Scottish Independence: John Swinney’s Braveheart Budget and the Windswept Economics of Sovereignty

Scottish independence—the eternal dream, wrapped in tartan and dipped in nostalgia, and always accompanied by a rallying cry of "Freedom!" It’s a vision that evokes misty hills, blue-painted faces, and the brave defiance of a proud nation throwing off the yoke of Westminster rule. But once the pipes stop playing and the kilt is folded away, we’re left with the stark reality: Where’s the financial plan?

For all the speeches, marches, and tweets demanding independence, one thing has remained conspicuously absent—a credible, detailed economic model. In place of hard numbers, we get feel-good anecdotes from yesteryear, with the late Alex Salmond’s promises of oil wealth still echoing in the background, despite the fact that oil’s golden era has long since packed up and left Aberdeen. Scotland, it seems, is determined to turn its nose up at Westminster’s purse strings without providing any credible alternative for survival. Independence is a nice idea, sure—but a country can’t run on sentiment alone.

Salmond’s Oil Dream: A Tale of Black Gold… Gone Cold

The argument for independence once rested heavily on the black gold of the North Sea. Back in the 1970s, Salmond and his ilk sold the vision of Scotland swimming in oil wealth, using revenues to fund a Nordic-style welfare state where the streets would be paved with renewable energy and Gaelic road signs. But here’s the problem: North Sea oil is now a shadow of its former self. The SNP’s former oil-soaked dream now looks more like a leaky pipe.

In 2022-2023, North Sea oil revenues hovered around £5 billion, which might have once been enough to fuel the rhetoric of independence but now barely puts a dent in Scotland’s £15-20 billion fiscal deficit. To make matters worse, the SNP’s green agenda—under the stewardship of John Swinney—pledges to open no new oil fields. They’ve slammed the door shut on future oil exploration, perhaps forgetting that oil once propped up their entire economic argument.

No new oil fields? Fine. But what replaces the billions in oil revenues? Wind power is being flaunted as the new saviour, but it’s still a long way from filling the oil-shaped hole in Scotland’s budget. Wind may be renewable, but it can’t plug a deficit quite like fossil fuels could.

Wind Power: A Gale-Force Solution That Can’t Pay the Bills

Scotland has become a leader in renewable energy, with 97% of the country’s electricity demand coming from renewable sources in 2021. Impressive stuff! But while the Highlands may be windswept, blustery days don’t pay the bills. Yes, wind power is a major part of Scotland’s future, and the SNP likes to talk about it as if turbines alone will power Scotland’s economy after independence. The problem? Wind power doesn’t generate the kind of cash you can build a nation on—at least not yet.

Scotland does export some of its wind-generated electricity to England, but these revenues pale in comparison to what oil used to rake in. Wind is great for keeping the lights on in Edinburgh, but it won’t fund hospitals, schools, or the NHS on its own. And let’s not forget, expanding Scotland’s wind capacity further requires hefty upfront investment. Wind power has potential, but it’s a slow burn, and independence will need fast cash to fill the gap left by Westminster.

Westminster: The Financial Lifeline No One Wants to Talk About

Scotland’s financial woes become crystal clear when you start looking at the numbers. According to the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report, Scotland’s public spending vastly outstrips the revenue it generates. Scotland is running a 10-12% fiscal deficit, which means it’s spending £15-20 billion more than it collects in taxes every year.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth: that deficit is currently plugged by the UK Treasury, thanks to the Barnett Formula. In cash terms, that means Scotland gets £1,500-2,000 more per person in public spending than England. The idea that this subsidy would simply disappear under independence is one the SNP likes to gloss over, as if Scotland could just ignore the yawning financial chasm in its budget and carry on as usual.

Without Westminster’s block grant—£41 billion in 2022-2023—the first reality of independence would be severe spending cuts or massive tax hikes. The SNP likes to avoid talking about this because it doesn’t fit with the Braveheart narrative. Independence sounds great when you’re waving flags and singing anthems, but no one wants to tell the public that it might also come with fewer nurses, fewer teachers, and higher taxes.

Salmond’s Anecdotes: Sentiment Over Substance

In the 2014 independence referendum, Alex Salmond sold a vision of independence that was heavy on nostalgia and light on fiscal facts. He told the story of a Scotland awash with oil money, free from the suffocating rule of Westminster, and ready to stand tall on the global stage. It was a nice story—stirring, even. The only problem? It wasn’t grounded in reality.

Salmond’s oil-based argument is now deceased, much like the man himself, and yet the SNP has clung to his anecdotes like they’re sacred texts. But it’s time to face facts: Salmond’s model for independence died with the collapse of North Sea oil revenues. Wind power won’t replace it in time, and there’s no credible Plan B coming out of Holyrood.

Meanwhile, as the SNP continues to promise independence, the actual financial plan has remained conspicuously absent. It’s all well and good to shout about "freedom," but someone needs to explain how Scotland will fund its public services once the subsidy from Westminster dries up.

Tax the Rich? What Rich?

Of course, one of the favourite lines in the SNP’s playbook is to "tax the rich." The problem here is simple: Scotland doesn’t have a huge pool of rich people to tax. Only 0.7% of Scottish taxpayers earn more than £150,000 a year. Even if Scotland slapped an eye-watering tax on its highest earners, it wouldn’t be enough to cover the kind of deficit we’re talking about.

And let’s be real: the EU isn’t waiting with open arms to take in a fiscally shaky, newly independent nation with no currency and no plan to cut its deficit. To join the Euro, Scotland would need to reduce its deficit to below 3% of GDP, which would require painful austerity measures. But no one in the SNP seems particularly eager to tell Scots that their independence dreams might come with a hefty side of EU-enforced belt-tightening.

The Credibility Gap: Where’s the Model for Survival?

So, where does this leave us? Well, despite years of campaigning and rhetoric, there has never been a solid financial plan for independence. The SNP’s case has always been built on sentiment rather than substance—emotional appeals to history, identity, and sovereignty, but no clear roadmap for economic survival.

Without Westminster, Scotland would face a massive fiscal gap, and with no credible plan to plug it, independence could turn into an economic disaster. John Swinney can spin the benefits of wind power all he likes, but unless those turbines start spitting out gold coins, Scotland’s financial situation will remain dire.

The truth is, independence comes with hard choices, and until the SNP can present a real, numbers-backed economic model for how Scotland would thrive without Westminster’s billions, it’s little more than a Braveheart fantasy. And while fantasy might work for stirring speeches and flag-waving, it doesn’t do much to pay the bills.