Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
I'm still astonished people think Scotland has perpetually been taking handouts from the rest of the UK and ask where the money is coming from to fund an independent Scotland.
Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
xr287 said:
I'm still astonished people think Scotland has perpetually been taking handouts from the rest of the UK and ask where the money is coming from to fund an independent Scotland.
Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
Does your employer anticipate a more attractive investment environment post-Yes with Salmond's intention to start an oil fund? Is that taking in to account negotiation abilities which already exist on PRT relief? Who do they expect to fund the decommissioning tax relief?Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
jamieduff1981 said:
Does your employer anticipate a more attractive investment environment post-Yes with Salmond's intention to start an oil fund? Is that taking in to account negotiation abilities which already exist on PRT relief? Who do they expect to fund the decommissioning tax relief?
Exactly. In addition there is the issue that oil is just a minority sector, it's not likely to bring in income to SG more than about 5% of the expenditure. There is a naive expectation that oil means massive riches, but not at the levels it is is Scotland. Useful of course, but world changing it's not.xr287 said:
I'm still astonished people think Scotland has perpetually been taking handouts from the rest of the UK and ask where the money is coming from to fund an independent Scotland.
Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
Says who?Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
Also, you seem to be doing the usual thing of pretending that Scotland hasn't been in the UK for the last 300 odd years. Do you think Scotland didn't have any of the borrowed money spent on it? What would have happened to Scotland if money hadn't been borrowed on it's behalf?
North Sea oil has never been Scotland's, it's always been the UK's of which Scotland is part.
xr287 said:
I'm still astonished people think Scotland has perpetually been taking handouts from the rest of the UK and ask where the money is coming from to fund an independent Scotland.
Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
Sounds like something directly from the ministry of disinformation. Your facts are wrong and a little short, why not tells us about the last 300 years.Scotland in recent years has contributed more tax than it has had spent on it, even last year with a blip in oil revenues it came very close to matching it's tax receipts to spending. It has a deficit yes, but so does the rest of the UK and this is due to the borrowing and debt repayments of the UK. Proportionally it has had a smaller deficit in recent years than the UK apart from last year again caused by a blip in oil revenues.
But oil revenues are volatile and unpredictable and last years blip is obviously the beginning of the end for Scottish oil and gas right? Well no, oil revenues have been in recent decline because the UK government hasn't made it particularly attractive to invest. Their most recent "tax allowance" if you can call it that was to give back some of the increase in supplementary tax they imposed in 2011 and the current tax regime doesn't make exploration particularly attractive either. So no wonder quite a few new developments were put on hold, investment in existing assets was reduced and exploration slowed down. The tax allowances they brought in did allow some developments to go ahead that otherwise would not have but now the large investments made in these means some companies will not pay tax for quite a few years. There are a few quite large new projects on the go but developing oil fields is a long term thing and takes years from project sanction to first oil. So North Sea production will certainly rise in the future by more than enough to put an independent Scotland in to a position where it can rid itself of it's current deficit - that is of course if it does take onboard a share of debts from the UK.
The current Scottish oil and gas tax receipts do not include the 7 oil fields which currently come under England due to the mysterious redrawing of the Scotland/England maritime border on the eve of Scotland's devolution in 1999. So in the case of independence it is hugely likely that tax receipts from these would start making their way to Scotland as well unless part of the negotiations involve trading this status quo for a benefit elsewhere.
There is an enormous opportunity for Scotland to turn round North Sea oil and gas production and tax revenues if a fit for purpose tax regime is introduced and it is very misleading for the current low production levels to be used by those against independence as a campaign point when it is in fact the UK government who got us in to this situation.
I could go on about production on the West coast being completely untapped and the UK governments failure to establish an oil fund to invest in secondary industries to take over from oil and gas when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic but I think that's enough for one post.
Sources: Working for an oil company on project economics, asset strategy, project tax allowances and a masters degree in finance.
exitwound said:
For a start, having our earned income and taxes staying in Scotland for our own use and not having it channeled south in return for some pocket money might help..
Yes there will be hard times and many dragons to slay, but its our job to do this and if it f*cks up then we only have ourselves to blame. I'm willing vote Yes just for the chance to do this.
Either way, this changes everything.. If its a No vote, then we can't complain to anyone except ourselves when Westminster turns on us as they will, ..all I can do is say "..you only have yourselves to blame, for I voted Yes!"
David Cameron will be reviled as either the PM who oversaw the breakup of the UK, or feted as the man who took on the Scots and defeated them. Either way he'll dine out on this for the rest of his life. I mean him or anyone no ill will, I just want our contry to have 100% control of our destiny, standing or falling.
Your willing to take a chance to f*ck up, because its you who will f*ck up and not the UK? Living in a dream world. Lets be honest you clearly blame the UK for all your current issues and you will probably look to pass blame on in the likely event that Scotland does struggle.Yes there will be hard times and many dragons to slay, but its our job to do this and if it f*cks up then we only have ourselves to blame. I'm willing vote Yes just for the chance to do this.
Either way, this changes everything.. If its a No vote, then we can't complain to anyone except ourselves when Westminster turns on us as they will, ..all I can do is say "..you only have yourselves to blame, for I voted Yes!"
David Cameron will be reviled as either the PM who oversaw the breakup of the UK, or feted as the man who took on the Scots and defeated them. Either way he'll dine out on this for the rest of his life. I mean him or anyone no ill will, I just want our contry to have 100% control of our destiny, standing or falling.
Oh and Cameron hasnt taken on the scots and defeated them. Im a Scot, I support the UK and as so have MILLIONS of other scots. Please dont try and claim its us vs them, its clearly you vs the thoughts in your head.
I think that Salmond's attitude towards oil is a little hypocritical, to say the least. He wants the revenues, and the jobs, from oil, but in the same breath wants us to grow our own clothes, build wind farms and stop driving.
It's a bit like a drug pusher telling his family to not take drugs, but is selling as much as he can to his neighbours.
It's a bit like a drug pusher telling his family to not take drugs, but is selling as much as he can to his neighbours.
Mad Jock said:
I think that Salmond's attitude towards oil is a little hypocritical, to say the least. He wants the revenues, and the jobs, from oil, but in the same breath wants us to grow our own clothes, build wind farms and stop driving.
It's a bit like a drug pusher telling his family to not take drugs, but is selling as much as he can to his neighbours.
It's a bit like a drug pusher telling his family to not take drugs, but is selling as much as he can to his neighbours.
He, and a lot of Nats, also seem to have this impression that having oil makes you a fabulously wealthy country. Kind of like Saudi Arabia or the UAE.
But oil in the UK, whilst it's been a benefit, isn't that big. If in a year now 5% of an independent Scottish public sector is paid for by it then it's doing OK. It's given this big status as though it would let Scotland spend more and save more, fantastically wealthy with money to spare and it's nonsense.
What makes it worse is that it's going into a phase where the public revenue will dwindle away as it is used against tax reliefs to keep companies working there as oil becomes harder and more expensive to extract. Add to that the fact the oil prices are subdued by the increasing supply from shale, particularly in the US. Of course shale is a factor here but mainly in England rather than Scotland.
Mad Jock said:
I think that Salmond's attitude towards oil is a little hypocritical, to say the least. He wants the revenues, and the jobs, from oil, but in the same breath wants us to grow our own clothes, build wind farms and stop driving.
It's a bit like a drug pusher telling his family to not take drugs, but is selling as much as he can to his neighbours.
Have heard a few people saying that this week. It's a bit like a drug pusher telling his family to not take drugs, but is selling as much as he can to his neighbours.
Some scary stuff being quoted in the daily mail. If anything is going to make business 'bog off' after a yes vote, this sort of language will. A sad time for all in Scotland if we have descended to this level.
JIM SILLARS' said:
This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753279/Sc...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753279/Sc...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
DCL said:
Some scary stuff being quoted in the daily mail. If anything is going to make business 'bog off' after a yes vote, this sort of language will. A sad time for all in Scotland if we have descended to this level.
Wow........JIM SILLARS' said:
This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753279/Sc...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753279/Sc...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Rick_1138 said:
DCL said:
Some scary stuff being quoted in the daily mail. If anything is going to make business 'bog off' after a yes vote, this sort of language will. A sad time for all in Scotland if we have descended to this level.
Wow........JIM SILLARS' said:
This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753279/Sc...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753279/Sc...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ok, it wouldn't have been my choice of wrds but BP have a history here with nationalised industry that may not be remembered by everyone.
In the good old days (1975) when oil was discovered the UK Government created BNOC (the British National Oil Corporation) to manage oil and gas assets on behalf of the country and ensure adequate supplies.
In 1982 the business was transferred to Britoil with a "Golden Share" to maintain effective control of the firm even if it was subsequently sold.
Of course in 1985 there was a sale and BP bought the first tranche of shares but couldn't take control because of the Golden Share.
So the Tories scrapped the Golden Share and allowed BP to take the rest of Britoil later that year.
Since then, the profits have flowed to private enterprise instead of the national coffers and I suspect he was referring to this and the fact that a Scottish government might choose to renationalise the oil firm and/or be a bit harder to deal with - there would be other companies willing to strike a more balanced deal than BP got all those years ago.
In the good old days (1975) when oil was discovered the UK Government created BNOC (the British National Oil Corporation) to manage oil and gas assets on behalf of the country and ensure adequate supplies.
In 1982 the business was transferred to Britoil with a "Golden Share" to maintain effective control of the firm even if it was subsequently sold.
Of course in 1985 there was a sale and BP bought the first tranche of shares but couldn't take control because of the Golden Share.
So the Tories scrapped the Golden Share and allowed BP to take the rest of Britoil later that year.
Since then, the profits have flowed to private enterprise instead of the national coffers and I suspect he was referring to this and the fact that a Scottish government might choose to renationalise the oil firm and/or be a bit harder to deal with - there would be other companies willing to strike a more balanced deal than BP got all those years ago.
GoneAnon said:
I suspect he was referring to this
Ummmmm.......No I don't think he was.
And the comment referring to Standard Life and 2 year redundancy notification is also just perfect to spook not just foreign employers but domestic employers.
If you make excuses for this guy then that's your choice - just beware the full potential consequences.
Well, I have banged out already. The part of Scotland where I owned my house appears overwhelmingly "no"
Whatever the outcome, It breaks my heart to say this, Scotland is a damaged country and I do not want the second most expensive thing I own to be there. I have sold up.
If it goes "Yes" I can't see myself going back to buy a house there. Far too risky an investment.
If it goes "No" then I can see the place wobbling a bit, but I will happily return.
Whatever the outcome, It breaks my heart to say this, Scotland is a damaged country and I do not want the second most expensive thing I own to be there. I have sold up.
If it goes "Yes" I can't see myself going back to buy a house there. Far too risky an investment.
If it goes "No" then I can see the place wobbling a bit, but I will happily return.
wildcat45 said:
Well, I have banged out already. The part of Scotland where I owned my house appears overwhelmingly "no"
Whatever the outcome, It breaks my heart to say this, Scotland is a damaged country and I do not want the second most expensive thing I own to be there. I have sold up.
If it goes "Yes" I can't see myself going back to buy a house there. Far too risky an investment.
If it goes "No" then I can see the place wobbling a bit, but I will happily return.
None of the yes voters I know own their own house. They either live with their parents, rent or live in a council house.Whatever the outcome, It breaks my heart to say this, Scotland is a damaged country and I do not want the second most expensive thing I own to be there. I have sold up.
If it goes "Yes" I can't see myself going back to buy a house there. Far too risky an investment.
If it goes "No" then I can see the place wobbling a bit, but I will happily return.
As a home owner with a mortgage, the risks are real for me with no real tangible plan from the SNP and answers to our questions are exceedingly thin on the ground.
It will be allright on the night though yeh?
I moved out of Aberdeen back in 1999 because Aberdeen was utterly on it's knees with regards to work and investment. Why? Because oil was $14 a barrel, heading towards $12 with some expectation that it could even get to $10.
Nobody was spending anything on projects, everything was being shut down as quickly as possible.
Aberdeen and the oil has always had it's own micro economy based on the cost of extraction vs the price to sell. The oil doesn't need to "run out" in 50 years, it just needs the global price to drop below the extraction cost, and it's curtains - the companies will close shop and leave.
This is where the likes of Ian Wood are coming from when they say that oil revenues will be dropping sharply in the near future as the global price of oil falls back to historic levels.
The 'blip' in oil revenue isn't this last year, it was the previous 10 where it was exceptionally high.
Basing any kind of long-term economic model on the numbers put forward by the Yestapo is pure fantasy!
Nobody was spending anything on projects, everything was being shut down as quickly as possible.
Aberdeen and the oil has always had it's own micro economy based on the cost of extraction vs the price to sell. The oil doesn't need to "run out" in 50 years, it just needs the global price to drop below the extraction cost, and it's curtains - the companies will close shop and leave.
This is where the likes of Ian Wood are coming from when they say that oil revenues will be dropping sharply in the near future as the global price of oil falls back to historic levels.
The 'blip' in oil revenue isn't this last year, it was the previous 10 where it was exceptionally high.
Basing any kind of long-term economic model on the numbers put forward by the Yestapo is pure fantasy!
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff