Well, no, it's sea water, so of course sane people wouldn't drink it, but even before it was diluted in the sea it was far less radioactive thsn the tapwater in much of Scotland.

If you have concerns about the shellfish, the risk is from the sewage plants in the area.

Scotland produces more than it needs much of the time, but when Torness closes that proportion of time will plummet.

Unless storage is boosted massively (an enormous cost with huge impacts on upland ecology) extra wind turbines doesn't help.

It gives it all back, as shown in Chapter 3 of GERS.

The Government didn't say that. Jappy just made things up. Scotland did subsidise the UK in the 80s, but not since.

Why do all the claims that GERS is wrong collapse as soon as you look into them?

Doesn't matter how rich you are, you can't spend significantly more than your income for a significant amount of time.

I had forgotten there used to be a car park there. It's amazing how you forget such things.

Many years ago I investigated having my wedding there.

I saw the price and was so stunned I couldn't even laugh at it.

The UK has 4 nuclear weapon sites, 3 are in England.

If you're talking about the leaks at Coulport, they were less radioactive than most drinking water.

They tested biological agents on the London Underground.

They are looking for 6 sites, so it is likely at least 1 will be in Scotland, but one of the companies has already rejected Grangemouth.

3× as many Scots want an increase in defence spending as want a decrease.

You would think there was never testing or dumping in England the way you react.

Did you read the article? Most of the proposed sites are in England.

You do export, but you also import, and when Torness closes Scotland it will export a lot less and import a lot more.

The green energy relies on subsidies paid by consumers across the UK. Why would consumers in England continue to pay them after independence?

Renewables generated the equivalent of 113% of our electricity consumption, but electricity is only about 20%of our energy consumption. The other 80% is domestic or commercial use of gas, plus domestic oil, and petrol and diesel in vehicles.

Even that doesn't change the fact the country would be ripped apart.

False dichotomy.

Farage is polling about where the SDP/Liberal Alliance was in the early 1980s.

Scotland is no more progressive than England, and the economic devastation of independence would likely cause a lurch to the right.

Why would I, a Scot living in England, support someone who has expressed support for breaking up the UK?

The UK is a unitary country made up of former countries.

Most countries are.

England, like Scotland, is a region of the UK, not a separate country.

Yes. He is also a Londoner, British and European.

Not sure why you think that relevant.

By every definition it is true.

Parliament is sovereign. The people express their sovereignty by electing its members.

Your grievances are fantasy.

We are one country.

Are you proposing Scotland seize private assets?

If you think they don't know what is spent then I think we should leave it as you are clearly determined to maintain your grievances no matter what.

None of the spending is estimated, is is all known numbers.

60% of revenue is known numbers.

The other 40% of estimated, with a margin of error of +/-£1b.

The deficit is notional because it is covered by the fiscal transfer from Westminster.

Do that and Scotland would either need to pay more for its own electricity to encourage investment, or switch back to cheaper sources like coal or gas. Or nuclear.

Scotland already sells the electricity. It gets an above market price for it, so with independence Scotland would get less.

That alone would end investment in new capacity.

Cutting prices in Scotland would bankrupt existing capacity.

It's a matter of fact, not opinion.

www.gov.scot/publications...

Are you suggesting Scotland would sell its electricity or oil to England?