Scottish independence - The real issue

Thewaylander

There can be facilities on scottish soil as a branch but it can be set up so most of the business is in the UK and with current structures i would see this as the practicle approach.

this would reduce jobs in scotland andsome of the income. still what they would get wouldnt be small, but scotland is hardly oil country in comparison to other parts of the world.

Chunkers1980

Northwind wrote:

That would be a long pipe.

Just like my obvious.

Thewaylander

Thewaylander wrote:

There can be facilities on scottish soil as a branch but it can be set up so most of the business is in the UK and with current structures i would see this as the practicle approach.

this would reduce jobs in scotland andsome of the income. still what they would get wouldnt be small, but scotland is hardly oil country in comparison to other parts of the world.

but to help national waters maybe something like 7 miles, but for tax purposes its actually up to 100km now for business registered in the country (this is for tax and intrastat purposes)

arran77

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26195258

The sooner we let them have their independence the better :P

Sandy muir

arran77 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26195258

The sooner we let them have their independence the better :P

A sweeping statement Arran 77, and perhaps a tad racist.
We the Scots helped to build the Empire that once was Great Britain, as a Scot I am proud of my heritage and the achievments my fellow Scots have made over the years.
A wee bit of respect would be appropriate after all were would we cyclists be without the pneumatic tyre, invented by John Boyd Dunlop (1822–1873)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_i ... iscoveries

arran77

Sandy muir wrote:

arran77 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26195258

The sooner we let them have their independence the better :P

A sweeping statement Arran 77, and perhaps a tad racist.

The :P was a bit of a give away I thought

:roll:

Sandy muir

arran77 wrote:

Sandy muir wrote:

arran77 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26195258

The sooner we let them have their independence the better :P

A sweeping statement Arran 77, and perhaps a tad racist.

The :P was a bit of a give away I thought

:roll:

Aye fair point, so many of those wee icons.

So whats your exuse for never being off this forum, i have a rebuild arm and resting up.

arran77

Sandy muir wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Sandy muir wrote:

arran77 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26195258

The sooner we let them have their independence the better :P

A sweeping statement Arran 77, and perhaps a tad racist.

The :P was a bit of a give away I thought

:roll:

Aye fair point, so many of those wee icons.

So whats your exuse for never being off this forum, i have a rebuild arm and resting up.

I work

stubs

Just been speaking to my sister who lives in Stoneyburn West Lothian and she reckons a good half of the population hasnt made its mind up yet. I asked her if it was a straight majority of votes or a majority of the voting age population and she didnt have a clue.

I also asked about the oil thingy and she said unless you actually had an oil industry job you would be highly unlikely to see any benefit from oil money it would just disappear into the general tax pot and be wasted by the politicians as usual. She reckons Whisky is currently more important to the Scots economy than oil. Her final word on a possible future Scottish govt was google the scottish Parliament building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building#Problems

Northwind

stubs wrote:

I also asked about the oil thingy and she said unless you actually had an oil industry job you would be highly unlikely to see any benefit from oil money it would just disappear into the general tax pot and be wasted by the politicians as usual.

I'm sure she doesn't use roads, the NHS, schools, the police, or any of the other stuff politicians waste tax money? scottish oil has been a massive contributor to the UK for decades.

bompington

Northwind wrote:

stubs wrote:

I also asked about the oil thingy and she said unless you actually had an oil industry job you would be highly unlikely to see any benefit from oil money it would just disappear into the general tax pot and be wasted by the politicians as usual.

I'm sure she doesn't use roads, the NHS, schools, the police, or any of the other stuff politicians waste tax money? scottish oil has been a massive contributor to the UK for decades.

But it's not Scotland's oil, it's (mostly) Shetland's oil. Why should it pay for expensive parliament buildings in Edinburgh when it belongs to the Shetlanders?

Northwind

Is Shetland not part of Scotland then? They will be surprised.

bompington

Northwind wrote:

Is Shetland not part of Scotland then? They will be surprised.

Shetland has as much claim to be independent of Scotland as Scotland does of the UK, probably more. That's the trouble with nationalism, every nation state is to some extent arbitrary.

YeehaaMcgee

Thewaylander wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

There can be facilities on scottish soil as a branch but it can be set up so most of the business is in the UK and with current structures i would see this as the practicle approach.

this would reduce jobs in scotland andsome of the income. still what they would get wouldnt be small, but scotland is hardly oil country in comparison to other parts of the world.

but to help national waters maybe something like 7 miles, but for tax purposes its actually up to 100km now for business registered in the country (this is for tax and intrastat purposes)

What happens when a bit of sea is within 100km of more than one counrty? fight?

Sandy muir wrote:

A wee bit of respect would be appropriate after all were would we cyclists be without the pneumatic tyre,

Bugger off, you easily offended clunperdunk, this is the crudcatcher, where such mud flinging is pretty much allowed.

Thewaylander

no depends on where the company involved is registered in terms of tax.

YeehaaMcgee

Thewaylander wrote:

no depends on where the company involved is registered in terms of tax.

Right, so an English oil company, out in the national waters of Scotland, doesn't actually bring any revenue to Scotland?

Thewaylander

Depends on if they ship the oil through scotland but will be more logistical than any real income, there will be a lease on the seabed for a fair bit, but nothing compared to full tax revenue.

cooldad

I think they will pay something for the pleasure of drilling, and probably even employ the odd Scotsman, providing they can find some relatively sober.

arran77

cooldad wrote:

I think they will pay something for the pleasure of drilling, and probably even employ the odd Scotsman, providing they can find some relatively sober.

Plenty of 'em to choose from.

Northwind

bompington wrote:

Shetland has as much claim to be independent of Scotland as Scotland does of the UK, probably more. That's the trouble with nationalism, every nation state is to some extent arbitrary.

But they don't desire independence from Scotland, therefore, it is not important. And they couldn't support an oil industry in the islands even if they were to go independent- Sullom Voe employs less than 1000 people but it's already difficult to fill the roles because no bugger wants to work there, so transferring the half million oil industry jobs from Aberdeen would be a bit tricky. (population of shetland- 23,000). They're going to need a bigger boat.

bompington

Northwind wrote:

bompington wrote:

Shetland has as much claim to be independent of Scotland as Scotland does of the UK, probably more. That's the trouble with nationalism, every nation state is to some extent arbitrary.

But they don't desire independence from Scotland, therefore, it is not important. And they couldn't support an oil industry in the islands even if they were to go independent- Sullom Voe employs less than 1000 people but it's already difficult to fill the roles because no bugger wants to work there, so transferring the half million oil industry jobs from Aberdeen would be a bit tricky. (population of shetland- 23,000). They're going to need a bigger boat.

That's an impressive number of jobs in a city with a population of about 210,000

mak3m

If you seperate the North Sea into Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a convention used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes, international convention maritime boundaries extend along the line of the land border. Looking at the Scottish English land border this heads north east from Berwick pointing towards Bergen in Norway. A large proportion of the North Sea oil fields would under this scenario therefore belong to England not Scotland.

only popped in to see if there was any wankbankable material :roll:

Northwind

bompington wrote:

That's an impressive number of jobs in a city with a population of about 210,000

Hah, yes, brain freeze there.100000 oil jobs in Scotland not a half million. Still a bit more than Shetland can fit on their rock though.

mak3m wrote:

If you seperate the North Sea into Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a convention used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes, international convention maritime boundaries extend along the line of the land border.

Just because it says it on wikipedia doesn't mean it's true- the principle of equidistance isn't anything to do with the direction of the border, it apportions waters based on equidistance between the closest points of land. The clue is the word "equidistant" tbf.

YeehaaMcgee

Northwind wrote:

Just because it says it on wikipedia doesn't mean it's true

Damned straight it doesn't. It's only true if Northwind says it*



* or in case of Northwind's absence, a duly appointed headstrong Scottish substitute, preferably fuelled on iron girders and buckfast

Northwind

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Just because it says it on wikipedia doesn't mean it's true

Damned straight it doesn't. It's only true if Northwind says it

You can read the Convention if you like Or, you know, just ask what on earth the word "equidistant" has to do with the talk of extending the border out to sea in a line, it's obvious nonsense.

There's a room for give and take because equidistance isn't actually the only thing involved. There's a principal of equity too- because funny-shaped coastlines, islands etc can mess equidistance up. So you get like with Germany where the international courts ended up getting involved.

In practice, Scotland and the rest of the UK have pretty simple coastlines in the north sea so it's unlikely to be controversial- you're talking short distances here and there but nothing which would seriously impact the north sea oilfields which are all far into what would be the scottish economic zone by any definition.

Briggo

And then what happens when all of the oil & gas is gone in the North Sea.

Northwind

As it happens, without oil and gas the scottish economy ends up pretty similiar to how the UK economy is now- perhaps marginally lower on GDP but with substantially lower national debt and having had decades of extra money from oil and gas. Which we might have invested well like Norway (and unlike the UK), or we might have spent on useful things. Or possibly spunked it all on coke, hookers, and hundred foot high statues of Mel Gibson.

Briggo

Northwind wrote:

As it happens, without oil and gas the scottish economy ends up pretty similiar to how the UK economy is now- perhaps marginally lower on GDP but with substantially lower national debt and having had decades of extra money from oil and gas. Which we might have invested well like Norway (and unlike the UK), or we might have spent on useful things. Or possibly spunked it all on coke, hookers, and hundred foot high statues of Mel Gibson.

Marginally lower? Where do you get your facts from.

Salmondhasalltheanswers.com?

If Scotlands GDP would be marginally lower than the current UK GDP then why isn't our GDP double what it is... or are you referring to GDP % in relation to per head.

YeehaaMcgee

Northwind wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Just because it says it on wikipedia doesn't mean it's true

Damned straight it doesn't. It's only true if Northwind says it

You can read the Convention if you like Or, you know, just ask what on earth the word "equidistant" has to do with the talk of extending the border out to sea in a line, it's obvious nonsense.

So, the border does not extend out to the sea, in a line. How...
er.
what?
I think you're both moidering.

YeehaaMcgee

Briggo wrote:

Northwind wrote:

As it happens, without oil and gas the scottish economy ends up pretty similiar to how the UK economy is now- perhaps marginally lower on GDP but with substantially lower national debt and having had decades of extra money from oil and gas. Which we might have invested well like Norway (and unlike the UK), or we might have spent on useful things. Or possibly spunked it all on coke, hookers, and hundred foot high statues of Mel Gibson.

Marginally lower? Where do you get your facts from.

Salmondhasalltheanswers.com?

If Scotlands GDP would be marginally lower than the current UK GDP then why isn't our GDP double what it is... or are you referring to GDP % in relation to per head.

because

Briggo wrote:

without oil and gas...

I still don't don't understand why Scotland is set to have an economy based on gas and oil companies which aren't Scottish ones. Since it's taken this long, and all it's led to is an argument how national boundaries do not extend into the oceans, I'm going to go ahead and conclude that most of yous, like the politicians on both sides, are talking shite.