Scottish Independence
- Thread starter Leo
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The clouding of judgement is, IMO, exactly the aim of the BT group, making it extremely hard for anyone to arrive at an informed decision. During the week, an esteemed 'professional from the oil industry' (with no political leanings, but that's another story), Sir Ian Wood, issued a statement to the effect that the SG were wrong with their estimates on oil reserves, and therefore wrong with their financial projections.
The following day, doubts were cast, not only over the accuracy of his claims, but also over his claimed lack of political bias. It would seem that his pronouncement flew in the face of his own previous statements.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...-sir-ian-woods-oil-intervention-was-political
The day after, yet another doubt was cast over his claims of distortion regarding the SG financial projections.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...allenges-sir-ian-woods-remarks-on-oil-and-gas
And now today it is announced that the industry itself refutes his claims - via Oil and Gas UK.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...claims-as-industry-backs-scottish-govt-figure
On top of that, Sir Ian himself today told the Sunday Herald that his own figures "could be too low".
So who do we believe?
A point being made by many here is that Westminster are consistently telling us two things - 1) that what remains of the oil reserves is not enough to sustain Scotland's economy in the longer term, and 2) Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Which begs the obvious question, if both are true, why are they hell bent on having Scotland stay within the union?
The SG, on the other hand, whilst disputing the low levels of oil resources, acknowledge that said resources are not finite. Their stance has always been that revenue from oil is a bonus and that Scotland's other industries are capable of seeing the country stand on it's own two feet.
So again, who do we believe?
Personally, when I see the likes of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling persistently repeat claims that are known and proven to be untrue, when I see the BBC persistently go against its own charter of impartiality and heavily favour the No campaign whilst actively denigrating both the SG and the Yes campaign, when I see even the supposedly impartial Electoral Commission favour the No campaign in its voting paraphernalia, when I see what the current Westminster administration have done, without mandate, to Health & Education in England and threaten the same here - the answer is a no-brainer. As in England and the rest of the UK, most people here have spent a lifetime building up a system of workable public services, workable here because of the smaller population, and don't want them to be pulled down for the sake of a flawed political ideology. Scotland at least has the opportunity to put paid to that happening - which is why I'm hoping for a Yes vote.
I'm getting a little bored with endless discussion on oil revenue. The industry has a limited future (thank God) - let us see a cap placed on North Sea oil exploration - acccompanied by an interim period in which oil taxes are ploughed into the funding of green energy projects and the establishment of a state owned renewable energy company. Then I will whole heartedly support Scottish independence but it seems that the SNP and the Scottish Green Party (the second biggest party supporting independence) have very different visions for a future Scotland.
But BB since these powers are already devolved and funded why should we move to an independent Scotland with a declining natural resource revenue base and what will be less financial clout to secure low interest rate borrowing to fund public services and growth? I've enjoyed the free medical care and prescriptions, free eye tests, free University education for my 3 children and of course the lower population and better living environment up here. I really can't see from where the advantages are going to come from independence. On every logical point it appears that we are better within the union but fighting a strong corner to maintain funding of our standard of living. I guess by living in Scotland rather than England I am personally better off to the tune of over £100,000 just looking at education costs, this benefit should remain for the next generation and frankly I have not seen anything that makes me believe this would be even remotely possible in an independent Scotland. I like my cake and eating it which is what we have with devolution.
And as regards the inconsistencies in the remaining oil reserves they are totally consistent with the uncertainty that surrounds such figures. Any actual number arising depends on not just the oil in the ground but the economic environment. It would be good to allow the "experts" the luxury of quoting figures in a table based on a range of oil prices, a range of tax regimes, a range of geopolitical states (with/without ME stability), with or without unconventionals. At best these estimates are always guesses and can be shot out of the water by a new world conflict or a major technological advance.
I guess then that it is down to trust. You trust Westminster when they say 'more powers', regardless of how vague they are about what they are promising. I don't trust Westminster because of their actions after making the same vague promises in 1979 - history has a habit of repeating itself and the Tory history with Scotland is not something that should be repeated. What Scotland currently has in terms of devolved power is entirely at the mercy of those Tories, and can just as easily be taken away as increased. The mutterings from within their ranks suggest that the former is more likely than the latter, in spite of what vague promises are being made.
You may have to eat your cake elsewhere in the event of a No vote, but that luxury isn't available to most - they might have to look for their cake in a food bank. I guess I'm lucky too - I could always head off back to Oz. But only if that twat Abbott has been shown the door...
People always get bored with arguments they are losing.
You don't have to take part.
People always get bored with arguments they are losing.
You don't have to take part.
I don't recall that I have taken part in this oil revenue debate up to now so how can I be losing it ? My question referred to a difference between the SNP vision of a future Scotland and the Green party position (as I said, the second biggest party supporting independence). I want to be sure that a future Scotland is built on an environmentally sound basis and can use the revenues gained from the oil industry in a responsible way ie. not to be channeled back into further exploration into a dying industry - but rather ploughed into alternatives. Please read texts completely before responding to them !
Hey everybody - you are not listening properly - the rules are that everything Spurf posts is correct and is a fact and is by a world renowned expert in his field and is totally unbiased - everything everyone else says is biased right wing No campaign propaganda 
Agreed. Anyway I prefer the football which is the release from all the seriousness in life. Up to each and every person who has a vote to study the facts, some rubbish comes from all sides but the facts are there somewhere also based on experience and knowledge of everyday life and how it's affected by external factors. I've drawn my conclusion, still need to pop the 250metres down the road to Alex Salmonds office and raise the Union Flag.....
For the same reason that Northern Ireland and Wales are wanted in the Union. The Union has been successful for over 300 years and it is not about oil in the long term. Ultimately England subsidises all the rest of the UK - and is quite happy to go on doing so. Because they believe in it. Not for some shabby little reason of short term economic benefit. Thankfully a majority of your fellow Scots seem to also agree that they like being Scottish within the UK
http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=6c3b247c4235551e52aafb64a&id=1bdd896b11&e=4bfc96090e
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20140345
As I said Wood has NO credibility at all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20140345
As I said Wood has NO credibility at all.
Yes - you did say that - strangely the only other people to say that are the Yes campaigners - most people acknowledge him as a credible expert. Do you read the articles you post? He has said there COULD be as much as 25bn barrels but also that if not exploited properly it could be half that. Still you and the Yes campaigners like a blind gamble don't you?
Totally credible talking sense and already made billions so I guess he understands the business, you must be reading something different or just not understand English. Possible 25 billion barrels more could be a lot less if correct measures are not taken also could be more if we're lucky. It's totally consistent with my last post. I get the distinct impression you are one of those selective readers who chooses to ignore or just plain doesn't understand points of view that disagree with your own so at the risk of repeating myself and frankly now bored with this I close with read the Wood report, talk to DECC, talk to Alex Kemp, talk to BP talk to any investment bank backing oil exploration, talk to anybody who has money to invest in global business then make up your mind if Independence as laid out by the Yes campaign is credible and feasible. You're not listening to me so I close.
All three of those statements are entirely contentious and not backed up by fact. And the main reasons for the thrust for Independence are nothing whatsoever to do with 'shabby little reasons of short term economic benefit' - those belong to Tory ideology, their sell-everything-that-moves-to-our-mates attitude and their view that the general population are a commodity to be exploited for gain. As to the majority of Scots agreeing that they like being Scottish within the UK, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how inaccurate that is.
All three of those statements are entirely contentious and not backed up by fact. And the main reasons for the thrust for Independence are nothing whatsoever to do with 'shabby little reasons of short term economic benefit' - those belong to Tory ideology, their sell-everything-that-moves-to-our-mates attitude and their view that the general population are a commodity to be exploited for gain. As to the majority of Scots agreeing that they like being Scottish within the UK, I guess we'll just have to wait and see how inaccurate that is.
So do you think England is subsidised by any of the 3?
The shabby bit was really directed more at Spurf - yet I have said time and again that there are too many doubts about economics and the huge questions of assumptions for anyone to vote Yes or No based on economics alone
So far Scots have never voted for independence but have voted agaiinst it and I have yet to see an opinion poll that puts the Yes campaign ahead - so until the "facts" are updated I stand by the assertion that teh Scots are too clever to fall for Salmond and his ilk.
Just because you do not like the Tory government is a terrible reason to undo 300 years of successful history.
I agree here Leo. We're not really talking about economics here - or even about the political polarization of Britain within the last 30 years. What we are talking about is revoking the treaty of union of 1707. A treaty which was voluntarily signed be the then Scottish government - with massive support from the lowland trading classes. As a result of that union Scotland gained access to colonial markets and later experienced its own industrial revolution - with the population of Glasgow increasing twentyfold between 1800 and 1840. It is highly debateable whether Scotland would have experienced such growth outside of the union - or even if there would be oilfields in the North Sea now. At the time of union Scotland was separated between a Gaelic speaking north and an English speaking south (which were living in permanent hostility to each other) Scotland has grown to be a nation within the Union.
Subsidised, no - but the fact remains that, financially, Scotland has consistently put in far more than it has been handed back.
The Scots have never voted for independence because there has never been such a referendum, so actually they have never voted against it either - 1979 was a vote for Scottish Devolution, not independence. In the month leading up to that vote, the opinion polls showed the Yes vote drop from 64% down to 50%, whilst the No vote increased from 36% to 50% - the final result was 51.6% Yes, 48.4% No. The fact that Devolution was denied in spite of that was due to the low turn out by election standards, 63% - that was the basis for the failure of the Yes campaign. Of course, Douglas-Home didn't invoke the 'low turn out' clause when reneging on his 'more powers for a No vote promise'. One can only wonder what Cameron will do this time around - the opinion polls have shown an almost opposite situation, with Yes increasing and No falling at greater rates. The main difference this time around may well be the turn out - expected to be in the region of 80%.