The Financial Times is not a supporter of Scottish independence. Yet it fell recently to that publication to carry out a fair, relatively impartial assessment of some of the facts underlying the independence debate (and see also here). You won't read any of this in the Scotsman:
"... the leading players on both sides accept that Scotland has all the ingredients to be a viable nation state";
"If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account [and by the by, why one earth would it not?], Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France" ;
"Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an
independent Scotland would be one of the world’s top 35 exporters."
"An independent Scotland could also expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK. ";
"Scotland’s fiscal health will also be challenged by the relatively
rapid ageing of its population and the long-term decline of oil output
[yet]...greater sway over its own economy could be a real advantage for
Scotland. "
Em. Isn't "54% of the rest of the UK want us to stay" just a different way of saying "46% of the rest of the UK don't want us to stay"? Aren't each of those figures fairly described as "about half"? So, "About half of the rest of the country don't want Scotland to remain in the UK".
Mr. Dudley of BP personally opposes Scottish independence because "Great
Britain is great". He makes himself available for interview by the BBC
and claims (without any challenge at all by the interviewer) to be
"concerned" that it would create "uncertainties" for the company.
If Alex Massie and the Spectator, neither well-known for pro-independence sympathies, can immediately see this claim for the "silly" "poppycock" that it is then wtf is this story (not reported by any other
station's broadcast news at all this evening) doing as the second item
on the BBC national news, the lead item on Reporting Scotland and
plastered all over the BBC website?
This is, without doubt, the clearest, most compelling explanation of the economic facts underpinning the independence debate that you will see. Few of us studied PPE or economics to degree level but anyone who's interested and prepared to devote 36 minutes of their time (as anyone who plans to vote ought to be) will find that the facts here are sourced back to GERS (the veracity of which is accepted by both sides) and then explained and explored in a way that is clear but unpatronising and, when you hear them for the first time, quite jaw-dropping.
If you watch this and still plan to vote No, fair enough.
Business for Scotland's guide to the economics of independence is only
15 pages long and packed with fact, all sourced, and plain-language
explanation (get it here):
what are the data sources (what is GERS and why do both sides trust it)?
what does Scotland's balance sheet look like (can Scotland afford to be independent)?
what do Scotland's revenue, expenditure, GDP, debt ratio and deficit
look like and compare internationally and to the rest of the UK?
can Scotland afford to defend itself?
how important is oil?
why are we well placed to provide pension cover?
what about the EU?
what currency will we use?
what about the banking crisis?
what opportunities would we have to pursue different economic policies?
