Did you even read what you quoted? That was precisely my point. Geographic apportionment would favour Scotland, per-capita apportionment would favour the remaining UK. The reality is that a settlement will be reached somewhere between geographic apportionment and per-capita apportionment to help pay for the cost of secession
Why would that be the case?
Do you know more about this future event than everyone else does?
What do you mean by per capita apportionment in this context anyway?
Lets face it if Scotland were to leave the union we would have no say whatsoever on their wealth or economic decisions, at least not directly as it would be a sovereign nation. And I cannot imagine them giving up a share of their own land rights as part of any deal with the UK.
In any instance the cost of secession would be a burden on all of us, not just the Scots. And it would be up to them and us on how we would want to thrash out a deal. They have been paying taxes for the last 300 years I presume so I expect that we would have to have a final trade off and separation of any assets (yes per capita) in military and govenrnmental infrastructure for example rather than any side "owing" the other.
Not that it matters as the remaining oil reserves are limited
I think it still matters entirely. Companies are investing hundreds of millions in the north sea right now, licenses are being drafted as we speak. I doubt they share your rather predictable pessimism about long term oil opportunities in the region.
Again, missing the point. With dwindling oil revenues, a post-independence Scotland would have per-GDP deficit edging towards the 15% of GDP mark. Can you imagine the cuts and tax increases necessary to reduce that to even manageable levels?
Well they would have their oil revenue and i would be interested to finally see some non biaised non journalist based data on just how much spending takes place in Scotland compared to their tax revenue with and without their geographical share of North sea oil profits. I suspect given just how small the Scottish population is that they would be covered but i agree they would have to go for a much more business freindly less socialistic society to really have a chance.
There's a further problem - with a huge deficit and a small population base, a post-independence Scotland would find it extremely hard to source any money at all on the bond market, let alone at favourable rates
Now that I have already said to an extent just a couple of posts back, but again we don't know how well Scotland will manage its money if independence actually took place. They might prove better at handling their economy than we clearly are. They will at least be able to set their own interest rates but i doubt they will be able to raise as much money on the markets as the rest of the UK will. Still do you honestly think its only the Scots that are running a deficit right now? The huge deficit you are referring to is a British deficit
. Every country in the west has a simply unsupportable overspend and we are getting close to the time, in the west as a whole, when the buck will have to finally stop.
Spain and Greece are not exceptions, this is how things will be if we all don't take a more realistic approach to government and finances.
Now, offset that against the main message from the "Yes" vote: effortless Nordic style well-being in a socialist paradise. That's going to be funded how exactly?"
Its only Norway that has this effortless socialistic paradise and that is the one with the oil. The other countries actually have to go out and sell other things to maintain their lifestyles, with their £5 beers and bludgeoning tax rates, they can keep their paradises as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not for Scotland going it alone, it will weaken all of us but this idea that an advanced highly developed country shall just go wither and die to me seems like alarmist bullsh*t.
Anyway as I have said I do not think it will happen.