Neither one, nor the other. Merely pointing out the total irrelevance of this stupidity.
No-one knowns or can predict the price of oil. Who can say that there will not be a huge spike between now and 2016 and that an independent Scotland "would" have been rolling in it.
How do you know that the current funding arrangements would have continued till independence day? UK government may decide it would be better in the interim period to scrap the Barnett formula and just give Scotland all the tax it raises. In that case yes it would be relevant.
How do you know that the current funding arrangements would have continued till independence day? UK government may decide it would be better in the interim period to scrap the Barnett formula and just give Scotland all the tax it raises. In that case yes it would be relevant.
But - it's not.
Because Scotland voted No. This thread is irrelevant, it never happened, cannot happen and will not happen.
The reason the thread was created was just another poor excuse for Nat bashing.
The international financial crisis was triggered by a cabal of AIG traders who racked up £310 billion in toxic debts from a small Mayfair office in London
You really do need to get up to speed on something that happened years ago
And I recommend you read "Make It Happen" by Iain Martin. A fantastic account of how RBS imploded.
A Scottish bank, with a 100% Scottish board, headquartered in Scotland, which had mince,neeps and tatties served after every board meeting.
A more tartan screw-up is hard to imagine. And it would have bankrupted an independent Scotland.
Because it was not a matter for the "rest of the UK" as you damn well know - christ it was discussed often enough at the time.
No, whether Scotland should be independent or not was a matter for Scotland only. After the vote, everything else was up for discussion, including the timetable.
Because Scotland voted No. This thread is irrelevant, it never happened, cannot happen and will not happen.
The reason the thread was created was just another poor excuse for Nat bashing.
Opposed to those supporting the union bashing? Which happens a lot, go look at Twitter to see what some members of the '45' think of those who did not vote for independence.
Opposed to those supporting the union bashing? Which happens a lot, go look at Twitter to see what some members of the '45' think of those who did not vote for independence.
I think there are more than enough idiots on DS, without having to start looking for them on twitter as well.
It's just as well that Scottish independence didn't rely on oil revenues then, isn't it. As everyone kept telling us, oil production is declining, so the oil money was a bonus, not a main part of the economic case for independence.
Just seen the news BP are getting out of north sea oil.
It's just as well that Scottish independence didn't rely on oil revenues then, isn't it. As everyone kept telling us, oil production is declining, so the oil money was a bonus, not a main part of the economic case for independence.
I wouldn't call around fifteen percent a bonus and I'm afraid Mr Swinney didn't think so either.
i think we had a far luckier escape thanks to the silent sensible majority than most Nats dare to admit.
Merely pointing out a fact which you and others are quite willing to overlook in your rush to bring out the big "I told you so".
It was always the accepted timetable that in the event of a Yes vote, the date for independence would be 2016.
Which makes all this "look at the oil price" "Scotland would be doomed" nonsense, just that..............................nonsense. The current situation would have had no effect on Scotland which would still have been part of the UK at this time.
Given that 2016 is only a year away and plans would have to be in place beforehand, I think I smell someone talking manure here.
Are you seriously attempting to say that the oil price would only matter on the very day of independence?
And I recommend you read "Make It Happen" by Iain Martin. A fantastic account of how RBS imploded.
A Scottish bank, with a 100% Scottish board, headquartered in Scotland, which had mince,neeps and tatties served after every board meeting.
A more tartan screw-up is hard to imagine. And it would have bankrupted an independent Scotland.
Lol. So it wasnt the No campaign who used the fact that RBS Plc (a company wholly owned by shareholders, who most aren't scottish) would be re-locating to London if Independence occurred.
This drop in the price of oil has serious implications for our UK Government when 60% of what we pay at the pump goes straight into the coffers.
That means the Tories will never ever be able to repay the enormous debt left by the previous Government
Well they've doubled that enormous debt since they took office so the point is how will they repay the equally massive and continuing to rise debt they themselves have racked up?
Of course they have no plan too, the only plan they have is to keep any increase in borrowing at a level where it is below the level of GDP growth and thus the % of borrowing to GDP declines. I.e. the same policy the last Government followed, and the one before and the one before and so on.
BP are axing some jobs, not getting out altogether.
It's Scotland's oil when it's booming. When it's not, we're better together because the whole of the UK can absorb the social costs rather than just Scotland. Oil companies can often mothball production till the price picks up again, and socialise the labour, social costs and ignore tax shortfalls.
This isn't entirely Scotland's problem, although Salmond having been an oil economist makes it all the more amusing. The rest of the UK's energy policy is also based around DECC (and the DECC-head Davey) assumptions that oil/gas prices would continue to rise.
It would appear Scotland had a lucky escape in not going independent. For every $1 fall in the price of oil it would have effected the Scottish economy by £100 million, that is not factoring in redundancies and the knock on effects to other business. As the SNP's plan had the oil at 20% of there national income this would of meant huge cuts in spending.
There was an expert who confirmed that the SNP claimed that the oil industry would have been worth £7 billion to the Scottish economy with the collapse of the oil price that figure would reduce to £1 billion.
With the big increase planned in welfare spending by the SNP the Scottish people have dodged a bullet when they rejected seperation.
The Oil Prices would only be one of a number of 'promises' given to the Scottish Electorate that would start to fall to pieces had there been a yes win.
Much of the White Paper listed things that 'were going to happen' that actually were 'things that we want to happen', but it didn't make any mention of the fact that these things required permission and cooperation to do so.
One other problem would be Scotland's EU membership, or rather the lack of it following Independence. Not that the Scots were told they would be out of the EU, but were instead told the nonsense that Scotland would continue to be an EU member, despite it not actually being a member currently.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are technically not EU members, because it is only as a collective, the UK, that we are an EU member.
Apparently, the Scottish government are demanding that Lord Snooty in Westminster make tax cuts to help the oil industry now that they can't balance the books due to falling revenues.
Where's Salmond and Sturgeon with all their independence bluster now?
Where's Salmond and Sturgeon with all their independence bluster now?
They are clinging to the hope that they can form a coalition government with Labour, a party which they revile as the Red Tories. Mind you I reckon they will also be prepared to deal with the Real Tories if it gets them a wee bit power.
Comments
Accepted by whom? Nobody had ever even asked the rest of the UK when they thought independence should be.
Because it was not a matter for the "rest of the UK" as you damn well know - christ it was discussed often enough at the time.
How do you know that the current funding arrangements would have continued till independence day? UK government may decide it would be better in the interim period to scrap the Barnett formula and just give Scotland all the tax it raises. In that case yes it would be relevant.
But - it's not.
Because Scotland voted No. This thread is irrelevant, it never happened, cannot happen and will not happen.
The reason the thread was created was just another poor excuse for Nat bashing.
No-one should ever be made to feel that they need an excuse for Nat-bashing.
And I recommend you read "Make It Happen" by Iain Martin. A fantastic account of how RBS imploded.
A Scottish bank, with a 100% Scottish board, headquartered in Scotland, which had mince,neeps and tatties served after every board meeting.
A more tartan screw-up is hard to imagine. And it would have bankrupted an independent Scotland.
No, whether Scotland should be independent or not was a matter for Scotland only. After the vote, everything else was up for discussion, including the timetable.
Wish they'd bring back that nice "yawn" smiley.
Opposed to those supporting the union bashing? Which happens a lot, go look at Twitter to see what some members of the '45' think of those who did not vote for independence.
I think there are more than enough idiots on DS, without having to start looking for them on twitter as well.
Haha agreed!
So why was Alex Salmond so insistent that the RBS bid for ABN Amro was in Scotlands best interest if it wasn't a Scottish Bank?
And John Swinney was saying that the deal was "an enormous achievement for RBS that helped make Scotland seem an attractive place to do business”.
Methinks you are trying to rewrite history there..
Just seen the news BP are getting out of north sea oil.
Wherever you saw that. I'd get in touch with them urgently to say that they are wrong.
BP are axing some jobs, not getting out altogether.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30817678
I wouldn't call around fifteen percent a bonus and I'm afraid Mr Swinney didn't think so either.
i think we had a far luckier escape thanks to the silent sensible majority than most Nats dare to admit.
Given that 2016 is only a year away and plans would have to be in place beforehand, I think I smell someone talking manure here.
Are you seriously attempting to say that the oil price would only matter on the very day of independence?
Lol. So it wasnt the No campaign who used the fact that RBS Plc (a company wholly owned by shareholders, who most aren't scottish) would be re-locating to London if Independence occurred.
Well they've doubled that enormous debt since they took office so the point is how will they repay the equally massive and continuing to rise debt they themselves have racked up?
Of course they have no plan too, the only plan they have is to keep any increase in borrowing at a level where it is below the level of GDP growth and thus the % of borrowing to GDP declines. I.e. the same policy the last Government followed, and the one before and the one before and so on.
Lots of smelly manure, but even if it was 2016, BP today said they believe that oil will stay at 50 to 60 a barrel for 2 to 3 years.
It's Scotland's oil when it's booming. When it's not, we're better together because the whole of the UK can absorb the social costs rather than just Scotland. Oil companies can often mothball production till the price picks up again, and socialise the labour, social costs and ignore tax shortfalls.
This isn't entirely Scotland's problem, although Salmond having been an oil economist makes it all the more amusing. The rest of the UK's energy policy is also based around DECC (and the DECC-head Davey) assumptions that oil/gas prices would continue to rise.
Ehm - no.
There was an expert who confirmed that the SNP claimed that the oil industry would have been worth £7 billion to the Scottish economy with the collapse of the oil price that figure would reduce to £1 billion.
With the big increase planned in welfare spending by the SNP the Scottish people have dodged a bullet when they rejected seperation.
Much of the White Paper listed things that 'were going to happen' that actually were 'things that we want to happen', but it didn't make any mention of the fact that these things required permission and cooperation to do so.
One other problem would be Scotland's EU membership, or rather the lack of it following Independence. Not that the Scots were told they would be out of the EU, but were instead told the nonsense that Scotland would continue to be an EU member, despite it not actually being a member currently.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are technically not EU members, because it is only as a collective, the UK, that we are an EU member.
Where's Salmond and Sturgeon with all their independence bluster now?
They are clinging to the hope that they can form a coalition government with Labour, a party which they revile as the Red Tories. Mind you I reckon they will also be prepared to deal with the Real Tories if it gets them a wee bit power.