Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

What I find most curious is that Scots seem to concentrate only on England in this union. Wales and NI have not felt the need to table such a motion and independence movements in both nations are not forthcoming for the foreseeable future.

The SNP benefits enormously from having Alex Salmond on its side-he is a very persuasive man and his move to include 16 year olds in the vote is a shrewd one. I've looked high and low for where you've refuted the oil point-if you could direct me to it that'd be useful.

Devolution is in place precisely to minimise the impact on predominantly Scottish matters-which is why I find it hard to understand cries of inequality and English interference. From a more ideological standpoint, the things which have been accomplished with English and Scots side by side over the past 300 years have been enormous. The defeat of Napoleon, winning two world wars and defeating fascism in the process, are but a few examples of what has been achieved in the face of 'an inherently inequal union'. What is the point in going back to the way things were, when especially in times of economic uncertainty, it makes more sense for nations to co-operate?

I will never be convinced that Salmond is doing this as a way to spite England rather than to benefit his own country.

My views simply come from the years I've spent living in Scotland. It does not strike me as a prosperous nation, which you can see when you pass through any town in the country, Glasgow and Edinburgh aside. Salaries, living standards, and the economy in general, are stronger south of the border.

I've also encountered countless Scots who carry an ingrained chip on their shoulder towards most things English, which, in their own words, goes back to the days of Longshanks and 'tyrannical murder of innocent Scots'. Of course not every Scot carries this attitude, but it's a popular one which I, as an Englishman in Scotland, have to hear quite a lot more often than I'd like.

I talk about Wales and NI chiefly to highlight that they are part of the union too, but the SNP's arguments tend to always refer specifically to England, which does a disservice to both nations. The insinuation is that England somehow 'has it in' for Scotland, which as I'm sure you'll agree just isn't the case-but such arguments simply reinforce obsolete prejudices in Scots which have no place in this day and age. Slogans such as 'Only true Scots will vote yes' don't help either.

Not thinking solely about the UK, but globally, I strongly believe that nations should not be dividing themselves up and continential alliances such as the EU are positive. The resources which you refer to are only going to dwindle and this makes unions infinitely more favourable than separate entities. I am immensely proud that we have such a union (despite being on the end of narrow minded bigotry from Scots over the years), and carry deep resentment towards Alex and his party for attempting to break it.

Nothing personal against yourself, that's just how I feel.

And now we reach the lowest depths of ignorant unionism. Scotland is subsidised by England, she cries! Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax. Do you really think Westminster would be so desperate to cling to Scotland if it was a burden?

The oil is running out, but what's left certainly provides a nice boost to any newly independent Scotland. But our economy is not based on oil, Scotland has a quarter of Europe's renewable energy potential, that's massive! Scotland has been nicknamed the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy, and unlike oil it will never run out. Scotland has a very bright and profitable future ahead in exporting green energy itself and technology which will more than pick up where oil left off.

The attitude that Scotland is a deprived, subsidy junkie nation that is charitably kept under the wing of a benevolent UK is just wrong and incredibly insulting. Perhaps the attitudes you have encountered are precisely because you hold that out of date view.

The idea that Scotland hates England and that is the sole motivation for independence couldn't be further from the truth.

As a non restricted currency, the Bank of England literally has no power over who uses it, Scotland could very well continue to use it.
I was surprised when I learned this too, but it's true.
And the Euro could well become an attractive prospect, the outlook in Berlin is much more positive than flagging London, sorry to burst that bubble.

And now we reach the lowest depths of ignorant unionism. Scotland is subsidised by England, she cries! Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax. Do you really think Westminster would be so desperate to cling to Scotland if it was a burden?

The oil is running out, but what's left certainly provides a nice boost to any newly independent Scotland. But our economy is not based on oil, Scotland has a quarter of Europe's renewable energy potential, that's massive! Scotland has been nicknamed the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy, and unlike oil it will never run out. Scotland has a very bright and profitable future ahead in exporting green energy itself and technology which will more than pick up where oil left off.

Yes, I'm aware of the green energy part of the SNPs agitprop - unfortunately it isn't nearly enough and you didn't answer the point about England being the only viable customer for it.

Your tax figure is just the usual SNP hocum - it includes all the taxes arising from North Sea revenues, but there will be much dispute about who really owns what and anyway, as you apparently recognise, the revenues are declining.

My guess is that there will be a significant ongoing outward migration from Scotland if it does go "independent" and in any event it would be pseudo-independence, subsidised by us, to make it viable.

Also Scotland is not a fairly uniform national entity based on ethnicity any more. A large percentage of the population are either self-identifying as "English" or "British". Enough to stop the romanticist medieval SNP fantasy from becoming a reality, luckily.

I've encountered pretty blatantly obvious anti-English attitudes bordering on racism from SNP supporters.

I have dealt with the 8.4% of population and 9.4% of revenues canard several times in this thread already, but here we go again.

You forgot to mention that the Scottish politician who is credited with this quote says that it is equivalent to £1000 extra per person. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/06/22104419

Have to laugh as it is disingenious really, what he is doing here.

According to the UK Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2011_chapter9.pdf), Scots get an average of £10,212 per person spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 (£1,624 less) for people in England.

If Scots get an average of £1,624 extra spent on them per capita per annum, and contribute an average of £1,000 extra per capita per annum in tax, then they are being heavily subsidised.

Oh, and regarding that quarter of Europe's renewable energy potential, I guess that is alluding to MSP Fiona McLeod's claim that Scotland will soon generate 25% of Europe's electricity requirements by wind power. I thought it was ludicrous when I first heard it, but here it is again. Already done that in this thread, but I guess it has run for many pages and you haven't cared to read the thread, so here it is again.

A whole 25% of all Europe's electricity requirements?

That wind that is always blowing, no doubt. If not, they could always get the SNP round to make up for it, they're always full of hot air.

Oh, and that's assuming that considering the oil and gas resources in their territorial waters, the Shetlands don't make a bid for independence using the same 'natural resources' argument as Scotland is...

But anyway, the EU (a lesser fraction of Europe, but presumably that is what she is referring to) consumes 3,635,604 GWh/year. As of October 2010, 3.16 GW of worldwide offshore wind power capacity was operational, mainly in Northern Europe.

The Walney Wind Farm is the largest offshore wind farm in the world at 367 MW, and has 102 turbines. Therefore we can see that each turbine is rated at roughly 3.5 - 4 MW.

Scotland is going to need a lot of wind turbines...

There are 8,760 hours in the year. The manufacturer says you will get 30-35% out of them, but in use, it is around 22%. Let's be generous and say 25-26% for ease of calculation, so each 4 MW unit will put out roughly 9 GWh each year.

Looking for 908,901 GWh/year (25% of 3,635,604 GWh/year) you will need over 100,000 wind turbines, plus enough load capacity of conventional generation to make up for when the wind isn't blowing.

Scotland is more left wing, if your frankly ridiculous conspiracy theory of the SNP being closet tories rings true, then Scottish people will simply vote for someone else.
And of course this could change over time, but as an independent nation the governance of Scotland would change along with this change in attitude. Alternatively, if Scotland was to stay in the union, it could change it's opinions as much as it wanted but that would have no guaranteed affect on the central government which would continue to be dominated by England.

Or is part of your worldview that RBS will be regarded as an English bank??

As for your historical points, those are leaning slightly into the "Rule Britannia" attitude, the world wars also involved France, America, Russia and many more as I'm sure you're aware. Scotland and England can still cooperate, and I want that, no one doesn't, but next time it will be as equals which is not something to be scared of.

Scotland is already part of the Common Travel Area which has existed between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, for many decades. Border controls are in nobody's interest which is why they are very very unlikely to be established.

The attitude that Scotland is a deprived, subsidy junkie nation that is charitably kept under the wing of a benevolent UK is just wrong and incredibly insulting. Perhaps the attitudes you have encountered are precisely because you hold that out of date view.

The idea that Scotland hates England and that is the sole motivation for independence couldn't be further from the truth.

My views simply come from the years I've spent living in Scotland. It does not strike me as a prosperous nation, which you can see when you pass through any town in the country, Glasgow and Edinburgh aside. Salaries, living standards, and the economy in general, are stronger south of the border.

And I'm encountering ridiculous bigotry from you, continuously claiming that Scotland is subsidised.

Oh, and regarding that quarter of Europe's renewable energy potential, I guess that is alluding to MSP Fiona McLeod's claim that Scotland will soon generate 25% of Europe's electricity requirements by wind power. I thought it was ludicrous when I first heard it, but here it is again. Already done that in this thread, but I guess it has run for many pages and you haven't cared to read the thread, so here it is again.

A whole 25% of all Europe's electricity requirements?

Not having spent much time in England, I'm open to be corrected on this BUT on the occasions I have driven to down to London from Glasgow, I can't help but notice that the majority of the journey seems to be through run down, economically depressed areas. I'm not pointing out specific towns, but let's just say there's a reason why they say it's "grim up north." I certainly don't spend my time thinking "'gee those Engerlish are a prosperous bunch, good job they're there to subsidize those ungrateful, peasant Scotch." I would even go so far to argue that if London were taken away from England, any per capita gdp advantage it has(if one does currently exist), would go away. I'm not Scottish, by the way.

As a non restricted currency, the Bank of England literally has no power over who uses it, Scotland could very well continue to use it.

This is perfectly true. Scotland could continue to use sterling. However, it seems odd to be seeking to gain a bigger voice in the world while giving up power and influence in the single most important factor in controlling your economy.

As things stand, the UK government makes decisions over sterling and the economy after taking account of the needs of the whole of the UK. If Scotland were independent but used sterling it would not have any account taken of its needs when the UK made decisions that directly affected Scotland. This is madness on the part of Scots.

If Scotland chooses the euro the needs of such a small fringe country would pale into insignificance when weighed alonside those of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

In fact, if Scotland re-joins the EU it would be committed to joining the euro at some point, though, following the example of Sweden, it could theoretically put this off indefinitely by simply not joining the ERMII. Unfortunately the ECB has stated that this option will not be available to new EU members, leaving Scotland with little choice but to use the euro.

As you say, separate entry of Scotland into the Eurozone would also be fraught with difficulties.