´óÏó´«Ã½

It's ridiculous to claim that Scotland would have been running a deficit as an independent country. If Scotland was an independent country then the public finances would have changed, and the Government at the time would have encouraged the economy at the time to develop in order for Scotland to return to a surplus.

Every country in the world faces good times and bad times. In the United Kingdom or out, Scotland could have to face difficult times. During this moment of financial depression it proves that the political union does not protect Scotland.

If Scotland is not protected in the union, what's the economic benefit?

Good points, Douglas.

I have to say I love this notion in this fantasy Scotland Office report that an independent Scotland would "only" have been in surplus for 9 of the last 27 years - and that would somehow be a terrible thing.

So...er, on their own highly risible figures, an autonomous Scotland would still have been better off, fiscally, than England, Wales, Northern Ireland - and the UK as a whole which has only run a surplus in 6 of the last 27 years.

Or put another way, that £20bn cumulative debt for Scotland compares to the £500bn cumulative debt for the UK as a whole. Or, in other words, Scotland's share of that "UK" debt comprises about 4% of the total, when Scotland has nearly 9% of the population.

Are you sure the Scotland Office are not trying to secretly make the case against Union on these figures?

Are the Secretary of State Against Scotland's figures worked out on the basis of population (i.e. 10% of oil revenues) or on the basis of geographical share (i.e. 80+% of oil revenue) ?

I imagine this would make a huge difference.

So Norway must be bust then? Complete nonsense of course but there is more to this than just oil revenues.....

What the Norwegians did was to set up Statoil; a state owned oil company that not only became the dominant operator and largest revenue earner but played a very major role in helping nurture and develop their supply side industry. This was very significant because in collaboration with the Norwegian Govt and of course their financial services sector Norway has become a very major international player second now only to the USA in the provision of offshore technology and services. The UK and Scotland got nowhere due to Thatcher's "level playing field" policy which killed of Britoil and let the financial services sector off the hook in terms of any role in investing in UK companies (other than oil companies of course) .....

It's therefore to remember this when running "what if" exercises but it's equally important to remember that the large industrial and high tech base the Norwegians established led directly to them also becoming leaders in areas such tidal energy turbines, hydrogen production, solar energy systems and even electric cars.

If you like then, the proper use of their oil revenues helped considerably in preparing Norway for a high tech future in the renewables sector as well. Frankly, I still haven't worked out what has happened to our oil revenues - have you??

Here we go round the mulberry bush again . . .

There are so many 'ifs' and 'buts' in this argument . . . for example -

"If all North Sea oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland, there would have been a surplus in Scottish public spending in only nine years out of the last 27."

Who's to say Scottish public spending over the last 27 years would have had to account for a Trident Missile deterrent? Or the multi-billion pound debacle in Iraq? Who's to say Scottish Corporation Tax would have been set at the same levels as the UK over all 27 of those years?

If Scotland had followed the Irish model (Lower business taxation to encourage growth), backed with oil revenues as security, who's going to venture to guess how the economy would have performed during the 'boom'

On top of which, isn't the point of an oil fund that you invest revenue as capital? And that your financial capital then generates revenue as dividends on your investment. So maybe the "the same pounds can't be used for current expenditure." but the profit/dividends earned by those 'same pounds' could have been.

What does that make the Unionist arguments then? Other than a shameful attempt to cover up their squandering of Scotland's future, that is?

Thomas Porter

"During this moment of financial depression it proves that the political union does not protect Scotland."

It is now five months since the UK government bailed out Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS with billions of UK taxpayers money. Had that already slipped the popular memory or exactly how much more protection are you looking for?

As ever, I suspect that the chances of a clear-cut, unspun story of budgetary surplus/deficit on the oil issue is precisely zero. Even if it were, the chances of getting anyone to agree are less than zero as there are entrenched views that are well beyond reasoned argument.

Funnily enough, one of the reasons why Norway seemingly has gained more from its oil and gas revenues (other than the fact that they had more of the stuff and a much smaller population) is that they created state monopolies around the exploration, production and, crucially, trading of gas and oil. Such monopoly arrangements are not allowed under EU single market and competition rules hence the progressive unwinding of Britoil in the late 80s (so much more boring than blaming Mrs T.). So in a sense, people are bellyaching about the outcome of policies instigated in Brussels, the UK being a member of the EU whilst Norway is not. Now aren't the SNP basing the whole future on an "ever closer relationship with the European Union? As ever, when you look deeper into these things, the slogans rarely stand up to scrutiny.

Go independent, take the oil, stand on your own feet and leave us alone. While your at it, take Gordon, Alastair and their misogynistic clique of venally incompetent MPs with you.

"Secretary of State against Scotland" I like it.

As always the unionists say how badly an independant Scotland would have done even, in good times, and how much we owe to the Union.

So stop subsidising us, forget Calman and his tinkering, let us stand on our own feet as any good and caring parent would. Let us make our own mistakes and fortune and let us be friends as well as family.

But above all let us be free.

Wee Scamp

"Frankly, I still haven't worked out what has happened to our oil revenues - have you??"

Unfortunately yes! The arrival of significant fiscal revenue had three affects. It allowed the UK to run up a significant unemployment problem in the 1980s...vital restructuring or an assault on the manufacturing economy depending on your outlook. Secondly it allowed the delivery of tax cuts which arguably had a stimulating influence...at least for importers. Lastly, and unfortunately it turned the pound into a petro-currency, boosting its value and further snuffing out export competitiveness for manufacturers. Simultaneously it lowered the price of imports so, in a sense, it paid for tax cuts that enabled everyone to buy a Japanese Hi-Fi. Not much of a legacy!

North Sea revenue was not wisely spent, but that is an easy analysis with hindsight. An independent Scotland would have more than likely made similar mistakes e.g. pouring money into subsidising old heavy industries, crushing domestic industry with a super-valued currency, running up a massive non-oil balance of payments deficit. I suspect that significant amounts would have been spent buying-off the very powerful public-sector unions at that time...but it's all conjecture, I lost interest in this somewhere during the third spin around the "fruit-loop"

Surely the point of the statement that there would have been a surplus for only nine years in the last 27 is that there was a limit to the manner from haven that North Sea oil was/is. A limited resource with an associated opportunity cost. I agree that Thatcher may have wasted the oil billions but I do not see how that was a curse specifically on Scotland as the rest of the UK suffered as well.

Any comparison to Norways economy is limited, did they have the legacy of coal, steel and uncompetitive manufacturing us in the UK had? Surely much of the eighties economic misery would still have occurred in this parallel what if universe where Scotland was an independent country in 1969? Is the Nationalist argument just about the money gained from oil and the we where robbed view of history? Will the future be decided by arcane academic debate on abstract points that can never be proven?

Scotland in the 1970s was part of the UK (as it still is). It is only recently that the SNP has gained any popular support and many (if not the majority) Scots still believe in the union. I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives and it is our shared interests that the union remains intact.

Anglophone:

#6.

"It is now five months since the UK government bailed out Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS with billions of UK taxpayers money. Had that already slipped the popular memory or exactly how much more protection are you looking for?"

Is there evidence to support your claim that an independent Scotland would have been as exposed as the United Kingdom in the financial services?

In this moment of time Scotland is apart of the United Kingdom, with no power of policy, over regulations or the economy. It's riduclous attempting to paint Britain's personal problems over her finanical services as some sort of blue print of what would happen to Scotland.

However you should appreciate that Scotland practically saved England from economic collapse during the early years of the oil years. It's been years, and still no thanks! And you wonder why we roar and stomp our feet when we see little real benefit to our lives today.

"Funnily enough, one of the reasons why Norway seemingly has gained more from its oil and gas revenues (other than the fact that they had more of the stuff and a much smaller population) is that they created state monopolies around the exploration, production and, crucially, trading of gas and oil. Such monopoly arrangements are not allowed under EU single market and competition rules hence the progressive unwinding of Britoil in the late 80s (so much more boring than blaming Mrs T.). So in a sense, people are bellyaching about the outcome of policies instigated in Brussels, the UK being a member of the EU whilst Norway is not. Now aren't the SNP basing the whole future on an "ever closer relationship with the European Union? As ever, when you look deeper into these things, the slogans rarely stand up to scrutiny."

Yes, thank you for pointing out the difference between Norway and Scotland. Norway has benefited alot from their oil, but Scotland has never had the right to choose and has been apart of the United Kingdom for the past 30 years, but if we became independent all those years ago, then perhaps we would be outside the European Union and living like the Norwegians.

Your bright, you've been clever to point out that the SNP want a close relationship with the European Union. That's todays policy, but I recall the SNP campaigning under the banner, "It's Scotlands oil." with the intention of ditching the political union and going it herself over 30 years ago. It was still possible for Scotland to become another Norway and monopolise the system that surrounds the oil industry.

It's a different story now, so different policy altogether. Pathetic, shall I go back and look at old Conservative and Labour manifesto promises and say, "Ah, they said that then but look at what they are doing now!".

The fact that there is even a debate on this is sheer lunacy. All you have to do is LOOK AROUND YOU at other countries in the world who are IN CONTROL of their own Oil and Gas reserves.

The Arab countries are the most obvious. Desert economies 70/80 years ago now transformed into the riches countries in the world.

DUBAI, a CITY with more money to spend than Scotland. The best airlines in the world, BA...NO, Lufthansa...NO, American Airlines...NO, try QATAR, KUWAIT, EMIRATES.....just to mention 3.

What do they have in common? Oh let me see....no, can't quite get the connection.

Forget your ridiculous figures and use your eyes.

Oil or not the argument for independence/full fiscal autonomy is one which should be taken as a matter of nation status and better governance.
Leaving aside all party political interests, having a local government that is transparent and readily held to account by the people it represents on a more local level is a plus for any nation state, I find it impossible to believe that we as a nation are incapable of managing our own concerns. In westminster we have been more seen as a northen region and less as a nation state member of the UK. What was done to the fishing fleet and manufacturing in Scotland was a disaster and had we our own voice at the EU might have at least been lessened to some extent.
The matter of Oil revenues which have contributed 270 billion to the UK treasury over the past 30 years and will still contribute further, is a remarkable one in regards as such that we have heard many voices say that it would be dangerous for scotlands economy to base itself on an oil economy. There is no reason to believe that we would do this any more than the UK has done as a whole, further more having oil revenues which do fluctuate (as much for an independant scotland as they do for the UK or anywhere else)would not cost the Scottish tax payer one penny as there has never been a year where the costs of having oil extracted from scottish sea-beds have been less that the tax intake, some years we make huge profits others moderate profits and some years are barely profitable BUT IT IS ALL PROFIT. We save in the good years to prepare ourselve for the bad years, just like all other nations.

# 6 "While your at it, take Gordon, Alastair and their misogynistic clique of venally incompetent MPs with you."

- Will you please stop saying take the *London England-born* Alastair Darling "with you"! It is incredibly silly and does nothing to bolster any point you are trying to make. We'll be taking Cameron back too, eh? You'd be moving millions upon millions of similar people out of England, nearing on the whole population!

#6 Anglophone -

("Other than the fact that they [Norway] had more of the stuff and a much smaller population"

Latest (1st April 2009)estimate of Norway's population - 4,812,200

Latest (2008) estimate of Scotland's population - 5,168,500

Based on these figures - Norway has 93.1% of Scotland's population. Norway currently ranks 115th in the list of world countries by population. Were Scotland to be counted as an independent nation; it would rank 113th - larger than Turkmenistan and smaller than Finland.

Much smaller?

I take it that Mr Murphy has neve heared of the McCrone report?

And from another source:

"It's Scotland's oil" according to the SNP, and of course it is. There is no reasonable authority denying that, if Scotland were an independent nation, North Sea oil would be under Scottish jurisdiction, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Of course, Scotland isn't independent and in theory Scotland benefits from the collective economic endeavour of UK plc through the Barnett Formula. But it remains the case that Scotland, even within the UK, is a nation with its own legal system and jurisdiction. It is perfectly legitimate for Alex Salmond to claim that Scotland is the only oil-producing nation in the world not to have benefited directly from oil wealth.

And they don't have to be independent states. In 1976, the Canadian province of Alberta established the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund to set aside a proportion of government revenues from oil royalties. The same year the US state of Alaska set up the Alaska Permanent Fund which pays an annual cash dividend to every person who has been resident in the state for over a year.

The mother of all oil funds is of course the Norwegian state savings vehicle, renamed the Government Pension Fund of Norway in 2006. It is now worth some £170bn and owns one percent of European equities. Wall Street banks come to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund for emergency bail-outs.

Both Alaska and Alberta are looking to ways of emulating the Norwegian model, and even the UK energy minister Malcolm Wicks has said that the Norwegians probably had the right idea about how to use wealth generated from natural resources. The Guardian in October 2007 reported him as saying: "If you could replay history, the idea as in Norway of building up a national fund is actually quite an attractive one."

Of course, the main reason why the UK didn't look at any kind of oil fund, even though they were being set up across the world, was that they didn't want to alert Scottish opinion to the extent of the wealth off shore. This was confirmed two years ago in the secret Scottish Office memo from the economist Gavin McCrone, released under the Freedom of Information Act. "Britain is now counting so heavily on North Sea oil to redress its balance of payments," he wrote in 1974, "that it is easy to imagine England in dire straits without it." McCrone said the UK government was underestimating the wealth from North Sea oil essentially for political purposes.

Since 1975, £250bn in revenues have been collected by the UK government from North Sea oil. If Scotland had been a thriving economy during that time, then perhaps it would have been academic where the oil revenues went - but, of course, it was not. As the vast wealth from North Sea oil was being used in the 1980s to pay for mass unemployment and Margaret Thatcher's tax cuts for the rich, Scotland witnessed the destruction of its once world-beating industries. Scotland was effectively de-industrialised during the years of great oil wealth. The legacy of that catastrophic economic transformation is still apparent today in the appalling health statistics in West Central Scotland, where life expectancy is around a decade shorter than in many southern English regions.

There was an historic injustice here that is recognised by anyone who understands the true story of the North Sea. Alex Salmond is calling for one-tenth of the "windfall" from the recent increases in the price of oil. It amounts to around £500m. Many would say that this is cheap at the price. If the Barnett Formula is to be reviewed, and this seems now to be accepted wisdom in Whitehall, then it is time to revisit the black stuff and ensure that Scotland gets some tangible benefit from the 25 billion barrels still lying under the North Sea.

I take it that Mr Murphy has never heard of the McCrone report?

From another source:

"It's Scotland's oil" according to the SNP, and of course it is. There is no reasonable authority denying that, if Scotland were an independent nation, North Sea oil would be under Scottish jurisdiction, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Of course, Scotland isn't independent and in theory Scotland benefits from the collective economic endeavour of UK plc through the Barnett Formula. But it remains the case that Scotland, even within the UK, is a nation with its own legal system and jurisdiction. It is perfectly legitimate for Alex Salmond to claim that Scotland is the only oil-producing nation in the world not to have benefited directly from oil wealth.

And they don't have to be independent states. In 1976, the Canadian province of Alberta established the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund to set aside a proportion of government revenues from oil royalties. The same year the US state of Alaska set up the Alaska Permanent Fund which pays an annual cash dividend to every person who has been resident in the state for over a year.

The mother of all oil funds is of course the Norwegian state savings vehicle, renamed the Government Pension Fund of Norway in 2006. It is now worth some £170bn and owns one percent of European equities. Wall Street banks come to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund for emergency bail-outs.

Both Alaska and Alberta are looking to ways of emulating the Norwegian model, and even the UK energy minister Malcolm Wicks has said that the Norwegians probably had the right idea about how to use wealth generated from natural resources. The Guardian in October 2007 reported him as saying: "If you could replay history, the idea as in Norway of building up a national fund is actually quite an attractive one."

Of course, the main reason why the UK didn't look at any kind of oil fund, even though they were being set up across the world, was that they didn't want to alert Scottish opinion to the extent of the wealth off shore. This was confirmed two years ago in the secret Scottish Office memo from the economist Gavin McCrone, released under the Freedom of Information Act. "Britain is now counting so heavily on North Sea oil to redress its balance of payments," he wrote in 1974, "that it is easy to imagine England in dire straits without it." McCrone said the UK government was underestimating the wealth from North Sea oil essentially for political purposes.

Since 1975, £250bn in revenues have been collected by the UK government from North Sea oil. If Scotland had been a thriving economy during that time, then perhaps it would have been academic where the oil revenues went - but, of course, it was not. As the vast wealth from North Sea oil was being used in the 1980s to pay for mass unemployment and Margaret Thatcher's tax cuts for the rich, Scotland witnessed the destruction of its once world-beating industries. Scotland was effectively de-industrialised during the years of great oil wealth. The legacy of that catastrophic economic transformation is still apparent today in the appalling health statistics in West Central Scotland, where life expectancy is around a decade shorter than in many southern English regions.

There was an historic injustice here that is recognised by anyone who understands the true story of the North Sea. Alex Salmond is calling for one-tenth of the "windfall" from the recent increases in the price of oil. It amounts to around £500m. Many would say that this is cheap at the price. If the Barnett Formula is to be reviewed, and this seems now to be accepted wisdom in Whitehall, then it is time to revisit the black stuff and ensure that Scotland gets some tangible benefit from the 25 billion barrels still lying under the North Sea.

#6 Anglophone

"Go independent, take the oil, stand on your own feet and leave us alone"

In a heartbeat.

The Calman report said that Oil wasn't a stable basis on which to form a budget - well neither - it transpires - was banking.

Oil is a big part of the independence equation but it isn't the only issue in self governance. Scotland's economic portfolio is much more diverse than everyone gives it credit for.

Tourism - won't go away overnight and with people like Trump throwing billions at swathes of otherwise useless beach - we'll see a huge increase in revenue.

Whisky - Despite people mocking this indusrty as being parochial - It is arguably one of the most reliable sources of foreign and domestic wealth to the UK and has the invaluable side effect of promoting our tourism without even trying.

Life sciences - Scotland has leapfrogged much of the world in becoming not only a centre of excellence for reasearchers and academics of translational medicine - but it has successfully inspired viable business enterprises as a result

Education - Scotlands universities and in some cases colleges are fabled institutions that attract hundreds of thousands of promising students from all over the world every year. Only a fool would submit that this brings neither prosperity or economic benefits to Scotland

Energy - NOT our OIL - but what essentially has become a spin off from our oil legacy. The ability to export cutting edge exploration technologies & highly skilled production and drilling workforce has exploded in recent years. Where once we checked in at Bristows in Dyce for a 2 week trip to the forties or the tartan - we are just as likely to be in port gentil, Douala, DeKastri or Baku - the sheer size of this industry is staggering.

There are more I'm sure but if we were independent tomorrow - I'm pretty confident we'd get by ;)

Tony Benn the former Labour Energy Minister stated on ´óÏó´«Ã½ program Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland that oil revenues saved the UK economy from bankruptcy for 30 years.

To Tony Benn, Scotland is no more a country than Shropshire so why deny the oil revenues exist? This is at least an honest stance and a far more sensible way to address North Sea oil revenues than to pretend they either dont exist or are so small they couldnt pay for the cost of good set of shelves.

Any economist (like me) looking at the figures has to come to the conclusion that if Scotland was independent we could have had a massively higher tax spending ability per head than we did as part of the UK. This argument is a black and white, open and shut, slam dunk of a case in favour of the nationalists.

The real question is about the future and independent the future looks exciting. Yes there are 50 years of oil revenues to come and no they wont necessarily reduce significantly for a long time. This is due to the effect of scarcity on price and advancing extraction technologies BUT we have an even greater natural resource.
Here is the big surprise, Scotland is a big country!

We have more coastline than almost everyone else in Europe suitable for wave and tidal power generation and for offshore wind farms.

We have a huge potential for wind power and given the mountainous nature of the country a hydroelectric generation advantage.

We also have an opportunity to invest in some world leading biotechnology research being done in our universities and in some of our more exciting start up companies.

Lets talk about creating an independent country that leads the word in renewable energy generation technologies, that builds a sustainable successful fast growth modern economy where the decisions on investment, economic policy and taxation are made by politicians who sit only in the Scottish Parliament and are answerable only to the people of Scotland not beholden to the London centric economics of narrow minded unionism.

GMK - Glasgow

well i've heard it all now.scotland has oil but we need to be part of the uk to survive?that is some attempt at a spin.if we are such a basket case throw us out the union and let us struggle on or own with the oil.

Scotland is not a one trick pony when it comes to how it will generate cash.

Oil is only a part of it, Renewables - with the amount of tidal and windpower available in Scotland we could sell it to the rest of Europe (what a real opportunity to start moving Scotland to a trully green and sustainable future)Yet will we get the chance with The Crown Estates ensuring that any of the money made from the licensing heads its way South.

The review into Holyrood powers suggests devolving 10% income tax powers to the Scottish Parliament, this is a classic Westminster mis-direction. They will with-hold the block grant we get and then blame the lack of money on the SNP administration while retaining all Commerce and other sources of Scottish Revenue.

What other Sources?

Whisky - it accounts for nearly 25% of ALL UK food and drink revenue.

Livestock - We sell as much livestock as England, revenue and taxes flood to the Treasury.

Fishing - Scotland accounts for 75% of the UK fishing fleet - where does all the revenue from that go? - you guessed it into the UK Exchequer.

Look at the GDP per head for Scotland compared to the rest of the UK, we are streets ahead.

What do we want Full Fiscal Autonomy? or what scraps are left from Westminsters spending reviews?

In closing, did anyone like the proposal to charge 50p on your phone line to pay BT to develop the broadband? anybody want to bet against the Home Counties having 50Meg broadband before rural Scotland gets 2Meg?

No? I wouldn't take that bet either.

11 Brian Hill

Use your eyes indeed. Have a good look at these fabulous Arabian states built up through controlling their own oil revenue. What you'll find is an economy controlled a handful of feudal families who control everything and in which ordinary people have little or no say. Look a little harder behind the specious expat glitz and you'll see an army of little brown-skinned people doing all the dirty jobs and getting paid a pittance to repay whatever bonded-labour thug they're in hock to! Great model for Scotland wouldn't you say.

Alternatively lets try the oil wealth of Saudi-Arabia...or Indonesia, or Nigeria, or Russia or...oh dear. Norway is a rare diamond in a cow pat when it comes to reaping the oil benefits.

13 Reaktor 33

Alstair Darling is English? That explains his twee home counties accent versus David Camerons rich brogue;-)

Anglophone,

Oh, what are you suggesting? Should Scotland accept that the English have been doing us a favour, apparently because we would become another Russia by controlling our own oil reserves. I would also suggest that social issues in country's such as Saudi-Arabia, never mind the polticial situation in these states may control the manner in which they operate. I guess Scotland should be fortunate again, without England, Scotland would be exploiting thousands of workers! And tomorro you will be suggesting Scotland would be apart of the Soviet Union, occupide by Nazi Germany and we should be grateful for British support.

For someone who wants Scotland to be an independent country, why are you here spouting your nonesense? What do you want? Why do you care so much to take part in something that does not concern you?

#22 Anglophone / Jacophobe

Brazil, Canada, USA , Venezuela, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Qatar, Dubai, Denmark, Holland, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Israel, Cuba... etc etc etc

Not model states by any means - but they have all gotten far more out of oil than Scotland has.

I don't however agree that Scotland is the only country not to have reaped the benefits of its own oil. Cabinda is an oil rich exclave controlled by Angola's militant group



On the face of it - that nations history sounds awfully familiar...

Your Accountants -the company that has been looking after your business for decades- advises you that after they have taken all your major decisions for decades that you are a busted flush -utterly incapable of independent existence and that your only hope is to stay with them. When you look at your Accountants own business performance at Company's House you discover that they are in an even worse state than you are and have been this way for many many years.
There are other small companies around that seem to have done much better by striking out on their own and taking responsibility for their own actions. What to do?

Was the UK figure worked out using oil revenue per head of population or geographical share?

I think I have said this before in one of these forums but you Scot Nationalists could give the Armenians a lesson in suffering. Im real sorry that there is no trillion Dollar sovereign fund or you dont get to spend your spare time counting you Rolls Royces like some Arab Sheik but its not like England annexed Scotland for its oil. We have 400 years of shared history, the same monarch, the same class structure , common government, empire, industrial revolution two world wars etc. etc. And its not like Scotlands current situation is uniquely bad when compared with the rest of the UK (or Europe). Most people in Scotland today enjoy a good and prosperous life the envy of many despite the large pockets of poverty and destitution that still exist. Sadly such poverty also exists in other parts of Britain.

The fact is that when the oil was discovered Scotland was part of the UK. Any what if discussion about that fact is pointless. For Example How would that have worked? 1970 the discovery of the Brent and Ekofisk oil fields discovered 1971 cede from the UK. Or maybe Scotland would wait until 1975 for Independence. Just to hedge its bets. Sending the statement of UDI by second class post to Westminster no doubt saying thanks for bailing us out of that banking crises back in the 1705. Please find enclosed a cheque for the Queen, keeping the Russians at bay and the troubles in Ireland. PS. Can we still get Morecombe & Wise and Coronation St on the telly?

McJBrown:

#28.

This is disappointing. You are honestly looking back through history and using history as reasons for why Scotland should continue as part of the United Kingdom, but why are you being selective on your use of so-called facts? I shall go through your arguments one by one, and blast them into tiny pieces.

The Queen is our head of state, but why stop there? The Queen remains head of state to multiple country's, so why are we not under one banner? I will also point out that the first King of Scotland and England had plans to merge the nations together. Have you ever thought why it took till 1707 despite having a share head of state for almost 100 yeras beforehand?

A common Government and Empire? There is a reason why the SNP exist and its because people lack trust in this common Government. The Empire? I will say it came with economic benefits, but I do not believe the slave trade should be a reason why our two wonderful nations should remain linked politically.

The two world wars, the time we fought against the evil empire. I am proud of our actions, and when I say our I also include Americans, French, English, Scots etc We all fought together but nobody is encouraging a bigger better union. It's not an argument. It's plain stupid to even bring it up.

The oil business has nothing to do with Scottish independence. The SNP were created in 1932, when was oil discovered? You go on about 1705, but why are we talking about the past? I also expect that the Alien Act passed in the English Parliament did not help the situation for Scotland either! Infact it's well known that Scotlands economy we in reasonable good shaope, but the Elite as I believe it were struggling and the policies followed by England ensured that Scotland was easily bought.

The creation of the political union was a complete sham, and the fact that you are more then willing to bring up history and painfully seem to lack in basic historic knowledge makes it embarressing.

To go to such depths and bring up the world wars and the past British Empire clearly demonstates the type of mentality that you see as some sort of British success, and why we should be apart of what you claim successful.

22 Anglophile

Having lived, worked and travelled in the Arab States I am well aware of the opulence of LARGE ruling family groups compared with the lackeys who work for them. That doesn't detract from the fact how much money is generated only how that money is spent.

But like any unionist, distortion and worst case scenario is your stock in trade. The reason unionists are terrified of the referendum campaign is you know the raw facts will come out, facts which you won't be able to spin and facts which will lead directly to Independence.

Personally I CANNOT WAIT!!!

#29 Thomas_Porter, I think you missed my point I was not using history to argue for or against independence. In fact my point is you cant replay history to change the parts which you did not like. Meaning Scotland was (and still is) part of the UK in the 1970s. I also reject the idea the Scots have somehow suffered specifically because of the union with England and the creation of Britain. Scotland has never been a colony of England. In fact history shows us that Scotland and Englands partnership was specially formed to colonise the rest of the world. Hence the Empire and industrial revolution.
I think the subject being discussed here is would Scotland be financially better off if it had kept all the oil money from 1975. Well of course it would have. As an earlier post (#19) points out Scotland could have had a massively higher tax spending ability per head than we did as part of the UK. But the Shetlands would be even richer if they could ditch mainland Scotland. But as nether of these two situations actually occurred why beat ourselves up on this issue.

McJBrown:

#31.

I am not suggesting we change the parts of history that we dislike but I was suggesting that you should actually be honest and stop being selective in the parts of history you decided to write about.

You may dislike a part of history, such as as the Acts of Union and also seek to ignore the historic facts that surround the damage it done to Scotland, but as you say - You can't replay what you dislike about history.

Scotland and Englands partnership was specially formed to colonise the rest of the world? Nonense. England has colonys even before the Acts of Union were passed. It's no suprise that we continued to expand the Empire after the Acts of Union. It would happen if the ACts of Union never happened, so stop attempting to suggest otherwise.

Last but not least, Scotland and England are seperate country's in their own right joined together in a political union. The Shetlands etc are legally apart of Scotland, just like Edinburgh is apart of Scotland and just like Inverness and Aberdeen are also apart of Scotland. That's quite a vital difference in your logic. You have to accept that.

#32 Thomas Porter

You are very astute - Shetland is very much legally part of Scotland and was long before the act of union.

In the 15th Century the Shetland Isles and indeed the Orkney Isles were sold to Scotland in order for the Norwegian and Danish King Christian I to afford the dowry he owed to James III of Scotland - as Christians daughter Margaret had been betrothed to James.

Essentially - Norway had always struggled between being a vassal state of Sweden and Denmark so it's little surprise that they lost influence in provinces like the Shetland Isles.

Shetland and Orkney were invaded by the Norse. Just like Most of the Hebrides. They are a part of Scotland under foreign occupation before being returned by the invader. Anyone who suggests that they are not part of Scotland is also telling us that Skye or Mull are not part of Scotland. Pure onionist gash.

The reason why the onions are so terrified of the referendum is the exposure it will give to all the lies we've been fed from birth. An entire country suffering child abuse.