Scotland Watch

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 16 Sep 2014, 15:15

Talking of oil...

'Scotland has £1 trillion of energy on tap'

Most of the North Sea's oil and gas reserves lie north and east of Scotland, and those resources have continued to fuel the Scottish people's hopes of independence since their discovery in the 1960s.

Those oil fields have produced 42 billion barrels of oil since 1964, and that amounts to £1.1 trillion (approximately $1.8 trillion) of production up to now.

“Ninety-six percent of the oil income of U.K. comes from Scotland," said energy lawyer Hugh Fraser. "£1.1 trillion has been produced up to now. The U.K. treasury has received £330 billion from the taxation on the oil companies."

Recent figures show that 16.5 billion barrels are available for extraction and, with today’s exchange rate, another £1 trillion of revenues to come, according to Fraser, who is a partner in the Dubai-based law firm Andrew Kurth.

Nice round figure, that.

So, would an independent Scotland be able to renegotiate the way oil and gas revenue is raised?

Oil reserves are legally the property of the crown. In most countries, companies which extract reserves pay the country for what they take away, through royalties and taxation. Yet in Britain, the only charge oil companies pay to the government is corporation tax, which they have to pay anyway. In other words, they take away the oil for free, and go on to sell it at a healthy profit.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2000 ... upplement6

When Gordon Brown attempted to change this back in '99, the oilcos held the entire UK to ransom:

In the wake of the fuel crisis, there is increasing evidence that the oil industry colluded with protesters to cut the country's fuel supply. But why?

The answer lies in a story of machiavellian political manoeuvring. It is the story of how a group of multinationals can bring the government to its knees, and extract ever greater profits from the public finances. It's a story about tax, but not at the pump - it's about tax in the North Sea.

What happened during the last two days of the fuel crisis was a threat, a flexing of oil industry muscle in a strong warning to the government to leave the North Sea alone. The companies came close to showing they could bring down the government. And if Gordon Brown makes the wrong tax moves, they could try to go the whole way.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2000 ... upplement6

Does a 'Yes' vote mean that 'The Crown' relinquishes ownership?

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 16 Sep 2014, 15:57

More scaremongering:

Millions of banknotes sent to Scotland in case Yes vote sparks run on ATMs

Britain’s banks have been quietly moving millions of banknotes north of the border to cope with any surge in demand by Scots to withdraw cash in the event of a Yes vote in Thursday's independence referendum, it has emerged.

Sources told The Independent the moves have been taking place over the past week or so in order to make sure ATMs do not run out on Friday in the event of a panic reaction to a “yes” vote. There have been some suggestions that people will want to move their money to English banks in the event of an independence vote.

Bankers stressed there has been no sign yet of any increase in the amount of withdrawals from deposit accounts or ATMs, stressing that there was no need because the Bank of England has pledged to stand behind all accounts for at least 18 months in the event of a “yes” vote.

However, concerns about how safe is their cash still linger. It was this that led to RBS and Lloyds last week to reassure customers that they would be moving their registration addresses south of the border.

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 16 Sep 2014, 16:30

UndercoverElephant wrote:
AndySir wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:[ There will be a near unanimous feeling in the rest of the UK that the Scots should be given no breaks whatsoever - that they should be absolutely shafted at every turn during the negotiations. What, after all, would happen if the negotiations were so tainted with mutual dislike and such an unwillingness on the part of the UK to let Scotland get away with anything at all, that the process breaks down completely?
This is always the last threat from the abusive spouse being divorced: I will make your life hell! You will get NOTHING, you hear me?
Exactly. As Cameron pointed out yesterday, this, if it happens, is going to be like a very nasty divorce.

Possibly. It's the last tactic because it's completely self defeating - only thrown out in desperation or madness. If the other party does not quake in fear at this threat then you've just pushed them out the door and slammed it. If they do stay you've just changed your relationship irrevocably to an adversarial one, and an eventual end is assured.

This last week of threats has pushed quite a few of the solid 'No's in my social circle to 'Yes' voters. I haven't seen anyone go the other way.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 16 Sep 2014, 16:50

AndySir wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
AndySir wrote: This is always the last threat from the abusive spouse being divorced: I will make your life hell! You will get NOTHING, you hear me?
Exactly. As Cameron pointed out yesterday, this, if it happens, is going to be like a very nasty divorce.
Possibly. It's the last tactic because it's completely self defeating - only thrown out in desperation or madness. If the other party does not quake in fear at this threat then you've just pushed them out the door and slammed it. If they do stay you've just changed your relationship irrevocably to an adversarial one, and an eventual end is assured.

The relationship has already been changed to an adversarial one by the Scots. Specifically, by the large number of yes voters who have enthusiastically repeat the outright lies of their leaders. The process is already deeply divisive, both within Scotland and throughout the rest of the UK. You can even see it on this board, where people who agree with each other on many other issues find themselves in quite serious disagreement.

It's just a little taste of what the civil war must have been like, in its capacity to turn friends against frends and family against family.

This last week of threats has pushed quite a few of the solid 'No's in my social circle to 'Yes' voters. I haven't seen anyone go the other way.

Well, there's empty threats and there's serious warnings. Certain people on the nationalist side have been determined to interpret every warning as a threat, and then claim it is baseless. The reality is that most, if not all, of those warnings were not empty threats. The rUK absolutely will not agree to a currency union, and all the nationalists can say in response is "we don't want to walk away from our share of the debt, but you're not sharing the assets". This is a ludicrous argument, given that sterling is what it is because it is backed by English taxpayers who will not tolerate standing behind Scottish banks making Scottish profits. It is pure lies/bluff, designed to mislead the Scottish people. If refusal by the rUK to accept a currency union is followed by a Scottish refusal to honour its share of the UK's debt, the international community will treat it as a SCOTTISH default. Salmond has even said "What are they going to do? Invade?", as if Scotland defaulting on ITS debts is some great threat they can make against the rest of the UK.

No nationalists has accepted the reality of the consequences of this bluff being called - the THREAT being ignored by the rUK. Defaulting on your national debts is not a good way to start life as an independent country. This is the real world. The nationalists are living in a fantasy world, and if they wish to dismiss serious warnings as empty threats then that's their funeral.

Some "threats" should be taken very seriously indeed.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 Sep 2014, 18:09

Mr. Fox wrote:Talking of oil...

So, would an independent Scotland be able to renegotiate the way oil and gas revenue is raised?

To mitigate global warming it all has to stay right where it is. Forever.

But it's worth noting that over the years Norway has taken about twice as much as the UK in revenue per barrel from their production.

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 16 Sep 2014, 19:18

UndercoverElephant wrote: The relationship has already been changed to an adversarial one by the Scots. Specifically, by the large number of yes voters who have enthusiastically repeat the outright lies of their leaders.

I think there may have been a wee bit of tension before that...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Sep 2014, 20:08

Mr. Fox wrote:More scaremongering:

Millions of banknotes sent to Scotland in case Yes vote sparks run on ATMs

Britain’s banks have been quietly moving millions of banknotes north of the border to cope with any surge in demand by Scots to withdraw cash in the event of a Yes vote in Thursday's independence referendum, it has emerged.

Sources told The Independent the moves have been taking place over the past week or so in order to make sure ATMs do not run out on Friday in the event of a panic reaction to a “yes” vote. There have been some suggestions that people will want to move their money to English banks in the event of an independence vote.

Bankers stressed there has been no sign yet of any increase in the amount of withdrawals from deposit accounts or ATMs, stressing that there was no need because the Bank of England has pledged to stand behind all accounts for at least 18 months in the event of a “yes” vote.
...

They're going to need a lot of cash for the celebrations in the event of a Yes vote. And poss to drown their sorrows otherwise...

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 16 Sep 2014, 20:29

UE, I've read every single one of your contributions to this thread and I am pretty confident judging from their tone, as much as if not more than their content, that currency issue or not, your vitriol towards the Scots seeking independence would be undiminished. Can we just establish if that confidence is misplaced or not please?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 Sep 2014, 21:36

Meanwhile:

Whitehall has provided a list of the terms to be used to describe the various parts of the British Isles in the event of a "Yes"-vote and subsequent UK break-up with Scotland.

The former UK (fUK) will comprise the following:
1. Scotland will be referred to in official Whitehall documents as the Former UK: Northern Offshoot Separate from England (fUK-NOSE)
2. Northern Ireland will be known as the Former UK: Irish Territory (fUK-IT)
3. Wales will henceforth be the Former UK: Welsh Integrated Territory (fUK-WIT)
4. England will become the former UK: English Dominion (fUK-ED)
5. Channel Islands and IoM will be known as the Former UK Offshore (fUK-Off)

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 16 Sep 2014, 21:39

OrraLoon · Post by **OrraLoon** » 16 Sep 2014, 22:24

RenewableCandy wrote:Meanwhile:

Whitehall has provided a list of the terms to be used to describe the various parts of the British Isles in the event of a "Yes"-vote and subsequent UK break-up with Scotland.

The former UK (fUK) will comprise the following:
1. Scotland will be referred to in official Whitehall documents as the Former UK: Northern Offshoot Separate from England (fUK-NOSE)
2. Northern Ireland will be known as the Former UK: Irish Territory (fUK-IT)
3. Wales will henceforth be the Former UK: Welsh Integrated Territory (fUK-WIT)
4. England will become the former UK: English Dominion (fUK-ED)
5. Channel Islands and IoM will be known as the Former UK Offshore (fUK-Off)

Collectively known as The Cluster.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 16 Sep 2014, 22:28

stevecook172001 wrote:UE, I've read every single one of your contributions to this thread and I am pretty confident judging from their tone, as much as if not more than their content, that currency issue or not, your vitriol towards the Scots seeking independence would be undiminished. Can we just establish if that confidence is misplaced or not please?

It's not that simple.

If I was Scottish, I'd certainly be seriously thinking about voting yes, if not an active member of the yes campaign. But if I was actually Scottish right now, and had a vote, I'd feel very reluctant to vote yes. I'd probably feel very let down by the nationalists for not having sorted out some of the basic issues first. I think Mr Fox nailed it on the head when he said that Salmond (and the rest of the leadership of the yes campaign) never expected to have serious chance of winning. And if you don't have a serious chance of winning then you're free to promise the land of milk and honey, and that streets of Edinburgh will be paved with gold. You know...Lib Dems, tuition fees and all that bollock. In fact tuition fees are a case in point. An independent Scotland having to balance its own books will probably end up having to do pretty much the same thing that the rest of the UK has done with tuition fees. And the rest.

So no...I'm not actually annoyed with the Scots for wanting independence from what they see as "Tory England". What I'm annoyed about is the way it has been done - things like changing the voting age to 16 and allowing the question to be phrased so the independence movement got to be called "yes", while the unionist were stuck with "no". Any surprise they are vulnerable to accusations of "negativity"?

Cameron's speech today (or was it yesterday) was pretty accurate: he said he didn't want Scots to vote for independence based on a dream that will disappear, but that is precisely what it looks like they are about to do.

I genuinely do not fear or even care anymore about Scotland leaving though. I am so sick of the lies, the anti-English xenophobia and the fact that I'm being treated like I was a Tory just because I'm English, that I'd be quite happy to see them go. If I thought they'd end up better off by becoming independence then I'd be somewhat more bitter. As it is, I think they have got a very nasty surprise coming (the yes voters, that is. Those who vote no will be doing a lot of I told you so's).

peaceful_life · Post by **peaceful_life** » 16 Sep 2014, 23:31

stevecook172001 wrote:UE, I've read every single one of your contributions to this thread and I am pretty confident judging from their tone, as much as if not more than their content, that currency issue or not, your vitriol towards the Scots seeking independence would be undiminished. Can we just establish if that confidence is misplaced or not please?

It's a philisophical position.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 17 Sep 2014, 00:07

peaceful_life wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:UE, I've read every single one of your contributions to this thread and I am pretty confident judging from their tone, as much as if not more than their content, that currency issue or not, your vitriol towards the Scots seeking independence would be undiminished. Can we just establish if that confidence is misplaced or not please?
It's a philisophical position.

And you, peaceful life, don't have an argument to offer, so are reduced faux-compliment ad-homs.

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 17 Sep 2014, 00:53

Are you sure you're not a tory? Have you been tested recently?