Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

I think the answer to that is obvious.

Our share of the national debt is already included in the fiscal calculations, so the BT camp are scaremongering that tax will go up, expenditure will be cut, etc, in the event of independence.

Our share of the national debt is already included in the fiscal calculations, so the BT camp are scaremongering that tax will go up, expenditure will be cut, etc, in the event of independence.

Oh damn it, I was hoping you'd explain the transition/setup of a new Scotland.

Actually its related to what you've just said. Part of the question was about cost. The Scottish Parliament building cost approx £400m. How much would it cost to setup independent Govt departments and how might that be financed?

But the exam question is still how long will it take to create a Scottish benefits system (as an example).

It isn't really the BT campaign that are saying that. Independent observers are saying it and teh SNP is saying it in private.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee08022eec_u9m6vd74f.pdf

Alex Salmond is a smart man; I am sure he will have it all worked out.

His answer to everything is oil and the Scottish Government figures on the Scottish deficit play up oil very heavily. He has openly lied to the public over so many issues, and misrepresented oil income so often that he can't be trusted to 'have it all worked out'.
Posted from TSR Mobile

Midlander, the oil is a bonus.
Salmond is marmite; you either love him or hate him, and clearly you hate him.

The oil isn't a bonus. Salmond has staked everything on it and even then he's got it wrong.

Our share of the national debt is already included in the fiscal calculations, so the BT camp are scaremongering that tax will go up, expenditure will be cut, etc, in the event of independence.

You mean Westminster has staked everything on the oil and have got it wrong; even Alistair Darling has admitted that the UK government has wasted this money.

A straightforward lie.

A straightforward lie.

As to the main point, MatureStudent is perfectly correct. The SNP have previously called this a 'bonus' - it isn't. It's what's keeping our heads almost above water when we're running a very large deficit. That's not true on a UK level, where it accounts for a small fraction of national income. On a Scottish level, it is very significant - and Salmond's plans clearly don't add up.

Also, in response to the job losses that the scaremonging BT camp are proposing in the event of independence, they did not know that an independent Scotland is proposing that an Arms Conversion Agency be established to oversee the creation of alternative employment.

Go and do some research before you respond to posts.
Alistair Darling has publicly admitted this.

The SNP have promised many, many things. You're example is just another example. A few months ago it was a straightforward case of there would be no negative impact. Now you're saying that there's an Arms conversion Agency and yesterday Nicola Sturgeon was stating that the Admiralty work that keeps the Clyde going would carry on as usual. So what is it. No impact, or some impact?

Go and do some research before you respond to posts.
Alistair Darling has publicly admitted this.

He has not. Never. It's simply a lie.

It's also astoundingly ignorant. The UK spent its oil wealth on public services and infrastructure, which laid the foundations for the modern British economy - not to mention keeping taxes lower and encouraging growth. It has served us well.