Would an independent Scotland go same way as Ireland and Iceland?

[inkyfingers]

No one's saying whether Scotland can afford to be out of the Union. I know those 2 countries have had huge ££ problems already, but the UK gov owns RBS and Scots would have to buy it back? Is North Sea oil going to be a big enough wealth creator? Most small EU countries are struggling ATM.

Is Norway struggling? (I know it's not part of the EU btw)

I'm sure someone's quoted a stat on another thread this week that Scotland puts more into the UK economy that it takes out.

If the Union splits Scotland would probably have to take with it a proportion
of the debt.

Also North Sea Oil is not the only source of wealth in Scotland. There is farming, manufacteuring inc pharmaceuticals, higher education, tourism, renewable energy, sport, media, publishing, alcohol esp whisky, medical research, transport, fishing and a large service sector. It isn't a one-dimensional economy.

Why are you posting on a thread you don't care about smallwhitecat ? I suggest you take your own advice.

Though she has a point: until the terms of the "divorce" settlement are known, it's not going to be possible to make even the wildest stab at likely financial health of the newly independent country. Claim and counter claim about whether or not Scotland is a net contributor are set to run and run. Then you have to allow for all those things like defence and foreign relations which would be disproportionately expensive for a small country.

But we should care - because without some idea of the important elements of a final settlement I simply do not see how the voting public can decide (other than on sentiment) whether or not independence is the right option at the right time.

The North Sea oil is pretty much finished and at the moment the opinion polls sugest 52% of Scots would vote against independence, 35% would vote for it and the rest are Dont Know.

Alex Salmond has even said a referenum would not happen until well into the second half of hs administration term.

Truth is Scotland was largely motivated to give up its independence in The Act of Settlement of 1701 because it was bankrupt and was effectively rescued by England after its disasterous investment in the Darien Scheme that had hoped to transform Scotland into a major world trading power by investing in Panama.

The financial rescue of the Scottish banking system after the fiancial crisis of 2007 by the merger of the two major Scottish banking groups with two Engish institutions has an erie histotical parralel. The Darien Scheme was, in effect a failed attempt by Scotland to become a World financial power. In essence, the 2007 financial crisis exposed another scheme of hubris in which two major Scottish institutions in effect attempted to be become major global banks. A sort of 21st Century Darien Scheme.

The Scottish economy is simply not big enough or diverse enough to be self sustaining as an independent nation - unless it wishes to become an offshore tax haven. Even then places like Guernesy and Jersey are still dependent on the Bank of England to maintian ultimate financial stability and currency convertabilty.

It seems to me that allowing Scotland its own tax raising powers with it sown Parliament but still being part of the UK might be the best solution for all concerned. Satisfying Scotish desire for autonomy while maintaining the benefits of other political, defence and constitutional links.

smallwhitecat " who knows
who cares
their problem
have they fucked off yet? "

And people wonder why some Scottish people want independance when people can have such vilke attiudes like yours - was there really any need for such a nasty rude reply like that? When you say "they" - do you mean ordinary working class Scottish Mums like me? Ive not "fcked off" anywhere.

Newgoldendream

Take no notice she is a Tory you cannot expect any better.

Norway has the highest standard of living in the world, FYI. They do quite well.

From wikipedia:The most recent government figures (for 2006/7) suggest that Scotland would be in budget surplus to the tune of more than £800m if it received its geographical share of North Sea revenues.[147] The net fiscal balance, which is the budget balance plus capital investment, reported a deficit of £2.7 billion (2.1% of GDP) including Scotland's full geographical share of North Sea revenue, or a £10.2bn deficit if the North Sea share is excluded.[148]

it won't happen now, re iceland and ireland. that boat has sailed. and iceland v different from ireland, afaia. their government is sticking two fingers up to their debt and concentrating on looking after their people.

Maybe an independent Scotland wont want to play at being Americas poodle wasting money on defence, most countries dont see themselves as the UK's deputy sheriff and need to be a "me too" in foreign wars.

Norway is not altogether a good example as they are oil rich although they are investing the money in infrastructure and not on tax cuts for the well off and keeping unemployment high as Thatcher did

I don't know how an independent Scotland would fare although I agree with Swc I think Scottish Independence would be in Englands interests.

Hudd in what way?, so we can have a permanent Tory hegemony and end up living in a quasi fascist state with the class system intact and the well off making all the laws in favour of the well off and inflicting ever more draconian anti union laws.

In the way that we can bring the subsidisation of Scotland by the English taxpayer.

In the way that we can bring the subsidisation of Scotland by the English taxpayer.

Taking into account that Scottish oil money ended up in England and they got mass unemployment and the poll tax in return they dont seem to have got that great a deal.

Spending per capita is more £1000 higher in Scotland than it is in England and has been for more than 30 years and frankly they gives very little in return. England has been the nation that has driven growth in the last 20-30 years unfortunately and I see no benefit to England of being in Union with Scotland (or Wales or N Ireland for that matter)

hud, if Tory governments destroy the Scottish (and Northern England) industrial base it's not a suprise that costs to the government increase in those areas.

London and the South East have never had the economic shit that the rest of the country have had to endure.

BTW have you taken the value of Scottish oil into account

Ther must be some benefit otherwise why would David Cameron fight to keep Scotland as part of the Union? The SNP have time on their hands now to build a consensus and put their case forward for independence. Tbh I think with a Tory government at Westminster, it only helps the indepence movment....

Scotlands oil isn't worth anywhere near enough to justify the extra expenditure and the lower amounts of tax that they pay in. Scotlands economic competitiveness appears to be in terminal decline so I don't see what we get out of being in a Union.

Hudspur I agree with you. I think England should be independent....especially since England are governed by the Conservatives!

Scotlands oil isn't worth anywhere near enough to justify the extra expenditure.

Not now maybe but what about all the oil money stolen from Scotland in the past and for that matter what percentage of it was spent on Scotland.

Sorry the stolen should have been "stolen"

I think Cameron supports maintaining the Union he's the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party so the Union is at the heart of the ideology the tories hold dear.

Union to me conjurs up images of being "one" and of being treated equally...Poll Tax??

smallwhitecat

I think they'll take fright and vote no

Anyone well-informed here? if the Scottish people vote for independence, can it happen without the agreement of parliament?