Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Gene Parmesan]

'The great myth of UK inequality'

 

http://www.thinkscot...inkscotland.org

 

Interesting article. It seems the UK isn't quite as bad as Yes Scotland has been peddling.

 

Peculiarly selective use of ratings from Fraser.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/lies-damned-lies-and-tories/

 

Particularly interesting part is the difference made to inequality levels in the UK after tax and transfers. Of course, the right has never been concerned by inequality anyway - a big gap means more "trickle down" wealth, apparently.

[flecktimus]

'The great myth of UK inequality'

 

http://www.thinkscot...inkscotland.org

 

Interesting article. It seems the UK isn't quite as bad as Yes Scotland has been peddling.

 

Or maybe not

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/lies-damned-lies-and-tories/#more-45932

[Alba gu Brath]

'The great myth of UK inequality'

 

http://www.thinkscot...inkscotland.org

 

Interesting article. It seems the UK isn't quite as bad as Yes Scotland has been peddling.

 

Already debunked. Shoddy work from Murdo Fraser. No wonder the Tories are going nowhere in Scotland.

 

Also this on the tax v. welfare state red herring:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/deal-or-no-deal/

 

But that?s by the by. To make a better, Nordic-style Scotland, we?re warned, we?d all have to pay much more tax, and if there?s one thing that terrifies British people beyond sanity it?s the threat of higher tax. But just for a moment, let?s assume that?s really the choice, and have a quick quiz.

 

Which of these scenarios would you prefer?

(a) A salary of ?23,063 taxed at 21%?

( A salary of ?41,025 taxed at 27%?

Take your time. Use a calculator if you like. There?s no rush.

We didn?t just pluck those numbers out of the air. They?re the World Bank?s current calculations of international GDP per capita for the UK and Norway respectively, adjusted for what?s called ?Purchasing Power Parity?, or PPP. (We?ve also converted them from dollars to Sterling.)

What PPP means is that the figures already take account of the cost of living, so they?re genuinely comparable ? it doesn?t matter that beer costs ?10 a pint in Norway or whatever, because that?s been factored into the figures, which means you know you can still afford to buy 1.78 pints (41 divided by 23) in Oslo for every one pint you can get in Auchtermuchty before your wages run out.

[Coco]

Here you go, an interesting read re: EU.

"Stop insulting our intelligence on Scotland?s EU membership"

 

http://www.scottisht...d_eu_membership

 

Poor article. Despite a near lifetime of euro fanaticism Ritchie has learned little.

 

It is not about denying people access to the EU the issue is about protection of the interests of the States - the Member States.

 

Dredging up the useless canard about 40 years of European membership citizenship is a good case in point. Ritchie seems to think that being a Euro citizen is some sort of trump card - when as in the link I provided above it is clear that Eurocitizenship is solely under the control of Member States. Leave the EU and no longer a Euro citizen. So once again back to the situation that the crucial issue is negotiation from within or outwith.

 

It is absolutely clear that the remaining UK would be the successor State. The question is whether Scotland would also be a successor State - retaining opt-outs antithetical to the interests of the other Member States - such as on the rebate. Every Member State would have to agree to that in unanimity.

 

And though the article is couched in pious terms of democracy - Ritchie seems to forget one thing - why should the people of Scotland be railroaded into becoming a new Member of the European Union without being asked if we want to be part of an ever closer political, financial and economic union?

[Coco]

Already debunked. Shoddy work from Murdo Fraser. No wonder the Tories are going nowhere in Scotland.

 

Also this on the tax v. welfare state red herring:

http://wingsoverscot...eal-or-no-deal/

 

Why shoot so low? Why don't we become a Luxembourg-style economy rather than a Nordic-style economy? Then we could all have more money

[redm]

 

Poor article. Despite a near lifetime of euro fanaticism Ritchie has learned little.

 

It is not about denying people access to the EU the issue is about protection of the interests of the States - the Member States.

 

Dredging up the useless canard about 40 years of European membership citizenship is a good case in point. Ritchie seems to think that being a Euro citizen is some sort of trump card - when as in the link I provided above it is clear that Eurocitizenship is solely under the control of Member States. Leave the EU and no longer a Euro citizen. So once again back to the situation that the crucial issue is negotiation from within or outwith.

 

It is absolutely clear that the remaining UK would be the successor State. The question is whether Scotland would also be a successor State - retaining opt-outs antithetical to the interests of the other Member States - such as on the rebate. Every Member State would have to agree to that in unanimity.

 

And though the article is couched in pious terms of democracy - Ritchie seems to forget one thing - why should the people of Scotland be railroaded into becoming a new Member of the European Union without being asked if we want to be part of an ever closer political, financial and economic union?

 

Perhaps so but there's little evidence to suggest that any member state would not want Scotland as a member of the EU. We're yet to hear any convincing arguments that they wouldn't - save for Rajoy/Catalonia etc., and it's debatable whether or not that can be labelled as convincing anyway given number of large Spanish companies operating here.

 

And the democratic aspect of existing rights is definitely worth considering. The ethos of the EU supports the idea of inclusion rather than exclusion. On a very basic level, Scotland would not be seeking independence in order to pursue installation of some political regime that would not be a fit for the EU. You have to abandon common sense (as with many other No related arguments) to find reasons why anyone would refuse Scotland's membership and despite threats to the contrary, common sense WILL prevail in any independence related discussions should we vote yes next year. It has to, nobody wants instability of any kind - especially not any that would upset the market. Westminster included in that. There's enough of this already without artificially creating more for petty reasons. That just doesn't happen. Self-interest will prevail and not necessarily in a way that is disadvantageous to Scotland either.

 

The issue of whether we want to be a member is a different discussion. The focus of the debate at the moment is our ability to secure membership.

Edited December 15, 2013 by redm

[Ulysses]

The EU membership issue is a red herring.

 

If Scotland votes Yes in September 2014, the terms of agreement to have an independent Scotland in membership of the EU will be agreed comfortably ahead of the due date for Scotland to become independent. That wouldn't be a constitutional certainty, but it would be a political inevitability.

 

The only issue that is likely to cause discomfort for the Scottish government in that scenario is that the EU can and is likely to insist on Scotland also joining the Euro zone on the same date.

[Coco]

The EU membership issue is a red herring.

 

If Scotland votes Yes in September 2014, the terms of agreement to have an independent Scotland in membership of the EU will be agreed comfortably ahead of the due date for Scotland to become independent. That wouldn't be a constitutional certainty, but it would be a political inevitability.

 

The only issue that is likely to cause discomfort for the Scottish government in that scenario is that the EU can and is likely to insist on Scotland also joining the Euro zone on the same date.

 

Correct - the issue is not whether a deal can be done - but the price.

[JamboX2]

Perhaps so but there's little evidence to suggest that any member state would not want Scotland as a member of the EU. We're yet to hear any convincing arguments that they wouldn't - save for Rajoy/Catalonia etc., and it's debatable whether or not that can be labelled as convincing anyway given number of large Spanish companies operating here.

 

And the democratic aspect of existing rights is definitely worth considering. The ethos of the EU supports the idea of inclusion rather than exclusion. On a very basic level, Scotland would not be seeking independence in order to pursue installation of some political regime that would not be a fit for the EU. You have to abandon common sense (as with many other No related arguments) to find reasons why anyone would refuse Scotland's membership and despite threats to the contrary, common sense WILL prevail in any independence related discussions should we vote yes next year. It has to, nobody wants instability of any kind - especially not any that would upset the market. Westminster included in that. There's enough of this already without artificially creating more for petty reasons. That just doesn't happen. Self-interest will prevail and not necessarily in a way that is disadvantageous to Scotland either.

 

The issue of whether we want to be a member is a different discussion. The focus of the debate at the moment is our ability to secure membership.

 

Correct. The same goes about there being evidence that the Council will vote to allow negotiation from within - which needs unanimity. Should Spain say no, then you need to become idependent and rejoin. Probably the latter is the better situation. Then we can debate the pros and cons of that union and it's impact on Scotland instead of taking it as a "given".

[redm]

The EU membership issue is a red herring.

 

If Scotland votes Yes in September 2014, the terms of agreement to have an independent Scotland in membership of the EU will be agreed comfortably ahead of the due date for Scotland to become independent. That wouldn't be a constitutional certainty, but it would be a political inevitability.

 

The only issue that is likely to cause discomfort for the Scottish government in that scenario is that the EU can and is likely to insist on Scotland also joining the Euro zone on the same date.

 

Surely that all depends on the exact status of the membership though? If it is, as many expect, a joint successor situation in legal terms then we could expect the same opt outs to apply. At least in the early days anyway. And you'd have to assume that's something Westminster might support us with wholeheartedly....

 

Even if it doesn't, the UK general election the year after might see some interesting movements in this respect. Also, transition if this type takes years. Again, there are many possible outcomes in this area irrespective of independence debates anyway.

 

For me it's just being used as another rotten means of scaremongering. If it's not plain old nonsense, it's exaggeration with truth behind it which is either completely different at worst, or a lot more complicated than it seems at best. And neither side ever mentions the uncertainty either. That exists regardless of the outcome.

[redm]

 

Correct. The same goes about there being evidence that the Council will vote to allow negotiation from within - which needs unanimity. Should Spain say no, then you need to become idependent and rejoin. Probably the latter is the better situation. Then we can debate the pros and cons of that union and it's impact on Scotland instead of taking it as a "given".

 

The Spain situation is changeable I'd guess but there probably isn't even good reason to think they would say no. For all that Rajoy's comments have been subject to some interesting interpretation, other members of their government have stated they wouldn't object to Scotland joining and given the explanation that their situation is entirely different from a legal perspective. The suggestion being that the way they see it, Catalunya's status is different to that of Scotland. A message they'll undoubtedly use to their own advantage internally.

[JamboX2]

The Spain situation is changeable I'd guess but there probably isn't even good reason to think they would say no. For all that Rajoy's comments have been subject to some interesting interpretation, other members of their government have stated they wouldn't object to Scotland joining and given the explanation that their situation is entirely different from a legal perspective. The suggestion being that the way they see it, Catalunya's status is different to that of Scotland. A message they'll undoubtedly use to their own advantage internally.

 

It's not a different situation though. It's an internal component of a nation wanting out which has it's own distinct identity.

 

My point was that the debate on Europe and Scotland should not be one of process - which it is. It should be on the benefits of an independent Scotland being a member. That's sidelined however because it's part of the White Paper. That narrows debate to the hypotheticals of process and the finer points of EU law.

 

Fwiw, Spain voting No on the council would be a good move for us. We'd be able to look at it objectively, debate it and then as a people decide. NATO have already said no preliminary negotiations until we leave the UK officially in 2016. Another good thing. Means again we can debate NATO membership and weigh it all up and vote on that as well. The White Paper's assertion these are inherently good things is, imo, wrong.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Something interesting happening in Northern Ireland that relates to this thread.

 

Stormont is the only part of the UK which has a devolved social security system. For this reason there is no bedroom tax in NI...yet. However, it is still funded by the block grant from Westminster. Stormont has now been told that the block grant will now be cut by ?5m per month for not implementing the policy.

[Boris]

Something interesting happening in Northern Ireland that relates to this thread.

 

Stormont is the only part of the UK which has a devolved social security system. For this reason there is no bedroom tax in NI...yet. However, it is still funded by the block grant from Westminster. Stormont has now been told that the block grant will now be cut by ?5m per month for not implementing the policy.

 

Westminster, so caring about democratic institutions and the will of the people.

[Pans Jambo]

Westminster, so caring about democratic institutions and the will of the people.

Exactly.

Truth is, Westminster are just plain embarrassed by the whole bedroom tax thing and they just don't want anyone left out.

 

Nice of them.

[TheMaganator]

Something interesting happening in Northern Ireland that relates to this thread.

 

Stormont is the only part of the UK which has a devolved social security system. For this reason there is no bedroom tax in NI...yet. However, it is still funded by the block grant from Westminster. Stormont has now been told that the block grant will now be cut by ?5m per month for not implementing the policy.

 

Is that true? Is it just the spare room subsidy issue? I cannot believe it is as simple as that.

 

Hmmm

 

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/fresh-row-over-welfare-reform-after-uk-minister-s-intervention-1-5680596

 

It seems that Sinn Fein are causing the problem...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Is that true? Is it just the spare room subsidy issue? I cannot believe it is as simple as that.

 

Hmmm

 

http://www.newslette...ntion-1-5680596

 

It seems that Sinn Fein are causing the problem...

 

A more recent update

 

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/5mamonth-penalty-looms-as-welfare-reform-talks-postponed-29843761.html

 

I don't doubt the DUP want to "implement" it but such is the nature of the system it takes cross-community support to implement it.

[Boris]

Is that true? Is it just the spare room subsidy issue? I cannot believe it is as simple as that.

 

Hmmm

 

http://www.newslette...ntion-1-5680596

 

It seems that Sinn Fein are causing the problem...

 

No, it seems Sinn Fein are actually sticking to their principles.

 

The point here is that Westminster are effectively blackmailing a democratically elected executive into doing what they want them to do.

[JamboX2]

 

 

No, it seems Sinn Fein are actually sticking to their principles.

 

The point here is that Westminster are effectively blackmailing a democratically elected executive into doing what they want them to do.

 

No. The deal on social security with NI is that administration of this is devolved. Hence a years delay in implementation. Changes from UK policy are to be funded from the NI budget. If they want to make the change its reallocating money. So was my belief. There's no Parliamentary-Under Sectetary of State for Bikes, Pigeons amd the NI budget turning the screw here.

[Boris]

 

 

No. The deal on social security with NI is that administration of this is devolved. Hence a years delay in implementation. Changes from UK policy are to be funded from the NI budget. If they want to make the change its reallocating money. So was my belief. There's no Parliamentary-Under Sectetary of State for Bikes, Pigeons amd the NI budget turning the screw here.

 

Oh, fair enough. But why the ?5m loss if they dont?

[Coco]

SNP to open door to higher immigration post-independence.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-migrants-families-welcomed-1-3236179

 

Suggests it would be difficult to avoid border controls if the door is opened.

[JamboX2]

SNP to open door to higher immigration post-independence.

 

http://www.scotsman....comed-1-3236179

 

Suggests it would be difficult to avoid border controls if the door is opened.

 

The Westminster parties have a degree of suspicion on immigration. It's been ingrained in them since before Powell when flight loads of immigrants came from East Africa under the old rules allowing all Dominion and Commonwealth citizens entry (imo, it was the greatest service this nation gave the Commonwealth and old Empire after the war by taking in so many displaced and alienated peoples in the unrest which was caused by racially divisive politics in places like Kenya and Uganda in the 60s and 70s). The issue however has not been the numbers, but integration. We are terrible at dissemination into communities and across the UK.

 

However, since that'd take some guts to face in the loony-right press, then a liberal immigration policy in Scotland will be viewed as an easy back door to the UK. I think Ireland coordinates on immigration to sustain the CTA. Wonder if Scotland would do likewise.

 

Oh, fair enough. But why the ?5m loss if they dont?

 

I'm guessing that's the cost of not implementing a host of reforms in welfare being paid for out of the Treasury in NI by the Executive. I don't know a breakdown of the ?5million. It only has parity with the UK in social security and pensions. There is an expectation to have parity with the UK in policy to mirror costs and keep a uniform welfare system. The cost of changes or lack of is to be born by the Executive under their devolution agreement. ?5 million is a lot, however it's thought it'd cost the Scottish Government ?60 million to cancel out the policy from it's own budget. Surely a cut of ?5 million in the Finance Ministers budget to fund it is the same as spendin that money on maintaining or enacting such a policy?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

How is Britain crap at integrating displaced peoples? In comparison to whom?

 

In the NI case, the cut is equivalent to the additional money NI is spending relative to the UK on welfare. The block grant is therefore reduced so that the extra money from DWP that is going relative to NI is transferred from the Treasury to the DWP.

 

The irony being that if anywhere could support a bedroom tax it would be Northern Ireland due to the quality and size of public housing.

[Patrick Bateman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10519083/Arsenal-chairman-among-major-donors-to-Better-Together-campaign-against-Scottish-independence.html

 

I'd like to know why Better Together is accepting huge sums of money from people who don't live in Scotland. We even have Sir Chippendale ?Chips? Keswick, the Arsenal chairman, wading in. Let's be honest here; they're Labour staffers backed to the hilt by Tory cash. I read the other day that Blair McDougall was David Milliband's campaign organiser. That worked out well...

[JamboX2]

http://www.telegraph...dependence.html

 

I'd like to know why Better Together is accepting huge sums of money from people who don't live in Scotland. We even have Sir Chippendale ?Chips? Keswick, the Arsenal chairman, wading in. Let's be honest here; they're Labour staffers backed to the hilt by Tory cash. I read the other day that Blair McDougall was David Milliband's campaign organiser. That worked out well...

 

Hence the need for this to have been funded by the taxpayer with each campaign getting equality of funding. Hence the need for publically funded political elections. It's mudslinging for mudslinging's sake.

[Patrick Bateman]

Hence the need for this to have been funded by the taxpayer with each campaign getting equality of funding. Hence the need for publically funded political elections. It's mudslinging for mudslinging's sake.

 

So you don't have a problem with people who don't live or work in Scotland, or have any ties to Scotland, donating money to the no campaign? Don't you wonder why someone with zero connections to Scotland would wish to interfere in such a way?

[JamboX2]

How is Britain crap at integrating displaced peoples? In comparison to whom?

 

In the NI case, the cut is equivalent to the additional money NI is spending relative to the UK on welfare. The block grant is therefore reduced so that the extra money from DWP that is going relative to NI is transferred from the Treasury to the DWP.

 

The irony being that if anywhere could support a bedroom tax it would be Northern Ireland due to the quality and size of public housing.

 

The issues around integration in the UK have been said by some to be the reason why immigration is used as such a fear topic by the right to scare people into closing borders. By integration I mean we have had issues on helping people move throughout the UK on arrival. There are areas in southern english towns were the perception suggests overpopulation by immigrants. Whilst others have a net lack of immigrants to their disadvantage. If we were better at that then we wouldn't have an issue where southern England feels inundated with immigrants to their disadvantage, whilst Scotland, Wales and the North East scream out for them to fill skills gaps that would help benefit their local economies.

[JamboX2]

So you don't have a problem with people who don't live or work in Scotland, or have any ties to Scotland, donating money to the no campaign? Don't you wonder why someone with zero connections to Scotland would wish to interfere in such a way?

 

Ofcourse. The Scottish Government had electoral law devolved to pass an enfranchisement and independence referendum Acts. Why was this issue neglected from those Acts?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

The issues around integration in the UK have been said by some to be the reason why immigration is used as such a fear topic by the right to scare people into closing borders. By integration I mean we have had issues on helping people move throughout the UK on arrival. There are areas in southern english towns were the perception suggests overpopulation by immigrants. Whilst others have a net lack of immigrants to their disadvantage. If we were better at that then we wouldn't have an issue where southern England feels inundated with immigrants to their disadvantage, whilst Scotland, Wales and the North East scream out for them to fill skills gaps that would help benefit their local economies.

Immigrants move to where economic activity is happening. Out here, very few immigrants move to the regional centres like Newcastle and Ballarat and head for the capital cities. SE England is no different.

[Patrick Bateman]

Ofcourse. The Scottish Government had electoral law devolved to pass an enfranchisement and independence referendum Acts. Why was this issue neglected from those Acts?

 

[modedit] The issue here is why people who have absolutely no connection to Scotland are allowed to give money to better together, rather than some point about why the Scottish Government didn't create unenforceable legislation. I wonder how those who claim to be left leaning feel about being propped up by Tory cash. I wonder what became of the 'Truth Team' and, my personal favourite, Gordon Brown's vanity project 'United With Labour', a platform clearly born out of his contempt for Alastair Darling.

[JamboX2]

[modedit] The issue here is why people who have absolutely no connection to Scotland are allowed to give money to better together, rather than some point about why the Scottish Government didn't create unenforceable legislation. I wonder how those who claim to be left leaning feel about being propped up by Tory cash. I wonder what became of the 'Truth Team' and, my personal favourite, Gordon Brown's vanity project 'United With Labour', a platform clearly born out of his contempt for Alastair Darling.

 

[modedit]

 

In what way would this have been unenforceable if the Section 30 Agreement/Edinburgh Agreement gave them power to set the rules of the referendum? It's there in writing. It was agreed. Why no action? I agree with you to an extent, the result is different. Why should pro-independence Scottish businessmen back the Yes vote with all their millions? Is that a legitimate source of funding for the pro-yes left when they are getting money to promote their cause through Yes Scotland from the likes of McColl, Souter and Farmer who are in it for the tax cut proposed by the SNP. Is that any less hypocritical than Labour promoting a No vote through Better Together due to money from Tory donors? Or is it ok because the Yes money is from Scotland resident millionaires?

 

It's all hypocritical. Best solution would've been equal public funding of the entire campaign. That was within the SNPs remit. My point is when you scratch the surface of party funding or political movement funding every side is getting cash through some dodgy means or backhanded or hypocritical deal. Everyone.

[coconut doug]

Jambox2

Powell's rivers of blood speech came before the influx from E Africa/Uganda. Britain did the right thing in allowing 200,000 refugees into the country, virtually overnight. Surely this would not have happened if politicians had "ingrained suspicions" They integrated exceptionally well, a very high proportion becoming highly successful in many different fields.

The U.K. has however, long abandoned it's policy of integration having adopted multiculturalism. Maybe this partly explains why Britain is crap at Integration. Better reasons might be that people will integrate, as and when, they wish, and not because of the government. Your definition of integration is only spatial and alludes to an idea that there might be a standard, optimal proportionality of ethnicity/immigrants in the country and that his might be beneficial to the country. The movements of immigrants follow patterns and take time. Many communities have in fact been virtually purged of their indigenous inhabitants but all have experienced an influx of newcomers. Government interference in these natural processes usually results in disaster i.e. The Glasgow overspill scheme which brought the old firm and religious bigotry to every community in Scotland. Perhaps I remember this wrongly. Maybe these places were screaming out for them to fill the skills gaps.

The snp policy is very suspect however. I think population growth is a bad policy whether its from natural increase or migration. If independence is going to mean anything to me then a major part of it will be the upskilling of the scottish population to meet our needs rather than importing skills and disenfranchising the children of the Scottish taxpayers.

[TheMaganator]

[modedit] The issue here is why people who have absolutely no connection to Scotland are allowed to give money to better together, rather than some point about why the Scottish Government didn't create unenforceable legislation. I wonder how those who claim to be left leaning feel about being propped up by Tory cash. I wonder what became of the 'Truth Team' and, my personal favourite, Gordon Brown's vanity project 'United With Labour', a platform clearly born out of his contempt for Alastair Darling.

Some of the biggest champions of the Yes campaign (Cox & that wee felly who bought the flat in an attempt to get a vote, I forget his name) do not live in Scotland.

 

Your 'oh they just want us to pinch our oil' reeks of desperation

[Pans Jambo]

Some of the biggest champions of the Yes campaign (Cox & that wee felly who bought the flat in an attempt to get a vote, I forget his name) do not live in Scotland.

 

Your 'oh they just want us to pinch our oil' reeks of desperation

 

It may "reek" of desperation to you but it is absolutely the truth. Why cant you see that? Even ex-cabinet ministers of the 70's admitted that oil kept the UK afloat during the 70's & in particular, the 80's when Maggie et-al was stripping out the heavy industries and dumping thousands onto the dole que.

 

The oil props up the UK and they are afraid that Scottish Nationalism & a Yes vote will take that away from them. Absolute unquestionable fact!

[Coco]

It may "reek" of desperation to you but it is absolutely the truth. Why cant you see that? Even ex-cabinet ministers of the 70's admitted that oil kept the UK afloat during the 70's & in particular, the 80's when Maggie et-al was stripping out the heavy industries and dumping thousands onto the dole que.

 

The oil props up the UK and they are afraid that Scottish Nationalism & a Yes vote will take that away from them. Absolute unquestionable fact!

 

Not sure if the long term forecasts were changed recently with the short term forecasts but the OBR as of July had long term forecasts for oil and gas taxation revenue for the UK at 0.03% of GDP (from the recent 0.7% for 2011-12). Very small figures (even allowing for forecasting errors) for something propping up the UK. Even if production or prices are 10x or 20x the level which the OBR forecasts it is likely to be a very small part of UK Government spending or as part of the economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-23345919

[Pans Jambo]

Not sure if the long term forecasts were changed recently with the short term forecasts but the OBR as of July had long term forecasts for oil and gas taxation revenue for the UK at 0.03% of GDP (from the recent 0.7% for 2011-12). Very small figures (even allowing for forecasting errors) for something propping up the UK. Even if production or prices are 10x or 20x the level which the OBR forecasts it is likely to be a very small part of UK Government spending or as part of the economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-23345919

 

Yip, the oil and gas reserves are a complete waste of time, completely worthless and we should stop them drilling any further!

 

Aye, you just keep on believing that pal!!!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Yip, the oil and gas reserves are a complete waste of time, completely worthless and we should stop them drilling any further!

 

Aye, you just keep on believing that pal!!!

 

 

Coco was pointing out the proportion of revenue in the overall economy. The UK is hardly Saudi Arabia!

[Patrick Bateman]

Some of the biggest champions of the Yes campaign (Cox & that wee felly who bought the flat in an attempt to get a vote, I forget his name) do not live in Scotland.

 

Your 'oh they just want us to pinch our oil' reeks of desperation

 

Brian Cox and Alan Cumming, I presume? Two people who were born in Scotland and consider themselves Scottish, who move back to Scotland to vote. How on earth can you compare them to Sir Chippendale Keswick? Can you not just admit that it's pretty dodgy?

 

And where on earth did I mention oil? Scotland must be the only country in the world where oil is considered a burden, and where independence can be considered dangerous. I wish people were able to take a step back and realise how ridiculous such thoughts were.

[Pans Jambo]

 

Coco was pointing out the proportion of revenue in the overall economy. The UK is hardly Saudi Arabia!

 

Aye nice one but I can read!

I was pointing out that oil DID IN FACT prop up the UK when Maggie closed the steel works, coal mines, ship yards etc in ths 80's as has since been reveled by the former chancellor of the exchequer Dennis Healey who now sits in the house of Lords.

 

As anyone knows, figures can say whatever they like but the fact remains that for some reason, the rUK dont want to let the oil go!

[TheMaganator]

Brian Cox and Alan Cumming, I presume? Two people who were born in Scotland and consider themselves Scottish, who move back to Scotland to vote. How on earth can you compare them to Sir Chippendale Keswick? Can you not just admit that it's pretty dodgy?

 

And where on earth did I mention oil? Scotland must be the only country in the world where oil is considered a burden, and where independence can be considered dangerous. I wish people were able to take a step back and realise how ridiculous such thoughts were.

 

So you don't have a problem with people who don't live or work in Scotland, or have any ties to Scotland, donating money to the no campaign? Don't you wonder why someone with zero connections to Scotland would wish to interfere in such a way?

 

Ok, why do you think these people are 'interfereing' then? I assumed you thought it was becuse they wanted 'our' oil - if that was wrong I apologise. What do you think the reason is?

 

I do not think anybody thinks oil is a burden. I think people think that people question the merits of an economy based on a finite resource though.

 

I see nothing dodgy about people in a union wanting to maintain that union - regardless of what part of that union they come from.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Aye nice one but I can read!

I was pointing out that oil DID IN FACT prop up the UK when Maggie closed the steel works, coal mines, ship yards etc in ths 80's as has since been reveled by the former chancellor of the exchequer Dennis Healey who now sits in the house of Lords.

 

As anyone knows, figures can say whatever they like but the fact remains that for some reason, the rUK dont want to let the oil go!

 

I've no argument that the Treasury don't want to lose oil and gas revenues. The way you write it sounds like it is the only revenue stream available to Westminster! There is no need for the hyperbole.

[Pans Jambo]

Ok, why do you think these people are 'interfereing' then? I assumed you thought it was becuse they wanted 'our' oil - if that was wrong I apologise. What do you think the reason is?

 

I do not think anybody thinks oil is a burden. I think people think that people question the merits of an economy based on a finite resource though.

 

I see nothing dodgy about people in a union wanting to maintain that union - regardless of what part of that union they come from.

 

As far as an independent Scottish economy goes, it has been demonstrated that oil would not be the the only income and it would not be the largest wealth generator however, as PB pointed out, there are far too many claiming that oil is not a good thing to have and it is somehow a huge burden due to the volatile oil prices.

 

Has you petrol/diesel costs EVER went down????

[Pans Jambo]

I've no argument that the Treasury don't want to lose oil and gas revenues. The way you write it sounds like it is the only revenue stream available to Westminster! There is no need for the hyperbole.

Not hyperbole to say that the rUK want to keep the oil is it? Agree its not the only revenue stream for rUK but its not the only revenue stream for Scotland either.

 

No exaggeration there!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Not hyperbole to say that the rUK want to keep the oil is it? Agree its not the only revenue stream for rUK but its not the only revenue stream for Scotland either.

 

No exaggeration there!

 

Is that even an argument?

[Pans Jambo]

Is that even an argument?

 

No, an explanation!

Your turn. Hyperbole then?

[TheMaganator]

As far as an independent Scottish economy goes, it has been demonstrated that oil would not be the the only income and it would not be the largest wealth generator however, as PB pointed out, there are far too many claiming that oil is not a good thing to have and it is somehow a huge burden due to the volatile oil prices.

 

Has you petrol/diesel costs EVER went down????

Who has said that oil is a burden? I do not think anyone on here or anyone for BT has ever said that oil was a burden.

It may "reek" of desperation to you but it is absolutely the truth. Why cant you see that? Even ex-cabinet ministers of the 70's admitted that oil kept the UK afloat during the 70's & in particular, the 80's when Maggie et-al was stripping out the heavy industries and dumping thousands onto the dole que.

 

The oil props up the UK and they are afraid that Scottish Nationalism & a Yes vote will take that away from them. Absolute unquestionable fact!

That is not a fact and you cannot on one hand say on the one hand that rUK only wants us for our oil and then say that our oil is not a substantial part of our economy.

 

 

I know it is not the only revenue stream for Scotland but it is a fairly substantial one.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

No, an explanation!

Your turn. Hyperbole then?

 

The hyperbole was in your tabloid style writing.

 

I would also say it is symptomatic of a sneer from some cybernats to suggest that if it wasn't for Scotland, the whole of the UK would be broke and there is almost a wish for that to happen in a post-independence scenario, just to prove a point. It's a bit mental.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[Pans Jambo]

Who has said that oil is a burden? I do not think anyone on here or anyone for BT has ever said that oil was a burden.

 

That is not a fact and you cannot on one hand say on the one hand that rUK only wants us for our oil and then say that our oil is not a substantial part of our economy.

 

 

I know it is not the only revenue stream for Scotland but it is a fairly substantial one.

 

Agreed. It IS a substantial one but so are the others we have.

 

I think it has been well documented that the BT campaign has suggested that oil volatility should be a major concern to budgeting future Scottish tax revenues i.e. a problem rather than a "nice to have".

 

How to independent countries without oil get by???

[Patrick Bateman]

Ok, why do you think these people are 'interfereing' then? I assumed you thought it was becuse they wanted 'our' oil - if that was wrong I apologise. What do you think the reason is?

 

I do not think anybody thinks oil is a burden. I think people think that people question the merits of an economy based on a finite resource though.

 

I see nothing dodgy about people in a union wanting to maintain that union - regardless of what part of that union they come from.

 

I don't know precisely why they're interfering. They *might* have some business interests here, I suppose, but I've not heard of anything the Arsenal chairman is involved with in Scotland. I also see some donors paid through their companies. I assume that this reduces their taxable profits, which is slightly curious to say the least. Better together are exactly what people expected them to be; labour staffers largely by dodgy cash, particularly Ian Taylor. In other news, Yes Scotland managed to crowd fund over ?15,000 two days before their target date. I wonder how much money better together could raise from the public at this time of year.

 

So, let's get this straight, you see nothing wrong in people getting involved in the debate, regardless of where they're from, yet you're against David Cameron coming up to debate independence? Do you not see the inconsistency here?

[Pans Jambo]

The hyperbole was in your tabloid style writing.

 

I would also say it is symptomatic of a sneer from some cybernats to suggest that if it wasn't for Scotland, the whole of the UK would be broke and there is almost a wish for that to happen in a post-independence scenario, just to prove a point. It's a bit mental.

 

Tabloid? OK.

Cybernats? what the equivalent "Cyberno's"???

Dont wish to see anybody go broke as the rUK and an independent Scotland should have an equally prosperous trading relationship.

to suggest otherwise IS a bit mental!