Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
McWigglebum4th said:
That is what pisses me off the most
If Scotland is so s
t then use your freedom to fk off out of it and find somewhere better to live.
As i've travelled the world and Scotland is pretty fking great
I've travelled the world too and I think there are many better places than Scotland.If Scotland is so s
t then use your freedom to fk off out of it and find somewhere better to live.As i've travelled the world and Scotland is pretty f
king greatSingapore, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to start with.
f
k I'd even rather live in the US than the Scotland.As for leaving, yes, very much an option now.
hidetheelephants said:
Where's your evidence of this? George was warned prior to altering the North Sea revenue schemes, then when he did it anyway investment evaporated overnight and he looked like an idiot. Then he U-turned and the investment returned. There's no evidence to back up your assertion at all.
Which kind of reinforces the point about tail wags dog.So it would be even worse in that small pond then won't it - if the elected government chooses to implement something the oil and gas companies don't like - the hold that the sector will have over them will be even greater.
The term 'held to ransome' comes to mind. Not stability but 'stability' on the terms of big business.
(Though let's be fair - that sounds rather like the situation with regard to Westminster being beholden to the financial sector in London over the last 20 years ..... )
Patrick Bateman said:
coldsnap said:
You do realise that this is not a vote for Salmond, yep.
If it is a yes result then it will evolve with time, if anyone was to give you cast iron guarantees atm, they can't as many are out to make this as difficult as they can to suit there own agenda. However i do think with a yes result, other countries will have to work with us and it will be, if not easy, not as difficult as some predict.
He is spearheading this though and if he's not stringent enough to have contingencies in place then what else is just hit and hope?If it is a yes result then it will evolve with time, if anyone was to give you cast iron guarantees atm, they can't as many are out to make this as difficult as they can to suit there own agenda. However i do think with a yes result, other countries will have to work with us and it will be, if not easy, not as difficult as some predict.
ViperPict said:
Say what you like about the yes campaign but they have religiously held their position on everything.
The assertions about the pound and EU membership after a yes vote do seem to have involved quite a bit of faith ... I guess if they repeat them often enough the UK and EU might come around to believe them too.
SirChris said:
ViperPict said:
Exactly! Whatever the result, take it on the chin and get on with things. No toys out of the pram behaviour.
Pooh said:
I kind of get your point, if the people of Scotland want to turn their country into a small, socialist country on the fringes of the E.U. then that is their choice but I also have the choice as to whether or not I want to stay and be part of it.
The whole thing makes me very sad and I think that whatever the outcome of the referendum there will be long term damage to the relationship between England and Scotland.
We need to take opinion out of it, we have no idea how it will turn out. It is hard to just 'allow' people to get on with it, but democracy allows people to vote for whatever, despite their reasons, educated on the outcome or not. I personally think that people should vote on well thought out and non biased decisions, which I hope everyone is doing. It is likely that people will vote without doing so, especially with all the media attention over it, but then again they are voting for independence; When is independence a bad thing? I think independence is awesome, people should be happy for that to happen. The awesome bi product of it all is that because Scotland wants independence, its made a huge populus come together for an idea, possibly a group of people who usually wouldn't care. So no doubt people will start together to actually make changes which benefit scotland. When I say a bunch of people that don't care, it's just the usual case of people being so 'turned off' from politics.The whole thing makes me very sad and I think that whatever the outcome of the referendum there will be long term damage to the relationship between England and Scotland.
Scotland is full of people, exactly the same people you find in England. We are just bloody bored of the s
t. I personally think that the separation would mean that governments have a smaller foot print when solving issues, money, resources, care, just everything. Give it a go? Development, development, development. Things are st anyway, what difference will it make. If it makes the people happy, thats it at the end of the day, it might be good, or bad, we won't find out until we try. I have no intention of waiting to see how big a clusterf
k an independant Scotland would be. That it would be a fiscal disaster I have no doubt because absolutely nothing thus far presented is even close to stacking up. I don't want to find my earnings worthless, my home unsellable and my cost of living increase. I really like my home country, the UK, and would prefer the whole independence question hadn't been asked. I am/was a very content British person. I would however prefer to move to another country where I could have reasonable certainty over what I was going to have to face than 'wait and see' how fast my wealth vanished down the toilet here under anyones' colour of rosette in Holyrood.I'm not knee-jerking, but I am taking a proactive stance in ensuring that I can continue to provide a comfortable life for my wife and daughters. If there's a yes vote, I'll be actively ensuring we are ok by jumping ship. Passive has never been my style. I have a good CV and a very valuable skill set. I'm very confident I'd be accepted in to another country.
Dryce said:
hidetheelephants said:
Where's your evidence of this? George was warned prior to altering the North Sea revenue schemes, then when he did it anyway investment evaporated overnight and he looked like an idiot. Then he U-turned and the investment returned. There's no evidence to back up your assertion at all.
Which kind of reinforces the point about tail wags dog.So it would be even worse in that small pond then won't it - if the elected government chooses to implement something the oil and gas companies don't like - the hold that the sector will have over them will be even greater.
What's possibly more likely is that the Scottish government couldn't enforce standards on the operators.
This CNRI Tiffany story ongoing at the moment is interesting as it's fairly high profile and an acid test for what clout the HSE really has.
The government of course want to maximise recovery of reserves. As far as decommissioning goes, the operators need to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other possibilities. DECC in particular are fairly switched on in this regard. The operators' investment is essential, but so too is the ability to control them. If they have you over a barrel it may be more difficult to slap a prohibition notice on an operator/asset. It's not especially common at the moment, but the assets are getting steadily worse.
As well as everything else, a government needs to have sufficient clout to prevent death and injury through having agencies like the HSE with sufficient gravitas. When the operator you're trying to shut down pays 10x the proportion of your bills as they do within the UK that will not improve the weightings of the factors considered.
This CNRI Tiffany story ongoing at the moment is interesting as it's fairly high profile and an acid test for what clout the HSE really has.
The government of course want to maximise recovery of reserves. As far as decommissioning goes, the operators need to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other possibilities. DECC in particular are fairly switched on in this regard. The operators' investment is essential, but so too is the ability to control them. If they have you over a barrel it may be more difficult to slap a prohibition notice on an operator/asset. It's not especially common at the moment, but the assets are getting steadily worse.
As well as everything else, a government needs to have sufficient clout to prevent death and injury through having agencies like the HSE with sufficient gravitas. When the operator you're trying to shut down pays 10x the proportion of your bills as they do within the UK that will not improve the weightings of the factors considered.
jamieduff1981 said:
What's possibly more likely is that the Scottish government couldn't enforce standards on the operators.
This CNRI Tiffany story ongoing at the moment is interesting as it's fairly high profile and an acid test for what clout the HSE really has.
The government of course want to maximise recovery of reserves. As far as decommissioning goes, the operators need to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other possibilities. DECC in particular are fairly switched on in this regard. The operators' investment is essential, but so too is the ability to control them. If they have you over a barrel it may be more difficult to slap a prohibition notice on an operator/asset. It's not especially common at the moment, but the assets are getting steadily worse.
As well as everything else, a government needs to have sufficient clout to prevent death and injury through having agencies like the HSE with sufficient gravitas. When the operator you're trying to shut down pays 10x the proportion of your bills as they do within the UK that will not improve the weightings of the factors considered.
So it's nothing to do with the HSE's budget for inspectors on the ground doing inspections being slashed then? The HSE seem to have been swallowed by the monetisation bug recently, with a disproportionate effect on SMEs.This CNRI Tiffany story ongoing at the moment is interesting as it's fairly high profile and an acid test for what clout the HSE really has.
The government of course want to maximise recovery of reserves. As far as decommissioning goes, the operators need to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other possibilities. DECC in particular are fairly switched on in this regard. The operators' investment is essential, but so too is the ability to control them. If they have you over a barrel it may be more difficult to slap a prohibition notice on an operator/asset. It's not especially common at the moment, but the assets are getting steadily worse.
As well as everything else, a government needs to have sufficient clout to prevent death and injury through having agencies like the HSE with sufficient gravitas. When the operator you're trying to shut down pays 10x the proportion of your bills as they do within the UK that will not improve the weightings of the factors considered.
jamieduff1981 said:
SirChris said:
ViperPict said:
Exactly! Whatever the result, take it on the chin and get on with things. No toys out of the pram behaviour.
Pooh said:
I kind of get your point, if the people of Scotland want to turn their country into a small, socialist country on the fringes of the E.U. then that is their choice but I also have the choice as to whether or not I want to stay and be part of it.
The whole thing makes me very sad and I think that whatever the outcome of the referendum there will be long term damage to the relationship between England and Scotland.
We need to take opinion out of it, we have no idea how it will turn out. It is hard to just 'allow' people to get on with it, but democracy allows people to vote for whatever, despite their reasons, educated on the outcome or not. I personally think that people should vote on well thought out and non biased decisions, which I hope everyone is doing. It is likely that people will vote without doing so, especially with all the media attention over it, but then again they are voting for independence; When is independence a bad thing? I think independence is awesome, people should be happy for that to happen. The awesome bi product of it all is that because Scotland wants independence, its made a huge populus come together for an idea, possibly a group of people who usually wouldn't care. So no doubt people will start together to actually make changes which benefit scotland. When I say a bunch of people that don't care, it's just the usual case of people being so 'turned off' from politics.The whole thing makes me very sad and I think that whatever the outcome of the referendum there will be long term damage to the relationship between England and Scotland.
Scotland is full of people, exactly the same people you find in England. We are just bloody bored of the s
t. I personally think that the separation would mean that governments have a smaller foot print when solving issues, money, resources, care, just everything. Give it a go? Development, development, development. Things are st anyway, what difference will it make. If it makes the people happy, thats it at the end of the day, it might be good, or bad, we won't find out until we try. I have no intention of waiting to see how big a clusterf
k an independant Scotland would be. That it would be a fiscal disaster I have no doubt because absolutely nothing thus far presented is even close to stacking up. I don't want to find my earnings worthless, my home unsellable and my cost of living increase. I really like my home country, the UK, and would prefer the whole independence question hadn't been asked. I am/was a very content British person. I would however prefer to move to another country where I could have reasonable certainty over what I was going to have to face than 'wait and see' how fast my wealth vanished down the toilet here under anyones' colour of rosette in Holyrood.I'm not knee-jerking, but I am taking a proactive stance in ensuring that I can continue to provide a comfortable life for my wife and daughters. If there's a yes vote, I'll be actively ensuring we are ok by jumping ship. Passive has never been my style. I have a good CV and a very valuable skill set. I'm very confident I'd be accepted in to another country.
hidetheelephants said:
jamieduff1981 said:
What's possibly more likely is that the Scottish government couldn't enforce standards on the operators.
This CNRI Tiffany story ongoing at the moment is interesting as it's fairly high profile and an acid test for what clout the HSE really has.
The government of course want to maximise recovery of reserves. As far as decommissioning goes, the operators need to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other possibilities. DECC in particular are fairly switched on in this regard. The operators' investment is essential, but so too is the ability to control them. If they have you over a barrel it may be more difficult to slap a prohibition notice on an operator/asset. It's not especially common at the moment, but the assets are getting steadily worse.
As well as everything else, a government needs to have sufficient clout to prevent death and injury through having agencies like the HSE with sufficient gravitas. When the operator you're trying to shut down pays 10x the proportion of your bills as they do within the UK that will not improve the weightings of the factors considered.
So it's nothing to do with the HSE's budget for inspectors on the ground doing inspections being slashed then? The HSE seem to have been swallowed by the monetisation bug recently, with a disproportionate effect on SMEs.This CNRI Tiffany story ongoing at the moment is interesting as it's fairly high profile and an acid test for what clout the HSE really has.
The government of course want to maximise recovery of reserves. As far as decommissioning goes, the operators need to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other possibilities. DECC in particular are fairly switched on in this regard. The operators' investment is essential, but so too is the ability to control them. If they have you over a barrel it may be more difficult to slap a prohibition notice on an operator/asset. It's not especially common at the moment, but the assets are getting steadily worse.
As well as everything else, a government needs to have sufficient clout to prevent death and injury through having agencies like the HSE with sufficient gravitas. When the operator you're trying to shut down pays 10x the proportion of your bills as they do within the UK that will not improve the weightings of the factors considered.
I work in brownfield engineering for a service contractor. To be honest, it's all just a game of trying to find new justifications to defer maintenance. They physically can't liquidate enough manhours with the available bedding offshore to bring these assets up to scratch, and the production can't really support the cost of those manhours either. Nobody really wants to shut down though all the same - neither the operator themself nor the treasury. It's only really HSE that stands in their way, and it's not so much that they're not inspecting and handing out improvement notices, but more that nothing is getting done about it which kinda renders them a bit toothless until they stick their necks right out and slap a prohibition notice on the asset instead - but then the treasury gets upset too.
This is honestly one of the worst conversations I have read on Scottish independence. It's quite obvious to me that most of the people contributing to this thread have succumbed to the constant scaremongering laid on by the Tories and the mainstream media.
Someone mentioned needing a passport and visa to go between Scotland and England because we won't be in the Europe straight away. Switzerland isn't in the Europe and I've never had to show an passport any time I've driven across the border so where's the evidence for this?
There are plenty of sources of information available if you can be bothered to look for it but most people are too lazy to go and look for themselves.
Do you honestly think that the Tory government is doing a good job just now? A Tory government that has spent £275k on champagne to keep the bar at the houses of commons stocked up since 2010. The same Tory government that is bit by bit privatising the NHS in England. Imagine having to get your cheque book out every time you visit your GP or have to visit A&E. People that think an independent Scotland couldn't survive really need to go and do some reading.
The question you should really be asking yourself is:
Where do you think SCOTTISH political decisions should be made?
In SCOTLAND by governments voted for by Scottish people or
In ENGLAND by governments voted for by the south east of ENGLAND.
A yes vote IS NOT a vote for the SNP or Alex Salmond.
Someone mentioned needing a passport and visa to go between Scotland and England because we won't be in the Europe straight away. Switzerland isn't in the Europe and I've never had to show an passport any time I've driven across the border so where's the evidence for this?
There are plenty of sources of information available if you can be bothered to look for it but most people are too lazy to go and look for themselves.
Do you honestly think that the Tory government is doing a good job just now? A Tory government that has spent £275k on champagne to keep the bar at the houses of commons stocked up since 2010. The same Tory government that is bit by bit privatising the NHS in England. Imagine having to get your cheque book out every time you visit your GP or have to visit A&E. People that think an independent Scotland couldn't survive really need to go and do some reading.
The question you should really be asking yourself is:
Where do you think SCOTTISH political decisions should be made?
In SCOTLAND by governments voted for by Scottish people or
In ENGLAND by governments voted for by the south east of ENGLAND.
A yes vote IS NOT a vote for the SNP or Alex Salmond.
Edited by MarkR26 on Sunday 13th April 22:07
hidetheelephants said:
That's an equally indefensible conclusion; any government has to balance their desire to raise tax revenue to pay for stuff with the need to encourage existing companies to stay and reinvest and new companies to come in. The idea that a Scottish government would be uniquely incompetent in this endeavour is facile.
The issue isn't whether or not that it would be uniquely competent or incompetent.It's that it would be more greatly exposed to circumstances it couldn't competently or incompetently manage.
And the reason for that is the scale of dependency on specific sectors.
By comparison the likes of Norway also has a huge dependency - but unlike an independent Scotland it has a huge sovereign wealth fund and its own currency (which is in effect backed by that huge fund) and not a huge debt and deficit and a third party currency.
Dryce said:
The issue isn't whether or not that it would be uniquely competent or incompetent.
It's that it would be more greatly exposed to circumstances it couldn't competently or incompetently manage.
And the reason for that is the scale of dependency on specific sectors.
By comparison the likes of Norway also has a huge dependency - but unlike an independent Scotland it has a huge sovereign wealth fund and its own currency (which is in effect backed by that huge fund) and not a huge debt and deficit and a third party currency.
And that wealth fund came from where? Established in 1990 (around the time our oil was to run out, according to one of many horror stories presented by Westminster!) the fund is the largest in Europe and forecast to be worth $1 trillion by 2020 - not bad for less than 5 million people.It's that it would be more greatly exposed to circumstances it couldn't competently or incompetently manage.
And the reason for that is the scale of dependency on specific sectors.
By comparison the likes of Norway also has a huge dependency - but unlike an independent Scotland it has a huge sovereign wealth fund and its own currency (which is in effect backed by that huge fund) and not a huge debt and deficit and a third party currency.
And where is ours?
So, let's talk about competent management...
GoneAnon said:
And that wealth fund came from where? Established in 1990 (around the time our oil was to run out, according to one of many horror stories presented by Westminster!) the fund is the largest in Europe and forecast to be worth $1 trillion by 2020 - not bad for less than 5 million people.
And where is ours?
So, let's talk about competent management...
Amen.And where is ours?
So, let's talk about competent management...
1990 was 24 years ago. Our production is certainly in decline. There are no Ekofisks or Statfjords or Brent fields waiting to be produced in the UK sector. All we're doing in the UK is developing a few naff gas fields and dabbling with enhanced oil recovery and infill drilling. There are no more cash cow light oil fields left to build an oil fund. That ship has sailed. Who's fault it is is besides the point. Scotland cannot get rich on oil just because Norway spotted the potential a quarter of a century ago.
MarkR26 said:
This is honestly one of the worst conversations I have read on Scottish independence. It's quite obvious to me that most of the people contributing to this thread have succumbed to the constant scaremongering laid on by the Tories and the mainstream media.
Problem with the 'debate' is that frequently any argument against the yes contingent isn't actually countered with any substance - instead it's blamed on this nasty nedia and Westminster politicians.MarkR26 said:
Someone mentioned needing a passport and visa to go between Scotland and England because we won't be in the Europe straight away. Switzerland isn't in the Europe and I've never had to show an passport any time I've driven across the border so where's the evidence for this?
I think the comparison would be - do you need to show a passport to go between UK and Ireland?People seem to manage well enough whether it be Ireland to mainland UK or Ireland to NI.
It's not as if Scotland would be no longer part of the British Isles.
MarkR26 said:
Do you honestly think that the Tory government is doing a good job just now? A Tory government that has spent £275k on champagne to keep the bar at the houses of commons stocked up since 2010.
I have no doubt that after a yes vote that you'll find all sorts of expenses and bills to complain about. Wasn't the media after Mr Salmond over his US golf visit? Politicians are politicians regardless.As for how good or not the coalition government is doing - I can think of worse outcomes given the fiscal state of the country. But then my view is that the supposed austerity is a bit of a scam - the government is claiming it's controlling costs and cutting spending (ie. austerity) when in real terms it isn't - and the opposition is claiming (or was claiming) that they weren't spending enough and ignoring the reality of the deficit.
Now as the growth numbers start to go positive better than expected both are left a bit befuddled - one cautiously basking in sunshine it didn't quite predict - the other wondering where to hide it's umbrella because it didn't rain as they expected. Behind all this we need to remember the weather fronts might change because the deficit has risen and the public debt has ballooned.
But were either of them right? Because sometimes politicians and economists seem to be a bit like weather forecasters.
Dryce said:
But were either of them right? Because sometimes politicians and economists seem to be a bit like weather forecasters.
jamieduff1981 said:
1990 was 24 years ago. Our production is certainly in decline. There are no Ekofisks or Statfjords or Brent fields waiting to be produced in the UK sector. All we're doing in the UK is developing a few naff gas fields and dabbling with enhanced oil recovery and infill drilling. There are no more cash cow light oil fields left to build an oil fund. That ship has sailed. Who's fault it is is besides the point. Scotland cannot get rich on oil just because Norway spotted the potential a quarter of a century ago.
And there is no possibility of oil off the western coast? I'll give thema call in the morning and tell them not to bother exploring.And, leaving all of that aside, should we only go independent "to get rich", or should we do it because we aspire to something better than what we have now? And what is wrong to aspiring for better whether you regard the current government and their predecessors as guilty of chronic mismanagement or really quite good? There certainly doesn't seem to be much reason for optimism to continue in the UK if the oil runs ou and Westminster lose that revenue stream.
GoneAnon said:
And that wealth fund came from where? Established in 1990 (around the time our oil was to run out, according to one of many horror stories presented by Westminster!) the fund is the largest in Europe and forecast to be worth $1 trillion by 2020 - not bad for less than 5 million people.
And where is ours?
So, let's talk about competent management...
Again that's not the point.And where is ours?
So, let's talk about competent management...
The ship has sailed. The milk has been spilled.
Which means whatever happens later this year we have what we have - which is no massive fund but a massive debt.
We can't wind the clock back the the 60s and run a referendum then.
GoneAnon said:
jamieduff1981 said:
1990 was 24 years ago. Our production is certainly in decline. There are no Ekofisks or Statfjords or Brent fields waiting to be produced in the UK sector. All we're doing in the UK is developing a few naff gas fields and dabbling with enhanced oil recovery and infill drilling. There are no more cash cow light oil fields left to build an oil fund. That ship has sailed. Who's fault it is is besides the point. Scotland cannot get rich on oil just because Norway spotted the potential a quarter of a century ago.
And there is no possibility of oil off the western coast? I'll give thema call in the morning and tell them not to bother exploring.And, leaving all of that aside, should we only go independent "to get rich", or should we do it because we aspire to something better than what we have now? And what is wrong to aspiring for better whether you regard the current government and their predecessors as guilty of chronic mismanagement or really quite good? There certainly doesn't seem to be much reason for optimism to continue in the UK if the oil runs ou and Westminster lose that revenue stream.
There are other ways an independent Scotland could support itself you know guys.
(he says with his tongue in his cheek)
Edited by MarkR26 on Sunday 13th April 22:57
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff