The 2015 General Election Megathread

[aussieh]

Nonsense. You are just the sort of person Alex likes - gullible. Production levels are down, revenues are down, fields are being abandoned, including Brent itself, and operating costs are soaring.

Watched the news yesterday, flowing oil, still making a fortune and giving the uk its aaaa status.

but you keep bullshitting away.

[deesidejambo]

Sure i read yesterday production is highest for 15 years.

Saudis are also pumping more oil than at any time in their history too.

lol complete nonsense.

 

Open your eyes to the truth.

 

And thef act that the Saudis are pumping hard is why the price is $50/bbl!  That is very bad news for the NS industry and the UK exchequer.

[aussieh]

It was the other way round. He discredited Alexs revenue predictions. There is no way there is 24bln bbls left to produce. See my previous post and work it out for yourself based on current production levels.

 

And what is left is going to come at a much increased development cost, with a requirement for Govt tax take to be reduced to make it economic in the first place. It all adds up to a far lower forward predictoin than Alex is "speculating" on.

Ian Wood, i wonder what he has to lose, if Scotland left.

mmmmm i wonder.

Do you know?

[jack D and coke]

lol complete nonsense.

 

Open your eyes to the truth.

 

And thef act that the Saudis are pumping hard is why the price is $50/bbl! That is very bad news for the NS industry and the UK exchequer.

I'll try find the link. I can't remember where I read it...

[JamboX2]

Ian Wood, i wonder what he has to lose, if Scotland left.

mmmmm i wonder.

Do you know?

What does anyone have to gain?

[aussieh]

lol complete nonsense.

 

Open your eyes to the truth.

 

And thef act that the Saudis are pumping hard is why the price is $50/bbl! That is very bad news for the NS industry and the UK exchequer.

Its you, that has to open their eyes.

But youre a never ever, no voter. What else do you expect.

[deesidejambo]

Ian Wood, i wonder what he has to lose, if Scotland left.

mmmmm i wonder.

Do you know?

Look at the data for yourself and make your own calculation.

 

You wont get to 24billion barrels.  

 

and it wont be at $100/barrel

 

And it will have to be at a lower tax take than at present.

 

At least all others on this thread can look at the data and see that Alexs predictions are complete nonsense, by analysing the data themselves.

 

You won't though, so dont bother. 

[aussieh]

Look at the data for yourself and make your own calculation.

 

You wont get to 24billion barrels.

 

and it wont be at $100/barrel

 

And it will have to be at a lower tax take than at present.

 

At least all others on this thread can look at the data and see that Alexs predictions are complete nonsense, by analysing the data themselves.

 

You won't though, so dont bother.

Unionist drivel.

[Coco]

With regard to the interest rate discussion - the average long term interest rate for the UK going back to 1694 is 4.8%.  We are currently in a period of historically low interest rates as politicians and central bankers try to reflate or keep the various bubbles in assets going.  Won't always be in a period of low interest rates of course - and applying a risk premium for borrowing by an untried Scottish Treasury would likely happen compared to lending to a UK which hasn't defaulted in centuries.

[XB52]

lol complete nonsense.

 

Open your eyes to the truth.

 

And thef act that the Saudis are pumping hard is why the price is $50/bbl!  That is very bad news for the NS industry and the UK exchequer.

More specifically, the ?mining and quarrying? component of British industrial output data, which includes oil and gas production in the main, rose by 7.8% in the quarter; the biggest increase since 1989.

 

this from 5 days ago and because of lower taxes, something the Scottish Government have been calling for for years 

[coconut doug]

It was the other way round.  He discredited Alexs revenue predictions.  There is no way there is 24bln bbls left to produce.  See my previous post and work it out for yourself based on current production levels.

 

And what is left is going to come at a much increased development cost, with a requirement for Govt tax take to be reduced to make it economic in the first place.   It all adds up to a far lower forward predictoin than Alex is "speculating" on.

Sir Ian wood claiming there is 25billion barrels left at $100 a barrel. Salmond quoted this and continues to be branded a liar. Even worse when you consider we have been over this before.

[coconut doug]

Sir Ian wood claiming there is 25billion barrels left at $100 a barrel. Salmond quoted this and continues to be branded a liar. Even worse when you consider we have been over this before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIIW6hg--AA

[ToadKiller Dog]

Ian Wood (wood group)also has large interests in the shale gas industry . So his comments on the level of Oil remaining have to be considered with that in mind .

He also threatened to move to England in 1997 if we voted for devolution .

 

his views are not those of a neutral and should be questioned as much as Salmonds or anybody else .

[Thunderstruck]

Watched the news yesterday, flowing oil, still making a fortune and giving the uk its aaaa status.

but you keep bullshitting away.

You obviously watched but didn't pay attention. It was reported that the increase in production (approx 3%) was trivial and the result of investment made several years ago - when prices were higher and the (UK) Government allowed tax breaks to boost investment. That investment has declined with no prospect of any increase. As helpfully highlighted in a graphic in another post, the output Trent is inexorably downward.

 

Not to worry although, oil is only a bonus or so we are told.

 

Oil production, interest rates, deficits - it seems that these can all be magicked away with wishful thinking of the lick of a pair of heels.

[aussieh]

You obviously watched but didn't pay attention. It was reported that the increase in production (approx 3%) was trivial and the result of investment made several years ago - when prices were higher and the (UK) Government allowed tax breaks to boost investment. That investment has declined with no prospect of any increase. As helpfully highlighted in a graphic in another post, the output Trent is inexorably downward.

 

Not to worry although, oil is only a bonus or so we are told.

 

Oil production, interest rates, deficits - it seems that these can all be magicked away with wishful thinking of the lick of a pair of heels.

Whats that word, im looking for.

aye, thats right.

PISH.

[coconut doug]

More specifically, the ?mining and quarrying? component of British industrial output data, which includes oil and gas production in the main, rose by 7.8% in the quarter; the biggest increase since 1989.

 

this from 5 days ago and because of lower taxes, something the Scottish Government have been calling for for years 

Osborne also predicts a 15% rise in tax revenue from oil production. This despite falling production, lower prices and lower rates of taxation.

[deesidejambo]

Unionist drivel.

Ok then, ignore the data.

 

In fact ignore the rest of this post - please put me on ignore.

 

For anyone who wants to see the correct picture of the NS Oil Indurstry, read on (not you Aussie)

 

NS oil production is freely available on the Web, it is in public domain.  It is currently averaging about 800,000 barrels per day, which equates to about 300million barrels per year

 

Production has been reducing for years, as the plot I posted shows.  This is also public domain. Feel free to do your own investigations.

 

At the current 2015 rates, it would take about 82 years to produce 24 billiion barrels, and that excludes the fact that fields are on decline, as the plot shows and some, like Brent and Dunlin a.o. as posted above, are being abandoned.

 

Given the decline and abandonments, 82 years is a minimum.  The facilities are not designed to last another 82 years and will need refurbishment and in some cases replacement, both of which push the development costs up considerably, and inevitibly, in the case of Brent and Dunlin, lead to decision to abandon..   It is just not sensible (unless you are Aussie) to assume 82 years of production at current rates.

 

Aussie - I told you not to read this.

 

Others - feel free to do your own calculations to get to 24 billion barrels from the current fields.  Its not going to happen.

 

As for new field developments, there are a few small ones, and one significant (Clair) one being worked at present.   Also the Schiehallion field is being redeveloped.   When added in to the current fields, that will increase the  overall volume, but only very slightly, for example Clair may add a few hundred million barrels, but nowhere near even a billion.

 

So to those who want the truth, either read the above of feel free to do the analyses yourselves - its all public domain.

 

And to aussie (I told you not to read this) - feel free to post a glib comment to try and deflect the discussion.

[deesidejambo]

You obviously watched but didn't pay attention. It was reported that the increase in production (approx 3%) was trivial and the result of investment made several years ago - when prices were higher and the (UK) Government allowed tax breaks to boost investment. That investment has declined with no prospect of any increase. As helpfully highlighted in a graphic in another post, the output Trent is inexorably downward.

 

Not to worry although, oil is only a bonus or so we are told.

 

Oil production, interest rates, deficits - it seems that these can all be magicked away with wishful thinking of the lick of a pair of heels.

Its an increase from about 800,000 barrels per day to about 900,000.  Even if it goes up to a million bopd, it will still never get to 24 billion recoverable.  

[aussieh]

You obviously watched but didn't pay attention. It was reported that the increase in production (approx 3%) was trivial and the result of investment made several years ago - when prices were higher and the (UK) Government allowed tax breaks to boost investment. That investment has declined with no prospect of any increase. As helpfully highlighted in a graphic in another post, the output Trent is inexorably downward.

 

Not to worry although, oil is only a bonus or so we are told.

 

Oil production, interest rates, deficits - it seems that these can all be magicked away with wishful thinking of the lick of a pair of heels.

I forget, is oil the only thing we have?.

No, its not.

 

Prob run out, though. i guess.

Edited August 4, 2015 by aussieh

[deesidejambo]

Ian Wood (wood group)also has large interests in the shale gas industry . So his comments on the level of Oil remaining have to be considered with that in mind .

He also threatened to move to England in 1997 if we voted for devolution .

 

his views are not those of a neutral and should be questioned as much as Salmonds or anybody else .

Feel free to look at the data yourself and let me know where you will find 24 billion recoverable from.

[Thunderstruck]

I forget, is oil the only thing we have?.

No, its not.

 

Prob run out, though. i guess.

Well, we do have shale gas but don't have the large tracts of land available to the Americans for the cheap storage of the toxic waste water.

 

As I recall, you are on the anti-fracking side of the debate.

[aussieh]

Well, we do have shale gas but don't have the large tracts of land available to Are the Americans for the cheap storage of the toxic waste water.

 

As I recall, you are on the anti-fracking side of the debate.

Are you pro fracking?.

[Thunderstruck]

Are you pro fracking?.

I stated several pages ago that I have no problem with fracking or Coal Seam Gassification if it is properly regulated and managed. In any event, the volumes within Scotland are relatively small by comparison with England.

 

Whether shale gas (or the smaller amounts of shale oil) will be economically viable remains to be seen. The fracking by-product water will require careful storage and treatment after its return to the surface - we cannot simply store in a lagoon as is the case in the U.S.

 

There is a risk of "fugitive CH4" (methane not a TV Station) or groundwater contamination if wells are not properly lined.

 

Seismic activity is only ever likely at a level too small to be measurable (see BGS website and its report on the Poulton-le-Fylde seismic event).

 

There is no energy supply that can does not involve some risk to population or the environment - people and governments have to decide the balance of risk.

 

This is a link to a BGS lecture in the subject for anyone with 40 mins to spare. Interesting to see how known reserves could change geopolitics.

 

[coconut doug]

Not sure if you are being or obtuse or just na?ve but I wish you luck in you brave new Scotland. I am sure there will be queue of willing lenders lining up to lend money at a fraction of the return they would get elsewhere. If my Pension Fund was doing that, heads would roll.

Neither, and I don't live in a brave new Scotland. There won't be a queue of willing lenders because there won't be borrowing of the type you describe. Not sure if you really don't understand or if you are just pretending anyway perhaps this guy can explain it better than me. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/04/peoples-qe-could-consign-pfi-to-history/

 

Pension funds are really struggling under the current system. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11403121/Pension-deficits-at-record-high-as-contributions-threaten-to-choke-business.html

Banks and investors are shying away from pension funds because money is cheap because of QE. Trouble is it seems only available for private investors so taxpayer/public disadvantaged again.

 

Too much money in the economy results in risky lending behaviour e.g. sub prime mortgages and lending to Greece. No problem though because the taxpayer bails out private investors. Privatised profits with socialised debt. People running this should be in Jail.

[aussieh]

I stated several page

s ago that I have no problem with fracking or Coal Seam Gassification if it is properly regulated and managed. In any event, the volumes within Scotland are relatively small by comparison with England.

 

Whether shale gas (or the smaller amounts of shale oil) will be economically viable remains to be seen. The fracking by-product water will require careful storage and treatment after its return to the surface - we cannot simply store in a lagoon as is the case in the U.S.

 

There is a risk of "fugitive CH4" (methane not a TV Station) or groundwater contamination if wells are not properly lined.

 

Seismic activity is only ever likely at a level too small to be measurable (see BGS website and its report on the Poulton-le-Fylde seismic event).

 

There is no energy supply that can does not involve some risk to population or the environment - people and governments have to decide the balance of risk.

 

This is a link to a BGS lecture in the subject for anyone with 40 mins to spare. Interesting to see how known reserves could change geopolitics.

 

What harm does solar panels,wind turbines and wave power, do to our drinking water or when does it cause sink holes or wreck house prices or possibly **** up the whisky industry?

[JamboX2]

What harm does solar panels,wind turbines and wave power, do to our drinking water or when does it cause sink holes or wreck house prices or possibly **** up the whisky industry?

Solar panels don't yet generate enough energy to be effective in small plants on limited sunlight, wave power is still a work in progress and despite us being in a prime location we've seen a number of wave energy companies fail and require state bailouts, wind turbines on land are unpopular to locals and are eyesores in areas classed as "outstanding natural beauty".

 

Like it or not, and I don't, but shale and coal gas will soon become necessity until green energy becomes both more affordable without state aid or nuclear power is accepted again.

 

I personally think the idea of banning nuclear energy is a tad reckless given its low carbon, base energy which isn't reliant on dredging the ground. In fact nuclear and renewables is the future long term.

[aussieh]

Solar panels don't yet generate enough energy to be effective in small plants on limited sunlight, wave power is still a work in progress and despite us being in a prime location we've seen a number of wave energy companies fail and require state bailouts, wind turbines on land are unpopular to locals and are eyesores in areas classed as "outstanding natural beauty".

 

Like it or not, and I don't, but shale and coal gas will soon become necessity until green energy becomes both more affordable without state aid or nuclear power is accepted again.

 

I personally think the idea of banning nuclear energy is a tad reckless given its low carbon, base energy which isn't reliant on dredging the ground. In fact nuclear and renewables is the future long term.

Unionist hot air and manure could power Scotland til the end of time.

[Thunderstruck]

Neither, and I don't live in a brave new Scotland. There won't be a queue of willing lenders because there won't be borrowing of the type you describe. Not sure if you really don't understand or if you are just pretending anyway perhaps this guy can explain it better than me. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/04/peoples-qe-could-consign-pfi-to-history/

 

Pension funds are really struggling under the current system. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11403121/Pension-deficits-at-record-high-as-contributions-threaten-to-choke-business.html

Banks and investors are shying away from pension funds because money is cheap because of QE. Trouble is it seems only available for private investors so taxpayer/public disadvantaged again.

 

Too much money in the economy results in risky lending behaviour e.g. sub prime mortgages and lending to Greece. No problem though because the taxpayer bails out private investors. Privatised profits with socialised debt. People running this should be in Jail.

Yes, that worked a treat in Venezuela. It is an activity that carries considerable risk in terms of its inflationary effects (with all the problems that brings) and turning it off could have undesirable effects on labour market. In any event, why not just give the public money to infrastructure projects - why involve a bank at all.

 

I mentioned the PWLB in the post you quoted. As its name suggests, it exists to lend to local authorities at rates (that can be discounted) based on day to day Bond yields. That or an expanded version might serve as a more effective source of funding and is pretty much "circular money". As a radical solution, disband Holyrood, bring back Regional Councils and give us real devolution and local accountability in addition to Councils that could make good use of PWLB.

 

Just been online to check status of my pension fund and it is ticking along quite nicely thanks. It remains fully funded and able to meet its liabilities. To be fair the equity:bonds ratio has changed to account for varying yields/returns but that shows good management. Also, the last time I checked, it was Pension Funds that invested on behalf of their investors/pensioners.

[Thunderstruck]

What harm does solar panels,wind turbines and wave power, do to our drinking water or when does it cause sink holes or wreck house prices or possibly **** up the whisky industry?

Here's some information on the only operational wave generation device:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islay_LIMPET

 

Well, it was operational but now is about as much use as the remains of Mulberry Harbour in Normandy. It is unlikely that the scale of this monstrosity or the destruction of otherwise pristine coastline can be seen from these photos. I doubt that it is in your backyard so why should you care.

 

I also consider the lack of investment in civil nuclear power to be verging on negligent. Investment in development of new fuels such as Thorium and the installation of new low footprint reactors should be a priority. The alternative (over-reliance on unreliable "renewables") is "load shedding" of the type that is currently blighting South Africa.

[aussieh]

Here's some information on the only operational wave generation device:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islay_LIMPET

Well, it was operational but now is about as much use as the remains of Mulberry Harbour in Normandy. It is unlikely that the scale of this monstrosity or the destruction of otherwise pristine coastline can be seen from these photos. I doubt that it is in your backyard so why should you care.

I also consider the lack of investment in civil nuclear power to be verging on negligent. Investment in development of new fuels such as Thorium and the installation of new low footprint reactors should be a priority. The alternative (over-reliance on unreliable "renewables") is "load shedding" of the type that is currently blighting South Africa.

I'm sure we'll do alright.

[Hasselhoff]

I'm sure we'll do alright.

Hope over facts

[aussieh]

Hope over facts

What facts, its all conjecture from both sides.

Belief over terror.

[deesidejambo]

Production has peaked, I'd concede that. But there may be many untapped areas out there, as Ian Wood stipulated immediately after the referendum which he timed to absolute perfection. You're making a broad and sweeping statement, it is you that is blind by failing to acknowledge the possibility that more oil may exist.

 

When it comes to our oil, this is all you need to know:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4303750.stm

I did not deny that more oil may exist, but I work in the oil industry.     The area is almost fully explored, fields are on decline, and no major new discoveries will be made.      You can, like Alex, fabricate some imaginary new fields that are yet to be discovered, but that wont happen.    Exploration in the UK NS is almost finished.  Check for yourself the number of Exploration wells drilled in 2015.   Hardly any, and none have announced discoveries.  The oil Companies are selling out and moving away.     Dream on if you think somehow they will suddenly find more massive fields to get 24 billion barrels out of.  

 

But don't let the truth get in the way of your fantasy.

[aussieh]

I did not deny that more oil may exist, but I work in the oil industry.     The area is almost fully explored, fields are on decline, and no major new discoveries will be made.      You can, like Alex, fabricate some imaginary new fields that are yet to be discovered, but that wont happen.    Exploration in the UK NS is almost finished.  Check for yourself the number of Exploration wells drilled in 2015.   Hardly any, and none have announced discoveries.  The oil Companies are selling out and moving away.     Dream on if you think somehow they will suddenly find more massive fields to get 24 billion barrels out of.  

 

But don't let the truth get in the way of your fantasy.

Discovery, is that something you find, that you didn't know was there?.No

[Hasselhoff]

What facts, its all conjecture from both sides.

Belief over terror.

GERS from the Scottish Government provides facts that show that oil is not a nice wee extra for Scotland like SNP suggest but a core part of our economy. With FFA or indy, Scotland would face an enormous uphill battle from which we would likely never recover to the standard of living that we have today.

 

The response to proven facts by many Yes supporters is simply "pish"

 

Don't pretend you are interested in facts.

[aussieh]

GERS from the Scottish Government provides facts that show that oil is not a nice wee extra for Scotland like SNP suggest but a core part of our economy. With FFA or indy, Scotland would face an enormous uphill battle from which we would likely never recover to the standard of living that we have today.

The response to proven facts by many Yes supporters is simply "pish"

Don't pretend you are interested in facts.

OK, if you say so.

GERS must be unionists.

[Malinga the Swinga]

The best thing about this thread and also some conspiracy ones is that it allows you to identify posters for whom the ignore function was designed.

[Thunderstruck]

What facts, its all conjecture from both sides.

Belief over terror.

Facts you want....

http://www.withouthotair.com

 

That is by David John Cameron MacKay, FRS FInstP FICE, is the Regius Professor of Engineering in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge and from 2009 to 2014 was Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. (Wikipedia)

A doyen of the Greens.

[aussieh]

The best thing about this thread and also some conspiracy ones is that it allows you to identify posters for whom the ignore function was designed.

Precious, another who takes themselves too serious.

[Boris]

I personally think the idea of banning nuclear energy is a tad reckless given its low carbon, base energy which isn't reliant on dredging the ground. In fact nuclear and renewables is the future long term.

Agreed.

[deesidejambo]

The best thing about this thread and also some conspiracy ones is that it allows you to identify posters for whom the ignore function was designed.

No i think it just exposes the heidbangers who just shout "pish" whenever presented with the facts.   It allows others to decide for themselves who the baw-heids are.      Cue Aussie.......

[coconut doug]

Yes, that worked a treat in Venezuela. It is an activity that carries considerable risk in terms of its inflationary effects (with all the problems that brings) and turning it off could have undesirable effects on labour market. In any event, why not just give the public money to infrastructure projects - why involve a bank at all.

 

Venezuela is not Scotland and the difficulties for the Venezuelan economy seem unrelated to the people's QE type suggestion.  http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/20/news/economy/venezuela-economy-inflation/ Currently we are trying to increase inflation anyway  . Turning capital supplies on and off will effect labour in any system. Why involve a clearing bank as a middle man? Why indeed, it is they who are taking huge amounts of money out of the system.

I mentioned the PWLB in the post you quoted. As its name suggests, it exists to lend to local authorities at rates (that can be discounted) based on day to day Bond yields. That or an expanded version might serve as a more effective source of funding and is pretty much "circular money". As a radical solution, disband Holyrood, bring back Regional Councils and give us real devolution and local accountability in addition to Councils that could make good use of PWLB.

 

PWLB is fine when L.A's can get access to it. They cannot always and have been forced to borrow through LOBO and PFI. We definitely need a responsible and enlightened legislature or else we end up with HS2 and Edinburgh Trams.

 

Just been online to check status of my pension fund and it is ticking along quite nicely thanks. It remains fully funded and able to meet its liabilities. To be fair the equity:bonds ratio has changed to account for varying yields/returns but that shows good management. Also, the last time I checked, it was Pension Funds that invested on behalf of their investors/pensioners.

 

Didn't make my point clearly about pension money. Massive international QE reduces returns for pension funds as the market is awash with money and interest rates are low. Finding prime investment vehicles is more difficult for fund managers. As you will have noted from the article I linked many pension funds are not fully funded.

 

Whilst I recognise your strong adherence to the primacy of capitalism in economics I would like to point out to you that alternative views are no longer fringe views. Current  economics are "fantasy economics" apparently. Don't take my word for it here is a Nobel Economics Laureate.

 

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2015/08/04/corbyn-and-the-cringe-caucus/

[Psychedelicropcircle]

GERS from the Scottish Government provides facts that show that oil is not a nice wee extra for Scotland like SNP suggest but a core part of our economy. With FFA or indy, Scotland would face an enormous uphill battle from which we would likely never recover to the standard of living that we have today.

 

The response to proven facts by many Yes supporters is simply "pish"

 

Don't pretend you are interested in facts.

In the meantime the UK borrows its deficit, but but but when the borrower becomes Scottish it's a different kettle o fash! Edited August 4, 2015 by Psychedelicropcircle

[JamboX2]

Unionist hot air and manure could power Scotland til the end of time.

Equal amounts of nationalist bs and spraffing could provide a surplus we could sell globally.

 

The potential of renewables is there. But even the green endeavour of the current Scottish Government is failing to meet the lofty aims of 100% renewables by 2020. In fact the past 5/6 years they've missed the annual target. Green energy alone isn't enough.

[JamboX2]

Stories coming out that Andy Burnham is moving his campaign further left by calling for rail renationalisation and more public investment in infrastructure and public transport services later this week.

 

Corbyn is shifting Labour left. Kendall and her mob have clearly misread the mood of the party from the off. Burnham is able enough to reposition himself to the left - he is the architect of Labours opposition to the Tory health reforms and has called of IHT to fund the creation of a National Care Service to run alongside the NHS - than Cooper, who has become muted.

 

Reckon Corbyn will lose in the end, but he's definitely redefined the debate in the party and is bringing people into the Labour fold they'd struggled with for some time - the young and the old floating left which has been split between Green and LibDems for a few years now.

 

Burnham, more than the others has recognised that well.

 

If Corbyn won it'd certainly bring about a more vibrant and black and white debate, but his pulling Labour left regardless is more interesting when it comes to the impact that may have in Scotland and Wales in 2016.

[Thunderstruck]

I honestly don't understand how every country that is independent and has no oil is coping just fine.

 

Why are we the basket-case?

The generality that is your first sentence is incorrect as, clearly, not all countries that are independent are "doing fine"; c/f Greece.

 

Are you certain, on the basis of the proposition laid before the Scottish people last year, that Scotland would prosper outwith the UK and by April next year?

 

I am not. I wasn't before last year and I think we dodged a bullet thanks to the majority of Scots voters being smart enough not to be gulled by the emotive but economically naive plans of SNP/Yes. Plans that, in the space of only a matter of weeks, were shown to have been wildly inaccurate/optimistic/negligent.

[AlphonseCapone]

The generality that is your first sentence is incorrect as, clearly, not all countries that are independent are "doing fine"; c/f Greece.

 

Are you certain, on the basis of the proposition laid before the Scottish people last year, that Scotland would prosper outwith the UK and by April next year?

 

I am not. I wasn't before last year and I think we dodged a bullet thanks to the majority of Scots voters being smart enough not to be gulled by the emotive but economically naive plans of SNP/Yes. Plans that, in the space of only a matter of weeks, were shown to have been wildly inaccurate/optimistic/negligent.

You are being obtuse, the vast majority of countries without oil are doing fine.

 

Seriously, why would Scotland be different? Answer me that without referring to any SNP claims, their economic case during the referendum debate was daft, just take the question to its simplest form, why couldn't Scotland prosper like other nations its size?

[aussieh]

No i think it just exposes the heidbangers who just shout "pish" whenever presented with the facts. It allows others to decide for themselves who the baw-heids are. Cue Aussie.......

Facts, what facts. Show me real facts, not unionist funded propaganda that suits you.

 

Should Scotland be an independent Country? No.

For any Scot to chose that box, i will never understand that. So shove your facts, it matters not a jot.

[pablo]

 

If Corbyn won it'd certainly bring about a more vibrant and black and white debate, but his pulling Labour left regardless is more interesting when it comes to the impact that may have in Scotland and Wales in 2016.

How on earth will the SNP be able to continue their claim of being a party of the left if they actually had to go up against Labour led by Corbyn?

 

I wonder how wee Nicki would explain away doing nothing to tackle poverty, except mention austerity and Tory cuts twice a day.

 

Scottish left wingers, who have been giving it " I'm not a Nationalist, but...." left standing with their fingers up their bum as they realise that they've been hoodwinked by a Nationalist movement.

[aussieh]

How on earth will the SNP be able to continue their claim of being a party of the left if they actually had to go up against Labour led by Corbyn?

 

I wonder how wee Nicki would explain away doing nothing to tackle poverty, except mention austerity and Tory cuts twice a day.

 

Scottish left wingers, who have been giving it " I'm not a Nationalist, but...." left standing with their fingers up their bum as they realise that they've been hoodwinked by a Nationalist movement.

Nonsense.

Why is wanting to run our own country being hoodwinked.

Why dont the UK government move the nuclear base to the Thames.

Afterall, all their enemies come from the east.

And we can pump the oil out of the clyde.