Pre-covid, Scottish public spending was about £15b a year more than tax revenue.
I believe the SNP position is that historical revenues should be taken into account for historic debt, but Scotland still has to convince the world to lend it a hell of a lot of money every year to pay for those services, even if they took all the North Sea old revenue (which seems an odd thing for a government with Green backing to be relying on)
The revenues from oil are going to be somewhat predictably stable for the next ten to fifteen years, there is simply too much infrastructure in Europe that relies on burning or otherwise using fossil-origin oil and gas. Banks and other investors can make an investment backed by this expected income.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/350890/united-kingdom-uk...
Apparently it's the only thing of any value in Scotland and in 30 years, we're supposed to be net-zero.
What happens when Scotland's geographical resources cease to be of any use to wealthy English people?
There's tons of future stuff that could be invested in Scotland -- offshore wind and tidal and pumped hydro for example. That investment isn't there because the UK (and the EU for that matter) is market led and the market wants short term results over long term investment.
Forgive me if I've misinterpreted, but you seem to think that's an argument for staying in the UK but I see it as an argument for getting out. It's a crutch, and Scotland needs to figure out how to stand on it's own power. Why should rUK subsidise indefinitely? What if suddenly it decides to stop? And why shoudn't it?
[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-200... [2]: https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/
The trust has gone. I want us ruling our own affairs.
In 30 years, hopefully there's zero oil revenue.
But what happens in the meantime is important. I have zero faith that a UK government will invest in alternatives that will generate wealth for people living in Scotland.