The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

and deliberate stupidity is a worse one. Have you looked at and understood that spreadsheet yet?

Calm down dear, as Dave might say ! Is there any need to be rude

Ahhh, I see you haven't looked at that spreadsheet, nor joined up the dots of what its pointing out.

Scotland pays more than its share almost never (tho the same is true for whole-UK too). Scotland has the worst deficit in Europe.

Scotland did contribute more than rUK in some years, when there was shit loads of oil (which there isn't now) and when the oil prices were at a record high (which they aren't now).

As there will never again be the high oil revenues that Salmond based his economic projections on (because the oil left to extract costs much more to extract) where he spent the same oil no-money four-times over, Scotland's financial position is only downwards from here.

Ahhh, there we go again with that crystal ball !! Salmond really does have you rattled ! He`s now sitting back with a cigar on and your till scrambling about chasing his tail...

How can you predict that Scotlands financial position is only downwards from here ? Laughable stuff !

I`m not quoting the figures again about the % of Europes renewable resources Scotland owns and how can you right off future technologies to extract oil or future developments off our coasts. We keep going to wars to protect oil interests but you seem to think the price will never go up again ? Really ?

All these figures your quoting showing that during the time that Westminster has held the " levers of power " and gave Scotland back what it thought was fair and led us through their policies and priorities ( even though we never voted for them ) Scotland and of course rUK are in Trillions of debt and all our resources ( not just oil ) are being pissed into the wind. You keep pointing these figures out ? are you forgetting that we are supposed to be better together !!! Have you changed sides ? Are you agreeing that it is a scandal how much debt we are in and that the Union is a busted flush ? Do you now agree that Scotland could manage to run itself and that a fairer better society would be more likely if we ran our own affairs from Edinburgh ?

All these facts and figures about how badly we are doing would suggest that we are not better together after all

If only you had told us before

[Comfy Bean]

On your figures again Neil. I can`t find it so apologys if I am getting mixed up but.....did you not previously agree that the share of money given to us by our Westminster masters was deservedly higher ( per head of population ) due to the different geographical set up of Scotland and our rural communities ?

I was also trying to find out what our ( UK ) debt is verus UK GDP but can`t find that either. Anyone know what this is ?

Went to the Hope over Fear rally in Glasgow with the weans and a few of our festie pals on Sunday. There was some excellent music and also a lot of talk about the growing debt mountain. Think it`s something we should all be concerned about as we are likley to be better together for atleast a decade ( probably a good bit more ) and Dave has made tax cuts for the £ 50,000+ his priority. Also noticed that the YES campaign have managed to somehow market the Saltire as the YES flag. Great scenes in George square and as much of a street party as we got

Edited October 14, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

I take your point about who can afford to buy houses these days. It should be said though that young first time buyers or " poor " people ( to borrow your term ) would be unlikely to be affected by these changes to stamp duty so not sure it`s as big a deal as your trying to make out.

eh? You've taken my point the wrong way around. I know that those buying cheaper houses are unaffected.

My point was that these changes do nothing at all for the poorest. No benefit from the changes reaches down as far as those people (and in fact is likely to increase the numbers of exploitative landlords).

The 'extra' money that is to be taken from house buyers could have been used to benefit those poorest (perhaps by funding new social housing). Instead it's been used to benefit a top-end percentile of people who can already afford to buy a house.

Hitting the richer types is a good thing, but only if the benefit goes to the poorest, which doesn't happen here.

If it`s to encourage more homes to be built and therefore create jobs then there might be something in it.

It's hard to see how that might happen from all of the normal economic views.

As I understand it, people who live in the mansions WILL be affected which should generate revenue - no ?

it does generate revenue, but that revenue is going to be spent in removing those who buy houses between costing between £125k and £135k from paying stamp duty. This is essentially a benefit to the middle classes (tho those who might be deemed lower-middle-class).

Have you congratulated Salmond yet on bucking the austerity trend with his decision on nullifying and then abolishing the bedroom tax ? If not, why not !

Yes, it's a good thing, tho a good thing that could have happened sooner if he wasn't such an arse who refuses to accept that the SG is subservient to Westminster.

Just as with some of the bigger indyref issues, he refuses to make simple and sensible requests to Westminster, because his ego won't take being subservient.

But ..... the money that has been used to pay the bedroom tax for those people is money that is being denied to the poorest. In many cases it's giving financial help to people who are wealthier than those poorest.

(It's also continuing a theme of welfare paying to provide people with facilities beyond their needs, tho I accept that's currently a very difficult issue to resolve for a number of different reasons).

Your last bit in bold is interesting if your up for a blether on this.

I think funding free education is a choice and all about Government priorities ( think Germany are going with free ). Times are hard in Scotland as you love to point out but education remains free as do prescriptions, care for the elderly and as above, removal of unfair taxes on the " poor ". Are you sure England would make the same decisions ? It looks to me that they have different priorities eg a tax CUT for middle englanders earners.

Oh, I'm well aware that the tories would be likely to use that difference for tax cuts, and I actually chose my wording to cover that. My use of 'could' and not 'would' was very deliberate.

Meanwhile:-

1. Scotland's free education is paid for by England and cuts to other education services in Scotland that are mostly used by the poorest - so it's a benefit to the middle classes and not the poor (and the differences in who goes to uni in England and Scotland proves this too).

2. the benefit of free prescriptions is a benefit to the middle classes, as the poorest already got them free.

3. the free care for the elderly is a benefit to the middle classes, as the poorest already got that free.

4. the 'bedroom tax' is not a tax, but is the withdrawal of the over-provision of welfare payments. While the impact of the 'bedroom tax' is hard on those affected, it's difficult to rationalise the idea that welfare should be over-providing facilities to people, especially while the rates of other welfare payments are so low.

It would be easy for me to point at the £100billion to renew Trident that the Scottish Govt wants no part of but that would meaning falling out with the Americans and losing your place as a world player !!

there's plenty of people in England who are no fan of Trident, me included.

But have you been paying attention?

If Scotland had voted for indy, there was absolutely zero financial benefit to come to Scotland from no longer paying for Trident, because all of that money would have been swallowed by Scotland's own defence force (as stated in the white paper).

And if Trident was removed from a UK-included Scotland, Scotland would lose its biggest site of employment, and (if the saved money was distributed evenly around the UK) would therefore cost Scotland a big chunk of its economy.

And i'll just also remind you that England has bigger nuclear risks that threaten its capital than Coulport does Glasgow (the opposite of which is the normally stated gripe for why Scotland doesn't want Trident).

Anyway my point is governments have to make difficult choices and prioritise as they see fit. We clearly live in different Countries.

all choices of all govts are money dependent. Scotland forgets that Scotland's choices are not dependent on Scotland's money, which causes the SG to have a very easy life around its choices.

Another recent example would be how the Scottish Government CHOSE to grant the 1% to ALL NHS staff no matter where they sat on the pay scale hence no strike up here yesterday.

something it's paid for by cutting NHS services, which hasn't happened in England.

It's merely personal choice that has one rated as better than the other. There is no real 'better' to be claimed here.

Your very last sentence reminded me of Edwina Currie`s brilliant line. She is " fed up funding Scotland`s extravagant lifestyle "

That's not a line I take, ever.

Scotland has higher costs because of its demographics and geography, and as part of the UK the union should cover those costs in a proportional way (in much the way it does).

Where it goes badly wrong is with the sorts of claims you've made around it. You pretend that the SG's choices are all A Good Thing, but you're only able to do so by completely ignoring the effects that are made elsewhere by the transfer of money from one thing to another.

It gets particularly galling when many people who hail these things as A Good Thing also claim that Scotland is more supportive to the poor, when it's the poor who are being robbed to give benefits to the middle classes in exactly the way that Salmond has done.

If you want to claim Scotland as different, don't lie about it. State the truth, that Scotland's difference is an even greater pandering to the middle classes than happens in rUK.

Edited October 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

On your figures again Neil. I can`t find it so apologys if I am getting mixed up but.....did you not previously agree that the share of money given to us by our Westminster masters was deservedly higher ( per head of population ) due to the different geographical set up of Scotland and our rural communities ?

yep.

But of course, as an indy nation, Scotland wouldn't get that extra from rUK. Funding that extra itself would be beyond Scotland, which would mean only cuits in public services.

I was also trying to find out what our ( UK ) debt is verus UK GDP but can`t find that either. Anyone know what this is ?

follow the link I gave yesterday to the SG's website for the 2012-13 numbers - that page also gives the whole-UK position for the same year.

Went to the Hope over Fear rally in Glasgow

UKIP voters say that anyone ho disagrees with their take on immigration and the EU is out of touch. The fact that over twice as many people support both of the major "out of touch" parties cannot ever correct that bad conclusions, because facts and intelligence don't cfopme into their thouhts.

Likewise with the claims of "fear" in Scotland.

It's thru that "fear" bollocks that Scotland will discover in future years that it's shat on its own economy (just check how things panned out in Quebec).

It's moronic to think that people only voted no cos of unfounded fears. Equally moronic would a claim that people only voted yes via delusions about Scotland's economic position.

also a lot of talk about the growing debt mountain.

will the talk also include the need to cut back on public services in Scotland to cure that debt mountain?

Or will Scotland keep pretending that nothing of reality effects Scotland?

Also noticed that the YES campaign have managed to somehow market the Saltire as the YES flag.

The BNP did that with the St George's flag too. Just a thought.

Eventually the sane people won it back. Also just a thought.

Edited October 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Calm down dear, as Dave might say ! Is there any need to be rude

a question that you need to pose to LJS, as I was just batting it back.

Ahhh, there we go again with that crystal ball !! Salmond really does have you rattled !

PMSL. Laughing at lies isn't me rattled.

The people who would be rattled is you, if you'd have got your indy dream. Salmond's financial projections were a crock of shit.

How can you predict that Scotlands financial position is only downwards from here ? Laughable stuff !

In which case Salmond's upwards projections were equally laughable.

But in fact, they were more laughable, because they were based in indisputable fantasy rather than just guesswork. There are not the facts to back up the numbers he plucked from the air.

I`m not quoting the figures again about the % of Europes renewable resources Scotland owns

That's nothing relevant to anything I said or anything being addressed here.

(tho it's always worth pointing out that the importance of those to Europe as claimed by yes-ers is laughable)

and how can you right off future technologies to extract oil or future developments off our coasts. We keep going to wars to protect oil interests but you seem to think the price will never go up again ? Really ?

There's already lots of "future technologies" being used to extract much of the oil that's being landed today. And guess what? They're significantly more expensive per barrel of oil extracted.

The oil revenues (the bit that gets talked about constantly, I'm meaning) is a tax on extraction *profits*. The profits from extraction are falling rapidly because of the greater expense of extraction, which is the precise reason why the oil revenues are falling, and why so many of the big oil companies are selling up much of their Scottish assets. The profits are too small for them to be interested.

Yes, the price of oil might go up in the future, but for all the while there's easier places to extract oil, extraction companies won't rush back to Scotland.

There's a huge over-supply of oil right now. Why is that?

Because all of the places where oil is extracted needs those oil revenues, with any oil revenue being better than no oil revenue - precisely the position Scotland is in. It's currently a race to the bottom, for all of the while the world economy remains stagnant (which doesn't look like changing much for a decade or more - the whole world is doing the same as Japan has done for 2 decades now).

Plus, the forecasts don't see oil revenues rising any time soon, because so much effort around the world is going into switching away from oil, as well as new non-oil energy sources (fracking, basically) coming on stream.

At best the Salmond plans were jumping off a cliff with your fingers crossed. Most of the world's oil industry would say Scotland would hit the rocks at the bottom as a result of only bad luck.

All these figures your quoting showing that during the time that Westminster has held the " levers of power " and gave Scotland back what it thought was fair and led us through their policies and priorities ( even though we never voted for them ) Scotland and of course rUK are in Trillions of debt and all our resources ( not just oil ) are being pissed into the wind.

Yep, Westminster pissed the oil money up the wall.

Would Scotland have used it better in those peak years? The yes-ers favourite comparison of Norway says Scotland wouldn't have done.

You keep pointing these figures out ? are you forgetting that we are supposed to be better together !!! Have you changed sides ?

I'm always on the side of facts and not fantasies. Perhaps you should try it somewhen?

Are you agreeing that it is a scandal how much debt we are in and that the Union is a busted flush ?

The union is such a busted flush that an indy Scotland wanted to tie its economy to it in perpetuity?

Yes, it's a shitter that the debt is so high, but that's what happens when any place cannot pay its way. You know, like with Scotland too.

Do you now agree that Scotland could manage to run itself and that a fairer better society would be more likely if we ran our own affairs from Edinburgh ?

Not until I see a plan that isn't a big joke designed to fool stupid yes voters.

All these facts and figures about how badly we are doing would suggest that we are not better together after all

If only you had told us before

Until Scotland has a plan that isn't a joke, Scotland is certainly better off in the union.

If you want to prove that wrong, you need to put forwards a realistic plan. Salmond's joke of a white paper isn't it.

Edited October 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

Saudi arabia now announces they don't care about the price of oil, and that they are focusing on retaining market share. They are going to keep pumping out the oil and prices seem certain to drop to around $70-$75 a barrel. Meanwhile the US keeps on with its shale oil "revolution" ensuring prices will stay low for god knows how long.

Rich oil producing countries can cope with low prices. Minnows cannot.

What was the oil price figure the SNP based their masterplan on, $110/barrel wasnt it?

It is absolutely terrifying to imagine what would have happened should Yes have won.

[eFestivals]

Saudi arabia now announces they don't care about the price of oil, and that they are focusing on retaining market share. They are going to keep pumping out the oil and prices seem certain to drop to around $70-$75 a barrel. Meanwhile the US keeps on with its shale oil "revolution" ensuring prices will stay low for god knows how long.

Rich oil producing countries can cope with low prices. Minnows cannot.

What was the oil price figure the SNP based their masterplan on, $110/barrel wasnt it?

It is absolutely terrifying to imagine what would have happened should Yes have won.

The SNP plan was based on $113 a barrel, and 24Bn barrels of extractable oil (when the best industry estimates say 16Bn with extraction tax rates around what they are now).

Scotland only gets to keep a percentage of profit from what is extracted, and with extraction costs so high there's very little profit to get taxed - which is why the oil revenues are falling.

There no "new technologies" that will change those high extraction costs. The high costs come from having to drill off-shore &/or deploying those high-cost "new technologies" to extract the last bits of oil from fields where the easy oil has already been extracted.

Meanwhile, the USA is now pumping more oil than it's every done in its history - a history that said oil extraction was pretty much a thing of past in the USA around 20 years ago.

The SNP projections had 24Bn barrels of oil as extractable. While that number isn't an impossibility to get to if the price per barrel is high enough to make it worthwhile, it would probably also require Scotland to allow the last 8Bn barrels of oil to be extracted for free - with no extraction taxes going to the Scottish govt.

It would be worth the SG allowing that to allow the on-shore oil industry to continue which has its own economic worth - but those no-extraction-taxes would hit the SG's budgets very very hard.

And then ultimately, Scotland losses its on-shore oil industry - and unless new industries start to replace it, it leaves Scotland completely fucked.

(new industries might have been attracted of course - but only by giving them cheap taxes which further drags down the Scottish economy)

Salmond's claims were laughable from ever angle, but he wouldn't have cared. Once he'd got his dream of indy all other consequences wouldn't have much mattered to him - including the unavoidable massive cuts in public spending that would make tory austerity look like a spending spree.

But what's the future for investment in Scotland anyway? Poor, as a consequence of the indyref that's scared the shit out of businesses from wanting to site themselves in Scotland (and that would have also been the consequence if Scotland had voted yes).

But hey, don't accept reality. People only voted no because they were scared, and not because they were sane.

Edited October 15, 2014 by eFestivals

[lost]

Watched with amazement the oil sell off last night.. wti down below $81 this morning. Russia's budget is apparently based on $96 oil. Are the yanks and Saudis trying to do to them what they did in the 90's?

[russycarps]

Watched with amazement the oil sell off last night.. wti down below $81 this morning. Russia's budget is apparently based on $96 oil. Are the yanks and Saudis trying to do to them what they did in the 90's?

I think the US will suffer just as much if not more than russia from saudi's action. Fracking is not cheap. Saudi Arabia arent happy that the US hasnt taken out Assad and that the US are actually softening their position towards Iran. This is how saudi arabia will punish america

This will also fuck shia iraq and undermine the fight against ISIS who, are sunni and who saudia arabia support. Kuwait will also help keep oil prices low, as they too are sunni so want to see shia countries suffer. A bonus is that venezuala will also suffer, the bonus being that they are strong allies of Iran.

Saudi power is ridiculous.

And scotland thought they were going to become a oil player and wouldnt be annihilated by all these geopolitical games???

Edited October 15, 2014 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

I think the US will suffer just as much if not more than russia from saudi's action. Fracking is not cheap. Saudi Arabia arent happy that the US hasnt taken out Assad and that the US are actually softening their position towards Iran. This is how saudi arabia will punish america

if they really want to do that, then all they need to do is to stop selling their oil in dollars.

Mind you, the record of countries who've done that isn't great. Here's the list:-

Iran; Iraq; Venezuela; Libya; Syria; Russia (for sales to China).

Can you spot a theme there?

If the world loses the petro-dollar, the USA loses everything.

And scotland thought they were going to become a oil player and wouldnt be annihilated by all these geopolitical games???

To be fair, I don't think anyone but the fruitcakes thought they'd be a player. They don't even extract enough oil to service the UK.

Bit-part players like Scotland are an irrelevance to the rest of it.

[russycarps]

if they really want to do that, then all they need to do is to stop selling their oil in dollars.

Mind you, the record of countries who've done that isn't great. Here's the list:-

Iran; Iraq; Venezuela; Libya; Syria; Russia (for sales to China).

Can you spot a theme there?

If the world loses the petro-dollar, the USA loses everything.

To be fair, I don't think anyone but the fruitcakes thought they'd be a player. They don't even extract enough oil to service the UK.

Bit-part players like Scotland are an irrelevance to the rest of it.

Yeh I dont think the saudi's have any desire to destroy america, they just want to maintain their position and influence. I suppose this is a good way to ensure that.

I have definitely read some of the Yes voters in the comments sections saying such things about scotland becoming a mighty oil power, when all the so-called unlimited untapped reserves in the West were extracted. Those comments sections were a scary place.

[eFestivals]

I have definitely read some of the Yes voters in the comments sections saying such things about scotland becoming a mighty oil power, when all the so-called unlimited untapped reserves in the West were extracted. Those comments sections were a scary place.

ahhh, yes .... the world where Dave Moron flew in a helicopter over an oil field as a "secret" mission about new hush-hush oil finds ... so hush-hush that he flew in a helicopter there in full view of the world's press.

There was no bullshit that some yes-ers wouldn't create, and there was no yes-ers bullshit that yes-ers would reject - as proven by those polls that showed massive beliefs in some very stupid ideas.

The one I particularly liked was the one where over 70% of yes-ers didn't believe that the banks would head south - which only proved just how dumb they are about the most simple and straightforwards of bank practices.

[LJS]

ahhh, yes .... the world where Dave Moron flew in a helicopter over an oil field as a "secret" mission about new hush-hush oil finds ... so hush-hush that he flew in a helicopter there in full view of the world's press. :lol.

And funnily enough, the world where Neil got many of his "facts" :)

[LJS]

I am mightily amused by all this commentary from our resident petro-economists.

So, let's get this straight: when the price of oil was high as it was throughout the referendum campaign - (inconveniently for the No Better campaign as a high oil price clearly increases the viability of an independent Scotland) we were constantly told the price of oil is volatile & you would be crazy to base your economy on it. Now the price has fallen, you guys appear to be saying it has magically lost its volatility and is certain to stay low (or even get lower) for the foreseeable future (which coincidentally makes an independent Scotland a less attractive option) - funny that!!!

A bit like the way we were constantly told in the run up to the vote that businesses were putting investment & new jobs on hold because of the uncertainty surrounding the vote. And now look...

"Unemployment in Scotland fell by 40,000 between June and August to stand at 151,000, according to official figures.

It was the biggest quarterly fall in Scottish unemployment since records began.

The Scottish jobless rate is now 5.5%, which is below the rate of 6% for the whole of the UK."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29618052

Can't wait to see the figures for the next quarter now all that pesky uncertainty has gone

Edited October 15, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

And funnily enough, the world where Neil got many of his "facts" :)

Nah... I don't do Facebook.

[eFestivals]

The price of oil was not high during the indyref. That was one of the many reasons why salmonds plans were such a big joke.

[eFestivals]

The reason that unemployment is falling so much is not because of real jobs. Its cos people are being pushed by job centres to go self employed in a minimal way and top it up with tax credits.

I wouldn't take the reduction in the unemployment figures too seriously.

[LJS]

The reason that unemployment is falling so much is not because of real jobs. Its cos people are being pushed by job centres to go self employed in a minimal way and top it up with tax credits.

I wouldn't take the reduction in the unemployment figures too seriously.

Good to know our Scottish job centres are more than twice as efficient at this than their English counterparts (judging by relative drops in unemployment)

[eFestivals]

I am mightily amused by all this commentary from our resident petro-economists.

So, let's get this straight: when the price of oil was high as it was throughout the referendum campaign - (inconveniently for the No Better campaign as a high oil price clearly increases the viability of an independent Scotland) we were constantly told the price of oil is volatile & you would be crazy to base your economy on it. Now the price has fallen, you guys appear to be saying it has magically lost its volatility and is certain to stay low (or even get lower) for the foreseeable future (which coincidentally makes an independent Scotland a less attractive option) - funny that!!!

Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you really not understand how oil prices impact onto petro-economies with petro-currencies?

If it's the first, you lost, let it go.

If it's the 2nd, I'm happy to provide an explanation, so that your knowledge and understanding is increased, so that you're in a better position to make informed considerations if/when the next vote comes around.

(do note that I'm not saying an informed consideration would agree with my own conclusions. I'm saying you would not make the wrong choice from your own position because of not understanding the issues; what your choice might be with that extra info is your own choice to make)

[LJS]

Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you really not understand how oil prices impact onto petro-economies with petro-currencies?

If it's the first, you lost, let it go.

If it's the 2nd, I'm happy to provide an explanation, so that your knowledge and understanding is increased, so that you're in a better position to make informed considerations if/when the next vote comes around.

(do note that I'm not saying an informed consideration would agree with my own conclusions. I'm saying you would not make the wrong choice from your own position because of not understanding the issues; what your choice might be with that extra info is your own choice to make)

My comment wasn't really about oil or petro dollars. It was about the factual basis or otherwise of some of the anti independence arguments/scares.

[eFestivals]

My comment wasn't really about oil or petro dollars. It was about the factual basis or otherwise of some of the anti independence arguments/scares.

but it is a fact that both low and high oil prices have a big and bad impact onto an economy such as an independent Scotland's.

It's only a stable oil price that wouldn't have that effect, and stable oil prices isn't how it goes.

If you don't get that, you're not properly understanding those economic arguments. It's an economic fact that stands up by itself, totally aside from anything indy/no-indy, and fuck all to do with scaring people.

Facts remain facts in all relevant circumstances. They don't become unfounded dogma against the thing you support just because they're inconvenient to the thing you support.

From your posts here it seems you've yet to put away your indy dogma and face up to irrefutable facts.

[russycarps]

the "scares" were real though. If oil prices dropped, scotland wouldnt have been able to afford the stuff it was promising. (it required an absurdly high $113 a barrel to do so! this was absurd given the fact that america is soon to overtake saudi arabia in output)

oil prices have dropped massively as predicted, and will stay low for the foreseeable future.

So the factual basis of the scares/arguments actually turned out to be just that: facts. Facts proven by real life events.

[eFestivals]

(it required an absurdly high $113 a barrel to do so! this was absurd given the fact that america is soon to overtake saudi arabia in output)

I'm not sure that "absurdly high" applies. It was quite possibly a quite reasonable number to work from at the point the calculations on the benefits of the oil were made, tho only if there's also a fall-back position - which their wasn't.

The problem is, tho, that oil prices are very volatile (see here). That swings an economic plan from viable to not very quickly - and where even a higher price comes with bad consequences onto other parts of the economy, when a simple consideration of that higher price suggests it can't be a bad thing.

In Scotland's case, where it falls down particularly badly is that its current economic set-up is only viable with a historically high price and with production levels that are unsustainable given the Scottish oil fields.

As some of the last few years have seen, Scotland is just about able to match the UK's economy - tho do remember, an economy running at a massive deficit - if the oil price and production levels hit a certain level.

That deficit, just by itself, makes the current spending levels of an iScotland unsustainable. Add in the (long term) terminal decline of Scottish oil extraction, plus a price crash for oil, and it's fucked.

What so many yes voters wouldn't accept (and still won't, by LJS's post) is that an iScotland would have had to make massive spending cuts, which then demolishes the rationale that had very many yes-ers wanting to vote yes in the first place. They refused and still refuse to join up the dots into a rational-whole.

Edited October 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I'm not sure that "absurdly high" applies. It was quite possibly a quite reasonable number to work from at the point the calculations on the benefits of the oil were made, tho only if there's also a fall-back position - which their wasn't.

The problem is, tho, that oil prices are very volatile (see here). That swings an economic plan from viable to not very quickly - and where even a higher price comes with bad consequences onto other parts of the economy, when a simple consideration of that higher price suggests it can't be a bad thing.

In Scotland's case, where it falls down particularly badly is that its current economic set-up is only viable with a historically high price and with production levels that are unsustainable given the Scottish oil fields.

As some of the last few years have seen, Scotland is just about able to match the UK's economy - tho do remember, an economy running at a massive deficit - if the oil price and production levels hit a certain level.

That deficit, just by itself, makes the current spending levels of an iScotland unsustainable. Add in the (long term) terminal decline of Scottish oil extraction, plus a price crash for oil, and it's fucked.

What so many yes voters wouldn't accept (and still won't, by LJS's post) is that an iScotland would have had to make massive spending cuts, which then demolishes the rationale that had very many yes-ers wanting to vote yes in the first place. They refused and still refuse to join up the dots into a rational-whole.

It is unbelievably tiresome to hear you continue to trot this mixture of opinion conjecture & guesswork out as fact.

Unlike you, I never professed an infallible insight into the future nor did I base my arguments on a list of numbers I found in the comments section of the guardian.

I am continually amused at your ability to find a negative outcome for Scotland for any given circumstances.

Low oil price = bad

High oil price =bad

Use the pound = bad

Don't use the pound=bad

Join eu=bad

Don't join euro=bad

Banks leave=bad

Banks stay=bad

Hilarious.

If I didn't have my special pants on I'd PMSL.

[LJS]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-scotland-camerons-taken-broken-promises-to-a-whole-new-level-9799747.html#