An Independent Scotland?

I'll see your Ian Woods with N-56 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

And add a raft of reports going back a year saying that investment in the North Sea is at record highs and getting higher. Ian Woods makes no mention at all of the new fields west of Shetland or any of the potential West coast fields, he's entitled to his opinion but it's just that and no more accurate than any other from what I can see.

A quote from Forbes:
"Aberdeen is upbeat as wages are up, services companies are thriving, private equity firms are sizing up midcap assets and the potential for West of Shetland oil and gas exploration being realized meaningfully is no longer in doubt."

Shetland is buzzing with activity gearing up for the new oilfields and infrastructure, with thousands of jobs going there in construction.
 
Steep said:
I'll see your Ian Woods with N-56 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

And add a raft of reports going back a year saying that investment in the North Sea is at record highs and getting higher. Ian Woods makes no mention at all of the new fields west of Shetland or any of the potential West coast fields, he's entitled to his opinion but it's just that and no more accurate than any other from what I can see.

A quote from Forbes:
"Aberdeen is upbeat as wages are up, services companies are thriving, private equity firms are sizing up midcap assets and the potential for West of Shetland oil and gas exploration being realized meaningfully is no longer in doubt."

Shetland is buzzing with activity gearing up for the new oilfields and infrastructure, with thousands of jobs going there in construction.
Click to expand...
N-56 was founded by Dan Macdonald, who is a member of the advisory board for Yes Scotland, which is campaigning for independence.

Well , no s*** Sherlock.

And here's another view on Aberdeen, don't hang your hat on a peg that may not be there.

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/industry-cuts-marks-start-emerging-trend-according-expert/
 
When you'd expect the price of oil to soar, events in Iraq, it hasn't. So it seems at the moment that the predictions of higher revenues aren't as likely.
So perhaps the N-56 are incorrect in their assessments, even if they were neutral, which it seems they are not.
 
dod said:
N-56 was founded by Dan Macdonald, who is a member of the advisory board for Yes Scotland, which is campaigning for independence.

Well , no s*** Sherlock.
Click to expand...


I know they are but they're no less likely to be correct than Ian Woods who himself is hardly unbiased is he?
 
Steep said:
I know they are but they're no less likely to be correct than Ian Woods who himself is hardly unbiased is he?
Click to expand...

Why is he biased?
 
Steep said:
I'll see your Ian Woods with N-56
Click to expand...
It seems to me that they're talking about different things. Woods seems to be talking about how much oil we know is there and could be extracted with current technology. N-56 seems to be talking about how much oil might be there and might be extracted if the economic climate is slanted towards more exploration and technological development. The latter is more speculative, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily unrealistic. It seems reasonable to expect there are still deposits out there waiting to be discovered, and it seems reasonable to expect that technology will continue to make previously inaccessible deposits accessible, and it seems reasonable to expect that the government of an independent Scotland would incentivise this. (But that doesn't mean it's necessarily right either.)
 
dod said:
Why is he biased?
Click to expand...

Dave1 said:
Probably because he hasn't come out in support of the Yes campaign ;).
Click to expand...

dinners said:
But if you're not you're not 'yes' - you're biased ;)
Click to expand...

He's a confirmed no voter, quite honestly I'm surprised at dods attitude there, it seems something from N-56 is suspect simply because they were founded by a yes campaigner...
dod said:
N-56 was founded by Dan Macdonald, who is a member of the advisory board for Yes Scotland, which is campaigning for independence.

Well , no s*** Sherlock.
Click to expand...

But Ian Woods isn't subject to the same scrutiny?
 
StewartR said:
It seems to me that they're talking about different things. Woods seems to be talking about how much oil we know is there and could be extracted with current technology. N-56 seems to be talking about how much oil might be there and might be extracted if the economic climate is slanted towards more exploration and technological development. The latter is more speculative, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily unrealistic. It seems reasonable to expect there are still deposits out there waiting to be discovered, and it seems reasonable to expect that technology will continue to make previously inaccessible deposits accessible, and it seems reasonable to expect that the government of an independent Scotland would incentivise this. (But that doesn't mean it's necessarily right either.)
Click to expand...

Ian Woods seems to have concentrated solely on the existing North Sea wells and if that were all there was he'd be correct, but right now the Claire field has been found to be of significant size and is yet to come on line. Shetland is gearing up massively for that and investment of (I think it's) £4+ billions has been announced already. There are also the potential deposits on the Atlantic off Rockall which are known about and in the Firth of Clyde.
 
dinners said:
But if you're not you're not 'yes' - you're biased ;)
Click to expand...
Steep said:
He's a confirmed no voter
Click to expand...

It was more of a general comment.

Anybody who is clearly 'No' is considered biassed by those who are clearly 'Yes'

Anybody who is clearly 'Yes' is considered biassed by those who are clearly 'No'

Political bias probably makes up for the majority of voters especially when it comes to the referendum.
 
dinners said:
It was more of a general comment.

Anybody who is clearly 'No' is considered biassed by those who are clearly 'Yes'

Anybody who is clearly 'Yes' is considered biassed by those who are clearly 'No'

Political bias probably makes up for the majority of voters especially when it comes to the referendum.
Click to expand...

Precisely and I don't exclude myself from that.
 
ST4 said:
I am a unionist through and through. I see myself as British and would in no way want to see Britain broken up. I'd always vote no in principle.
Click to expand...

Would that stop you having an open mind about it though?
 
gman said:
Would that stop you having an open mind about it though?
Click to expand...

I'm politically pre disposed to the NO argument (I'm a Tory voter with leanings for some aspects of UKIP), and what I've seen of the Yes argument hasn't swayed me, despite wishing to be open to it. The fairer scotland vision of the Yes campaign only fairer on those who don't pay much tax, or who don't earn much or nothing at all. It isn't fairer to those working hard on good/high salaries and decent assets IMHO.

I'm also not swayed by the currency arguments and oil revenues. Its too risky, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
dod said:
Ian Woods view
Click to expand...
Reference Ian Woods statements in dod's link, you'll love this...

He said: “Based on the research and conversations within my review, and across the industry, I believe, that even with a more sympathetic tax and regulation framework, the likely best outcome, without new hydrocarbon regions being discovered, is between 15billion and 16.5billion barrels.”

The First Minister’s most quoted prediction of a further 24 billion barrels left in the North Sea is 45% to 65% too high, according to Sir Ian.
Click to expand...
---
Then we have - Ian Woods report to the UK government in 2013

41 billion barrels of oil and gas have already been produced from the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS), and 20 billion or more could still to be produced. Sir Ian believes that implementing the recommendations of the review will deliver at least 3-4 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) more than would otherwise be recovered, worth £200 billion.
Click to expand...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-offshore-oil-and-gas-sir-ian-woods-interim-report-published

So when the first minster quotes Ian Woods own figures Ian woods says he's wrong? what happened to the 8-9 billion barrels of oil that were there a year ago?
 
ST4 said:
The fairer scotland vision of the Yes campaign only fairer on those who don't pay much tax, or who don't earn much or nothing at all. It isn't fairer to those working hard on good/high salaries and decent assets IMHO.
Click to expand...

It does feel that those who work hard and contribute are probably going to end up being the ones who have to pay for things in the future. I'm all for helping those who need it, that's what an advanced civilised state does but we really do need to deal with the ones who don't even bother. Things like H&S etc really needs to be scaled back and get people who just claim and never work out doing public services - anything, just so long as they are earning that welfare cheque.

Far harsher penalties for false claimants should be introduced for starters. It makes me mad when I see people during working hours who you can clearly tell don't work, won't work and yet seem to be able to afford a dog, cigarettes etc. Then as always their razor sharp vision spots you and they make a bee-line in order to ask for money. I get the impression that Salmond wants to throw even more money at them. Sorry, our money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
How about removing government involvement in welfare other than pensions? And hand all other welfare to charities? And then you can choose to donate or not donate. Removes the politics of it.
 
HuntingMartians said:
How about removing government involvement in welfare other than pensions? And hand all other welfare to charities? And then you can choose to donate or not donate. Removes the politics of it.
Click to expand...
Why not include pensions, it is welfare after all. The liberal government of the early 1900's were not motivated by philanthropy when introducing welfare reform but rather as a means of self preservation. A modern developed country cannot survive without an extensive welfare state.
 
I don't have a problem with Welfare, be it benefits, disability or pensions. It's those who have never contributed towards either that annoy me. Obviously there are exceptions such as those who have always required disability etc, but for the rest then there should really be some form of compulsory voluntary work scheme in place so that they are still "earning" their benefits. It shouldn't be easy nor more lucrative than working minimum wage, but at least it's something and may act as a catalyst to get those who obviously have no intention of working to find a job. Perhaps I'm a bit harsh with my view on this but my views are even more brutal when it comes to leniency given to many rich people and large corporations who get away with far too much also.

But this is going off topic and entering the realm of politics where I can predict some arguments happening! lol
 
Steep said:
what happened to the 8-9 billion barrels of oil that were there a year ago?
Click to expand...
We'll negotiate it after a no vote, don't worry about it.
 
A young Alistair Darling at a Labour party conference, speaking out against Tory austerity cuts in 1979


Haven't found a longer version yet.

/edit got the context wrong.
 
Last edited:
Not even that possibility can make me vote no! :p
 
Steep said:
Not even that possibility can make me vote no! :p
Click to expand...

:)

Joking aside - Salmond's comment the other day......

"if the Brahan Seer said to me, ‘Listen, you retire from politics tomorrow and I guarantee you Scotland will be an independent country in the spring of 2016’, I would shake hands on that right away – absolutely.”

........would definately sway a few to vote YES
 
He said at the same time, if the price of independence was disbanding the SNP he'd do it. I believed him though I don't expect others would.
 
Steep said:
He said at the same time, if the price of independence was disbanding the SNP he'd do it. I believed him though I don't expect others would.
Click to expand...

I know - too many SNP voters to make that a sensible suggestion though.

Him stepping down though would be quite appealing.
 
I haven't read all the way through but as an Englishman I hope the Scots don't vote for independence. I think it would be a great shame but I appreciate that it would give Scotland much more self determination but perhaps not independence, any more than Britain has from Europe. The concept of independence is a moot one as we are so interdependent economically.
It would be an interesting vote to see whether the English would vote for Scottish 'independence'?!
 
Duncan.F said:
I haven't read all the way through but as an Englishman I hope the Scots don't vote for independence. I think it would be a great shame but I appreciate that it would give Scotland much more self determination but perhaps not independence, any more than Britain has from Europe. The concept of independence is a moot one as we are so interdependent economically.
It would be an interesting vote to see whether the English would vote for Scottish 'independence'?!
Click to expand...

Actually, Duncan, the concept of independence is a nonsense :-

All countries that seek to join the Eu must submit to handing over non-negotiable control (as the Eu demands) in the following fields (as detailed in the Eu's 35 Chapters of the acquis):-

Chapter 1: Free movement of goods
Chapter 2: Freedom of movement for workers
Chapter 3: Right of establishment and freedom to provide services
Chapter 4: Free movement of capital
Chapter 5: Public procurement
Chapter 6: Company law
Chapter 7: Intellectual property law
Chapter 8: Competition policy
Chapter 9: Financial services
Chapter 10: Information society and media
Chapter 11: Agriculture and rural development
Chapter 12: Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy
Chapter 13: Fisheries
Chapter 14: Transport policy
Chapter 15: Energy
Chapter 16: Taxation
Chapter 17: Economic and monetary policy
Chapter 18: Statistics
Chapter 19: Social policy and employment
Chapter 20: Enterprise and industrial policy
Chapter 21: Trans-European networks
Chapter 22: Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments
Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights
Chapter 24: Justice, freedom and security
Chapter 25: Science and research
Chapter 26: Education and culture
Chapter 27: Environment
Chapter 28: Consumer and health protection
Chapter 29: Customs union
Chapter 30: External relations
Chapter 31: Foreign, security and defence policy
Chapter 32: Financial control
Chapter 33: Financial and budgetary provisions
Chapter 34 - Institutions
Chapter 35 - Other issues

Salmond has said that adopting the Euro as currency is out of the question, but it is impossible to join the Eu without doing so. It is a mandatory condition.
 
arclight said:
Salmond has said that adopting the Euro as currency is out of the question, but it is impossible to join the Eu without doing so. It is a mandatory condition.
Click to expand...
We've been over this many times. There are no exact rules which cover Scotland's situation because Scotland us already part of the EU. The common sense opinion is that the EU won't force Scotland out if they want to stay in, and won't force them to use the Euro if they don't want to.
 
Why would NATO ever want to keep Scotland out?
 
I think Scotland has considerable strategic importance to NATO due to our geographical location, in particular vessels coming out of the Baltic Sea and through the North Sea as well as the Norwegian Sea.

My wife came home on Friday with a Yes wrist band on. I considering implementing Sharia Law in the house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top