I'm sure oil and gas ownership has been discussed in here. Can anyone remember the best posts on it? A lot to wade through and I imagine this is one of the most important pieces of the puzzle. How will oil and gas fields be assigned and estimates on revenue remaining in real terms.
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The agreed upon line gives something like 90% of the North Sea oil to Scotland. I have seen a couple of articles disputing this, but it seems to be the agreed upon figure.
The estimates is a topic of some controversy - Alex Salmonds white paper stated (I believe) that there are some 1.5Tn barrels of oil left, but most other estimates have been far less than that by a factor or 3 or 4.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/08/north-sea-oil-economic-independence
That is the article I read which I thought summed it up well.
The other topic of some relevance here is about the Highland Islands like the Orknays. It has been mentioned that plenty of the islanders don't really regard themselves as Scottish at all and associate more as Scandinavian - and by the same lines these Islands actually control about 65% of the "Scottish" oil. Whilst nothing has been suggested yet, it isn't completely out of contention I would argue that the islanders may not want to be part of an independent Scotland and could look for some sort of separation, in my opinion.
I think I mentioned that a bit back but can't be bothered to check the thread
That would make an interesting development, if true.
I wanted to give my opinion this for quite some time, but never found the courage to post here as an outsider. But well, I'm quite into politics, doing my masters degree right now and it's the most interesting topic in european politics right now.
This thread, to me, sums up the problems of both campaigns. On the one said the Yes-Campaign. I can understand to some point the appeal this possesses. Scotland has been independent for a long time and prevailed its identity through centurys. At the moment, there are a lot of political differences with the mainland as well. And yes, it's never been the same like Germany: like Bismarck said, the building of a united nation probably relies on more on iron and blood than anything else. We fought to become a nation, Great Britain never did. Scotland is, quintessentially, a colony within a union. Scots have every right to be independent But this union has proven successfull for quite a long time and even if you have the feeling you do not profit from it right now, you will probably find yourselves on the wrong side of history in some decades: if you may be in trouble in the future and England shines, they won't be there to help you. Something Bavaria always understood, they now very well why they are where they are and that it's decided in centurys if you profit from a union or not. You can't forsee the future, but there will be no turning back. There may be hardships to come through, scots have to be ready for this and should think about it deeply.
Than, well, the No-Campaign. There's no vision in it, non at all. There's calls for useless scottish nationalism, that yes-voters are stupid and simpletons, but as I laid out, this really isn't the point. There are good reasons for it. Problem is, a lot of english people call out for yes-voters being anti-english while being quite anti-scotish in return. Every nation has its different sub-divisions, different cultures. It's all about a general idea to unite them all despite differences, a common house everybody agrees and wants to live in while probably having his own room in it, just sharing the kitchen (Economy and ressources) and shithouse (wars, crisis etc.). The yes-campaign fails to give answers to the question what this idea might be. Instead, it seems to me that the call for the union by the english is quite selfish: it founds on fear to become even more irrelevant in the world, seeing Scotland as an asset, some kind of colony on which england profits after all and which is necessary to prevail the last remnants of the golden age of the empire. You don't invite the scots to stay in the union, you are threatening with the consequences if they don't. One can't get peoples heart by doing this.
Would I vote yes being scottish? I don't know, I would be splitted between opinions. But after all, as someone studying politics, I don't think seperation is a solution to most problems. And where will it end?
This thread, to me, sums up the problems of both campaigns. On the one said the Yes-Campaign. I can understand to some point the appeal this possesses. Scotland has been independent for a long time and prevailed its identity through centurys. At the moment, there are a lot of political differences with the mainland as well. And yes, it's never been the same like Germany: like Bismarck said, the building of a united nation probably relies on more on iron and blood than anything else. We fought to become a nation, Great Britain never did. Scotland is, quintessentially, a colony within a union. Scots have every right to be independent But this union has proven successfull for quite a long time and even if you have the feeling you do not profit from it right now, you will probably find yourselves on the wrong side of history in some decades: if you may be in trouble in the future and England shines, they won't be there to help you. Something Bavaria always understood, they now very well why they are where they are and that it's decided in centurys if you profit from a union or not. You can't forsee the future, but there will be no turning back. There may be hardships to come through, scots have to be ready for this and should think about it deeply.
Than, well, the No-Campaign. There's no vision in it, non at all. There's calls for useless scottish nationalism, that yes-voters are stupid and simpletons, but as I laid out, this really isn't the point. There are good reasons for it. Problem is, a lot of english people call out for yes-voters being anti-english while being quite anti-scotish in return. Every nation has its different sub-divisions, different cultures. It's all about a general idea to unite them all despite differences, a common house everybody agrees and wants to live in while probably having his own room in it, just sharing the kitchen (Economy and ressources) and shithouse (wars, crisis etc.). The yes-campaign fails to give answers to the question what this idea might be. Instead, it seems to me that the call for the union by the english is quite selfish: it founds on fear to become even more irrelevant in the world, seeing Scotland as an asset, some kind of colony on which england profits after all and which is necessary to prevail the last remnants of the golden age of the empire. You don't invite the scots to stay in the union, you are threatening with the consequences if they don't. One can't get peoples heart by doing this.
Would I vote yes being scottish? I don't know, I would be splitted between opinions. But after all, as someone studying politics, I don't think seperation is a solution to most problems. And where will it end?
Personally I don't think the majority of Scots are simpletons or stupid at all, far from it. I do think though they are being led down a road with a very uncertain future by a leader who is very anti-English and expert at stirring up similar feelings amongst the population and that can't be a good thing. To me the sums just do not add up and the fact Salmond fails to answer difficult questions on this subject would lead me question whether this dream of independence is just that...a dream.
Who gets what from the oil is up for negotiation between the governments - depends whether it is judged by population where Scotland get very little or by using the lines drawn up for the fishing boundaries where Scotland would get anything between 73% & 90%.
To me it looks as though Salmond is basing a huge amount of Scotland's future on the income from oil and as revenues are declining over the long term I don't see how that gap can be plugged.
Public spending per person has been higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK and roughly 20% greater than in England due to fewer people living in each area which increases the cost of providing the same level of public service activity and a greater need for some public services, such as in health and housing, relative to the rest of the UK.
The revenue of an independent Scotland, assuming a geographical share of North Sea revenues, would be dependent on future oil and gas prices – which are very unpredictable – and resources, which are expected to run out over the long-term. Using the last five years to illustrate this impact, the shortfall in revenue without any income from the North Sea would be an average of £8.1 billion per year.
I'm not sure how Salmond is planning to fund the spending commitments he is using to convince people to vote yes - the only way to fund his giveaway/bribe is to cut public spending and/or raise taxes.
Add this to the fact Scotland can't just simply walk away from repaying their share of the UK's debt and the additional problems such as being kicked out of NATO when Salmond evicts our nuclear defence from Scotland and just how long it will take Scotland to re-join the EU.
The question of what currency Salmond is going to use is still a HUGE unanswered question and quite how anyone can vote yes with this hanging over them is beyond me. If they negotiate with Cameron and keep the £ it will give power away to the UK over interest rates, if they keep the £ but don't negotiate they will again lose the right to negotiate interest rates and if they adopt the € they will have to answer to the European Central Bank when it comes to interest rates. The only way to keep their own control of interest rates is to have their own currency but with all the other funding problems they face I can't see how this can be achieved.
Who gets what from the oil is up for negotiation between the governments - depends whether it is judged by population where Scotland get very little or by using the lines drawn up for the fishing boundaries where Scotland would get anything between 73% & 90%.
To me it looks as though Salmond is basing a huge amount of Scotland's future on the income from oil and as revenues are declining over the long term I don't see how that gap can be plugged.
Public spending per person has been higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK and roughly 20% greater than in England due to fewer people living in each area which increases the cost of providing the same level of public service activity and a greater need for some public services, such as in health and housing, relative to the rest of the UK.
The revenue of an independent Scotland, assuming a geographical share of North Sea revenues, would be dependent on future oil and gas prices – which are very unpredictable – and resources, which are expected to run out over the long-term. Using the last five years to illustrate this impact, the shortfall in revenue without any income from the North Sea would be an average of £8.1 billion per year.
I'm not sure how Salmond is planning to fund the spending commitments he is using to convince people to vote yes - the only way to fund his giveaway/bribe is to cut public spending and/or raise taxes.
Add this to the fact Scotland can't just simply walk away from repaying their share of the UK's debt and the additional problems such as being kicked out of NATO when Salmond evicts our nuclear defence from Scotland and just how long it will take Scotland to re-join the EU.
The question of what currency Salmond is going to use is still a HUGE unanswered question and quite how anyone can vote yes with this hanging over them is beyond me. If they negotiate with Cameron and keep the £ it will give power away to the UK over interest rates, if they keep the £ but don't negotiate they will again lose the right to negotiate interest rates and if they adopt the € they will have to answer to the European Central Bank when it comes to interest rates. The only way to keep their own control of interest rates is to have their own currency but with all the other funding problems they face I can't see how this can be achieved.
Early Friday, potentially very early.
Some things are more important then 0.5% on your GDP. The economics arguments are bollocks, obviously things will be more uncertain, the whole point is to change the status quo, to follow their own path.
The Oil will run out whether they are part of the UK or not, which means their economy will have to do adapt no matter what. The north didn't get much help from the south when the mines were closed, being part of the Union won't necessarily help them any more then being alone when that time comes
They'll keep the pound, we run a bad enough trade defecit as it is, we can't afford to loose Scotlands money
The Oil will run out whether they are part of the UK or not, which means their economy will have to do adapt no matter what. The north didn't get much help from the south when the mines were closed, being part of the Union won't necessarily help them any more then being alone when that time comes
They'll keep the pound, we run a bad enough trade defecit as it is, we can't afford to loose Scotlands money
Good post.
I agree that the NO campaign is too negative and focuses on the problems with independence rather than the benefits of the Union- but it is hard to argue when the latter has been the status quo for centuries. Scotland knows what it is like in the Union, and thus if they remain in it, the future would be largely similar but with some more devolved powers.
One thing though is regarding a "right" to be independent. This may be a touchy subject but ultimately the Union was formed because Scotlant spent all tier money on a failing colony (in Panama I believe?) and were on the brink of collapse. They were not coerced into this Union, it was agreed as mutually beneficial. At what point then, how long must pass before suddenly they have a right to be independant again? How many years of Union did UKs bailout pay for? If after 6 months they had wanted separation again there I'm sure the UK would regard it as a very costly "investment".
I don't think anybody is contesting that the Scottish have their referendum, but having a right to independance is an interesting notion as then where does it stop? Does every county and Island have the same right? Scotland willingly entered into the Union for their own benefit, much of the benefit being financial - should we then demand that they pay this back if they leave the Union?
It opens up a difficult discussion in my opinion.
This is all very true. It's also rather dwarfed by the effect that the UK ceasing to be in recognisable form could have.
Because feeling comfortable being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not the same as feeling comfortable in the United Kingdom and England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A huge part of the UK identity goes. A Celtic part. A part that has very close ties to Northern Ireland. It would be a much more English dominated country, politically and culturally.
Of course, but it changes very little for us in the long term especially in the 'United Ireland' front.
I understand what you're getting at but it doesn't make sense, the main difference will be that we will now have a foreign country on our east coast just as we have one to the South(so to speak) one separated by water one by land . We may even have stronger border controls to stop immigrants entering the UK via Scotland.
In the short term the first minister of Wales has said that that major changes would have to be made to prevent England dominating a new United Kingdom, although the same hasn't been said from Perter Robinson or Martin McGuinness, rumours are that they have held private meetings to discuss such matters.
Obviously You can't just take Scotland out and expect the United Kingdom to continue as normal. The majority of MPs would be English based for a start, there would have to be a serious rethink so each country has a fair representation.
There will be changes, but a United Ireland will not be one if them.
I guess I'm more skeptical that the changes to prevent English domination would work. I think there would be major discomfort and the big difference between Northern Ireland and Wales is that there is, historically, an alternative. I think it would gradually get more and more attractive, over the years.
Maybe, only time will tell, however at the moment the other options are far from attractive
This thread is so infuriating. So much hypocrisy. Many of you say Yes voters are deluded and blinded and fail to acknowledge the risks etc yet you yourselves fail to acknowledge any of the positives of the other side. Even going as far to paint the oil in a negative light. Most countries don't have the luxury of it. It's a huge positive, nothing else. Like Sturgeon has said "we're talking about whether Scotland has lots of Oil or lots & lots of Oil". You say Yes voters are voting for the wrong reasons and it's fuelled by a hate of the English when just as many No voters are also voting for wrong reasons yet that draws no complaints or comments. You say it's just Yes voters who are antagonistic and violent, another piece of bullshit. Salmond's estimates are "lies" while anyone who comes out and voices their opinion that disagrees with his and their opinion is taken as fact. You say we'll be losing all the "strength and security" that the UK brings. Anyone would think we're thriving atm when they hear such nonsense.
The claims that Westminster is forcing companies to bully and scaremonger are rubbished yet they had the power to get Obama to say something on the subject that he didn't believe. The playing down or flat out denying that the BBC was biased in any way. I still just assume people were joking when they said that.
Some countries who are independent from Britain themselves yet since the referendum came to the fore they've been asked to voice concerns. I guess that's why the Australian PM came out with that lunatic speech about how anyone voting Yes is no friend of freedom. Yes. He actually said that. Perhaps next time he should do a little research into the history of the British Empire before he embarrasses himself by talking about "freedom" and "justice".
Better Together are still publishing leaflets through doors with the confirmed lies of Tesco prices. Salmond must be in charge of BT, eh? Lies? From the No side? Please!
As the young lassie on the debate said last night; If we're Better Together, why aren't we already Better Together? We're currently living the No vote.
Hear, hear.
The claims that Westminster is forcing companies to bully and scaremonger are rubbished yet they had the power to get Obama to say something on the subject that he didn't believe. The playing down or flat out denying that the BBC was biased in any way. I still just assume people were joking when they said that.
Some countries who are independent from Britain themselves yet since the referendum came to the fore they've been asked to voice concerns. I guess that's why the Australian PM came out with that lunatic speech about how anyone voting Yes is no friend of freedom. Yes. He actually said that. Perhaps next time he should do a little research into the history of the British Empire before he embarrasses himself by talking about "freedom" and "justice".
Better Together are still publishing leaflets through doors with the confirmed lies of Tesco prices. Salmond must be in charge of BT, eh? Lies? From the No side? Please!
As the young lassie on the debate said last night; If we're Better Together, why aren't we already Better Together? We're currently living the No vote.
Hear, hear.
It's not even that threat of the oil running out which is the only risk of basing such a large part of the economy on it. If any of the big players decide they don't need to be keeping the barrel prices artificially high then Scotland could be in trouble. A lot of the North Sea oil is expensive to extract compared to so many other places. If we see the prices drop it'll reach the point where the oil isn't even worth extracting to the oil companies and they will move on elsewhere.
Getting nasty now. Yes voters being accused of bullying tactics.
To be fair, the state Russia is in under Putin doesn't point towards sinking oil prices. And one thing is for sure: In the long run there will never be a drop in oil prices ever again.
Whenever you hear stories of them calling 'No' voters traitors to Scotland and not true Scots, it isn't a surprise.
What a laugh.
Like I've already said, there's idiots on both sides who refuse to let people make up their own mind.
For anyone to think "bullying tactics" is exclusive to Yes is a bit of a joke, IMO.
No different from the perception and accusations that Yes voters are all nationalist, English-hating loonies who've seen Braveheart one too many times. It seems to be that Scottish Nationalism = Bad. British Nationalism = Good.
15 thousand No voters marched through the streets of Edinburgh on Saturday with anti-Catholic banners. That's a far more pressing issue than a handbags dispute about how "truly Scottish" someone is.
Actually quite a good speech by Cameron half an hour ago. Way to late though.
Think Cameron's got the strategy right. Stayed out, as much as possible, so as to limit the degree folk get sick of the sight of him, now making impassioned speeches at the crucial time.
Salmond, I reckon, is taking too high a profile at a time when the Yes campaign should be emphasising an 'of the people' non party political message.
Salmond, I reckon, is taking too high a profile at a time when the Yes campaign should be emphasising an 'of the people' non party political message.
I love how he builds an utterly irrelevant ad hominem attack on Deutsche Bank and RBS, concludes that they are in fact brilliant masterminds, and yet nonetheless disregards their advice.
I agree he's played the past few weeks very well and ultimately been quite noble in getting behind Labour leading the campaign, which he knows is more likely to be successful than if he tries to lead from the front. Just seen excerpts of his speech on C4 news as well, credit to him for acknowledging that both he and his govt. are temporary and if people don't like them, that's fine, but it's not a good argument to vote for Independence.
Would love some answers as to how Scotland is going to fund its spending commitments that already are acknowledged will put it into debt even with their share of oil revenues....god knows what will happen when the wells run dry.
It was blatant sarcasm in describing them as masterminds.
Any attack on them is not "utterly irrelevant" when their statements and actions could sway thousands of voters.
Scotland has huge renewable energy potential. Continuing to fund the research in the event of independence won't be straight-forward, but everyone knows how important it is. It's one if the SNP's core policies so I imagine it would remain a priority. On the energy front, there aren't many countries better positioned for the long term than Scotland, nevermind the oil.
My main concern with Scottish independence is that the English will no longer value what is left of the United Kingdom. There will be a feeling in England that without a complete and proper United Kingdom, it will make little difference if England is an independent country or part of a union with Wales and NI. And this might lead to a resentment of the perceived baggage of Wales and NI, eventually resulting in the Welsh and Northern Irish receiving an increasingly worse deal from Westminster in an even more England-dominated political environment until they are effectively pushed to go their separate ways. This will obviously be a bit more complicated with NI, but I can certainly see it happening as far as Wales is concerned.
Last edited:
Have you already seen this?
Im in the process of training to join the RAF regiment and one of the possible places i could be based would be in the very north of scotland which is the last place id like to go to!!! the only positive i can see from scottish independence is that i wouldnt have to be based up there!
Lossiemouth? Lovely place but boring as feck.
Alex Salmond highlighting the new Scottish currency here:
Yeah thats the one, i went there for adventure training and its 12 hours on a bus! I live in Wiltshire so bit of a drive to see the family haha
It's fun when they do the big combined training exercises with the Americans, all sorts of interesting aircraft show up.
That would be even more worrying than having no currency since the fat bastard would probably eat all their money.Alex Salmond highlighting the new Scottish currency here:
Someone on the PR team really needs to evaluate themselves here. Although the phrase fits the face nicely.
It was Cameron who said it had to be a Yes or No question. Salmond wanted more powers to be an option and it's one I feel would've won easily but because the polls were so heavily in favour of a No vote Cameron said no.