It wouldn’t (c.8%), but “rely on” was probably a little strong.* I should have said it would be a mistake to rely on one commodity for tax revenue (10-20%). And the kind of fluctuations in tax take caused by recent price shifts would require significant adjustment in other taxes or rapid cuts in services.
*Although the financial sector is only c.10% of UK economy, and we all saw what happened when that took a hit recently.
The tax revenue for oil is listed as four billion with GNP at above 150 billion, giving about 2-3%.
Im not sure where your figures are coming from. The % of oil revenue to GNP is not the issue. The issue is the percentage government revenue coming from oil. The figures show oil tax receipts are between 10-20% of revenue for any future Scottish Government. Even the SNP’s own site admits this:
“For example, over the period 2000/01 to 2011/12, oil and gas revenues accounted for 15 per cent of Scotland’s overall tax income, compared to 30 per cent for Norway.”
Using GDP as an example is more accurate. Obviously there will be a transition over thirty years as oil revenues fall away somewhat, but to concentrate on that whilst ignoring other changes such as stimulating business by reduced corporation tax, increasing immigration, improving the tax revenue from wind, hydro and other renewables, and so on that would be possible because of independence will counterbalance this in time. Merely concentrating on Oil as the only issue clouds the likely outcome for the people of Scotland behind a Better Together Rhetoric.
“The Vow” never made any mention of Home Rule. It promised “new powers” over and above the Scotland Act for Scotland, and it looks like those are going to be delivered. I look forward to Pjen retracting her implication that the The Vow ever did such a thing and apologising for being intentionally misleading, as given her history of debate on this topic, she surely must know what was promised and what was not by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. The idea that “Devo Max” (whatever the hell that even is, as it’s never defined by those who claim to support it) was promised prior to the referendum is yet another water-muddying tactic by the SNP.
Further, I’d also like Pjen to acknowledge that repeated polling by dozens of companies in the two years prior to the referendum had showed a consistent and sizeable lead for the “No” campaign, indicating that the majority of Scots had made up their mind to vote “No” well before any mention of additional new powers were promised, just to head off another one of the SNP’s bullshit assertions stemming from their epic butthurt over being clogged in the referendum, about how the vote was only won by “No” because of these new powers.
I look forward to Pjen admitting both of these facts and apologising for trying to mislead the posters in the thread on this score, in line with her commitment to open and honest debate.
What’s the use of GDP in the matter of oil revenues? Percentage of government revenue collected from oil taxes is the relevant statistic, not GDP. The health system, police and other public services are funded by government revenues, not some magic GDP figure.
Just admit that Salmond’s repeated promises of a Dubai of the North, sovereign wealth funds, untold riches built on the back of magic oil money, and so on, were all lies intended to win a referendum at all costs based on bullshit forecasts of $113 a barrel going forward until 2017 with oil rising in price steadily for-evermore thereafter. In actual fact, barrel prices are plumbing new lows and OPEC look set to continue pumping at all costs for the foreseeable future.
Low oil prices are here to stay: the USA has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest producer of oil this year and their production capacity looks set to be gigantic given the size of their oil shale fields.
Sorry, this is entirely missing the point. Our oil receipts come from exports. It is in effect foreigners paying money into the Scottish economy. That’s where this oil revenue comes from and goes to. Apart from Hydro we can barely get renewable power to work nevermind produce enough to export. Then we have to assume it will ever be possible to export this energy we are not yet producing, and that other countries would want to buy it from us. Renewables will not be replacing oil revenue at any point in the near future. To base any sort of fiscal hope on such a scenario is pie in the sky.
And the rest of the argument…?
Even granting that only good things will happen to Scotland’s economy in 30 years, and notwithstanding Fuzzy Wuzzy’s point about the practicalities of exporting renewable energy, do you really think a 30 year time frame for these changes means anything against the immediacy of the slump in oil prices?
The question for a putative independent Scotland would be “We’re short c5% of our budgeted revenues - do we tax more, cut more or borrow more?”. “We’ll probably have a different tax base a generation from now” isn’t an answer.
Gordon Brown promised Scots “home rule” within the UK if they vote No yesterday as panic engulfed Westminster over rising support for independence.
The former prime minister moved to seize the initiative after the campaign to save the 300-year-old Union was rocked by a weekend poll showing a majority support Yes.
With just nine days to go before the historic vote, a new survey published today by TNS Scotland confirmed that the race was on a knife-edge, finding Yes and No tied on 41%.
Answer: do all three, and blame it on the English/the Tories.
Straw man. I have never relied on high oil prices as an indicator of the future, but the use of oil revenues to seed further financial and industrial development within the EU.
Pjen are you going to concede that Salmond’s oil-centric vision built on the back of fanciful projections for oil prices was a load of bullshit, or are you going to continue dancing around the matter? It’s pretty hard to overstate just how large a blow to the credibility of Salmond’s White Paper and his vision for an independent Scotland the recent developments in oil prices have been.
Pretty much every economic criticism made against the case for independence, or skeptical voice, was batted away by the Nationalists with the claim that oil will pay for everything. The magic oil money must have been spent twenty times over during the run-up to the referendum vote itself. We now know that Salmond’s projections weren’t just wrong, they were catastrophically wrong, nearly 100% adrift of where prices in the real world are now.
Oh, but it is a very appropriate answer. Things change over time and every independent country needs to swing with that. I see no argument that claims that Scotland is the only nation in Europe unable to run its own national policy. The same was claimed for Slovakia, and there independence led to renewed industrial base for them.
Claims of financial and industrial incompetence of the Scots is the type of campaigning that was so close to driving a majority onto the Yes camp from an historically low base at the start of the campaign.
Every such claim of inference works to convince more people that it is mere propaganda.
If you remember, I was never a supporter of Salmond’s bid for independence on that basis. Asking me to defend it is a straw man argument.
Salmond’s propaganda on the oil solution was an equivalent of the NO campaign promotion og gloom and doom. There is a middle way to independence- accepting true strengths and weaknesses of an Independent Scotland.
The decision will only be made on a emotional and cultural feeling influenced by economics. There is a tidal wave of desire for further powers (even beyond Smith) that will in my opinion prove unstoppable within the decade. The return of an unmitigated Tory government would be the greatest catalyst for this. The second catalyst would be a Labour government dependent on the SNP for confidence and supply.
Right, so you accept that Salmond and company were as guilty as the No campaign in distorting the true state of Scotland’s finances, and in fact if oil price predictions in the White Paper had reflected the true state of oil prices today, the No campaign would have won with 75% of the vote given the importance many Scots, including Salmond himself, placed on oil revenue?
In other words, you seem to be admitting that the “Yes” campaign only came within 10% of winning the vote due to outright lies on the part of Salmond. Thanks, that’s what I wanted you to concede.
The rest of the argument simply entailed reducing corporation tax in order to stimulate business. It would take a lot of stimulation to make up those types of numbers, numbers I doubt are feasible anyway. None of which guarantess more revenue to the Scottish government. I would applaud the SNP if they did it, but it would require a lot more than reducing corporation tax to make up for the vast drop in oil revenue.
And the rest of the argument…?
Do you do anything other than straw man arguments. That is not what I said.
Given distortions on both sides ( especially the vow and Gordon Brown’s promise of Home Rule) led to a doubtful answer to the question. Current public opinion according to several consecutive polls suggest that a large majority of people would vote for DevoMax or Home Rule, and a small majority would vote for Independence.
I expect this to come to a vote again within the decade.