Unleashing a firestorm
It’s not as if the Financial Times doesn’t have history with dropping great big payloads of high explosive into the middle of the independence debate late on a Sunday night. But a piece coming up in Monday’s edition (and online tonight) is going to choke a few breakfasts in London tomorrow morning.
It’s not the information in itself that’s new. Most of it is stuff the likes of this site have been screaming for the last two years. But the starkness of the language, and more pertinently the source of it, is going to rock the boat some and no mistake.
“An independent Scotland could also expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK”, for example, is not what we tend to hear from the UK media. (And doesn’t even factor in the effect of Scotland being likely to negotiate a lower debt share than its per-capita percentage.)
Similarly, “Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters” isn’t news to us, but can you EVER remember seeing it in a Scottish or UK newspaper, other than as a quote from a Yes Scotland or SNP spokesman?
The article is illustrated with some commendably clear graphics, but the one above in particular is simply dynamite. With the current UK setting the benchmark at 100, it clearly indicates, from Westminster’s own data, that right now an independent Scotland would be 11% better off overnight compared to staying in the UK.
Based on the current total Scottish budget (Scottish Government and UK government) of around £64bn, that’s somewhere in the vicinity of £7 billion a year. We don’t think even the SNP has ever put such a dramatic figure on how much wealthier Scots would be as an independent nation. It’s £1,321 a year for every man, woman and child in the country, or £5,812 a year for the classic 2.4-children nuclear family. Which puts that whole “£500” thing into some perspective.
The table above also paints a picture of strength. Unionists constantly assert that while Scotland is doing relatively well now, oil revenues are projected to fall over the next 40 years. That’s a debateable assertion – scarce commodities tend to increase in price, and independence would open up possibilities for whole new fields of exploration off Scotland’s west coast, currently off-limits due to Trident. The figure also doesn’t include the £200bn of extra cash that’s set to be generated from existing fields. And it also ignores the possibilities of tapping Scotland’s rich bounty of renewable energy.
But even if we take the halfway point between 2012 levels and no North Sea revenue at all, Scotland’s GDP per head comes out at £39,787 – over £600 more than the UK (and that’s with the UK currently getting the oil money). Scotland wouldn’t just be better off independent tomorrrow or next year or the year after, but for decades.
(And ALL of these figures, remember, are based on a Scotland with its current spending plans – it doesn’t factor in extra bonuses like the saving of £800m a year we’d be likely to make on the defence budget, to name just the obvious one.)
Make no mistake, readers – it’s one thing for dreadful cybernats like us to shout these numbers until we’re Saltire-blue in the face, but coming from the Financial Times it’s a whole different story. The article does of course contain a sprinkling of caveats and disclaimers, but as a basic statement of the reality it’s concise, unambiguous and earth-shattering. Hold onto your hats, folks, this might cause a bit of a fuss.
Blimey, game changer!
A firestorm right enough.
Simply hand this out and say even the Financial Times agrees.
Additionally, the FT had a headline saying Spain wouldn’t interfere with Scottish independence – but unfortunately the text is behind their firewall so I didn’t see the details – but that could also be a very helpful piece of news.
Of course there will be the usual volatility and dependency argument…. But who cares. Its a launch pad to greater things and away from a Westminster disaster.
Mainstream media reports the truth!!
Is there a political agenda I am missing… Or is the Journalist a frustrated cybernate??
“Is there a political agenda I am missing… Or is the Journalist a frustrated cybernate??”
He introduced himself to me at the rally last September. Didn’t get the chance to chat for long, but interesting that someone from the FT was there, and very late in the day. (Most of the Scottish media scuttled off after 20 minutes.)
I would love to see an update of that article once a few startled comments have been added. How about it Stu?
They will have expected Eck to drop this one in the days before ref so they may simply be getting it now so they can concentrate the next 9 months telling us we, d have no currency, we, ll age faster and puppies will die after independence.
Why do they always include a figure for Scotland without NS oil? It’s ours, and will remain so.
Do they ever give a figure for London without banking/financial services? Naw
“Why do they always include a figure for Scotland without NS oil? It’s ours, and will remain so.
Do they ever give a figure for London without banking/financial services? Naw”
In fairness, it also reflects the fact that the oil is a finite resource, and one day – albeit decades away – it won’t be there and we’ll have to find something to replace it with.
Will the rest of the mainstream media even cover it?
Am I seeing things?
(I so wanted to add loads of question and exclamation marks after that!)
Serious money.Make Scottish poverty history.
I hope Hugo Dixon reads the FT article. His complete load of crap in the New York Times looks like it has been written by a ten year old.
link to archive.is
@Ericmac
Before the days of this interweb thingy, it was said that the FT was more honest than the other papers because it’s readership were the top businessnen, financiers and industrialists who needed to know the truth and not the usual propagander.
Perhaps that is still the case, and maybe that’s why it has such a steep paywall to keep us plebs out?
Given the FT’s demographic, this will be read by the City big boys…..
First step in reassuring the markets that Scotland wouldn’t be a major default risk in the event of Currency Union ?
Fully Tradeable Currency.That is all.
Grab the 3/1 with the bookies while you still can…
The price is going to get smashed!
Only quibble is that neglecting North Sea Oil completely, they reckon Scottish GDP per capita would only be about 93.2% of that of the RUK. This is somewhat lower than other estimates which put Scottish GDP per capita (neglecting oil revenue) at very near parity with that of the rUK.(Which IMO is not the full story either because of various other GDP advantages an independent Scotland would gain).
However, since North Sea Oil is a reality then I suppose it in effect makes little difference to the basic argument.
I just posted a link to this on the Better Together Inverclyde facebook page – does that qualify me as a cybernat? Will I be denounced by Jim Murphy? I really hope so…
Rev, That £7bn extra, where is it just now? Is it the amount that Westminster is currently scamming off us? Am I able to argue with no voters that if we vote no then it means we will be gifting this amount to London each and every year never to see it again? Christ, and they want another £4bn off us each year through cutting Barnett…
Steve B : a link to the FT Spain article, archive copy, is on the previous thread, near the bottom.
“In fairness, it also reflects the fact that the oil is a finite resource, and one day – albeit decades away – it won’t be there and we’ll have to find something to replace it with.”
Casino London will long be a thing of the past before then.
Hmm I wish I had had this to hand yesterday, at a small event I was at where I had a discussion about our financial security as an Independent country, but didn’t feel armed with the numbers, being a tad lightweight in economics type of thing. Hopefully this will be a good start to the week ahead, crikey, might it even mean some unionists will seek some clarity and even contemplate turning the pages of their copybook, it would be advisable surely if they wish to retain any integrity at all.
Kind of makes Better Togethers “Goodbye” to the pound leaflet seem even more ridiculous.
Imagine for a moment sitting with the BT “goodbye” leaflet in one hand and the FT in the other. Hmm tough choice!
What a start to 2014 all the ‘fear factor’ stories withering on a daily basis. But still not common knowledge in the wider UK society, especially in Scotland.
Time for the YES to get a bit tougher and up the pressure on ‘better together’ in debates. Mr Salmond, I hope, will be slipping this information into every FMQ’s exchange.
I can see why Mr Carney came to Scotland, to pave the way for a deal.
Darling must be sucking his thumb and staring vaguely into the void while somewhere in the background a telephone rings. Is it Blair McDougall or Carmichael wanting advice.
🙂
oh bleeding el, I keep singing, I’m. Cybernat and I’m ok…
Maybe we’ll need that border after all….. I think there may be a rush.
oh bleeding el, I keep singing, I’m a Cybernat, and I’m ok…help…
Oh damn my incognito fell off again. I will never make a real CyberNat. And now I’m on moderation!
Will YES and the SG wake up tomorrow morning and go for it?
Will Newsnet, Bella and co help to circulate it more?
Will we copy it, print it and scream it from the rooftops?
Dynamite only explodes if someone lights the fuse and the Rev’s doing his best with his matches. And well done the guy from the FT.
You’re only on moderation if you mis-spell your name or email address so Akismet thinks you’re a new poster, or if you include one of Stu’s pet-hate slogans in your post. Or more than about four links.
From FT
Lanarkshirecomment | February 2 11:10pm | Permalink
This is probably on the fairest economic commentaries I have read on the independence issue. As a Scot, firmly in the don’t know camp, I think Cameron’s 2007 comments are very pertinent. Our fellow UK citizens must avoid pushing the emotive line ” Scotland could not survive alone, you’re too small” . It is insulting and inaccurate. Of course, it would….better off in long term ? who knows…..but denigrating the the abilities of a people will play into the hands of the yes camp.
This could very well be the game changer we’ve been waiting for. Great news!
FromFT
Reportmaljoffre | February 2 10:30pm
Whatever the consequences independence would hold for Scotland, it would undoubtedly be a mortal blow for Britain.
““Is there a political agenda I am missing… Or is the Journalist a frustrated cybernate??”
He introduced himself to me at the rally last September. Didn’t get the chance to chat for long, but interesting that someone from the FT was there, and very late in the day. (Most of the Scottish media scuttled off after 20 minutes.)”
Admit it Stuart, you gave him a free Wings badge, didn’t you?
Whoever mans Pacific Quay’s GMS Memory Hole will be getting a very early call, eh?
Yup, that’s dispositive. As you say, not something we didn’t know but the first I’ve seen it so clearly and graphically articulated in Her Majesty’s Press.
What are the chances of this exposition being published or cited in any British newspaper, or on the BBC? Close to zero I’d have thought. While this effort by the Times is welcome the problem is, it is as this article notes, a sui generis event.
The Anti-independence campaign would be long since dead in the water were it not for a rabidly Unionist MSM with whom they are united in common cause to crush the independence movement.
It is a measure of their disciplined control that these analyses of well-known facts are a revelation, not only to readers previously unaware, but to those of us who did know but never imagined we’d see it in MSM print.
Too many Scots have accepted the meme of Scotland’s relative economic impoverishment and dependency. That pernicious lie can be undone only if the channels of communication to the unengaged and low-information voters who will decide the outcome of this plebiscite, promote this counter meme to allow it to spread organically.
Still, who knows, it may be that we are starting to see the beginnings of a great ungluing of the Unionist media monolith. Other recent reports in the Herald revealing Cameron’s duplicity in colluding with foreign powers to discredit the case for indy, and the other Times article from the 29th Jan revealing the extent of the alleged fears of the establishment that Scotland is going to be lost, give one hope.
A wee thought I had. Last May, a group of Flemish musicians came to Scotland for the first time to hold a series of workshops. In one, we were performing a piece by Bach with voices and instruments. There was an interval that had to be sung in the piece, which the Flemish tutor believed was difficult, but we all sang it with no problem. He quipped that we’d managed it easily, and then said, “That’s probably because you’re from the country of Greensleeves.” (Greensleeves has the same tricky leap – a diminished seventh, for the techies – in the middle.)
About 70% of those present immediately bridled and responded in chorus, “No we’re not!”
That, my friends, is why we are going to win.
If I hear about this on GMS in the morning there is a class of students going to be without a lecturer because I will have driven my car straight into a tree or something.
I am still fuming at the faux hurt of the clown pretending that you insulted the Big Issue guy. This blows away that nonsense . We are all being insulted by Better Together. Oh,the irony.
The MSM in Scotland, print media, BBC, STV et al, will just ignore this report. It’s all about keeping the natives in the dark. How many Scots read the FT? It’s ammunition–no more than that.
@Creigs
What it does though is pushes the true economic wealth of Scotland front and centre in the city
It also may change the narrative behind the scenes down there too
We know we can be a great country,size matters sometimes,and the population matters sometimes but independence matters all the time.
This is brilliant.
sorry I seemed to have been on repeat mode earlier, and sleep tight all.
Could we maybe construct a ‘Better Together Myths Bingo Card’ to be issued to all households with each myth being scored off as it’s disproved?
With the prize obviously being Independence 🙂
creigs1707repeal… ammunition indeed.
Order of the day would thus be, “Fire at will.” 🙂
@Morag
The country of the diminished seventh?
What’s that Flemish guy on about? It’s a minor seventh, and it’s no even Scottish!
I’ve been wondering for a while now, at what point are the people in charge of the various media networks going to realise which way the wind is blowing?
I doubt their bosses actually care one way or another. They have businesses to run, and I’d be surprised if they have much real loyalty towards Cameron and Co.
Modern media networks are basically information mercenaries, whose “journalistic principles” are up for sale to the highest bidder.
Put simply, at some point, a lot of them will start to realise that they’re fighting on the losing side here, and with an eye on the possible profits to be gained in an independent Scotland, might decide to switch sides.
(Apart from the Daily Hate-Mail who’ll probably continue ranting and screaming its head off in a foaming rage about everything until the last of its readers wanders off shaking their heads in puzzled amusement…)
I think this FT report may finally force Westminster’s hand on the currency union. When the money men read this and see the naked truth of the UK’s finances and how much of a loss Scotland would be, they will be tripping over themselves, demanding the Treasury gets on the phone to Holyrood to agree a Sterling currency union (before we change our mind and opt for our secret Plan B).
Finally the penny drops; finally they are being told that the English garden isn’t coming up smelling of roses, that the cupboard (without Scotland) is bare.
Why do I feel little sympathy for them?
Just a wee thought here, but does anyone know if Johann Lamont gets a copy of thre F.T. every day and if so does she plan to stand up waving this page about during her stint at FMQ’s? 🙂
I thought me moving from a pentium4 to an i7 core was going to be my upgrade of the week…but….bloody hell!!!
a but will it be on the early scottish bbc news ??
While this is a good thing in general, you can’t exactly expect the media to suddenly go “OH WE BEEN PROVEN WRONG BY FINANCIAL TIMES! ABORT! ABORT!”
It’s going to be limited to the people who go to their site and have a active subscription to pass their paywall and that’s going to be limited viewership.
The real issue is the more common tabloids and media still pandering and spinning this to reflect their biased views in which, lets be honest. Is almost every media except for cases of The Herald.
This changes something indeed. But you can’t expect the change to be known without effort from those who fight for it be known to the masses. We already know that a few pro-indy sites have put up these cases before but have been dismissed time and time again.
I don’t see this working unless somewhere along the line somebody in the middle who remains neutral gives the facts for both sides and proves why this or that is wrong/right backed with legitimate documentation. Scots want an unbiased view on something that would change a lot of things surrounding them.
@Arbroath1320
At a guess I would say no!
Anyway the economy is just one of those “wee things”
The big question is. Will this put an end to the “subsidy junkie” “scrounging sweaty sock” slur that we are all so sick-fed up with. Worth it for that alone.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at BT HQ tomorrow Darling and McDougal in meltdown. Johann will be alright she wont understand a fucking word of it.
Is it to early to haul up the Saltire as a Flag of conveniance, & declare Scotland a Offshore country,
Ed Balls with his 50p tax rate hike they city gents need a handy bole hole for their illgotten gain,s.
Scotland the Switzerland of the north,this wee Indipendence thingy,s getting serious,is JoLo still in her
bunker. Mr Carmichiel should get of that flying rug,it keeps dain loop the loop,an put,s him on his erse every
time.
Joey fae Essex has joined Blair Mac Dougall
in promoting the Union.
B MAC. what time is it Joey
Joey. I dont know
B Mac. oh I forgot wait an I,ll get you a twig
B Mac. what time is it now Joey
Joey. I cant tell you, its the wrong type of twig
B Mac. what kind of twig do you need
Joey. one from a Palm tree
B Mac. Hello is that the Botanical gardens, could I get a
couple of Palm Tree twig,s
Botanical G. are you that Ross guy fae Radio Clyde dain a
windup, Palm Tree,s dont have Twig,s, ya fekin eejit they
have fond,s.
@Extreem0
“Scots want an unbiased view on something that would change a lot of things surrounding them.”
I think that we just got one.
Ronnie that must be the most surreal post ever on this site. And thats saying something. Keep it up!
@The man in the jar
Well yea, but how are you going to get it too them?
Yer no getting the Pound.
Naw we er getting the Whole BoE, Ha HA.
Next step, World Money Market,s, Gidion gives birth to
kitten,s,an their no little Darling,s,their Rampant Lion,s.
@ man in the jar, am no surreal,am jist no real lol
Nevertheless, Scotlands position is still understated.
As if Scotland only gets to keep some oil revenue and all else remains shared by the UK. In parallel UK as shown as only losing oil revenues and all else stays the same, which skews everything in the UK favour.
The article gives the impression that London carries on unimpeded and without impact. The UK position remains overstated.
A clear example is that it considers the 100,000 direct and indirect London oil jobs and GDP as unchanged. Another: Scotlands GDP from its drink industry is mixed with UK, but tax and excise duty will totally change with a net gain to Scotland and a loss to rUK.
rUK will continue as a major export for electricity produced in Scotland, whereas I don’t think this is accounted in relation to GDP at all, etc.
Scotlands spending is also overstated and UKs is unaltered. Scotland would relieve itself of Trident and at a stroke paying less while rUK paying more per capita.
If only we could see some real projections, you know, the ones that England/rUK won’t see for 30 years yet.
Well, that’s fair brightened up my Monday morning! I’ll send a link to my “But how will we PAY for everything?” brother 🙂
@Jim Watson says:
I just posted a link to this on the Better Together Inverclyde facebook page – does that qualify me as a cybernat? Will I be denounced by Jim Murphy? I really hope so…
Were you wearing your Proud Cybernat badge at the time, and were you doing it deliberately?
Had to check my calendar there as I thought I’d fell asleep last night and woke on the first day of April. Oof!!! This is getting printed when I get home from work and handed out to everybody.
Only by nationalising oil would Scotland be better off:
link to socialistresistance.org
Oh dang.
Clear the decks for action, that’s got shit storm written all over it. 😀
Nice change. 🙂
Did anyone catch the the radio program “Does Scandinavia want Scotland?” on Radio 4?
One thing they did mention was that if we were sovereign we could sell our renewable energy to the continent at its full market price, not the reduced rate we currently get from the national grid. I wonder how much full price would add to our GDP?
And I wonder how many other arrangements like that one have been made to the detriment of Scotland.
@Famous 15, the guy, Bill Lees, ended up being a failed labour councillor from the English West Midlands.
Just another Labour trouble-maker out to cause mischief and divisions on Wings.
And yet another failure. 🙂
Cheers Rev …another wee article stored away in my ‘wee’ portfolio.
Hello all, new here….
Just wondering, comments above like ‘we’ve known this for years’ are common. Also, ‘this’ll make the money men sit up’.
Why? Do you really think they don’t already know, like we do? Have known, for longer than us? They probably read the McCrone report (and a good deal we’ll never hear of) and worked it all out long before us….if they needed to. Massively rich corporations and people didn’t get that way by being behind the curve.
I don’t think there will be a shit storm over this article. This will either be ignored by the MSM or spun to buggeri, but it is still an excellent source to cite during debates and discussions.
The Truth always comes out.
Some people have spoken to a FT journalist, the only journalist available, and pointed out rather animatedly, the bias of the MSM.
The UK Treasury is still spending more in the rest of the UK and giving Scotland the bill.(£4Billion) but not paying off the debt. This makes Scotland poorer than the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK raises less in tax and spends more. There are higher rates of tax in Scotland 60% to 80% in the Oil sector. Multinationals (foreign) tax evade through the City of London, unfair competition for British business and illegal. That is what makes London S/E better off. Illegal under the Union Agreement of 1707 of equality. Since 1928 Scotland outvoted 10 to 1 at Westminster.
Scotland £60 Billion raised £60Billion out. £8Billion to the UK Treasury. Could save £Billions, less spent on Trident, illegal wars, administration/defence/jobs based in Scotland growing the economy, tax on ‘loss leading’ cheap alcohol etc.
Total taxes raised in the rest of the UK £540Billion. Total gov UK spending £700Billion. The rest of the UK is borrowing/spending £100Billion more than Scotland.. Pro rata £10Billion. Scotland would need to be spending £70Billion pro rata, to be on par with the rest of the UK borrowing/spending,
Will the FT break all sales records today then?
(Oh and 5th paragraph, there might be no I in team but there’s definitely one in Westminster)
This is the fuckin Financial Times FFS, the City of London’s capitalist bible of course it’s dynamite. The big burd might not mention it and shift her eyebrows on Disreporting Scotland but this will be cited at debates up and down the country and the live televised debates.
The ultra BritNats will be frothing that it’s ‘British oil’, not Scottish, and the wet Nu Labour sheep will be harping on about ‘selfish’ Scotland wanting to keep the oil for itself. But remember Alistair Darling (increasingly turning into a nutter) will keep on trying to tell the Scots that the oil will run out in 2017!
The important thing about this article is now it’s a legit source, a point of reference that can be put to the DKs. All that will be left in BT’s argument in the coming months is Darling going ‘Boo’ behind a curtain… cue more cash desperately making its way to ‘independent’ think tanks to try and come up with some method of debunking the truth.
Did the FT not first break the Tories slagging off Darling story too? If so, a pattern emerging?
Related:
Labour of course are not going to devolve more powers and are busy infighting over the issue. Even Ken Macintosh recognises how ‘more responsibility’ would hit Scotland’s revenues…
link to archive.is
MSP claims income tax deal could lead to ‘independence by default’
SCOTTISH Labour’s former finance spokesman Ken Macintosh has issued a stark warning against his own party’s proposal to hand Holyrood full control of income tax.
In a move that threatens to reopen deep internal divisions, Mr Macintosh has urged colleagues to step back from plans to devolve income tax entirely to the Scottish Parliament if Scots reject independence in September’s referendum. Writing in today’s Herald, the Eastwood MSP warns the policy would reduce Scotland’s revenues over the long term and edge the country towards “independence by default”.
Surprised to see ‘The oil’s going to run out’ fallacy here. There is no historical fact behind this. Were we all greeting when the whale oil ran out? When did we run out of wood, coal, etc? Think about it a little more. If hydrogen replaces
petrol as the major fuel of the future then petroleum like whale oil need never run out.
Scotland would be a fairer and more equal country because people would vote for that.
No ‘bedroom tax’.
Social care/bus passes for the elderly.
No prescription charges.
More affordable University charges.
Scottish Oil (taxed at 60% to 80%) is subsidising tax evasion in the City of London. That is what makes the City of London better off. The rest of the UK borrows and spends more. All UK taxpayers subsidise the City of London. (Banking and tax evasion)
GMS headlines. Smooth bit of deflection, they used the FT story about Spain not opposing EU entry and totally ignored the finance story.
But we will still be worse off no one will buy my big issues . sigh
Re The Marching Rally
All is not lost. The Marching Rally costs £12K. There is no funding available.
If someone (Rev) wants to set up a fund, and everyone donates £1, the Organisers will go ahead.
with fracking in the news again bbcradio4 this morning, perhaps a wee hint that when Scotland votes Yes, this new technology is all Ruk are going to have left.
Also rubbing in that a No vote will be a total humiliation if in the face of our own riches, we turn them over to big brother to look after for us. unthinkable.
I’m actually going to buy the FT today for the first time ever. I might buy two and leave one on the train for a stranger to peruse.
Its got to be pretty fair to say that BT and their W1 string pullers have had a car crash first month of 2014. They’re going to have a pretty tough time in the next eight months, but they are certainly not quite yet on the back foot. They’ve also still got all of the big cannon on their side. Their problems, other than a dearth of imagination, aspiration or wit? Its got to be the current economic and social state of the UK. They can’t argue that this is an attractive selling point in any way shape or form. Goes back to a campaign point by Blair Jenkins last year. Were we already independent would you buy into this?
Point two: They’ve already travelled a fair ways down a certain route of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt propaganda. Its failed to a great extent, in that they pulled a ‘Chewin the Fat’ routine. ‘Here, you’ve jist goan too far’, kinda thing. Love bombing a la Captain Jack and his multi coloured jaiket is simply cack handed and bloody insulting. Next thing up should have been the bribes, but oh wait…
… Cameron, Osborne, Lang, Broon, Curran, Sarwar, you name it have all pretty much put the kibosh on this. We’ve been told in no uncertain manner that austerity is set to run deeper and for much longer than first expected. That ‘according to Mr Lang’:-
The question of whether or not to walk away from the rest of the United Kingdom would be one for the people who live and vote in Scotland. But what happens afterwards will not be. More devolution — or less — is quite a different matter. It is a matter for the whole United Kingdom, and that includes Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England. As others have pointed out; to resign from a club is for the individual member. To change the rules of the club is for all the members.
There seems to be an extraordinary mood amongst many in the Scottish political parties who oppose separation, that they can simply agree on a shopping list of further powers for their parliament and that such powers will be granted as of right. Scotland is going to have to abandon this mood and, I say gently, get real.
They can’t frighten the electorate any more than they have and they certainly can’t/won’t offer any bribes. The UK is already in a deep state of economic recession and deepening social division, so just what is left to sell the UK state as a worthwhile bet?
Hydrogen isn’t going to replace oil, it’s just a (relatively poor) way of storing and transporting energy.. Renewable energy sources are the only thing we know of today that could replace oil.
I like the little detail on the first chart, that government spending in Scotland is not only bigger than the rest of the UK, but is simultaneously a lower proportion of GDP.
On Scottish GDP I was told that all the companies in Scotland that have headquarters in SE England pay their taxes in England, looks like another way to distort Scotlands true GDP
I take it the original article will end up in the repository?
There is a point you fast become the voice of Scotland. You are getting near.
Funny when you see these figures in a national newspaper and although they have tried to represent Scotland reasonably fairly in these charts, theres a lot of information missing that would make Scotland’s position look even rosier.
Like including other parts of England just to show how low their relative GDP figures are, not just the lucrative and much subsidised London and South East.. Throw in the North West or North east figures and then we’d really see a difference.
Also, let’s get over this with/without oil scenario. It’s rubbish. Either we have it or we don’t and we most certainly do.
Do we see English figures put up ‘with and without the heavily subsidised city’ ? No – because that’s proved to be the most unstable of all markets in the last five years.
And on that note, why do we never see UK figures ‘without oil’ ? It’s only ever Scotland ‘without oil’
This is a deliberate ploy by English media to have two effects on it’s readers:
1) Scotland doesn’t deserve the oil, it’s a mistake that somehow a feckless bunch of tossers like us have been blessed with such a gift on our soil.
2) It could all go away so quickly, treat oil like anomaly, it’s not real, you haven’t worked for it, it will be going away.
Didn’t hear any reference to FT/IFS report on GMS. However it did not get my full attention as I was getting ready to go deliver lots of YES newspapers.
Do the oil figures include the 6 oil fields that we’re annexed when T.Blair G.Brown and A.Darling gave 6000 sq. miles of Scottish North Sea waters to England when they moved the border.
O/T
Andrew Skinner’s ugly contribution to the twitter debate (a picture is in record on cyberbrits):
link to facebook.com
£2.50 for a newspaper? Won’t get the exposure it needs.I got two for showing undecideds.
Some point out, rightly, that oil is a finite resource of income, however, they never take in two things when they say that.
These are- What we would save being out of this crippling Union, and further revenue streams, new ones and existing ones which will increase, like renewable energy.
In line with serious oil production falls, other sources of income will rise to balance things out.We are doing well on the export ladder for example, and our aim is a min of 50% from manufacturing alone, there are so many other things.
Scotland has it all going on, let’s make sure it is for ourselves not used to prop up Westminster.
Kalmar says:
On hydrogen, it is a live contender for renewable energy. In America the have just found a way to create it and mix it with natural gas, which it does nicely. Then it can be piped through the EXISTING gas pipe network. They have some new ways of storage for it also.
I can see hydrogen solving a world energy problem, without fracking, without deep sea drilling and other benefits. This is something Scottish brains could add something to. Which would assure us of lower cost energy, vastly lower co2, and help the rest of the world at the same time.
Forget this story. BBC Scotland now focusing on what really matters – are there enough allotments available?
At last !
I can’t help feeling that I’m the only person who has actually read the article. This isn’t ‘dynamite’ – merely a restating of known statistics regarding the relative positions of per capita GDP. I’ve already seen these figures on the BBC and elsewhere, and the article even points out that key supporters of the union have accepted for a long time that Scotland could be a viable small country.
The entire ‘debate’ on here seems to be a conversation of the deaf. No one appears to have commented on the actual point of the article – namely, that despite the current state of GDP and exports, it is not guaranteed that Scotland would be better off with independence. This is what the journalist is actually saying, if you read the article properly.
Take note of the bits where it says – “…an acknowledgment that Scotland could succeed alone does not mean it would be better off than within the UK.”
Or – “Scotland’s fiscal health will also be challenged by the relatively rapid ageing of its population and the long-term decline of oil output from depleted North Sea reserves.”
Or – “…James Knightley, senior economist at ING, said the high transition costs of separation and uncertainties over currency and the terms of EU membership meant that the material benefits of independence were “far from clear”.”
It’s actually a very well balance article, not some incendiary device that will destroy the No campaign. There are actually more questions in here for Yes to answer, along with a repetition of known and accepted facts.
The fact that everyone here seems to be wetting their knickers over it just goes to show how empty and one eyed the whole debate has become.
“I can’t help feeling that I’m the only person who has actually read the article. This isn’t ‘dynamite’ – merely a restating of known statistics”
Our piece explicitly states that several times, and explains why this IS nevertheless a big deal. You, on the other hand, seem to be desperately trying to spin away some pretty stark facts by clutching at semantics.
Nothing is “guaranteed” in politics. One incompetent government can squander even the richest bounty. The point is that Scotland is FUNDAMENTALLY economically stronger out of the UK.
And I thought that January was a terrible month for BT.
February has started off even worse!
A little straw in the wind here. Mr I Davidson mp on manoeuvres.
link to archive.is
Slightly O/T
Anyone have any idea why Cameron is bringing his cabinet to Scotland on exactly the same day the Scottish cabinet is in Portlethen and Cameron and his cabinet are 7 miles away
link to archive.is
No doubt to make the case for the union but still refuses to debate with Alex Salmond
Cameron/cabinet visit. Even more YES votes.
Haste ye back.
This is great news but it is not a “game-changer”. It is not that type of campaign. With the entire MSM against YES Scotland, it is more a case of people slowly becoming aware of the real situation. Each scare story has to be painstakingly dismantled and argued, until an opposing media has no option but to grudgingly accept defeat and quickly move on. Against he powerful forces of the union, it is, by necessity, a campaign of death by a thousand cuts.
The cuts are now coming faster and deeper, however.
Today’s article certainly continues the trend.
@call me dave –
From the article you linked to:
‘The Labour back-bencher, who chairs the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, said: “The Scottish Labour Party should be considering what its priorities are and not blindly following what is done in the UK as a whole.’
Hear hear Mr Davidson. Hear hear.
Does anyone else get the distinct feeling that the establishment has been patiently watching Better Together build itself up to a crescendo and is now taking aim to ram a rather large size 11 steely right up their negative scaremongering arse?
I may be wrong but Scottish_Skier’s theory seems to be playing out to a plan.
I will show no complacency but I think we’ll do this chaps & chapesses 🙂
When oil income reduces in 50 to 100 years then our renewable energy capacity will be significant. If the rUK does not want to but it then Ireland / Scandnavia will. The critical peak loading for London depends on Scottish hudro-electric plants.
Renewable / cheaper energy would enable us to attract industry back to Scotland as Shale gas has for the USA. The difference being renewable energy is forever.Steel making back in Scotland for example.
Then we have water the next “Oil” – who has most of it and why are unionists so keen to have Scottish water put in private hands.
Regarding the UK cabinet visiting Scotland. I read that Cameron will be visiting local businesses in Aberdeen including oil and gas.
Is he up here to tell them that they are wasting their money as the oil and gas is about to run out?
This will only be a game changer if the media, television and Unionist politicians in Scotland start telling the truth about information like this and stop lying deliberately about information like this.
Judging by the reactions to Mark Carney’s statements, this is unlikely.
This point about Scotland’s figures without oil and not seeing London’s figures without the City is missing the point a bit.
The point is that we never see UK figures without OIL. If Scotland has no oil (because it has run out), then neither has the UK. The impact of oil on the UK economy is always totally understated (for obvious reasons).
The other point is that by comparing Scotland’s figures with the UK figures it is also understating Scotland’s relative strength, because our own figures work against us by strengthening the UK’s figures, albeit in a diluted form because of our relatively low population.
The only fair way to do these comparisons is to have Scotland without oil compared to EWNI without oil, but I have never seen such figures.
I once, many years ago, did a comparison of Scotland minus oil vs UK minus oil and it made a massive difference to the argument which I was having with a typical London ‘we pay for everything in Scotland’ type. Of course, the original GERS figures deliberately compared a Scotland with 0% of oil revenues against a UK with 100% of revenues, which was an out-and-out fraud. Not only were our revenues stolen from us in these calculations, but they went to strengthen what we were being compared against, therefore doubling the effect of the fraud.
Of course, as other posters have said, even doing these simple corrections doesn’t get the full picture because of the headquarter effect and the London oil jobs etc that would have no reason to be down south any more.
Our subsidy to London is absolutely huge, and means that from day one of independence Scottish government will have much more money than now, such that we will be able to increase spending AND cut taxes. I would estimate that our subsidy to London is of the order of 20% of Scottish spending, possibly even more.
London won’t reach 171 gross value added per head for a very long time after independence because of the effect of moving the place where the current revenues of many UK businesses are reported.
For example, Diageo creates huge wealth in Scotland from the production of whisky at its 29 distilleries.
All the excise duty, VAT & gross production/sales in pounds is aggregated & reported at their head office in London from where the taxes are effectively collected by the Treasury.
And while collection of some taxes will remain after independence due to some income being earned in England, the bulk of duties & VAT will be collected by a Scottish tax agency instead.
You can find plenty of similar examples which is why I believe the revenues, GDP & GDP to debt ratios are heavily skewed to make London look better & Scotland worse, than reality suggests.
The charts are at least closer to what is current today but I do expect Scotland’s economic performance to look even better once we have extracted & correctly reported all the income that is currently mixed & hidden in London.
@Les Wilson
You’ve misunderstood my point. Energy or fuel was used to create the hydrogen in the first place. Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy, other than when it comes out of the ground as a component of natural gas.
In terms of renewable electricity, that is best transmitted by the grid at >99% efficiency, rather than converted to hydrogen and back at a very poor efficiency.
Hydrogen can make sense in places where you’ve got more energy than you know what to do with and can’t export it – places like Iceland for example. Certainly not in Scotland – we have cables!
When they say that “Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters”
Is the figure quoted as Scotland’s share actually spent on/in Scotland, or is it the figure before Westminster bill us for WMD, London centric projects, house of lords and house of commons etc. actually leaving us with what to spend in Scotland?
My question is…do we really get more money to spend in Scotland by way of the block grant? Can anybody enlighten me?
“Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland“
Also, is that true? Doesn’t NI actually get even more than us? I’m too lazy to check right now.
“Is the figure quoted as Scotland’s share actually spent on/in Scotland, or is it the figure before Westminster bill us for WMD, London centric projects, house of lords and house of commons etc. actually leaving us with what to spend in Scotland?”
It’s the total, the block grant PLUS the money spent by Westminster “on behalf of” Scotland.
I’m still waiting for BBC news to mention this ! Aye and that will be right !
“I’m still waiting for BBC news to mention this! Aye and that will be right!”
Thing is, it’s not actually news. Most of it is GERS stats, which have been available for months. So the Scottish media and BBC have what’s actually a pretty legitimate excuse for not covering it. The point about it appearing in the FT, so bluntly worded, is that the next time some eejit tells you “We’d be too poor!”, you can hit them with a single link to a source that can’t be dismissed as just a bunch of nutty nats. That’s why this is big, not because it’s revealed anything we didn’t already know.
@Clootie
Then we have water the next “Oil” – who has most of it and why are unionists so keen to have Scottish water put in private hands.
Spot on clootie.
Sorry, but can someone direct me to a recent post where Cameron, Darling etc all confirm in quotes that an indepenedent Scotland would be entirely viable?
They were all together in one spot but for the life of me I can’t find it now.
I’m pulling together a FB update and wanted to lump them in with the FT piece.
Rev,
I predict that the British media will do exactly what they did with the results of the second Panelbase poll you/we commissioned last year (link to wingsoverscotland.com).
Some stuck their fingers in their ears and their heads in the sand, & waited for the story to evaporate from memory.
Others waited for BT to get their propaganda spell checker to work & then concocted a bunch of rubbish scare stories & accusations about fairness.
I expect then that this will hardly get a mention if at all from the BBC, Sky, STV & the print media this week.
Later it may get referenced once the guru of economic incompetence, Alistair Darling, has had the opportunity to smear the author & the report with a large dose of gloom & doom.
It is interesting the article does not highlight that the City Finance is ~14% of all UK GDP, and will be an even bigger proportion of r’UK GDP. Perhaps even close to the relative size of the Scottish oil industry. What would be the r’UK GDP if the Finance from the 170% GDP generated from the Coty is removed – just a a comparator to the “Scotland without oi”l figure
No reporting or spun reports all that can be said is that over time poeple will notice and this website is more than capable of letting hundreds of thousands know!
rabb says:
3 February, 2014 at 10:05 am
Does anyone else get the distinct feeling that the establishment has been patiently watching Better Together build itself up to a crescendo and is now taking aim to ram a rather large size 11 steely right up their negative scaremongering arse?
Always thought the criticism of Darling by the Tories last year was them marking his card for when the polls narrowed….
It is clear this year’s GERS figures will not be as good as last year. Still better than the UK’s revenue per capita but not as great as last year. Unless there has been significant savings in the spending column, the No side may have a wee bit of ammunition.
The link to FT that Rev Stu has at the top of the page also carries the headline :- Spain promises non interference on Scotland… Madrid will consider any application to join as a separate state.
Apologies if this has already been pointed out.
Release the Krankies!
It is indeed a re-hash of figures known to US, but they’re not known to everyone and that’s the point. This needs to be as widely spread as possible. Pick your format; social media, email, word of mouth. But it needs to be distributed by us because it’s in a mainstream publication but one which near no one but the business sector sees remotely regularly, and as the Rev says, it is dynamite because so many people will never have seen it. Reading the article is not the point; getting it to those who have never picked up the FT in their lives is the point. Making sure more people read it is the point. I already have my target; he’s intending to vote no and won’t really engage, but he’s also an accountant and he will be more likely to read a report in the Financial Times than anything else I ever send him.
It is an article that has the potential to take Scotland and shake it warmly by the throat until it enters the collective conciousness that actually indepenedence WILL make us a more prosperous nation. And it’s not just us saying it.
Oil should always be considered a bonus as we maximise a diverse economy in an independent Scotland. Even after the black stuff becomes a trickle Scotland still has an oil industrial base that will operate in other countries that are just developing their oil finds now. However I can see the world shifting to a hydrogen based energy economy by the middle of this century and if Scotland can use it’s oil money to get a foothold in that research and development now then all the better … see hydrogen energy park in Methil.
Are we doing anything to mark the 2000th post? Can we do something fun but productive…can’t think of anything off the top of me heid, but preferably something to irk Darling & Co.
The media will deal with this as they did with the last GERS report. Seems the story of Spain declaring they will not interfere in Scottish referendum also a positive. Is this just co incidence this is all coming out at same time as increasing YES poll results.
In yesterdays Observor there was a patronising piece as is the norm and quoting the two Scottish Banks as being a problem for Independence and the size of our GDP.
This is an area of argument that needs killed off.
Unless I am mistaken, so open to anyone telling me that, the banks operating within Scotland are BoS, owned by Halifax, owned now by LLoyds and UK taxpayer, RBS owned 85% by UK tax payer, Virgin (old Northern Rock good bit), Tesco, Clydesdale owned by Australians and Santander owned by the Spanish.
Though obviously there are a lot of people in Scotland working for banks and in other financial services which banks are Scottish?
Ephemeral Deception a 5.18
We only get pieces of the balance sheet. Were Scotland to get its appropriate share of national procurement (especially defence procurement expenditure of which we get less than 50% of our population share) our GDP would arguably be above the UK figure, without oil.
The carefully chosen “identified public expenditure” which does not represent all Government spending is skewed by providing the higher cost of services for geographic reasons in Scotland.
In the meantime we contribute our share to lots of Government expenditure which benefits mainly the South East of England but is counted as “national” rather than being apportioned regionally
@Ian Brotherhood
Post nbr 2000….Honorary Golden Nat award?
In case anyone doubts how incompetent/reckless the British Government was while Labour was last in government…
The Tony Blair-Gordon Brown duet DOUBLED the annual deficit from £15.6 billion in 1997 to £36.3 billion in 2007.
Clearly affected by his bitter working/personal relationship, Alistair Darling, now Chancellor, decided to make a name for himself when he almost DOUBLED the annual deficit again to £69 billion in 2009.
That’s right, he borrowed in one year the equivalent of the GDP of the whole of Scotland. But just like a cocaine addict, he couldn’t stop himself.
So in 2010, he smashed all the records by borrowing £156.3, more in one year, than the Conservative Party borrowed during all the previous 18 years while in government. And that period included funding the Falklands War when 6 expensive war ships were sunk.
Ok Rev . I’ve added that to my home screen with some other stats and will certainly use them in my continued PERSUASION of my NO voter friends to a YES vote . Thanks for that
If Scotland is strong is a case for UKOK, then how can they explain Wales as per second graphic?
kalmar says
Sorry friend, but hydrogen can be created even from sea water, electrolysis for example. the power for pumps can be got from wind or sea turbines. There are other ways to. Not mined.I get a lot of this stuff sent to me from America,it is cutting edge but is being developed.
Interesting that when the figures for GVA are quoted in the media, the figures for the English regions invariably only show London and the South East. They never show the other regions of England, which are hugely net detractors from the UK, choosing instead NI or Wales.
Heaven forbid, the English find out that most of the regions in their country is not even ahead of Scotland without oil.
Here’s the data for 2012, Scotland WITHOUT OIL
link to ons.gov.uk
Statement from Strathallan;
Strathallan School The School was happy to host Brian Taylor’s Big Debate for Radio Scotland on Friday. Pupils at Strathallan are encouraged to think about all issues and to engage in debate on them. They are concerned, as all young people will be, about a number of issues in Scotland today. The discussions during Friday’s programme engendered a keen sense of engagement with the political process reflecting the independent thinking which we promote. A number went into the debate broadly in favour of independence but changed their minds during it. The issue is the basis of the motion for the forthcoming Senior Debating Final so the debate will continue…
Comments from a small number of pupils via twitter after the debate were inappropriate; they will be apologising to Mr Wishart. Clearly they were upset by the attacks made upon them but this does not excuse the nature of some of the responses
Does anyone find this an adequate or believable response by the school?
It seems that Strathallan are raising the drawbridge and hoisting the Union Jack. That’s privilege for you.
Just think what it would look like when Scotland’s entitlement to shared assets is built in.
Edward says:
Maybe they intend turning up as spectators at FMQ time, in Holyrood!
Or Alex could hijack them after that !! LOL!
@Clootie – you say “If the rUK does not want to but it then Ireland / Scandnavia will.”
I’m afraid that’s somewhat pie in the sky, to be honest. The total capacity of all the continental interconnectors is tiny (about 4% of peak UK energy production) and even though these are going to be increased significantly, you’ll get nowhere near the net export capability to London. You also forget to think about the fact that rUK will be looking to link with the continent more and more, which is closer and therefore cheaper than importing from Scotland.
Long term, post independence there will be no incentive for a UK based grid development, and rUK will naturally look to import power from cheaper sources, which means the continent. At the same time, Scotland will become ever more dependent on renewables, which means a highly variable power supply system. (You’ve got one huge coal fired station and a big nuclear plant closing in the next 10 years – about 50% of your requirements at present).
It’s actually far more likely that Scotland will become heavily dependent on imports from rUK to balance out the variable renewable production. Laying some extremely expensive interconnectors to Scandinavia won’t really help you – unless you think the Scandinavians don’t have a very well thought through power policy, with plenty of HEP etc.
Just a we correction to your post Rev… Quote; “scarce commodities tend to increase in price”
Should read; “scarce commodities always increase in price”
ie. A commodity is something which is in demand… and when demand increases relative to supply, price always increases.
There are no examples of this not being the case.
How many Scots read the FT? It’s ammunition–no more than that.
Indeed, but surely the point made today, is that it is very powerful ammo. Used in the right way, at the right time, it can be devastating. Rightly or wrongly, the FT is highly respected and carries so much more weight than if a YES supporter simply cited these figures.
Can you imagine, for example, if the FM is interviewed about the Scottish economy, on GMS, and cites the FT article? The BBC reporter can hardly use the usual response (“well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?”), when it comes from the FT. No, this makes it very awkward indeed to peddle the lie that Scotland gets more than it contributes from the UK.
Expect this line of attack to gradually fade in the coming months, as BT and the MSM realize it is no longer sustainable.
Sorry mate, you’re clearly not well aquainted with the physics of this situation 🙂 Hydrogen sounds good on paper, until you understand the energy equation and ecomonics of actually doing it. That’s the reason we don’t use it for anything serious, despite untold millions spent on research.
I am a qualified engineer and my job involves these realities – so I can go into further detail, but this is not the place. Just understand there’s more spin involved in promoting “the hydrogen economy” than there is in better together’s best efforts.
Why do they all keep on differentiating between Scots GDP with and without North Sea oil? Shared custody in the pipeline no doubt, we’ll give you our sterling/BoE and we take our share of our oil…
Training Day says:
Forget this story. BBC Scotland now focusing on what really matters – are there enough allotments available?
Just as they did on today’s ‘Morning Call’ on ‘Radio Scotland’, where the discussion topic, crucial to the nation’s future at this historic time, was: ‘What was your favourite childhood toy?’
11% better off.
5% deficit.
Borrowing required?
Gillie:
Statement from Strathallan
This should be published in the Daily Mail!
Alex says: “Scotland’s fiscal health will also be challenged by the relatively rapid ageing of its population and the long-term decline of oil output from depleted North Sea reserves.”
MB says: Just to counter the point that’s always trotted out about Scotland’s ‘more rapidly’ ageing population. The reasons are clearly that folk from the rest of UK have a tendency to retire here because it’s nice, and young folk from Scotland have to leave to find work and progress their careers (and to be able to afford housing in their home towns). The latter emigration at least will surely reduce when Scotland becomes independent.
Also, you forget that Scots currently don’t live as long as others in the UK and therefore the pension payouts are less here than elsewhere, even though we contribute more to the pot.
As for the awfully frightening decline in oil output that gets waved about all the time (“OMG but it’s like so volatile! Not like risk-free casino banking! No wealthy country relies on oil, even thicko Scots know that!”), this does not mean that revenues will decline at the same rate and of course, with a sensible oil fund the income from oil could theoretically be available in perpetuity.
Aec says: “…James Knightley, senior economist at ING, said the high transition costs of separation and uncertainties over currency and the terms of EU membership meant that the material benefits of independence were “far from clear”.”
MB says: Do you think that transition costs could be more than £0.5bn say? – the equivalent of how much better off Scotland would if we didn’t have to subsidise the rest of the UK for a month, (approx.)? What about the assets we are due from the UK, the VAT and other substantial tax revenue gains that are missing from the calculations? But of course, these uncertainties are entirely in the power of Westminster to resolve. Seems like these bankers know the value of nothing and don’t know the costs either.
Alec says: It’s actually a very well balance article, not some incendiary device that will destroy the No campaign. There are actually more questions in here for Yes to answer, along with a repetition of known and accepted facts.
MB says: The point is that we have known all this stuff for years but the Unionist press could and do dismiss it. But now it is in the MSM, the FT no less. Better Together’s main tactic is to prevent people from knowing the facts and to try to stop them thinking and talking about it. Because when they do, they tend to YES.
@Rev Campbell – “The point is that Scotland is FUNDAMENTALLY economically stronger out of the UK.”
With respect, it isn’t, and you are wrong. The article clearly states that at present Scottish finances would stronger than rUK’s, and this is what you stress in the article.
But you, and everyone else here then fail to repeat what the article says in full, which is that the uncertainties, the aging population, and the declining oil means that this relatively strength now may not last.
This also isn’t new at all – the BBC were showing very similar figures on GDP income when the referendum was first announced, and I’ve seen these figures repeated many times since.
“But you, and everyone else here then fail to repeat what the article says in full, which is that the uncertainties, the aging population, and the declining oil means that this relatively strength now may not last.”
That, however, is meaningless scaremongering pish. Nobody actually knows what the population demographic will be 40 years from now, and even on the projections we can afford it easily, many times over, out of the money we’ll save on defence alone.
I addressed the oil issue in the article. Norway has built up a half-trillion-pound oil fund in just 15 years. We have far more time than that, the likelihood of Atlantic exploration, and renewables. Only if Scotland’s economy is managed by absolute psychopaths are we going to be worse off in 20 years’ time than we are now. That’s what “fundamentally” means.
@heedtracker
I reckon its a nervous tick heed. 😉
Mention oil and automatically its in that Extra Regio wossiname wherever that is. Naw, a resource is a resource and those deposits are firmly in our waters. The whole with or without thing is absolute nonsense. There is only WITH.
On the matter of finite oil ,this very interesting article I read some time ago about self replenishing oil wells in Gulf of Mexico.
It might go some way to explain the longevity of some NS Oil wells
link to rense.com
Don’t know if you have seen this but the Spanish Foreign Minister in an interview with the FT says that Spain is neutral wrt Scotland and the independence position.
link to archive.is
2 articles on the trot.
I wonder if the City realises that without Scot;and the UK is well and truly stuffed.
This won’t change anything, all of this is in the public domain. It will be ignored or caveated in some way by MSM/Unionists.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Lamont/Davidson(x2) et al are arguing this based on the bare facts.
This is down to something more than could we or should we financially or even politically. Scotland leaving the UK strikes at the establishment on a number of fronts. It threatens a number of core components of the ego of the state, including financial disaster and their beloved nuclear boats. Westminster politicians are fighting for their very jobs and futures. A lot of people in London depend wholly on Scotland being part of the UK.
I’m with Alec.
The only way that Scotland could possibly survive is under the benevolent, nurturing hand of Westminster and its’ wonderful politicians.
It seems like we have been getting carried away with ideas well beyond our capabilities and the idea that we should control our own resources and pay our own way in the world is fanciful beyond belief.
More than that, it suggests that we have no faith in Westminster and to want to stand on our own two feet shows massive disrespect to all that they have done for us.
Alec,
the point is, that the FT has published (with pictures for the more economically challenged such as myself) an article that clearly demonstrates Scotland right now would be in a better position financially than the UK overall.
Yes, there is uncertainty going forward (as there is for the rUK) but I and others are pretty clear tha we’d rather have an independent Scottish Government looking after the position than the current Westminster setup which over the last decade or more has had pretty much an abysmal record of lookign after our finances.
As for oil, lets just say that when major multinational firms are still making 30, 40 and 50 year commitments to the North Sea and have confirmed major supplies available in the west… well I think we’ve got the bases covered for a long time to come (I won’t even bring up ‘oil fund’).
Alec exposes himself. Quelle suprise.
Can you provide any evidence to support any of those assertions?
for instance
“Long term, post independence there will be no incentive for a UK based grid development, and rUK will naturally look to import power from cheaper sources, which means the continent.”
or
“At the same time, Scotland will become ever more dependent on renewables, which means a highly variable power supply system”
Both those statements are nonsense wrapped up in sensible sounding jargon. I’m also having difficulty picturing the continent being nearer to England than England is to Scotland, which shares a border with it.
Of course, had the FT run a story with all manner of graphs and statistics showing how Scotland benefits from the Union it would have been all over the press, BBC & STV. And so this becomes another of the many positive stories for the YES campaign the pro-dependence media won’t run.
If it’s a bad story for YES, they run it.
If it’s a bad story for NO, they bin it.
If it’s a good story for NO, they run it.
If it’s a good story for YES, they bin it.
Thank our lucky stars for Tim Berners-Lee. The man should be given a sainthood in indy Scotland.
@majorbloodnook – Several points I guess. I may be mistaken, but casino banking wasn’t restricted to London based banks – the Scottish banks weren’t entirely sensible, so I understand.
On the aging point, there’s no guarantee emigration would fall after independence (ref Ireland)and the problem with the Scottish demographic isn’t that old people die early. Once Scots get to pensioner age they live as long as in rUK, but the big difference is in death rates in the older working age groups. This is particularly serious in Scotland, meaning that you get hit by increasing pensioner costs but with tax paying workers dying early.
Transition cossts are interesting. I really don’t know the answer, but £o.5B looks small I would have thought. One key area is finance costs. The UK has guaranteed all government debt up to the referendum, which is a fascinating situation. I assume that in the event of a yes vote, this guarantee would cease to have effect, so some form of shadow bonds would be issued (in proportion to Scottish population possibly?) that would be offered to the markets as ‘Scottish’ debt.
The general view in the city (independent, couldn’t give a fig about independence, lend money to anyone) is that as a new country, Scotland would automatically face a 1.5% interest rate surcharge over the UK. That would be around £120m a year at current borrowing levels, but it would probably fall over time if Scotland proves a good creditor, which would probably be likely.
Rod Mac… you always have to be careful on the internet. There is lots of guff. The vast majority of hydrocarbon fuel was produced during a possibly one off and very short geological time period. In any event, we are consuming oil at a rate far in excess of the time it takes to produce it.
Simply put, hydrocarbon fuels are not a sustainable resource.
Alec assumes we’ll make the same cataclysmic mistakes the UK consistently has.
That we uniquely won’t be able to adapt to changing circumstances as they arise like other countries.
How odd.
@Seasick Dave
Indeed, and to add to your sound opinion, I’d much rather have unelected and crapulous ermine clad peers telling me what to do rather than someone I can elect in or out. I mean I might vote for the wrong person and end up starting an illegal war or something. No I’d much prefer to have the wise guiding hand of our unelected betters on the tiller of state (even if it is a little shakey) rather than some council educated local who’s never been fagged properly. No sir.
kalmar says
Again, sorry but parts of America are preparing now to add hydrogen to the existing gas supply lines. That is true. If you have further doubt I will endeavour to find the link for you. The company who is pioneering this will use wind turbine and solar power for the pumps. Once the hydrogen is split off it is added to supplement the existing gas supply. In a stroke they have come up with a way to store hydrogen at the same time.
O/T the Daily Labour mouthpiece the Record is trying to take the credit for the Scottish government putting in an extra £15 million to get rid of the Labour thought up Tory introduced bedroom tax. When I commented on their breathtaking double standard on why they never castigated the 47 Labour MP’s especially Sarwar it was up for over two hours but my comment has now been removed ny the Daily Pravda Record the media in Scotland is worse than in the former Soviet Union.
Great – I’ve printed off the FT article (plus the images) and I’m leaving copies all round the office. This has already led to some good chat at tea break.
@Dave McEwan Hill – I think if you look at a map, you’ll find London is a bit closer to much of France than it is to much of the power producing parts of Scotland. It’s the main centres of consumption that really matter.
My point on the incentives for grid development are very simple – we are at present, a single economic entity, after independence we won’t be. If it suits rUK to hook up to French nuclear or Spanish wind systems, rather than Scottish, we will. There are good technical reasons for doing so anyway (which is why it’s already happening). Scotland will simply become another foreign country which and rUK will have a vested interest to drive down import costs.
Rev at 11.27
Spot on. Better Together relies more and more on the cynical ploy of feeding sensible sounding bullshit to half-wits that will believe it.
Alec picked the wrong forum to chance his arm
I’ve just been talking to somebody who is back down from Ullapool. All the rage up there is the fact that oil exploration chaps have been about locally saying there is oil in the Minches.
Scotland’s Economic Situation
Sirs
The big issue with data on Scotland is the year that is selected. In the analysis tax year 2011/12 is taken when Scotland’s geographical share of North Sea Oil revenues was approximately £10.2 billion. It is the volatility of oil earnings which is the challenge for Scotland. In the following year (2012/13) these oil revenues fall to £5.9 billion. This saw Scotland’s share of the tax revenues fall from 9.8 to 9% over the two years while Scotland’s share of total UK public spending was 9.3% whereas its population is 8.3% of the total UK’s. So in 11/12 the tax revenues are above the spending ratio while in 2012/13 they are below. Scotland also collects less in income tax compared to its geographical share – 7.3% in 2012/13
This takes the gap between revenue and spending per head of the Scottish population to £2335. The oil revenues are very volatile ranging from £5billion to £12 billion over the last four years. Leading to big swings in the annual deficit. It is for this reason that the SNP want to have the protection of a Sterling zone where also debt will be underwritten and issued by the Treasury as well as the banking system underwritten by the Bank of England
There is an alternative which is to take the Norwegian road and nationalise North Sea oil and introduce progressive taxation. This would allow Scotland to smooth the volatility of its deficit and establish its own currency and central bank as well as fund projects in renewables, public transport and social housing.
Scotland also collects less in income tax compared to its geographical share – 7.3% in 2012/13 .
link to hmrc.gov.uk
link to hmrc.gov.uk
link to hmrc.gov.uk
“There is an alternative which is to take the Norwegian road and nationalise North Sea oil “
We heard you the first three times, fella.
@Rev Campbell – “That, however, is meaningless scaremongering pish. Nobody actually knows what the population demographic will be 40 years from now…”
Agreed, so best perhaps to have a quiet word with the SNP and ask them not to use demographics to justify claims they can afford higher pensions.
“have a quiet word with the SNP and ask them not to use demographics to justify claims they can afford higher pensions.”
You greatly overestimate my influence with the SNP, what with my not being a member or even a voter.
@Alec
The oil has been a declining resource since the first teaspoonful was extracted, what you do with the benefits makes the difference though. With approximately £1.4tr yet to be extracted over a minimum fifty year period I’d say there’s some merit in stating positively transformative change can occur with good stewardship in that timescale. Then of course there’s a more basic maths involved, those benefits aimed at transforming the lives of five million as opposed to making little difference to the lives of sixty million.
There is also this presupposition that Scottish business community, the Scottish economy and of course governmental spending priorities will remain entirely static over this period. This is fostered by most political and media outlets ably aided and abetted by fairly non objective ‘think tanks’. Figures and forecasts based on standing still for half a century. The position as stated by the FT is a starting position and as such is a pretty fair result I’d say.
Dave McEwan Hill says: I’m also having difficulty picturing the continent being nearer to England than England is to Scotland, which shares a border with it.
Add to that that a west coast interconnector is going though design and permitting at present and an east coast one is planned, both with the absolute and sole purpose of exporting electricity from Scotland to England.
If it suits rUK to hook up to French nuclear or Spanish wind systems, rather than Scottish, we will.
Ok, now your posts make sense.
@Macart, Hello! As a layman, its interesting watching say BBC Scotland vote NO propaganda trying to convince Scotland that “Scottish” oil is worthless and then Westminster/London economists draw a line around said worthless North Sea oil. Are they prepping our simple native minds? Really enjoying your Guardian CiF too.
Les: I don’t doubt that is being done somewhere as a demonstration or research project. But hydrogen is still not an energy source of itself, and it’s not a “replacement for oil” by any stretch of the imagination. Feel free to post a link!
Alec Said –
“The UK has guaranteed all government debt up to the referendum, which is a fascinating situation. I assume that in the event of a yes vote, this guarantee would cease to have effect…”
nope, thats not the case.
The UK guaranteed the debt full-stop. The guarantee is not void if we vote ‘yes’…
Could you imagine the uncertainty if your scenario were true? The commitment was entirely to placate any market jitters on a potential yes vote. So, quite the opposite of what you suggest.
If it suits rUK to hook up to French nuclear or Spanish wind systems, rather than Scottish, we will.
Also, if I may enquire… Are you the official spokesman for the rUK or are you just speaking for yourself?
@Heedtracker
I do more reading than posting here heed, but I visit every day and get links off to everyone I can. I’d encourage everyone to check out the quality of the posts and posters. Good seeing you here too. 😉
The figures also do not take any account of the multiplier effect of having significantly increased funds circulating within our economy rather than being spent elsewhere.
Increased direct public sector employment as jobs funded by Scotland being situated in Scotland.
Increased private sector employment as Scottish versions of government bodies procure locally. Not to mention a potential influx of multinationals seeking to establish Scottish headquarters, embassy and consulate jobs etc
Increased employment = increased tax revenues.
Reduced unemployment = reduced welfare bill.
Despite Scotland’s disproportionately high revenues our public sector is understaffed (8.02% of UK full time equivalent staff) and underfunded (3.16% below UK average public sector wages).
The oil runs out in the union and out of it. If we are still in the union when it runs out we’re all in trouble.
@Dave McEwan Hill – “Spot on. Better Together relies more and more on the cynical ploy of feeding sensible sounding bullshit to half-wits that will believe it.
Alec picked the wrong forum to chance his arm”
I genuinely feel saddened that you take that line. I understood that this was a forum generally populated by pro independence posters, but having read the comments policy, I did think there was an interest in genuine debate. Sadly not, it seems.
“I did think there was an interest in genuine debate. Sadly not, it seems.”
You’re being debated with. It’s just that we’ve heard all this tired old doom-and-gloom cobblers a thousand times before and we’re a bit bored of it.
@Rod Mac:
Have you actually read the stuff on rense.com? It’s conspiracy theory central! The guy’s a headcase.
Alec: If it suits rUK to hook up to French nuclear or Spanish wind systems, rather than Scottish, we will.
SS: Also, if I may enquire… Are you the official spokesman for the rUK or are you just speaking for yourself?
Sorry, let me re-phrase that:
Are you the official spokesman for private sector international electrical power companies operating in the UK/rUK or are you just speaking for yourself?
I’m making the assumption it’s the latter for now.
Alec at 11.36
Ah, You were talking about London. Not England with places like Newcastle and so on. We are well aware that the metropolitan ruling classes have abandoned the North East of England and the other bits.
@McHaggis – apologies – you are quite correct. The promise was indeed up until actual independence.
The point regarding differential interest rates may well still apply before then however, although this would be within the general negotiations. It would certainly apply after that point.
@morag
Actually, I remember reading somewhere (in the days i was struggling to learn to play the recorder)that ‘Greensleeves’ was an old Scottish tune to which Henry VIII set words and took the credit ever after. So the Flemish musicians were, in fact, correct, if not in the manner they probably meant.
@Rev Campbell – “You’re being debated with.”
Err no – I was being accused of talking bullshit. Others have debated more pleasantly, it must be said.
“Err no – I was being accused of talking bullshit.”
That’s part and parcel of most debates between humans. (One might argue, in fact, that suggesting another person is talking bullshit is the core basis of debate. Of course, someone else might argue that that was bullshit.) Don’t talk bullshit and it won’t happen.
[…] […]
Alec, you are correct for once. Yup, the UK currently imports gas from Russia and Norway. Energy markets are global however, your comments after that, that somehow rUK’s soul reason for existing after Scottish independence will be to ‘do us down’ is quite frankly laughable.
Alec
Still providing no evidence to support your assertions.
It’s a pity that ‘Kelly Gibson’, the Big Issue seller, doesn’t in fact exist otherwise we could show him/her (we still don’t know this non-person’s sex) the information in the FT.
Alec Said –
“The promise was indeed up until actual independence.”
Sorry, wrong again.
The UK has guaranteed the debt finance full stop. There is not and will not be a timeframe attached as that would lead the markets to assume a default could be in the offing and damage the UK’s borrowing ability.
What has happened is the UK has guaranteed all existing borrowing and will expect Scotland to negotiate a share for which Scotland will pay the BoE, not the borrowers.
Of course, this means the UK will actively seek a currency union to keep things simple – contrary to what UKOK would have us believe.
@majorbloonok – “Add to that that a west coast interconnector is going though design and permitting at present and an east coast one is planned, both with the absolute and sole purpose of exporting electricity from Scotland to England.”
That isn’t actually accurate. The east and west coast interconectors are actually part of a pan European network, with the intention of allowing the transfer of power (electricity , not the kind of power we’re talking about in more general terms1) up and down the western seaboard.
Of course, rUK will be a major buyer of Scottish power exports, if you have any spare, once Torness and Longgannet close, but equally it means rUK will have access to far wider power markets, potentially undercutting Scotland’s ability to guarantee power exports.
@Scottish Skier – I have no connection with the power industry, rUK government, or any other body with an interest in independence of the union. I’m an environmental consultant, big supporter of renewables, Scot living in the south, with a more or less ambivalent attitude to independence.
I don’t like ‘shouting debates’, if I can put it in those terms, so thanks for your politeness – much appreciated – and I am seriously worried that the general standard of the independence debate, on both sides, is dreadful.
that somehow rUK’s soul reason for existing after Scottish independence will be to ‘do us down’ is quite frankly laughable.
Certainly, if that was the case, it would be crucial that Scotland votes for independence immediately. Who would want Scotland to be in a partnership / union with a country that would attempt to crap all over it if things don’t go the latter’s way all the time.
It’s like the whole ‘Well we’ll maybe take our ball (£) away if you don’t agree to us be gang leader’. I fail to see how this makes the union look like a welcoming place.
Not a single person, group, think tank, government or bookie can predict the economic future with any accuracy further out than say 3 to 6 months. Evidence?
Company CEO’s spend disproportionate energy & time explaining & justifying quarterly performance variances ad nauseam.
Any attempt to rubbish independence then because of predictions which describe the future in 30, 40 or 50 years away are therefore puerile & utterly meaningless.
@McHaggis – I think we agree, but to be clear, the Treasury has expressly not guaranteed an independent Scotland’s debts after it becomes independent, which your last post suggests.
Up until that time, whenever it may be, all debt is UK debt as you correctly assert. My original post on this was incorrect.
Alec, im glad your here amd your most likely a decent guy or girl. You just have to realise that folk on here are very clued up to the propaganda and somewhat immune to it. You on the other hand are displaying symptoms of being infected or a carrier of propagandalitis. We are just trying to cure you. 🙂
have no connection with the power industry, rUK government, or any other body with an interest in independence of the union. I’m an environmental consultant, big supporter of renewables, Scot living in the south, with a more or less ambivalent attitude to independence.
Thanks. I’m an Oil & Gas consultant, a big supporter of renewables, a Scot living in Scotland with a pro-independence attitude (having once been fairly content with federalism but gave up on that post 2007).
As for where the private companies providing the UK/rUK’s power get it from now and in the future… from whoever is selling it at a good price (with green targets taken into account of course). It’s how it works in energy which I imagine you fully appreciate. Such is the nature of privatised utilities.
I have to agree with the Rev.
An argument is the process of attempting to convince the other side that their belief, hypothesis, assertion, proposition, conclusion is wrong & yours is right.
How & why you do it is another matter.
But by arguing, what one does in very simplistic terms, is to basically tell the other side that they are talking “shite”.
Yes, we could sit around a camp fire & have a sing song & cuddle, empathising with each other but what’s the point?
@Alex
Yes, I take your point. The problem as you know with power transmission is that the further it has to go the greater the losses are, so shorter and more efficient lines of transmission are likely to be cheaper (and more reliable) and therefore more attractive to the rUK.
Of couse, the other side of the coin is that with an effective european power network Scotland can export its power to someone else if the rUK doesn’t want it (or can’t afford it any more), particularly if the rUK actually follows through on the often psychotic rhetoric of seeing to ‘punish’ Scotland for having the audacity to seek and gain indendepence.
(You can understand why we can appear somewhat jaundiced with the tiresome daily abuse Scotand and independence supporters receive, particularly when it’s the same old hackneyed untruths and misrepresentations we have had to refute time and again).
G H Graham’
I’ve always thought that the corporate head office issue was one huge elephant in the room and the main reason that London ‘boasts’ such high earnings.
Not only will there be the transfer of these hidden Scottish revenues to Scotland but Diageo, Tesco et al will have to have full national head office administrations in Scotland which will create jobs.
@Alba4eva – “You just have to realise that folk on here are very clued up to the propaganda..”
Yes indeed – propaganda runs both ways, and there’s plenty of it about, it seems.
@Alec, sorry spelt your name wrong. Force of habit.
Environental consultant myself – mainly O&G these days, overseas a bit.
Alec
As you have conceded at 12.07 Scotland holds all the cards on negotiations following independence. No sterling union? Byeeeee. Deal with debt yourselves, folks, with a devalued pound and no oil revenues in your balance of payments.
@Majorb – yes completely understand. No supporters feel equally jaundiced with tiresome daily abuse (some people think it’s acceptable to shout ‘bullshit’ as a debating point – I find that strange).
I am fascinated in the power issue, which is full of possibilities and potential problems. The issue for Scotland is geography, as it is on the edge of the main power markets, so your point about transmission length is significant, and something of a potential negative.
heedtracker,
Yes, it’s funny that you never see figures for say Saudi Arabia shown as ‘with oil’ and ‘without oil’.
It seems to be a uniquely UK thing. How kind of them, it must be a benefit of togetherness.
Anyone looking for an easy way to digest all the info around the economics of Indy – watch the video.
link to youtube.com
and then forward onto any undecideds who have questions around affordability of iScotland.
Alec, why exactly would rUK import energy from France etc when they would be in a currency union with Scotland? Surely it’s better to keep the money flowing in-house…..works for everyone.
@Alec:
“My point on the incentives for grid development are very simple – we are at present, a single economic entity, after independence we won’t be. If it suits rUK to hook up to French nuclear or Spanish wind systems, rather than Scottish, we will. There are good technical reasons for doing so anyway (which is why it’s already happening). Scotland will simply become another foreign country which and rUK will have a vested interest to drive down import costs.”
This is a very interesting topic as a friend of mine is a civil servant involved in Energy and has had the pleasure of dealing with the UK government given that Energy is a reserved matter. This is a summary of their thoughts:
“At present it is the case that the UK government has decided to focus all its efforts on nuclear (which they are guaranteeing with a massive subsidy, and which the unit price of does not include decommissioning costs) and shale as they feel that is what benefits them (us) best.
As a result their interest in upgrading infrastructure in Scotland (which has suffered from years of under investment by the UK government) and providing a fairer grid charging system is limited. This has created a great deal of uncertainty in the Renewables industry in Scotland and is damaging attempts to build the industry. For example the date for the Minch Interconnector is in constant flux and there are now rumors that it may not even go ahead.
As an additional extra the UK Government also has green targets to hit and is planning to essentially subsidise the renewables industry in The Republic of Ireland to help met these, as they already have infrastructure in place. As such they are prepared to sacrifice the development of a brand new industry, potentially world leading, in a part of their own country which could desperately do with the thousands high skilled / high paid jobs as it does not suit them (us). “
Market driven economic policy which is set up to benefit London / south east of England, a concept to which all the main Unionist parties are commited. This is a perfect example of why the UK settlement is not in Scotland’s best interest and why the claims of the No campaign that we are ‘Better Together’ are completely hollow.
Alec
To come back to the UK debt guarantee by the Treasury, this was absolutely necessary to eliminate even a minute possibility of doubt or the AAa rating (not sure where the UK is right now) would be further hit. Not a good thing in the circumstances.
After a YES vote, should Scots choose o reaffirm their Independence, the negotiations between iS and EWNI would involve what share of the debt an iS would be prepared to accept. The point is “Scotland” as such does NOT have any debt. (In that sense neither does EWNI – the debt is the UK’s) so the “guarantee” was to assure creditors that no one was about to run away. So any debt interest is negotiable and would NOT be “backed” by shadow bonds etc. (Although perhaps that might be one option – I am not an economist)
Obviously after Independence (and for practical purposes after a YES vote) any debt would be the sole responsibility of an iScotland.
But, Alec, this is only my understanding. As a non-expert I may be wrong.
Any new debt post independence will likely be Scottish but all debt up till that point will be guaranteed by UK.
Any payback to UK for past debt will be negotiated but there is no legal liability on Scotland to take any. Rates would be based on issuing rate of past gilts.so past debt will remain at fixed rate, future debt will be market driven.
Its not unlikely that Scotland will borrow from the rUK.
What’s the GDP of Ecuador when bananas are excluded?
@G H Graham – the corporate HQ position is interesting. However, CT doesn’t bring in that much compared to income tax and NI, which is collected where the jobs are based, or VAT, where the goods are bought.
I think it’s also doubtful that a currency union would be agreed where CT rates can be varied other than centrally – there will be very substantial political pressure south of the border not to concede on things like this I expect.
Also, with a more global, collectivist head on, the 40 year mistake of courting multinationals with more and more lenient national tax policies really needs to come to an end, for everyone’s benefit. It may well be that the exact location of company HQ’s becomes a far less significant factor, as there is mounting anger here and elsewhere at the way multinationals use this to their advantage. I suspect we may see a new approach to cross border taxation that brings the taxes back more to where the trade is, rather than the head office. At least that’s my hope.
Bonds/Gilts liabilities cannot be transferred by the issuer. So there is 0 chance of iScotland picking up debt obligations of UK directly.
Any suggestion of such could be construed as default and that is why Treasury has acted.
rUK wants to remain UK in eyes of the world, that is critical.
Alec.
Sorry mate but the anti-independence lot don’t do “debate”.
We have had an ongoing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt campaign for many a month.
Please read as much of this site’s archives for verification and the Rev’s excellent forensic dissections of their efforts to make us doubt ourselves.
In the ultimate the choice is either Scotland the country or the region. I know what my choice is.
alec
How do you describe suggestions that we wont be able to watch Dr Who? Or that Alex Salmond is a dictator? Or that Scotland will soon have a third world economy? Or that the rUK will refuse a currency union? or that we will have border posts? or that we will be foreigners to our families? Or that England will seize the oilfields? or that Shetland will stay with UK and keep all the oilfields for London? Or that the EU will throw us out? Or that UK will keep Faslane?
All the above -and thousands more – have been thrown at us in the media by Better Together spokepersons who think we are all as stupid as they are.
I’m sure the Wings team can provide hundreds more.
Bullshit is a fairly mild description of it
Lamont lectures Milliband to get finger out.
link to archive.is
@Chalks – in a currency union, it wouldn’t be ‘in house’. It would be buying from another foreign country.
If sterling strengthened against the Euro, it would make sense to buy from France, and vice versa.
@Iain Ross – your post makes a good deal of sense. Up here in the north of England we are equally badly served by London. It’s such a waste.
@Alec
I think the point about being jaundiced is not that the odd cybernat calls bullshit when they (think) they see it (and we’ve seen a lot that tried on here), but that the weight of the MSM and the BBC is pretty much against independence; it’s anything but a level playing field. You need thick skin to debate Scotland.
Alec… what do you mean propaganda both ways? I and others on this site can point you to unionist propaganda and lies by the barrowload. I bet you cannot point to one thing pro-independence have lied about. Does anyone fancy a wee game of provide a link. I’ll start..link to bbc.co.uk
Surely it’s better to keep the money flowing in-house…..works for everyone.
Its actually less risky for forecasting as you take away currency risk from transaction.
UK corporation tax has been systematically reduced since it was introduced in 1965 at 52%.
The current Main Rate (MR) is only 23% and the Small Profit Rate (SPR) is 20%. Contrary to Gordon Brown’s scare stories, there is no effect upon minimum wage since that has risen by 58% since it was introduced in 1999. It hasn’t kept up with the RPI but that’s another argument.
But all the Corp Tax, VAT & NI & income tax collected in Scotland will remain in Scotland once independent.
Currently some of it is used to fund Trident, an unelected House of Lords, illegal wars & massive projects in London which benefit no one in Scotland.
Alec
You are conflating multi-national corporations with British companies. Both types have their HQs south of the border and all their profits are taxed, or not, outwith Scotland.
I am now retired and have never dealt with Easy Kilbride tax office but always with English based offices. Even now my pensions are taxed in England. The efforts of my working live have never accrued to Scotland’s GNP.
I have also posted on the amount of exported materials from Scotland shipped South by rail and deemed therefore to be English exports.
I am aware that these are not quantified. But are as valid as your non-quantified assertions.
If sterling strengthened against the Euro, it would make sense to buy from France, and vice versa.
True but energy I don’t think is bought that way, its not wholly a wholesale open market. Upfront contracts are arranged and required to ensure supply.
If it were wholly open hour by hour then France might say no we’re selling to Ukraine today as they offer more.
I just wanted to say Alec, it is a shame your not in Scotland and dont have a vote, because at least your interest in what is happening is admirable. You put many Scots to shame… and i’m sure that by spending time on this site, your eyes will slowly open and you would end up a Yesser. 😉
@Kenny Campbell
“The oil runs out in the union and out of it. If we are still in the union when it runs out we’re all in trouble.”
This is an important point to remember. If we are still in the Union when the oil runs out, then we will very likely be dumped by the establishment in London very, very quickly.