Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
lamboman100 said:
The last time Scotland tried to "play with the big boys" -- in banking, with RBS and BOS -- it nearly bankrupted the entire planet. Scotland is just not skilled or mature enough economically to survive and thrive on its own. Best to leave it to the real players in London to run things.
So you know the square root of sod all about than banking industries and those businesses 
jamieduff1981 said:
How exactly will that work - as you envision it?
Scottish Government establishes Scotoil who then obtain a stake in each license how exactly? By force?
Option A:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - the oil money - hand it over. If you don't like it, we'll go all Libya on you with our non-existant armed forces"
Option B:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - here's £XXX borrowed from Wonga.com for our 20% stake - they're the only people who will lend to us since we have no currency of our own and defaulted on our share of UK debt"
You do realise that the fundamental principle behind Statoil is that they get a % stake in every license as and when they are awarded to private sector owner/operators? Every NCS license is owned in part by Statoil. Not necessarily operated - but owned.
For your envisaged Scotoil, you need a mechanism to retrieve ownership from the organisations the licenses were sold to.
Can I just point out that the current levels of overtaxation of the oil and gas industry have impacted exploration? To be specific, the industry is struggling along with massive maintenance costs whilst the development side of the market in the UKCS is dying a death. Taxation needs to be reduced to make the UKCS an attractive place to invest or else it's just going to close down. Scotland will not be able to milk anything else out of that industry - but that doesn't mean it's worthless - quite the contrary. Even just surviving it's keeping tens of thousands of people all across the UK gainfully employed in the tax-paying private sector where they then spend their earnings on other things within the UK such as cars, resturants etc etc.
It's not the cash-cow the SNP (or most of the public who also know nothing about it) think it is.
Although it wouldn't help in existing fields, when new licenses are issued could we follow the Dutch model ? i.e. the Dutch government get's to look at new wells and if they like it they can invest up to 49% in it, if they don't they leave it. I work between France and The Netherlands and the government gets to cherry pick our best wells (they don't take stakes in the entire field they look at things on a well by well basis). As far as I'm aware don't have to worry about decomissioning costs. Scottish Government establishes Scotoil who then obtain a stake in each license how exactly? By force?
Option A:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - the oil money - hand it over. If you don't like it, we'll go all Libya on you with our non-existant armed forces"
Option B:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - here's £XXX borrowed from Wonga.com for our 20% stake - they're the only people who will lend to us since we have no currency of our own and defaulted on our share of UK debt"
You do realise that the fundamental principle behind Statoil is that they get a % stake in every license as and when they are awarded to private sector owner/operators? Every NCS license is owned in part by Statoil. Not necessarily operated - but owned.
For your envisaged Scotoil, you need a mechanism to retrieve ownership from the organisations the licenses were sold to.
Can I just point out that the current levels of overtaxation of the oil and gas industry have impacted exploration? To be specific, the industry is struggling along with massive maintenance costs whilst the development side of the market in the UKCS is dying a death. Taxation needs to be reduced to make the UKCS an attractive place to invest or else it's just going to close down. Scotland will not be able to milk anything else out of that industry - but that doesn't mean it's worthless - quite the contrary. Even just surviving it's keeping tens of thousands of people all across the UK gainfully employed in the tax-paying private sector where they then spend their earnings on other things within the UK such as cars, resturants etc etc.
It's not the cash-cow the SNP (or most of the public who also know nothing about it) think it is.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Monday 25th August 07:22
Apologies if I'm being really dense as well (I'm not trying to wind you up, I'm keen to know if the figures are correct) but, tax receipts since 2008 till 2013 were 44 billion from oil revenue. How can you say we can't milk anything else of the industry?
ViperPict said:
Even if there is a no vote (not nearly as much of a 'slam dunk' as some here suggest!), you'll still have at least 40% (probably more) of the Scottish population who have said that they fundamentally are sufficiently discontented with the union that they are willing to take the major step of saying goodbye.
That is not a 'fringe minority' but a broad representation of the entire Scottish population. And the outcome of a no vote is not the same as getting a party in power that you did not vote for in a GE. The reason for, effectively, a vote of no confidence in Westminster is much more profound than that.
The UK government will have a duty to reduce that ~40-50% to what could be considered a 'fringe minority' (<10%) - the only way being through more devolved powers. But there is such a long way to go between ~40-50% and under 10% that the level of additional powers required to realise this massive shift in attitude will be independence by any other name. Face it, one way or another, the union is in it's death throws.
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
Good points. That is not a 'fringe minority' but a broad representation of the entire Scottish population. And the outcome of a no vote is not the same as getting a party in power that you did not vote for in a GE. The reason for, effectively, a vote of no confidence in Westminster is much more profound than that.
The UK government will have a duty to reduce that ~40-50% to what could be considered a 'fringe minority' (<10%) - the only way being through more devolved powers. But there is such a long way to go between ~40-50% and under 10% that the level of additional powers required to realise this massive shift in attitude will be independence by any other name. Face it, one way or another, the union is in it's death throws.
But we all know that the promises of more powers are hollow. The Westminster parties can pledge whatever they want in their manifestos but these new powers would still have to go through Westminster procedure. Given recently revealed public attitudes, those new powers are never going to be accepted by the English electorate (and all parties will be trying to gain favour in the run-up to a GE). And Westminster can remove any aspect of devolution any time that it chooses. We are far better voting YES.
Rollin said:
Your views represent a tiny minority of UK population. More people in Scotland support bringing back the death penalty than independence, does the UK government "have a duty" to let Scotland do that too?
Oh and a nice paragraph from Project McFear at the end...well done.
You're surely not being serious, are you?!Oh and a nice paragraph from Project McFear at the end...well done.
martinr007 said:
jamieduff1981 said:
How exactly will that work - as you envision it?
Scottish Government establishes Scotoil who then obtain a stake in each license how exactly? By force?
Option A:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - the oil money - hand it over. If you don't like it, we'll go all Libya on you with our non-existant armed forces"
Option B:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - here's £XXX borrowed from Wonga.com for our 20% stake - they're the only people who will lend to us since we have no currency of our own and defaulted on our share of UK debt"
You do realise that the fundamental principle behind Statoil is that they get a % stake in every license as and when they are awarded to private sector owner/operators? Every NCS license is owned in part by Statoil. Not necessarily operated - but owned.
For your envisaged Scotoil, you need a mechanism to retrieve ownership from the organisations the licenses were sold to.
Can I just point out that the current levels of overtaxation of the oil and gas industry have impacted exploration? To be specific, the industry is struggling along with massive maintenance costs whilst the development side of the market in the UKCS is dying a death. Taxation needs to be reduced to make the UKCS an attractive place to invest or else it's just going to close down. Scotland will not be able to milk anything else out of that industry - but that doesn't mean it's worthless - quite the contrary. Even just surviving it's keeping tens of thousands of people all across the UK gainfully employed in the tax-paying private sector where they then spend their earnings on other things within the UK such as cars, resturants etc etc.
It's not the cash-cow the SNP (or most of the public who also know nothing about it) think it is.
Although it wouldn't help in existing fields, when new licenses are issued could we follow the Dutch model ? i.e. the Dutch government get's to look at new wells and if they like it they can invest up to 49% in it, if they don't they leave it. I work between France and The Netherlands and the government gets to cherry pick our best wells (they don't take stakes in the entire field they look at things on a well by well basis). As far as I'm aware don't have to worry about decomissioning costs. Scottish Government establishes Scotoil who then obtain a stake in each license how exactly? By force?
Option A:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - the oil money - hand it over. If you don't like it, we'll go all Libya on you with our non-existant armed forces"
Option B:
Scotoil: "Hello, is this Nexen? Listen, awfay sorry but we need to take over 20% of Buzzard ownership and revenue"
Nexen: "Are you taking the decommissioning liabilities too? How are you proposing to pay, and what if we don't feel like selling?"
Scotoil: "Say what? C'mon now - here's £XXX borrowed from Wonga.com for our 20% stake - they're the only people who will lend to us since we have no currency of our own and defaulted on our share of UK debt"
You do realise that the fundamental principle behind Statoil is that they get a % stake in every license as and when they are awarded to private sector owner/operators? Every NCS license is owned in part by Statoil. Not necessarily operated - but owned.
For your envisaged Scotoil, you need a mechanism to retrieve ownership from the organisations the licenses were sold to.
Can I just point out that the current levels of overtaxation of the oil and gas industry have impacted exploration? To be specific, the industry is struggling along with massive maintenance costs whilst the development side of the market in the UKCS is dying a death. Taxation needs to be reduced to make the UKCS an attractive place to invest or else it's just going to close down. Scotland will not be able to milk anything else out of that industry - but that doesn't mean it's worthless - quite the contrary. Even just surviving it's keeping tens of thousands of people all across the UK gainfully employed in the tax-paying private sector where they then spend their earnings on other things within the UK such as cars, resturants etc etc.
It's not the cash-cow the SNP (or most of the public who also know nothing about it) think it is.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Monday 25th August 07:22
Apologies if I'm being really dense as well (I'm not trying to wind you up, I'm keen to know if the figures are correct) but, tax receipts since 2008 till 2013 were 44 billion from oil revenue. How can you say we can't milk anything else of the industry?
The market is so quiet (and getting worse) that anyone would be a fool to think any more could be milked from it.
It is interesting how from a Yes perspective there is an attitude that even if they lose their views should still be taken into account with greater devolution etc. Yet there is no such accommodation from them for the No side.
Say the vote does go Yes, we can be pretty sure that if it does is will be by a very small majority, yet we see nothing in what they are saying to reassure the No voters who would represent almost half of the population.
The reality of a Yes vote would be that Scotland would be split into three. The No camp representing almost half of the population. The Yes fanatics who represent any that would vote for it almost no matter what. And the Yes voters who have been sold it.
As the details would start to emerge the proportions would change and it is highly possible that when they all come out the majority of the electorate will no longer support independence. So Westminster may have to vote on a deal that that the majority of Scotland no longer wants.
Could get interesting.
Say the vote does go Yes, we can be pretty sure that if it does is will be by a very small majority, yet we see nothing in what they are saying to reassure the No voters who would represent almost half of the population.
The reality of a Yes vote would be that Scotland would be split into three. The No camp representing almost half of the population. The Yes fanatics who represent any that would vote for it almost no matter what. And the Yes voters who have been sold it.
As the details would start to emerge the proportions would change and it is highly possible that when they all come out the majority of the electorate will no longer support independence. So Westminster may have to vote on a deal that that the majority of Scotland no longer wants.
Could get interesting.
HenryJM said:
It is interesting how from a Yes perspective there is an attitude that even if they lose their views should still be taken into account with greater devolution etc. Yet there is no such accommodation from them for the No side.
Say the vote does go Yes, we can be pretty sure that if it does is will be by a very small majority, yet we see nothing in what they are saying to reassure the No voters who would represent almost half of the population.
The reality of a Yes vote would be that Scotland would be split into three. The No camp representing almost half of the population. The Yes fanatics who represent any that would vote for it almost no matter what. And the Yes voters who have been sold it.
As the details would start to emerge the proportions would change and it is highly possible that when they all come out the majority of the electorate will no longer support independence. So Westminster may have to vote on a deal that that the majority of Scotland no longer wants.
Could get interesting.
If there is a YES vote we will sensibly work together to develop the best country we can. Apart from, it would appear, a fringe minority of unionist maniacs who will leave at any cost (i.e. the topic of this thread).Say the vote does go Yes, we can be pretty sure that if it does is will be by a very small majority, yet we see nothing in what they are saying to reassure the No voters who would represent almost half of the population.
The reality of a Yes vote would be that Scotland would be split into three. The No camp representing almost half of the population. The Yes fanatics who represent any that would vote for it almost no matter what. And the Yes voters who have been sold it.
As the details would start to emerge the proportions would change and it is highly possible that when they all come out the majority of the electorate will no longer support independence. So Westminster may have to vote on a deal that that the majority of Scotland no longer wants.
Could get interesting.
ViperPict said:
If there is a YES vote we will sensibly work together to develop the best country we can. Apart from, it would appear, a fringe minority of unionist maniacs who will leave at any cost (i.e. the topic of this thread).
a small fringe that number 700,000 in the last surveyAnd i am not leaving because i love the UK
I am leaving as you and the rest of team guess see zero risk and will act accordingly
Which frankly scares the crap out of me
ViperPict said:
HenryJM said:
It is interesting how from a Yes perspective there is an attitude that even if they lose their views should still be taken into account with greater devolution etc. Yet there is no such accommodation from them for the No side.
Say the vote does go Yes, we can be pretty sure that if it does is will be by a very small majority, yet we see nothing in what they are saying to reassure the No voters who would represent almost half of the population.
The reality of a Yes vote would be that Scotland would be split into three. The No camp representing almost half of the population. The Yes fanatics who represent any that would vote for it almost no matter what. And the Yes voters who have been sold it.
As the details would start to emerge the proportions would change and it is highly possible that when they all come out the majority of the electorate will no longer support independence. So Westminster may have to vote on a deal that that the majority of Scotland no longer wants.
Could get interesting.
If there is a YES vote we will sensibly work together to develop the best country we can. Apart from, it would appear, a fringe minority of unionist maniacs who will leave at any cost (i.e. the topic of this thread).Say the vote does go Yes, we can be pretty sure that if it does is will be by a very small majority, yet we see nothing in what they are saying to reassure the No voters who would represent almost half of the population.
The reality of a Yes vote would be that Scotland would be split into three. The No camp representing almost half of the population. The Yes fanatics who represent any that would vote for it almost no matter what. And the Yes voters who have been sold it.
As the details would start to emerge the proportions would change and it is highly possible that when they all come out the majority of the electorate will no longer support independence. So Westminster may have to vote on a deal that that the majority of Scotland no longer wants.
Could get interesting.
ViperPict said:
If there is a YES vote we will sensibly work together to develop the best country we can. Apart from, it would appear, a fringe minority of unionist maniacs who will leave at any cost (i.e. the topic of this thread).
So if 49.9% of the electorate think that being part of the Union is the best route how are you going to appease them?Of course you aren't because you don't really care, the nationalist campaign has been so vitriolic towards anyone who thinks No that the concept that their wishes will in any way be noticed is pretty much impossible.
But also under the Union the degree to which Scotland can self-govern can be adjusted but under Yes it can't. It's 100% or nothing.
HenryJM said:
ViperPict said:
If there is a YES vote we will sensibly work together to develop the best country we can. Apart from, it would appear, a fringe minority of unionist maniacs who will leave at any cost (i.e. the topic of this thread).
So if 49.9% of the electorate think that being part of the Union is the best route how are you going to appease them?Of course you aren't because you don't really care, the nationalist campaign has been so vitriolic towards anyone who thinks No that the concept that their wishes will in any way be noticed is pretty much impossible.
But also under the Union the degree to which Scotland can self-govern can be adjusted but under Yes it can't. It's 100% or nothing.
Vote no and see no additional powers and the removal of others and funding.
jamieduff1981 said:
I work in front end phases. The entire development / front end studies / concepts / subsea tie-backs etc etc side of the business is dead. There is nothing happening. Exploration in the UKCS has been at a real low for a couple of years. There are plenty known smaller reserves but these aren't economically viable under current taxation compared to international prospects. There are a few medium sized prospects going round in circles trying to get something that will fly. There is virtually nothing happening in the UKCS. Industry enthusiasm for the UKCS is minimal and numerous operators are trying to sell out / leave.
The market is so quiet (and getting worse) that anyone would be a fool to think any more could be milked from it.
Yet there are lots of fields being developed in the WOS and North Sea. So I can't see how you say nothing is happening!The market is so quiet (and getting worse) that anyone would be a fool to think any more could be milked from it.
TOTAL
BP
Chevron
Statoil
Nexen
Would all beg to differ.
McWigglebum4th said:
ViperPict said:
If there is a YES vote we will sensibly work together to develop the best country we can. Apart from, it would appear, a fringe minority of unionist maniacs who will leave at any cost (i.e. the topic of this thread).
a small fringe that number 700,000 in the last surveyAnd i am not leaving because i love the UK
I am leaving as you and the rest of team guess see zero risk and will act accordingly
Which frankly scares the crap out of me
hbzboy said:
jamieduff1981 said:
I work in front end phases. The entire development / front end studies / concepts / subsea tie-backs etc etc side of the business is dead. There is nothing happening. Exploration in the UKCS has been at a real low for a couple of years. There are plenty known smaller reserves but these aren't economically viable under current taxation compared to international prospects. There are a few medium sized prospects going round in circles trying to get something that will fly. There is virtually nothing happening in the UKCS. Industry enthusiasm for the UKCS is minimal and numerous operators are trying to sell out / leave.
The market is so quiet (and getting worse) that anyone would be a fool to think any more could be milked from it.
Yet there are lots of fields being developed in the WOS and North Sea. So I can't see how you say nothing is happening!The market is so quiet (and getting worse) that anyone would be a fool to think any more could be milked from it.
TOTAL
BP
Chevron
Statoil
Nexen
Would all beg to differ.
I also know of a number of other discoveries that are expected to be developed as tiebacks to existing hubs.
To say the market is quiet is certainly not correct.
ViperPict said:
So 700,000 of Scots will leave Scotland after a YES vote? No they won't.
How can you doubt the only newspaper which tells the truthhttp://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-...
McWigglebum4th said:
ViperPict said:
So 700,000 of Scots will leave Scotland after a YES vote? No they won't.
How can you doubt the only newspaper which tells the truthhttp://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-...
ViperPict said:
McWigglebum4th said:
ViperPict said:
So 700,000 of Scots will leave Scotland after a YES vote? No they won't.
How can you doubt the only newspaper which tells the truthhttp://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-...
i think it is 700,000 folk not wanting to hang around to enjoy the results
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff