References? Or is it just ideas that you disagree with?
Meanwhile the North Sea oil industry is in meltdown as prices for Brent Crude have dipped below the profitability line over the last six months whilst costs have been gradually increasing. Apache Corporation, the third largest producer is already considering pulling out, the Wood Group has slashed wages for contractors by 10% yesterday, an industry report last week predicted 35,000 job losses in the oil sector within the next five years mostly to hit Scotland and Union bosses today are warning that Scottish oil is on the cusp of its own “British coal” moment.
Salmond’s white paper had predicted oil prices of $117 a barrel until 2017. The oil sector makes up 15% of Scotland’s entire economy (for reference: banking makes up 9% of the UK’s entire economy) and his plan for independence, conceived on the bag of a fag packet down the pub it seems, would have had Scotland tied into a currency union with the UK, unable to control its own currency, money supply or interest rates during a period of almost unprecedented economic turmoil as Scotland’s main industry was squeezed by the Saudi-US race to the bottom (see the effects of the oil price drop on the Russian Ruble and Norwegian Krone).
Scotland just dodged an absolute disaster.
I thought it was new and interesting information.
What is interesting is that in each poll since September the YES choice has been ahead the NO choice. People’s views change.
In your humble opinion. Oil prices go up and down regularly.
No, Pjen. There is no opinion in my post. Every claim that I made was a fact:
Yes, which should tell you something about the wisdom of saying literally everything under the sun will be paid for with magic oil money.
Still waiting for those references to the studies, by the way. I haven’t forgotten about them.
“Scotland just dodged an absolute disaster.”
Looks like a humble opinion to me.
Yet another straw man. I never said anything like that. I have been quite clear that independence may well come at a financial coat.
Asked and answered above.
Further proof of the lack of principles and respect for voters on his part.
No, it looks like an observation based on fact. Pointing out that something is just an opinion isn’t, as you seem to think, some sort of magical argument winner, as any view on a counterfactual (such as Scotland actually wanting independence, for example) is necessarily an opinion. However, when one supports their opinion with facts, it’s an entirely valid view to share.
Let’s compare and contrast.
Capt Ridley’s Shooting Party’s opinion that a hypothetical independent Scotland would struggle economically is based on a couple of pertinent facts - that the economic forecast by the SNP was based on oil being a certain price, and the actual price of oil being about half that.
However, your opinion that Scotland is in favour of independence ignores one fairly major fact - that given the opportunity to give their opinion in a binding referendum, the Scots decisively voted against it. A fact, like the fact about oil prices, that you keep ignoring.
In general, not about such important subjects, in such a short time frame. Have you considered that there are perhaps other reasons that the polls aren’t accurately representing the views of Scotland, as expressed in a binding referendum?
The most likely being that NO voters consider the issue settled, and aren’t bothering to respond to polls.
And the rest of the Scottish people have been quite clear that they don’t want independence. Why do you ignore what they say, but expect anyone to pay attention to what you say?
In point of fact, you’ve regularly rejected claims in this thread that independence would come at a financial cost, rejecting all the evidence that Scotland in fact is a net taker rather than contributor to the UK.
Do you think the 53 Scottish MP’s that currently vote on English matters have no respect for voters?
I have no opinion at all about Scottish independence and do not care about them or the English at all. This very strange conversation does amuse me however.
Your very magical way of thinking and argument by the assertions, the dismissal and the wishful thinking is quite amusing to the disinterested observer. You have a delusion if you think this argumentation you make is convincing, I come to have sympathy more with your opponents.
I have not said that. Straw man again I am afraid.
What I have said is that the polls since the referendum suggest that more people, in fact a majority, now answer YES to the question “Do you want Scotland be an independent country?” whereas before the referendum the polls were usually against that. Nowhere do I say that a future referendum would replicate this. What I have said is that repeated results like this together with a further nationalist government at Holyrood and a possible hung parliament may well increase the pressure for further devolution and probably a repeat referendum within a decade.
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Another straw man. You just cannot help yourself, can you? I have said clearly on several occasions that independence may come at a financial cost, but this is not necessarily a bar to a desire for independence.
That is a very good point. It would be the same voters that returned left of centre but unionist MPs with left wing but Nationalist MPs.
Please cite any wishful thinking. I am merely looking at the cha geld political situation in Scotland since the referendum. I have said no more than that another referendum is quite likely within the decade.
What purpose would any cite to any opinion ? It is comically useless, only likely to result in the misuse of the a logical fallacy concept…