Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6
Discussion
Edinburger said:
Your last bet hasn't gone too well - no sign of terrorist activities, is there? 
How do you see this "independence without a referendum" working? Military coup? Civil war? Please tell us...
I want to be wrongHow do you see this "independence without a referendum" working? Military coup? Civil war? Please tell us...
Do you not understand this?
I would LOVE to see the nationalists decide to make scotland better
They don't want to as it gives them ZERO advantage to have a happy scottish population
Why did you vote NO?
Because you are employed and happy
If you were sat on the dole with f
k all to lose you would vote YESellroy said:
Oil futures currently pricing $72.08 for 2016, happy to help with a fact, but probably not true or to be ignored or just plain oppression.
You seem to be getting mixed up between prediction & factsThe reality (not the salivating wish of the Unionists on here) is since Oil was taxed from the North Sea, it's contributed on average £6.5Bn to the exchequer annually
That's a period of over 3 decades, not 3 weeks
Also this "volatility" is the reason why an oil fund should have been set up back in the day, funnily enough Osbourne thinks this is a good idea for the NE of England once fracking revenues are generated but not a good idea for Scotland
However we Nats are happy that the pooling and sharing of resources shelters Scotland from the vagaries of the oil markets, the same way that the potential 10% iS revenue shortfall could be covered by not having to generate £12bn to get £1Bn back in UK national project spend
Swings and roundabouts
Regarding the FT piece, once you read by the headline, you actually realise that the analysis is flawed by either fault or design
It suggests that with a UK forecast for borrowing in 2016/17 of 2.1% GDP an iS would have to borrow at near 6% of it's income based on current oil prices, due to the higher public spending per head that people in Scotland gets as being BT
The analysis of UK borrowing against GDP but Scottish borrowing about revenue has no direct relationship and is flawed
It suggests that with a UK forecast for borrowing in 2016/17 of 2.1% GDP an iS would have to borrow at near 6% of it's income based on current oil prices, due to the higher public spending per head that people in Scotland gets as being BT
The analysis of UK borrowing against GDP but Scottish borrowing about revenue has no direct relationship and is flawed
Strocky said:
You seem to be getting mixed up between prediction & facts
The reality (not the salivating wish of the Unionists on here) is since Oil was taxed from the North Sea, it's contributed on average £6.5Bn to the exchequer annually
That's a period of over 3 decades, not 3 weeks
Also this "volatility" is the reason why an oil fund should have been set up back in the day, funnily enough Osbourne thinks this is a good idea for the NE of England once fracking revenues are generated but not a good idea for Scotland
However we Nats are happy that the pooling and sharing of resources shelters Scotland from the vagaries of the oil markets, the same way that the potential 10% iS revenue shortfall could be covered by not having to generate £12bn to get £1Bn back in UK national project spend
Swings and roundabouts
When you call yourself a Nat, do you mean in the true sense of wanting your perceived region/country to be independent, or do you mean it in the Scottish sense?The reality (not the salivating wish of the Unionists on here) is since Oil was taxed from the North Sea, it's contributed on average £6.5Bn to the exchequer annually
That's a period of over 3 decades, not 3 weeks
Also this "volatility" is the reason why an oil fund should have been set up back in the day, funnily enough Osbourne thinks this is a good idea for the NE of England once fracking revenues are generated but not a good idea for Scotland
However we Nats are happy that the pooling and sharing of resources shelters Scotland from the vagaries of the oil markets, the same way that the potential 10% iS revenue shortfall could be covered by not having to generate £12bn to get £1Bn back in UK national project spend
Swings and roundabouts
Come on then, O Enlightened One, which year?
After all, as you understand the graph, you'll see that there are very few years where we're not in deficit (and so borrowing cash). It would seem to be daft to setup an oil fund whilst borrowing money - so which year?
Are you aware of the nature of the Norwegian Oil Fund? Worth roughly the same as their debt, and the taxation rates are eye-watering...
After all, as you understand the graph, you'll see that there are very few years where we're not in deficit (and so borrowing cash). It would seem to be daft to setup an oil fund whilst borrowing money - so which year?
Are you aware of the nature of the Norwegian Oil Fund? Worth roughly the same as their debt, and the taxation rates are eye-watering...
Strocky said:
McWigglebum4th said:
He will blame westminister
No point in arguing
It is a religion
Why don't you take a day off, especially after making an absolute No point in arguing
It is a religion
of yourself on the other thread yesterday Jim Murphy posts his sympathies on twitter and you lot reply calling him a piece of scum
David Cameron posts his sympathies on twitter and you lot reply calling him a piece of scum
Scotland would be a better place if you lot vanished
McWigglebum4th said:
Strocky said:
McWigglebum4th said:
He will blame westminister
No point in arguing
It is a religion
Why don't you take a day off, especially after making an absolute No point in arguing
It is a religion
of yourself on the other thread yesterday Jim Murphy posts his sympathies on twitter and you lot reply calling him a piece of scum
David Cameron posts his sympathies on twitter and you lot reply calling him a piece of scum
Scotland would be a better place if you lot vanished
Strocky said:
ellroy said:
Oil futures currently pricing $72.08 for 2016, happy to help with a fact, but probably not true or to be ignored or just plain oppression.
You seem to be getting mixed up between prediction & factsThe reality (not the salivating wish of the Unionists on here) is since Oil was taxed from the North Sea, it's contributed on average £6.5Bn to the exchequer annually
That's a period of over 3 decades, not 3 weeks
Also this "volatility" is the reason why an oil fund should have been set up back in the day, funnily enough Osbourne thinks this is a good idea for the NE of England once fracking revenues are generated but not a good idea for Scotland
However we Nats are happy that the pooling and sharing of resources shelters Scotland from the vagaries of the oil markets, the same way that the potential 10% iS revenue shortfall could be covered by not having to generate £12bn to get £1Bn back in UK national project spend
Swings and roundabouts
No unionist wants oil to be in trouble. We all want it to do well both for jobs and revenue for all of us. You have to stop assuming & transferring your own ingrained selfish outlook onto others.
Saudis are talking about $20/barrel. This brings me no pleasure at all if it threatens UK industry, but does roundly prove what a bunch of incompetent nonsense Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney and their white toilet paper were full of when saying $115 was the lowest possible estimate. That would nearly be an order of magnitude out. They were lying to you - to reel you in. You are dangling on their hook yet seek to blame others.
Ah, its Westminsters fault. Tick.
Sway said:
Come on then, O Enlightened One, which year?
After all, as you understand the graph, you'll see that there are very few years where we're not in deficit (and so borrowing cash). It would seem to be daft to setup an oil fund whilst borrowing money - so which year?
Are you aware of the nature of the Norwegian Oil Fund? Worth roughly the same as their debt, and the taxation rates are eye-watering...
Like to see your Norwegian data, I'm estimating your about 25% outAfter all, as you understand the graph, you'll see that there are very few years where we're not in deficit (and so borrowing cash). It would seem to be daft to setup an oil fund whilst borrowing money - so which year?
Are you aware of the nature of the Norwegian Oil Fund? Worth roughly the same as their debt, and the taxation rates are eye-watering...
Norway has high taxation which it gets back in spades by a far higher standard of living than you could dream about in the UK
Admittedly that's not a big draw for capitalist neo-cons who'd crawl over their dead granny if it made them a £ better off than their parents
///ajd said:
Strocky said:
ellroy said:
Oil futures currently pricing $72.08 for 2016, happy to help with a fact, but probably not true or to be ignored or just plain oppression.
You seem to be getting mixed up between prediction & factsThe reality (not the salivating wish of the Unionists on here) is since Oil was taxed from the North Sea, it's contributed on average £6.5Bn to the exchequer annually
That's a period of over 3 decades, not 3 weeks
Also this "volatility" is the reason why an oil fund should have been set up back in the day, funnily enough Osbourne thinks this is a good idea for the NE of England once fracking revenues are generated but not a good idea for Scotland
However we Nats are happy that the pooling and sharing of resources shelters Scotland from the vagaries of the oil markets, the same way that the potential 10% iS revenue shortfall could be covered by not having to generate £12bn to get £1Bn back in UK national project spend
Swings and roundabouts
No unionist wants oil to be in trouble. We all want it to do well both for jobs and revenue for all of us. You have to stop assuming & transferring your own ingrained selfish outlook onto others.
Saudis are talking about $20/barrel. This brings me no pleasure at all if it threatens UK industry, but does roundly prove what a bunch of incompetent nonsense Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney and their white toilet paper were full of when saying $115 was the lowest possible estimate. That would nearly be an order of magnitude out. They were lying to you - to reel you in. You are dangling on their hook yet seek to blame others.
Ah, its Westminsters fault. Tick.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff