[Cmca1]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
In all fairness, 50% of eligible voters even care about devolved issues in Scotland, despite the SNP supposedly being 'a true alternative to LibLabCon. Even in the 'landslide victory' the SNP only got 45% of the vote. That means less than a quarter of eligible voters in Scotland voted for the SNP. It would be interesting to see what the vote would be if an extra voting option was given 'none of the above' or 'not interested in devolution'.

Now unless most eligible Scottish voters are too lazy to vote for their constitutional status, the SNP cannot win this referendum.

To be fair though, a lot of people across the divide will vote yes or no irrespective of their party allegiance.

Plus, I think anyone who hasn't voted before out of laziness or who simply hasn't registered will vote on something as big as independence.

I'm sure there will be a huge drive to get people on the electoral register by 2014.

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by Cmca1)
To be fair though, a lot of people across the divide will vote yes or no irrespective of their party allegiance.

Plus, I think anyone who hasn't voted before out of laziness or who simply hasn't registered will vote on something as big as independence.

I'm sure there will be a huge drive to get people on the electoral register by 2014.

All valid points. It's easier to make a choice of leaving the United Kingdom or not that which parties represent most of your ideal policies or whose policies are most important.

[ras90]

(Original post by Cmca1)
To be fair though, a lot of people across the divide will vote yes or no irrespective of their party allegiance.

Plus, I think anyone who hasn't voted before out of laziness or who simply hasn't registered will vote on something as big as independence.

I'm sure there will be a huge drive to get people on the electoral register by 2014.

If Scotland was independent it would be economically worse of (no doubt about it).

The rest of UK would also suffer, but Scotland would suffer more than the UK.

So in conclusion be independent, but will cost you.

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by ukip72)
I want to be optimistic but the union campaign need to find a popular unionist in Scotland. Any Tory involvement and the 300 year old union is dead.
Sadly I'm not sure people will notice Salmond's ridiculously biased question and his unrealistic demands.

Gordon Brown, I hear he's still quite popular up there.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by ras90)
If Scotland was independent it would be economically worse of (no doubt about it).

The rest of UK would also suffer, but Scotland would suffer more than the UK.

So in conclusion be independent, but will cost you.

On what grounds do you believe Independence will cost Scotland?
A lot of people say the UK subsidies Scotland those this is not true and once again, when oil revenues are considered (Most of the North Sea Oil lies in Scottish waters) Scotland actually puts more into the UK than it recieves.

Furthermore, if you truly believe Scotland is subsidised by the UK, why do you think Scotland becoming independent would make the rest of the UK suffer? Surely if Scotland was subsidised by the UK, independence would make the UK better off?

[Aj12]

(Original post by Cmca1)
On what grounds do you believe Independence will cost Scotland?
A lot of people say the UK subsidies Scotland those this is not true and once again, when oil revenues are considered (Most of the North Sea Oil lies in Scottish waters) Scotland actually puts more into the UK than it recieves.

Furthermore, if you truly believe Scotland is subsidised by the UK, why do you think Scotland becoming independent would make the rest of the UK suffer? Surely if Scotland was subsidised by the UK, independence would make the UK better off?

If Scotland gets independence 18% of its economy possibly more will be based on oil alone. North Sea oil which is running out pretty quickly. Salmond needs a plan to get Scotland completely off oil and it needs to be implemented pretty fast. So far apart from talk of the renewable energy sector there is very little mention of this. People talk about North Sea oil as if its a good thing for Scotland, the country would be better off without it since all that seems to be happening is that those arguing for independence see it as an answer to any economic questions rather than the problem it actually is.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Aj12)
If Scotland gets independence 18% of its economy possibly more will be based on oil alone. North Sea oil which is running out pretty quickly. Salmond needs a plan to get Scotland completely off oil and it needs to be implemented pretty fast. So far apart from talk of the renewable energy sector there is very little mention of this. People talk about North Sea oil as if its a good thing for Scotland, the country would be better off without it since all that seems to be happening is that those arguing for independence see it as an answer to any economic questions rather than the problem it actually is.

Well currently within the UK, North Sea Oil is the main source of oil. So within an independent Scotland which would be much much smaller than the UK with about 5 million people, the revenues per person in an Independent Scotland would be much greater than they are within the UK. So there's a win for Independence.

You also say that the Scottish economy would be 18% "based on oil alone". I'm sure the UK economy at present is much less reliant on oil as an economic function because the UK is much larger. So I would ask, do you have a reliable source for that statistic? Because you would need to clarify what you mean by "18% reliant on oil alone". Do you mean the Scottish economy would be 18% reliant on oil (taking into account employment and taxation) or 18% of Scottish revenues would be based from oil. The following article from the Guardian (not the SNP) suggests Scotland would recieve 91% of the North Sea Oil revenues, which are currently spread out across the whole of the UK. Imagine these revenues being spread out across Scotland alone. On this basis, 18% of Scotland's economy wouldn't be based (or reliant) on oil, but 18% of their revenues might come from oil. Two different things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/r...me-independent

Furthermore, here is an incredibly biased article about Scotland's Independent economy. Here it says Scotland contributes 8.3% of the UK's output/8.3% non-oil tax revenues, but recieves 9.2% spending from Westminster. Why? The key is in the wording, the 8.3% figure for contribution to UK output, does not include oil! http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/04/25/cr...dent-scotland/

Finally, the renewable energy drive is about an alternative source of energy but also an export. Scotland could actually export electricity to other parts of the UK when they have a surplus of supply (once again, remember Scotland has about 5 million people). Secondly, in terms of engineering and manufacturing, they could be exporting wind turbines and other technology for renewable energy.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Well currently within the UK, North Sea Oil is the main source of oil. So within an independent Scotland which would be much much smaller than the UK with about 5 million people, the revenues per person in an Independent Scotland would be much greater than they are within the UK. So there's a win for Independence.

You also say that the Scottish economy would be 18% "based on oil alone". I'm sure the UK economy at present is much less reliant on oil as an economic function because the UK is much larger. So I would ask, do you have a reliable source for that statistic? Because you would need to clarify what you mean by "18% reliant on oil alone". Do you mean the Scottish economy would be 18% reliant on oil (taking into account employment and taxation) or 18% of Scottish revenues would be based from oil. The following article from the Guardian (not the SNP) suggests Scotland would recieve 91% of the North Sea Oil revenues, which are currently spread out across the whole of the UK. Imagine these revenues being spread out across Scotland alone. On this basis, 18% of Scotland's economy wouldn't be based (or reliant) on oil, but 18% of their revenues might come from oil. Two different things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/r...me-independent

Finally, the renewable energy drive is about an alternative source of energy but also an export. Scotland could actually export electricity to other parts of the UK when they have a surplus of supply (once again, remember Scotland has about 5 million people). Secondly, in terms of engineering and manufacturing, they could be exporting wind turbines and other technology for renewable energy.

The future, however, looks much dicier. This is a stormy economic world, and an independent Scotland would be a small, vulnerable barque. It would depend on oil for some 18% of its GDP, making it subject to shifts in global commodity prices. Though high oil and gas prices have pushed up tax revenues, if they drop production as well as receipts would plummet. The richest reserves have already been exploited, leaving inaccessible oil that becomes uneconomic when prices fall. North Sea production has been falling by about 6% a year for the past decade. Eventually the oil will run out entirely. http://www.economist.com/node/21552564

Your missing the point of what I said. those revenues being spread on a smaller scale still does not change the fact that North Sea oil is running out fast and the argument for Scottish independence is far too reliant on it. Scotland is basing its long term survival on a quickly running out resource.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by RyanT)
NI is Scotland's colony. If Scotland leaves, NI will be following it.

Somewhat of a non-sequitor to say it strengthens the case for regionalism. A region that was less similar to the other regions leaves... that reduces regional differences and hence demand for regional governance. It's already deeply unpopular in England with referendums being consistently voting against devolution within England.

NI won't be leaving the Union, as much as they have always had strong ties with Scotland , there would be too much uproar.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Oh I know, but if someone has always wanted Scotland to be independent, they'll vote for that. Similarly if someone equally knows they want Scotland in the union, they'll vote for that.

People who will always vote one particular way are an irrelevance in such votes. It's the mid-swingers who could go either way that will win it for one side or the other. if 5% of people switch to voting for it based on that question then that would make a huge difference.

[ras90]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Well currently within the UK, North Sea Oil is the main source of oil. So within an independent Scotland which would be much much smaller than the UK with about 5 million people, the revenues per person in an Independent Scotland would be much greater than they are within the UK. So there's a win for Independence.

You also say that the Scottish economy would be 18% "based on oil alone". I'm sure the UK economy at present is much less reliant on oil as an economic function because the UK is much larger. So I would ask, do you have a reliable source for that statistic? Because you would need to clarify what you mean by "18% reliant on oil alone". Do you mean the Scottish economy would be 18% reliant on oil (taking into account employment and taxation) or 18% of Scottish revenues would be based from oil. The following article from the Guardian (not the SNP) suggests Scotland would recieve 91% of the North Sea Oil revenues, which are currently spread out across the whole of the UK. Imagine these revenues being spread out across Scotland alone. On this basis, 18% of Scotland's economy wouldn't be based (or reliant) on oil, but 18% of their revenues might come from oil. Two different things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/r...me-independent

Furthermore, here is an incredibly biased article about Scotland's Independent economy. Here it says Scotland contributes 8.3% of the UK's output/8.3% non-oil tax revenues, but recieves 9.2% spending from Westminster. Why? The key is in the wording, the 8.3% figure for contribution to UK output, does not include oil! http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/04/25/cr...dent-scotland/

Finally, the renewable energy drive is about an alternative source of energy but also an export. Scotland could actually export electricity to other parts of the UK when they have a surplus of supply (once again, remember Scotland has about 5 million people). Secondly, in terms of engineering and manufacturing, they could be exporting wind turbines and other technology for renewable energy.

Economies of scale, UK benefits from this.

Also,

National debt and budget defecit.

Scotland would have a MUCH HIGHER borrowing cost than the UK. So straight away Scotland would have financial problems, people WILL NOT want to lend Scotland money.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Aj12)
The future, however, looks much dicier. This is a stormy economic world, and an independent Scotland would be a small, vulnerable barque. It would depend on oil for some 18% of its GDP, making it subject to shifts in global commodity prices. Though high oil and gas prices have pushed up tax revenues, if they drop production as well as receipts would plummet. The richest reserves have already been exploited, leaving inaccessible oil that becomes uneconomic when prices fall. North Sea production has been falling by about 6% a year for the past decade. Eventually the oil will run out entirely. http://www.economist.com/node/21552564

Your missing the point of what I said. those revenues being spread on a smaller scale still does not change the fact that North Sea oil is running out fast and the argument for Scottish independence is far too reliant on it. Scotland is basing its long term survival on a quickly running out resource.

I'm not missing your point. I'd like to know how reliant the UK economy is on North Sea at present also? What's the UK's plan for the economy when it can no longer export oil and will be forced to import from abroad. Every nation is equally susceptible to market changes in oil prices, imagine the UK having no oil and being reliant on foreign oil prices. So your argument works both ways, what's the UK's plan for when oil runs out?

Secondly, without changing the subject but sticking to spending and the economy, I'd be interested in knowing how much Scotland contributes to defence spending. Would a small independent Scotland need to spend as much on defence as it does now within the UK? I don't think so. That money could be placed into infrastructural projects, business support, renewable energy, education and health spending etc, in other words, it could have a more meaningful contribution to the economy, instead of being squandered in the Middle-East or on Trident.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by ras90)
Economies of scale, UK benefits from this.

Also,

National debt and budget defecit.

Scotland would have a MUCH HIGHER borrowing cost than the UK. So straight away Scotland would have financial problems, people WILL NOT want to lend Scotland money.

Economies of scale, yes. Efficiency savings of running Scotland completely from Edinburgh, would they be taken into account?

Furthermore, the whole of the UK is in huge debt, so with regards a budget deficit, Scotland would have nothing to lose.

Additionally, in the event that Scotland needed a bail out for example, the Scottish and English economies are so deeply linked, whether within the Union or separate, I'm pretty sure England would do what it could to help, as was seen by their bailout of the Irish economy where there was a loand of £7bn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769

[ras90]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Economies of scale, yes. Efficiency savings of running Scotland completely from Edinburgh, would they be taken into account?

Furthermore, the whole of the UK is in huge debt, so with regards a budget deficit, Scotland would have nothing to lose.

Additionally, in the event that Scotland needed a bail out for example, the Scottish and English economies are so deeply linked, whether within the Union or separate, I'm pretty sure England would do what it could to help, as was seen by their bailout of the Irish economy where there was a loand of £7bn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769

No, you do not understand.


The interest rate which the UK borrows is amongst the lowest in Europe, Scotland would have to pay a lot lot more. Therefor it would be poorer. Even the economist magazine showed how poor Scotland would be.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by ras90)
Economies of scale, UK benefits from this.

Also,

National debt and budget defecit.

Scotland would have a MUCH HIGHER borrowing cost than the UK. So straight away Scotland would have financial problems, people WILL NOT want to lend Scotland money.

(Original post by ras90)
No, you do not understand.


The interest rate which the UK borrows is amongst the lowest in Europe, Scotland would have to pay a lot lot more. Therefor it would be poorer. Even the economist magazine showed how poor Scotland would be.

To say that "people WILL NOT want to lend Scotland money" seems a little out of proportion.

By the way, you should read some of the 2000 odd comments under that Economist article, most seem to disagree with you and its writer. Yet another fine example of negative campaigning and scaremongering by the British press.

I would invite anyone to read the comments under this article:
http://www.economist.com/node/215525...ments#comments

Such a blatantly biased piece of journalism, most reasonable unionist-minded people would have to admit it.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
I'm pretty sure England would do what it could to help, as was seen by their bailout of the Irish economy where there was a loand of £7bn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769

You seem to have missed what the PM said about protecting Britain's interests as a first priority. There is no way an independent Scotland can count on England to bail out Scotland's economy any more than any other EU nation.

Would a small independent Scotland need to spend as much on defence as it does now within the UK? I don't think so.

One the one hand, Scotland can probably count on having lower commitments (and influence, despite what the SNP says) and therefore a need for smaller forces. On the other hand, what it does need will be proportionately more expensive than England's becasue of the loss of scale.

In addition, of course, although Scotland will lose the nuclear costs it will also lose the benefits of Britain's nuclear spending (which accrue disproportionately to Scotland at the moment) as England moves its bases and spending south. This is likely to be significant, economically.

[ras90]

(Original post by Cmca1)
To say that "people WILL NOT want to lend Scotland money" seems a little out of proportion.

By the way, you should read some of the 2000 odd comments under that Economist article, most seem to disagree with you and its writer. Yet another fine example of negative campaigning and scaremongering by the British press.

I would invite anyone to read the comments under this article:
http://www.economist.com/node/215525...ments#comments

Such a blatantly biased piece of journalism, most reasonable unionist-minded people would have to admit it.

You are ignoring the point at how Scotland will have to pay more.

Also, anyone can leave a common under an article, just a bunch of people like you.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Such a blatantly biased piece of journalism, most reasonable unionist-minded people would have to admit it.

I'm unclear where the bias lies in pointing out that a small nation - without control of its own currency and with over-reliance on one volatile and reducing source of revenue - will have higher borrowing costs. That is the realistic position.

[Kj91]

I voted no in the poll. I would personally like to see an independent Scotland as a Scottish person. There are to many Unioniosts scaremonegring with regards to independence. No one will truly know until we try it ourselves. I believe an independent Scotland would be beneficial for Scotland and would create a stronger relationship between Scotland and England. I can't argue on the economic benefits although there are plenty of other small countries which cope like Denmark/Sweden/Norway and they are doing well. There is an interesting article I want to post which defies Unionist myths. I am not advocating it as an argument although it is very interesting to read.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...misinformation .I just saw this on OPs web page although it is very good.

[KCosmo]

Cameron needs to accept that "conservative" and "tory" are very dirty words in Scotland. It's not a coincidence that we have more pandas (2) than conservative MPs. If Cameron wants to help Scotland stay in the union, he should shut up and let labour and the lib dems fight the SNP on this issue.