The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

Wrong. Norway's economy is actually dependent on the wise investment of the $850bn oil fund they've accrued over the decades thanks to the now dwindling oil.

Scotland's fund is in the red.

Some good news here as I didn`t even realise we had a fund. Unless you mean the Shetland one but it`s in the black I think ?

So this fund in Norway that your saying their economy is dependent on....it came from oil right ? You could get a cigarette paper between your post and my admittedly pointless point regarding how Norways economy was more dependent on oil. Are you agreeing with me now then

[Comfy Bean]

yeah, comfy says a lot of things that he "believes", tho they rarely have much attachment to the facts.

Edited December 18, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[TheGayTent]

Meanwhile you support a party that acts in support of middle class privileges just as Thatcher did.

Er...really?

Remind us of your voting history and your voting intention??!!

[eFestivals]

I gave up trying to have a rational discussion with you ages ago.

to have given up you'd have first have to have started.

You pretend all of the awkward issues don't exist and refuse to discuss them.

----

What's a currency, again? And how does what a currency is give a foreign nation a right over another nation's sovereign instrument?

Yep, still no sound of a reply.

----

I tried to reverse that by baiting you. Even that wouldn't get you to give your opinion on the aspects that knock down your own arguments.

And now you use my baiting as your excuse for not replying. While that's a bit more cunning of you than simply running away from the awkward questions, it's certinly not fooling me.

The offer of a sensible discussion remains open - but that does require you to be willing discuss, rather than running away like a small child who knows he's been caught red handed.

Perhaps stop and think LJS, that you, and the yes-ers, cannot ever win an argument if you refuse to have that argument. You're sealing the failure of yes for eternity.

[eFestivals]

At the very least we need a revamp of Westminster.

Hurray - yes-ers are finally starting to come back down to earth.

[eFestivals]

someone seriously discussing SLAB's current plight

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/12/new-leader-old-troubles-labour-scotland/

I'm loving the opening line, and how that's an important part of Labour's plight to the left-leaning people of Scotland....

The Murdoch press empire decided to rain on the Scottish Labour leadership ....

Isn't it so good that those left-wingers are listening to a true socialist

[eFestivals]

I take your point on the fund mate and sadly "we" are too late for that but this was your response to my post standing by my crazy notion regarding " Norway`s economy being more dependent on oil than Scotland`s ".

Depending on who you believe, preferably no-one on efests including myself , oil represents anywhere from 15-20% of Scotland`s GDP including secondary industries. I`ll blindly go with 18% as that is the figure most often quoted. Happy to go with 20% though for ease of arithmetic. Norway come in at around 30- 35% including secondary industries plus it accounts for a whopping 67% of exports. Some seem to think that Norway`s economy is " overwhelmingly dependent " on oil. There`s more on how the oil has had a negative effect on the rest of Norway`s economy here.....

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Norways-Oil-Decline-Accelerating.html

No one here has pretended that Norway is unaffected by the drop in oil prices.

But as Norway is not *dependent* on oil for its current govt spending - unlike an iScotland would be - the impact onto Norway is minimal.

In the longer term both Norway and Scotland face the same problem, that the decline in oil extraction will make things worse from their current positions.

But that's the longer term. Norway can ride out what's happening right now without worry because it runs a big govt surplus.

Meanwhile an iScotland would be completely fucked, because it runs a govt deficit of greater than 10%, the worst in Europe (a bigger deficit than Greece).

[eFestivals]

Er...really?

Remind us of your voting history and your voting intention??!!

Voting intentions are not necessarily the same thing as what you support.

Unlike you, I don't have "the tories are wonderful" in my sig. I don't have any words to say about any party being wonderful, only that some parties are less-scum than other parties.

But hey, don't let that stop you making it up.

[LJS]

It would appear the man hailed by Neil & the no campaign as the font of all knowledge on oil says the 'crisis' is not as bad as everyone has been making out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30545300

Perhaps oil companies lobbying for tax breaks?

Edited December 20, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

It would appear the man hailed by Neil & the no campaign as the font of all knowledge on oil says the 'crisis' is not as bad as everyone has been making out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30545300

Perhaps oil companies lobbying for tax breaks?

it wouldn't be the first time.

There's very few newer north sea projects that are viable at less than $80 a barrel. If the price were to stay as it is, then much of Scotland's north sea industry will have disappeared in 5 years or so as many projects come to the end of their lives without new ones coming in to take up the slack.

But yeah, in most cases the companies are almost-obliged in the meantime to keep pumping even at a heavy loss, because that enables them to keep servicing their investment debts and keep their fingers crossed that things pick up to make profits later - else if they don't service the debts they're guaranteed bankrupt.

Mass bankruptcies would actually be good for Scotland's oil industry and for iScottish govt finances, because someone would pick up the projects and shed some of that investment debt in the process - and then create the possibility of profitable extraction.

Because while they're almost-all pumping at a loss, the iScottish govt's oil revenues - a hoped-for 16% of govt income - has disappeared in a click of the fingers. It's a tax on extraction profits and not merely extraction, don't forget.

[LJS]

so, we are often told that one of the reasons the Saudis are keeping the oil price low is to combat fracking shale gas ... which seems to make sense as that would result in a fall in the price of oil. so, in order to prevent a fall in the price of oil, Saudi Arabia is causing the price of oil to fall... hmmm odd isn't it?

So it must be them trying to get at Putin because of his flagrant disregard for human rights & civil liberties cos we know what sticklers the old Saudis are for these... Hmmmm

I guess it must just be because they hate Alec Salmond

[russycarps]

so, we are often told that one of the reasons the Saudis are keeping the oil price low is to combat fracking shale gas ... which seems to make sense as that would result in a fall in the price of oil. so, in order to prevent a fall in the price of oil, Saudi Arabia is causing the price of oil to fall... hmmm odd isn't it?

So it must be them trying to get at Putin because of his flagrant disregard for human rights & civil liberties cos we know what sticklers the old Saudis are for these... Hmmmm

I guess it must just be because they hate Alec Salmond

My understanding is that by keeping prices low they force the small American frackers out of business. Saudi has massive cash reserves (almost $1 trillion) so can tolerate low prices for some time.

The added bonus is that Iran suffers, who they hate for being shias, and Russia suffers who they hate because of their alliance with assad of Syria.

They hate salmond for being a lying fatty windbag I read.

[LJS]

My understanding is that by keeping prices low they force the small American frackers out of business. Saudi has massive cash reserves (almost $1 trillion) so can tolerate low prices for some time.

The added bonus is that Iran suffers, who they hate for being shias, and Russia suffers who they hate because of their alliance with assad of Syria.

They hate salmond for being a lying fatty windbag I read.

windbag power is the way forwards:)

[Rufus Gwertigan]

is it? All it does is guarantees no deal with Labour, and leaves the SNP with little influence.

There's not a chance in hell they'll be prepared to look like they've allowed UK defence policy to be set by less than 4% of the UK population and from just one corner of the landmass.

There would be no better Labour suicide note.

Someone here (Scottish, tho in a different thread I think) the other day called the LibDems 'tories' and said there was no difference between the LibDems and the tories, and challenged me to point out the differences they'd made.

This is one of the differences.

The LibDems stopped the current govt committing to Trident, to instead put the decision off until 2016.

I've little idea what position Labour will take, tho don't really expect it to be different to their 70 year almost-constant support of the UK not disarming unilaterally.

But who knows, they might decide that £100bn could be better spent. The USA is egging on the UK to forget its nukes to have better conventional forces instead, so it's not the politically poisonous issue it once was. There might even be a fair few British generals come out in support of no nukes for better conventional forces. Anything is possible with the current planned cuts.

So, imagine that Labour planned to dump Trident.

They still would not do a deal with the SNP, because it would look like they'd been forced into dumping Trident by less than 4% of the population in just one corner of the country.

This is probably better for a new thread but I think that renewing Trident and how that affects our military doctrine should be put to a referendum very much in a way that occurs in Switzerland.

I have been anti-nuclear most my life but if we reduced our conventional forces and stuck to purely local affairs it provides a perfect deterrent.

[LJS]

This is probably better for a new thread but I think that renewing Trident and how that affects our military doctrine should be put to a referendum very much in a way that occurs in Switzerland.

I have been anti-nuclear most my life but if we reduced our conventional forces and stuck to purely local affairs it provides a perfect deterrent.

couldn't agree more!

there is absolutely no justification for us spending money on WMD when spending is being cut left right & centre and even if we were awash with money, they serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

[eFestivals]

so, we are often told that one of the reasons the Saudis are keeping the oil price low is to combat fracking shale gas ... which seems to make sense as that would result in a fall in the price of oil. so, in order to prevent a fall in the price of oil, Saudi Arabia is causing the price of oil to fall... hmmm odd isn't it?

So it must be them trying to get at Putin because of his flagrant disregard for human rights & civil liberties cos we know what sticklers the old Saudis are for these... Hmmmm

I guess it must just be because they hate Alec Salmond

I think it's a number of different things going on.

Over the longer-term, Saudi needs to keep its market share which fracking will undermine - so it's helpful for them to undermine the fracking financials.

And then there's the growing 'green' energy sources, which are only viable against a high oil price.

They're also no friends of Putin, who is aiding their enemies - Syria and Iran.

And then there's the Yanks, who have already shown on a number of occasions that they won't tolerate oil producing nations selling oil in anything but dollars as the dollar's value will plummet otherwise - which Russia has recently started to do (as have Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Libya, & Syria previously - can you spot the trend here?).

And then there's the yanks, who want to see Putin undermined because of Ukraine.

And the Saudis never do the yanks favours, right? Especially when the future fortunes of Saudi are absolutely tied to the dollar.

A year or five of cheap oil sales does Saudi less harm than many alternatives - cos the oil is cheap to extract in Saudi (unlike Scotland, Russia, and plenty of other places).

[eFestivals]

windbag power is the way forwards:)

It's only viable with huge subsidies, and a high oil price.

It's a good job Scotland has the UK to fund Scotland's green energy sector, cos it wouldn't be happening otherwise.

[eFestivals]

couldn't agree more!

there is absolutely no justification for us spending money on WMD when spending is being cut left right & centre and even if we were awash with money, they serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

As I've pointed out many times - and do remember I'm anti-nuke - a decent case can be made for our nukes bringing the UK lots of other business that we otherwise wouldn't get.

I really wouldn't be surprised to see someone present a case that shows it's one of the much cheaper forms of corporate welfare that the UK pays out, which is helping to keep out economy afloat.

It's all very well saying "it serves no useful purpose whatsoever", but I reckon Scotland would scream even louder about having a more-fucked economy than it currently has than it screams about those nukes.

And unless there's something to replace the economic activity that is currently around nukes, the saved money gets pissed up the wall no different to how the 80s oil money did.

If you're going to demand no more nukes, in the context of Scottish politics you need to also be screaming out what's going to replace it... and so far I've yet to hear that part from anyone.

Meanwhile the indy campaign strongly suggested that the people of Scotland would like to keep those nukes. Check 'What Scotland Thinks' to see that in clear numbers.

[LJS]

As I've pointed out many times - and do remember I'm anti-nuke - a decent case can be made for our nukes bringing the UK lots of other business that we otherwise wouldn't get.

Like what for example?

I really wouldn't be surprised to see someone present a case that shows it's one of the much cheaper forms of corporate welfare that the UK pays out, which is helping to keep out economy afloat.

It's all very well saying "it serves no useful purpose whatsoever", but I reckon Scotland would scream even louder about having a more-fucked economy than it currently has than it screams about those nukes.

And unless there's something to replace the economic activity that is currently around nukes, the saved money gets pissed up the wall no different to how the 80s oil money did.

The number of jobs supported by Trident tends to be greatly exaggerated:

I should imagine most job losses would be covered by decommissioning jobs for a few years.

If you're going to demand no more nukes, in the context of Scottish politics you need to also be screaming out what's going to replace it... and so far I've yet to hear that part from anyone.

Meanwhile the indy campaign strongly suggested that the people of Scotland would like to keep those nukes. Check 'What Scotland Thinks' to see that in clear numbers.

If the polls show anything, they show that the answer you get depends very much on the question you ask. I certainly can't see conclusive support for Trident there.

Edited December 21, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

It's only viable with huge subsidies, and a high oil price.

It's a good job Scotland has the UK to fund Scotland's green energy sector, cos it wouldn't be happening otherwise.

We humble Scots thank you for your charitable contribution to our economy. Where would we be without you?

[eFestivals]

We humble Scots thank you for your charitable contribution to our economy. Where would we be without you?

How do you think an iScotland might go that has an aversion to inconvenient facts? And how smart might its population be if it rejects truth?

[eFestivals]

Like what for example?

it's good to see that you've been paying attention.

Having nukes increases the UK's profile in the world. If that's worth nothing economically, then hundreds of billions are wasted worldwide on advertising each year.

The number of jobs supported by Trident tends to be greatly exaggerated:

When the jobs associated with Trident in Scotland creates Scotland's biggest employment site, I reckon you need to reconsider that a little.

I should imagine most job losses would be covered by decommissioning jobs for a few years.

Perhaps, tho firstly Scotland will need to find someone to pay for the decommissioning when the owning company has mysteriously gone bankrupt.

And perhaps that very temporary salvation won't be enough to cover off 16% of iScottish govt income vanishing into thin air?

If the polls show anything, they show that the answer you get depends very much on the question you ask. I certainly can't see conclusive support for Trident there.

Yep, it depends how leading the question is.

And did you also note that you certainly can't see conclusive Scottish support for the removal of Trident there either?

Edited December 22, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

it's good to see that you've been paying attention.

Having nukes increases the UK's profile in the world. If that's worth nothing economically, then hundreds of billions are wasted worldwide on advertising each year.

Have you the slightest evidence to support this? no, I thought not. Just the usual guessswork. Maybe announcing we are unilaterally getting rid of nukes & declaring ourselves Nuke free will raise our profile even further?

When the jobs associated with Trident in Scotland creates Scotland's biggest employment site, I reckon you need to reconsider that a little.

Had you read my post you would have understood that a relatively small number of the jobs at Coulport/Faslane are Trident related. Of course there is no guarantee the rest of the jobs would remain. That would be a political decision. As would the question of what you do about the jobs that are left. But, as nukes are an absurdly inefficient way to create jobs, there is no doubt if the will is there that it need not result in job losses.

Perhaps, tho firstly Scotland will need to find someone to pay for the decommissioning when the owning company has mysteriously gone bankrupt.

You may not have noticed but we are still all together in the UK so we will all pick up the tab. (I#'d rather my taxes went to clear up after Nukes than to buy new ones) Had we voted yes, no doubt the question of decommissioning would have been part of the negotiations which would be going on right now.

And perhaps that very temporary salvation won't be enough to cover off 16% of iScottish govt income vanishing into thin air?

According to you oil revenues would be 16% of Scotland's tax revenue but is less than 1% of the UK tax revenue - both of these figures can not be correct.

Yep, it depends how leading the question is.

And did you also note that you certainly can't see conclusive Scottish support for the removal of Trident there either?

With the SNP riding at 48% in Westminster voting intentions in today's Survation poll there is pretty much of a Scottish mandate to scrap trident (they are 51% in Holyrood constituency intentions)

& yes, I do realise, there is no such thing as a "Scottish mandate" for reserved powers but after the referendum, no one voting SNP can be in any doubt that they are anti Trident

[eFestivals]

Have you the slightest evidence to support this? no, I thought not. Just the usual guessswork. Maybe announcing we are unilaterally getting rid of nukes & declaring ourselves Nuke free will raise our profile even further?

I didn't say i had evidence, I said a case can be made.

But all of the same evidence that is applicable to advertising applies - because awareness drives sales.

Going unilateral might give a short-term gain. It's very unlikely to have the same long-term effect tho, given that it's the powerful who exert power and commercially gain via that.

Had you read my post you would have understood that a relatively small number of the jobs at Coulport/Faslane are Trident related. Of course there is no guarantee the rest of the jobs would remain. That would be a political decision. As would the question of what you do about the jobs that are left. But, as nukes are an absurdly inefficient way to create jobs, there is no doubt if the will is there that it need not result in job losses.

I'm not sure what purpose a nuclear sub handling base would have without nukes. Care to fill me in?

Is there need for that base without nukes? Nope. The base was created to handle nukes, the base will go without the nukes.

Or do you think you'd close bases with greater naval purposes instead of nuke-limited Faslane?

But, as nukes are an absurdly inefficient way to create jobs, there is no doubt if the will is there that it need not result in job losses.

Yep, all military expenditure gives a very poor jobs return.

But iScotland would need more than just 'will', it would need money, too.

And as there's no beneficial money from Faslane for iScotland - in the words of Scotland's indy while paper, don't forget! - it's only job losses (or the transfer of jobs from one place in Scotland to another).

You may not have noticed but we are still all together in the UK so we will all pick up the tab.

Fair enough. If it's a UK burden then it's also the UK's oil.

Are you giving Scotland's oil away then? Cos you can't have it both ways.

It's either Scotland's oil and Scotland's oil liabilities, or it's UK oil and UK oil liabilities.

In the absence of any further clarification from you i'll be working on the basis from now on that Scotland has no oil or gas worth talking about, and iScotland isn't viable without tory-style cuts times three.

According to you oil revenues would be 16% of Scotland's tax revenue but is less than 1% of the UK tax revenue - both of these figures can not be correct.

according to Alex - not me - the oil is 16% of iScotland's tax revenues.

Both of those figures can be correct as anyone with O level maths could tell you. Perhaps you should ask an expert and not believe w*nkOverScotland?

With the SNP riding at 48% in Westminster voting intentions in today's Survation poll there is pretty much of a Scottish mandate to scrap trident (they are 51% in Holyrood constituency intentions)

With the SNP riding at less than 4% in Westminster voting intentions in today's Survation poll there is pretty much of a UK mandate to ignore Scotland about this.

& yes, I do realise, there is no such thing as a "Scottish mandate" for reserved powers but after the referendum, no one voting SNP can be in any doubt that they are anti Trident

True.

But there can be massive doubts about whether the same applies to the Scottish people, seeing as the majority wanted to keep Trident post-indy.

Edited December 22, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Shall we nail this...?

Which is left wing?

The party that opposes tax rises for the rich, or the party that has firm policies to tax the rich to a greater extent?

The party that has a policy to give tax cuts to the rich, or the party that doesn't?

----

Yes, Labour does plan to cut govt spending (but far less than the tories, don't forget) - but unless you're going to be showing me the SNP's magic money tree, the SNP has the same plan (or a plan to bankrupt Scotland, take your pick).

Plus of course those lower taxes on the rich gives the SNP even less money to spend on the Scottish public than Labour would have.

Vote SNP if you like, but don't be so insane as to think they're left wing. Tax cuts for the rich in an age of deficits is not left wing!

Edited December 23, 2014 by eFestivals