Scotland's Oil

[Mr.Bojangles]

I do agree that we need decentralised power in Scotland , and I'd like to see quasi-regional assemblies and stronger local government, but that's something for after the referendum.

[AberdeenBud]

 

Gutted for the Republic, if true. How will they ever handle it when the oil runs out?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrib_gas_project

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115520/Major-oil-discovery-coast-Ireland-just-time-St-Patricks-Day.html

What a terrible burden for the Irish people.

[MassiveFanDan]

It's interesting to look back on the analyses of Uk Government civil servants, as reported in a Tory unionist paper:

They calculated that Scots’ average income would increase by up to 30 per cent per head and it could be “credibly argued” that repealing the Act of Union was to Scotland’s advantage.

England would have faced “difficult years” of adjustment following the break-up, complete with higher taxes and unemployment, but would have bounced back relatively quickly.

http://www.telegraph...nt-records.html

.
On the subject of Shetland independence:

The vast majority of people in Shetland and Orkney believe the northern isles should remain part of Scotland.

An exclusive poll commissioned by the Press and Journal showed that 82% thought the current arrangements should be maintained.

A total of 8% of respondents said they thought the northern isles should break away from Scotland and 10% said they did not know.

http://www.pressandj...le.aspx/3201771

Awkward for some.

[MassiveFanDan]

A wee video on maritime border issues:

[Incognito]

Mr Bairn's posts make for very painful reading.

[Jamaldo]

Aberdeen would only want to become an independent state if the Scottish Government, under independence for Scotland, were to f**k them over big style in a similar fashion to what is happening under the current system. Don't see it to be honest.

If Westminster had Scotland's best interests at heart and were doing great things for us then there maybe wouldn't be a question of Scottish independence. They're not, so there is.

The Aberdeen independence thing is only raised by BT as a way of saying "Well, Aberdeen have all the oil and they might want independence so if that happens you'd be pretty screwed". It's desperation.

[Mr Bairn]

You seriously think the UK government sit around the coffee table and plan out ways to shaft Scotland?

[strichener]

You seriously think the UK government sit around the coffee table and plan out ways to shaft Scotland?

No they sit round the table working out the next way to keep middle England (Home counties and London) happy. If that involves fucking over every other area of the country, so much the better.

[AberdeenBud]

You seriously think the UK government sit around the coffee table and plan out ways to shaft Scotland?

McCrone.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Going by the SNP's commitments and the White Paper that flaming oil is going to have to stretch sone way.

Oil fund my arse.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

 

I think this is dead as a better together argument, even if it only lasts 50-odd years, which is pretty likely, that is still 50 years in which to build up our national resources, and develop renewables which would not only shoulder the economic blow of losing the oil, but the blow to society.

 

I would like Scotland to remain under London rule, but I think using the fact that the oil is finite as a BT argument, is dead.

It is an argument if the Nats spend it like water. There is fekk all chance of building up an oil fund like Norway's whilst their spending commitments are there.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I think the oil is ours.

Actually it isn't. You are forgettinf that unlike Norway our oil industry is entirely privatised.

[AberdeenBud]

It is an argument if the Nats spend it like water. There is fekk all chance of building up an oil fund like Norway's whilst their spending commitments are there.

Thanks to Westminster there's virtually no chance of building up and oil fund like Norway's.

That's exactly why we shouldn't allow them to waste anymore of this precious and finite resource.

"discovered, extracted, squandered."

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Thanks to Westminster there's virtually no chance of building up and oil fund like Norway's.

That's exactly why we shouldn't allow them to waste anymore of this precious and finite resource.

"discovered, extracted, squandered."

So swapping one set of chancers for another will do what?

[bunkmedal]

Aberdeen would only want to become an independent state if the Scottish Government, under independence for Scotland, were to f**k them over big style in a similar fashion to what is happening under the current system. Don't see it to be honest.

If Westminster had Scotland's best interests at heart and were doing great things for us then there maybe wouldn't be a question of Scottish independence. They're not, so there is.

The Aberdeen independence thing is only raised by BT as a way of saying "Well, Aberdeen have all the oil and they might want independence so if that happens you'd be pretty screwed". It's desperation.

I agree that the argument about Aberdeen becoming independent is a nonsense, but people do make these "we're unfairly treated" arguments in Aberdeen on a regular basis. I've heard more of my mates moaning about the Scottish government choosing to spend money doing up Glasgow's Subway network than I have about anything to do with Westminster.

None of this really has anything to do with how a region/country is actually treated. It's a cultural issue, not an economic one. Aberdonians like moaning about Weegies, and Weegies like moaning about Londoners. I certainly don't recognise the anti-Scottish agenda in Westminster that you seem to see - no more than I recognise the anti-Aberdeen agenda in Holyrood that half my mates keep bleating on about.

[ayrmad]

Actually it isn't. You are forgettinf that unlike Norway our oil industry is entirely privatised.

We get the tax from it, it's ours.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

We get the tax from it, it's ours.

But not as much as the Norwegians who still own Statoil.

[AberdeenBud]

So swapping one set of chancers for another will do what?

Even if that's all we were doing, which it's not, it would still ensure all our O&G revenues were spent in Scotland instead of things such as a fast train for middle England.

[ayrmad]

But not as much as the Norwegians who still own Statoil.

Who cares if Norway earn more from there's, we don't need to be greedy with ours, pegging it to giving us a similar spend pro rata to rUK and investing the rest would do me fine, it ain't going to happen under Westminster, they spend quicker than they make.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Who cares if Norway earn more from there's, we don't need to be greedy with ours, pegging it to giving us a similar spend pro rata to rUK and investing the rest would do me fine, it ain't going to happen under Westminster, they spend quicker than they make.

Norway took over 40 years to build their fund - having Statoil remaining nationalised meant that that a substantially larger share was able to be reinvested than ever could have been achieved if it had been privatised.

The squandering of the oil inheritance wasn't due to Westminster but a Tory party hell-bent on selling off the family silver.

Even with pro rata spending and supposedly reinvesting the difference it would take a lot longer than 40 years to build up a fund like Norway's. Even the most diehard of nationalist politicians know deep down that oil revenuesate only a stop-gap solution - that fundamental restructuring of the Scottish economy is what is actually required for an independent Scotland to thrive.

That all being said - this decision should never be about economics - despite what the No campaign says - for me it is purely a political decision.