They’re a lot higher maintenance than the likes of goats, and much fussier over their grazing.
`
There’s plenty of grassland for cows I suppose. I wonder if Highland cows are a bit less trouble/fussy?
Sorry you seem to have forgotten your links.
Or did you think that nobody would check them out ?
You know, seeing as I even quoted the relevant parts of the articles, how about you put forward just a bit more substantial in the way of refutation than that. You made 3 claims that I quoted. Here, let me remind you:
So, here we go again.
-
As quoted above: “Scottish waters – defined by the line of demarcation used in the fishing industry – accounted for 91.1 per cent of UK North Sea revenue in 2008/09” If you view this as wrong, please provide a cite.
-
Yes, there’s large amounts of it left. I’ve already given you one cite, but here have another.
"Other areas have become commercial only recently, partly because of better techniques for drilling in deep water or in high-pressure, high-temperature reserves. In the 1970s more oil and gas were discovered west of Shetland, beyond the North Sea, but conditions are exceptionally harsh. These reserves represent about 17% of Britain’s remaining hydrocarbons, according to DECC, yet this frontier is only now being broached: Total, a French energy company, started building a pipeline to it in 2010.
Such activity is viable only while prices are high: a barrel of Brent crude currently fetches $118 (£75). Production is price-sensitive, points out Alex Kemp of Aberdeen University. With oil at $90 a barrel he forecasts that 23 billion barrels could still be extracted; at $70 this falls to 16.5 billion. And either scenario is possible: in 2009 the average price was $62 a barrel; in 2011, $111."
Hell, have another cite:
“Professor Peter O’Dell, of the Erasmus University in the Netherlands, agreed.
He believes there are 44 years of oil left.
’
There are at least 20, 25, even 30billion barrels of the stuff left and that’s quite a lot. It’s not quite as much as we’ve used already but it’s not far short.
‘Moreover, there are still parts of UK Continental Shelf that have never been examined at all in any great depth. So that could be the low end of a range that could take us into a period when we have access to as much oil again as we’ve already used.’”
- This was your claim, right? “The English taxpayer subsidises every single Scot, every single day of every single year.”
Well, I’ve already demonstrated that this is untrue. That article uses 2008/2009 as an example period where Scotland generated more tax revenues than they received, and over the 40 year period the North Sea has been in flow there’s been a lot more. If anything, Scotland’s got a better case that they’ve been the ones subsidising the rest of the UK:
Seriously? After the cite free posts you’ve brought so far, you want links to show you that cattle are “a lot higher maintenance than the likes of goats, and much fussier over their grazing”? Right you are then:
Hell, here’s another link just for you:
If that’s just not enough on the topic of the ecological efficiency of goats, feel free to start a thread just for it where no doubt someone with first hand experience can try to satisfy your new found curiosity on the subject.
Interesting discussion. Many years ago, I stopped by a SNP tent at a Highland Games here in Georgia; they were clearly there to raise funds from sentimental Scottish-Americans whose image of Scotland came from Braveheart. Their brochures were long on nationalistic tartanry - Bannockburn and Wully Wallace and “Scots Wha Hae” - but short on facts and figures about what independence would mean for Jock-in-the-street.
So is the Clan Donnachaidh - doesn’t make me a Scot.
No problem with that, unless the rest of Britain kicks up a stink to get the demarcations altered.
From the same article
“In last year’s budget, the government unexpectedly raised the top rate of tax on oil producers from 75% to 81%, among the highest in Europe. Oil bosses fumed, and complained that uncertainty in a tax regime deters investment: exploratory drilling slowed in 2011, a drop not seen elsewhere in the North Sea.”
So will an independant Scotland keep these same high tax rates, moving exploration elsewhere? Or will they lower them to seek more busines? What effect will either have?
"High taxes may be a good way for the government to reap rewards from a one-off windfall due to higher prices. But a second large expense looms for the industry: the 5,000-plus wells, surface and sub-sea installations and 10,000km of pipelines cannot be left to rot in the sea. In the next 30 years decommissioning them will cost £31 billion, predict Deloitte and Douglas-Westwood, both consulting firms.
Current concerns centre on how to plan for that. At the moment, a company selling an asset must pay for decommissioning later if for some reason the buyer cannot; in advance of any deal, a buyer must put up the entire sum. Yet because the government will give tax relief equal to at least half of it, firms will in fact never have to pay that full cost."
Again, will an independant Scotland offer the same terms to producers? Or will all wells, etc. started before independance still be the responsibility of the rest of the UK?
Ok I’m sorry, and I’m obviously overlooking something, but I can’t see anything in the articles you’ve linked showing tax/expenditure in 2008/2009.
David Cameron’s father was Scottish, which DOES make Dave at least half.
Next you’ll be telling me that Barack Obama is a Kenyan 
Sadly I don’t have time to get into a long discussion on the pros/cons of independence. And it may still be too soon – there’s a long road to the referendum.
I wanted to drop in and say, because I didn’t see it anywhere else, that an independent Scotland does not necessarily mean that Salmond and the SNP would run it. The newly independent nation would rapidly have to hold a general election, particularly if the parliamentary structure was vastly changed. At that point the SNP would need to re-define themselves. It’s not a foregone conclusion that they would win.
Unfortunately I don’t see any other party in Scotland mounting a decent challenge at any point in the future.
BunnyTVS, I try to avoid multiquote replies, so excuse me if I abbreviate your points to topics and respond in a list.
- Can England change the demarcation? Of course, it’s got the most powerful Navy in Europe. Is it likely to? Well, that demarcation was ratified by Britain as part of the division of North Sea Oil that it ratified, and also is used for a number of other topics:
Division of the North Sea: North Sea oil - Wikipedia
“Following the 1958 Continental shelf convention and after some disputes on the rights to natural resource exploitation [9] the national limits of the exclusive economic zones were ratified”
Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958: United Nations - Office of Legal Affairs
In short, changing the demarcation is physically possible, but seems diplomatically extremely unlikely (and hell, they’d be as well just invading Scotland and getting the land and water too)
2)will an independant Scotland keep these same high tax rates, moving exploration elsewhere? Or will they lower them to seek more busines?
Good question, but lord knows the answer. Will politicians take a long term approach to encourage investment in the industry while using funds to invest in the future for the county, or will they take a disastrously short sighted approach that gives them a few years grace. It’s politicians we’re talking about, so my money is on the latter
- “I’m sorry, and I’m obviously overlooking something, but I can’t see anything in the articles you’ve linked showing tax/expenditure in 2008/2009.”
That’s because my comment was referring to the link in my post preceding the one you were looking at:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-who-loses-if-scotland-goes-it-alone/6524
"Detailed research of the money brought in by the UK oil and gas fields suggests that Scottish waters – defined by the line of demarcation used in the fishing industry – accounted for 91.1 per cent of UK North Sea revenue in 2008/09.
If calculations are made on the basis that those assets are Scottish rather than British, they increase Scotland’s contribution to Treasury coffers by £11.7 billion, wiping out the £10.5bn deficit and leaving Scotland in the black to the tune of £1.3bn."
Apologies for lack of clarity.
You sure about that?
Cheers Gary.
Okay, but I was just pointing out that a Scottish surname is not the same thing as Scottish citizenship. My surname is as Scottish as Irn Bru, but I’m a tenth-generation American.
There is an interesting discussion to be had about Scottish identity, but that’s probably a hare to start in another thread.
I had looked up conflicting information from your cite:
Ambiguity over the birthplace of his father. Anyone fancy setting up a David Cameron birther movement?
We in America will be pleased to take credit for him.
Deal. Shipping address please.
I said take credit for him, not care and feed for him.
One point re the oil and gas fields that I don’t think anyone has mentioned - the figures could be anything but let’s assume the £31 billion figure quoted in the thread is the ultimate decommissioning bill - I believe it is tax deductible.
I predict another fiery dispute related to whose tax regime they are ultimately deductible from. Much will depend on unknown future income streams - not only oil price and reserve uncertainties but also the fact that the economic worth of many assets is not related to the value in the fields they were originally constructed to produce but all the nearby fields that now tie into the main platform or use it as an export path.
Obviously the UK has benefited from much of the oil revenue so I imagine a future Scottish Government would be keen to avoid the whole of the ultimate decommissioning tax deduction being against only the revenue stream that Scotland earns from the data of independence. Hard to see Scotland have a strong hand to play over this though - it’s a major screwage threat to the projections of future oil wealth if the rump UK plays hard ball and leaves the future bill with the Scots.
Meanwhile it has not been a good week for the smug bloater: