As a Tory, I’m delighted that Miliband is doing something that, if it becomes widely known, will cost him shitloads of votes in England, further split the vote between Labour and the SNP in Scotland, and make both parties irrelevant come the election. Honestly, I couldn’t have picked a better Labour leader had I been given the chance.
So, you accept that Scotland would be worse off if independent? That’s a start. Choosing to vote for reasons other than financial is fine, but the SNP lying to its voters that they’d be better off isn’t. People who believe them are either ignorant or foolish.
As for “moral certitude and pigheadedness”, I’m at best the runner up for those in this thread.
You have little awareness of history
Oil Prices since devolution adjusted for inflation
1998 $17
1999 $23
2000 $38
2001 $31
2002 $30
2003 $36
2004 $47
2005 $60
2006 $68
2007 $73
2008 $100
2009 $59
2010 $77
2011 $91
2012 $89
2013 $92
2014 $89
Currently Saudi is putting the squeeze on Iran and US Shale- we shall see how long that lasts. But current low prices affect long term investment rather than current revenue- once you have swallowed capital costs, the oil cost being pumped is not affected by the market value- it becomes necessary to continue pumping to recoup historic capital costs.
I would be surprised if oil stays at its current level much beyond the fall of next year.
Until they vote for independence in future.
What do those numbers even mean? The price of oil has varied massively over the last month alone.
We shall see. You may need to revisit this prediction. Let us consider the polls now that he has said it.
Straw Man; I did not say that. You do not seem to deal in hypotheticals, possibilities, and such.
You are very closed minded and shuttered to the nuances of predicting the future.
What it means is that the price of oil has varied considerably over time, and predicting that it will now hit an all time low and stay there is just tilting at windmills. If anyone could predict oil prices they would make a fortune in oil futures.
If they vote for independence, there will be a negotiated settlement which will include the future of any UK land or assets that Scotland wishes to control. Unless there’s any major changes, that will include all the oil in what would become Scottish waters, but at least theoretically everything would be up for grabs at the negotiations. It’s not, despite your claims to the contrary, legally impossible for Scotland to sign away the rights to that oil upon independence, although I can’t see any reason why it would.
Dunno, but oil prices are currently around $50 dollars a barrel, not $89 as in her cite…
The problem is one of using graphs with false origins. If you graph the value of oil from 2008 it shows a direct decline from $100 to 50 a barrel. If you graph it from 1998 it shows a gradual climb from 1998 from $17 to close to the recent average price in 2008, then a sudden rise to $100 and a slow fall back to its 2008 value.
No-one can predict where it will go next.
You got that - you do realise that the No vote got 55%?
Not allowing parties in parliament that have been democratically elected is not a great idea.
If you stop saying ‘English money’ in relation to Barnett then I’ll stop saying ‘Scottish oil’ (not that I personally do such a thing)
Behave yourself on this one, ok you’re a Tory but that doesn’t mean any country, region, constituency or person is somehow deserving of your ire because they aren’t is ridiculous.
Almost all politics is subjective and just because you perceive things to be worse doesn’t necessarily make it so.
So we aren’t allowed to spend the money we get on what we want and should be so grateful we get it that all criticism of Westminster should henceforth cease because, you know…they let us spend some money.
That’s exactly the kind of attitude that pushed the yes vote up to 45%.
Why? Because you said so?
We can’t spend the money we are allocated on what we want because it offends your sensibilites.
You realise that every single policy passed in the devolved parliament is Scotland using it’s devolved powers.
What you really mean is we are not using all the powers available to us.
But we should because…you said so.
What you really need to do then is start your own thread about the Barnett formula and start laying into Northern Ireland as well then because that’s where your real problem lies.
Why are you constantly more interested in polls than in actual election results (or referendum results)? Or for that matter, than actual politics?
Which reinforces the point that the figures have a high range over time. Currently there is an unholy alliance by Saudi Arabia to punish Iran and by the USA to punish Russia. How long this will last is anyone’s guess. In the short term the rvenue stream is far more stable than the pumphead price as these are calculated on volume rather than price at the beginning of each licensing period. Who knows where the market will be when the next set of licences are issued.
Because polls are more accurate than personal opinion which tends to be politically skewed.
I suspect that one of Steophan’s problems is a total lack of real knowledge about Scotland, especially how it differs considerably from England in so many matters.
I need to go have another look at my friend’s Labour 92 victory mug.
Semantics - accordingly is using the Barnett which is what happens.
As soon as all that money gets divied up stop thinking of it as English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish money.
At that point it’s UK money.
If you are truly a unionist that’s how you will see it, UK money, instead of grudgingly giving Northern Ireland more money than they earned.
How dare they expect to be in a union and get helped by other members of the union. That was English money and they should be grateful for it.
After all the English are much loved and brought nothing but good things to Northern Ireland.
You’ll note I’m using Northern Ireland because your problem is with the barnett formula so this is really the wrong topic to be debating it as it’s not just a Scottish issue and this thread is about Scotland.
It could also simply be a matter of the Commons being unwilling to support any combination of government at all, and after a certain period of time, there would be a Dissolution by default, regardless of that 2/3 requirement.
I know, I just don’t see the relevance of those differences to why it’s right for Scotland to get so much more than it’s share of money and representation.
I also know the differences are pretty tiny, the only country more similar to England than Scotland is possibly Wales.