The SNP's independence plans have come under fire after the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warned North Sea oil revenues could fall to just £130 million this year.
With the OBR now predicting oil revenues to raise about £0.1 billion for 2015-16 and the next three years, George Osborne said there would have been "catastrophic cuts" if Scotland have voted for independence last September.
At the same time, opposition leaders at Holyrood accused SNP ministers of misleading the public on the amount of cash that could be raised from the industry in the run-up to the independence vote.
The Scottish Government had proposed Scotland would be an independent country by March 2016 if there had been a Yes vote in the referendum.
Mr Osborne said: "Of course, if Scotland had voted for independence, they would have had their own Spending Review this autumn.
"With world oil prices falling, and revenues from the North Sea forecast by the OBR to be down 94%, we would have seen catastrophic cuts to Scottish public services.
"Thankfully, Scotland remains a strong part of a stronger United Kingdom. So the Scottish block grant will be over £30 billion in 2019-20 - while capital spending available will rise by £1.9 billion through to 2021."
Labour MSP Jackie Baillie called for the SNP to "apologise to the Scottish people for misleading everybody on oil".
Ms Baillie, the party's public services spokeswoman at Holyrood, said: "John Swinney promised Scots oil revenues of £8 billion in the year we would have left the UK. The reality is that they will be just £130 million.
"These figures expose the stark reality of the consequences of the SNP's plan for separation.
"The scale of the cuts that would have been required to budgets for our schools and hospitals had the SNP got their way is simply unimaginable. The SNP should apologise to the Scottish people for misleading everybody on oil."
Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Murdo Fraser said: "These new oil figures only serve to demonstrate the shocking scale of the SNP's deceit before the referendum.
"Time and time again we were told that oil would pay. Despite numerous warnings, the SNP's white paper - overseen by Nicola Sturgeon - brushed all evidence aside in an attempt to deliberately hoodwink voters.
"Given these latest figures, Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney should show they are prepared to move on by apologising for what was a deliberate and conscious decision to deceive people."
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said: "John Swinney should thank his lucky stars it's not him up there delivering a budget for an independent Scotland.
"His predictions of a second oil boom have gone bust. The 94% cut in oil revenues would have starved our NHS, schools and police of billions of pounds in a separate Scotland."
A spokesman for Scottish Deputy First Minister John Swinney hit back:
He said: "It is the Tories who should be apologising for their part in not saving a single penny of Scotland's vast oil revenues over the last 40 years - and for now scrapping the £1 billion carbon capture plans which could have brought a major economic and jobs boost to Peterhead and the north east of Scotland.
"The reality is the UK Government forecasts for oil prices were higher than the Scottish Government's in the run-up to the referendum.
"Scotland remains the biggest oil producer in the EU - and even without oil, Scotland's output per head ranks third of the 12 countries and regions of the UK, behind only London and the South East."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel