[reillyse]

I think it's pretty easy to see examples of what Scotland could be. Have a look over the Irish sea and Ireland is doing very well for itself just a little over 100 years after independence ("full" independence obviously happening slightly later).

It seems very obvious to me that when decisions are made locally they are made in the interests of the people who are local. Being on the periphery of a country is not ideal. Ireland had suffered for it in the past and became very poor as a result of colonization but has rebounded very significantly. Scotland, despite having massive resources is a very very poor and depressed country. If the oil wealth from the North Sea had stayed in Scotland, you could be having a Norway style moment but instead that wealth has gone south.

[smcl]

> very very poor and depressed country

Scotland suffered greatly from the decline of a few key industries in the 70s and 80s so and parts of it are indeed poor and in decline. But if you're to categorise a country by its very poorest areas, you'll end up saying the USA, France, England are very very poor and depressed.

Scotland isn't Norway - that ship has long sailed and we should discard any ideas that oil wealth can still take us there. But it's not, no offense intended, Moldova and it's wrong to think of it that way.

[reillyse]

True, it's not in the poorest of European countries, so maybe "very very poor and depressed" is not accurate. I feel it is a lot poorer than it should be though and whenever I visit Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen they don't feel vibrant and alive, they feel depressed, like everybody who wants to make a change has left.

The oil situation is definitely worth talking about. Not because I think the English should give the oil back, but because it's an example of what the problem is. There will be other oils in the future. The way the oil wealth has been extracted is how England plays the game. English companies and english investors take the lion's share with tax revenue and even oil flowing south of the border to be refined. I would be willing to wager that London did better out of North Sea oil than Edinburgh ever did. Of course they spend money on social services in Scotland all the while claiming that the Scots are lazy and tight fisted and could never manage their own affairs. If England wasn't running things up there the whole place would fall apart. It's the same story they have used everywhere, from Ireland (lazy drunken Micks) to India, the Caribbean etc etc. I just found out yesterday that the term "welch" as in to renege on a promise just means Welsh as in to be from Wales. Slightly ironic given how the English are welching on their international commitments in Northern Ireland.

[smcl]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think we can learn from how both Norway and Shetland handled things. While not as famous as Norway's sovereign wealth fund, Shetland did quite well out of the Sullom Voe field: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-27138927

[hardlianotion]

What is your criterion for poor and depressed country? Which are the comparator states, and what is your measure?