I don't know what Act you're referring to, but Ireland not being part of the UK does make it a foreign country in my eyes, just not as foreign as France or Germany!
which specifically states that the Republic is not a foreign country.
Not that there's anything wrong with foreignness, of course - despite the nasty rhetoric of elements of the Better Together campaign, who seen to regard being "foreign" as something unpleasant and undesirable.
that's not what Dunleavy said , he estimated it could take up to ten years
btw you sound an awful lot like a previously banned poster , but that of course couldn't be true as that's against the T&C to rejoin under a new name ;-)
Is it just me or does a certain poster have a very similar posting style to one of our former posters? And a certain poster joined DS only one week after the former poster lost their posting privileges.
Eta: I just noticed you thought the same thing as I was posting this
They certainly went to the same school as Dare Allen, a poster who held similar views backed up with flimsy facts.
Things like Taxes and DVLA couldn't just be farmed out to another country unless the equipment of that country was identical and the way their records were handled was identical.
It's a foolish notion that even the Yes campaign aren't even thinking about.
I thought the same when I saw his posts - that distinctive style and use of language particularly about Westminster.
It was confirmed to me when he mentioned 'unsustainable debt repayments' with regards to rUK. Only one poster, to my knowledge, has ever mentioned that.
I thought the same when I saw his posts - that distinctive style and use of language particularly about Westminster.
It was confirmed to me when he mentioned 'unsustainable debt repayments' with regards to rUK. Only one poster, to my knowledge, has ever mentioned that.
I suppose the really really worrying thing is there might actually be two of them :D:D
It isn't. I'll spare you the embarrassing of not having known that.
As has been pointe out before, your being "quote convinced" of something doesn't trump an Act of Parliament.
I maintain that by all counts Ireland isnt part of the UK and has its own government and laws. Its foreign. It might not be treated as such in certain things but that doesnt change the actual fact.
As you correctly say, this is Westminster's guarantee and Westminster's future liability. It is likely Scotland may offer to pay some of the cost, perhaps a population based 8.3% is fairest for the decommissioning of these rigs. For as you also correctly state, Westminster has already spent the money on English infrastructure.
Oh please.
Which part of never-never land do you inhabit.:D And is Wee Alec you next door neighbour:D
The UK government guarantee is to provide tax relief against a future expenditure which is covered by their tax system. If the expenditure is outside their tax system then there is no relief
If Scotland nationalise the oil fields then they nationalise the liabilities too.
which specifically states that the Republic is not a foreign country.
Not that there's anything wrong with foreignness, of course - despite the nasty rhetoric of elements of the Better Together campaign, who seen to regard being "foreign" as something unpleasant and undesirable.
Who ever said being foreign was wrong? I think you just like to twist things around to suit your purpose.
Scotland will become a foreign nation to the UK if there was a Yes vote and the Uk would be a foreign country to us, no matter how you try and spin it.
As the oil companies will be paying for the decommissioning, they will get tax relief but still have to pay. They will not get money pad to them to do it, but have to fund it through profits, letters of credit or trust funds they are forced to pay in to.
Tax relief from whom? Certainly not tax relief from the Uk government in say 2020 assuming a 2016 devolution date.
That is the £10-20 bn darling and co are talking about and it scares the willies out of the oil companies.
I suppose the really really worrying thing is there might actually be two of them :D:D
Are we that unlucky?
That would be the equivalent of breaking three mirrors, walking under a number of ladders and seeing a single magpie all in the space of five minutes .:D:D:p
Tax relief from whom? Certainly not tax relief from the Uk government in say 2020 assuming a 2016 devolution date.
That is the £10-20 bn darling and co are talking about and it scares the willies out of the oil companies.
Yes I know, until 2 years ago I was involved in planning for decommissioning on several fields and the oil companies know all about the costs and are planning for it in long term plans. Small companies are having more problems in planning but are managing it through letters of credit and other financial wheezes.
Which part of never-never land do you inhabit.:D And is Wee Alec you next door neighbour:D
The UK government guarantee is to provide tax relief against a future expenditure which is covered by their tax system. If the expenditure is outside their tax system then there is no relief
If Scotland nationalise the oil fields then they nationalise the liabilities too.
Which fevered fantasy did this come from? To my knowledge it has never been mentioned so it is just blatant scaremongering and shit stirring.
Which fevered fantasy did this come from? To my knowledge it has never been mentioned so it is just blatant scaremongering and shit stirring.
As per usual.
A bit like the OBR being so different from the DECC and the sheeple of BT parroting the drivel the OBR put out when it is so different from any other oil and gas body.
Which fevered fantasy did this come from? To my knowledge it has never been mentioned so it is just blatant scaremongering and shit stirring.
My apologies - very poor choice of words.
I meant nationalising in the sense of taking the ownership of the production licenses from Westminster to Hollyrood.
There was no intent to suggest the Scottish government would take ownership of the oil fields (although the way the Wood report appears to be being implemented the new regulator - Scottish or British - will end up being a very vocal "virtual" partner)
A bit like the OBR being so different from the DECC and the sheeple of BT parroting the drivel the OBR put out when it is so different from any other oil and gas body.
Conspiracy theorist much?
The OBR is quoting the likely oil recovery. UKOG, Scottish government et al are being quoted using the "up to........." numbers. OBR would probably agree with them on the optimistic side but they are not there to deliver optimistic numbers, merely the most likely ones.
Yes I know, until 2 years ago I was involved in planning for decommissioning on several fields and the oil companies know all about the costs and are planning for it in long term plans. Small companies are having more problems in planning but are managing it through letters of credit and other financial wheezes.
So you know all about the Decommissioning Relief Deeds
The Uk government knows what it will do if independence does not occur.
What is Scotland's position on its tax system if independence does occur?
That is the question Darling is asking.
Basically they have two choices
Insist that Westminster subsidises their tax system wrt decommissioning tax relief (through reduced national debt or actual subsidy) - I'm not sure how or why any rUK PM would do this?
Pay for the liabilities out of its own tax revenue.
Refusal to meet the tax relief would generate a snowball effect that would prematurely close many fields.
The OBR is quoting the likely oil recovery. UKOG, Scottish government et al are being quoted using the "up to........." numbers. OBR would probably agree with them on the optimistic side but they are not there to deliver optimistic numbers, merely the most likely ones.
No conspiracy at all.
Why does one govt dept quote an oil price projection so massively different from another govt dept? And why is the OBR one used by BT instead of the DECC projection?
And why is the OBR projected price so much different from any other leading oil industry body?
Nothing to do with trying to put doubt into voters minds by telling porkies is it?
After McCrone I think we can all understand why BT push the OBR numbers.
Why does one govt dept quote an oil price projection so massively different from another govt dept? And why is the OBR one used by BT instead of the DECC projection?
because like most of the issues in this campaign one relates to what is realistic and the other is pie in the sky best case scenario
Why does one govt dept quote an oil price projection so massively different from another govt dept? And why is the OBR one used by BT instead of the DECC projection?
And why is the OBR projected price so much different from any other leading oil industry body?
Nothing to do with trying to put doubt into voters minds by telling porkies is it?
After McCrone I think we can all understand why BT push the OBR numbers.
To save me the chore of looking up the figures perhaps you could outline the "massive difference in oil price" you are claiming between DECC, OBR and UKOG?
I don't believe there is much - I do beleive there is a big diference in the assumptions on the amount of oil as I indicated earlier - more oil from the same assets = much more tax.
All other projections show an upturn. Not the OBR though. They seem to think that they know better than industry experts, LOL!
Still, at least they agree with DECC as to how much is recoverable.
So take the mid price of the DECC forecast and the recoverable reserves as agreed by OBR and DECC then you find that there is a difference of £13 BILLION in tax revenues for the years 2017-2019. And that is the mid price. Given the unrest in the middle east you have to understand that it will be upside of that.
So OBR are downgrading tax revenues by over £4BILLION a year.
Or double the total annual budget for Scottish infrastructure spending.
thing is given the OBR is an independent body whilst DECC are a government department what motivation would OBR have to "lie" but DECC be telling the truth unless they are reporting based on different criteria
after all according to your usual position anything coming out of Westminster is just lies anyway ...
or do you just pick and choose the figures that suit your argument ?
To save me the chore of looking up the figures perhaps you could outline the "massive difference in oil price" you are claiming between DECC, OBR and UKOG?
I don't believe there is much - I do beleive there is a big diference in the assumptions on the amount of oil as I indicated earlier - more oil from the same assets = much more tax.
Read the report by Sir Donald McKay in the Sunday Times
I posted the prioce projections above.
To summarise -
To demonstrate this, Sir Donald Mackay quotes the projected oil revenues for 2017-2019 from the three bodies as:
■OBR £15.8 billion
■DECC £28.1 billion
■OGUK £31.8 billion
I didn't even go for the industry body projection which is higher than the Westminster based DECC.
Anyway, article from the Times. Taken from a Yes site as Times is behinmd paywall.
thing is given the OBR is an independent body whilst DECC are a government department what motivation would OBR have to "lie" but DECC be telling the truth unless they are reporting based on different criteria
after all according to your usual position anything coming out of Westminster is just lies anyway ...
or do you just pick and choose the figures that suit your argument ?
LOL!!!!!
Pick and choose?!!!!!! Thats what BT does mate.
Check the various different organisations projections. Only one of the 5 has a downward track (let me guess, the OBR one!) and you accuse me of picking and choosing!!!!!!
I'd go with the majority opinion plus that of industry experts over one single institution that has come up with something different from the rest of the world.
All other projections show an upturn. Not the OBR though. They seem to think that they know better than industry experts, LOL!
Still, at least they agree with DECC as to how much is recoverable.
So take the mid price of the DECC forecast and the recoverable reserves as agreed by OBR and DECC then you find that there is a difference of £13 BILLION in tax revenues for the years 2017-2019. And that is the mid price. Given the unrest in the middle east you have to understand that it will be upside of that.
So OBR are downgrading tax revenues by over £4BILLION a year.
Or double the total annual budget for Scottish infrastructure spending.
They are getting really desperate.
Oh dear...........
Note your link uses the OBR data from December 2012!
If you use the June 2014 report on which the numbers you pooh-pooh are based then the OBR figures are broadly in line with industry estimates
Also - the actual Brent oil price today is $108/bbl. OBR's forecast 2012 was c. $103/bbl and DECC was more than $120/bbl according to the data you presented.
Read the report by Sir Donald McKay in the Sunday Times
I posted the prioce projections above.
To summarise -
To demonstrate this, Sir Donald Mackay quotes the projected oil revenues for 2017-2019 from the three bodies as:
■OBR £15.8 billion
■DECC £28.1 billion
■OGUK £31.8 billion
I didn't even go for the industry body projection which is higher than the Westminster based DECC.
Anyway, article from the Times. Taken from a Yes site as Times is behinmd paywall.
I maintain that by all counts Ireland isnt part of the UK and has its own government and laws. Its foreign. It might not be treated as such in certain things but that doesnt change the actual fact.
Irish citizens are not aliens. They have the right to live and work in the UK and do so outwith EU treaties, they could do so before EU membership and would retain that right if either or both countries left the EU. This is why they are not foreign and why parliament legislated to ensure this was the case.
The exact same will happen in the case of Scotland and rUK's relationship and the EU will make the exact same provision they did in 1971 and 1992 where the CTA is considered a single unit with regards to membership (or not) of Schengen.
Comments
The Ireland Act 1949
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41
which specifically states that the Republic is not a foreign country.
Not that there's anything wrong with foreignness, of course - despite the nasty rhetoric of elements of the Better Together campaign, who seen to regard being "foreign" as something unpleasant and undesirable.
I thought the same when I saw his posts - that distinctive style and use of language particularly about Westminster.
It was confirmed to me when he mentioned 'unsustainable debt repayments' with regards to rUK. Only one poster, to my knowledge, has ever mentioned that.
I suppose the really really worrying thing is there might actually be two of them
I maintain that by all counts Ireland isnt part of the UK and has its own government and laws. Its foreign. It might not be treated as such in certain things but that doesnt change the actual fact.
Oh please.
Which part of never-never land do you inhabit.:D And is Wee Alec you next door neighbour:D
The UK government guarantee is to provide tax relief against a future expenditure which is covered by their tax system. If the expenditure is outside their tax system then there is no relief
If Scotland nationalise the oil fields then they nationalise the liabilities too.
Who ever said being foreign was wrong? I think you just like to twist things around to suit your purpose.
Scotland will become a foreign nation to the UK if there was a Yes vote and the Uk would be a foreign country to us, no matter how you try and spin it.
Tax relief from whom? Certainly not tax relief from the Uk government in say 2020 assuming a 2016 devolution date.
That is the £10-20 bn darling and co are talking about and it scares the willies out of the oil companies.
Maybe the Nationalists have set up a cloning programme:o
Run from a Secret Bunker in Bath......
well there is a hint of sheep-like behaviour going on ;-)
Are we that unlucky?
That would be the equivalent of breaking three mirrors, walking under a number of ladders and seeing a single magpie all in the space of five minutes .:D:D:p
As per usual.
A bit like the OBR being so different from the DECC and the sheeple of BT parroting the drivel the OBR put out when it is so different from any other oil and gas body.
My apologies - very poor choice of words.
I meant nationalising in the sense of taking the ownership of the production licenses from Westminster to Hollyrood.
There was no intent to suggest the Scottish government would take ownership of the oil fields (although the way the Wood report appears to be being implemented the new regulator - Scottish or British - will end up being a very vocal "virtual" partner)
Conspiracy theorist much?
The OBR is quoting the likely oil recovery. UKOG, Scottish government et al are being quoted using the "up to........." numbers. OBR would probably agree with them on the optimistic side but they are not there to deliver optimistic numbers, merely the most likely ones.
So you know all about the Decommissioning Relief Deeds
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2013/tiin-1118.pdf
The Uk government knows what it will do if independence does not occur.
What is Scotland's position on its tax system if independence does occur?
That is the question Darling is asking.
Basically they have two choices
Insist that Westminster subsidises their tax system wrt decommissioning tax relief (through reduced national debt or actual subsidy) - I'm not sure how or why any rUK PM would do this?
Pay for the liabilities out of its own tax revenue.
Refusal to meet the tax relief would generate a snowball effect that would prematurely close many fields.
No conspiracy at all.
Why does one govt dept quote an oil price projection so massively different from another govt dept? And why is the OBR one used by BT instead of the DECC projection?
And why is the OBR projected price so much different from any other leading oil industry body?
Nothing to do with trying to put doubt into voters minds by telling porkies is it?
After McCrone I think we can all understand why BT push the OBR numbers.
because like most of the issues in this campaign one relates to what is realistic and the other is pie in the sky best case scenario
To save me the chore of looking up the figures perhaps you could outline the "massive difference in oil price" you are claiming between DECC, OBR and UKOG?
I don't believe there is much - I do beleive there is a big diference in the assumptions on the amount of oil as I indicated earlier - more oil from the same assets = much more tax.
Funny how it is only the OBR forecast that shows a decline when everyone else in the world sees it different.
If anything is pie in the sky it is the OBR figure.
https://aye2014.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/oilproj.jpg
All other projections show an upturn. Not the OBR though. They seem to think that they know better than industry experts, LOL!
Still, at least they agree with DECC as to how much is recoverable.
So take the mid price of the DECC forecast and the recoverable reserves as agreed by OBR and DECC then you find that there is a difference of £13 BILLION in tax revenues for the years 2017-2019. And that is the mid price. Given the unrest in the middle east you have to understand that it will be upside of that.
So OBR are downgrading tax revenues by over £4BILLION a year.
Or double the total annual budget for Scottish infrastructure spending.
They are getting really desperate.
after all according to your usual position anything coming out of Westminster is just lies anyway ...
or do you just pick and choose the figures that suit your argument ?
Read the report by Sir Donald McKay in the Sunday Times
I posted the prioce projections above.
To summarise -
To demonstrate this, Sir Donald Mackay quotes the projected oil revenues for 2017-2019 from the three bodies as:
■OBR £15.8 billion
■DECC £28.1 billion
■OGUK £31.8 billion
I didn't even go for the industry body projection which is higher than the Westminster based DECC.
Anyway, article from the Times. Taken from a Yes site as Times is behinmd paywall.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/professor-westminster-is-ignoring-a-mountain-of-black-gold/
Actual article
http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/psdm.jpg
LOL!!!!!
Pick and choose?!!!!!! Thats what BT does mate.
Check the various different organisations projections. Only one of the 5 has a downward track (let me guess, the OBR one!) and you accuse me of picking and choosing!!!!!!
I'd go with the majority opinion plus that of industry experts over one single institution that has come up with something different from the rest of the world.
Oh dear...........
Note your link uses the OBR data from December 2012!
If you use the June 2014 report on which the numbers you pooh-pooh are based then the OBR figures are broadly in line with industry estimates
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328923/41298_OBR_accessible.pdf
Chart 4.2 p.113 and Chart Chart 4.5 p.118
Also - the actual Brent oil price today is $108/bbl. OBR's forecast 2012 was c. $103/bbl and DECC was more than $120/bbl according to the data you presented.
From which report does he "quote" these revenues?
All I read was him asserting that these were the revenues if you used these prices - no link back to consistent data sets?
If you take an out of date DECC oil price forecast in 2012 and add in the OGUK upside oil forecasts then you get the £31 bn
Irish citizens are not aliens. They have the right to live and work in the UK and do so outwith EU treaties, they could do so before EU membership and would retain that right if either or both countries left the EU. This is why they are not foreign and why parliament legislated to ensure this was the case.
The exact same will happen in the case of Scotland and rUK's relationship and the EU will make the exact same provision they did in 1971 and 1992 where the CTA is considered a single unit with regards to membership (or not) of Schengen.