[iup=3572135]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:And how would you have been 'very rich'? Before you say 'Oil', the money from that must've been spent a dozen times over by the time the Yes Campaign were done.
Where did all that money go, do you think?
To answer your question - A mixture of having a small population, oil reserves, a trade surplus we could have easily increased, vast renewable energy reserves and water reserves for the future. The only issue was currency. I said in here previously the SNP handled that terribly - they shoulder blame for a lot of No votes because of poor planning.
The UK government knows about the wealth here too, that's why they went crazy when the vote was looking close. Who knew, politicians sometimes care more about money than democracy. And to be honest, financial wealth pales in comparison to democratic wealth - that is, my vote actually counting for anything. None of my votes have ever mattered in the UK sense. I'd take a say over money any day.
At best the money from oil would have gone into maintaining the status quo. The Yes campaign were massively overestimating how much oil money they had.
Most experts agreed that the SNP were overestimating how much Oil was actually left in the North Sea by literally billions of barrels. Shell and BP were also of this opinion and I'd be more inclined to believe their findings in this matter than the SNP.
There was also no guarantee of just how much of the oil revenue Scotland would get to keep. It could have been anywhere from 8% (A share based on Population which is what Westminster wanted) right up to 93% (A share based on geographical position that the SNP wanted). The Yes campaigns figures were based on the geographical share being the outcome (Like much of the Yes campaign they based all of their promises on assumptions rather than actual predictions, see Currency union and EU membership status for further examples), when the reality is that the share would likely have been closer to around the 60-70% mark for Scotland after negotiations.
Also, the simple fact of the matter is that Scotland takes more from the UK than it puts in, that has been demonstrated several times in this thread. Part of the revenues from Oil would have been needed just to balance that back out.
Short term, the oil money probably would have been able to maintain things pretty much exactly as they are but it certainly wouldn't have left to everyone in Scotland becoming richer overnight.
Long term, it never would have sustained the country or built up enough of a surplus to sustain the country.