The people's republic of Scotland
- Thread starter SL6.5
- Start date
- Status
rick6point5
Well-Known Member
Not sure I understand why, but irrelevant of Yes or No vote ....Scotland still benefit from a whole selection of proposed improvements and demands & powers previously made which we agreed behind closed doors, not sure of the full list, it's on the web.
Could end up with a ..they have them so why can't we...spoilt child attitude debacle..
oh joy may just bu55er off somewhere else for a while
Could end up with a ..they have them so why can't we...spoilt child attitude debacle..
oh joy may just bu55er off somewhere else for a while
Jim Sillars always has spoken his mind.
Everyone,including business leaders,will be wondering how many others in the SNP feel the same way but are smart enough to keep quiet about it.
Salmond must be raging.
Crown him on the Stone of Destiny or crown him with it? Choose carefully it could make all the difference.
I'm not sure he even knew that turbines generated electricity. Perhaps he thought they just blew it to and fro.
I tried to explain the concept of the National Grid and trying to catch the wind in a blanket describes the task perfectly. I gave up.
And that's another thing: the National Grid. I take it Mr Salmond is better informed than my young friend from Kelso. He does know he'll have to snip the wires which cross Hadrian's Wall and reconnect them to a power source on his side, I suppose?
Paul at Fechan
Well-Known Member
bit surprised nobody has crowned him with a Glasgow kiss, get that on youratube!
oh edit.... really important this one
the yes campaign is based on really optimistic speculation at best but without question a hell of a lot of uncertainty and really poor maths that any school kid could tell Salmond was fishy
The NO THANKS campaign is based on FACTS and they all point to the yes camp being crazy nutters....
Last edited:
gerarddwatts
Well-Known Member
The Queen is in Glasgow where she bumps into Alex Salmond.
HM: “How nice to see you Mr Salmond”.
AS: “Nice to see you Ma’am. Now, what are we going to call Scotland when we win Independence?
How about calling it a Kingdom, and then I’ll be a King”?
HM: “No, we don’t like that idea Mr Salmond”.
AS: “Empire, and I'll be Emperor”?
HM: “No. I don’t think so Mr Salmond”.
AS: “OK, so how about calling it a Principality, and then I’ll be a Prince”?
HM: “No, Mr Salmond. May I suggest that we call it a Country?
HM: “How nice to see you Mr Salmond”.
AS: “Nice to see you Ma’am. Now, what are we going to call Scotland when we win Independence?
How about calling it a Kingdom, and then I’ll be a King”?
HM: “No, we don’t like that idea Mr Salmond”.
AS: “Empire, and I'll be Emperor”?
HM: “No. I don’t think so Mr Salmond”.
AS: “OK, so how about calling it a Principality, and then I’ll be a Prince”?
HM: “No, Mr Salmond. May I suggest that we call it a Country?
Taken from the UK Government Oil and Gas UK tables (a quick google will give you some truth):
"Significant production decline and increasing costs have led to total revenues from
UK oil and gas production dropping by 44% in 2012-13 and by 24% in 2013-14.
In the last two years Corporation Tax revenues have declined by 60% from £8.8
billion in 2011-12 to £3.6 billion in 2013-14 and Petroleum Revenue Tax by 45%
from £2.0 billion to £1.1 billion in 2013-14."
There, you can see that revenues are not going up, they're going down. Does everyone who thinks that oil revenue is going to dig us out of a hole understand that? There are many reasons for that, one being that the oil infrastructure in the North Sea is becoming aged, breaks down more frequently and requires more maintenance time to keep it safe. Once certain pieces of infrastructure break down, such as the major oil pipelines from the northern North Sea, getting out oil economically will become very hard. I really can't see revenues going up (unless the 100-years of oil off the west coast is actually found. I still think that the article written about this was written by an ardent nationalist trying to spread more disinformation, but I hope I'm wrong).
So, how can Alex keep the oil revenues coming in? If he increases oil taxation again (both Labour and the Tories have done that, raising corporation tax by 10% each time. After the second raise the investment in the North Sea went down significantly) all he will do is decrease the time until decommissioning. If he decreases tax to attract investment then he runs the risk that the overall tax take decreases. He could try targeted tax incentives, but whichever way you look at it it's likely that the oil tax will decrease. If it decreases at the rate that it has in the last two years then an independent Scotland relying on oil revenues would be goosed pretty quickly.
So, for those of you STILL thinking that oil is the great saver, and who choose to believe AS over Ian Wood (who has just completed a study which took several months looking into how the rapid decline can be reversed) it's time to wake up. Or just keep dreaming.
"Significant production decline and increasing costs have led to total revenues from
UK oil and gas production dropping by 44% in 2012-13 and by 24% in 2013-14.
In the last two years Corporation Tax revenues have declined by 60% from £8.8
billion in 2011-12 to £3.6 billion in 2013-14 and Petroleum Revenue Tax by 45%
from £2.0 billion to £1.1 billion in 2013-14."
There, you can see that revenues are not going up, they're going down. Does everyone who thinks that oil revenue is going to dig us out of a hole understand that? There are many reasons for that, one being that the oil infrastructure in the North Sea is becoming aged, breaks down more frequently and requires more maintenance time to keep it safe. Once certain pieces of infrastructure break down, such as the major oil pipelines from the northern North Sea, getting out oil economically will become very hard. I really can't see revenues going up (unless the 100-years of oil off the west coast is actually found. I still think that the article written about this was written by an ardent nationalist trying to spread more disinformation, but I hope I'm wrong).
So, how can Alex keep the oil revenues coming in? If he increases oil taxation again (both Labour and the Tories have done that, raising corporation tax by 10% each time. After the second raise the investment in the North Sea went down significantly) all he will do is decrease the time until decommissioning. If he decreases tax to attract investment then he runs the risk that the overall tax take decreases. He could try targeted tax incentives, but whichever way you look at it it's likely that the oil tax will decrease. If it decreases at the rate that it has in the last two years then an independent Scotland relying on oil revenues would be goosed pretty quickly.
So, for those of you STILL thinking that oil is the great saver, and who choose to believe AS over Ian Wood (who has just completed a study which took several months looking into how the rapid decline can be reversed) it's time to wake up. Or just keep dreaming.
howa243
Well-Known Member
What I find odd about this point is the fact that the Scottish seem to make great play about character, pride and flair. Yet seem to be happy to rely on a resource for which they can receive no acclaim. It is a natural resource and they/we are lucky to have it. The way it is spent is what's important. Dubai seems to have learnt that it needs to develop industries which are independent of oil but I am not sure Scotland has done this. I would want to be proud of what we have achieved not what we have under the ground.
Sorry Howa but that is another ridiculous post.
I do think however that you touch on an important factor and that is that revenues from any finite natural resource have to be utilised to best effect to build an alternative infrastructure during the glory days in order to maintain standards of living once that commodity begins to falter.
Unfortunately, for Scotland and oil, that time has long since past therefore oil cannot be relied upon for other than short term. Scotlands other main industry, financial services, looks like it could also be in potential trouble should the yes camp win, so I'm not sure how the country will be funded.
howa243
Well-Known Member
Ok so I accept that on occasion, I talk bollox. But you then seem to support my argument. Without oil and as you say financial services what other industries/services are being developed to take the slack.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...atchet-up-Scottish-independence-pressure.html
Shabz were is your fighting spirit do you think Englanders would put up with being second best not a chance. Your a wimp mate and should be ashamed to call your self Scottish (If you are)
I'm an Armstrong, I have 700 years of Border Riever behind me. We fight for whoever pays the most!
Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt.
Herbert Hoover
31st American president
Last edited:
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
Seemingly the oil only makes up around 10% of income, so while it is nice to have it will never bank roll the country, and the yes have missed a trick by not producing their books either ignoring oil altogether or with a more realistic/lower value for the oil.
Plenty of small similar size countries survive without oil.
As for 16 yr olds, i was amazed to read that the 16-18 yr old demographic was actually voting no more than yes, i was quite surprised too. Backfired a bit on the yes camp.
Finally in the paper the day about these financial institions moving their 'brass name tags' south, according to their statements thats exactly wot there doing and they say few jobs if any will be lost. So not quite the doom and gloom some on here were predicting.
I dare say this may change and there just trying to save face with there customers, but at the same time it is the obvious thing to do to guarantee they are covered by the BoE, althou it will mean scotland losses possibly future tax income from them
Plenty of small similar size countries survive without oil.
As for 16 yr olds, i was amazed to read that the 16-18 yr old demographic was actually voting no more than yes, i was quite surprised too. Backfired a bit on the yes camp.
Finally in the paper the day about these financial institions moving their 'brass name tags' south, according to their statements thats exactly wot there doing and they say few jobs if any will be lost. So not quite the doom and gloom some on here were predicting.
I dare say this may change and there just trying to save face with there customers, but at the same time it is the obvious thing to do to guarantee they are covered by the BoE, althou it will mean scotland losses possibly future tax income from them
Well, I didn't write the above article but is does sound sound kinda doomy and gloomy to me.
We Eck just needs to hide stuff like that from folk who have their eyes open and their brains switched on and muzzle people like Robert Peston and Nick Robinson for another 6 days.
An extract from the above link....
"Deutsche Bank said on Friday: “A Yes vote for Scottish independence on Thursday would go down in history as a political and economic mistake as large as Winston Churchill’s decision in 1925 to return the pound to the Gold Standard or the failure of the Federal Reserve to provide sufficient liquidity to the US banking system, which we now know brought on the Great Depression in the US.”
On second thoughts, there's no doom and gloom there at all
Last edited:
This fixation with oil speak volumes. The oil isn't in effect owned by Scotland, its owned - as a saleable commodity - by the private companies who extract it. Scotland just gets the tax receipts. Essentially then, an economy reliant on private oil extraction is an economy reliant on government spending. No change there then.
wivenhoe65
Well-Known Member
Mr Salmond compared next week’s Scottish referendum to the vote which brought an end to apartheid in South Africa.
a 'reply' from someone who apparently suffered due to apartheid
"What a racist debasement of the struggle for the liberation of black people in South Africa for Alex Salmond to cite it in support of a Yes vote. There is no apartheid in Scotland.My wife and I were political prisoners in South Africa (1964-67). Where are Scotland’s political prisoners, or its banned people (such as we both were), or its pass laws, its residential segregation, its separate public facilities, its death penalty, its exclusion of the majority from the vote?
Would you buy a used car from this snake-oil salesman? "
I did not actually think it was possible to despise Salmond more than i already did , but yep ,it is possible.
a 'reply' from someone who apparently suffered due to apartheid
"What a racist debasement of the struggle for the liberation of black people in South Africa for Alex Salmond to cite it in support of a Yes vote. There is no apartheid in Scotland.My wife and I were political prisoners in South Africa (1964-67). Where are Scotland’s political prisoners, or its banned people (such as we both were), or its pass laws, its residential segregation, its separate public facilities, its death penalty, its exclusion of the majority from the vote?
Would you buy a used car from this snake-oil salesman? "
I did not actually think it was possible to despise Salmond more than i already did , but yep ,it is possible.
- Status
Similar threads
