What would Scottish Independence entail? Independence from the UK would give Scotland the ability to make its own decisions about national and international affairs, finances and issues such as the military and the North Sea oil. With all the current debate about the referendum, what are the pros and cons of the separation of the United Kingdom’s 304 year-old alliance?  

Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party, won by a landslide victory last May with 68 of Holyrood’s 129 seats, due in part to his promises to hold a referendum on independence before 2015. So why does the First Minister now stammer and sidestep the question of the referendum date?

The fact is that, despite an overwhelming desire for change among Scots being the driving force of Salmond’s success, there is a lot of uncertainty about whether full independence is the best idea. For example, even the SNP has suggested that it would keep some of the perks of the union, such as the pound, the monarchy and the NHS.
Then again, Scotland wants full control of the North Sea’s treasure: oil that the UK paid for with huge investments in rigs and extraction equipment. Understandably Scotland wants to claim this resource, especially as after independence they will have to rely heavily on oil income to compensate for the loss in revenue from the UK government. Although supporters of Scottish independence enjoy pointing out that oil revenues were about £12 billion in 2008, they neglect to say how they halved to around £6.5 billion as the recession tightened its noose a year later.

Internationally, separation would give Scotland its own seats at the UN and EU, which would mean that Scottish ministers could bring up Scottish issues internationally themselves, diminishing concerns that Scottish issues are put onto the back burner by UK representatives. But Scottish ministers will not have as much influence on their own over global issues as they do as part of the UK.

In terms of political side effects to independence, Scotland losing 59 of its seats in Westminster loses Labour 16% of its seats and the Liberal Democrats about 20% – so the coalition government would be ditched as the Conservatives would have a 52% majority. In return for the Scottish parliament having complete control over their country, Scottish MPs will no longer have power to make decisions about British legislation. 

To be truly independent, Scotland would have to extricate its soldiers from the British military and form its own. This would mean no more Scottish servicemen sent out on Westminster’s orders, but losing the strength of the British armed forces for protection would be disastrous should conflict arise. Nevertheless, another advantage of this separation would be banishment of the Trident missile submarines that the SNP have continuously campaigned against. Scotland has never wanted anything to do with these nuclear weapons and they would be one of the first things to go after separation.

At the moment, the UK government gives Scotland about £26 billion annually. Tax money spent in Scotland is currently higher than tax paid by the Scottish people, so independence probably means a long-term rise in taxes. This is why control of oil is so important to Scotland – the money that it brings in would be needed to compensate for lost UK tax money. If an independent Scotland won 95% of UK oil reserves Scottish taxes might be set lower than English taxes, which would start a bidding war as businesses flocked north over the border to escape higher taxation.

This would be very good news for Scotland, but setting sights on gaining all the North Sea oil is a gamble, especially as oil revenue is not concrete in the long term. In an alternative scenario, Scotland might have to set higher income taxes to compensate for losing the UK’s support, causing people and businesses to migrate south and leaving Scottish finances spiralling out of control.

Another option for voters may be ‘devo max’ where Scotland would gain financial independence. Under this plan Scotland would raise its own taxes and control its own spending, making a payment to the UK government to contribute to UK services. This will free Scotland from monetary dependence and English taxpayers from resentment over issues such as free Scottish university fees and prescriptions.

The union transformed these islands off Europe’s coast into one of the strongest global powers. Devolution has been successful for 12 years, and I think Scotland wants a change towards more control over its own affairs, but the recent torrent of different ideas about independence suggests that this should be a gradual process. There are far too many advantages to being part of the UK for the Scottish to throw away the 300-year-old union because they dislike being controlled by a Tory government.