ALEX Salmond is to demand a financial share of Britain's £821 billion of assets as part of an independence settlement.
The First Minister believes a separate Scotland would be entitled to 8.4% of the value of all the assets – which range from Caribbean embassies to a £5.3 million official residence in Buenos Aires – in line with its population share.
The SNP says the break-up of the UK to create an independent Scotland would be modelled around the division of the former Czechoslovakia in 1993, when state assets were shared out according to the population share of the newly formed nations.
Under this model, Scotland would be entitled to a £69bn share of assets, including £7.8bn worth of defence assets.
According to the most recent national asset register, the British Government owns about £759 billion of fixed assets, including Buckingham Palace and Edinburgh Castle.
The Foreign Office's estate, worth £1.5bn, has attracted interest from SNP strategists. Its embassy assets include a £2m base in the Bahamas, a £5.3m official residence and £1.5m office in Buenos Aires.
There are also Paris office buildings valued at £80m that the SNP described as "fit for a king", furnished with more than £3m worth of antiques, silver and rugs.
In practice, an independent Scotland would be expected to share some diplomatic resources with the British Government.
A spokesman for Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "The anti-independence parties are completely inept – they think Scotland should get our share of UK debt but not the assets. No wonder the people of Scotland reject them.
"These figures confirm that an independent Scotland will be in a stronger financial position than the rest of the UK."
However, Labour accused the SNP of living in "cloud cuckoo land". Patricia Ferguson, Labour MSP, said: "Most people will see it as fantasy. They [the SNP] will need to try harder to make a serious economic case for separation.
"Entering negotiations over the contents of the British Museum's display cabinets is not persuasive argument as to why we should turn our closest neighbour into our biggest competitor."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article