For production figures in 2011, it was just over 93%.
The stuff is not about to run out in the immediate future. With new finds in West of Shetland and other regions, redevelopments of fields such as Clair, and improved production methods, you’re looking at a lot of remaining oil. Have a non-techy cite here:
The claim that “The English taxpayer subsidises every single Scot, every single day of every single year” is as blatantly wrong as the opposing claim that Scotland’s been cruelly robbed by the English of their oil wealth. Some years Scotland has been a net recipient of tax revenue, some years it’s been a net generator of tax revenue. See the cite above, which shows that in 2008/2009 Scotland generated a £1.3 billion surplus in tax revenues, or to put it another way every Scot coughed up £250 to subside the rest of the UK. Funnily enough the zealots on both sides would much rather claim that they’re subsidizing the others, but it’s just not true.
Well done Gary Kumquat, it’s good to get some real stats in this thread; it seems that neither England nor Scotland consistently subsidises the other but in fact it change as time goes by. It’s essential that this information be out there so the Union isn’t destroyed over pointless and unfounded bad feelings.
Thanks! Strangely, I’m also currently having the exact opposite argument on another board, where some fiercely nationalist Scots are telling me how badly Scotland has been pillaged over the years, and how definite their economic success will be as soon as they get Independence.
The problem seems to be that it’s a very emotive issue, with some bloody awful misinformation from the opposing sides. I don’t particularly care either way (tendencies would probably be unionist, if only to see Alex Salmond pissed off) but I’ll be bloody glad when the vote is over just to see an end to the rhetoric.
Scotland, I believe, has free university education for residents and foreign students. ( I understand this does not include English or Welsh students)
Most Scottish degrees take a year longer than equivalent courses in established (or red brick) English colleges. Is this financed by current collective British taxes? If so can the same level of free higher education be financed by purely Scottish revenues?
Correct on the first, not quite on the second, and maybe to the third.
Degrees can be 3 or 4 years in Scotland, depending on subject. For some of the 4 year course, students with good A Levels or Advanced Highers can go directly into the 2nd year, e.g.
“It is possible for well-qualified school leavers to apply for admission directly into the second year of some Science degree programmes. This permits a BSc Honours degree to be obtained in three years instead of four”
It’s also possible to leave School with highers at the end of 5th year and go straight into Uni, effectively shortening your school period by 1 year, so leading to an overall equivalent time in education (5 years secondary school, 4 year degree, versus 6 years in secondary school, 3 year degree)
As for whether the cost of free places is still possible, please see above posts. It depends (as do free prescriptions, and care for the elderly at home)
Is most of that grazing lands, or is it mostly feed and/or eating grain? Because if it is mostly grazing lands, then they won’t have to change their agriculture that much over the next 40 years when energy becomes too expensive for 20th century farming techniques. And as northern grasslands become more productive with global warming, unless of course the Gulf Stream shifts or dies. Speaking of which, won’t that improve their grain productivity as well?
All bloody good questions, which illustrate why predicting economic likelihood for the next 40 years is a bit of an exercise in random.
Optimistic. Enough money is invested from oil revenues to allow massive increase in renewable production (and an efficient distribution mechanism), offsetting the increase in energy costs for non-renewable sources, allowing for the massively energy subsidized methods of modern farming to continue. Weather changes either do no not decrease yields, or possibly even increase them.
Pessimistic. Nothing is done, and in 20 years time as the price of crude continues to increase, food prices shoot up in Scotland, which is already suffering from drop in production and revenues. This is made worse by severe flooding and poor summers leading to a drop in yields.
Of course, the same questions can be thrown at pretty much any country in Europe. If anything Scotland’s in a relatively strong position for these concerns, and a much more concerning time faces England (higher population, lower percentage foodland, water concerns, less access to renewable energy, etc).
You have me curious now. If admission into the EU requires unanimous consent of all the current member countries, what would Scotland have to do to ensure England (or, I guess, the UK of England, Wales, and Nothern Ireland) doesn’t veto Scotland’s entrance perhaps in a retaliatory gesture? I’m not saying the UK government of the day would actually do that, but I guess it is a possibility.
To be honest I don’t know. I’m not even sure if the breakup of the Union wouldn’t in the EU’s eyes be seen as the creation of two completely new States, thereby meaning both England/Wales/N. Ireland and Scotland would have to apply to rejoin separately.
If it’s not, I don’t see England doing such a thing, but other countries may do out of principle.
Things get really muddy here. Positively legal in fact. For instance, if Scotland splits from the Union, it probably does mean Scotland has to re-apply:
“A state has to be a democracy first of all, and that state has to apply to become a member of the European Union and all the other member states have to give their consent.”
So any nation could block that…but then it gets even more complicated, as a House of Commons report raised the following problem:
I suspect that it would be countries like Spain who would voice the greater objections as they would not wish their own separatist movements ( Basques) to get any encouragement seeing an independent Scotland welcomed into the European Union.
If Scotland gains independence from the UK it would be in the UK’s interest to see it become a viable if not flourishing new state.
Quite so manila: Scotland and the rest of the Union have been a single economic unit for a long, long time. It would be disastrous to both economies if a wall were suddenly erected. The border needs to remain porous to minimise the shock to both economies.
That’s very interesting, as the rump of the U.K. might take the opportunity to leave the EU. Support for the EU is very luke-warm, especially among Tories.
Note that the rough grazing land is, for the most part, only good for sheep. Cows don’t like steep hillsides much. But in any case, the vast majority of livestock is fed by grazing.
I’d guess that when grazing becomes essential, all manner of species better suited to rough grazing will become the norm. Cows are really expensive in energy costs, compared to the likes of goats and alpacas.
Good point. I’ve seen a couple of places with alpacas and llamas in the past few years, and there’s plenty of wild goats around. What makes cows so much more expensive in energy terms? Is that mostly the dairy breeds?
The first one that you supplied seems to disagree with what you say.
(Though there is a bizarre attempt to say that Treasury figures are and have been consistently wrong)
The second quotes a tame expert, putting in glowing terms to Scots Nationalists the future of N.S. gas/oil, but unfortunately it is hemmed in by “Could” and “possibly” etc.
Personally I hope that he is right, but it comes acros as a wish fulfillment fantasy.
In effect telling his audience what they wanted to hear.
If the future for an independant Scotland turns out to be as rosy as the SNP politicians say it would be, then as I said before, I for one will be taking the first flight north, soonest.
If I can get a ticket of course, as I suspect that demand will be very high.