The Scottish Parliament Election

[Scougs]

Well, someone else on the Dope might be interested.

The results here in Scotland are truly astonishing. The Scottish National Party have exceeded even the most optimistic of forecasts, and have absolutely swept the board.

The Liberal Democrat vote collapsed - an indictment on voter disillusionment at their performance in the coalition at Westminster? Or disgust at them getting in to bed with the Tories in the first place?

What now for the likelihood of Scottish Independence?

I know there's only a handful of Scottish dopers, but thought our friends across the Atlantic might be interested in such a historic outcome - first ever overall majority in the Scottish Parliament (granted, it hasn't been going that long).

[Quartz]

I'm newly in Scotland, and of Scottish ancestry. I'd vote for keeping the Union. Once the oil runs out, Scotland is going to be in big trouble. I would like to see more devolution, though. Specifically, more English devolution. England should have its own assembly and Scottish and Welsh MPs should not vote on purely English matters.

[Giles]

Presumably, if Scotland became independent, it would remain a member of the European Union, and might have to make a choice between continuing with its own Scottish pound or joining the Euro zone. Economically, would it be worse off than staying as part of the UK?

[Scougs]

Interesting times, certainly. I think a lot of people voted SNP for their policies other than independence, and this result isn't necessarily a vote for Scotland going it alone.

It'll be interesting if/when we do go to a referendum on independence, to see what the campaign would be like, and to see how the SNP would answer the questions around the economy.

[Ryan_Liam]

I am an avowed Unionist, I do not see the merits of England and Scotland becoming separate political entities, which leads to another question, shouldn't it be a referendum across both countries as to whether they should seperate, rather than just Scotland?

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

I am an avowed Unionist, I do not see the merits of England and Scotland becoming separate political entities, which leads to another question, shouldn't it be a referendum across both countries as to whether they should seperate, rather than just Scotland?

The English blocking Irish devolution didn't exactly keep the Union intact!

This argument always fascinates me. What if the UK voted to leave the EU and the other member states decided we couldn't? It strikes me that most people who argue the one would be appalled by the other. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Scougs]

Originally Posted by A. Gwilliam

The English blocking Irish devolution didn't exactly keep the Union intact!

This argument always fascinates me. What if the UK voted to leave the EU and the other member states decided we couldn't? It strikes me that most people who argue the one would be appalled by the other. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Agreed. It's a bizarre argument, in my opinion. Surely it's up to us?

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by A. Gwilliam

The English blocking Irish devolution didn't exactly keep the Union intact!

This argument always fascinates me. What if the UK voted to leave the EU and the other member states decided we couldn't? It strikes me that most people who argue the one would be appalled by the other. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Why does my pro Unionist stance have to be tarred with forcing people into the Union? I never said this. It's just my personal opinion that Scotland and England together is better than them being apart. I'm against splitting the UK into its component parts, we'd revert back to a bunch of rump states on the fringe of Europe, with English and Scottish political voices together we play a bigger part in Europe and on the world stage.

And again I'll state, since both the English and Scottish are part of a political creation called the United Kingdom, it should be a joint referendum on the continuation of this process rather than just a Scottish independence vote.

[Ximenean]

Mate, that's not how independence works . If it were, hardly any countries in history would have become independent from others.

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Why does my pro Unionist stance have to be tarred with forcing people into the Union? I never said this.

But it's inherent in your suggestion that England should also have a referendum on Scottish independence. England's population is roughly ten times that of Scotland!

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

The (hypothetical) referendum would be on whether Scotland wants to separate from the UK and form a sovereign nation on its own. Upon the (further hypothetical) positive response from the people of Scotland, the terms of this separation would be negotiated with the UK.

This is how the referendum question has played out in Canada - Québec is the entity which is currently a 'nation within a country'. Twice, the people of Québec have been asked if they would like to separate from the rest of Canada and twice the answer has come back 'No' (albeit with the narrowest of margins last time).

If the UK does not want Scotland to separate, it is up to the UK to provide the conditions where it is of greater benefit to stay in the union. I would advise against outlining negative consequences to separation - however realistic it may seem to the people saying it, it gets perceived as a threat.

In both places, Scotland and Québec, I see much greater benefit in staying within the Union/Confederation but also in both cases a greater respect for the culture over history would have avoided the question in the first place.

Just as in a divorce, it only takes one party to want to leave.

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by Ximenean

Mate, that's not how independence works . If it were, hardly any countries in history would have become independent from others.

It's also how states become irrelevant and dominated by more powerful countries.

A. Gwilliam
But it's inherent in your suggestion that England should also have a referendum on Scottish independence. England's population is roughly ten times that of Scotland!

Nope, there should be a referendum on the continuation of the United Kingdom for Scottish and English countries. The act of Union was first done by James Ist, who was Scottish, and then by Westminister, which was English, it's only fair both countries electorates get a say in the direction of how the Union will play out.

On another note, there is the threat of England becoming hypernationalistic due to the 'loss' of Scotland from the Union. So we could expect to see very right wing nationalistic governments come about as a result of this dissolution.

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

And again I'll state, since both the English and Scottish are part of a political creation called the United Kingdom, it should be a joint referendum on the continuation of this process rather than just a Scottish independence vote.

That's naive. As others have implied, you could have a referendum in England, but its results would be irrelevant. If Scotland voted to become independent and England voted for Scotland not to become independent, what are you going to do - go to war to maintain the union? It's been accepted in Westminster for decades that the will of the Scottish people will determine whether Scotland becomes independent.

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by Scheidt-Hoch

That's naive. As others have implied, you could have a referendum in England, but its results would be irrelevant. If Scotland voted to become independent and England voted for Scotland not to become independent, what are you going to do - go to war?

Who said England would vote for Scotland not to be independent, I was saying the vote should be for the continuation of the United Kingdom as it is currently, which if voted no, would result in Wales Scotland NI and England going their separate ways.

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Who said England would vote for Scotland not to be independent, I was saying the vote should be for the continuation of the United Kingdom as it is currently, which if voted no, would result in Wales Scotland NI and England going their separate ways.

No politician from England who is taken seriously is advocating this idea.

[Scougs]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Who said England would vote for Scotland not to be independent, I was saying the vote should be for the continuation of the United Kingdom as it is currently, which if voted no, would result in Wales Scotland NI and England going their separate ways.

Northern Ireland and Wales can do what they like. They have very different histories and became part of the UK in different ways. I see no reason why "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" can't become "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".

If that's what the majority of the Scottish people want.

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Nope, there should be a referendum on the continuation of the United Kingdom for Scottish and English countries. The act of Union was first done by James Ist, who was Scottish, and then by Westminister, which was English, it's only fair both countries electorates get a say in the direction of how the Union will play out.

Oh. Dear.

The Acts [sic] of Union were not passed in James I's time; he certainly supported a formal union between the two countries, but failed to win parliamentary support.

To cut a long story short, representatives from the two countries met in 1706, and agreed the "Articles of Union". These were approved in Scotland (with amendments) by an Act of Parliament that received the assent on Jan. 16, 1707. The amended Articles of Union were then approved in England by an Act of Parliament that received the assent on Mar. 6. Both parliaments had to give their assent for the Union to take effect, which happened on May 1.

Neither the English nor the Scottish parliaments of the day could be said to be "representative"; neither country had universal adult suffrage, after all! So the basis of your argument is flawed from top to bottom.

All that aside, the real problem I have with your proposal is that you have again completely ignored the clearest inherent consequence. If a substantial majority in Scotland vote for independence, but that result is outweighed by a majority in the opposite direction in a parallel referendum in England, then you're arguing that Scotland must remain within the Union against its will. Which must in turn lead to you deciding either to grant Scottish independence anyway (in which case, why bother with the referendum in England?), or you must use force to maintain the Union.

Look at it this way. If one of the two people in a marriage wants a divorce, then ultimately you either have to grant them that divorce, or you must keep them in that marriage against their will.


If the people of England voted overwhelmingly for English independence in a referendum, should a mere 5 million Scots have a veto over that clear expression of democratic will?

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Who said England would vote for Scotland not to be independent, I was saying the vote should be for the continuation of the United Kingdom as it is currently, which if voted no, would result in Wales Scotland NI and England going their separate ways.

That's an even dafter idea!

You seem to be fond of the notion of dictatorship by the majority.

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by Scougs

Northern Ireland and Wales can do what they like. They have very different histories and became part of the UK in different ways. I see no reason why "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" can't become "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".

If that's what the majority of the Scottish people want.

As an Englishwoman, I agree with you. It's up to Scotland what they want to do.

But more interesting, will the SNP have the guts to try a referendum on the issue? It's been their raison d'etre since the start and now's their chance. They'll look pretty wimpy if they don't put their money where their mouth is. Have there been any recent polls on independence amongst the Scottish populace?

[Quartz]

I think the majority of English would be glad to get rid of Scotland. Scotland is a significant drain on the U.K. exchequer: more per capita is spent on the Scots than the English. Once the oil runs out, Scotland's had it.

And if Scotland gains independence, will it allow the Shetlands to revert to Norway, taking most of Scotland's oil and gas with it? Sauce for the goose and all that...

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by SanVito

But more interesting, will the SNP have the guts to try a referendum on the issue? It's been their raison d'etre since the start and now's their chance. They'll look pretty wimpy if they don't put their money where their mouth is.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, they're bound to set up a referendum. They had a go at doing it during their last term, but as a minority government they had to abandon it at the draft bill stage. Presumably they'd wait until late into their new term.

Have there been any recent polls on independence amongst the Scottish populace?

No idea, although I've seen it commented on in passing by BBC journalists that opinion polls show only minority support.

If I recall correctly, support for independence went down fairly sharply after devolution was introduced. My uneducated guess is that support would be around 20%. The SNP gaining support for independence will probably have very much more to do with how the UK's central government behaves, than anything the Scottish government will do.

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by A. Gwilliam

Oh. Dear.

The Acts [sic] of Union were not passed in James I's time; he certainly supported a formal union between the two countries, but failed to win parliamentary support.

To cut a long story short, representatives from the two countries met in 1706, and agreed the "Articles of Union". These were approved in Scotland (with amendments) by an Act of Parliament that received the assent on Jan. 16, 1707. The amended Articles of Union were then approved in England by an Act of Parliament that received the assent on Mar. 6. Both parliaments had to give their assent for the Union to take effect, which happened on May 1.

Neither the English nor the Scottish parliaments of the day could be said to be "representative"; neither country had universal adult suffrage, after all! So the basis of your argument is flawed from top to bottom.

All that aside, the real problem I have with your proposal is that you have again completely ignored the clearest inherent consequence. If a substantial majority in Scotland vote for independence, but that result is outweighed by a majority in the opposite direction in a parallel referendum in England, then you're arguing that Scotland must remain within the Union against its will. Which must in turn lead to you deciding either to grant Scottish independence anyway (in which case, why bother with the referendum in England?), or you must use force to maintain the Union.

Look at it this way. If one of the two people in a marriage wants a divorce, then ultimately you either have to grant them that divorce, or you must keep them in that marriage against their will.


If the people of England voted overwhelmingly for English independence in a referendum, should a mere 5 million Scots have a veto over that clear expression of democratic will?

Again, I think the term strawman argument has been overdone, but you give me no choice but to use it again.

I've never said Scotland should be within the Union by force, that would almost certainly sounds the deathknell of it, Unionism shouldn't be equated with imprisonment of a nation, which is what you're accusing me of (I don't know why) and holding a people down by force, again which I haven't advocated.
If Scotland wants to be independent, fine, I alone cannot prevent that, however, I am passionate about the positive aspect of both countries remaining united, we're alot more important together than apart, which contrary to some people, I don't see as a bad thing.

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Again, I think the term strawman argument has been overdone, but you give me no choice but to use it again.

I've never said Scotland should be within the Union by force, that would almost certainly sounds the deathknell of it, Unionism shouldn't be equated with imprisonment of a nation, which is what you're accusing me of (I don't know why) and holding a people down by force, again which I haven't advocated.
If Scotland wants to be independent, fine, I alone cannot prevent that, however, I am passionate about the positive aspect of both countries remaining united, we're alot more important together than apart, which contrary to some people, I don't see as a bad thing.

It's not a strawman - what everyone is trying to explain to you is that it's pointless having a UK wide referendum given that the Scottish people alone decide whether or not Scotland leaves the union. England can vote 99-1 for the union to remain intact, but that would be trumped by Scottish voters crossing whatever threshold is set for a yes vote to independence. (At the moment that is unlikely - there are opinion polls all the time on independence, it's usually about 25-35% in favour of independence).

This will lead in the minds of some to the question of whether England could or would vote to leave the union. Quartz, do you have some statistics to back up your post? Could you let us know what the equivalent spending on individual English regions, such as London, is? Why is North Sea oil running out going to affect a hypothetical Scottish state more than it will the actual UK state?

[Quartz]

For spending, check out the Barnett Formula.

As for the North Sea, Salmond & co base their strategy on it, but have nothing with which to replace it.

[The Stafford Cripps]

Your link shows that public spending in London is almost as much as it is in Scotland. And whether or not Scotland leaves the union, how is Westminster going to cope with the loss of North Sea oil revenues?

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Scheidt-Hoch

Your link shows that public spending in London is almost as much as it is in Scotland.

Indeed. But it is less and London is not the whole of England.

And whether or not Scotland leaves the union, how is Westminster going to cope with the loss of North Sea oil revenues?

Probably quite badly, but it will only lose around half. But that's a red herring anway.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Scheidt-Hoch

It's not a strawman - what everyone is trying to explain to you is that it's pointless having a UK wide referendum given that the Scottish people alone decide whether or not Scotland leaves the union. England can vote 99-1 for the union to remain intact, but that would be trumped by Scottish voters crossing whatever threshold is set for a yes vote to independence. (At the moment that is unlikely - there are opinion polls all the time on independence, it's usually about 25-35% in favour of independence).

Why? Whether Scotland splits off of the UK is a British matter, not just a Scottish one. So how is it right that Scotland should have independence if the rest of the country doesn't want them to? I mean, you're right that that's practically what's going to happen. The rest of the UK isn't going to go to war against Scotland to keep them, but from a theoretical standpoint, why is the will of the Scots the only will that matters here and not the will of the British as a whole? It's not like the rest of Britain won't be affected should Scotland become independent.

[notquitekarpov]

On a purely personal viewpoint I see the SNP Majority as a disaster. I don't wish Nationalists to govern me in any shape or form not in the UK (thankfully unlikely) and not in Scotland.

I'm married to a Scot who also despises the SNP, and especially Salmon after having the misfortune to be sat next to him on a flight and observe his smug condescending manners and horrible way he treated his assistants.

Fortunately the Scottish Executive have limited powers but are already pushing for more. I am more worried about living in the atmosphere they will create for the next few years in what is a lovely place to live currently than the (remote) prospect of independence.

I hear rumour they have already penciled in for the summer 2014 to take advantage of the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn! There are no depths to which the man would stoop if this is true. A Saltire draped referendum - what a great atmosphere to obtain a rational decision. The man is beneath contempt...

[bump]

Here's a question- if Scotland did go its own way, would there be a peerage and a Queen, or would they abolish all that stuff?

Also, could/would the current Queen do anything concrete to prevent the split?

[A. Gwilliam]

Originally Posted by bump

Here's a question- if Scotland did go its own way, would there be a peerage and a Queen, or would they abolish all that stuff?

As I understand it, the SNP have deliberately not formulated a specific policy regarding the monarchy, so as to maximise the appeal of independence.

I suspect that an independent Scotland would in fact become just another Commonwealth realm.

The existing Scottish Parliament is unicameral. I can't see anyone with a straight face arguing that a putative second chamber should be either in part or in whole based on a peerage. So in my view (such as it's worth anything) an independent Scotland would continue to have a peerage, but one without any involvement in the running of the country.

Also, could/would the current Queen do anything concrete to prevent the split?

Back in 1914 the King became personally involved in trying to resolve the constitutional deadlock over home rule for Ireland. But other than emphasising moderation, and perhaps making the odd suggestion behind the scenes, I can't see the Queen getting involved, unless a similar deadlock arises in the course of any post-referendum negotiations.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by bump

Here's a question- if Scotland did go its own way, would there be a peerage and a Queen, or would they abolish all that stuff?

King Francis II

[Walker in Eternity]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I think the majority of English would be glad to get rid of Scotland. Scotland is a significant drain on the U.K. exchequer: more per capita is spent on the Scots than the English. Once the oil runs out, Scotland's had it.

And if Scotland gains independence, will it allow the Shetlands to revert to Norway, taking most of Scotland's oil and gas with it? Sauce for the goose and all that...

For the record, I'm English, but with some Scottish ancestry. I don't necessarily think that Scotland separating from the union is a good thing, but that is for one purely selfish reason.

If Scotland leaves then there is a very good chance that we in England will have a permanent Conservtive government, simply because many of Labour's seats are won in Scotland. Plus as stated by others I think we are stronger together. So while it may be nice in the short term to say "stop taking our money and go", in the long term we may all be worse off.

However, according to the Guardian while Salmond has the "moral authority" to hold a referendum polls show that support for Scottish independence among Scottish voters is only 25-35%.

SNP leader Alex Salmond claimed before polling day that victory would give him the "moral authority" to hold a referendum on independence. His promised referendum at the 2007 election was repeatedly blocked by other Holyrood parties. His new overall majority removes that barrier, but Salmond needs to persuade Scotland's voters to support separation. The most recent opinion polls show backing for independence hovers at 25% to 35%; Salmond will not stage a plebiscite and risk clear defeat.

Part of me thinks that the independence movement is reflective of the seeming trend in our society to break up into smaller special interest groups.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Quartz

I think the majority of English would be glad to get rid of Scotland. Scotland is a significant drain on the U.K. exchequer: more per capita is spent on the Scots than the English. Once the oil runs out, Scotland's had it.

You're wrong.

Scotland actually works out as a significant net gain to the exchequer. While the Barnett division means England are 4% worse off in terms of distribution, the North Sea revenues mean Scotland contributes significantly more than 4% extra in terms of income.

It's also worth pointing out that the North Sea is likely to be a major source of income for a good number of decades yet (rising price of oil combined with ever growing technology and new finds such as West of Shetland, Alwyn, yadda).

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

You're wrong.

Scotland actually works out as a significant net gain to the exchequer.

Cite? Remember that not all of the North Sea fields would go to Scotland.

[BrainGlutton]

Independence? Is that the SNP is about?

Because I know where Scotland can get a king.

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Cite?

Quartz, your assertions in this thread aren't backed up by much more than what you heard in the pub.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Cite? Remember that not all of the North Sea fields would go to Scotland.

Oh lord.

By the mid 1970s, international convention had already agreed that the North Sea north of the 55th parallel was under Scottish jurisdiction. That meant around 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas reserves fell within Scottish waters

Please note, that figure is now closer to 95% as most recent finds have been in the far north of the UK sector.

Revenue to the Uk last year - £6.5 billion (
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corpora...table11_11.pdf )

Cost of Barnett formula - 4.5 billion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...t-formula.html )

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

Oh lord.

By the mid 1970s, international convention had already agreed that the North Sea north of the 55th parallel was under Scottish jurisdiction. That meant around 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas reserves fell within Scottish waters

Unless I've missed it, that article fails to back up that claim. Which international convention? Indeed the McCrone report itself says

Originally Posted by McCrone Report

There might be some argument about where the boundary between English and Scottish waters would lie. At present this is considered to be along the line of latitude which lies just north of Berwick on Tweed, and it might perhaps be held that it should run NE/SW as an extension of the Border.

No mention of any international agreement, nor by whom the boundary was so considered at that time.

You did read the report itself, didn't you? Further, did you consider that the author might be somewhat biased? (Hint: look at the name.)

It also has some rather sanguine comments about the state of Scotland's economy without oil.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Unless I've missed it, that article fails to back up that claim. Which international convention? Indeed the McCrone report itself says



No mention of any international agreement, nor by whom the boundary was so considered at that time.

You did read the report itself, didn't you? Further, did you consider that the author might be somewhat biased? (Hint: look at the name.)

It also has some rather sanguine comments about the state of Scotland's economy without oil.

Oh lord, this really is going to be a handholding exercise, isn't it?

1) Division of the North Sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil

"Following the 1958 Continental shelf convention and after some disputes on the rights to natural resource exploitation [9] the national limits of the exclusive economic zones were ratified"

2) Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...ntal_shelf.pdf

"For the purpose of these articles, the term “continental shelf” is used as referring (a) to the seabed and
subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200
metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural
resources of the said areas"

3) Map of the north seas Exclusive Economic Zones (as have been followed since the 70's)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_sea_eez.PNG

4) Map of the Northern North sea sector, as defined by the DTI/DECC:

http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oil...lds/nnsmap.htm

5) Map of the Southern North sea sector, as defined by the DTI/DECC:

http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oil...lds/snsmap.htm

6) Map of Scottish adjacent waters, as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/99112601.gif

So, there you go. The international conventions that were followed, examples of how it was applied, a map of the scottish adjacent waters, and respective maps of the oil fields that would fall into English and Scottish waters should the union split.

In short, around 95% of oil and gas reserves lie within scottish waters. Due to the ever rising price of crude, and improved exploration/production methods that figure will go up, and Scotland could expect oil revenue to last a good 30 years plus. As such, " sanguine comments about the state of Scotland's economy without oil" don't really make much difference. Short of England invading (a hypothetical) independent Scotland and declaring their lands property of the queen, that oil is theirs.

And anticipating you'll next argue that the oil's only good for 20/30 years, can I point out in advance thatshould a fraction of that revenue be invested in renewable research, Scotland has both ample tidal and coastal wind locations, and companies with extensive experience of building offshore facilities, the obvious move would be to invest some of the revenue from oil/gas revenues into building offshore windfarms/tidal plants and take it from there.

So, can I once again state:

1) Scotland is a significant net contributor to the British economy
2) In the event of devolution, the per capita GDP is expected to rise about 15% or more
3) The Scots can make a good claim to having a viable long term economy.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Gary, isn't the claim that Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer based on oil income from the financial year 2008/2009 where oil prices were at a substantial peak? Even the prices from the financial year before were substantially lower than those in 2008/2009 making it hard to believe that prices will remain at this level, scarcity or not. In fact, the last twenty years have seen annual oil incomes for the UK Exchequer vary wildly from just over £1 billion a year in 1991 to £13 billion in 2008/2009.

See this graph from Channel 4's Factcheck, for instance. Scotland's surplus with 2008/2009 figures is just over £1 billion pounds, but again, that's using figures from the best possible (for Scottish Nationalists) year for oil incomes:

Professor David Bell, an expert on the Scottish economy at the University of Stirling, said: “If the price were to collapse it would mean the difference between a big surplus and a deficit. You can predict volatility in output but that’s quite different from a volatile price.”

In fact, GERS figures show that, largely thanks to big fluctuations in the price of oil, the last 30 years have seen wild variations in the amount of money generated by North Sea oil for the UK.

The figures range from lows of just over £1 billion in the early 1990s to a high of nearly £13 billion in – you’ve guessed it – 2008/09, the year of the much-quoted budget surplus for Scotland.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

Gary, isn't the claim that Scotland is a net contributor to the Exchequer based on oil income from the financial year 2008/2009 where oil prices were at a substantial peak? Even the prices from the financial year before were substantially lower than those in 2008/2009 making it hard to believe that prices will remain at this level, scarcity or not. In fact, the last twenty years have seen annual oil incomes for the UK Exchequer vary wildly from just over £1 billion a year in 1991 to £13 billion in 2008/2009.

No. For starters, the figure I gave was HMRC's received amount from 2010. If I'd used 2009s figures the net gain would have been 6 billion more.

In terms of actual running cost/benefit to date, the last time this one came up, I think it was a study by the Fraser of Allander institute that pointed out that revenue from the North sea over the last 20 years had significantly outweighed any inequality of tax revenue. I believe that was (in equivalent rates) in the order of tens of billions over the years, but will need to go digging for the study.

Obviously production rates will decline (estimates vary) but by the same token the price of crude is going to raise significantly (see increased demand from China and India, and drop in production from Saudi) which means that the North Sea's likely value for the next 20 years is in the order of billions per year.

And before anyone starts with ad hominems about skewed nationalist bias, I'm neither originally from Scotland, nor likely to stay here too much longer, so really don't have a dog in this fight. I work extensively with exploration and production data though, including revenue figures for HMRC, so have always found it amusing the way that people either write off the north sea as a spent asset, or claim that somehow Scotland's cost the English money. Both claims have sod all basis in fact.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

Oh lord, this really is going to be a handholding exercise, isn't it?

No, I'm making you prove your assertion.

1) Division of the North Sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil

"Following the 1958 Continental shelf convention and after some disputes on the rights to natural resource exploitation [9] the national limits of the exclusive economic zones were ratified"

2) Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...ntal_shelf.pdf

"For the purpose of these articles, the term “continental shelf” is used as referring (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas"

Neither of these back up your assertion.

3) Map of the north seas Exclusive Economic Zones (as have been followed since the 70's)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_sea_eez.PNG

4) Map of the Northern North sea sector, as defined by the DTI/DECC:

http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oil...lds/nnsmap.htm

5) Map of the Southern North sea sector, as defined by the DTI/DECC:

http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oil...lds/snsmap.htm

6) Map of Scottish adjacent waters, as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/99112601.gif

These, however, do.

In short, around 95% of oil and gas reserves lie within scottish waters. Due to the ever rising price of crude, and improved exploration/production methods that figure will go up, and Scotland could expect oil revenue to last a good 30 years plus. As such, " sanguine comments about the state of Scotland's economy without oil" don't really make much difference. Short of England invading (a hypothetical) independent Scotland and declaring their lands property of the queen, that oil is theirs.

According to my brother, who works in the oil industry doing reservoir modelling, 30 years is extremely optimistic, but is even so a very short period of time. After that, what next for Scotland?

And anticipating you'll next argue that the oil's only good for 20/30 years,

Hehehe.

can I point out in advance that should a fraction of that revenue be invested in renewable research, Scotland has both ample tidal and coastal wind locations, and companies with extensive experience of building offshore facilities, the obvious move would be to invest some of the revenue from oil/gas revenues into building offshore windfarms/tidal plants and take it from there.

If you believe that that will happen, I've got a bridge to sell you. And even if it does, it means that the power will go out on a calm day.

3) The Scots can make a good claim to having a viable long term economy.

No, they - we, actually, since I'm now in Aberdeen, and my blood hails from the Western Isles - cannot.

[Gary Kumquat]

Further hand holding it is then.

For starters, your comment that "Neither of these back up your assertion....These, however, do."

Yes actually, the first two do back up the assertion, as they were the basis in which the other maps were drawn up, and also because you asked "Which international convention?", so I told you. Clear enough.

I'm happy your brother works in reservoir modelling. The odds are, he's either used or is using some of my software. And yes, a 30 year projection for the life of the north sea is entirely reasonable. I'm sure your brother will happily point you towards the advances in directional drilling, frac techniques, reservoir analysis and all the other fun toys that we've got now that means previously marginal finds are now viable, and that's before you consider the price of crude has gone up from $10 per barrel in 1999 to $100 a barrel. It's been 50 years since Ecofisk and Montrose were first discovered, and we've used about 60% of known reserves. The stuff that's left is harder to get out, but the tech has moved on massively, and the reward is much higher. If I was being optimistic, I'd have said 40 years.

And what next for Scotland - renewables, same as for everyone else. There's no option here - oil will run out, countries will have to develop new sources, so it's pretty damned handy if you're a small population with a damned big proportion of coastline in a windy spot. As for the claim, "the power will go out on a calm day", please. Tidal is as consistent as it gets, and for wind you take advantage of Scotland's rather mountainous nature and build more hydro plants to store peaks in capacity.

You're repeatedly stated that the scottish economy can't stand on it's own, but for someone who's so keen on demanding cites failed to provide any worth a damn. In short, yes it can. Small population, decent selection of natural assets, oil reserves, industrial base...if anything, I could make a more convincing argument that England's got a shakey economic prognosis for the future.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

And what next for Scotland - renewables, same as for everyone else.

Actually, I reckon it'll be nuclear energy, not wind and water, because the latter simply don't provide consistent baseline load power.

You're repeatedly stated that the scottish economy can't stand on it's own,

Actually, I haven't.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Actually, I haven't.

When you disagreed with "The Scots can make a good claim to having a viable long term economy", it sure looks that way. So, you do think the Scottish economy can stand on it's own? Or are you just playing word games?

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Quartz

Actually, I reckon it'll be nuclear energy, not wind and water, because the latter simply don't provide consistent baseline load power.

I should at least be grateful that we're moving through issues one by one. We've sorted out your misconception that half of the north sea is in English waters, now lets try to explain how to cope with a variable source of energy.

Peak supply is a problem that you can deal with if you happen to have some suitable mountain/hill districts to create reservoirs in. Like Scotland does. But sure, nuclear's going to be a requirement too...and there's three companies I know of in the same town as you working as part of Thorium reactor research projects.

Oh, and as for the "No I haven't" nonsense...please. At least attempt to remember your previous claims that:

"Once the oil runs out, Scotland is going to be in big trouble", and
"Once the oil runs out, Scotland's had it.", or dismissing my comment that Scotland being able to claim to a viable economic future with "No, they...cannot." So please, acknowledge what you have said, and stop messing about with sophomoric attempts at debating tactics.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

When you disagreed with "The Scots can make a good claim to having a viable long term economy", it sure looks that way. So, you do think the Scottish economy can stand on it's own? Or are you just playing word games?

In this thread I said it once. That is not repeatedly.

However, I will bite. I have yet to see a long-term viable proposition for Scotland. Oil will run out sooner rather than later. Fishing's shot. Banking's in tatters. Forestry's not profitable. Shipbuilding is pretty much done and bust, absent defence. The farming is generally poor (Aberdeenshire's an exception). Taxes are high. It's very noticeable that high-tech companies choose to place their chip foundries in geologically unstable areas rather than geologically stable but expensive Scotland. Call centres for England won't pay the bills. And so on. Scotland has very little to recommend it in the long term. "We'll think of something" is not a valid plan.

I believe the politicians will spend the oil windfall, not save it. Thatcher spent it. Major spent it. Blair spent it. Brown spent it. Cameron's spending it. Independence will be a short term boost but a long-term disaster.

And I do not believe that Alec Salmond has the best interests of Scotland at heart, but rather his own.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Quartz

In this thread I said it once. That is not repeatedly.

However, I will bite. I have yet to see a long-term viable proposition for Scotland. Oil will run out sooner rather than later. Fishing's shot. Banking's in tatters. Forestry's not profitable. Shipbuilding is pretty much done and bust, absent defence. The farming is generally poor (Aberdeenshire's an exception). Taxes are high. It's very noticeable that high-tech companies choose to place their chip foundries in geologically unstable areas rather than geologically stable but expensive Scotland. Call centres for England won't pay the bills. And so on. Scotland has very little to recommend it in the long term. "We'll think of something" is not a valid plan.

See above. You repeatedly dismissed the idea that Scotland could operate as a viable standalone economy.

As for the rest of it...good lord. Let me try to put it this way. You have a relatively small population that has both sufficient landspace for farming, sufficient national waters for fishing, a current energy supply that is good for decades (and highly lucrative to boot), and renewable resources for an ongoing supply...and you don't see it as viable?

Let me put it another way. Scotland's economy is probably more viable and sustainable in the longterm than Englands. After all, England hasn't got the landspace or national waters to provide food, has no oil resources of note, is massively burdened by a military it cannot afford...get the idea? You have a country that is mostly dependent on service industries, at a time when outsourcing is easy and IT means financial trading can be done anywhere. Oh, and there's a good chance London will be mostly underwater in 20 years. How humped are they?

I don't actually believe that, but by god it's a hell of a lot more logical a viewpoint than your Daily Mail based exercise in pontification.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

See above. You repeatedly dismissed the idea that Scotland could operate as a viable standalone economy.

As for the rest of it...good lord. Let me try to put it this way. You have a relatively small population that has both sufficient landspace for farming

A small population is about the only thing Scotland has going for it. And I'm not sure that Scotland is self-sufficient in food.

sufficient national waters for fishing

Nope. All largely fished out.

a current energy supply that is good for decades (and highly lucrative to boot), and renewable resources for an ongoing supply...and you don't see it as viable?

Not once the oil runs out. And that might be even sooner if the Shetlands don't want to join the mainland.

Let me put it another way. Scotland's economy is probably more viable and sustainable in the longterm than Englands.

I doubt it.

After all, England hasn't got the landspace or national waters to provide food, has no oil resources of note,

You do know that one of the largest onshore oilfields in Europe is in the south of England, don't you?

is massively burdened by a military it cannot afford...get the idea?

Military expenditure can be cut. England could start by cutting all the expenditure in Scotland. BAe Systems could start by dumping the Barrow shipyards and moving them to Portsmouth.

You have a country that is mostly dependent on service industries, at a time when outsourcing is easy and IT means financial trading can be done anywhere. Oh, and there's a good chance London will be mostly underwater in 20 years. How humped are they?

That's an entirely different question.

I don't actually believe that, but by god it's a hell of a lot more logical a viewpoint than your Daily Mail based exercise in pontification.

I haven't read the Mail in years; all you've done is display your own ignorance. You've also perhaps missed that I've chosen to make Scotland - Aberdeen - my home. The oil revenues will last me until retirement but I fear for my dotage and the livelihoods of my nephew and niece.

[BrainGlutton]

Once at a science fiction convention I went to the room party for Glasgow's Worldcon bid (they won it). Someone distributed a pamphlet-sized Scottish-English lexicon . . . and, apparently, Scots have more words for fighting than Eskimos have for snow.

What the electoral significance might be, I don't know.