DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Lets take Ian Woods latest assertion at face value and say there is 20-25 years of North Sea Oil left and we vote No to independence. Are we looking forward to the English referendum on independence in 2040 when the Oil is exhausted and Scotland really has become a subsidy junkie within the UK? Lets take control and responsibility for our own future now. Woods didn't say that oil was running out - his figures reflected what he saw as recoverble reserves given current technology and potential technological developments. Listening to him on the radio yesterday the emphasis was very much on the drop in production levels and fall in exploration investment. For any government I think that is a serious concern - we have oil but are not extracting it at the rate we could nor finding undiscovered recoverable reserves at the rate we should. What's also concerning is that the OBR, which has been criticised by nationalists for underestimating reserves, has over-estimated oil revenue income in previous reports when compared to actual income. The SG themselves couldn't even manage to predict revenue a year in advance. Budgetting on the basis of unreliable forecasts is a mug's game imho. Oil revenue certainly should not be allocated until it's actually received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 As does Scotland. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 So you can't provide the figures I asked for, H_B? I figured as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 What percentage of the Scottish economy do oil and gas revenues form on a geographical basis? I look forward to your weaselly reply that you don't have time to look this up. Off the top off my head it's about 16% on average. The other ~84% is equivalent to 99% of the UK's economy, in the example the UK economy is your salary, that's the part you don't understand/choose to overlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Pooer hb is making a complete arse of himself here,mr bairn will be along shortly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Well, it means an iScotland would be enormously reliant on oil revenue to pay the bills. The UK certainly isn't. "Over the past five years the average annual tax revenue from oil and gas has been £9.4bn. This represents only 1.7% of onshore tax revenues for the UK in 2011-12 but 20% of onshore tax revenues for Scotland." Professor David Bell noted that the volatility of oil-based tax revenues makes "longer term planning for public services … pretty fraught http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15206.htm#note94 Now I know that economics isn't really your thing. But look at these numbers that you have quoted and tell me why there is something obviously wrong with them. If you can't work it out then, to save yourself future ridicule, I would suggest that you stop posting on financial matters as you are starting to make Reynard look economically literate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 No, the bonus is not guaranteed, in 20 or 30 years the bonus might be removed but you'll still be on 99% of your original salary. It will be up to you to increase your salary and/or cut your spending in the intervening 20 or 30 years, it would probably be a good idea if you saved most of your bonus in the good years. Well put. Comparing GER figures, the UK is the 18th wealthiest nation in the world. Scotland would be the 14th wealthiest nation. Even without oil and gas we would still be wealthier per head than many EU nations. However we do have oil and gas. So why exclude it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 London already does subsidise the UK. Why can't it pay for it's own infrastructure then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Saw this. If we vote Yes are we really prepared to shoulder this burden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintZorro Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Saw this. If we vote Yes are we really prepared to shoulder this burden? That's an incorrect quote should be EU not Europe. Norway has quite a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 We will manage in the way that panama does - that appears to be the current aspiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 We will manage in the way that panama does - that appears to be the current aspiration. No it isn't. Stop making shit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 We will manage in the way that panama does - that appears to be the current aspiration. Desperation,its breaking out in the naesayers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Even the yes camp struggling to get their heads around that comparison - its getting filed beside 'arc of prosperity'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Even the yes camp struggling to get their heads around that comparison - its getting filed beside 'arc of prosperity'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Talking of desperation - another SG man breaks from the party line designed to dupe the Scottish people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28894505 Hard pushed to extract 15bn barrels - let alone the 24bn in the White Paper. 'Aspirational scenario' is perhaps the base line for all assertions about I Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Even the yes camp struggling to get their heads around that comparison - its getting filed beside 'arc of prosperity'. There WILL be a CU. Settle, petal. Talking of desperation - another SG man breaks from the party line designed to dupe the Scottish people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28894505 Hard pushed to extract 15bn barrels - let alone the 24bn in the White Paper. 'Aspirational scenario' is perhaps the base line for all assertions about I Scotland. At the risk of repeating myself: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Talking of desperation - another SG man breaks from the party line designed to dupe the Scottish people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28894505 Hard pushed to extract 15bn barrels - let alone the 24bn in the White Paper. 'Aspirational scenario' is perhaps the base line for all assertions about I Scotland. Its all a bonus in an indy scotland,but too wee too poor,you keep trotting out the lies and desperation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 There WILL be a CU. Settle, petal. At the risk of repeating myself: Both of you are missing the point completely. The level of reserves in the context of Scottish expenditure is not actually the real issue. I'd be more concerned about the 15-year decline in production and exploration investment being at an all time low. That's something that needs to be addressed irrespective of the referendum result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Both of you are missing the point completely. The level of reserves in the context of Scottish expenditure is not actually the real issue. I'd be more concerned about the 15-year decline in production and exploration investment being at an all time low. That's something that needs to be addressed irrespective of the referendum result. Hmm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21564947 North Sea oil investment at 30-year high, industry says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.