Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5
Discussion
Starfighter said:
I can see iScotland having the potential to make a go of it admittedly at a high cost and with a significant drop in living standards in the short to medium term and if that is the will of the Scots then so be it.
I can't see how it is going to be better long term never mind short to medium term. Assuming a geographic split of oil and gas fields, between 10-20% of Scotland's tax revenue will come from a single volatile source. How much oil is left is debatable - the ONS says as little as £120bn, the Scottish Government say £1,500bn (the higher figure comes as a result of including the value of "undiscovered reserves").Effectively, any prospect of a more prosperous future for an iScotland is based entirely on the gamble that there is loads more oil out there (and that the price of oil will not go down).
Watched a program about the Shetlands investment fund from their Oil Revenues.
Interesting stuff - and they've been doing a great job - I can see why they want to stay with the UK.
I think the actual revenues over the years were £70m odd and they're now sitting on £250m plus from the investments.
Interesting stuff - and they've been doing a great job - I can see why they want to stay with the UK.
I think the actual revenues over the years were £70m odd and they're now sitting on £250m plus from the investments.
ralphrj said:
Starfighter said:
I can see iScotland having the potential to make a go of it admittedly at a high cost and with a significant drop in living standards in the short to medium term and if that is the will of the Scots then so be it.
I can't see how it is going to be better long term never mind short to medium term. Assuming a geographic split of oil and gas fields, between 10-20% of Scotland's tax revenue will come from a single volatile source. How much oil is left is debatable - the ONS says as little as £120bn, the Scottish Government say £1,500bn (the higher figure comes as a result of including the value of "undiscovered reserves").Effectively, any prospect of a more prosperous future for an iScotland is based entirely on the gamble that there is loads more oil out there (and that the price of oil will not go down).
Whoops.
jamiehamy said:
Guess who is at the forefront of activities to drive down the price of oil? You guessed it - the SNP! With their drive for 'renewable' energy, the are contributing to a lower demand for fossil fuel which...drives down the price! Admittedly, Scotland is not going to make a dent on world oil prices, but the sentiment will - if every country in the world switched to renewables or nuclear over 20years, the price of oil would plummet.
Whoops.
Well, it's OK, in the event of independence the whole Scottish renewables industry will be gone anyway because it relies on large subsidies from the UK which they couldn't afford. Whoops.
You can add higher education to the list as well once they lose the 30% of UK research grants Scottish Universities get for 9% of the population and have to give free education to rUK students.
It appears to me that Salmond is at very high risk of ending up with copious amounts of egg on his face. If it's a no vote then instantaneous egg and delayed somewhat if a yes vote . . . . . or will he slope off immediately, basking in his success, and leave the ensuing chaos to others to sort out.
In the event of a yes vote then any negotiation for independence will start to be conducted in the run up to a general election. With the rUK electorate having been spurned by the Scots then it is highly unlikely that the self same electorate will look kindly on any party being 'soft' on Scotland.
The currency issue is fundamental. iScotland will have no option but to use Sterling, at least in the short term, but with no control over it and probably no support/agreement from rUK - what value independence? The markets may well force iScotland towards its own currency and they may have little option but to get into the EU and take on the Euro. The entry requirements will be severe, not least because those other EU nations which have separatist problems will not allow an easy entry for a separatist entity such as iScotland - the ramifications at home for them would be enormous. In the ensuing 'chaos' it will be vey tempting for financial institutions to leave iScotland in order to seek the safety net of a strong central bank.
In such an environment what will the savers in iScotland do with their investments? Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that one out!
The debate over oil and its associated revenues are 'interesting'! Who is right and who is wrong? Who really knows? This is a risky game for which the consequences are catastrophic for iScotland if Salmond has got it wrong. Is this a growing industry or a declining one and, in the knowledge of the answer, just how bold does the gambler have to be?
Defence is also a risky topic for iScotland. There is a substantial defence industry north of the border which Salmond is intent on shattering. Removal of the Nuclear Sub base at Faslane and also the transfer of other sovereign defence related skills back into rUK could remove up to 11,000 jobs from around the Clyde! It is inconceivable that any more RN ships would be built on the Clyde so it's not just about Faslane.
On the Faslane topic then who pays? iScotland want it out and Salmond's rhetoric means they cannot fail on this one. It seems reasonable that if iScotland are hell bent on their objective then they are going to be invited to pay. Think about it - iScotland will be paying rUK to reduce thousands of skilled jobs around the Clyde!
Once iScotland have managed to gain entry to the EU (and they will at some time but at what cost) then they must take on board the rules and regs of the EU many of which are mutually exclusive with promises made by Salmond viz VAT etc. iScotland would also have to sort out their own pension fund deficits immediately!
They will also, as a new member, have to open their borders which inevitably means border control between iScotland & rUK!
There may be many positives to offset these little issuettes but I've yet to see them clearly articulated.
In the event of a yes vote then any negotiation for independence will start to be conducted in the run up to a general election. With the rUK electorate having been spurned by the Scots then it is highly unlikely that the self same electorate will look kindly on any party being 'soft' on Scotland.
The currency issue is fundamental. iScotland will have no option but to use Sterling, at least in the short term, but with no control over it and probably no support/agreement from rUK - what value independence? The markets may well force iScotland towards its own currency and they may have little option but to get into the EU and take on the Euro. The entry requirements will be severe, not least because those other EU nations which have separatist problems will not allow an easy entry for a separatist entity such as iScotland - the ramifications at home for them would be enormous. In the ensuing 'chaos' it will be vey tempting for financial institutions to leave iScotland in order to seek the safety net of a strong central bank.
In such an environment what will the savers in iScotland do with their investments? Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that one out!
The debate over oil and its associated revenues are 'interesting'! Who is right and who is wrong? Who really knows? This is a risky game for which the consequences are catastrophic for iScotland if Salmond has got it wrong. Is this a growing industry or a declining one and, in the knowledge of the answer, just how bold does the gambler have to be?
Defence is also a risky topic for iScotland. There is a substantial defence industry north of the border which Salmond is intent on shattering. Removal of the Nuclear Sub base at Faslane and also the transfer of other sovereign defence related skills back into rUK could remove up to 11,000 jobs from around the Clyde! It is inconceivable that any more RN ships would be built on the Clyde so it's not just about Faslane.
On the Faslane topic then who pays? iScotland want it out and Salmond's rhetoric means they cannot fail on this one. It seems reasonable that if iScotland are hell bent on their objective then they are going to be invited to pay. Think about it - iScotland will be paying rUK to reduce thousands of skilled jobs around the Clyde!
Once iScotland have managed to gain entry to the EU (and they will at some time but at what cost) then they must take on board the rules and regs of the EU many of which are mutually exclusive with promises made by Salmond viz VAT etc. iScotland would also have to sort out their own pension fund deficits immediately!
They will also, as a new member, have to open their borders which inevitably means border control between iScotland & rUK!
There may be many positives to offset these little issuettes but I've yet to see them clearly articulated.
confused_buyer said:
Well, it's OK, in the event of independence the whole Scottish renewables industry will be gone anyway because it relies on large subsidies from the UK which they couldn't afford.
On a slight tangent but still on the subject of energy, iScotland believe that they can continue to sell surplus energy to the rUK. Nothing to stop them but worth remembering that iScotland has no other market for surplus energy as the only country they will be connected to is rUK. However, the rUK is connected to Ireland, Netherlands and France. An iScotland will have to undercut those countries in order sell their energy.Funk said:
There's a third outcome I'm not sure has been discussed much.
The vote merely signals that Scotland would like to be granted independence. It doesn't necessarily follow that Scotland WILL get independence; that is down to the decision in Westminster. What happens if, in the unlikely event of a yes vote, the UK Government turn out NOT to be scaremongering and deny Salmond the things he's petulantly demanded and told the Scottish people they will get? In that case, no independence? What happens if we tell Scotland that their terms are no in rUK's best interests and to sit down and shut up?
Good question. It's a fundamental shift that affects the whole of rUK as well. From simple things like do we need a new flag and what to change the name of the remainder of the union to (we can't be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland anymore as we won't have a united Great Britain) to the more complex economic and political ones. The vote merely signals that Scotland would like to be granted independence. It doesn't necessarily follow that Scotland WILL get independence; that is down to the decision in Westminster. What happens if, in the unlikely event of a yes vote, the UK Government turn out NOT to be scaremongering and deny Salmond the things he's petulantly demanded and told the Scottish people they will get? In that case, no independence? What happens if we tell Scotland that their terms are no in rUK's best interests and to sit down and shut up?
Edited by Funk on Thursday 28th August 13:45
I think any agreement should be ratified by referendum on both sides of the border as the agreement will potentially affect rUK citizens just as much as it will Scottish citizens. I for one would not support any form of currency union as their dodgy notes aren't even legal tender in Scotland let alone the rest of UK.
plasticpig said:
I think any agreement should be ratified by referendum on both sides of the border as the agreement will potentially affect rUK citizens just as much as it will Scottish citizens.
Yep - we may not get a say on whether Scotland should become independent - but we should get a say on the terms under which it occurs.Also - rUK has no need to expedite the independence program and so can sit around the negotiating table as long as she wishes until a favourable deal is struck. It's the YeSNP who have put a tight deadline on independence - a deadline that rUK is under no obligation to meet.
When the negotiations do happen - who will be under the most pressure to cave?
confused_buyer said:
jamiehamy said:
Guess who is at the forefront of activities to drive down the price of oil? You guessed it - the SNP! With their drive for 'renewable' energy, the are contributing to a lower demand for fossil fuel which...drives down the price! Admittedly, Scotland is not going to make a dent on world oil prices, but the sentiment will - if every country in the world switched to renewables or nuclear over 20years, the price of oil would plummet.
Whoops.
Well, it's OK, in the event of independence the whole Scottish renewables industry will be gone anyway because it relies on large subsidies from the UK which they couldn't afford. Whoops.
You can add higher education to the list as well once they lose the 30% of UK research grants Scottish Universities get for 9% of the population and have to give free education to rUK students.
A high oil price has an interesting effect - its actually needed to make renewables viable, as it increases the cost of traditional energy sources. On the flip side, it can make it more difficult and more expensive to attract the right people, companies and assets (such as construction vessels) into the industry, and oil and gas pays more (typically).
Moonhawk said:
Also - rUK has no need to expedite the independence program and so can sit around the negotiating table as long as she wishes until a favourable deal is struck. It's the YeSNP who have put a tight deadline on independence - a deadline that rUK is under no obligation to meet.
I think the reality of the situation will mean that its in both parties interest to move things along - the neverendum has, I beleive, already caused an amount of uncertainly for businesses and investors on both sides of the border. Prolonging this (even greater) level of instability during which negotiations will take place will only make things worse, especially for Scotland.That will mean compromises on both sides, but since rUK will be holding most of the cards, iScot will have to make some major concessions, which no doubt the nationalists will continue whinging about, accusing others of ripping us off etc etc..
Isn't this all a rather arid debate? According to this: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence... since Jan 12 every poll bar one has shown independence will be rejected.
What began as an ego trip for Salmond has become a damage limitation exercise.
What began as an ego trip for Salmond has become a damage limitation exercise.
gofasterrosssco said:
As someone working (for now) in offshore renewables, I would concur that its likely "scottish" renewables will not move forward without some form of agreement with rUK or other regional partners. It'll become a chip on the negotiating table for the rUK (who subsidy support we'll need)..
A high oil price has an interesting effect - its actually needed to make renewables viable, as it increases the cost of traditional energy sources. On the flip side, it can make it more difficult and more expensive to attract the right people, companies and assets (such as construction vessels) into the industry, and oil and gas pays more (typically).
Not sure about the renewables agreement. The EU has ruled against cross-border subsidy's. Westminster currently subsidises Scottish renewables to the tune of £500m - £750m. Come a 'yes' vote that money will no longer exist !A high oil price has an interesting effect - its actually needed to make renewables viable, as it increases the cost of traditional energy sources. On the flip side, it can make it more difficult and more expensive to attract the right people, companies and assets (such as construction vessels) into the industry, and oil and gas pays more (typically).
Garvin said:
In the event of a yes vote then any negotiation for independence will start to be conducted in the run up to a general election. With the rUK electorate having been spurned by the Scots then it is highly unlikely that the self same electorate will look kindly on any party being 'soft' on Scotland.
I raised this issue a few months ago. With a UK General Election around the corner it wouldn't suprise me if any negotiations didn't occur until after the election in order to prevent a potential change in the negotiating team half way through. If this does happen I'd say that there's a fair chance that the Tories and Lib Dems will follow Labour's lead in putting their "no currency union" commitment into their election manifestos (as polling suggests that it's a vote winner), making their post-election negotiation position more clear cut as, to borrow Salmond's words, they will then have a mandate from the British people.Chuggy said:
gofasterrosssco said:
As someone working (for now) in offshore renewables, I would concur that its likely "scottish" renewables will not move forward without some form of agreement with rUK or other regional partners. It'll become a chip on the negotiating table for the rUK (who subsidy support we'll need)..
A high oil price has an interesting effect - its actually needed to make renewables viable, as it increases the cost of traditional energy sources. On the flip side, it can make it more difficult and more expensive to attract the right people, companies and assets (such as construction vessels) into the industry, and oil and gas pays more (typically).
Not sure about the renewables agreement. The EU has ruled against cross-border subsidy's. Westminster currently subsidises Scottish renewables to the tune of £500m - £750m. Come a 'yes' vote that money will no longer exist !A high oil price has an interesting effect - its actually needed to make renewables viable, as it increases the cost of traditional energy sources. On the flip side, it can make it more difficult and more expensive to attract the right people, companies and assets (such as construction vessels) into the industry, and oil and gas pays more (typically).
Regardless, its something Scotland would want, and rUK will have.. Given the potential for development of rUK offshore renewables, it may not even be politically viable to subsidise "foreign" renewables and support "foreign" jobs in place of the equivalent rUK.. I could see investment instead shifted to places like NE England or Humberside which already have R&D, experience and facilities to support that industry.
Alfa numeric said:
I raised this issue a few months ago. With a UK General Election around the corner it wouldn't suprise me if any negotiations didn't occur until after the election in order to prevent a potential change in the negotiating team half way through. If this does happen I'd say that there's a fair chance that the Tories and Lib Dems will follow Labour's lead in putting their "no currency union" commitment into their election manifestos (as polling suggests that it's a vote winner), making their post-election negotiation position more clear cut as, to borrow Salmond's words, they will then have a mandate from the British people.
Cameron has already said that the current Westminster government has no mandate to negotiate splitting up the UK, so it would all have to wait until after the 2015 general election. If there is a 'yes' next month then I suspect it will be a major point in the 2015 election campaign, and the current vibe is that it will all be about who can be toughest with Scotland. It's not something I want to see, but it would be very interesting to watch.Axionknight said:
GetCarter said:
Just for the record, I bring in about half a million quid into Scotland each year, and will seriously consider my position if YES get their way.
In a suitcase or similar? :PEdited by GetCarter on Thursday 28th August 17:23
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff