Scottish nationalists- a dodged bullet

slowmart

Pity really as we could have had the pleasure of bailing the scots out again. :roll:

Their whole plan for their economy was based on oil and gas revenues with oil at $120 a barrel against $56 currently. Gas prices aren't as bad but the drop is still painful.


2;1 in Economics who has more charisma than ability leading a bunch of Mel Gibson wannabe's




At least we don't have to listen to the whining that the energy prices are an English conspiracy post election, unless its from a certain Manc ………

pblakeney

Did you read the White Paper, or just get your info from Facebook?

Alex Salmond claimed the oil was the icing on the cake and at no point based the economy on oil.
Incidentally, this will hit us anyway.
Just wait for the outrage as BP announce lower corporation tax payments due to lower profits.
Most of the people that I know working in Aberdeen are not from Aberdeen. This means that as they get laid off they return home and claim benefits here. It is not a time to be smug.

slowmart

PBlakeney wrote:

Did you read the White Paper, or just get your info from Facebook?

Alex Salmond claimed the oil was the icing on the cake and at no point based the economy on oil.
Incidentally, this will hit us anyway.
Just wait for the outrage as BP announce lower corporation tax payments due to lower profits.
Most of the people that I know working in Aberdeen are not from Aberdeen. This means that as they get laid off they return home and claim benefits here. It is not a time to be smug.

North sea revenue represents 2% of the UK and represented just under 20% of the proposed SNP budget. Icing on the cake at 20%, thats a lot of icing even for that fat nationalist but i really don't rate his economic skill set.

While some people have been hit hard the net effect for the economy, here and the wider world is largely positive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... piral.html

No smugness just wondering what the SNP are truly thinking now the cold wind of reality blows through all the jingoistic BS that was spouted and the venom post election towards to grey vote who by their nature are more conservative in their view? Older and wiser comes to mind….

ballysmate

Scotland raises 53Bn and spends 65Bn

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13002991

White paper page 31

Do we depend on oil and gas to become independent?
No. Scotland’s economic output per head, even without oil
and gas, is virtually the same as the UK as a whole. So oil and
gas is a bonus. When we include the output of the North Sea,
Scotland produces almost a fifth more per head that the UK
average.

White paper was surely produced by Andrex.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Scotland raises 53Bn and spends 65Bn

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13002991

White paper page 31

Do we depend on oil and gas to become independent?
No. Scotland’s economic output per head, even without oil
and gas, is virtually the same as the UK as a whole. So oil and
gas is a bonus. When we include the output of the North Sea,
Scotland produces almost a fifth more per head that the UK
average.

White paper was surely produced by Andrex.

I do not understand that last point.
Yes, it is true that Scotland would operate with a deficit with or without oil.
But then so does almost every Country in the World, including the UK.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Scotland raises 53Bn and spends 65Bn

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13002991

White paper page 31

Do we depend on oil and gas to become independent?
No. Scotland’s economic output per head, even without oil
and gas, is virtually the same as the UK as a whole. So oil and
gas is a bonus. When we include the output of the North Sea,
Scotland produces almost a fifth more per head that the UK
average.

White paper was surely produced by Andrex.

I do not understand that last point.
Yes, it is true that Scotland would operate with a deficit with or without oil.
But then so does almost every Country in the World, including the UK.

I claimed it was produced by Andrex because it was only fit to wipe your ar5e with. It amounted to nothing more than a wish list.
It stated that there would be CU but hadn't sounded out the rUK
It assumed Scotland would be part of EU without asking.
The finances didn't add up.

SNP had been planning for 40 years for this referendum and this was the culmination of their thinking. Truly shocking.

Anyone who wants to read it for themselves.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00439021.pdf

pblakeney

Fair enough, it was optimistic to say the least.

Any less than the up and coming manifestos?

Ballysmate wrote:

It stated that there would be CU but hadn't sounded out the rUK
It assumed Scotland would be part of EU without asking.
The finances didn't add up.

They were gambling that rUK would cave in as in the case of independence it really would have been the best solution for both sides.
The EU would not negotiate with Scotland until it became an independent Country so claims either way were speculation. As Scotland is currently a member through the UK then it would be logical to allow admission. The only sticking point would be bitterness from rUK and Spain. That objection was quite feasible. Whether or not it would be negotiable with Scotland's natural resources will never be known.(If it happens in the future, so much will have changed that this debate is consigned to history).
No Mp's finances ever add up.

ballysmate

What's even more shocking is that the Yes camp still managed to get 45% :shock:

Alain Quay

" bailing the scots out again" (sic)

Visit much of central Scotland and it's easy to see why there's support for independence. Way too many
people on £20k p.a. The issue will run and run.

solosuperia

I do think the genie is out of the bottle now, That gun is being reloaded and another bullet will be on its way soon.
Give it another 5 years tops and the SNP will be calling for another referendum.
I think the best outcome would have been for the Scots to have got their independence as it isn't going to go away anytime soon, the whole circus will kick off again and again till they achieve it.
If the oil price remains depressed it may reduce the pressure for another stab at independence in the short term.

bompington

SoloSuperia wrote:

I think the best outcome would have been for the Scots to have got their independence

Not for the Scots, it wouldn't. Nor the rest of the UK, actually, for all the "better off rid of them" stuff, the whole UK would actually be diminished. In fact, the only people who would benefit would be the SNP nomenklatura.

rick_chasey

Prices go up and prices go down.

A degree in economics doesn't give you the ability to see into the future. They're not oracles. They can't accurately predict oil prices in the future. If they did, they wouldn't be in politics.

Criticising a government for not knowing that the world was going to see one of the largest oil price crashes in recent memory is a bit much, given no-one relevant saw it coming at the moment it did.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Prices go up and prices go down.

A degree in economics doesn't give you the ability to see into the future. They're not oracles. They can't accurately predict oil prices in the future. If they did, they wouldn't be in politics.

Criticising a government for not knowing that the world was going to see one of the largest oil price crashes in recent memory is a bit much, given no-one relevant saw it coming at the moment it did.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

thegreatdivide

Rick Chasey wrote:

Prices go up and prices go down.

A degree in economics doesn't give you the ability to see into the future. They're not oracles. They can't accurately predict oil prices in the future. If they did, they wouldn't be in politics.

Criticising a government for not knowing that the world was going to see one of the largest oil price crashes in recent memory is a bit much, given no-one relevant saw it coming at the moment it did.

What Rick said.

Sensible post in a dull Scots bashing topic. Get over it.

ballysmate

Not Scots bashing at all. I feel both Scotland and UK benefits from the Union. That said, if Scotland had decided YES then fine, go your own way. My problem was the fiction presented as fact by the SNP.
As I said earlier they had 40 years to prepare for the moment and produced a white paper that didn't bear scrutiny.
Scotland and its people deserved better.

tangled_metal

Well come September 18th 2014 Scotland will have the chance to vote. Will SNP win out and gain independence? Wish I had a crystal ball i'd put money on them losing the vote.

Hold on! It's February 3rd 2015, they've voted already. Why has this thread even been started? Didn't we have enough vitriol and pathetic arguments about who said what from both sides last year? Get over it all and move on. Scotland will get more devolution. England will get some measure to appease them over the Scottish and Welsh and Norn Ireland devolution (although that will be additional city councils if Labour win or EVEL if Tories win - neither appeals to me).

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Prices go up and prices go down.

A degree in economics doesn't give you the ability to see into the future. They're not oracles. They can't accurately predict oil prices in the future. If they did, they wouldn't be in politics.

Criticising a government for not knowing that the world was going to see one of the largest oil price crashes in recent memory is a bit much, given no-one relevant saw it coming at the moment it did.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

Well yeah, Oil's worth a lot.

it's 23% of Norway for example.

If you manage it well (like Norway has - with it's rather large sovereign wealth fund), rather than using oil revenue for tax cuts (which were enacted by the Westminster gov't in the '80s), then you create buffers during high oil price periods which soften the dips during low price periods.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Prices go up and prices go down.

A degree in economics doesn't give you the ability to see into the future. They're not oracles. They can't accurately predict oil prices in the future. If they did, they wouldn't be in politics.

Criticising a government for not knowing that the world was going to see one of the largest oil price crashes in recent memory is a bit much, given no-one relevant saw it coming at the moment it did.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

Well yeah, Oil's worth a lot.

it's 23% of Norway for example.

If you manage it well (like Norway has - with it's rather large sovereign wealth fund), rather than using oil revenue for tax cuts (which were enacted by the Westminster gov't in the '80s), then you create buffers during high oil price periods which soften the dips during low price periods.

Rick. The debate was about the future of Scotland, not the 80s. How do you set up an oil fund if you have already spent the oil money attempting to balance the econony's books? You can't use the same money twice. You can't use it to fund 15% of your spending and then tuck the same money under the matress.
Besides, all those who now think that a fund should have been set up in the 80s are they the same ones who would have clamoured for reduced public spending to fund it? What do you think?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well yeah, Oil's worth a lot.

it's 23% of Norway for example.

If you manage it well (like Norway has - with it's rather large sovereign wealth fund), rather than using oil revenue for tax cuts (which were enacted by the Westminster gov't in the '80s), then you create buffers during high oil price periods which soften the dips during low price periods.

Rick. The debate was about the future of Scotland, not the 80s. How do you set up an oil fund if you have already spent the oil money attempting to balance the econony's books? You can't use the same money twice. You can't use it to fund 15% of your spending and then tuck the same money under the matress.
Besides, all those who now think that a fund should have been set up in the 80s are they the same ones who would have clamoured for reduced public spending to fund it? What do you think?

A separatist would say that they'd rather Scotland choose what to do with oil revenues than Westminster. They'd also probably argue Scotland might have chosen differently to Westminster, but that's m00t.

I don't think your assumption that people who wanted a sovereign fund to store up oil profits would have clamoured for reduced public spending makes sense. I don't think the two are particularly related or relevant.

Ultimately I don't think the oil price is much to do with the separatist movement, nor is it a dodged bullet. Scotland receives income from the north sea oil because the UK does and Scotland is part of the UK, so when the oil income is reduced, the UK income, and by extension Scottish income, is also reduced.

Who took ownership of the oil was of course an important argument in the separatism debate. It would have a big impact on revenues for each part, but that's also m00t because it's not going to happen in the immediate future.

Low oil prices are bad for any oil producers. Scotland/UK happens to be an oil producer. That's not a separatist issue. That's an oil producing issue.

bompington

Yes, but it's a bit flippin' obvious that the higher the proportion of your revenue comes from oil, the worse it will be.

rick_chasey

Depends on the price of oil doesn't it?

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Depends on the price of oil doesn't it?

In which case I refer the Hon Gentleman to my earlier answer.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Depends on the price of oil doesn't it?

In which case I refer the Hon Gentleman to my earlier answer.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

We're going around in circles.

People whine when the price is low, think it's smart when the price is high. Was always thus.

You manage the volatility and make the most of it.

Still better to have 15% of your rev as oil than 15% less rev.

ballysmate

I don't think your assumption that people who wanted a sovereign fund to store up oil profits would have clamoured for reduced public spending makes sense. I don't think the two are particularly related or relevant.

I was trying to be ironic. The Nats who now suggest that an oil fund should have been set up would probably have been the ones squealing like stuck pigs if Westminster had hoarded money for a rainy day whilst unemployment was so high.
Of course the public spenditure and any oil fund are related. You must cut one to boost another.

seanoconn

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Depends on the price of oil doesn't it?

In which case I refer the Hon Gentleman to my earlier answer.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

We're going around in circles.

People whine when the price is low, think it's smart when the price is high. Was always thus.

You manage the volatility and make the most of it.

Still better to have 15% of your rev as oil than 15% less rev.

People tend go around in circles when they haven't got an answer.

Is it dangerous to pin your hopes on a volatile commodity to balance the books?

rick_chasey

seanoconn wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Depends on the price of oil doesn't it?

In which case I refer the Hon Gentleman to my earlier answer.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

We're going around in circles.

People whine when the price is low, think it's smart when the price is high. Was always thus.

You manage the volatility and make the most of it.

Still better to have 15% of your rev as oil than 15% less rev.

People tend go around in circles when they haven't got an answer.

Is it dangerous to pin your hopes on a volatile commodity to balance the books?

No. It just requires a bit more management.

What's the alternative? Don't drill it?

seanoconn

Rick Chasey wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Depends on the price of oil doesn't it?

In which case I refer the Hon Gentleman to my earlier answer.

That is true. But oil accounts for 15% of Scotland's revenue so to it is a dangerous situation to base your economy on such a volatile commodity. Nevermind stating that it is only a bonus - an outright falsehood.

We're going around in circles.

People whine when the price is low, think it's smart when the price is high. Was always thus.

You manage the volatility and make the most of it.

Still better to have 15% of your rev as oil than 15% less rev.

People tend go around in circles when they haven't got an answer.

Is it dangerous to pin your hopes on a volatile commodity to balance the books?

No. It just requires a bit more management.

What's the alternative? Don't drill it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Of course it's better to have but the point (as you know) is that it's dangerous to base a future economy on a volatile commodity.

ballysmate

Rick. Are you VTech in disguise?

(Sorry VTech, only joking!)

No one has said don't drill it. It is obviously an assett, but a volatile one, as has been shown recently. If you economy is based largely on the one commodity, you are at the mercy of any fluctuations.
It is argued that the drop in oil price is a net positive for the UK as we are a minor producer and the price drop has a knock on effect throughout the economy. eg Price at the pump.
Because we are such a small producer and oil accounts for a tiny fraction of our economy, all is well. If however it accounted for 15% and we saw revenue halve we would have a holein our finances of 7.5%.

slowmart

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately I don't think the oil price is much to do with the separatist movement, nor is it a dodged bullet. Scotland receives income from the north sea oil because the UK does and Scotland is part of the UK, so when the oil income is reduced, the UK income, and by extension Scottish income, is also reduced.

To be clear, this is not scot's bashing.

Oil has sweet FA to do with the SNP but in percentage terms the impact on an independent Scotland would have been significant. North sea revenue represents 2% of the UK's annual income and nearly 20% for an independent Scotland. Add job losses, lost NI and tax payments plus an increase in welfare costs. Decreased spending hitting every part of their economy. Maybe the SNP use the same accountants as Greece? How can that not be a dodged bullet?

What i find amazing is the fact that the SNP's argument was so incoherent and disjointed that it actually got enough traction and put the wind up Westminster. No alternative to using Sterling, automatic membership of the EU when both bodies stated that was not going to happen.


Now due to the labour party disarray north of the border and the Tories shooting their collective load in the 80"s the SNP has stepped into the void with promises of prosperity, self determination and a happy ever after perfect world. With the threat of the labour vote north of the border forecast to collapse labour are desperate to hang onto their votes and MP's which will be crucial in a hung parliament. So desperate in fact they use the money from south of the border to pay the electoral bribe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... efits.html


lovely idea Rick but Salmond is a bit thick at the best of times and he would have gone for the quick tactical win rather than store up a sound and stable balance sheet for the nation. Just look at his spending while in office and the lengths he has employed to avoid the public glare. Self interest and short term gain, exactly the profile and mindset we have from those muppets in westminster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-20538417
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... ses-972571

rick_chasey

Sure, but Scotland can't help it has such a large amount of oil in its territory can it?

It is what it is. Sure you want diversification, but if it's a small country and it's a large amount of oil, there's not much you can do.

You need to make predictions on future tax revenues at some point in order to plan for the future and invest etc.

Go to do it somehow. You build in the price risk into your model - you can take on a big oil hedge if you really want (though all you'd do that is make the criticism inverse to the price of oil in essence).

Just the way it is. Criticising Scotland for having lots of oil is a bit like criticising Switzerland for not having any coastline.

ballysmate

Holyrood has had the power to vary the tax rate and never used it.
A s stated above, AS was all for short term gain, blame Westminster blah blah.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-26630498