THE argument that "we wuz robbed" of the North Sea's black gold is not a new one.
The SNP have reminded voters it is Scotland's oil since it started flowing 40 years ago. But today's Jimmy Reid Foundation paper from economists Jim and Margaret Cuthbert manages to bring a fresh twist to a familiar tale.
Not only do the Cuthberts calculate how much Scotland could have saved for the future had it been independent since the oil boom, they also point out that if the rest of the UK hadn't been able to spend the oil revenue to support the economy it would have soon gone bust.
As things turned out, the UK stayed afloat but failed to address its longer term problems. Instead of Scotland having a £150 billion oil fund, a still dysfunctional UK has a £1.4 trillion debt. A clear case, the couple argue, of a shabby, bungling union that now owes some payback.
They also identify the forum to discuss this new take on North Sea oil - the negotiations between a newly independent Scotland and the rest of the UK on dividing debts and assets. Rather than let bygones be bygones, Scotland should demand compensation for the squandering of the North Sea's riches and the UK's failure to establish a Norway-style savings fund. The subtext is that Scotland should be bold and relentless in any such talks.
The Treasury could surprise us. Its announcement last week that the remainder UK would honour its debt in the event of a Yes vote was, on one level, fairly pedestrian. But on another it was intriguing. UK departments, notably the Ministry of Defence with its head-in-the-sand attitude to moving Trident, generally avoid discussing a post-Yes world for fear of lending it credibility. When the Treasury dipped its toe in the water it knew it would cause ripples, but it went ahead with a maturity missing elsewhere in Whitehall.
It shows commonsense can prevail even in the most heated of debates. The more both sides act like adults, weighing arguments rather than weighing into them, the heathier the process will be for the public.
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