Re: Scotland, the Brave

[Monk (in hiding)]

But the London bankster won't feel the heat, only the common people of Scotland....... it will be very hard for them for years if they split. Unfortunately that's the truth.

ha,

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.

“All the expectations are that we are now past peak oil, so the world is now using more oil than it is discovering each year, and therefore the price will go up. That suggests that it is a firm foundation in terms of future revenue.”

And even if Scotland’s economy were to run at a deficit, that’s far from a sign of impending economic disaster, he added, saying: “Name a country in the world without a surplus. If you look at other comparable small countries, Scotland’s deficit doesn’t look unusual. It’s the scale of national debt in the UK as a whole that stands out as being quite peculiar.”





http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-who-loses-if-scotland-goes-it-alone/6524

[Agartha]

"it will be very hard for them for years if they split. Unfortunately that's the truth."

Why? Based on what...?

For example:

The main reason Scotland would be worse off on its own is that the existing currency union with the rest of the UK, which has operated well for centuries, protecting Scotland through world wars and global financial crises, would no longer be on offer.
For years, Scotland has benefited enormously from the broad support of the British state. Currency union has seen those living north of the border enjoying inflation and borrowing costs lower than they’d otherwise be, due to the backing of the Bank of England.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11079548/Scotland-should-not-and-will-not-survive-alone.html

There is a very large number of people on welfare in Scotland. Those benefits are, at the moment, supported by the UK:

An independent Scotland would either have to increase taxes or cut spending to meet the cost of looking after a population which is ageing faster than the rest of the UK, according to a major new report published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) today.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn139.pdf

[Kaere]

Interesting VM... would that money be going straight into the gov't of Scotland's hands or is that what is made by the oil & gas companies? I read previously in the thread that BP would be leaving Scotland, does that mean that they can take their ball (equipment, etc) and go home? If they relocate to England, will that exempt them from paying Scottish taxes? Can they refuse to hire Scottish workers (it's already a wicked hard job to get and keep)?

They'd need a ton of cash like that in order to pay for the services that Scotland has become accustomed to - NHS, benefits and such for those on paid-by-the-state social housing, military (whether you like it or not, it's a huge employer), etc.

Just talking/thinking out loud, wanting to understand it all *smiles*

[Agartha]

^^ Kaere's reply is sort of what I wanted to ask VM... this is what the YES and NO party think of the oil revenue:

YES: The nationalists insist an independent Scotland would not be over-reliant on oil. They believe the UK Government has squandered most of the North Sea oil revenues by failing to establish a fund for the money to be invested. Under independence, they say, such a fund would be created. This would also help to get around the problem of oil’s volatility from year to year. To win over the industry, Scotland’s Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing, recently hinted that oil and gas firms could benefit from new tax breaks if Scotland became independent.


NO: The Better Together campaign has argued that relying too heavily on North Sea oil would be dangerous as it is such a volatile commodity. Under independence, they say, Scotland would have to draw on oil revenues to fund public spending – so if the amount raised suddenly fell, services could suffer. They also argue that there might not be as much oil under the North Sea as the Scottish Government is expecting, pointing to statements made by an oil industry expert, Sir Ian Wood, who warned last month that they may have overestimated the amount by up to 60 per cent.

From:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-from-oil-and-the-economy-to-the-pound-and-the-queen-the-hot-topics-driving-the-referendum-debate-9732415.html

[Monk (in hiding)]

I'm thinking Scotland will be better off while you will hear a big sucking sound from England.

They believe the UK Government has squandered most of the North Sea oil revenues by failing to establish a fund for the money to be invested.

Thatcher and North Sea oil – a failure to invest in Britain’s future

But whatever else might be said of Thatcher’s record one thing seems undeniable. She was not an investment prime minister. She may be credited by David Cameron for having made Britain great again following the malaise of the 1970s but she failed – and spectacularly so – to invest in Britain’s post-Thatcherite future. As capital spending plummeted, our national infrastructure was left to rot. Public services in particular were starved of resources. Most seriously her governments did little to help find future employment for those industries deemed beyond the pale of the Thatcher revolution.

But nothing better illustrates her failure to invest in Britain’s long term future than her mishandling of the giant windfall she was gifted on entering Number 10 from booming North Sea oil revenues


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-%E2%80%93-failure-invest-britain%E2%80%99s-future

[Monk (in hiding)]

NO: The Better Together campaign has argued that relying too heavily on North Sea oil would be dangerous as it is such a volatile commodity. Under independence, they say, Scotland would have to draw on oil revenues to fund public spending – so if the amount raised suddenly fell, services could suffer

Oil is only going up, demand is exceeding supply now. What do you think all those CAFE standards are for.

[IceWendigo]

The main reason Scotland would be worse off on its own is that the existing currency union with the rest of the UK, which has operated well for centuries, protecting Scotland through world wars and global financial crises, would no longer be on offer.

Other countries in the world were able to survive without the currency union.

"There is absolutely no reason why Westminster should agree to a currency union with a newly- independent Scotland"

Imo, Its Scotland that should not agree to a currency union , they should issue (interest free) their own money instead of burrowing from usurers, and make sure to invest it to enhance production and logistics(not in white elephants and economic hitman projects). They can can continue to use whichever currency they want but should issue their Scottish money for internal investments and as local currency. They should also enact laws/mechanisms as well as seeking China and Bric agreements for protection from Wall Street/London financial warfare and Edge Fund speculative attacks.

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Monk (in hiding)]

[quote="IceWendigo"]

The main reason Scotland would be worse off on its own is that the existing currency union with the rest of the UK, which has operated well for centuries, protecting Scotland through world wars and global financial crises, would no longer be on offer.

I'm sure Norway will have a strong alliance with Scotland.

[Stirky]

Like Kaere said the military is a big employer. If Scotland do leave the military will also be pulling a lot out of Scotland which has been based there for years, this will mean more job losses and less revenue for Scotland. One thing for example is the nuclear subs which are currently based in Faslane, we have the subs here in Plymouth currently for refits. If Scotland goes it separate way, then all the navy's nuclear subs will come here to Plymouth, making more jobs here at our dockyard (although a lot of people do not want more nuclear here!!).

[Stirky]

Also they haven't really decided what will happen if they do go their separate way, in regards to currency, boarders etc. It's all a bit up in the air. Guess we'll have to wait until Thursday.

[IceWendigo]

They would not be all that independent if they were to become subservient to the EU, and if they were subservient to the central banking mafia and usury vultures instead of issuing their own local money interest free. And ideally they should switch to a Democracy, which, unlike most countries in the world that mascarade and swindle people with the usurped and defiled Democracy label, should start by a Constitution by the people (not by the politicians, which is the equivalent of asking the Foxes to write the rules of the hen house) and should include sortition mechanisms and other safeguards.
(not that I think thats what they'll do)

[Stirky]

This is what I mean, I don't know why they haven't made it clearer what they will do if they leave the UK???

[Monk (in hiding)]

[Agartha]

We'll just have to see what happens tomorrow..... I personally think people will vote for No... but I'm ready for VM's reaction to my 'prediction' if Yes wins!
hahahaha

[Rogue]

If I was betting money i'd go for a No win.

[Kaere]

I'll be surprised if it's a Yes result... what margin do they need in order to win? Is it just 50% or more than that? (I haven't read closely enough)

[IceWendigo]

Great video!

[Rogue]

I'm not sure in this case with Scotland, reports sound like they only need 50%, but in other referendums like this I thought they needed something like 75%.

[IceWendigo]

"I thought they needed something like 75%."

Good idea, that means 26% of the people should decide   , just as long as its set like this;  If the question is "Do you want to stay in the UK?" then the democratic threshold should be 75% just to be sure, so then the 26% in favour of freedom chose on behalf of everyone else, but if the question is "Do you want Scotland to be independent?" then it should be lowered to 25%, because 25% is a good number to represent the will of the people.
hehe just teasing

Imo if 50%+1 person is good for one side, it should also be good for the other side.

This kidding aside, a more important aspect is to realize how undemocratic our systems are, we are in representative aristocracies, the people are powerless because of power structures (using money, hierarchy and secrecy) and our system and constitution is not controlled by the people. When the host of the video (Brand? something) said something like I wish I was Scottish after he realizes how little control the people have over policies and that the English people wee also colonized/ruled, its similar with most countries.

[Sponsored content]