@Martin: I wondered how long it would take for a belicose rant about 'keeping the foreigner out'. You are clearly a victim of received wisdom, since it is Scotland which subsidises the UK, not England subsidising Scotland. More revenue is raised than is spent in Scotland. Where does this lost revenue go? It goes to fund higher public spending per capita in London (more people live in London than in Scotland) and Northern Ireland. Some simple analysis of the government's own figures will show you that you should be angry with how money is spent in England itself rather than Scotland.

Yes, re Richard SM et al, if we are such a drag on the poor English and need to be subsidised, wouldn't they be better off without us? Why aren't they jumping at the chance? Must be a really charitable, philanthropic bunch.

Part of any settlement, the UK needs to make sure that Faslane is completely dismantled lest the Scots make it available to enemies of the UK: likewise all sensitive technology needs to be stripped out of any aircraft or ships that are given over, lest it be passed on to Islamic terrorism. The Megrahi incident has not been forgotten. The cost of all this should be born by Scotland in recompense for breach of faith.

The thing for me about this debate is how painfully slow Gordon Brown then David Cameron have been to publically engage in this process. I suspect a small group of whitehall mandarins have been considering aspects like Trident, oil, defence, currency behind closed doors but the public in the wider UK are woefully under-informed about the potential impact of constitutional change in Scotland. The media should shoulder a fair degree of the blame for this to be fair.

The SNP won their first election in 2007, they published an online consultation about an independence referendum dubbed 'the National Conversation' shortly after, and have a full section of their own website dedicated to their policies on Independence. The Independent think-tank Reform Scotland has done a lot of work on the so called full fiscal autonomy model dubbed 'Devo Max' including a full breakdown of revenue and expenditure published online. If Westminster really took this all so seriously why have they waited until now to debate all the legalities of a referendum?

They are only now getting around to setting up a Commission on 'the West Lothian Question', only 13 years after devolution took place!!

@David - and for anyone who wants the facts about the Scottish deficit.

You claim that "More revenue is raised than is spent in Scotland" is nonsense.

This is from the conclusion of the document produced by the Economic Office of the SNP administration that is the Scottish government. It was published a few months ago.

It compares the Scottish situation to the UK situation.

-------------------

"In 2009-10, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £62.1 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.

In 2009-10, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £42.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £42.7 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (9.4 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).

In 2009-10, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.9 billion (13.4 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £14.4 billion (12.6 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £9.0 billion (6.8 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.

In 2009-10, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, worth £107.3 billion (7.6 per cent of GDP).

In 2009-10, Scotland's estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £19.9 billion (17.8 per cent of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £19.3 billion (17.0 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £14.0 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2009-10, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as 'net borrowing', was a deficit of £156.5 billion (or 11.1 per cent of GDP)."
---------------------

It is exactly why the referendum must NOT be rushed by Cameron/Clegg. They are such idiots. People must have time to discuss such issues.

@Benjamin

London, the South East, and East Anglia run surpluses and they subsidise Scotland, Wales, NI, N.East, N.West, W.Mids and S.West.
The East Midland breaks-even, so neither subsidises anyone, nor requires a subsidy.

When you add it all up, the three regions that produce tax surpluses, plus the one that breaks-even are overwhelmed by the loss-making regions.

A strange thing. The New Statesman is happy to parrot Osborne's propaganda on Scotland without qualification but absolutely certain that he's wrong on every other subject under the sun. And supposedly left-wing but obsessed with the pointless nuclear deterrent.

As for a compromise on Faslane, what could Westminster offer in respect of "national debt, sterling and North Sea Oil"? The oil is where it is and the border is where Tony Blair moved it to. Based on Irish experience we might conclude that the UK can do little about sterling one way or the other. That leaves the debt. In April 2010 Putin claimed that Russia was paying Ukraine $40-45 billion over a decade for basing rights at Sevastopol. Whether Vlad was right or not - and I'd go for "gross exagerration" at best - it's a number to be starting with for a ten-year lease. That would just about cover the lifetime of the current Trident submarines.

@Richard: you are trying to present estimates as facts. Perhaps you ought to consult the dictionary.

@Martin L: as a Scot, I am hardly anti-Scottish. But it was nice of you to try to put words in my mouth. You clearly don't even understand your own argument, never mind mine.

Concessions over our own natural resources, big of you.

The only 'negotiations' will be over the oil/gas in the North Sea, I believe its currently 90% of the oil fields in Scottish waters while 70% of the gas fields are in English waters, the new fields in the Moray Firth and round into the North West would not form any part of the negotiations. Of far more importance are the Crown Estates with the renewables developments under way and again the only area for negotiations would be in the areas where our borders overlap, again none of this is a bargaining chip for a former UK government, although they seem to be under the impression that if you say something enough times that makes it so.

So we're left with debt for Trident........Scotland will happily take its GDP share of the debt, or population based debt, from all reports their about the same, that is right and proper.

As for Trident........I would give England a three to five year grace period after independence where they can rent Faslane while they construct an alternative wherever they like as long as its in England

Does anyone claiming that Scotland needs to be subsidised, honestly think that is a good argument for the union ??

If true, then surely the Scots would be far better off controlling their own economy and sorting out the mess.

Angus - 'Scottish defence forces' come on. What's this? the 21st century tartan dad's army ? you're quite prepared to sacrifice thousands upon thousands of defence jobs and replace them with (wait for it) 'scottish defence forces'.
You cannot be serious. Please come into the real world.
There would be a very, very high price to pay for Independence. You & the SNP cannot & won't admit it

Once the Scottish government are obliged to go independent they're not in a very strong bargaining position. UK government could have a lease for a nominal amount. What's the current rate for agricultural land? Scotland may demand the Navy leaves, but it's a similar situation to USA and Cuba, where Cuba has asked USA to leave Guantanamo Bay but they won't. What is Scotland going to do? Send the bailiffs in? There's nothing they can do, especially if they're going to be relying on the £pound as currency together with the Bank of England. And it will seem like hypocrisy on the part of the SNP if they demand a high rent in order to balance their books, after having claimed they're against nuclear weapons on moral grounds. Just where are their principles in that scenario?

The UK might also consider what Orkney and Shetland have to offer as they seem to be against leaving the UK. It's a deep water location. Better to pay Orkney/Shetland than Scotland. And of course if Orkney/Shetland opt out of Scottish independence, most of the oil comes with them. There's a deal of some sort in there somewhere. USA uses Diego Garcia, so remote islands aren't out the question.

There may also be some small redundant ports around the English coast as well which could be developed or put to use. They may require some dredging, but it's not difficult. The MoD probably have a few locations in mind already. It's simply a matter of how long it takes to construct, but once a decision has been taken then two, three or even four years and it would be ready.

There are other cooperation possibilities as well. Spending cuts has already planted the idea of further defence collaboration with other countries, either within the EU, or with USA, who already do a lot of work on our equipment. This hasn't come out of the blue; it's been known for some time. Everyone is just waiting on the outcome of the referendum, which illustrates Cameron's point: the uncertainty affects big investment decisions - both ways!

.

If scotland wants independance, let them. We can treat them as a new member of the EU and block them working here, for say 10 years, or only let you in with specialist work permits - the main concern is that independance or no - Scotland must pay its way - The Barnett formula is a disgrace to English tax payers - where my area receives over £2k a head less funding evey year.