What a difference a "NO" makes!

[Oddquine]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-sudden-change-in-fortune/

 

In about five months,we appear to have gone from......“Scotland heading for a ‘Great Depression’ after a Yes vote   with Gordon Brown telling us that the Deutsche Bank report showed that Scotland was ‘in danger of falling through an economic trapdoor" 

to

The European regions that could be better off going it alone    in which Deutsche Bank, citing the likes of Flanders, Catalonia and Scotland, says that Many of Europe’s most prosperous regions could be better off by going it alone and abandoning the nation states of which they are currently a part.

 

As Rev Stu says   if independence would mean Scotland would be subject to a new Great Depression, yet still “better off” than if it stayed in the Union, our blood runs cold at what must be coming down the line for the UK.

 

I am struggling not to say........isn't that what we Yessers said all along? 

 

 

[+Fraz]

Charlie B inbound in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

[Scarlet Pimple]

BOOM-----Better Off Old Man.

[Charles Bannerman]

Charlie B inbound in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

Nope, I don't actually need to bother because the further the Reverend Whinge Over Skintland inserts himself into the same pigeonhole as The Krankies, The Alexander Brothers and See You Jimmy Wigs, the bigger the favour he does the Union all on his own, without any assistance from me.

So I'm just spending time instead on the highly entertaining CTO Olde Inverness forum and running about town on cut price fuel following the plunge in oil prices from Salmond's delusional $113 a barrel to the kind of level where this supposed infinite cash cow is now needing government tax concessions to make its exploration viable.

[Kingsmills]

 

Charlie B inbound in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

Nope, I don't actually need to bother because the further the Reverend Whinge Over Skintland inserts himself into the same pigeonhole as The Krankies, The Alexander Brothers and See You Jimmy Wigs, the bigger the favour he does the Union all on his own, without any assistance from me.

So I'm just spending time instead on the highly entertaining CTO Olde Inverness forum and running about town on cut price fuel following the plunge in oil prices from Salmond's delusional $113 a barrel to the kind of level where this supposed infinite cash cow is now needing government tax concessions to make its exploration viable.

 

For someone who 'doesn't need to bother' you rather seem to have gone to the bother of bothering...

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

Nope, I don't actually need to bother because the further the Reverend Whinge Over Skintland inserts himself into the same pigeonhole as The Krankies, The Alexander Brothers and See You Jimmy Wigs, the bigger the favour he does the Union all on his own, without any assistance from me.

 

So I'm just spending time instead on the highly entertaining CTO Olde Inverness forum and running about town on cut price fuel following the plunge in oil prices from Salmond's delusional $113 a barrel to the kind of level where this supposed infinite cash cow is now needing government tax concessions to make its exploration viable.

 

For someone who 'doesn't need to bother' you rather seem to have gone to the bother of bothering...

 

But without bothering nearly to the extent to which, for instance, Oddquine tends to bother!

Edited February 11, 2015 by Charles Bannerman

[robbylad]

I think it's delusional to believe that the price of oil won't soar back to the pre referendum prices.

[robbylad]

I see the price of petrol is slowly rising at the pumps again. Surely the price of oil isn't starting to rise? That can't be right. Ahem.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Same here in Canada. Petrol has gone up by 10 % already .

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

Nope, I don't actually need to bother because the further the Reverend Whinge Over Skintland inserts himself into the same pigeonhole as The Krankies, The Alexander Brothers and See You Jimmy Wigs, the bigger the favour he does the Union all on his own, without any assistance from me.

 

So I'm just spending time instead on the highly entertaining CTO Olde Inverness forum and running about town on cut price fuel following the plunge in oil prices from Salmond's delusional $113 a barrel to the kind of level where this supposed infinite cash cow is now needing government tax concessions to make its exploration viable.

 

For someone who 'doesn't need to bother' you rather seem to have gone to the bother of bothering...

 

But without bothering nearly to the extent to which, for instance, Oddquine tends to bother!

 

 

Oddquine is bothering because she is still very angry at the dishonest machinations of the Better Together Campaign;    because she will not accept that staying in the Union is the best thing for the future of Scotland and the Scottish people, although she accepts that until the next referendum, we are stuck with it;    and because, having accepted that we are stuck with it for the moment, and still being angry at the dishonest machinations of the Better Together Campaign, particularly regarding the VOW, she is now in the general election phase of trying to help make the best of a bad job...and that will not be accomplished if either the Tories or NuLabour get an outright majority in Westminster and there is not a strong SNP presence.

 

I note, Charles, you still make no effort to combat any information in posts but content yourself with snide remarks which rarely address the content or context of  posts made. Rev Stu may not be your cup of tea, and you may not agree with his conclusions .......but, unlike the unionist MSM you favour, he does at least make an effort to scrutinise the bottom burps of the non-SNP Westminster and Holyrood politicians and point out their inconsistencies, spin and downright lies.  If you are not simply trolling, the way to respond to posts which give verifiable information is to either give facts of equal import to negate those given..or explain where a mistake has been made in the interpretation of those facts and offer your alternative interpretation.

[IBM]

Keep it up Oddquine, it will be interesting to see what will happen after May

[Kingsmills]

Keep it up Oddquine, it will be interesting to see what will happen after May

First, it will be interesting to see what happens during May...

[IBM]

Westminster have already started throwing money at the highlands to try and keep Danny in his seat!

[+DoofersDad]

I do find the self righteous moral outrage of those who don't like the outcome of the referendum a little tiresome.  It wouldn't be so bad if it was justified but the reality is that the dishonesty of the YES campaign was simply mind boggling.  Charles is quite right to pour scorn on the Salmond and his crew bribing the Scottish electorate with his promises of jam tomorrow based on projections of sustained high oil prices which already have been shown to be false.  I would add that these bribes would also have required massive borrowing over and above fanciful oil revenue projections.   Not only that, but of course, Salmond couldn't even tell the electorate what currency we would use in an independent Scotland.  And I really don't see what "yessers" are complaining about the vow for.  It may not be delivering all that some had hoped for but it is delivering additional devolved powers which we have not had the opportunity to say whether we want or not. 

 

The "Yes" camp lost the referendum but are getting further devolved powers that have not been put to the electorate and yet they still keep whinging.  It really beggars belief.  I guess the tactic is to make themselves so unpopular with the rest of the UK that they will happily support independence just to get shot of them.  It may be a way to get independence but its not good for Scotland.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kingsmills]

I do find the self righteous moral outrage of those who don't like the outcome of the referendum a little tiresome.  It wouldn't be so bad if it was justified but the reality is that the dishonesty of the YES campaign was simply mind boggling.  Charles is quite right to pour scorn on the Salmond and his crew bribing the Scottish electorate with his promises of jam tomorrow based on projections of sustained high oil prices which already have been shown to be false.  I would add that these bribes would also have required massive borrowing over and above fanciful oil revenue projections.   Not only that, but of course, Salmond couldn't even tell the electorate what currency we would use in an independent Scotland.  And I really don't see what "yessers" are complaining about the vow for.  It may not be delivering all that some had hoped for but it is delivering additional devolved powers which we have not had the opportunity to say whether we want or not. 

 

The "Yes" camp lost the referendum but are getting further devolved powers that have not been put to the electorate and yet they still keep whinging.  It really beggars belief.  I guess the tactic is to make themselves so unpopular with the rest of the UK that they will happily support independence just to get shot of them.  It may be a way to get independence but its not good for Scotland.

Perhaps you would find it less tiresome if you focused on what the Yes campaign actually said and continues to say than what the Unionists say those backing independence say.

 

At no point did the Yes camp or the SNP say that an independent Scotland would be funded by oil. Scotland is one of the wealthiest country's in Europe and willbe one of the wealthiest nation states in Europe in due course. Oil wealth is of course bonus but it would be foolish to predicate an entire economy on such a volatile commodity. Despite what the tiresome and now rattled Unionists try to claim, fortunately an Independent Scotland will not have to.

 

What is tiresome is people living and working in Scotland and those born here constantly talking down their own country and their own countrymen as though we were some second or possibly third World economic basket case who would be wallowing in poverty were it not for the unselfish generosity of our unstintingly kind and benign Southern neighbour.

 

The proof of the worth of the independence pudding will be in the eating and although it has been delayed the dessert menu is still available and I am confident will e here to be consumed by the current young generation. Personally, I intend to stick around at least to witness it being served.

 

As for the Yes campaign making itself unpopular with the UK establishment, the fact that once respected institutions such as HMRC, the BBC and the Bank of England were prepared to break long standing rules on neutrality, honesty and impartiality seems to suggest that it is a cause that is unpopular enough with the establishment of the rest of the UK which is rather strange if Scotland is genuinely seen as an economic burden rather than an asset that they are desperate to keep helping to fund a political agenda that is increasingly out of kilter with the wishes and aspirations of most Scots.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Kingsmills

[+DoofersDad]

Of course an independent Scotland would not be funded on oil alone but the point here is that as most of the North Sea reserves are under Scottish waters, oil revenues would be very much more important to an independent Scottish economy than they are to the UK economy.  During the referendum we were constantly hearing charges that the Unionist parties wanted Scotland in the UK because of the oil revenues and yet we then get nationalists playing down the importance of oil revenues to the Scottish economy.  You can't have it both ways.

 

I haven't the time to look up the figures but the per capita revenue from oil in an independent Scotland would be about 8 times that of the current per capita income within the UK.  That makes it about 8 times more important to an independent Scottish economy than it is to the wider UK economy.  Add into that Salmond's absurd assumptions for the sustained price of oil and production levels and you get some idea of the irresponsibility of the SNP's proposed post independence spending binge which it used to buy votes from the poorest sections of our community.

 

Whether or not a post independence SNP Government would be irresponsible enough to actually implement the policies it used to bribe the electorate is debatable.  Without the level of oil revenues proposed they would have to borrow even more massively than they were proposing to do in any case.  Regardless of whether anyone would take the risk of lending the such sums, I doubt that even the SNP would actually throw the nation into the level of debt this would involve.

 

It's not a question of talking down Scotland.  In my experience those in the unionist camp and especially those who (unlike me) were born here, want what is best for Scotland.  What we share with those in the UK outside of Scotland is a belief that Scotland is better by being part of the UK and that the rest of the UK is better with Scotland as a part.  The heavy dependence of oil revenues in the Yes campaign's economic case followed by the massive volatility in the oil price since the referendum seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence that we really are better together.

 

 

[robbylad]

Massive volatility in the oil price isn't a new phenomenon. It was 50 dollars a barrel 6 years ago. I'm pretty sure if you go into a bookies and ask for a price on oil not going over 113 dollars in the next 6 years,they'll smile sweetly as they take your cash.

I may have misunderstood your point about revenue being 8 times higher in an independent Scotland. If I have, I'll apologise in advance.If you mean money coming in, it looks like you're suggesting that that's a problem. That's the line better together used when they asserted that oil is a burden to us.

Finally, I don't think it's credible to talk about massive borrowing when you look at the debt Westminster has got us into.

[Oddquine]

Of course an independent Scotland would not be funded on oil alone but the point here is that as most of the North Sea reserves are under Scottish waters, oil revenues would be very much more important to an independent Scottish economy than they are to the UK economy.  During the referendum we were constantly hearing charges that the Unionist parties wanted Scotland in the UK because of the oil revenues and yet we then get nationalists playing down the importance of oil revenues to the Scottish economy.  You can't have it both ways.

 

I haven't the time to look up the figures but the per capita revenue from oil in an independent Scotland would be about 8 times that of the current per capita income within the UK.  That makes it about 8 times more important to an independent Scottish economy than it is to the wider UK economy.  Add into that Salmond's absurd assumptions for the sustained price of oil and production levels and you get some idea of the irresponsibility of the SNP's proposed post independence spending binge which it used to buy votes from the poorest sections of our community.

 

Whether or not a post independence SNP Government would be irresponsible enough to actually implement the policies it used to bribe the electorate is debatable.  Without the level of oil revenues proposed they would have to borrow even more massively than they were proposing to do in any case.  Regardless of whether anyone would take the risk of lending the such sums, I doubt that even the SNP would actually throw the nation into the level of debt this would involve.

 

It's not a question of talking down Scotland.  In my experience those in the unionist camp and especially those who (unlike me) were born here, want what is best for Scotland.  What we share with those in the UK outside of Scotland is a belief that Scotland is better by being part of the UK and that the rest of the UK is better with Scotland as a part.  The heavy dependence of oil revenues in the Yes campaign's economic case followed by the massive volatility in the oil price since the referendum seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence that we really are better together.

 

It would only be 8 times more important if we used it to fund day to day expenditure, as Westminster has from the day the first barrel came onshore. The oil income, in fact, is a smaller proportion of Scotland's GDP than it is in Norway or Saudi, for example. Financial services would have been a bigger problem re GDP proportions, which was why I found it difficult to be overly worried as banks and insurance companies threatened to move their company registration/head offices to England. 

 

I have always wondered why reasonably intelligent people, as I am sure many unionists are, failed completely to notice that the "forecasts" of Scotland's inability to meet their obligations were based on Scotland having the same funding obligations as the UK has presently......ie  a share of the funding of 1350 legislators and their maintenance, a Defence budget including Trident, 200 + Foreign Embassies/Consular Offices (11 in the USA alone), around 450,000 Civil Servants, a debt approaching £1.4 trillion, an Income tax system which is so complicated as to be incapable of collecting all the income tax due, a benefits system not fit for purpose and which is currently predicated on subsidising employer profits, with tax credits the next biggest benefit cost after pensions, etc.

 

For your information, DD, Scottish tax revenues per head are almost the same as the UK average without oil, according to the IFS. We have a deficit currently mostly due to Westminster spending on Westminster priorities. Only the foolish would think that, having left the Union because it no longer works for us and our aspirations and priorities, any Scottish government would continue with the incompetent Westminster policies. 

 

I agree with your belief that the rest of the UK is better with Scotland as a part, if only as the Trident parking place and bombing ranges, but, despite the two year referendum process, I remain to be convinced with facts that Scotland is better by being part of the UK, though I am prepared to be convinced if you can produce anything other than the self-serving  dishonest rhetoric and threats produced by the Better Together Campaign.

 

The whole process reminded me of a controlling husband, whose wife wants a divorce, being abusive and miscalling her to her face, and to anyone who will listen, threatening her with the dire consequences he would deliberately put in place to ensure she would never have any life without him. That attitude, over the piece, made the Unionist pleas to "Stay with us, Scotland, we love you" extremely hard to swallow.......and is what still sticks in my throat, at least. 

Edited February 13, 2015 by Oddquine

[+DoofersDad]

Massive volatility in the oil price isn't a new phenomenon. It was 50 dollars a barrel 6 years ago. I'm pretty sure if you go into a bookies and ask for a price on oil not going over 113 dollars in the next 6 years,they'll smile sweetly as they take your cash.

I may have misunderstood your point about revenue being 8 times higher in an independent Scotland. If I have, I'll apologise in advance.If you mean money coming in, it looks like you're suggesting that that's a problem. That's the line better together used when they asserted that oil is a burden to us.

Finally, I don't think it's credible to talk about massive borrowing when you look at the debt Westminster has got us into.

For someone who is in favour of independence, you make a good case for the Union!

 

Yes.  Volatility in oil prices is nothing new.  That is why it is irresponsible of the SNP to budget on sustained high price and production levels.   The bookies would have smiled even more sweetly at Salmond had he gone to place a bet on the oil prices staying above $113 for the next 6 years. 

 

The point about the greater per capita proportion of oil revenues for a Scottish Government is that it is volatile.  It only becomes a problem when you have idiot politicians making national budgets based on unrealistic assumptions of sustained high price and production levels.  Used sensibly oil revenues are, of course a fantastic asset.  The sensible thing to do is to budget on conservative assumptions and then if revenues are higher you have the nice little problem of deciding what extra things you can do with the money. 

 

And I agree that it is not credible to talk about massive borrowing when you consider the debt Westminster has amassed.  But that is exactly what the SNP were planning to do.

 

I'll not comment on Oddquine's post in detail but I'll just make 2 points.  Firstly, regardless of all the various points made and the various UK priorities that might not be Scottish priorities, the fact remains that the spending plan the SNP put to the electorate in the referendum relied both on unrealistic assumptions about oil revenues and massive borrowing.  But that does not mean that I don't think a reasonable case could be made for Scotland to be a perfectly viable independent nation.  It was the sheer irresponsibility of the proposals used to buy votes that destroyed any thought for me that independence was a sensible choice at this time. 

 

The other point is this constant obsession with Westminster's failings and the implicit assumption that those of who voted "No" must somehow support all the things that the "Yes" voters dislike.  I am not a fan of the current Government or the Labour administration which so spectacularly mis-handled the economy before them.  But what I am not going to do is to support independence simply because I don't like the current UK Government.  Just because there is irresponsible Government at Westminster is no reason to condone irresponsible Government in Edinburgh.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Oh No! There's resumed r-oiling in the waters of the debate. It's choppy seas right now but in 6 months the Arabs will want to sell more oil and continue to fill their coffers which are already overflowing? So why?

 

Power and greed have always been a heady conjoined mixture on this planet. Enough is never enough...ever.

 

Roll on the rollicking roiling and the repetitive reactionary price fixing.  IT's a game that will never end. With the exchange rate for the pound into dollars is racing along on the crest of the upward wave, I am sitting tight as a bug in a rug and giving myself a hug.

 

I know it's an important issue but remember that King **** could not stop the waves coming in so .....

[Charles Bannerman]

 

I know it's an important issue but remember that King **** could not stop the waves coming in so .....

 

If you had spelt  that "Canute" instead of using the (more accurate) Scandinavian anagram of a certain four letter word, the site's swearyword blocker would probably have ignored it

[Scarlet Pimple]

Eh em aware of thet ,Mr Bannerman.  Has happened to me before  and a complaint will have to be lodged to fix this anomaly.

 

Does the site's blocker not consult Wikipedia  before acting?

[Alex MacLeod]

Mr Bannerman loves to jump on oil price. Yes its low at the moment but on friday 6th Feb the price hit a low of $48. Two weeks since its hovering around $62. An increase of close on 30%. The American fracking companies have cut production due to break even prices. Other companies around the world are cutting back on development. Many speculators are buying up tanker loads of crude and storing them till price rises again. Result of all that will be a shortage of available feedstocks for refining so price will rise further. ENI the Italian state oil company and OPEC both predict that prices will continue to rise and will peak at closer to $200 in the next couple of years.

 

As for the effects on the country, these wont change much. Oil companies operating in UK are taxed on the profits they make in this country and not on the barrel of production as is the case in Norway. Oil companies are cutting back on costs to try and maintain the profits for shareholders so, assuming they achieve that, they still make taxable profit similar to previous.

 

The big concern for government, and the reason they provide exploration subsidies, is the number of people affected by cutbacks. These are the people paying regular taxes who may now need the state to pay them.

 

So Charles, I'd suggest to you that, if you're going to babble a load of rubbish on a subject you don't have a clue about, you at least get a grasp of how things work. I also suggest that, given the negotiating timescale, the oil price would be back over $100 by the time full independence had come to fruition. I further suggest that it will come as a result of May elections 2015.