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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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).
“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”
“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”
Map of the north seas Exclusive Economic Zones (as have been followed since the 70’s)
Map of the Northern North sea sector, as defined by the DTI/DECC:
Map of Scottish adjacent waters, as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
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:
Scotland is a significant net contributor to the British economy
In the event of devolution, the per capita GDP is expected to rise about 15% or more
The Scots can make a good claim to having a viable long term economy.
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:
