The Scottish Parliament Election

Politics & Elections
41

No. For starters, the figure I gave was HMRC’s received amount from 2010. If I’d used 2009s figures the net gain would have been 6 billion more.

In terms of actual running cost/benefit to date, the last time this one came up, I think it was a study by the Fraser of Allander institute that pointed out that revenue from the North sea over the last 20 years had significantly outweighed any inequality of tax revenue. I believe that was (in equivalent rates) in the order of tens of billions over the years, but will need to go digging for the study.

Obviously production rates will decline (estimates vary) but by the same token the price of crude is going to raise significantly (see increased demand from China and India, and drop in production from Saudi) which means that the North Sea’s likely value for the next 20 years is in the order of billions per year.

And before anyone starts with ad hominems about skewed nationalist bias, I’m neither originally from Scotland, nor likely to stay here too much longer, so really don’t have a dog in this fight. I work extensively with exploration and production data though, including revenue figures for HMRC, so have always found it amusing the way that people either write off the north sea as a spent asset, or claim that somehow Scotland’s cost the English money. Both claims have sod all basis in fact.

42

No, I’m making you prove your assertion.

Neither of these back up your assertion.

These, however, do.

According to my brother, who works in the oil industry doing reservoir modelling, 30 years is extremely optimistic, but is even so a very short period of time. After that, what next for Scotland?

Hehehe.

If you believe that that will happen, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. And even if it does, it means that the power will go out on a calm day.

No, they - we, actually, since I’m now in Aberdeen, and my blood hails from the Western Isles - cannot.

43

Further hand holding it is then.

For starters, your comment that “Neither of these back up your assertion…These, however, do.”

Yes actually, the first two do back up the assertion, as they were the basis in which the other maps were drawn up, and also because you asked “Which international convention?”, so I told you. Clear enough.

I’m happy your brother works in reservoir modelling. The odds are, he’s either used or is using some of my software. And yes, a 30 year projection for the life of the north sea is entirely reasonable. I’m sure your brother will happily point you towards the advances in directional drilling, frac techniques, reservoir analysis and all the other fun toys that we’ve got now that means previously marginal finds are now viable, and that’s before you consider the price of crude has gone up from $10 per barrel in 1999 to $100 a barrel. It’s been 50 years since Ecofisk and Montrose were first discovered, and we’ve used about 60% of known reserves. The stuff that’s left is harder to get out, but the tech has moved on massively, and the reward is much higher. If I was being optimistic, I’d have said 40 years.

And what next for Scotland - renewables, same as for everyone else. There’s no option here - oil will run out, countries will have to develop new sources, so it’s pretty damned handy if you’re a small population with a damned big proportion of coastline in a windy spot. As for the claim, “the power will go out on a calm day”, please. Tidal is as consistent as it gets, and for wind you take advantage of Scotland’s rather mountainous nature and build more hydro plants to store peaks in capacity.

You’re repeatedly stated that the scottish economy can’t stand on it’s own, but for someone who’s so keen on demanding cites failed to provide any worth a damn. In short, yes it can. Small population, decent selection of natural assets, oil reserves, industrial base…if anything, I could make a more convincing argument that England’s got a shakey economic prognosis for the future.

44

Actually, I reckon it’ll be nuclear energy, not wind and water, because the latter simply don’t provide consistent baseline load power.

Actually, I haven’t.

45

When you disagreed with “The Scots can make a good claim to having a viable long term economy”, it sure looks that way. So, you do think the Scottish economy can stand on it’s own? Or are you just playing word games?

46

I should at least be grateful that we’re moving through issues one by one. We’ve sorted out your misconception that half of the north sea is in English waters, now lets try to explain how to cope with a variable source of energy.

Peak supply is a problem that you can deal with if you happen to have some suitable mountain/hill districts to create reservoirs in. Like Scotland does. But sure, nuclear’s going to be a requirement too…and there’s three companies I know of in the same town as you working as part of Thorium reactor research projects.

Oh, and as for the “No I haven’t” nonsense…please. At least attempt to remember your previous claims that:

“Once the oil runs out, Scotland is going to be in big trouble”, and
“Once the oil runs out, Scotland’s had it.”, or dismissing my comment that Scotland being able to claim to a viable economic future with “No, they…cannot.” So please, acknowledge what you have said, and stop messing about with sophomoric attempts at debating tactics.

47

In this thread I said it once. That is not repeatedly.

However, I will bite. I have yet to see a long-term viable proposition for Scotland. Oil will run out sooner rather than later. Fishing’s shot. Banking’s in tatters. Forestry’s not profitable. Shipbuilding is pretty much done and bust, absent defence. The farming is generally poor (Aberdeenshire’s an exception). Taxes are high. It’s very noticeable that high-tech companies choose to place their chip foundries in geologically unstable areas rather than geologically stable but expensive Scotland. Call centres for England won’t pay the bills. And so on. Scotland has very little to recommend it in the long term. “We’ll think of something” is not a valid plan.

I believe the politicians will spend the oil windfall, not save it. Thatcher spent it. Major spent it. Blair spent it. Brown spent it. Cameron’s spending it. Independence will be a short term boost but a long-term disaster.

And I do not believe that Alec Salmond has the best interests of Scotland at heart, but rather his own.

48

See above. You repeatedly dismissed the idea that Scotland could operate as a viable standalone economy.

As for the rest of it…good lord. Let me try to put it this way. You have a relatively small population that has both sufficient landspace for farming, sufficient national waters for fishing, a current energy supply that is good for decades (and highly lucrative to boot), and renewable resources for an ongoing supply…and you don’t see it as viable?

Let me put it another way. Scotland’s economy is probably more viable and sustainable in the longterm than Englands. After all, England hasn’t got the landspace or national waters to provide food, has no oil resources of note, is massively burdened by a military it cannot afford…get the idea? You have a country that is mostly dependent on service industries, at a time when outsourcing is easy and IT means financial trading can be done anywhere. Oh, and there’s a good chance London will be mostly underwater in 20 years. How humped are they?

I don’t actually believe that, but by god it’s a hell of a lot more logical a viewpoint than your Daily Mail based exercise in pontification.

49

A small population is about the only thing Scotland has going for it. And I’m not sure that Scotland is self-sufficient in food.

Nope. All largely fished out.

Not once the oil runs out. And that might be even sooner if the Shetlands don’t want to join the mainland.

I doubt it.

You do know that one of the largest onshore oilfields in Europe is in the south of England, don’t you?

Military expenditure can be cut. England could start by cutting all the expenditure in Scotland. BAe Systems could start by dumping the Barrow shipyards and moving them to Portsmouth.

That’s an entirely different question.

I haven’t read the Mail in years; all you’ve done is display your own ignorance. You’ve also perhaps missed that I’ve chosen to make Scotland - Aberdeen - my home. The oil revenues will last me until retirement but I fear for my dotage and the livelihoods of my nephew and niece.

50

Once at a science fiction convention I went to the room party for Glasgow’s Worldcon bid (they won it). Someone distributed a pamphlet-sized Scottish-English lexicon . . . and, apparently, Scots have more words for fighting than Eskimos have for snow.

What the electoral significance might be, I don’t know.

51

You’re right; things are starting to get heated in this thread so I’m out of here.

52

I hate this deliberate attempt to portray anyone against the idea of an independent Scotland as assisting in the oppression of Scots and that we’re against Scots having their own government.

That’s not the case at all, in fact English independence from Scotland would have more rationale considering that the last three PM’S have either been born in Scotland or have Scottish ancestry and that Scottish MP’s have influence in Parliament on English affairs even though they don’t represent them.
Arguements can be made on both sides for the pros of seperating, however I am arguing the case for both countries to remain together, united in common cause, because we’ve had a pretty successful partnership for 300 years, why end something which has been beneficial to both peoples?

53

And you accuse others of strawmen? I have not portrayed Quartz of trying to oppress the Scots. I have responded to his claims that Scotland has been a drain on the British economy, and could not be self sufficient.

54

Bit late to this one - Salmond’s an oleaginous individual, but he’s the only legitimate leader of the Scottish parliament IMO. Not surprised the SNP swanned in.
Minor confession, I bottled it at the polling station - I’d steeled myself for voting conservative as they are the only party with a credible higher education policy (I work in the sector so its a big voting issue for me). Talked myself out of it in the booth. Sorry Annabel :frowning:

Real, full-monty independance just sounds crazy to me, and I’m pretty sure Salmond knows this. It gives the ginger fringe something to jump up and down about, but I’m certain Salmond is (correctly) just using it as a tool to advance Scottish interests and put them high on the agenda, so to speak. They seem committed to a referendum but the smart outcome will be enhanced governance / greater devolution for Scotland, not the nuclear option of independance.

I’m leaving Scotland too, this summer, after ten years here. Be interesting to see how things develop from south of the border.