According to the Financial Times, Scotland could afford to be independent...but only for a decade. After that, suggests their analysis, the oil money will run out, and with it Scotland's viability as an independent nation. Or so goes the unionist interpretation of the FT's analysis.
Firstly, the suggestion that after ten years we could no longer afford to be independent is based on the assumption that during the first decade of our independence, Scotland's government will sit on its hands and do nothing to grow our economy. On the contrary, with independence, any party or parties that govern Scotland will have an array of economic levers that will allow them to boost economic growth. So, when the oil runs out, which of course it will, Scotland's economy will continue to flourish without it.
Secondly, why is the same logic not applied to Britain? Scotland's oil is currently keeping the British economy afloat, with Gordon Brown using it to plug holes in his financial management. If Scotland were to remain in the union, then it would be 'Britain's oil' that will run out. What then for Britain? Surely, given that Britain's independence would no longer be viable, I assume Westminster will be seeking urgent negotiations to form a political union with France, to allow Paris to make decisions on its behalf.