As stated in this article no consideration is being given to the young people who will not have the resources available to the current generation. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28867487 No doubt people on one side of the argument or the other will wish to give their own spin on the revenue that can be expected over the next few years, but Ian Wood who is not aligning himself with either side is a well respected industry specialist. Another thing I have heard little of, is how much money into the existing infrastructure has actually come out of Scotland? Why should all this be claimed if it has not be bought in the first place.
I honestly have no idea whether Scotland would succeed economically or not - for me it cannot be their prime motive for independence to say that they would be better off outside of the Union. By the same token London could do the same. Much more problematic for the Union has been the political and social polarization over the last 30 years since the erosion of Britain's manufacturing base. England's blind acceptance of Thatcherism and its daughter `free market economics', concentration on lack of economic regulation and the building of service industries and the financial sector. All of this socially accompanied by an unparalleled strengthening of the divide between rich and poor. I do not believe, as some on here have stated, that Scotland has moved to the left but rather that the centre of English politics has moved to the right. A development also marked by a strengthening of Atlantic ties - if you doubt that then try to imagine Britain having engaged in something like the Iraq war during the 50s 60s or 70s - inconceivable. In short Scotland has become enstranged from the mainstream of English politics. But, the same could be said for North East England or Merseyside - can they break away as well ? In the end the only valid reason for Scottish independence is that they were once a sovereign nation. The act of union in 1707 united England and Wales to a Scotland which (I am sorry to say this) was a nation in name only. It was a bilingual country separated into Highlands and Lowlands - populated by peoples who were unintelligable to each other, with a Celtic Gaelic speaking north built on clan loyalty and brigandage on the one hand, and an industrious English speaking south. Both sides being mutually antagonistic to each other. The lowlands supported the Union because they had more sympathy towards the English than to the clansmen of the north. The south, particularly Glasgow, profited greatly from the union because it opened up colonial trade to them. Glasgow increased it's population tenfold in the next hundred years. What I am saying is that Scotland only really became a country, with a common national consciousness, as a part of Great Britain. This is why I cannot accept the emotional appeals to Scotland's past - its use of symbols such as the bagpipes or the kilt (both of which were held in abhorrence by the lowlands in the not so distant past. The only thing which unites Scots is their present attitude to England and for me this is an insufficient basis to build a nation upon. Just in case our spud friend latches on to this post I should also say that my Mother was a Highlander (born in Kirriemuir, and growing up in Glen Clova) which makes me half English half Scottish - I don't want to be split in two because there's only one of me.
Stop teasing you. If I had my way it would have been sawn off at the edge and set afloat years ago. Do you really believe that most Scots are united against England? I've always seen it as fairly competitive but not really much more than that. Resentment of London for many perhaps but then that's no different to a sizeable propotion of the rest of the island and it's not without some merit. I'm not saying you're wrong by the way Cologne- just that it isn't really my experience.
BP actually say that by 2035 they expect demand for fossil fuels within Europe to decline by 19% with losses in oil (-27%) and coal (-53%).
No.... Oil to grow at .8%pa and coal to grow by 1.1%pa, aghh you refer to europe i think globally, its much more relevant to our business.
I don't think that the Scots are united against England - but just that the only thing that Scots can ever agree upon is that they are not English. I certainly concede however that they are more anti London than anti England, and tend to quite like Geordies and Scousers.
Just goes to show that grab the wrong statistic and you get the wrong picture. I cannot find where BP are suggesting that there are all these hidden reserves.
Not all think the same as you... Well respected maybe, 'unaligned' doubtful. Unless of course it is merely the BBC who have 'spun' his words around to suit their purposes. His stated opinion is on one field only. There are others.. http://yes2014.net/2014/06/13/biggest-oil-field-in-the-world-lies-to-the-west-of-lewis/ And I'd also have to wonder why a Norwegian oil services company have just invested £150 million in Aberdeen if there was no reason to.
Because the industry is investing over 12billion US$ in major projects at the moment due to the favorable incentives put in place from Westminster over the past 5 years. Remember PRT and its effect on the NE economy? It was a massive mistake never to be repeated and thankfully we have Ian Woods recommendations being fully accepted by the UK government and will have a regulator in place to keep the investment rolling if No prevails, if Yes prevails we'll be taking oil revenues to pay for social projects, look how that works in a declining oil sector. You know that 150million is chicken feed in this industry, a single well can easily cost that so no headline there and nothing to do with phony oil finds. The biggest reserves we have are in the shale plays in England, given the choice of offshore expensive wells with high tax take (Scotland) or cheap onshore wells with tax incentives (England) I know where I would invest if I were BP, Total, BG, etc.... In order to sustain the offshore industry we need two things here, 1) Stable political arena and 2) Tax breaks for further investment. Now which scenario, yes or no provides this? That's what backs my decision making process, its selfish but also whats best for Scotland, I can't stick living in socialist state where the government seek to rob the hard working to pay for a standard of misery across the population.
And I repeat where do BP state this? They do not, yes they're investing in Q204 and Clair Ridge but these are old discoveries/fields not the phantom field fabricated by Nationalists...
And you accuse the No campaign of peddling unfounded "facts".....what evidence do you have of US Banks doing any such thing? Of course it might be on some Blog, so I suppose it much be true. Westminster's Nucleur Subs? Why does The City of Westminster need to have it's own Nucleur Subs?.....it would the Yes supporters can all preach from the Bible of St. Alex put cannot seem to be able to ask any questions about the impacts of their future! No doubt Ian Wood is a Westminster/Banker/English/Old Eatonian lackey in the pay of the No campaign as well
Well the No camp actually do peddle unfounded facts - you just have to listen to the likes of Gordon Brown continually prattling on with his already debunked claims over blood supplies and organ transplants to realise that. I guess that you could consider the Financial Times as 'some blog', but many don't - and they ran with the US Bank story three days ago. I'm afraid I can't answer your question regarding the nuclear subs. Many Scots have raised their objections to having the damned things in the country, but all have fallen on deaf ears. I dare say there are some who agree to their presence, but I suspect that they are in a small minority. They are in the country because Westminster put them there, therefore they are Westminster's. Why they need them is anyone's guess really, but they don't serve any particular purpose.
The story in the FT was about US banks moving to Eire if the UK left the EU. Why do the Scottish government wish to join NATO if only a small minority wish to be protected by them?
So you will not miss anything else that Westminster "put there" if it was removed? So things like tax offices, admin office for Student Finance England will not be missed? Construction of war ships will not be missed either I presume?
