You want one reason to vote Yes tomorrow?

[NormanSaysNo]

If you care to look beyond the pages of the Daily Mail, I have provided, on this very forum a literal cornucopia, a veritable smorgasboard of facts and information as to why Scotland will be not only richer than rUK, but rich enough to tackle society's problems head on.

That sounds great.

Sadly this forum is quite extensive, so it'd take me a while to dig out your posts. Since I assume you can remember what you posted, I'm sure it'll be no problem for you to post a few links again.

Still waiting...

But you're a No voter, so you don't investigate, you just swallow whatever the Daily Mail feeds you.

So all No voters read the Daily Mail, do they?

I suppose as mindless bigotry goes, this is, at least, relatively inoffensive (though being called a Daily Mail reader is still reasonably offensive).

[Confidemus]

That sounds great.

Sadly this forum is quite extensive, so it'd take me a while to dig out your posts. Since I assume you can remember what you posted, I'm sure it'll be no problem for you to post a few links again.

Still waiting...

Since voting day is upon us and, going by your name, you're not going to change your mind, I'm not going to go to the bother of digging out links. However, I have several facts stored in my head to prove how wealthy Scotland can be. Such as:

Labour's Devolution Commission stated that, without factoring in a drop of oil, we would be the 14th richest country in the world. Richer than Italy, France, Japan and rUK.

Standard & Poors confirmed that, again without factoring in offshore activities, we would qualify for their highest economic assessment.

We have, for the last 33 years, paid more into the exchequer than we've got back out. Over the past 5 years alone this has equated to £8.3bn.

We have 1% of the population of the EU

We have 60% of the oil reserves of the EU

We have 25% of the fish stocks of the EU

We have 20% of the renewable energy of the EU

So, in conclusion - We are rich enough. We are big enough. We are smart enough. We will see today if we are brave enough.

Now, I'm not particularly bothered whether or not you believe the above or not, but my conscience is clear regarding my vote.

Consider your mewlings answered.

[NormanSaysNo]

Since voting day is upon us and, going by your name, you're not going to change your mind, I'm not going to go to the bother of digging out links.

Fair enough. I guess I shouldn't expect you to suddenly jump into action at this late stage.

It would've been nice if someone had answered my queries before, though.

Labour's Devolution Commission stated that, without factoring in a drop of oil, we would be the 14th richest country in the world. Richer than Italy, France, Japan and rUK.

Not sure what Labour's Devolution Commission is. I found facts online about Scotland being the 14th richest nation. The link I provide is for figures created by the Scottish Government based on OECD and ONS figures. It's based on GDP per person.

One thing to note about this is that it assumes GDP in an independent Scotland would remain the same as it is now. No companies suddenly shifting operations south of the border. Also, no new investment, so let's assume those two effects would balance out.

The big question you have to ask yourself now is: How good is GDP per person as a measure of a nation's wealth?

To answer that, I would simply draw everyone's attention to the fact that, according to those figures, Iceland is "better off" than both the UK and France, and Ireland would be the 7th richest economy in the world, waaaay ahead of Scotland.

Given the state of the Irish and Icelandic economies, this suggests to me that this might not be the best metric to look at.

Standard & Poors confirmed that, again without factoring in offshore activities, we would qualify for their highest economic assessment.

Are you sure that wasn't based on some assumptions? According to this report in the FT, "Scotland would struggle to match the UK’s AAA credit rating with Standard & Poor’s if it failed to negotiate a currency union with London or the eurozone." Given that a currency union with the UK has been ruled out, and a union with the Eurozone is not on the cards, then I fail to see how this would come to pass.

We have, for the last 33 years, paid more into the exchequer than we've got back out. Over the past 5 years alone this has equated to £8.3bn.

This has been stated as fact elsewhere on these forums. The only figures offered to prove this conveniently forget the extra funding Scotland receives from Westminster via the Barnett formula.

Since, despite your accusations, I don't believe everything I read in any newspaper, I have done some digging for figures. The ones I've found show that, over the last few years, tax revenues from Scotland's geographical share of the oil fields have been consistently about the same, if not slightly lower, than the extra funding provided by the Barnett formula.

Now, I'm not particularly bothered whether or not you believe the above or not, but my conscience is clear regarding my vote.

Consider your mewlings answered.

I'm glad your conscience is clear. As is mine.

[Confidemus]

Fair enough. I guess I shouldn't expect you to suddenly jump into action at this late stage.

It would've been nice if someone had answered my queries before, though.

Not sure what Labour's Devolution Commission is. I found facts online about Scotland being the 14th richest nation. The link I provide is for figures created by the Scottish Government based on OECD and ONS figures. It's based on GDP per person.

One thing to note about this is that it assumes GDP in an independent Scotland would remain the same as it is now. No companies suddenly shifting operations south of the border. Also, no new investment, so let's assume those two effects would balance out.

The big question you have to ask yourself now is: How good is GDP per person as a measure of a nation's wealth?

To answer that, I would simply draw everyone's attention to the fact that, according to those figures, Iceland is "better off" than both the UK and France, and Ireland would be the 7th richest economy in the world, waaaay ahead of Scotland.

Given the state of the Irish and Icelandic economies, this suggests to me that this might not be the best metric to look at.

Are you sure that wasn't based on some assumptions? According to this report in the FT, "Scotland would struggle to match the UK’s AAA credit rating with Standard & Poor’s if it failed to negotiate a currency union with London or the eurozone." Given that a currency union with the UK has been ruled out, and a union with the Eurozone is not on the cards, then I fail to see how this would come to pass.

This has been stated as fact elsewhere on these forums. The only figures offered to prove this conveniently forget the extra funding Scotland receives from Westminster via the Barnett formula.

Since, despite your accusations, I don't believe everything I read in any newspaper, I have done some digging for figures. The ones I've found show that, over the last few years, tax revenues from Scotland's geographical share of the oil fields have been consistently about the same, if not slightly lower, than the extra funding provided by the Barnett formula.

I'm glad your conscience is clear. As is mine.

I could go and dig for figures myself and I'm quite sure we could play figures tennis all day, but, quite frankly, I've statted myself out, and, as it's polling day, there's no one left to provide figures for, since you and I aren't going to change our minds.

So let's agree to disagree.

[NormanSaysNo]

Quick addition to add in some links to figures I'm talking about. It took me a wee while to find them.

According to a report in the New Statesman, last year Scotland received £1,624 per head more funding from Westminster than England did.

According to the Scottish Government's figures for revenue (see table 1.2), if you factor in Scotland's geographic share of oil revenues, last year Scotland generated £1,700 more tax revenue per head than England.

Although oil revenue is more volatile than the Barnett formula. Again, looking as the Scottish Government's figures, we can see that in 2010-11, the difference in revenues was £1,100 per head, £900 per head the year before, £2,000 per head the year before that, and £1,100 per head in 2007-08.

It seems to me that, based on those figures, Scotland is most definitely not a net contributor to the exchequer, and any ideas that we will be suddenly much more wealthy post independence are misguided.

The good news is that, since these figures are roughly the same, we won't be any worse off either.

Sadly that's not enough to convince me. Just changing one set of politicians for another and ending up with about the same amount of money is not worth all the inherent risks and instabilities of the change-over process.

[NormanSaysNo]

So let's agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I guess that's all we can do at this stage.