Scottish Independence

[Churchill]

Surely it's Scottish oil that's been subsidising England since the 1970s?

Erm nope. Next.

The Oil was found in UK Waters.

[DodgyAgent]

Surely it's Scottish oil that's been subsidising England since the 1970s?

From an atricle in the Guardian in February of this year:

The latest figures from the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) report illustrate the problem. Public spending in Scotland in 2004-05 was £47.7bn, while total revenues are estimated at £36.4bn, equivalent to 8.1% of all UK revenues. The deficit was thus more than £11bn, or 12% of Scottish GDP - three times the percentage deficit of the UK as a whole.

Nationalists dispute the GERS figures, but few fiscal experts do. Now, that is a big deficit and matters in all sorts of ways. This is the origin of the fiscal "black hole" that is often talked about in relation to Scotland. If you are a member of the European Union, especially one that might want to join the euro one day, as the SNP wants to, you are required to have a maximum deficit of 3% of GDP. Currently the Scottish deficit is covered by the rest of the UK, but that would cease to be the case if Scotland became independent.

Ah, say the supporters of independence, you've forgotten North Sea oil - Scotland would be OK if it had all of that. Would it? In 2004-05, North Sea oil revenues amounted to £5.2bn, which would roughly halve the Scottish deficit. This year, the Treasury expects it will be double that, at £10.4bn, as oil prices and taxes on the North Sea have risen sharply. That looks almost enough to plug the deficit. But because of arguments over which country the different oilfields are attached to, it is highly debatable how much of that revenue would go to an independent Scotland. Some critics say that even if it did manage to secure everything, it would still not be enough. "Even if all revenue from North Sea oil and gas had come to Scotland, the country would have had a 'persistent deficit'," says Professor Arthur Midwinter, an adviser to the Scottish Executive's finance committee.

There are other factors, too. Oil prices are highly erratic and already well down from last year. Moreover, North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 at around 3.5 million barrels per day, and is now down to half that and falling rapidly. So independence forged on expectations of an oil bonanza would clearly carry risks.

In any case, whatever share of North Sea oil Scotland might finally grab, it would still struggle to be the new Ireland. Public spending is currently more than 50% of GDP and tax revenues about 40%, with the balance made up by other UK taxpayers. Ireland's public spending is only 35% of GDP (Britain's is 46%). Scotland currently enjoys Scandinavian levels of spending and American tax levels. Independence would necessitate action to tackle the deficit - either tax rises or spending cuts, or both. Copying Ireland would require a massive reduction in the scope of the state. Tough choices indeed.

[Diver]

If they get independence we will have to get those Italian contractors back in to rebuild Hadrian's wall.

[snaw]

You can keep on with this same sort of argument and talk about reduced spending on things like armed forces etc - you can't say that Scotland would have this massive deficit if independence happens based on current figures, because current figures aren't valid in that different kind of situation. It may well be worse, in the short term, but personally I think in the long run from a purely Scottish perspective it would be better (I'm an optimist if it wasn't obvious), given that their would be a governemt who's only job was Scottish affairs, in full control of it's priorities, tax raising, spending etc.

[The Lone Gunman]

I am pro Union. I believe that GB is greater than the sum of its parts.
On the other hand I am sick of the Scots, Welsh and Irish consistantly pointing at England as the cause of all their woes so I might be convinced to say cut em loose rather than have this half arsed assemblies jobby.

All or nothing.

[DodgyAgent]

You can keep on with this same sort of argument and talk about reduced spending on things like armed forces etc - you can't say that Scotland would have this massive deficit if independence happens based on current figures, because current figures aren't valid in that different kind of situation. It may well be worse, in the short term, but personally I think in the long run from a purely Scottish perspective it would be better (I'm an optimist if it wasn't obvious), given that their would be a governemt who's only job was Scottish affairs, in full control of it's priorities, tax raising, spending etc.

Most of Scotlands jobs are in the public sector so no one is creating wealth. The scots are envious of anyone who shows entrepreneurial spirit, which is why all Scottish entrepreneurs move to England. So you may wish to "dish" current figures but the only thing with which to predict the future with is behaviour in the past Dont bet on the Scots suddenly chucking their drug and drinks habits and public sector jobs and suddenly becoming entrepreneurs.

[snaw]

The scots are envious of anyone who shows entrepreneurial spirit, which is why all Scottish entrepreneurs move to England.

Eh, where did you come up with this guff? There's a very simple reason Scottish entrepreneurs move to England, and here's a clue - it's got SFA to do with other envious Scots.

[DodgyAgent]

Eh, where did you come up with this guff? There's a very simple reason Scottish entrepreneurs move to England, and here's a clue - it's got SFA to do with other envious Scots.

So why do they move then?

[snaw]

So why do they move then?

You're the one making the silly assumptions, you justify them.

You had a decent argument up till that point, but you habitually let yourself down when you start making assumptions about other peoples motives. It's your biggest weakness,

[DodgyAgent]

You're the one making the silly assumptions, you justify them.

You had a decent argument up till that point, but you habitually let yourself down when you start making assumptions about other peoples motives. It's your biggest weakness,

OK

My point is that Scotland has relatively little entrepreneurial spirit. most of the jobs are in the public sector. The scots north of the border are going to struggle whenthese public sector jobs are taken away from them along with tax subsidies that they currently "enjoy".

Scotland has (compared to say Ireland or london) a long way to go to find people to create wealth.

Even the Scottish office website acknowledges a need to foster an entrepreneurial spirit in scotland as opposed to "drinking spirits" which currently prevails there.

Skills for entrepreneurs
6.25 The Government firmly believes that Scotland's economic base needs a breadth of small businesses, which because of their size and flexibility are well placed to boost competitiveness; develop new products; provide opportunities for employment; stimulate growth; and create wealth. Small businesses, those with less than 50 employees, represent 98 per cent of all businesses in Scotland and provide 46 per cent of non-government jobs.
6.26 A flourishing small business sector is in large measure dependent upon better and more positive attitudes to responsible risk-taking throughout society. Society will need people with vision and aspiration to start their own businesses and to create employment and wealth for others. Employers, too, need people with the right skills and an enterprising attitude to make the most of the growth potential of their business. If a new entrepreneurial culture is to be created, it is important that young people are introduced to the excitement of entrepreneurship at an early age. Positive attitudes, confidence and self esteem are crucial building blocks for entrepreneurship, and can be utilised throughout life in business or employment. We need to foster a "can-do" mentality within society if we are to stimulate business creation and provide the type of employees now in demand by the corporate sector.