Scots Independence Referendum

[Swampy]

Why not have it independent? Why is that any more ridiculous than having Scotland independent?

It's not inherently more ridiculous. Perhaps one day the people of Glasgow will feel the same way as you do and their democratic wish can be granted.

[xbl]

Why not have it independent? Why is that any more ridiculous than having Scotland independent?

Do the people of Glasgow want to become a City State? At the moment there is absolutely no desire for this to happen. However, if they did, would you then insist that they stay within Scotland/UK, whether they wanted to or not? Or would you respect their democratic rights? I wouldn't say its more ridiculous. Not as practical sure, but not more ridiculous.

[doulikefish]

Exaggeration, but the point is there - we are about 10 years past peak production in the North Sea and output will be minimal by 2020.

oh are we???

oh will it????

a point thaty seems lost on a lot of people is that there is plenty production of off hull/yarmouth and blackpool mainly gas but still very profitable

[Wug]

oh are we???

oh will it????

a point thaty seems lost on a lot of people is that there is plenty production of off hull/yarmouth and blackpool mainly gas but still very profitable

(That's not Scotland)

[Disco Duck]

Look at BP's published Resources/Production ratio. We have around 40 years left, according to "official" figures but it's actually a bit more.

We have the "windiest" coastal conditions in the world - that's electricty sorted. We have 300 years left of coal resources - that's fuel sorted. We have some of the largest and technically brilliant businesses based in Aberdeen - tha's our future sorted. Scotland has a terrific basis on which to build a successful independent nation.

I would treat with extreme skepticism anything that BP says (look at the issues with Shell overstating its reserves in the past), but point taken. Nobody knows the size of the remaining reserves for certain, but everyone agrees that we have used more than half of them, and they WILL run out.

Ermm, you can't power a country by renewables alone, even if you could get tidal power to be economical to build. You need a source of baseload power.

Can't use the coal past 2016 unless you have a specific exemption from the LCPD - so that's us out of Europe then...

How many of the Aberdeen-based business are Scottish owned, or even Scottish-based plcs? I can only think of one of any size, and that's basically an outsourcer.

And none of these explain why Scotland would be better off...

[doulikefish]

(That's not Scotland)

i know

but the figure you see is probably for the whole uk sector or the whole north sea

the north sea is split into north and southern

and if production is going to be minimal i should have told my company that the scientists that ive been meeting all week are wrong they should have just came on p@b

[Disco Duck]

Do the people of Glasgow want to become a City State? At the moment there is absolutely no desire for this to happen. However, if they did, would you then insist that they stay within Scotland/UK, whether they wanted to or not? Or would you respect their democratic rights? I wouldn't say its more ridiculous. Not as practical sure, but not more ridiculous.

I would respect their democratic right, absolutely. At no point during this thread have I said a democratic right should be ignored.

[xbl]

I would treat with extreme skepticism anything that BP says (look at the issues with Shell overstating its reserves in the past), but point taken. Nobody knows the size of the remaining reserves for certain, but everyone agrees that we have used more than half of them, and they WILL run out.

And then we can be parasites! For London knows best!

[Swampy]

Can't use the coal past 2016 unless you have a specific exemption from the LCPD - so that's us out of Europe then...

What a ridiculous lie!

The LCPD does not say "thou shalt not burn coal." What it says is that old plants that don't have the convertor thingies fitted can't be used past 2015. So you can either upgrade your old ones and purchase offset credits, or you build new coal power plants that meet specification. Nowhere does the LCPD say that coal cannot be burnt to produce power.

edit: incidentally I think the SNP's opposition to nuclear power is asinine and short-sighted and I'd rather see us building nuclear power stations than coal ones.

[ICTChris]

I would vote 'No' in an independence referendum as I think that Scotland is well served by the Union. I haven't ever been convinced that I'd would in any way be better off by leaving the Union. If I thought I would be better off I'd vote for it. I don't really buy cultural arguments - it's all about the Benjamins, or Elizabeths in this case.

Also simply because borders increase in number doesn't mean that they increase in intensity. I think that the Baltic states in particular, being three small fragments, are now more open, prosperous and stable now than they were as part of the USSR.

As a union of nation-states the USSR is hardly a valid comparison to the UK. The Baltic states could have joined the Holy Roman Empire and been better off than they were under the Soviets. Weren't the Baltics never legally part of the Soviet Union anyway?

I fully agree with Shetland becoming independent though. As a second generation Shetlander I'd make aliyah and join the oil-fuelled Up-Helly-Ah raucousness.

[Swampy]

I would respect their democratic right, absolutely. At no point during this thread have I said a democratic right should be ignored.

Why assume even for a second that others would?

[Swampy]

As a union of nation-states the USSR is hardly a valid comparison to the UK. The Baltic states could have joined the Holy Roman Empire and been better off than they were under the Soviets. Weren't the Baltics never legally part of the Soviet Union anyway?

I was showing the flaw in the "fewer borders = better" argument. It isn't true and it never has been.

[Wug]

I would treat with extreme skepticism anything that BP says (look at the issues with Shell overstating its reserves in the past), but point taken. Nobody knows the size of the remaining reserves for certain, but everyone agrees that we have used more than half of them, and they WILL run out.

Ermm, you can't power a country by renewables alone, even if you could get tidal power to be economical to build. You need a source of baseload power.

Our base-load would be secured by the 60 years left of gas.

Can't use the coal past 2016 unless you have a specific exemption from the LCPD - so that's us out of Europe then...

Yes you can. Burn the coal, capture the CO2 and inject it into the remaining coal fields to produce methane. I know there's research on this subject currently being undertake with a view to using this on the coal fields under Falkirk.

How many of the Aberdeen-based business are Scottish owned, or even Scottish-based plcs? I can only think of one of any size, and that's basically an outsourcer.

They're all mainly listed on the stock-exchange. Could be owned by a bunch of Chinese for all I know. They do, however, have a vested interest in Scotland.

And none of these explain why Scotland would be better off...

It explains how we're not going to go into complete social and economical melt down when oil runs out if we are independent.

[ICTChris]

I was showing the flaw in the "fewer borders = better" argument. It isn't true and it never has been.

Of course, all cases should be considered on their merits.

[Disco Duck]

What a ridiculous lie!

The LCPD does not say "thou shalt not burn coal." What it says is that old plants that don't have the convertor thingies fitted can't be used past 2015. So you can either upgrade your old ones and purchase offset credits, or you build new coal power plants that meet specification. Nowhere does the LCPD say that coal cannot be burnt to produce power.

edit: incidentally I think the SNP's opposition to nuclear power is asinine and short-sighted and I'd rather see us building nuclear power stations than coal ones.

If you read the quote again, I said "unless you have a specific exemption" - I know all about the requirements to reduce carbon, SOx and NOx emissions. I'll thank you not to call me a liar.

Glad to see the edit, I would agree.

[Disco Duck]

Yes you can. Burn the coal, capture the CO2 and inject it into the remaining coal fields to produce methane. I know there's research on this subject currently being undertake with a view to using this on the coal fields under Falkirk.

Show me where this is being done commercially around the world. Anywhere.

[Swampy]

If you read the quote again, I said "unless you have a specific exemption" - I know all about the requirements to reduce carbon, SOx and NOx emissions. I'll thank you not to call me a liar.

Glad to see the edit, I would agree.

You don't need a specific exemption, because the exemption cases apply only to old plants (over two decades old.) If you're not a liar then you're mistaken.

And the SNP being against nuclear power is, sadly, populist pandering at its worst. It plays on peoples' fears while not being grounded the least bit in reason.

[Disco Duck]

Anyway, we're off at a bit of a tangent here. I'm off - spent far too much time here. Thanks for the debate guys.

For what it's worth, I think independence will happen, but mainly for xenophobic reasons than any other. It'll be a shame...

[Swampy]

Do you really envision, for example, an anti-English kristallnacht?

[Disco Duck]

You don't need a specific exemption, because the exemption cases apply only to old plants (over two decades old.)

Except there haven't been any new coal-fired plants built in the last two decades...