"WHATEVER the divisions between the yays and nays in the Scottish independence debate one thing that united both sides was the value of the North Sea oil and gas industry.
Now we can all agree that the North Sea is vital to the economy, north and south of the border.
Although the boom years are over there are 24 billion barrels of untapped reserves in UK waters, giving the industry a lifespan of up to 40 more years."
"WHATEVER the divisions between the yays and nays in the Scottish independence debate one thing that united both sides was the value of the North Sea oil and gas industry.
Now we can all agree that the North Sea is vital to the economy, north and south of the border.
Although the boom years are over there are 24 billion barrels of untapped reserves in UK waters, giving the industry a lifespan of up to 40 more years."
It's best not to place too much value in anything Salmond says. He's one of those people who get twitchy if they've not made headlines for a few days, so he comes out with something he knows will cause a stir. He'd have been a reality tv star in another life.
As for the oil, well the price of a barrel may go up and down, but so do the costs of extraction. The lower the market price, the less is viable to extract at that time, and so it will stay in the ground for longer. When the price goes up and it becomes viable, then people will bother to extract it. It means that giving an estimate on how long the oil will last depends on a number of things. If oil runs very short elsewhere, and assuming we're still an oil dependent economy, then prices will go very high, and those difficult to extract reserves will be tapped.
But obviously, environmentalists believe most of the oil/coal and fossil fuels in general should stay in the ground for ever. For any government to claim to be environmentally forward thinking, then they'd have to pledge not to extract all of the oil, or coal, or shale gas etc.
It's best not to place too much value in anything Salmond says. He's one of those people who get twitchy if they've not made headlines for a few days, so he comes out with something he knows will cause a stir. He'd have been a reality tv star in another life.
As for the oil, well the price of a barrel may go up and down, but so do the costs of extraction. The lower the market price, the less is viable to extract at that time, and so it will stay in the ground for longer. When the price goes up and it becomes viable, then people will bother to extract it. It means that giving an estimate on how long the oil will last depends on a number of things. If oil runs very short elsewhere, and assuming we're still an oil dependent economy, then prices will go very high, and those difficult to extract reserves will be tapped.
But obviously, environmentalists believe most of the oil/coal and fossil fuels in general should stay in the ground for ever. For any government to claim to be environmentally forward thinking, then they'd have to pledge not to extract all of the oil, or coal, or shale gas etc.
You left out the biggest cost taxation. The average depth of the North Sea is around 100 metres. So I don't think there is any difficulty in extracting the stuff. It is more likely there is a backlog waiting to be connected to the grid. From what I can make out in this map from 2010, there a several dozen black dots representing new oil and gas discoveries since 2000. On the other hand, there are very few pipelines
Despite a rejection of Scottish Independence, and saying it was a once in a generation referendum... less than a year later Salmond is banging away for another one, in his interview with Andrew Marr, shown this morning.
The SNP have more bare-faced cheek than the EU, when a democaratic referendum process does not go their way. I guess Better Together had better re-open the offices, as it looks like the game is back on.
I don't remember anyone saying it was a once in a lifetime referendum, in fact after the last one they were saying there definetly would be another. After the results, it was hardly a landslide victory.
The Better Together Campaign was a con, one in which has been reneged many times since September
I don't remember anyone saying it was a once in a lifetime referendum, in fact after the last one they were saying there definetly would be another. After the results, it was hardly a landslide victory.
The Better Together Campaign was a con, one in which has been reneged many times since September
It is no surprise to me that Salmon is now u turning.
Its not a U-turn, he never at anytime made a promise, he gave his opinion, his opinion could be right or wrong, so far there's no proof either way as there has been no promise of another referendum, and thus far nothing to gauge public opinion.
If polling and canvassing results provide evidence that 60% of Scottish residents want a referendum within the next five years, then what would it matter what Salmond said last year?
Its not a U-turn, he never at anytime made a promise, he gave his opinion, his opinion could be right or wrong, so far there's no proof either way as there has been no promise of another referendum, and thus far nothing to gauge public opinion.
If polling and canvassing results provide evidence that 60% of Scottish residents want a referendum within the next five years, then what would it matter what Salmond said last year?
Not quite sure why you are trying to defend him. Whether it matters or not (I don't think politician have integrity) is neither here or there. He said it.
Economics. We have debt and a deficit just like a lot of the Western world. We'd need to grow the economy significantly to reach equilibrium. More chance of that as an independent nation than remaining stagnant in a union where we only have limited powers and are so obviously at odds with one another constantly on who gets the best deal and who pays for what, and we're diverging further all the time.
What powers, and what would Scotland use them for? When you talk about 'who gets the best deal and who pays for what', aren't you referring to public spending? A country's economy is based on its private sector, which then goes to fund the public sector.
What is stopping companies in Scotland competing with companies in the rest of the UK? I can think of a few relating to geographic remoteness from the majority of the UK population, and lower population densities in far fewer conurbations, but that's nothing a government is going to be able to change.
Not quite sure why you are trying to defend him. Whether it matters or not (I don't think politician have integrity) is neither here or there. He said it.
Defending him? His opinion could be proved to be correct and we wont get another referendum for a generation. If we have one within the next five years then his opinion would be proved wrong. I'll be glad to say he was wrong, and very much hope he was wrong.
And it was nothing more than an opinion, an opinion based on previous referendums on devolution. It can only ever be an opinion.
This was more than Salmond's opinion... take a look at the Scottish Government's white paper.
"If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation
opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new
and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about
Scotland would remain in the hands of others."
This was more than Salmond's opinion... take a look at the Scottish Government's white paper.
"If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation
opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new
and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about
Scotland would remain in the hands of others."
In fairness the white paper was a work of fiction.
What powers, and what would Scotland use them for? When you talk about 'who gets the best deal and who pays for what', aren't you referring to public spending? A country's economy is based on its private sector, which then goes to fund the public sector.
What is stopping companies in Scotland competing with companies in the rest of the UK? I can think of a few relating to geographic remoteness from the majority of the UK population, and lower population densities in far fewer conurbations, but that's nothing a government is going to be able to change.
Invisibility, unpowered flight, psychic mindblast...........I wasn't laying out an economic blueprint for the SNP nor seeking to argue a specific path forward which is why I stuck to generalisations which still convince me to vote for rather than against. Powers - all those currently not devolved - why not? Unless there's perceived to be mutual benefit in any agreement made then it's better having as full control as possible. That's a full deck and they will either be used well or badly. When I speak of who gets the best deal and who pays for what I'm not seeking to ignite a debate on Barnett formula, centralisation to London, resource-splitting, blah, blah, blah, and fight an argument......what I was saying was I'm so thoroughly sick of the arguments that I would be glad to see the end of them in the event of independence and that the sentiment that persists from the first referendum makes me feel that on that level the union is not a positive state of affairs. That's my personal feeling anyway - everyone will have their own unique feeling about it.
2th paragraph. Don't know - ask companies - I don't know how they compare. Doesn't relate to any point I made so I can't answer that beyond vague agreement with the reasons you gave.
I could speculate on this and that, and what I would do and what steps I'd take, but I'm not in the SNP so they might have a whole set of ideas different from mine to try out should they ever get the opportunity and I wouldn't want to misrepresent anyone. I'm a voter so I just listen to the various arguments, decide what I'd like to vote for, and do so. I don't really get a chance to write manifestos.
What would you try doing in their place if Scotland went independent?
This was more than Salmond's opinion... take a look at the Scottish Government's white paper.
"If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation
opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new
and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about
Scotland would remain in the hands of others."
Offering a referendum on independence is not the same as having one.
People who don't support independence but still vote for the SNP will have to choose.
For all we know the white paper could be right. Put it to a vote and we can find out.
Offering a referendum on independence is not the same as having one. People who don't support independence but still vote for the SNP will have to choose.
For all we know the white paper could be right. Put it to a vote and we can find out.
In fairness the white paper was a work of fiction.
what was on offer for voting no and expanded on in the (rushed) Smith report was total fiction & has since fallen apart to great cheers in house of commons
Voters might like the SNP manifesto (eg free tuition fees) and being British..
I can fully understand people liking some of the SNP policies. In fact I would find it hard to believe that any voter agrees with every policy a party comes up with.
What I didn't understand is why they had to choose.
what was on offer for voting no and expanded on in the (rushed) Smith report was total fiction & has since fallen apart to great cheers in house of commons
What do you think was on offer for voting no? I've read the vow and cannot see anything in it that they are not offering.
Comments
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/513098/COMMENT-Whether-Yes-or-No-vote-we-must-unite-over-North-Sea-oil
"WHATEVER the divisions between the yays and nays in the Scottish independence debate one thing that united both sides was the value of the North Sea oil and gas industry.
Now we can all agree that the North Sea is vital to the economy, north and south of the border.
Although the boom years are over there are 24 billion barrels of untapped reserves in UK waters, giving the industry a lifespan of up to 40 more years."
lol
Who said it?
As for the oil, well the price of a barrel may go up and down, but so do the costs of extraction. The lower the market price, the less is viable to extract at that time, and so it will stay in the ground for longer. When the price goes up and it becomes viable, then people will bother to extract it. It means that giving an estimate on how long the oil will last depends on a number of things. If oil runs very short elsewhere, and assuming we're still an oil dependent economy, then prices will go very high, and those difficult to extract reserves will be tapped.
But obviously, environmentalists believe most of the oil/coal and fossil fuels in general should stay in the ground for ever. For any government to claim to be environmentally forward thinking, then they'd have to pledge not to extract all of the oil, or coal, or shale gas etc.
You left out the biggest cost taxation. The average depth of the North Sea is around 100 metres. So I don't think there is any difficulty in extracting the stuff. It is more likely there is a backlog waiting to be connected to the grid. From what I can make out in this map from 2010, there a several dozen black dots representing new oil and gas discoveries since 2000. On the other hand, there are very few pipelines
http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/media/content_img/ch07/Fig_7_2_EN.gif
I don't remember anyone saying it was a once in a lifetime referendum, in fact after the last one they were saying there definetly would be another. After the results, it was hardly a landslide victory.
The Better Together Campaign was a con, one in which has been reneged many times since September
In the name of god, go
Why would that even be an issue?
I think the term was 'once in a generation '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29196661
This is a politics discussion, maybe you want to go find Chatter
And it was nothing more than an opinion, an opinion based on previous referendums on devolution. It can only ever be an opinion.
I was answering a question from another poster.
It is no surprise to me that Salmon is now u turning.
Its not a U-turn, he never at anytime made a promise, he gave his opinion, his opinion could be right or wrong, so far there's no proof either way as there has been no promise of another referendum, and thus far nothing to gauge public opinion.
If polling and canvassing results provide evidence that 60% of Scottish residents want a referendum within the next five years, then what would it matter what Salmond said last year?
Not quite sure why you are trying to defend him. Whether it matters or not (I don't think politician have integrity) is neither here or there. He said it.
What powers, and what would Scotland use them for? When you talk about 'who gets the best deal and who pays for what', aren't you referring to public spending? A country's economy is based on its private sector, which then goes to fund the public sector.
What is stopping companies in Scotland competing with companies in the rest of the UK? I can think of a few relating to geographic remoteness from the majority of the UK population, and lower population densities in far fewer conurbations, but that's nothing a government is going to be able to change.
Defending him? His opinion could be proved to be correct and we wont get another referendum for a generation. If we have one within the next five years then his opinion would be proved wrong. I'll be glad to say he was wrong, and very much hope he was wrong.
Easy access to the land of milk and honey.
This was more than Salmond's opinion... take a look at the Scottish Government's white paper.
"If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation
opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new
and better direction for our nation, is lost. Decisions about
Scotland would remain in the hands of others."
In fairness the white paper was a work of fiction.
Invisibility, unpowered flight, psychic mindblast...........I wasn't laying out an economic blueprint for the SNP nor seeking to argue a specific path forward which is why I stuck to generalisations which still convince me to vote for rather than against. Powers - all those currently not devolved - why not? Unless there's perceived to be mutual benefit in any agreement made then it's better having as full control as possible. That's a full deck and they will either be used well or badly. When I speak of who gets the best deal and who pays for what I'm not seeking to ignite a debate on Barnett formula, centralisation to London, resource-splitting, blah, blah, blah, and fight an argument......what I was saying was I'm so thoroughly sick of the arguments that I would be glad to see the end of them in the event of independence and that the sentiment that persists from the first referendum makes me feel that on that level the union is not a positive state of affairs. That's my personal feeling anyway - everyone will have their own unique feeling about it.
2th paragraph. Don't know - ask companies - I don't know how they compare. Doesn't relate to any point I made so I can't answer that beyond vague agreement with the reasons you gave.
I could speculate on this and that, and what I would do and what steps I'd take, but I'm not in the SNP so they might have a whole set of ideas different from mine to try out should they ever get the opportunity and I wouldn't want to misrepresent anyone. I'm a voter so I just listen to the various arguments, decide what I'd like to vote for, and do so. I don't really get a chance to write manifestos.
What would you try doing in their place if Scotland went independent?
Offering a referendum on independence is not the same as having one.
People who don't support independence but still vote for the SNP will have to choose.
For all we know the white paper could be right. Put it to a vote and we can find out.
Can you explain that please.
Voters might like the SNP manifesto (eg free tuition fees) and being British..
I can fully understand people liking some of the SNP policies. In fact I would find it hard to believe that any voter agrees with every policy a party comes up with.
What I didn't understand is why they had to choose.
What do you think was on offer for voting no? I've read the vow and cannot see anything in it that they are not offering.