Is Scottish independence a &#x27;good or bad&#x27; thing?

Original post by Smack

The problem with the oil fund is that it requires oil money to be saved up rather than spent - but what is the likelihood of the nationalists actually doing that rather than frittering it away?

And also, in the event of an independent Scotland, what is to prevent the political classes in Edinburgh from tax-raiding the industry (just like Osborne did a few years ago) to help support high public spending?

2016 elections...Alex Salmond isn't going to be around forever, he's approaching 60...

You work in the oil business don't you? Surely you have the inside scoop?

Original post by cowsforsale

2016 elections...Alex Salmond isn't going to be around forever, he's approaching 60...

Salmond isn't the only nationalist that wants to spend money like it's going out of fashion; rather, it's a commonality that they all have.

You work in the oil business don't you? Surely you have the inside scoop?

Yes, and independence is something that most of us oppose. It won't help the industry, and a great many fear it would in fact leave it far more vulnerable to tax grabs.

Reply 5743

Original post by Smack

Salmond isn't the only nationalist that wants to spend money like it's going out of fashion; rather, it's a commonality that they all have.

But Scotland spends less as a % of gdp compared to the UK average? - Link

I only mentioned Salmond because I thought he was the reason you are for the union.

Yes, and independence is something that most of us oppose. It won't help the industry, and a great many fear it would in fact leave it far more vulnerable to tax grabs.

Last year, there was a record £14bn of investment, surely the uncertainty can't be too off putting?

(edited 10 years ago)

Original post by cowsforsale

But Scotland spends less as a % of gdp compared to the UK average? - Link

But that number will steeply increase should the nationalists have their way. One of their key premises is that Scotland should be getting more money than it currently does, and that this will lead to higher public spending.

I only mentioned Salmond because I thought he was the reason you are for the union.

There are two key reasons I am for the Union.

Firstly, I think it would be utterly pointless to swap one set of politicians for another.

Secondly, we do very well as part of the Union. Economically, we're one of the best regions of the UK, we have a diverse economy and with our strengths in the subsea and marine renewables sectors we're well positioned for strong growth in sectors that will be even more important in the future, where we can be a key worldwide exporter.

Quite why we'd want to risk all this, to swap one set of politicians for another, especially nationalist ones whose ideology I consider to be backwards, is beyond me - and the majority of Scots too.

Last year, there was a record £14bn of investment, surely the uncertainty can't be too off putting?

There isn't really an uncertainty. It would take a miracle for the Yes campaign to win the referendum in September. But in the event of independence, the industry would be more vulnerable to tax grabs, because it's the backbone to the SNP's plans of bankrolling an independent Scotland. They in effect want to spend the money twice: once of creating an oil fund and again on public spending. But obviously that can't happen.

In reality, the margins that North Sea operators receive on each barrel of oil and equivalent will continue to decrease as production costs increase, meaning that the industry will in the future need tax breaks if it is to continue being a major employer in Scotland, otherwise it will be rendered uneconomical.

Reply 5745

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Smack

But that number will steeply increase should the nationalists have their way. One of their key premises is that Scotland should be getting more money than it currently does, and that this will lead to higher public spending.

There are two key reasons I am for the Union.

Firstly, I think it would be utterly pointless to swap one set of politicians for another.

Secondly, we do very well as part of the Union. Economically, we're one of the best regions of the UK, we have a diverse economy and with our strengths in the subsea and marine renewables sectors we're well positioned for strong growth in sectors that will be even more important in the future, where we can be a key worldwide exporter.

Quite why we'd want to risk all this, to swap one set of politicians for another, especially nationalist ones whose ideology I consider to be backwards, is beyond me - and the majority of Scots too.

There isn't really an uncertainty. It would take a miracle for the Yes campaign to win the referendum in September. But in the event of independence, the industry would be more vulnerable to tax grabs, because it's the backbone to the SNP's plans of bankrolling an independent Scotland. They in effect want to spend the money twice: once of creating an oil fund and again on public spending. But obviously that can't happen.

In reality, the margins that North Sea operators receive on each barrel of oil and equivalent will continue to decrease as production costs increase, meaning that the industry will in the future need tax breaks if it is to continue being a major employer in Scotland, otherwise it will be rendered uneconomical.

Can't give you a thumbs up, but a very succinct and accurate appraisal of the issue.

We seem to have a group of people feeling that they're somehow missing out, but by chasing small change they're likely to destroy the economy.

Scotland does do ok, however it still lags behind London and the south east. Its Wales, the north of England and Northern Ireland that our drawing on resources, however for some unknown reason the SNP like to actually target London and the south east as the reason the UK is struggling, even though those areas are the only net contributors.

Reply 5746

Midlander

Original post by MatureStudent36

Can't give you a thumbs up, but a very succinct and accurate appraisal of the issue.

We seem to have a group of people feeling that they're somehow missing out, but by chasing small change they're likely to destroy the economy.

Scotland does do ok, however it still lags behind London and the south east. Its Wales, the north of England and Northern Ireland that our drawing on resources, however for some unknown reason the SNP like to actually target London and the south east as the reason the UK is struggling, even though those areas are the only net contributors.

For Christ's sake MS stop ignoring vast swathes of England as 'the North'.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5747

L i b

Original post by cowsforsale

Aren't my words or SNP's, but the words of a referendum expert :s-smilie:

.

Not only is Matt Qvortrup in the pocket of the SNP, he's also the same Matt Qvortrup who has been called "clueless" and "a numpty, whose feeble scholarship on Scottish devolution risks making numpties of us all."

Not my words, the words of an SNP activist with a convincing academic background.

He's a man with a history of writing about things he hasn't the faintest understanding of and making repeated basic factual inaccuracies. He's dodgy.

Rattled? Have I upset you :frown:

...

A bizarre claim to make to the person who was making quite reasonable points to you in an entirely normal way.

Well, only OBR predicts prices to go down. OBR was set up by the ConDem coalition and have a political motive. Plus, they've got it wrong before..

The independent, expert OBR whose analysis it should be noted John Swinney said had "not been seriously challenged" when he was writing a private cabinet circular that got leaked. When it entered the public realm he quickly changed his tune.

The OBR's analysis is widely accepted and has been used by such organisations as the IFS, Citigroup and, of course, the UK Government.

None of this however answers the fellow you were responding to, who noted that Scotland's wealth will be dependent on a commodity with a price that fluctuates. This is true of any analysis of oil revenue.

Reply 5748

FredOrJohn

5

Original post by Jordan_1

Scotland always has and always will punch above it's weight in terms on 'impacting the world stage'.

One good thing about Independence is that Scotland would no longer have to get dragged into these pointless wars just to asslick the Americans.

Finland still has conscription and gets pulled into wars. They often use conscripts like slave labour clearing snow.

Punching Above weight?

One reason why Nokia is collapsing and Vodafone goes from strength to strength is size helps during the bad times.

Finland has gone totally nuclear in energy because it is forced to ... Sometimes small means no choice.

Reply 5749

Gordon1985

6

Original post by FredOrJohn

One reason why Nokia is collapsing and Vodafone goes from strength to strength is size helps during the bad times.

Give one practical disadvantage that Nokia faces, being based in a country with a small population, that Vodafone doesn't face because it's based in a country with a larger population.

Nokia is struggling because they've completely failed to keep up with modern smart phone technology. This has precisely nothing to do with where they're headquartered.

Finland has gone totally nuclear in energy because it is forced to ... Sometimes small means no choice.

This just isn't even true. Nuclear power only provides just over a quarter of Finalnd's energy with one more reactor coming online soon to bring them up to 5. This won't even come anywhere close to providing half of the country's energy.

Honestly, where do you get this **** from?

(edited 10 years ago)

no

Original post by FredOrJohn

no

Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you.

Reply 5752

inniz

Hoping it's a yes vote lol.. let them GO!

Reply 5753

FinalMH

16

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-spain-warning-over-eu-entry-1-3292575

“Scotland is a European nation, and if the people decide we should be independent we will have equal status and a place at the top table in Europe for the first time ever.”

Yes a nation of 5 million will be at the top table.... lol

Reply 5754

Good bloke

Original post by FinalMH

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-spain-warning-over-eu-entry-1-3292575

“Scotland is a European nation, and if the people decide we should be independent we will have equal status and a place at the top table in Europe for the first time ever.”

Yes a nation of 5 million will be at the top table.... lol

hehe. It fits in well with the general SNP strategy, which is to make a statement that flies in the face of logic and sense and hope nobody notices. In this case, they hope nobody notices that Scotland won't have representation in G8 or G20 talks.

There are others in that piece:

Scotland’s continued EU membership as an independent country is overwhelmingly in the interests of the rest of Europe

As if Europe in general will notice whether Scotland is EU member, never mind receive an overwhelming benefit from that membership.

This is very welcome confirmation of the common sense approach which will prevail following a Yes vote in September’s referendum

There are two here :redface:

ne, the assumption that Scotland will become independent; the other that common sense will play any part in Spain's actions (which are all about denying independence to the Catalans).

That is not only our view, it is one shared by hugely respected experts like Graham Avery and Sir David Edward.

Name-dropping of nonentities (in the wider European context).

Reply 5755

Original post by Smack

Firstly, I think it would be utterly pointless to swap one set of politicians for another.

It's not really a swap though, is it? The Scottish MSPs will still be around, no matter what result is reached.

It's more like deciding to keep Westminster or not. It also allows us to chuck the FPTP voting system and get rid of the House of Lords.

Secondly, we do very well as part of the Union. Economically, we're one of the best regions of the UK, we have a diverse economy and with our strengths in the subsea and marine renewables sectors we're well positioned for strong growth in sectors that will be even more important in the future, where we can be a key worldwide exporter.

Would the subsea and marine renewables sectors become a complete basket case with independence - why wouldn't the Scottish government invest in it (seeing as they are pledging to go completely green by 2020?).

especially nationalist ones whose ideology I consider to be backwards, is beyond me - and the majority of Scots too.

How do you explain high approval ratings?

There isn't really an uncertainty. It would take a miracle for the Yes campaign to win the referendum in September.

I'm not sure about that. No vote % is continuously decreasing and with 8 months to go and more debates planned I wouldn't hedge any bets just yet..

Majority of people want more devolved powers to Scotland. So far, the likes of Alistair Carmichael and Douglas Alexander haven't guaranteed anything..

They in effect want to spend the money twice: once of creating an oil fund and again on public spending. But obviously that can't happen.

I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other. Create an oil fund but also invest in the renewable sector. The oil is really an icing on the cake in my opinion.

"Without oil  we perform to the average of the UK and the best of any UK region outside the South-East. A mediocre batting average that can be so much better, but not a  bad starting point. Add energy windfalls into the equation and the opportunity to replicate Norway’s saving, albeit on a smaller scale, remains to be achieved."

Plus with independence, one can properly look at areas of the budget where savings can be made (e.g £16 billion on Trident, £1.5 billion from defense, not having to pay for the ludicrous interest on UK's £1.5 trillion debt etc...)

In reality, the margins that North Sea operators receive on each barrel of oil and equivalent will continue to decrease as production costs increase.

Excuse my ignorance but what would be the reasons for increasing production costs? Regulations? Difficulty with access? Surely, with improving technology, production costs should go down?

Reply 5756

If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an independent Scotland would be one of the world’s top 35 exporters.

An independent Scotland could also expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK. Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters.

Yet Mr Knightley also noted that greater sway over its own economy could be a real advantage for Scotland.

http://archive.is/vcQ78

Reply 5757

Good bloke

Original post by cowsforsale

I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other. Create an oil fund but also invest in the renewable sector. The oil is really an icing on the cake in my opinion.

You've now spent it three times: once to create a fund, once to invest in renewables and once to spend it on the things it is currently spent on.

not having to pay for the ludicrous interest on UK's £1.5 trillion debt etc...

Scotland will just have the interest on its own debt, which will be in proportion to its population. Still proportionately, in your words, ludicrous.

Excuse my ignorance but what would be the reasons for increasing production costs? Regulations? Difficulty with access? Surely, with improving technology, production costs should go down?

The oil and gas that is most difficult to extract is, inevitably, left until the end. It hasn't yet been economically viable to extract it - and may never be as new energy technologies and sources (like fracking, solar, tidal and wind power) overtake it.

Reply 5758

Original post by L i b

Not only is Matt Qvortrup in the pocket of the SNP, he's also the same Matt Qvortrup who has been called "clueless" and "a numpty, whose feeble scholarship on Scottish devolution risks making numpties of us all."

Strange that BT asked him to be part of an expert panel :s-smilie:

?
Weird how he panned the SNP's white paper, saying it might put off potential- yes voters.

Not my words, the words of an SNP activist with a convincing academic background.

The Prof has a convincing background too (oxford educated, taught at LSE). Plus, he's analysing both sides of the debate.

Reply 5759

Good bloke