil itself, they can't 'own' (or afford) to pay out the costs of pumping it

Over the 30 years from 2010/11 to 2040/41, based on the UK's independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast, cumulative North Sea revenues would be around £108 billion (2010/11 prices). This represents approximately £3.6 billion a year.
www.yesscotland.net/what_about_oil_gas

I also suspect that the English government wouldn't, for fear of pissing off a lot of English voters, allow Scotland to retain Sterling without political union

Pound sterling is a tradeable currency. That means that any country in the world can choose to use it. It does not require Westminster's permission.

And yes, of course the Scots will need to pay out their 'share' of the national debt

Of course! I have never seen anyone suggest otherwise!

(for convenience my links are from a pro independence site, feel free to independently confirm their accuracy)

N Sea Oil - yes

Of course we will take our share of the national debt. But it was suggested that England should retain Scotland's natural resources an the wealth attached. And Scots were then told they wouldn't get everything THEIR own way?! The gall...

Thanks Itsallgoingtobefine - saved me a long post there.

Only one thing's for sure, both sides are going to indulge in some dirty fighting leading up to 2014. Also, I think referendum fatigue has already set in for a lot of people.

I am really really fed up of people saying that Scotland cannot survive financially after independence.This is nonsense.Leading economists have looked into the question and agreed that of course they could.In Fact David Cameron (armed with the figures) has stopped even using that as an issue..

I dont get this "stronger together" crap.

What I WOULD like now that the referendum has been signed , is for the PROPER arguments to be laid bare and lets see what an independent Scotland would look like.

For the record-I am anti Westminster, not anti English :o

The worst thing would be if the vote splits 50/50. Whichever way it goes the best is for it to be decisive.

one thing's for sure, both sides are going to indulge in some dirty fighting leading up to 2014

Sadly I think you are right.

Interestingly though those in favour seem to be focusing on a positive campaign (why independence would be good for scotlwnd) , whereas those against seem to be far more negative (anti Salmond, anti snp, how will Scotland survive without English subsidies etc)

Well I suppose if you are trying to persuade people to take a leap into the unknown you are more likely to win people around if you can present them with a positive vision of an independent Scotland will be. The anti Independence lot need to persuade those who are on the fence not to leap and therefore are going to use any tactic they can to scare people into voting no.

It's all a bit academic, really. The Scots won't vote for independence, will they?

Well, we don't know that. All the polls said we wouldn't vote for devolution.

If the debate unfolds as it has in this thread, I think they might.

Or for a majority government.

I haven't heard a good argument for the union yet.

If a referendum was held tomorrow I don't think people would vote in favour of independence. However two years is a long time in politics, I don't think either camp should be complacent.

I have a question - if Scotland do become independent then who picks up the tab for the bailout of RBS?

I am English and living in Scotland. I do not want independence.

I would most likely move back to England if Scotland became independent. DH is Scottish and also doesn't want independence.

mumwithtwokids I would guess that Scotland would take a share of the debt based on the proportion of RBS' operations based in Scotland.

As Andrew Hughes Hallett. Professor of Economics at St Andrew?s University, put it, speaking on Radio Scotland.

"The real point here, and this is the real point, is by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it?s shared between several countries. In the case of the RBS, I?m not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland, the result being, by that convention, therefore, that the rest of the UK would have to carry 90% of the liabilities of the RBS and Scotland 10%. And the precedent for this, if you want to go into the details, are the Fortis Bank and the Dexia Bank, which are two banks which were shared between France, Belgium and the Netherlands, at the same time were bailed out in proportion by France, Belgium and the Netherlands."

The prescription thing - yes we get free prescriptions, but that means we don't get other stuff. It's not like the English are somehow being ripped off. We have a health budget, priorities are set and paid for. It's no different to one health trust in England deciding to fund a treatment and the neighbouring trust not funding it.

Thanks for the answer ItsAllGoingToBeFine.

I don't think Scotland needs worry about oil, tax etc, the thing it has lots and lots of is water.

It can be sold Westminster

I haven't heard a good argument for the union yet.

We're better together-allegedly :o

SusanneLinder

I really like my neighbours. I wouldn't want them to be my landlords.