An Independent Scotland?

I had a thought tonight, listening to the news interviews about the three leaders plans for extra power for Scotland if we vote no.

The plan is to start consultation with 'the Scots' on the 19th followed by drawing up draft legislation in the New Year then putting the bill before parliament before the May elections.

My thought was, how much faith could we have that Westminster MPs would vote through a raft of extra powers for Scotland with the general election just weeks away and with the mood they have engendered in the electorate of rUK in the last few months. I cannot see many MPs putting their seats at risk to appease the Scots in that situation, especially with UKIP waiting in the wings and more likely campaigning against it. So what happens if they vote the bill down?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I was confused about your 200 billion per year.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's a rough estimate of the annual value of North Sea oil to iScotland, which is what I thought/think he was talking about.
 
Are you sure about that?

From the Independent - I could research further, but I suspect the gulf between these and your figures won't change substantially.

Alex Salmond, a former oil economist and now first minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish Nationalist party, has argued that a newly independent country could exploit the £54bn in tax taken from the North Sea in the six years up to 2016-17.
 
Steep said:
I had a thought tonight, listening to the news interviews about the three leaders plans for extra power for Scotland if we vote no.

The plan is to start consultation with 'the Scots' on the 19th followed by drawing up draft legislation in the New Year then putting the bill before parliament before the May elections.

My thought was, how much faith could we have that Westminster MPs would vote through a raft of extra powers for Scotland with the general election just weeks away and with the mood they have engendered in the electorate of rUK in the last few months. I cannot see many MPs putting their seats at risk to appease the Scots in that situation, especially with UKIP waiting in the wings and more likely campaigning against it. So what happens if they vote the bill down?
Click to expand...
If I was English, Welsh or N.Irish I wouldn't be happy with what they appear to be offering Scotland. I don't think it would happen.
 
simon ess said:
Are you sure about that?

From the Independent - I could research further, but I suspect the gulf between these and your figures won't change substantially.

Alex Salmond, a former oil economist and now first minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish Nationalist party, has argued that a newly independent country could exploit the £54bn in tax taken from the North Sea in the six years up to 2016-17.
Click to expand...

He was on BBC News tonight speaking to Jackie Bird, I think the figure he used for oil was 16.5 billion barrels at $100 over x number of years I think 35yrs worked out to about 200 billion per year.
 
£54bn over 6 years to £200bn per year is an economy busting difference.

Any idea why the discrepancy? Genuine question btw.
 
Bernie174 said:
It's not a matter of opinions, the SNP have produced a white paper and touted it as a factual document. Some of it makes sense, mostly it doesn't and is full of opinions dressed up as facts. Hugh has rubbished anyone elses view that does not doggedly stick to that document. In a way, I admire his loyalty, but that ain't going to feed people, or employ them.
Click to expand...

Ahh the white paper. It's basically a big wishlist. Let's not forget that in the event of a Yes vote then and only then do negotiations begin with rUK, NATO and EU. And what happens in negotiations? You have to compromise. Give & take.

So for example (and I'm making this up). iScotland wants a currency union. rUK would probably demand strict budget rules, maybe even a veto on the Scottish budget (in case they run up a huge debt the BoE would have to pay off). In the EU, would iScotland be prepared to give up some of it's fishing quota in exchange for the support of Spain who wouldn't be keen because they have Catalonia nipping at their heels to go independent. Would Salmond be willing to commit to joining the Euro to persuade Latvia & Croatia that they're not trying to get favourable treatment that they never enjoyed? Would iScotland be willing to back down on hosting Trident to get support from the US & UK to join NATO?

My point is that it's a two way street and having a bloody huge document filled with good intentions doesn't mean in the real world you'll get it all. The document is understandably biased towards how great it'll all be for Scotland but completely ignores what drivers other countries will accept. And given you need unanimous support of all countries to join both the EU & NATO, I wouldn't be so confident it can be done in 18 months. Especially without some major concessions on stuff the SNP are promising they can deliver.
 
Steep said:
He was on BBC News tonight speaking to Jackie Bird, I think the figure he used for oil was 16.5 billion barrels at $100 over x number of years I think 35yrs worked out to about 200 billion per year.
Click to expand...
£200 billion can't possibly be correct. By my calculations It would work out at £47billion of oil per year extracted, and we would only receive the tax revenue on that figure.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
£54bn over 6 years to £200bn per year is an economy busting difference.

Any idea why the discrepancy? Genuine question btw.
Click to expand...

I might just have got that figure a bit wrong, or he might have.

I can't get my head round figures that size, use the 16.5 billion barrels priced at $100 a barrel and divide it by say 35 years, take twenty percent of that and see what the figure is. What I'm not sure of is the actual percentage of tax taken per barrel and that would affect the final figure too.
 
Steep said:
I might just have got that figure a bit wrong, or he might have.

I can't get my head round figures that size, use the 16.5 billion barrels priced at $100 a barrel and divide it by say 35 years, take twenty percent of that and see what the figure is. What I'm not sure of is the actual percentage of tax taken per barrel and that would affect the final figure too.
Click to expand...
He did say 16.5 billion barrels over a 35 year period, but I don't remember if he quoted a value per year.

If it's 15% tax then the revenue would be approx £7billion per year, which is not too far from what it is at present.
 
Last edited:
Cheers, in that case forget about passing the figure on to Steven :)
 
Ahh the white paper. It's basically a big wishlist. Let's not forget that in the event of a Yes vote then and only then do negotiations begin with rUK, NATO and EU. And what happens in negotiations? You have to compromise. Give & take.

So for example (and I'm making this up). iScotland wants a currency union. rUK would probably demand strict budget rules, maybe even a veto on the Scottish budget (in case they run up a huge debt the BoE would have to pay off). In the EU, would iScotland be prepared to give up some of it's fishing quota in exchange for the support of Spain who wouldn't be keen because they have Catalonia nipping at their heels to go independent. Would Salmond be willing to commit to joining the Euro to persuade Latvia & Croatia that they're not trying to get favourable treatment that they never enjoyed? Would iScotland be willing to back down on hosting Trident to get support from the US & UK to join NATO?

My point is that it's a two way street and having a bloody huge document filled with good intentions doesn't mean in the real world you'll get it all. The document is understandably biased towards how great it'll all be for Scotland but completely ignores what drivers other countries will accept. And given you need unanimous support of all countries to join both the EU & NATO, I wouldn't be so confident it can be done in 18 months. Especially without some major concessions on stuff the SNP are promising they can deliver.
Click to expand...

Yep, you know that, I know that, but Hugh quotes it as the word of god.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Semantics !

Centre of operations, HQ, call it what you will they are clearing their desks as we speak and heading for London....

.......and if you've done your homework you know I'm always right ! ;)
Click to expand...

Yep I was right !

Confirmed on Sky News this morning Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland are going be saying Auld Lang Syne and good by Edinburgh if the Scotland vote is a Yes.
 
gadgeteer said:
As Nick Beecroft in the article below says, the loss of Scotland would mean a loss of around 9% of GDP which puts the rUK back to around where it was in 2011. It'd be a shock and not a pleasant one for sure but rUK would soldier on. But the list of problems for Scotland would only just be starting. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nick-beecroft/scotland-economy_b_5796312.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK
Click to expand...
What a bizarre thing to say, and to my mind it just totally discredits the author. Total GDP is utterly irrelevant except for bragging rights. GDP per capita is very relevant and would barely be affected by the loss of Scotland. It would in no way be a "shock" and there would be no need to "soldier on".
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Yep I was right !

Confirmed on Sky News this morning Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland are going be saying Auld Lang Syne and good by Edinburgh if the Scotland vote is a Yes.
Click to expand...
So you've decided then that it's going to definitely be a yes vote?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So you've decided then that it's going to definitely be a yes vote?
Click to expand...

Your not reading posts properly Bob. In no way can you confer that from reading my post that you quote.

On a personnel note I think it will be a close call but I had a little flutter on the No vote just for fun.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Semantics !

Centre of operations, HQ, call it what you will they are clearing their desks as we speak and heading for London....

.......and if you've done your homework you know I'm always right ! ;)
Click to expand...

Blank_Canvas said:
Your not reading posts properly Bob. In no way can you confer that from reading my post that you quote.

On a personnel note I think it will be a close call but I had a little flutter on the No vote just for fun.
Click to expand...

You stated that they were clearing their desks as we speak and heading for London, therefore implying a Yes vote.
You said it, not me:p
 
When calculating oil revenues, are people also taking into account the large financial incentives that are provided and then offsetting these for a more accurate net figure?
 
gman said:
Are there any dangers to underwater fracking?
Click to expand...

Seems like there are many and also to our fishing. Yet another point of mine ignored by Team Yes. I suspect one person in particular has me on ignore or their head firmly in the sand.
 
What's happening on the "Road show" today ………….
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Seems like there are many and also to our fishing. Yet another point of mine ignored by Team Yes. I suspect one person in particular has me on ignore or their head firmly in the sand.
Click to expand...

Yeah, adding "underwater" to any process tends to make it more dangerous. Considering the big concern for land fracking is water table contamination i'd think making a mistake in the sea would have more far reaching consequences..
 
I saw some heart breaking interviews with young people who go a vote. However they feel like it is voting between mum and dad and that they've been put in a unfair position with too much pressure.

Very sad to see.
 
Interesting point brought up yesterday about the forthcoming olympics, which of course at the moment is team GB
So it'll not affect Rio 2016 but what about after that? An independent Scottish team makes sense, after all they have medal winners in Tennis, winter sports.
However that again brings in funding issues and another possible spending addition for the new scottish Govt. At the moment the sport is controlled by the British Olympic committee, funded by Uk Sport and the UK Lottery.

When you start actually looking into how entwined everything is, you don't realise how much there is.
 
lost said:
The Requirements for a new country joining the EU I noticed this question had been asked so here are the facts
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis/index_en.htm
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I have posted that 3 times so far. The joining conditions are clearly stated in bold as being non negotiable. That makes joining the Euro as mandatory and accepting the other mandatory 34 conditions. That would be driving a coach and horses through any concept of independence.
Home rule by Brussels.
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Yep I was right !

Confirmed on Sky News this morning Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland are going be saying Auld Lang Syne and good by Edinburgh if the Scotland vote is a Yes.
Click to expand...

Bobsyeruncle said:
You stated that they were clearing their desks as we speak and heading for London, therefore implying a Yes vote.
You said it, not me:p
Click to expand...

Just what we need - more foreigners coming over here, taking our jobs... :D
 
Byker28i said:
Just what we need - more foreigners coming over here, taking our jobs... :D
Click to expand...

By all means build a huge wall spanning the border, but just make sure the door can locked from both sides... ;)
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Confirmed on Sky News this morning Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland are going be saying Auld Lang Syne and good by Edinburgh if the Scotland vote is a Yes.
Click to expand...

Let's be fair. They'll set up legal entities in the UK and they both say variations of "there would be no immediate changes". The operative word there is "immediate". That leaves it completely open to moving them at a later date. And let's look at the facts here. The UK has the biggest financial services sector in Europe in London. Over time wouldn't it be REALLY tempting to move more jobs there now rather than keeping them in what's now a foreign country?

arclight said:
Yes, I think I have posted that 3 times so far. The joining conditions are clearly stated in bold as being non negotiable. That makes joining the Euro as mandatory and accepting the other mandatory 34 conditions. That would be driving a coach and horses through any concept of independence.
Home rule by Brussels.
Click to expand...

Everything is negotiable. If all 28 member states agree that the newbie (iScotland) can have an opt out on Schengen & the Euro then it can have an opt out. But what can Scotland offer in return? In short why should Poland, Croatia, even France offer Scotland an opt out? What's in it for them?

To me this has become a battle between optimism and realism. The optimists say "Yeah! Everything will be great". The realists are trying to say "Er...but what if x happens, y happens or you don't get z" To which the optimists reply "Nah, don't worry about it. It'll be fine. You're just trying to scare me."

The bottom line is this though. Would you bet your entire family's future and your future family's future prosperity on a huge gamble with no real details forthcoming. I know I wouldn't. Because iScotland will do well now. It'll probably still do well in 5-10 years. But 20, 30, 40 years on? I wouldn't bet on that. Not with oil running out, an aging population and a government that likes to spend more than it earns.
 
Byker28i said:
Just what we need - more foreigners coming over here, taking our jobs... :D
Click to expand...
And our women :) oops I think that is me on all counts :p
 
Bernie174 said:
One way or the other Bob, Scotland is going to be a very divided country for a long time after this, has anyone put any reasoned thought into how that's going to be resolved?
Click to expand...
Bernie

I would prefer to see what the outcome is before I start speculating on how divided we may or may not be.
I can't answer for the no camp, but if it's a no vote, then although I would be disappointed, we would at least come out of it with more powers than we went in with, so a win win situation?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I can't answer for the no camp, but if it's a no vote, then although I would be disappointed, we would at least come out of it with more powers than we went in with, so a win win situation?
Click to expand...


I'm betting if its a no vote then there will be future referendums asking the same question until a yes vote is finally achieved
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Yep I was right !

Confirmed on Sky News this morning Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland are going be saying Auld Lang Syne and good by Edinburgh if the Scotland vote is a Yes.
Click to expand...

Looks like it will amount to moving brass plaques.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top