# The Scottish Parliament Election **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 6, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979 "2011-05-06T16:55:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/21 "2011-05-07T15:56:22Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/22 "2011-05-07T16:01:52Z")
> [@A.Gwilliam](#): > > Oh. Dear. > > The Act **s** [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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stafford_cripps/32/7167_2.png) [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/23 "2011-05-07T16:21:53Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/24 "2011-05-07T17:51:52Z")
For spending, check out the [Barnett Formula](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula). As for the North Sea, Salmond & co base their strategy on it, but have nothing with which to replace it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stafford_cripps/32/7167_2.png) [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/25 "2011-05-07T21:52:01Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/26 "2011-05-07T22:28:21Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/27 "2011-05-09T18:07:40Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/28 "2011-05-10T17:28:35Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/29 "2011-05-10T18:52:51Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/30 "2011-05-10T20:47:48Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/31 "2011-05-10T22:04:26Z")
> [@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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria) ---
**Author:** ![Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/46a35a/32.png) [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walker_in_Eternity)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/32 "2011-05-12T15:11:17Z")
> [@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](http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/06/snp-election-victory-scottish-independence?intcmp=239) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/33 "2011-05-12T16:02:16Z")
> [@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). ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/34 "2011-05-12T18:35:46Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/35 "2011-05-12T19:08:47Z")
Independence? Is that the SNP is about? Because [I know where Scotland can get a king.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Roger_Lafosse) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stafford_cripps/32/7167_2.png) [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/36 "2011-05-12T20:09:54Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Cite? Quartz, your assertions in this thread aren’t backed up by much more than what you heard in the pub. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/37 "2011-05-12T21:41:53Z")
> [@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](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/howf-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html) 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/corporate\_tax/table11\_11.pdf](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_11.pdf) ) Cost of Barnett formula - 4.5 billion ( [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/6761172/England-loses-4.5-billion-to-Scotland-thanks-to-Barnett-formula.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/6761172/England-loses-4.5-billion-to-Scotland-thanks-to-Barnett-formula.html) ) ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/38 "2011-05-13T04:53:10Z")
> [@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](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/howf-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html) Unless I’ve missed it, that article fails to back up that claim. Which international convention? Indeed the McCrone report itself says > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/39 "2011-05-13T05:54:59Z")
> [@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: [North Sea oil - Wikipedia](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” 1. Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958: [http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8\_1\_1958\_continental\_shelf.pdf](http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_continental_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” 1. Map of the north seas Exclusive Economic Zones (as have been followed since the 70’s) > **[File:North sea eez.PNG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_sea_eez.PNG)** > > Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. > You cannot overwrite this file. The following 4 pages use this file: > The following other wikis use this file: 1. Map of the Northern North sea sector, as defined by the DTI/DECC: [http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oilgas/nsfields/nnsmap.htm](http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oilgas/nsfields/nnsmap.htm) 1. Map of the Southern North sea sector, as defined by the DTI/DECC: [http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oilgas/nsfields/snsmap.htm](http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oilgas/nsfields/snsmap.htm) 1. Map of Scottish adjacent waters, as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 [![](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1126/images/uksi_19991126_en_001) ](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1126/images/uksi_19991126_en_001) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979/40 "2011-05-13T13:30:20Z")
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](http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-who-loses-if-scotland-goes-it-alone/6524) 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-scottish-parliament-election/580979.md?page=3)