What are the pros and cons of Scottish independence?

Question

could it happen?

will it destroy the UK?

who gets the oil and gas revenues from that area?

Answer 1

As oil and gas revenues (which aren't that great anymore) are in British (not Scottish) territorial waters, presumably those revenues would be divided up or pooled.

Scottish independence would be good for Scotland in terms of the national psyche and self-determination, but I do worry that Scotland would have a hard time making it on its own in a global climate that is tough enough on the UK with all its collective resources.

In spite of, or should I say to complement what you have read in some of the answers, of all the tax money collected in the UK, England receives about 20% of what it pays out and Scotland receives about 60% more than it collects. An independent Scotland would have to make up the tax shortfall in order to maintain the level of public services it enjoys now.

England would be financially much better off if Scotland seceded from the Union, but that should not be a reason for England to support secession because the UK economy is small enough in global terms anyway that any dilution (through Scottish/Welsh/N. Ireland) independence would be detrimental to it as well as Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland.

It is time for the Scots AND the English to wake up to this simple arithmetic.

Answer 2

Pros
- no more decisions being made from Westminster.

- no more being used as a testing ground for new government policies.

- it allows Scotland to have their own sense of identity.

- Eire does better as a small country on its own than Scotland does part of the UK.

- The English wouldn't complain about Scottish MPs voting on English issues.

Cons
- it's hard to say whether Scotland could stand up on it's own initially (I think they would very likely get the oil and gas revenues since they fall under Scottish territory)

- it would be a major hassle to cross from Scotland to England, and vice versa, and have to go through immigration procedure.

- given the state of the world at the moment, it's hardly a wise idea to split one strong country into four seperate countries (Scottish independence would very likely lead to Welsh and Irish independence too). This is also a problem for England for while they would have the larger army, they would also be the primary target for attacks.


My personal feelings is the independence isn't the best option during these troubled times. Things could be eased by giving England their own parliament and put a stop to English-bias newscasting.

Answer 3

I've got a feeling this is going to be a long answer...

THE PROS AND CONS
Independence for Scotland and a chance to break free of centralised government in London. For example, government spending in the UK is directly proportional to the distance from London. London receives by far and away the greatest proportion of public spending (19% of the overall total) whereas Scotland, being furthest away, receives very little (less than 4% of the overall total). Proportionally London should receive 11% and Scotland 9%. London receives more subsidies for transport in one year than Scotland does in 100 years.

Scottish could follow Ireland's example and cut taxes, especially business taxes and so promote it's own economic growth. The UK government effectively prevents this by subsidising companies that wish to set up in the south-east and penalising those that want to set up in Scotland.

Scotland would have a lesser role to play in Europe if it were to gain independence. As it stands it is well represented through it's alliance with the rest of the UK, as an independent country it's representation would be diminished.

It would be expensive for Scotland and the remainder of the UK if independence were to happen as each country would have to develop it's own strategies and policies in areas which are currently shared - such as defence and security.

Relations between England and Scotland are deteriorating, primarily due to the unfavourable treatment Scotland receives from the London based Government.

Scotland is partially independent and already has it's own parliament, laws, healthcare, legal system, education system etc. In such areas Scotland is doing very well, especially in education which since becoming independent from England has become one of the best in the world (1st, 2nd or 6th best depending how you measure it). In some respects Scotland has become a victim of it's own success, education is not only flourishing but is free of charge at all levels. One drawback has been an influx of English students which is stretching resources and is a drain on the Scottish economy.

As an independent country Scotland would have it's own voice in UN, NATO and other organisations.

Scotland and England formed the Union 300 years ago and by and large this has been a successful union with both countries benefiting. Devolution (partial independence) is in it's early stages and it's too soon to judge how successful it will be. Full independence may be a step too far until the success of devolution has been established.

London has established itself in the global markets and represents the whole of the UK. As an independent nation Scotland would have to start from scratch in many areas and certainly in the short term, will lose global trade.

If Scotland became independent it would be comparable to other small, primarily rural countries such as Ireland, Iceland and Norway all of which are successful and if Scotland replicated these successes it would do better being independent.

Financially there are pros and cons both ways. Under the current system Scotland raises about £27 billion in public funds but receives about £40 billion from the government and so is £13 billion a year better off in this respect. However, these are the visible areas of spending such as pensions, social security etc. In the invisible areas such as infrastructure, development, business, investment etc Scotland receives less than England so at the end of the day Scotland loses out by about £4 billion a year.

COULD IT HAPPEN?
The UK government is supposedly democratic and is elected to serve the wishes of the public. More and more it is becoming less democratic and takes many decisions against the wishes of the majority. If it truly were democratic then Scotland would already be independent as this is what the majority of Scots want and have done for many years (57% as opposed to 43%). Politically, the current administration would suffer if Scotland became independent.

There are effectively 2 political parties in the UK - Labour (currently in office) and the Conservatives. The Conservatives have never done well in Scotland whereas Labour have. Both Labour and the Conservatives are usually quite close to each other in elections - about 35% of the vote each (Labour 36%, Conservatives 33% at the last election). Without the Scottish vote the Labour party stands a greater chance of being voted out of office so it's not in the interests of the current government for independence to go ahead.

If the Conservatives win the next general election then it would be advantageous for them to be rid of the Labour voters in Scotland. Currently the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) is in the lead in Scotland with 33% of the vote, Labour second (32%), Liberal Democrats third (15%) and the Conservatives 4th (14%).

WILL IT DESTROY THE UK?
Probably not (but see the part about oil). To some extent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have some independence and this has benefited each country individually and the UK as a whole. Scotland gaining independence wouldn't mean it would sever all ties with England. It's not that it's going to become an island in it's own right and float off somewhere a long way from the rest of the UK.

The Scots and Irish and the Scots and Welsh have a strong and healthy relationship and have done for hundreds of years. These bonds are unlikely to be damaged by independence and if anything, they'll be strengthened as the countries will be in a better position to trade with each other without interference from Westminster (London government).

The relationship between England and Scotland is likely to remain strong just as it is with Canada and the US or France and Germany or any two neighbouring democratic countries.

WO GETS THE OIL AND GAS?
This is the big question. These reserves were discovered in the 1970's and pretty much all the UK's oil and gas reserves are in Scottish waters. Prior to the 1970's events in Scottish waters were of Scottish concern and when there were fishing disputes, territorial disputes, oil spills etc it was a case of it being in Scottish waters and therefore something for Scotland to deal with. Upon the discovery of oil and gas the UK government proclaimed Scottish waters to be British waters and for the oil and gas to be directly controlled by London.

This has caused the Scots a great deal of resentment and is one of the many ways they feel the English are plundering their country. Scotland also provides England with other basic commodities such as stone, timber, water and electricity. These are 'taken' from Scotland, if Scotland were independent these surpluses could be sold on the open market.

Known reserves of oil (excluding gas for which I don't know the figures) exceed 1.5 trillion dollars. If Scotland gained independence and were allowed to keep the gas and oil in it's waters it would become one of the richest countries in the world - comparable to the US having a quadrillion dollars of oil reserves.

It's estimated that the UK has 30 years of oil reserves remaining but if these reserves were only needed by a population of 5 million as opposed to 60 million then Scotland would have 360 years of reserves.

With so much oil it would be in a very powerful and strategic position in the world. The result would be that Scotland would be the powerful country in the former UK and that England would lose financially to the tune of about £80 billion a year, or to put it into context, each household would need to pay an additional £100 a week in taxes to make up the shortfall.

It seems extremely unlikely that any UK government would give up the oil and gas reserves, this is after all, what's been keeping the UK economy afloat for the last 3 decades. Without it the UK would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.