Wondering about the timing of the referendum

[Suff]

In Scotland and it's proximity to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow.

Looking at the table of entries it would be hard for the Scots to forget that of these 71 countries attending, Scotland is well up in the top quarter of them. That Scotland is fielding the third largest team and expects to do fairly ok in the results.

These are countries with which Scotland could expect to have a trading relationship even after exiting Great Britain. Also that Scotland is one of the larger countries in the commonwealth. Even compared to countries which we would never consider being anything other than independent such as New Zealand.

All of these things can be impressed upon the Scots over and over again in the wake of the close of the Commonwealth games. I expect the polls to change again. The one trend I do not expect to change is the one they are not talking about. Every successive poll shows one clear fact. That the undecided are going with independence at a ratio of about 4:1. On most polls that is enough to get a Yes vote.

I expect interesting things over the next six weeks.

[Kaz]

I have wondered the same, about the timing I still think it will be NO, but not by as big a landslide as the govt seem to think........

[Suff]

In almost every poll the "undecided" is far greater than the difference between the votes. On a 4:1 scale of undecided to Yes, almost every poll is showing a Yes vote.

food for thought.....

[Workingman]

If a group is classed as "Undecided" or "Don't know" then its individual members cannot be in favour or against something. For any side to claim them is nothing more than putting them on a 'wish' or 'hope' list'. Most polls do not result in a "Yes" vote, even with all the Undecideds and the Don't Knows claimed by them.

And there is nothing stopping Scotland trading with Commonwealth countries, as it already does, from within the UK and EU. Canada, Australia, Singapore and India are already important markets for Scotland and Scottish goods and services. Independence is not a pre-requisite for Commonwealth trade.

If the games and their timing are used to somehow stir the vote then it is probably an indication of how shallow the issue really is. I certainly hope they are not used by some Scots to go the Braveheart, Robert the Bruce, Bonnie Prince Charlie route to independence.

[Suff]

Those two points were not the one's I made.

A recent Poll comparison, carried out with the same 1,000 person audience, has revealed that the undecided are moving to decided for "Yes" in a ratio of about 4:1 if I remember correctly (could be wrong but it was higher than 1:1, by some margin). Looking at all the polls and their undecided figure, I would not be happy if I was running the No campaign.

As for the commonwealth and trading. Yes they can trade with them today. But also Yes they would be able to trade with them after the split if they were expelled from the EU and England became as mulish as it did with Ireland.... Something the English would very much like the Scots not to think about.

On your last point, I have not doubt <sigh> that it will. When Mrs S and I went to see Braveheart at the Kirkcaldy cinema (now gone I believe), after the film when we left, I said not one word until we reached the car and got in. Mrs S was mystified until I reminded her what my accent is, where we were and what kind of population Kirkcaldy has. Then she understood.

An interesting point which people south of the border don't understand and I had confirmed recently is this. They can deal with Salmond any day they want. He has to have an election after a split anyway. However this is the fist time in 300 years and possibly the last time, that the Scots have had/will have a chance to say what they think about being part of the UK.

Given the state of relations between Scotland and England, that is not a minor consideration. The Tories are not well liked up there and Blair/Brown didn't exactly endear themselves with their massive recession.

[Aggers]

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether it's a YES or a NO vote.

If they want to 'go it alone', that's OK.
as long as they don't come running to us afterwards.

[Suff]

as long as they don't come running to us afterwards.

Now you see this is the attitude which is driving Scots Nationalists crazy.

let me see if I can level set that with hard figures as it is clear that people simply don't get it or even get what North Sea Oil means to the Scottish economy or what it means in terms of English wealth over the last two decades.

I'm going to average the figures here. I've never had a look at the North Sea Oil (NSO) figures before but trusted to other calculations.

Let's go back to the Barnett formula for starters. It's based on population, not GDP and updated annually based on the estimated population figures. It was revised in 2002 to 10.23%. So that means Scotland gets 10.23% of the available funds.

Let's look and see what that means. GDP is broken up into 5 areas. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and NSO.

Scotland produces betwen 9% and 10% of GDP. OK there are a lot of government jobs in there, but, that means without NSO, Scotland already produces 10% of GDP.

OK, again, what does that mean? UK GDP is £1.4tn give or take. Making Scottish GDP betweem £126 and £140bn.

So what is NSO? Well, as of 2007, that was circa £250bn. Now as WM has stated before, England also owns part of NSO. But not the largest by any manner of means. The latest largest recent finds were in Scottish waters and there is no independent assessment of how much oil is left in each field. But for illustration I'm going to go with a 75/25 split Scotland/England.

So, what does that get us? An additional £187.5bn of GDP for Scotland.

Yes, more than the entire GDP of all Scottish activities.

Now what would that do, in the short term to Scotland? Well given that the £ is currently at $1.7 to the £, that equates to $556.75bn. Or, to put it another way, the 21st largest economy in the world.

That is right behind Switzerland and ahead of...

21 Iran 551,588
22 Sweden 523,804
23 Norway 499,667
24 Poland 489,852
25 Belgium 483,402
26 Argentina 477,028
27 Austria 394,458
28 Thailand 385,694
29 South Africa 384,313
30 United Arab Emirates 383,799
31 Venezuela 382,424
32 Colombia 369,813
33 Denmark 314,889
34 Malaysia 304,726
35 Singapore 276,520
36 Chile 268,314
Hong Kong 263,259
37 Nigeria 262,545
38 Egypt 254,671
39 Philippines 250,182
40 Greece 248,941
41 Finland 247,389
42 Israel 241,069
43 Pakistan 215,117
44 Portugal 212,139
45 Ireland 210,638
46 Algeria 207,021
47 Peru 204,681
48 Kazakhstan 202,656
49 Czech Republic 196,446
50 Qatar 192,402
51 Kuwait 183,219
52 Ukraine 176,309
53 New Zealand 171,256

Now, just to ask a question. Why would Scotland, with a population of ~5M be coming to anyone cap in hand.

Now, of course, NSO will not last forever, but neither will low oil prices. They will eventually run over $200 per barrel. Fuel will soon hit £2 per litre. Scotland will not need to continue pumping at the same level.

Also another point. It has been said that Scotland should pay it's share of the UK debt. OK UK debt, which Scotland has no way of controlling, is currently at around £1.2 trillion and climbing. That's £123bn at the same Barnett formula that Scotland got it's money with. Give Scotland it's first years NSO revenues and it's a done deal.

In fact, if Scotland was to get back it's entire revenues from 1984, which were consumed by England, then, basing it on current values (allowing for inflation and the fact that we are at the lowest level of revenue from NSO since the 1970's), that would be roughly £3.75tn. So Give Scotland back the revenues that England took for the last 20 years and Scotland will pay off the ENTIRE UK debt and pocket the change.

Fair's fair as they say.

A much more important point is there and absolutely nobody is talking about it.

NSO revenues for Scotland are £187.5 bn. So if Scotland breaks from the UK, the remaining UK has to recalculate.

The UK stops paying £172.2bn to Scotland.
The UK loses between £126bn and £140bn in GDP from Scotland
AND the UK loses £187.5bn in revenues from Scottish Oil.

Taking the best case of £126bn in Scottish GDP, that means that the remaining UK loses £141.3bn off it's GDP. But the UK retains it's debt and only loses 10.23% of it's deficit. And perhaps it's debt.

If we take the current annual deficit of £120bn in the UK, then remove 10.23%, that leaves the UK to find an additional £248bn every year until the budget is balanced. On the other hand, Scotland will go into deep surplus.

Who is going to be crawling to whom???

[Workingman]

Except that nothing will come to pass, regardless of 'Yes' or 'No', for a long time after the referendum result. There will be legal wranglings going on for years or, perhaps, decades, as each side fights its corner. Also the IMF, World Bank, WTO, EU and the G(?) countries will all want to stick their oars in. By the time things are done and dusted NSO could have run out.

One thing I have noted over recent weeks is the argument that a 'No' vote would strengthen the option of 'devolution max'. Now, as a Northerner, I find that an interesting prospect as it could lead to the loosening of the 'London' purse strings in the regions as well. A 'No' vote by the Scots could do many of us living outside the London bubble a huge favour.

As for the remark by Aggers, I have noticed a hardening of attitudes in England, and from my POV that is down to some of the rather more spiteful, even hateful, remarks by some Scots. I can well understand how they might hate Parliament and Westminster and politicians in general, but to hate "the English", as some appear to do, baffles me.

[cromwell]

The prospect of Salmond winning the referendum and then getting voted out of power brought a wry smile to my face!
He wouldn't like that. I would be sad if the Scots voted to leave; but it's their choice entirely.

The further debate for the "regions" of England to get more power has more than one strand.
I for one am dead against "regional assemblies". I don't want England to end up with no national Parliament, just some cockamamie "regional" bodies. Because this is just EU federalism by any other name. The nation state will be dead and we will just be "regions" of the EU. No, not for me.

So this particular debate is, as ever, massively dishonest. The BBC local station is always pushing regionalism, but the initials "EU" are never mentioned. Yorkshire puddings, ferrets down trousers and the ghost of Fred Trueman may yet be invoked in a push for Yorkshire-ism / Regionalism whatever, but the EU will never be for sure, and neither will the word "England".

[Workingman]

I for one am dead against "regional assemblies".

So am I. We have already said "No" and told Prescott where to shove it. What I was hoping is that a "No" in Scotland would get our MPs to grow a pair. I have already told my LibDem guy that he needs to be fighting for his constituents, but it looks as though he actually wants us to thrown him out on his ear. His wish will be our command.