10% of The Bank of England belongs to Scotland. You think oil has benefited the British people as a whole? Oil was privatised by Thatcher and she used it's revenues to fund her dismantling of British Industry. Hardest hit was Scotland with mass unemployment. If Scotland becomes an Independent country then oil in it's territorial waters belongs to Scotland. According to the NO camp it's a liabilty anyway so you wont have to worry about it.
The British government has had more than enough return from any investment in the North Sea already. The continuing life of the North Sea is dependent upon enormous investment not from governments but oil companies who have to make choices on where to invest based upon many factors not least of which is stable government and tax (the advantages of UK) as nobody would invest here in comparison with USA, Russia, Canada, Venezuela, Saudi, Iraq, Iran etc if it were not for this pull factor. My understanding of the bank situation is that the Scottish banks have notes on deposit at the BOE equivalent to the currency issued here in Scotland. These notes are in English currency baked by the gold reserve I assume. If the yes vote is successful I would assume that in time these notes would be converted to bullion and transferred to a Scottish central bank which would seem sensible to then underwrite a Scottish currency "the salmond".... Independence will be the beginning of the end for the oil industry in Scotland of this I am convinced, the English reaction will be to accelerate the unconventional reserve exploitation and much of the Aberdeen infrastructure will move to the North West of England probably Liverpool and a re-entrenchment in tyneside, in fact independence looks pretty good for the tory party and Englands future it's just I do not agree that its best for Britain as a whole. Scotlands only way to stop this would be to reduce the tax burden on oil thus even lower revenue than currently available.
On further refelection, what an absolute cheek. Having exploited Scotland' oil for 30 years you now have the front to expect a cut of future oil. Away you go!, and take your Trident with you. Or should I say the USA's Trident. No wonder nobody likes the English!
Can you read? I've not differentiated between East West or Atlantic frontier, it's irrelevant where apart from the cost of developing the West and so far its always proved very disappointing in terms of results of prelim evaluation work. The costs involved in developing West will be even higher than the WOS plays which have taken decades to get to where we are now and still only getting plays less than 100k a day. General public thinks its easy, oh we have oil, lets just drill a hole and print the money. It's not and costs more resource than an independent Scotland has, it's why better together wins in terms of potential as the bigger and stable UK promotes investment in a way Scotland will not be able to achieve so well separately. Onshore fracking is so much cheaper and easier so thats where the budget will go..... Not on offshore 4D seismic followed by exploration wells at 50million a pop with a strike rate likely to be less than 10%. If you have a plan to get the investment put in thats needed pray tell because frankly it will take a miracle.
In the same way as an independent Scotland expects to benefit from the Bank of England. Just what was the Scottish contribution to North Sea oil exploration and development? English, Spurf, remember you're one of us and an independent Scotland flexing nationalistic muscles may not be the place to be, even if you support the cause.
Interesting - where does the 10% statistic come from - I have never seen it quoted. Thatcher demolished the unions and dying industries and created the start of the biggest growth in the UK economy for decades taking us from the poor man of europe to 2nd place. Try looking at European unemployment rates. The oil in the ground may belong to Scotland but the infrastructure to get it out does not. Another Yes campaign lie. The No camp do NOT say oil is a liability. They say that reliance on it as the primary source of revenue for an INDEPENDENT Scotland which has fewer other resources with which to manage fluctuations in output is a risk - you call others politicians using lies and spin !!
Here we again I am saddened by your constantly suggesting that I am spinning and lying. I am speaking to you from the heart with complete integrity. That does not mean I will not make mistakes but I do not set out to win this arguement with anything other than the truth. Bank of England founded by a Scot as it happens; anyway, to answer your question. The Scots print their own banknotes and for every pound printed there is a similar deposit in the Bank of England. Do not be fooled by the name this is of course the Bank of the UK. When Scotland becomes Independent it is entitled to its share of the assets as well as its share of the liabilities. Roughly 10% to Scotland 90% to the UK. The rest of your comment does not merit an answer in my view.
I attack your integrity in response to you continually suggesting I am a politician - what goes around comes around - don't deal it out if you don't like it back. I need to understand if that simplistic view of the issue of banknotes equates to percentage ownership of the Bank of England. Sounds highly unlikley to me but as I don not know I will give you the benefit of the doubt till I have investigated further. I am not surprised you have no answer for my other comments - probably nobody has on-line a ready quote for you to lift and as yet you have not shown any capacity to think for yourself but only to parrot the yes campaign website or wherever your "group" find their arguments. Thatcher was good for the UK - even those who hate her have reluctantly acknowledged some of her achievements. Oil - like the bank of England has been jointly owned / developed so just as rUk have to acknowledge some Scottish rights to currency - so do Yessers have to acknowledge that it was not Scottish money that developed the oilfields. Salmond tried it and you repeated it - to suggest because the no Campaign correctly state that oil is an Asset that needs management they are saying oil is a liabiltiy - it is simply not true. No sane person suggests that naturally occurring assets are a liability. Darling tried to explain and Salmond closed his ears - oil revenues fluctuate wildly - I think the figure was something like £6 billion down on estimates in a recent year - the UK can cope with that as its economny is enormous - a much smaller Scottish economy will struggle to cope if it happens again - of course it could just as easily be a £6 bn over forecast and if so great - but who can predict it - nobody.
Sorry you have lost this as far as I am concerned, calling you a politician was to describe your method. Now you are just reduced to insults. Pathetic.
Spurf, I think you lost the plot weeks ago, and now making remarks like "The rest of your comment does not merit an answer in my view," shows up an arrogance beyond belief. You have been able to come on here and make your views known, without us trying to ridicule you, but try to show that there are two sides to this argument. You are so blinkered that it will not make any difference what anyone tries to point out to you, so why should we bother any more?
French I am quite clear and have been all along there IS only one case here that I am interested in putiing. When you are up against Westminster and the entire media putting the case for the Union I think it is reasonable for us on the YES side to try to balance this as far as we can. I am sure it sounds arrogant to you because the man fighting the system is always in danger of sounding shrill. It is the nature of the position. I have listened and followed the NO case very carefully indeed I need to if I am going to fight it. By the time I am commenting on here it is just a tip of an iceberg. Like it or not, and I am sure you don't, there is NO case from NO, only fear and lies. The irony is that you left the UK some time ago. Many times NO has been asked for its positive case for the Union and it has failed to produce one. The Best of Both Worlds or Better Together are mere platitudes without substance. This is not a game or a student debate this is a major change to the Uk. If you can't take the case for it then I wish you well, enjoy your life in La Belle France.
One of the greatest ironies in the Yes campaigns stated plans to a reduction in Corporation tax to attract large corporates to set up their offshore HQ's and operations in Scotland. This is based on a similar tactic that the Irish government has tried for years, yes they attracted a whole bunch of large US corporates with this and massive grants - and just look at the result. Most of them have left and moved to to the Far East and Eastern Europe and there place has been taken by smaller operations with 1,000's do fewer jobs - go and take a look at the huge industrial parks put up around Dublin, most are empty. The company I work for has 3 such buildings, that used to have 3,000 people there, been empty for years. But the biggest irony is this plan suggests to attract the sort of companies that the Yes campaign moan about as being friends of the Tories and Westminster and not the sort of company wanted in the new Scotland - ironic or just ****ing hypocrites?
The YES campaign has No policies apart from Independence it is not a political party. This is a referrendum to decide whether Scotland should be an Independent country. 2 years on and people still don't understand the basics
ttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/06/scots-radical-new-deal-save-the-union http://www.theguardian.com/uk Now we begin to see how desperate the establishment are to keep Scotland. This country they say is incapable of running it's own affairs. The country they have to subsidise. Where the oil is running out. This country where all the business will flee in fear from Independence. That will have no currency. That will be out of the EU That is obviously just a basket case supported by good old Westminster. Why would they want to keep it?
No it will not be a major change to the UK. Whichever way the vote goes the SNP have succeeded in splitting the population of Scotland in half and that is tragic. When times are difficult people need to draw together, not be listening to some half baked plan of what independence will be like. Just vote for something and we will tell you the details later is rather like the pitch from Mr Hollande who was elected by the smallest of margins, and when he did have power had no idea how to use it. His position now is untenable, and if it wasn't for the law he would have been removed from office within two years.
You just don't get it do you. This is about Independence not a set of policies. The election will come in 2016 then we will look at policies. If you can't understand the simple basics of this referendum it's no wonder you think I am arrogant.
So policies come after the election - I don't think you are arrogant, but I suggest that you are deluded.
See I would have thought a 100 years of oil would be quite valuable and it wont be exploited at all by the UK because it gets in the way of their Trident missiles. As for investment I don't have to tell you who makes the investments you know that better then I do. I respect your position as someone in the oil business but as a layman it becomes difficult with all these conflicting views. I do know however that oil, and having it is not a liability and when the reports of these oil matters come from Westminster sources and are suppressed I have to believe that it must be true. Otherwise why would they suppress it.
