Scottish independence - The real issue

Briggo

Well after reading a lot of crap on this whole ridiculous debacle, my opinion is - Go for it ye Scottish folk, see how suddenly everything will change and you'll all become rich, have brilliant laws and legislation in place and the whole world will become envious of Scotland.

Or what probably would happen is not a lot different to how it currently is today, some taxes and spending might get swapped around but for the average joe things will be the same.

I suspect this is all just about you wanting Murray for yourself, it's the only logical reason.

poah

Briggo wrote:

Well after reading a lot of crap on this whole ridiculous debacle, my opinion is - Go for it ye Scottish folk, see how suddenly everything will change and you'll all become rich, have brilliant laws and legislation in place and the whole world will become envious of Scotland.

Or what probably would happen is not a lot different to how it currently is today, some taxes and spending might get swapped around but for the average joe things will be the same.

I suspect this is all just about you wanting Murray for yourself, it's the only logical reason.

we already set our own laws

Northwind

thekickingmule wrote:

We'd also pass on our fair share of our debts too, so that would take out some or most of the £41b.

No, it wouldn't- it's already assumed and taken into account that Scotland will take its share of the national debt. It's just that the No campaign and the UK government like to throw scary debt numbers around and ignore assets.

A fact you don't hear much of- even if Scotland takes an exact population split of the national debt- the worst case scenario- we still end up with a far better debt/gdp ratio than we have today as part of the UK, because Scotland's GDP is dragged down by the lower UK average. Scotland's deficit is also lower than the UK. If the national debt is split along the fairer lines of where it is owed, Scotland comes out better still (because weirdly, even though lots of cabbies and other assorted fuds think Scotland is subsidised, a disproportionately small amount of the national debt is attributable to Scotland- we get less than our share, and have done since records began)

thekickingmule

Northwind wrote:

the worst case scenario- we still end up with a far better debt/gdp ratio than we have today as part of the UK, because Scotland's GDP is dragged down by the lower UK average. Scotland's deficit is also lower than the UK.

That's only when taking the oil arguement into account, if you take that out, it drops dramatically. I think Salmond needs to put much more detail into his manifesto as he's at risk of losing BP, who are worried about a lot of details they're not being told. The arguement as to who owns the waters the oil is in has (apparently) not yet been fought. That's going to be ugly as I'm pretty sure neither countries will back down.

Northwind

thekickingmule wrote:

The arguement as to who owns the waters the oil is in has (apparently) not yet been fought. That's going to be ugly as I'm pretty sure neither countries will back down.

Nah, there's no fight to be fought, the UN convention on the law of the sea makes it all very simple.

It doesn't really make sense to not include the oil. And the thing is, the scottish GDP figures are distorted by the fact that a disproportionate of "national" spending ends up in the south of england and provides a huge boost to the economy there, that scottish subsidy would end. There's also the incredibly messy question of company incorporation- and tbf nobody has a ****ing clue how that works out, as it stands a lot of revenues are simply considered to belong in London since that's where the company is based, and so get included in the RUK GDP- but post-independence that figure would reduce. By how much? God knows.

But anyway that's too many words, all I'm really saying is that money flows to London and gets treated as english gnp when it isn't really. It doesn't normally matter but it does when looking at independence economies.

BigAl

Sorry - I haven't read every post in this thread, so may be repeating, but

If Scotland goes, England & Wales will have a Tory government forever which, unless you are Lord Such-and-Such, will ultimately shaft you.

Scottish indepennce is truly madness. For all of us

thekickingmule

Northwind wrote:

There's also the incredibly messy question of company incorporation- and tbf nobody has a ****ing clue how that works out, as it stands a lot of revenues are simply considered to belong in London since that's where the company is based, and so get included in the RUK GDP- but post-independence that figure would reduce. By how much? God knows.

I think this is the real major problem with everything. The lack of planning by Salmond in this area is why many businesses are not commiting to saying Yes or No. They simply need clarification of certain things.

The City is so damn rich, and money flows through it so much, I really believe that Scotland would lose out on that. I completely agree that London takes all the money and considers it "English", but I'd go further and say that London takes the money and considers it "Londons"!

Briggo

POAH wrote:

Briggo wrote:

Well after reading a lot of crap on this whole ridiculous debacle, my opinion is - Go for it ye Scottish folk, see how suddenly everything will change and you'll all become rich, have brilliant laws and legislation in place and the whole world will become envious of Scotland.

Or what probably would happen is not a lot different to how it currently is today, some taxes and spending might get swapped around but for the average joe things will be the same.

I suspect this is all just about you wanting Murray for yourself, it's the only logical reason.

we already set our own laws

I know, my point is that your laws are virtually the same now so independence won't change much in that regards.

My conclusion is proven once agsin, its all about muzza.

bg13

I've got a few bricks knocking about the back yard, i reckon we could build the wall up again. But can we brick Carlisle into Scotchland?

Northwind

thekickingmule wrote:

The City is so damn rich, and money flows through it so much, I really believe that Scotland would lose out on that. I completely agree that London takes all the money and considers it "English", but I'd go further and say that London takes the money and considers it "Londons"!

That's kind of the point, all the regions already lose out- we can't lose it twice! But independence will rebalance that at least in part- we don't really know how much but there's no chance it gets worse.

And besides, none of this is taken into account in those GDP figures which show that even as is, Scotland is wealthier than the rest of the UK. So it's a case where the actual numbers will be better, but it's not that important for the argument since even the numbers we have make a good case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people that's offended by the fact that we subsidise the rest of the uk- the rich should support the less rich, that's how societies work. Though weirdly the current government is against doing that, except when it's Westminster that gets the benefit- god forbid we should do it for the poor though...

The bit that sucks is the constant chat about Scotland "getting more than their share", and now Westminster talking about revising the Barnett formula. Basically saying "You don't subsidise us enough!" We're supposed to feel grateful that after we give Westminster a sack of cash, we get a smaller sack back.

YeehaaMcgee

Thewaylander wrote:

I say use let them get go, then declare war and reconquer them, job done.

The Northern Monkey wrote:

A war about oil... the yanks would love to get in on that one.

Oh christ, imagine that, The Scots (one of the three fun parts of the UK) leave, and then we (well, you, the English), get the bloody yanks as neighbours.

Bozabyka

How can you have independence when you want to be ruled by Europe?

YeehaaMcgee

Bozabyka wrote:

How can you have independence when you want to be ruled by Europe?

It's like when your girlfriend left you, for another woman. She didn't want to be single, she just wanted someone who was more of a man.

The Rookie

I see no-one has yet mentioned the banks, remember when ace economist Salmond said that the independent Scotland would be funded by its strong financial sector, now it's oil (but only as long as Grangemouth keeps burning and turning is it worth enough), what will be the next magic lifeline?

cooldad

Music?

Scotland joining Eurovision would be ‘very difficult for everyone’




SCOTLAND’S bid to join Eurovision would be opposed by countries where people can hear, it has been claimed.

Manuel Barroso, the president of Eurovision, said: “The other members will not stand by while Scotland unleashes some kind of auto-tuned bagpipe shitfest.

“It would, no doubt, be performed by an ageing, kilted, softcore punk. I’m seeing horrible visions of a ‘Scottish Tenpole Tudor’.

“Either that or they’ll offer up Hue and Cry and expect us all to just sit there and take it.”

But Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, dismissed Mr Barroso, insisting he already has a detailed Eurovision plan, entitled The Coercion of Primal Scream


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 4021783678

YeehaaMcgee

The Rookie wrote:

I see no-one has yet mentioned the banks, remember when ace economist Salmond said that the independent Scotland would be funded by its strong financial sector, now it's oil (but only as long as Grangemouth keeps burning and turning is it worth enough), what will be the next magic lifeline?

I was pondering about this. So, the oil comes from Scotland, but it's picked (oil grows on sea-trees, right?) and bagged, then posted to refineries by private companies, right? (genuine question, no idea how it all works)
And I'm guessing that companies like BP and Shell aren't Scottish, so how would Scotland survive on the oil?

People round 'ere make the same argument for future Wales independence, by citing our power facilities as a viable source of income, whilst completely forgetting that our power stations are owned by the Americans, French, Japanese, and god only knows who else.

stubs

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

I see no-one has yet mentioned the banks, remember when ace economist Salmond said that the independent Scotland would be funded by its strong financial sector, now it's oil (but only as long as Grangemouth keeps burning and turning is it worth enough), what will be the next magic lifeline?

I was pondering about this. So, the oil comes from Scotland, but it's picked (oil grows on sea-trees, right?) and bagged, then posted to refineries by private companies, right? (genuine question, no idea how it all works)
And I'm guessing that companies like BP and Shell aren't Scottish, so how would Scotland survive on the oil?

People round 'ere make the same argument for future Wales independence, by citing our power facilities as a viable source of income, whilst completely forgetting that our power stations are owned by the Americans, French, Japanese, and god only knows who else.

i have seen estimates of between 10 and 15 years before the oil becomes uneconomical to extract. Salmonella is doing tricks with the oil he is assuming the price will remain high. With new finds in the Arctic and possibly more to come whos to say the price of a barrel wont drop. shrinking tax revenues arent going to pay for much more than an annual free deep fried Mars Bar for every jock after about 2025

YeehaaMcgee

stubs wrote:

i have seen estimates of between 10 and 15 years before the oil becomes uneconomical to extract.

Yep, and I saw estimates that iwas due to run out in the late 90s, then the early nineties, then the mid nineties, then the.... you get the idea.

None od that explains how Scotland is meant to capitalise on it though.

Northwind

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

None od that explains how Scotland is meant to capitalise on it though.

Same way the UK currently does- tax etc. Not to mention employment, spin-outs etc.

The current estimate is that roughly 1/4 of the known north sea oil reserves are still exploitable, which is more than enough to buy a used Scotland. Nobody believes it's going to stop being profitable to access within 15 years, the industry's still pouring money into development. Also we've seen from expiring fields and marginal-exploitation like tar sands that the idea of what's economic to extract changes constantly. TBF if we discovered oil equal to that value tomorrow, we'd shit our pants with joy so talking it down as a diminished resource seems daft.

As for oil prices dropping dramatically- yes, that's what happens when you run low on a critical resource.

There's also supposedly potential for new fields though I think you'd be daft to plan on that, it all sounds a bit unconvincing "Yeah there's totally oil there but the UK government banned us from drilling because it scared the submarines." Because after all the UK government was never very keen on nicking Scottish oil...

rockmonkeysc

Frankie Boyle made a good point. He said "I haven't heard any English people ask Scotland to stay but it's difficult to understand when they're talking through a snorkel"

Is it just me or is Alex Salmond an annoying to$$er? Whenever things don't go his way he just accuses the British government of bullying.

YeehaaMcgee

Northwind wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

None od that explains how Scotland is meant to capitalise on it though.

Same way the UK currently does- tax etc. Not to mention employment, spin-outs etc.

But these aren't Scottish companies. Can you elaborate?

Northwind

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

But these aren't Scottish companies. Can you elaborate?

Not really sure what you're getting at here- it's not essential that they be scottish. You pay tax and employ and spend where you operate, doesn't have to be a scottish company to be good for Scotland (though, lots of oil-support companies are Scottish)

wilberforce

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Is it just me or is Alex Salmond an annoying to$$er? Whenever things don't go his way he just accuses the British government of bullying.

He is even more annoying than the likes of Cameron, Milliband and all the other self centred expense cheating crowd this side of the border

Northwind

To be fair, Henry Macleish agrees on the bullying and he's a unionist, labour, ex-first-minister and long-time Salmond opponent...

YeehaaMcgee

Northwind wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

But these aren't Scottish companies. Can you elaborate?

Not really sure what you're getting at here- it's not essential that they be scottish. You pay tax and employ and spend where you operate, doesn't have to be a scottish company to be good for Scotland (though, lots of oil-support companies are Scottish)

But the oil rigs are out in the north sea, how does Scotland lay claim to that?
BP, for example, is a British company so should, in theory be paying British taxes (not that any large company does, it seems). So, how is Scotland going to tax them, and for what?
I don't understand how it works, I asked you to elaborate. I'm not sure I can word the question any clearer.

Northwind

The rigs are in scottish national waters. It will all work, in short, exactly the same as it does today. Multinationals don't just return money to their home countries- lots of the oil companies aren't UK based.

cooldad

Most of them fiddle it through tax shelters etc anyway.

thekickingmule

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Northwind wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

But these aren't Scottish companies. Can you elaborate?

Not really sure what you're getting at here- it's not essential that they be scottish. You pay tax and employ and spend where you operate, doesn't have to be a scottish company to be good for Scotland (though, lots of oil-support companies are Scottish)

But the oil rigs are out in the north sea, how does Scotland lay claim to that?
BP, for example, is a British company so should, in theory be paying British taxes (not that any large company does, it seems). So, how is Scotland going to tax them, and for what?
I don't understand how it works, I asked you to elaborate. I'm not sure I can word the question any clearer.

You would pay to use the other countries resources, so you pay (through tax usually) to 'rent' the land. BP, as you say, aren't really based in Scotland, and they're not sure whether to stay in Scotland if they go independant. They do similar stuff abroad in the Middle East and Africa (as well as many other places).
The trouble would be if the companies currently housed in Scotland, moved their production to England for whatever reason, as then Scotland would lose out on the taxes these companies pay, and they would only be getting income from the oil companies drilling. Don't get me wrong, that would be a f**kton of money, but not as much as having the companies offices there as well.

Northwind

That would be a long pipe.

YeehaaMcgee

Northwind wrote:

The rigs are in scottish national waters. It will all work, in short, exactly the same as it does today. Multinationals don't just return money to their home countries- lots of the oil companies aren't UK based.

Is there such a thing as Scottish national waters?
I think I've already made it clear that I do NOT understand how it works today, so your explanation is as useful as a turd lollipop.