Jump to content

Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes


Recommended Posts

From what I have read in the press the youngsters of scotland are likely to put the kybosh on AS's master plan. They at least, it seems, are not led by a long and bitter lifetime of revelling in their own jingoism.

But, like I said, I am willing to bet the English would kick out the Scots if ever they were given the chance. That's what a lifetime of being blamed for everything does to you.

Obviously they know where their Giro's come from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

7by7 It is my belief that Scotland can if it wishes keep the pound, not because Scotland is part owner

of the bank of England but, because they wish to keep it as their currency and to date, apart from

blustering politicians and sensational journalists claiming this and claiming that, I have yet to see or hear any

valid legal reason why Scotland could not keep the pound as an independent nation.

Many years ago, the Irish pound was tied to Sterling and in many parts of both the Republic and Northern Ireland shops etc. would accept either currency on a one to one basis. But when the Republic joined the ERM and the UK didn't the Irish pound and Sterling were no longer tied to each other and so ordinary people either side of the border were reluctant to accept the other currency as they didn't know the exchange rate anymore. Even more so when the Republic joined the Euro.

I say this to show that you are, in a way, correct. There is no legal reason why the people of an independent Scotland cannot keep Sterling, spend Sterling in their shops etc.

But, unless the remainder of the UK agrees, which as has been repeatedly said is very unlikely, it will not be the Scottish currency; it will not be a currency union. It will be the UK's currency which Scotland uses.

Therefore the Scottish government will not have any control over it. Fiscal policy etc. will be set by Westminster. If Scotland uses the UK's currency then it will have to bow down to the UK's fiscal policies.

How is that independence?

And yes Scotland will keep the revenues from oil that is extracted from anywhere within the legal boundaries

of internationally recognised maritime Scottish waters. Just as any oil revenues from oil extracted from within

the legal internationally recognised waters of England would of course go to the English government.

Instead of continually asking where the money for north sea oil exploration came from if you know then enlighten

us all. I still believe that the majority of investors were and are large oil companies and private investors but

prove me wrong if you can.

Why would I want to prove you wrong on this? You have proved my point for me!

Many of the latest estimates give north sea oil up to 100 years further production and as the cost of extraction rises

so does the price of oil.

Estimates from whom?

This is an article in a trade magazine. Even though it's upbeat, it only gives another 30 to 40 years production!

This is interesting, too.

If an oil fund similar to Norway's was viable; if Salmond is going to be squirrelling away the oil revenue for future generations; where's the money going to come from for current expenditure; to replace the current subsidy from the English?

He can't have it both ways, no matter how much spin he tries to put on it!

Spin like using the potential wholesale value of the remaining oil to 'prove' how better off Scots would be under him rather than the actual the tax revenue it would generate.

Oil riches for Scots: Salmond 'fundamentally dishonest'?

..... those fighting the 'Better Together' campaign to keep Scotland part of the UK disputed the validity of Salmond's data, saying that he had confused the wholesale figures with the money that would actually come back to the public purse.

Former chancellor Alistair Darling, who heads the pro-union campaign, strongly criticised what he claimed to be the Salmond's manipulation of the facts.

"For Alex Salmond to treat us like fools by deliberately confusing the wholesale value of oil with the amount we would actually raise through tax is fundamentally dishonest," he said.

"He should withdraw the claim."

.........

According to the (Scottish government) paper, academics estimate 98.8% of total oil production and 60% of total gas production in the 30 years from 2011 will be in Scotland's geographical share of the UKCS.

However, economists at Glasgow University's Centre for Public Policy for the Regions (CPPR) said that the OBR had overestimated North Sea oil production levels "in every set of projections made".

An independent Scotland "would need to rely on most, or all of the tax revenues from the North Sea" to ensure its deficit did not increase further, they added.

This would mean there would be no money left for Salmond's Norwegian-style oil fund, which the first minister seemed convinced would happen within a decade.

First Minister’s Questions: Alex Salmond attacked over oil fund "dodgy dossier"

Labour and the Tories criticised the First Minister’s proposals, which could see cash from North Sea oil and gas revenues invested in two separate funds if Scots vote for independence next year.

But the Scottish Government was warned last March such a move could lead to tax rises or cuts in public spending.

Papers prepared for ministers, released under Freedom of Information, said if the Government “had wished to establish an oil fund, it would have had to reduce public spending, increase taxation or increase public-sector borrowing”.

Edited by 7by7
Link to post
Share on other sites

7by7 It is my belief that Scotland can if it wishes keep the pound, not because Scotland is part owner

of the bank of England but, because they wish to keep it as their currency and to date, apart from

blustering politicians and sensational journalists claiming this and claiming that, I have yet to see or hear any

valid legal reason why Scotland could not keep the pound as an independent nation.

Many years ago, the Irish pound was tied to Sterling and in many parts of both the Republic and Northern Ireland shops etc. would accept either currency on a one to one basis. But when the Republic joined the ERM and the UK didn't the Irish pound and Sterling were no longer tied to each other and so ordinary people either side of the border were reluctant to accept the other currency as they didn't know the exchange rate anymore. Even more so when the Republic joined the Euro.

I say this to show that you are, in a way, correct. There is no legal reason why the people of an independent Scotland cannot keep Sterling, spend Sterling in their shops etc.

But, unless the remainder of the UK agrees, which as has been repeatedly said is very unlikely, it will not be the Scottish currency; it will not be a currency union. It will be the UK's currency which Scotland uses.

Therefore the Scottish government will not have any control over it. Fiscal policy etc. will be set by Westminster. If Scotland uses the UK's currency then it will have to bow down to the UK's fiscal policies.

How is that independence?

And yes Scotland will keep the revenues from oil that is extracted from anywhere within the legal boundaries

of internationally recognised maritime Scottish waters. Just as any oil revenues from oil extracted from within

the legal internationally recognised waters of England would of course go to the English government.

Instead of continually asking where the money for north sea oil exploration came from if you know then enlighten

us all. I still believe that the majority of investors were and are large oil companies and private investors but

prove me wrong if you can.

Why would I want to prove you wrong on this? You have proved my point for me!

Many of the latest estimates give north sea oil up to 100 years further production and as the cost of extraction rises

so does the price of oil.

Estimates from whom?

This is an article in a trade magazine. Even though it's upbeat, it only gives another 30 to 40 years production!

This is interesting, too.

If an oil fund similar to Norway's was viable; if Salmond is going to be squirrelling away the oil revenue for future generations; where's the money going to come from for current expenditure; to replace the current subsidy from the English?

He can't have it both ways, no matter how much spin he tries to put on it!

Spin like using the potential wholesale value of the remaining oil to 'prove' how better off Scots would be under him rather than the actual the tax revenue it would generate.

Oil riches for Scots: Salmond 'fundamentally dishonest'?

..... those fighting the 'Better Together' campaign to keep Scotland part of the UK disputed the validity of Salmond's data, saying that he had confused the wholesale figures with the money that would actually come back to the public purse.

Former chancellor Alistair Darling, who heads the pro-union campaign, strongly criticised what he claimed to be the Salmond's manipulation of the facts.

"For Alex Salmond to treat us like fools by deliberately confusing the wholesale value of oil with the amount we would actually raise through tax is fundamentally dishonest," he said.

"He should withdraw the claim."

.........

According to the (Scottish government) paper, academics estimate 98.8% of total oil production and 60% of total gas production in the 30 years from 2011 will be in Scotland's geographical share of the UKCS.

However, economists at Glasgow University's Centre for Public Policy for the Regions (CPPR) said that the OBR had overestimated North Sea oil production levels "in every set of projections made".

An independent Scotland "would need to rely on most, or all of the tax revenues from the North Sea" to ensure its deficit did not increase further, they added.

This would mean there would be no money left for Salmond's Norwegian-style oil fund, which the first minister seemed convinced would happen within a decade.

First Minister’s Questions: Alex Salmond attacked over oil fund "dodgy dossier"

Labour and the Tories criticised the First Minister’s proposals, which could see cash from North Sea oil and gas revenues invested in two separate funds if Scots vote for independence next year.

But the Scottish Government was warned last March such a move could lead to tax rises or cuts in public spending.

Papers prepared for ministers, released under Freedom of Information, said if the Government “had wished to establish an oil fund, it would have had to reduce public spending, increase taxation or increase public-sector borrowing”.

I think this corroborates just about everything I have said so far.

Source

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-facts-about-scotlands-oil-and-independence/

10 facts about Scotland’s oil and independence
Michael Gray | 17/10/2013 | 28 Comments

Amongst all the political spin and manoeuvring, sometimes ordinary business people struggle to establish the facts about an independent Scotland. Business for Scotland want to get straight to the heart of the important questions concerning next year’s referendum.

Scotland’s North Sea oil and gas has been a hotly debated asset since its discovery in the 1970s. The Yes camp points out that years of massive surpluses in the Scottish budget coincided with deindustrialisation and low investment in Scotland’s economy just when we needed investment and jobs most. The No camp claims that the oil is always just about to run out.

However, just as oil and gas revenues are one part of the argument that Scotland would be a prosperous independent country, they are not the whole story. Even without oil and gas, Scotland’s robust economy’s performance would be no worse off than the UK per head of population, which is why the Scottish Government can claim with credibility that oil is a bonus not the basis of our economy. But what are the other facts and figures on the past present and future of oil and gas that people need to know?

Here are 10 facts and all their sources underlining the simple truth about North Sea oil, compiled from government sources, companies, academics and oil industry experts, which we hope you find interesting and enlightening.

Fact 1) There are at least 15-24 billion barrels of oil remaining.

According to the UK Oil & Gas 2013 Economic Report, there are substantial volumes of North Sea oil and gas remaining. (page 7) Current programs have already identitied 11.4 billion barrels. (7.4 billion from existing projects and 4 billion in new fields)

Fact 2) The remaining reserves are worth over £1 trillion.

According to government valuations – based upon current and projected markets – this oil has a total wholesale value of at least £1.5 trillion. This is influenced by soaring global demand for energy. The UK government predicts a 28% rise in demand by 2035.(page 24)

Fact 3) North Sea oil and gas will last for decades and decades into the second half of this century.

Despite the scare stories, there are decades worth of North Sea oil available for extraction. The UK government concedes that oil has a future “well beyond 2055″ (section 5) in their recent report on the fields. This is a conservative estimation compared to that of Dr Richard Pike, a former oil industry consultant, who predicts a future 100 years of North Sea oil.

Fact 4) More than 90% of the tax revenue will belong to an independent Scotland

According to Dr Alex Kemp of the University of Aberdeen, over 90% of total tax revenue from oil and gas is generated in Scottish waters. This is ensured by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The ‘medium line’, used when oil was discovered in the 1960s and in 1999 when considering fish stocks, would also place the vast majority of reserves in Scottish waters so at least 90% of the oil being Scottish is an accepted fact and when official Government figures allot North Sea revenues to the Scottish accounts they do so on this basis.

Fact 5) Scotland can establish a successful oil investment fund.

The Fiscal Commission Working Group, including several acclaimed international economists and Nobel Prize winning Economists, has recommended that an independent Scotland establish an oil fund. This fund will ensure that the proceeds of oil and gas can be invested in long-term projects to improve Scotland’s economic position. As previously explained by Business for Scotland, this may be preferable to immediately using the revenue to pay down debt or increase spending, especially as Scotland is expected to return to surplus in the years immediately following independence. Norway – which now has a colossal £460 billion in its oil fund – is enjoying a 14% return on its investments. In contrast, debt only accrues at approximately 3% interest payment.

Fact 6) Westminster squandered the oil and gas revenues.

Repeated UK governments wasted the vast revenues from North Sea oil and gas. Both Labour and Conservative governments at Westminster failed to establish an oil fund. Former Chancellors Denis Healey and Alistair Darling both concede this was a grave mistake. Short-sightedness and poor fiscal planning meant that billions of pounds of bonus revenue subsidised the rest of the UK’s deficits in the early 1980s.

Fact 7) The price of oil is likely to increase.

Due to increased demand and a reduction in relative supply, the price of oil is likely to increase. The vast expansion in the global economy has seen the price of oil increase from around $10 per barrel in the 90′s to an average of $112 per barrel last year, volatility in a massively upwards direction is not really a problem. Ed Daniels, Chair of Shell UK, Tony Reynolds, Deputy CEO of Bridge Energy and industry body UK Oil and Gas all say this trend of investment and growth is likely to continue. In the medium to long term, therefore, tax revenues from North Sea oil and gas are likely to go up. The ‘volatility’ of the oil market is in fact less so than the financial services market, upon which a great deal of Westminster’s economic strategy is dependent.

Fact 8) Oil revenues present an environmental challenge but also an environmental opportunity.

Scotland is an energy rich nation. However, finite resources cannot be used without

considering Scotland’s responsibilities to the global environment. Oil and gas present a challenge in controlling carbon dioxide production. Yet the short-term revenues from this industry can provide a long-term solution to both the economics of energy production and environmental concerns. Revenues and industry infrastructure and skills can support Scottish renewable energy projects, either directly or through Scottish oil fund investment.

This can form part of a crucial transition in energy production and consumption in Scotland – away from fossil fuel extraction towards clean, green energy sources. This is recognised by the current Scottish Government who have set and are achieving tough renewable energy targets.

Fact 9) Oil is only one aspect of Scotland’s diverse energy market and economic strength.

Oil is important to Scotland. However, it sits within a great wealth of many natural resources available to Scotland. In terms of energy alone, Scotland is developing an international pedigree in tidal, wave and wind energy. Scotland’s economy is also based on a much wider range of sectors – including retail, construction, tourism, manufacturing, electronics, textiles, banking, asset management, higher education, the creative sector, fishing, whisky and the thriving food and drink sector. In terms of tax take, Scotland’s returns from oil revenue are a far lower percentage than the receipts in Norway. Scotland’s economy is not dependent on oil revenues – they are a wealthy addition to Scotland’s overall prosperity.

Fact 10) Norway’s oil revenues might never run out.

Norway invested their oil revenues in a sovereign wealth fund. This began in 1990. It is now worth £460 billion. Managed by a state board, the wealth is invested in pensions, bonds and shares across the world. As a result of using oil revenues wisely, the people of Norway have an economy with strong, lasting foundations. Public services and tax levels in Norway have the added security of a stable fiscal balance. Quality of life and standards of living in Norway are the best in the world. This provides a stark contrast for the people of Scotland. It’s clear that Scotland’s natural resources are best managed by a government which is fully accountable to the people of Scotland. That is what can be ensured through a ‘Yes’ vote for independence.

Conclusion

As Larry Elliot the Guardian’s economics editor (a publication that is no friend to the Yes Campaign) wrote: “An entire era [of North Sea oil] can be summed up in three words: discovered, extracted, squandered”.

If Scotland votes No next year then all we can reasonably expect is more of the same. If we vote Yes in 2014 we will have time to use our remaining North Sea assets to invest in Scotland’s future and make choices such as the option to re-industrialise Scotland to become a world leader in new environmental sciences and sustainable energy production. The second half of Scotland’s oil and gas years should be summed up with the words “extracted, invested and maximised”. It’s your choice, no really for once it actually is your choice.

Please note much of the facts here coming from the present UK government not no Campaign spin doctors. thumbsup.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this corroborates just about everything I have said so far.

Source

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-facts-about-scotlands-oil-and-independence/

Of course it does; that's a pro independence organisation!

Whilst some of my sources are pro union, I have also used independent sources to back up my argument; why don't you do the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And without the protection of NATO and the Royal Navy, who going to stop a few Icelandic Gun Boats kicking you out the North Sea and tacking all your oil??? whistling.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this corroborates just about everything I have said so far.

Source

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-facts-about-scotlands-oil-and-independence/

Of course it does; that's a pro independence organisation!

Whilst some of my sources are pro union, I have also used independent sources to back up my argument; why don't you do the same?

Well let me see,

Fact 1 UK oiland gas 2013 economic report.

Facts 2,3 The UK government and Dr.Richard Pike.

Fact 4 Dr Alex Kemp of Aberdeen university and the UN convention on law of the sea.

Fact 5 The fiscal commission working group.

Fact 6 Former chancellors Dennis Healey and Alistair Darling, both definitely not SNP.

Fact 7 Ed Daniels chairman of Shell UK, Tony Reynolds deputy CEO of Bridge Energy and UK oil & gas.

Facts 8, 9 and 10 speak for them selves.

The conclusion Larry Elliot guardian editor a paper well known for being anti independent.

If the above group is not independant enough for you I am afraid I am at a loss as to what is???

Why don't you just admit you have lost the plot 7??

facepalm.gifsad.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the free handouts come from Scottish hydrocarbons the point is moot. Since revenue from same hydrocarbons has bailed out the UK economy for nearly 40 years those arrogant condescending remarks ought to be reconsidered.

As so many English sold their squalid southern properties to purchase bargain Scottish ones thus having the right to vote against independence, indeed the outcome is uncertain.

Were Salmond to give non resident Scots the vote as USA gives their citizens the outcome might be more decisive.

Slainte

Sent from my SM-C105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since the free handouts come from Scottish hydrocarbons the point is moot. Since revenue from same hydrocarbons has bailed out the UK economy for nearly 40 years those arrogant condescending remarks ought to be reconsidered.

As so many English sold their squalid southern properties to purchase bargain Scottish ones thus having the right to vote against independence, indeed the outcome is uncertain.

Were Salmond to give non resident Scots the vote as USA gives their citizens the outcome might be more decisive.

Slainte

Sent from my SM-C105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 

At least we could vote safe in the knowledge that we would not need to suffer the outcome...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phuketjock,

Just as Salmond did with the paper his own government prepared; Business for Scotland have cherry picked the facts and opinions which suit their argument, and ignored the rest.

Typical of the way the 'Yes' camp are trying to hoodwink the Scottish people.

The notion that regiments of English have sold their properties in England so they can move to Scotland in order to vote 'No' is so ludicrous it needs no further comment!

If the notion of Scottish independence is so attractive; why aren't the hundreds of thousands (million plus?) Scots living in the rest of the UK selling their 'squalid' properties and all moving back to Scotland so they can vote 'Yes'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the negativity amongst the no campaigners....and I loved the debate between Sturgeon and Lamont.....would you have Lamont as a First Minister of Scotland?

Absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so shocking!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phuketjock,

Just as Salmond did with the paper his own government prepared; Business for Scotland have cherry picked the facts and opinions which suit their argument, and ignored the rest.

Typical of the way the 'Yes' camp are trying to hoodwink the Scottish people.

The notion that regiments of English have sold their properties in England so they can move to Scotland in order to vote 'No' is so ludicrous it needs no further comment!

If the notion of Scottish independence is so attractive; why aren't the hundreds of thousands (million plus?) Scots living in the rest of the UK selling their 'squalid' properties and all moving back to Scotland so they can vote 'Yes'?

So the yes camp are hoodwinking the Scottish people by using FACTS and opinions that suit their argument,

and of course the no camp are not using any facts or opinions that suit their argument at all??

You do come over pretty dumb at times 7 it is irrelevant where the FACTS actually originate what is important is

that they are facts and not political or journalistic drivel which seems to be your preferred source for your dubious

" facts."

Time for you to change buses I think 7, the no bus seems to have lost its way. sad.pngthumbsup.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the free handouts come from Scottish hydrocarbons the point is moot. Since revenue from same hydrocarbons has bailed out the UK economy for nearly 40 years those arrogant condescending remarks ought to be reconsidered.

As so many English sold their squalid southern properties to purchase bargain Scottish ones thus having the right to vote against independence, indeed the outcome is uncertain.

Were Salmond to give non resident Scots the vote as USA gives their citizens the outcome might be more decisive.

Slainte

Sent from my SM-C105 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Are you sure if non resident Scott's could vote, that they would vote "yes" Those that I've spoken to, say their preference would be to vote "no". In spite of attempts by certain people to label them as unpatriotic. Well done to the SNP in dividing the Scott's.

One group of Scottish residents who seem to be for the yes, campaign have no historical link to Scotland or the UK, their spokesman in the Scottish government Humza Yuwaf

Is coming up with some good ideas for a Scottish Republic, yet David Cameron who does have historical links with Scotland is not allowed a vote.

If a Yes vote wins in September, do not be surprised if more English,Welsh people will be relieved and happy, I personally will certainly celebrate.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phuketjock.

Here's a fact for you.

You have given up all attempts to answer my points and questions and resorted to mere childish insults (now, who does that remind readers of?)

The only conclusion which can be drawn is that, like Salmond, when faced with awkward questions you have no answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...