Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
Piersman2 said:
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!
That plus the fact that to invest in a field means paying for the decommissioning of what they use at the end of it. Those decommissioning costs are tax deductible, which means that as decommissioning grows as fields run out a lot of cost goes to the government.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!
HenryJM said:
Piersman2 said:
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!
That plus the fact that to invest in a field means paying for the decommissioning of what they use at the end of it. Those decommissioning costs are tax deductible, which means that as decommissioning grows as fields run out a lot of cost goes to the government.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!
MintyChris said:
None of the yes voters I know own their own house. They either live with their parents, rent or live in a council house.
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?
What a load of sanctimonious bullsAs 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?
t, yet again the no snobs with the "only poor scum vote Yes"Sum of us yes voturs can eeven reed an rite, and hoald doun a job. wy av eevun goat ma oan hoose and cumpani....
MintyChris said:
None of the yes voters I know own their own house. They either live with their parents, rent or live in a council house.
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?
Fingers crossed for you Chris. It is the rural communities like where I waste Galloway that will be hit hard. EU hand outs and tourism are lifelines. I just pray things stay the same for them, you and thousands like you. Galloway is a place I live with very special family connections for me. I had panned to move there to live properly. I hope I will be able to.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?
whoami said:
Humper said:
What a load of sanctimonious bullst, yet again the no snobs with the "only poor scum vote Yes"
Well, that's a large part of the Yes demographic.t, yet again the no snobs with the "only poor scum vote Yes"Honestly, some folk are getting way above their stations. How sad we still see each other in a social class system when almost all of us have to work to sustain our lifestyles.
GoneAnon said:
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.
Was aware of BP takeover of Britoil. But not the history behind it.. Thanks for that..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.
Well, i know quite a few, I also know No voters who live in a council house. I also appreciate people are worried about the future, and I am not going to pretend every single thing will be better. We're going to be stuck with that prick Salmonella for one thing.
But how rosy is the future with a no vote?
Can you honestly say you think Scottish jobs won't be sacrificed for jobs in the south if necessary?
It's happened so many times in the past, but maybe we can trust Scameron to keep all the promised carrots he's now offering?
Why don't we have them already?
Because they only give a fk about Scotland when it may bite them.
But how rosy is the future with a no vote?
Can you honestly say you think Scottish jobs won't be sacrificed for jobs in the south if necessary?
It's happened so many times in the past, but maybe we can trust Scameron to keep all the promised carrots he's now offering?
Why don't we have them already?
Because they only give a f
k about Scotland when it may bite them.Humper said:
But how rosy is the future with a no vote?
Pretty good actually. But then I rate the UK generally - and Scotland in particular as a pretty decent place to live.Humper said:
Can you honestly say you think Scottish jobs won't be sacrificed for jobs in the south if necessary?
The jobs in the 70s and 80s were heavy industry. How much of that is there left in Europe?The problem for Scotland is that it is a very peripheral area within Europe while the effect of the EU has been to concentrate on the big connected centres and for industry to move east.
One of the reasons London has boomed relative to the rest of the UK is that it is part of that inner clutch of major EU cities with big money, big government, and lots of transport.
That general pattern doesn't go away with independence and arguably but disconnecting Scotland then it becomes a much smaller fish in a bigger pond as far as the EU is concerned.
My own view of independence is that it will end up with a poorer Scotland but a richer Edinburgh. The pattern after devolution was for Edinburgh to push ahead - with independence that effect will be increased while rest - particularly the likes of Glasgow, Dundee, and Paisley will be left falling back a bit. Aberdeen will be what it always was - blowing in the commodity prices wind.
As for the rest of the UK it will probably end up slightly better off after separation and once the dust has settled. There will be some spending hurt offset by some local economic boosts (where the spending goes) as they realign. Scotland will still do business but the UK and they'll benefit from finance and investment and transport without having any fiscal responsibility to share any tax revenues. A lot of 'Scottish' assets and investment will end up domiciled in the UK if there is a 'yes' vote.
The question raised at the start of this thread was about leaving. I suspect there are many who will be trapped in the event of a 'yes' by the impact on property prices and ties to jobs. So there will be a many who 'leave' by staying but keeping their citizenship and savings and investments and pensions in the UK.
There will perhaps be some who will leave regardless of the outcome on Thursday. That's the saddest thing perhaps - that regardless of a no or a yes the referendum has also caused many to reassess their relationship with their fellow Scots. Moreover in the event of a 'no' regardless of how civil those down south have generally been there is going to be a reaction within the UK with Scotland seen as a spoilt prefered child.
I don't see there being any real tangible winners either way.
Humper said:
What a load of sanctimonious bullst, yet again the no snobs with the "only poor scum vote Yes"
Sum of us yes voturs can eeven reed an rite, and hoald doun a job. wy av eevun goat ma oan hoose and cumpani....
Sanctimonious bullst, yet again the no snobs with the "only poor scum vote Yes"Sum of us yes voturs can eeven reed an rite, and hoald doun a job. wy av eevun goat ma oan hoose and cumpani....
t because its true? Or perhaps I'm completely mistaken about the people I know being non home owners....perhaps you can enlighten me if I'm mistaken? Do you know them?Point still stands that the people I know who are voting yes don't have risk and responsibilities like I do.
So to sum up, go tell someone who cares. I.e. not me, thanks.
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.
Your right, oil is simply a curse, how unlucky were we to be an oil producing nation... Whatever will we do? Oh dear!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.
Ok, try it in reverse...
We're already a separate nation, ok? We have full control of our politics, resources and finances etc..
Now we're having a referendum to see if we would want to join a union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.. What would be the incentive for us to actually want to do that? What advantages would there be for us to potentially enhance our lives?
Anyone??
exitwound said:
Your right, oil is simply a curse, how unlucky were we to be an oil producing nation... Whatever will we do? Oh dear!
Ok, try it in reverse...
We're already a separate nation, ok? We have full control of our politics, resources and finances etc..
Now we're having a referendum to see if we would want to join a union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.. What would be the incentive for us to actually want to do that? What advantages would there be for us to potentially enhance our lives?
Anyone??
Ok, try it in reverse...
We're already a separate nation, ok? We have full control of our politics, resources and finances etc..
Now we're having a referendum to see if we would want to join a union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.. What would be the incentive for us to actually want to do that? What advantages would there be for us to potentially enhance our lives?
Anyone??
whoami said:
exitwound said:
Your right, oil is simply a curse, how unlucky were we to be an oil producing nation... Whatever will we do? Oh dear!
Ok, try it in reverse...
We're already a separate nation, ok? We have full control of our politics, resources and finances etc..
Now we're having a referendum to see if we would want to join a union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.. What would be the incentive for us to actually want to do that? What advantages would there be for us to potentially enhance our lives?
Anyone??
Ok, try it in reverse...
We're already a separate nation, ok? We have full control of our politics, resources and finances etc..
Now we're having a referendum to see if we would want to join a union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.. What would be the incentive for us to actually want to do that? What advantages would there be for us to potentially enhance our lives?
Anyone??
exitwound said:
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.
Your right, oil is simply a curse, how unlucky were we to be an oil producing nation... Whatever will we do? Oh dear!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.
Ok, try it in reverse...
We're already a separate nation, ok? We have full control of our politics, resources and finances etc..
Now we're having a referendum to see if we would want to join a union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.. What would be the incentive for us to actually want to do that? What advantages would there be for us to potentially enhance our lives?
Anyone??
ks from nationalists. Your oil won't pay for all the things that nationalists are promising. That is what has been said.As to your other b
ks premise, how about if there was a failing economy, failing public services, mass unemployment, flight of capital and people? Would a country vote for a union with more successful nations then?If people you are trying to persuade are actually converted by that argument they are stupid.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff