Reply to James Higham (Part 4)

And now we come to the big question: what about the money?

I welcome the article in Friday's Herald that led to this series of posts. There's also the piece by Iain Macwhirter in Guardian Unlimited.

Some of the responses from England are measured but many are frankly extraordinary. I take things in no particular order but will start with the oil.

There's the chap who thinks that an independent Scotland wouldn't get any of the North Sea oil because "It's all in English waters." The only way anyone could think that is by believing that the UK is really a greater England. Slightly more sophisticated was the person who had discovered in the last few days that the boundary between the English and Scottish zones of the North Sea doesn't go due east but forms an extension of the land border from where it reaches the sea. Well, knock me down with a feather - I've known that for at least thirty years and so has everyone in Scotland who's interested. The boundary was settled ages ago. Bump off your mate on one North Sea rig and you'll end up in an English court, on another one you'll face fifteen jurors in a Scottish one. We know where the boundary is and the tax figures that I blogged about take that into account.

Then there are those who think that "English money" developed the oil, as if it had been extracted by the government. No, the UK government (not an English one) licensed numerous privately owned oil companies from many countries to drill for the oil and then the government collected the tax. And how about those who don't think that it's legitimate to include oil revenue in Scotland's p&l even when they agree that it comes from Scottish waters. Tell that to the Saudis or the Norwegians. It's like saying: "London's economy is a bit of a basket case but if we include the earnings of the City things look pretty good"!

More follows.