I have to say Spurf, before this thread I had no knowledge or interest of the vote, you have now made up my mind that I am very firmly in the opposite camp to you! You have tried to bully people and show no grace whatsoever!
I appreciate the Tory vote in Scotland is a lot greater as a proportion of the vote than the proportion of representation they actually have, as is the case in England and Wales, statistically you need more votes to have a Conservative MP than a Labour one and the Lib/Dems is almost a forlorn hope. Perhaps the Scots having gained independence and they will, if not this time the people who want it will just keep going until they get the majority, will be a little more pragmatic when they have complete control of their finances. When the Scots gain independence will they qualify for overseas aid from the British government?
Speaking as somebody who pays little to no attention to the media but living in Salmonds SMP constituency what I have been exposed to is mainly Scottish Yes propaganda I can honestly say I fight my corner from experience gained personally and not third party interpretations. So far in life I've lived in and left various countries always predicting accurately the outcome of pending political changes. In this instance I interpret the future of Scotland to be highly prosperous from within the union or disastrous if independence is attained. That's not to say that I believe an independent Scotland couldn't be successful but with the politicians involved, the populations gullibility (if proven by a yes vote) and the outflow of expertise and capital that would occur success would be an elusive goal unless what you are looking for is a 10 year super giveaway to the social security system. A Scottish independent government would make even the Wilson government look like economic geniuses. Now to hoist the Union flag over the fatmans office....
I have found your contribution useful Spurf - you have convinced me that the Yes camp is blowing hot air and little else. Hopes and promises based on rosy assumptions. How arrogant that you think you face poeple who "represent some of the problems of what a biased media can do to peoples perceptions" How very dare you. You are so clever are you that you are above a biased media but we poor "deltas" cannot see past our conditioning. Enjoy your Brave New World. You have not kept calm but have attacked all of us who have challenged you and it is you who has peddled ignorance, prejudice and misinformation but perhaps I am wrong - you are theonly one who is in step and the rest of us are all marching out of step - with you !!
Smurf, I'd love to know on what basis you discredit Ian Wood? We in the industry believe he is right on the pulse and he has a track record of business success built on an understanding and ability to predict future needs. Acknowledged as an industry expert who should be listened to by both the First minister of Scotland and the Prime Minister of the UK (Alex Salmond has acknowledged that Sir Ian Wood must be listened to when he is talking about North Sea oil and has been praised by both David Cameron and Mr Salmond as the industry’s foremost expert.) I'm just wondering on what basis you discredit him or is it just a case that any opinion/evaluation/data that does not lead to the same conclusion as you draw is flawed? Please enlighten do.... These figures are key and the fact is that a small economy cannot rely on oil revenues which will fluctuate greatly. Last nights debate I couldn't watch for more than a minute, both Darling and Salmond are obnoxious and send me wretching to the restroom...don't believe in either of them and anyway they have nothing concrete to give just fruitless points scoring.
aberdeen on the basis that his advice a year or two ago to the Scottish goverment was to invest heavily in North Sea Oil, I will try to find the details and publish it here. He then changed his mind and said the Scottish government was exagerating he then backtracked on that and revised his opinion AGAIN. On top of all that we have discovered that he has a licence to Frack in Scotland which he will probably lose in the event of a YES vote. He is looking after his own interests, which is understandable, but in my view he has proved himself to be an unreliable reporter of the situation. I will try to find the links to ths information.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...-sir-ian-woods-oil-intervention-was-political This from a YES source talking about the contradictions. I will try to find other the reports which I have seen from a non YES source. http://www.yesscotland.net/news/sir-donald-mackay-responds-sir-ian-woods-remarks-oil-and-gas Professor Sir Donald MacKay Sir Donald was a founding Director of a number of companies, including a bank, financial services company and an oil operating company. He has served as a Non-Executive Director with a number of private companies including Grampian Holdings and the Malcolm Group. He was Chairman of Scottish Enterprise and a Board member of a number of public companies (South of Scotland Electricity Board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority). As an economic consultant, he advised the Scotch Whisky Association for a period of 20 years from 1981. He was also an Economic Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland for over 25 years. He is presently Chairman of the Scottish Mortgage Trust and a Director of Edinburgh Income and Value Trust. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0 THis from The Financial Times
I'd already read that one, nothing there that leads me to believe he's anything but consistent with the rest of us. The industry never works using the top figure, you'll find that most investment decisions by oil companies for example are made on a price per barrel somewhere between 40 and 70% of the current value, very conservative due to the high risks and uncertainties. I still haven't a clue what you're talking about when you claim he has a licence to frack in Scotland as nobody has a licence to frack anywhere in the UK at present, the legislative system is not in place to allow it!!! Your advice on which business entity, whuich licence and geographical detail would be most helpful in backing your claim. I'd also like to see where he's backracked on advice to heavily invest in N Sea oil. All of his advice has been to invest heavily particularly in terms of regulatory effort and collaboration to create an environment for continued investment. All of these reports point to the need for continued investment to get towards the aspirational target of 24billion bbl without the regulator, the collaboration and use of new technologies/advanced technologies we'll be down at the 12 billion, his 14-15billion bbl is probably the P90 case, 24 billion is P10 and 20billion the P40.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28926369 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2131258/North-Sea-oil-will-last-for-100-years.html I am still looking for the Wood report of a year ago to the government. EDIT: It's in here. http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lost-treasure-of-the-deep/
I'm still looking, there is so much info coming in it quickly gets buried. If I find I will post it. Found it see above.
I'm not offended Spurf, I have been a welcome guest on here for a long time now, what I like about this board is the posters can have very differing opinions but are able to disagree politely, with no name calling and are still friends after they agree to disagree, this makes your tactics stand out in a not very pleasant way!
This is the philosophy that we use on the Spurs site so no problem with that. I am surprised that you are taking such a strong view of my behavoiur. OK early in the debate I swore at someone, I apologised as it was not this boards practice and haven't repeated it. The rest is strong views in which I suggest I have probably received as much as I have dished out. This is a very important issue easily the most important political event in my lifeltime it would be very surprising if it did not get heated. I am not a politician therefore I am not trying to win votes here I can only ask you not to confuse a difference of opinion with personal abuse.
I wish that were so Spurf - but you rubbish other people's views not by making arguments but by calling them politicians when they clearly are not, by saying they believe Westminster's lies, or follow the No campaign tactics or are ignorant, prejudiced or have misinformation when in fact they are only giving their honest opinion. you act as though you are the only person who looks carefully and has possession of the "truth". I am very resistant to the media and gutter press and like to take an independent line on issues - anyone else on here can tell you I am not afraid to be a lone voice and do not seek to follow any "line" or spin by others. You have consistently belittled my contribution as you like to post lengthy documents for us to read and because we do not accept that those articves are unbiased we must be No campaigners. You have driven me towards the No camp simply by the aggressive way you present your case and refuse to accept any validity in other's arguments. You have already told me once that you do not care as you are not a politician and are not trying to win votes - but do not be surprised if you do offend people.
Second most important in my lifetime! I lived through Chavez coming to power in Venezuela a "revolution" in politics and exactly what I predicted has occurred. I didn't shoot him when I had the opportunity and don't believe in that tactic here in the UK but must admit to wishing Salmond would depart this planet before the end of the month...
Still no inconsistency. "Nearly all the 24 billion barrels" this is a total volume, "15 to 16.5 billion barrels" this is a recoverable figure, "4 billion barrels additional" the amount recoverable with currently envisioned EOR and collaboration. Change the oil price to US$200 per barrel and you'd get a figure of maybe 30 billion barrels (guess) change it to US$50 per barrel and the reserves would drop to maybe 6 billion barrels, its complex and the figures change quarter on quarter, in order for any sense you have to define terms carefully and compare apples with apples, the media and press are not good at this so don't look at articles, look at the statistics, find out what they actually mean and what are the reference terms before belittling others. As regards Sir Donald Mackay what oil operator did he found? Be interesting to compare his success with that of the wood group which by the way operates assets or did when I was in Venezuela....
aberdeen the way you explain it removes the apparent inconsitency in the reports. I will take care in useing this argument and bear your points in mind. I would still be interested to hear your views on the BP video I posted.
I'll be frank with you Leonardo I do not like the way you twist my arguments and put words and ideas into my mouth. That's why I have levelled the charge of politiciian at you because this is the method they use. Despite what you may think I do not dismiss arguments against my view I always consider carefully what the opposition have to say. In this referrendum Better Together have run their Project Fear based on lies and misinformation I have posted an example of Darling offering 5 lies in a ten minute interview with the proof. This is the tactic of the YES campaign, find the truth and spread it as far as you can. Some of these truths are debatable and open to question, some are not. Better Together have the full might of Westminster and the Media with them. 39 newspapers in Scotland only one weekly bats for the YES side The Herald on Sunday. In the rest of the UK it's 100% even the Guardian plays for the Union. Against this the YES campaign has to try to present it's case, this is not an even playing field so we have to work hard on the ground to counter this. Many of my colleagues believe we are winning I am not so sure but I think whatever way it goes it will be close. If I sound arrogant it is because I have researched my arguments very carefully and am confident in their validity. aberdeen for example has presented some facts that disagree with what I presented, I have not dismissed his facts I have taken them on board. It is in the interests of the YES to be as accurate as possible. I doubt you or I will see eye to eye Leonardo but perhaps we should respect that and try to be polite to one another.
