Should Scotland become an Independent Country

I would like to begin by pointing out that PRO has dropped my point about Scottish borrowing costs. Now some rebuttal.Firstly, PRO contends that the 'big overwhelming factor' in the loss of oil revenue over the last decade has been the Iraq war. This point is flat-out untrue. The decline in oil production in the North Sea has absolutely nothing to do with the war in the Middle East. It has everything to do with the amount of oil in the North Sea being finite, and running out. International oil prices rose in the aggregate over the last decade, as this graph shows. Revenue fell even though the price per unit went up -even at its lowest point during the 2000s, the oil price was roughly double what it was in 1998. As a result, this loss of revenue cannot have anything to do with the war in the Middle East pushing down prices, but is rather a North Sea specific effect due to depletion of reserves. Even if oil prices WERE falling due to development of the industry elsewhere, we could expect this effect to persist in future (increased supply reduces prices in general), therefore either way PRO's argument on this point fails.Secondly, PRO says that my figures showing the Scottish financial situation would be pretty much the same in the short run and worse in the long run proves that it 'Does not need' the UK. Again, my contention is not that Scotland 'needs' the UK, it is that it is better off within the UK, which is true in the long term. Most married people could live without their spouses. It doesn't mean they should all divorce. PRO appears to be working under the assumption that independence, provided Scotland can survive alone, is a good thing. That, of course, is exactly what he is supposed to be proving, so he cannot rely on it as an argument. PRO suggests that Oil & Gas UK is a government organisation and therefore biased. That is simply untrue. It is a trade association of companies working in the sector. It takes no position either way on Scottish independence.[1] He contends that the evidence I supplied does not support the contention that oil is running out. Allow me to quote:"The North Sea is gradually running dry. Many fields will stop producing in the 2020s; by the 2040s oil is likely to be dribbling rather than gushing forth."[2]and"The richest reserves have already been exploited, leaving inaccessible oil that becomes uneconomic when prices fall."[3] In other words, the oil costs more to get at, and so any downward fluctuation in the oil price at all would leave it costing more to extract than can be made from selling it.PRO also suggests that he is not committed to the idea of retaining Sterling. That is disengenuous, since it was one of the premises he set out in round one. If he wishes to argue joining the Euro, then that has all the same disadvantages as Sterling, only worse. If he wishes to commit himself to contradicting his earlier premise and having Scotland establish its own currency, he must say so. Similarly, with regard to the EU, PRO is now suggesting that Scotland could leave the EU. I would like PRO to commit to this, since there are clear downsides to this course of action, and it is unfair to change your proposed method of achieving the resolution every time I point out a problem.WHY SCOTLAND WOULD BE OVERLY RELIANT ON OIL, AND WHY THIS IS BADPRO argues that he did not say that Scotland would rely on one industry. Nonetheless, it's true. An independent Scotland would rely on oil and gas for 18% of its GDP[4], which is a very large amount to come from any one sector. Oil contributes over 20 times as much to GDP as does whisky.[5][6] My argument was not, and should not be construed as, being that Scotland has no other industries whatsoever. Why does 18% of a country's GDP coming from one resource lead to economic risk?Firstly, when that resource is finite, as covered above, when it runs out the country loses the entire benefit of it, and is left with redundant infrastructure that will require decommissioning. Secondly, it means that the Scottish government's revenue streams would be highly vulnerable to fluctuations in the market price of oil. This will make it difficult for Scotland to plan its finances long term, and require Scotland to borrow large amounts of money to sustain its levels of public spending should there be an unexpected downturn in the price of oil, which there is pretty much bound to be at some point given the nature of commodities markets. This is problematic due to the (dropped) argument from the last round about how it will cost Scotland more to borrow money than it costs the UK. Being part of the UK means being part of a more diversified economy, therefore better able to deal with a price shock in one sector.WHY THE TAX HAVEN IDEA IS UNLIKELY TO COME ABOUT AND WON'T WORK ANYWAYThe current governing party in Scotland is the Scottish National Party, which is considerably to the left of either of the major UK parties. [7] As noted in the last round, Scotland has higher levels of government spending than the UK as a whole, and First Minister Alex Salmond has promised an expansion of government-funded childcare and a large rise in the minimum wage for local government employees in the areas controlled by his party.[8] The major opposition party in Scotland is the Labour party, which is the more left-wing of the two main UK parties. Therefore, there is clearly not the political will to restrain government spending north of the border. As Michael Keating of Aberdeen University argues,"In Scotland, such a [Corporation Tax] cut would provide a windfall benefit for existing businesses without attracting much more. The argument that it would pay for itself depends on the implausible assumption that business activity would more or less double in a very short period.”[9] Therefore, the Scottish government would have to either cut back on spending, and I've just shown why this won't happen (and would make the average Scot worse off if it did). The other option is to continue spending more than it earns in taxes and borrow even more money. I've explained why this will be more expensive for an independent Scotland than the UK as a whole, and is clearly unsustainable, especially in a small economy. This is exactly what Greece did that lead to the current crisis. [10] Is this really what we want for Scotland?The same, incidentally, applies to immigration law. The UK national party which takes a harder line on immigration and favours lower taxation is the Conservative party, which is barely relevant in Scotland. It is ridiculous to assume that a collection of parties which have taken generally liberal positions on immigration historically will suddenly start kicking all foreigners out just because Scotland is independent. If that's what PRO wants to see in Scotland, then he is better off supporting a continued Union with a country where such ideas are more popular.HMRCI am confused by PRO's argument here. Does he seriously believe that Scotland would not have a revenue service, or that it would cease to pursue tax avoiders if Scotland became independent? PRO appears to be arguing for a massive tax reduction across the board, and as noted, that's even less likely to happen in an independent Scotland than it is in the UK as a whole.[1]http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk...[2]http://www.economist.com...[3]http://www.economist.com...[4]Ibid[5]Ibid[6]http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk...[7]https://www.princeton.edu...[8]http://www.scotsman.com...[9]http://www.qfinance.com...[10]http://www.lapasserelle.com...