SNP Win - The Economics of D-I-V-O-R-C-E

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Thanks for that Generali and chewmylegoff.

So you mean if Scotland had been independent? Because I've read a lot of comments here and elsewhere that are simply assuming that the debt WILL belong to Scotland because the two banks have the word in their names.

yes, that's right.

if scotland did become independent now, the matter of RBS / HBOS banking liabilities would just have to be negotiated.

my point is that it's about as silly to say that the investment banking losses are all "english" and therefore should remain with england whilst scotland "gets" the profitable retail banking arm, as it would be to suggest that all of the liabilities of the entire structure should be imposed on scotland, with the government of england & wales retaining ownership of all of the RBS shares.

as with north sea oil, a compromise would have to be reached.

the point about low corporation tax is an interesting one. this is being mooted for NI at the moment as well. however, i cannot see that (in the absence of devolution) the westminster govt would agree to give the scottish govt CT raising powers at the moment, as it would be likely to result in jobs simply being transferred from england to scotland. perhaps a middle ground where scotland just keeps its own CT revenue but has to apply the main UK rates might be a more likely option.

even if we were to go down the route of having separate CT rates, i think the UK govt is likely to pilot this in NI first (where the case is more compelling due to CT in ROI being lower) before agreeing to anything.

Kohoutek

Our country is rich in resources. So here we are in this lucky, lucky country – we have oil and gas aplenty, we have huge supplies of the most precious resources of the 21st century, water, we have land and sea resources, we have one quarter of Europe’s wind resource, one quarter of its tidal resource and one tenth of the wave resource and we have the skilled and inventive people..

North Sea oil production peaked in 1999; gas in 2000. The reserve base of the North Sea is far smaller than somewhere like Kuwait or Qatar, the idea that Scotland has "oil and gas aplenty" is just not true unfortunately.

As for fresh water and electricity generated by renewable energy, I don't see how those resources can be exported to produce a significant amount of income for an independent Scotland. The thing about Scotland having all the inventive people concerning renewable energy is rubbish frankly. The major players in renewable energy are foreign companies like Siemens, General Electric and Mitsubishi.

chewmylegoff

theoretically they could export electricity to england, as it's only 1,000km from lands end to john o'groats, and as far as i understand, electricity can be transmitted over greater distances than that whilst still remaining "competitive" in the market place.

however, i have no idea whether it would, in this particular case, be competitive compared to the price of electricity from english based power stations, given the capital costs involved in building the generation machinery and then upgrading the national grid. i somewhat doubt it, but then given our targets to raise more and more energy from renewables, price may not be the only consideration in whether we are prepared to pay for it.

Shakethedisease

however, i have no idea whether it would, in this particular case, be competitive compared to the price of electricity from english based power stations

They already export 20% of their electricity to England and NI !!

Not all the electricity that is generated is used due to losses and exports. For Scotland, less than 70% of the generated electricity is consumed by a Scottish end-user. Some 13% is lost through self-consumption at MPPs, distribution and transmission losses, or storage losses. In addition, nearly 20% is exported to England and NI.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19092748/6

, I don't see how those resources can be exported to produce a significant amount of income for an independent Scotland.

The Carbon Trust's recent report had this to say on the 3rd of May 11.

"Today's 'Marine Renewables Green Growth' report by the Carbon Trust affirms what many of us in the wave and tidal business already know - the UK has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capitalise on our global lead in marine energy.
The report looks at the growth potential of marine renewables and predicts Britain could capture almost a quarter of the global wave and tidal power market if it builds on its existing lead. This would be worth £76 billion to the economy and result in 68,000 jobs"...

..."There is a great need to accelerate grid development in the areas where the resource is located - Northern and Western Scotland."
http://www.aquamarinepower.com/blog/marine-energy-a-£76bn-opportunity/

I don't actually think the SNP are banking on the oil and gas. It's more the wind and the tides. That's why Salmond is pushing big time for an ammendment in the Scotland Bill to devolve control of the Crown Estate as I mentioned before.
It gives them 6000 miles and 12 miles of shorebed around Scottish waters to push on with their renewables targets ( as well as the revenue ). And if he gets it.. well.. he's on to a pretty big opportunity, if it pays off, for future green and totally renewable energy production and exports.

Oh and

The thing about Scotland having all the inventive people concerning renewable energy is rubbish frankly. The major players in renewable energy are foreign companies like Siemens, General Electric and Mitsubishi.

"Mitsubishi has pledged to invest £100m over five years in plans to turn Edinburgh and the Lothians into a 'green energy hub. The company aims to create research and development hub for offshore wind technology, to try to help the Scottish government reach its renewable energy targets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2010/dec/03/edinburgh-offshore-wind-power-mitsubishi-jobs?INTCMP=SRCH

I think you guys need to go back and do a little googling before dismissing some of this stuff as 'complete rubbish'..;)

ninky_2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't actually think the SNP are banking on the oil and gas. It's more the wind and the tides. That's why Salmond is pushing big time for an ammendment in the Scotland Bill to devolve control of the Crown Estate as I mentioned before.
It gives them 6000 miles and 12 miles of shorebed around Scottish waters to push on with their renewables targets ( as well as the revenue ). And if he gets it.. well.. he's on to a pretty big opportunity, if it pays off, for future green and totally renewable energy production and exports.

Oh and



"Mitsubishi has pledged to invest £100m over five years in plans to turn Edinburgh and the Lothians into a 'green energy hub. The company aims to create research and development hub for offshore wind technology, to try to help the Scottish government reach its renewable energy targets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2010/dec/03/edinburgh-offshore-wind-power-mitsubishi-jobs?INTCMP=SRCH

I think you guys need to go back and do a little googling before dismissing some of this stuff as 'complete rubbish'..;)

unless we're talking about nationalised industires then wouldn't the benefits be the same in terms of job creation and the profits would merely go to whichever private companies controlled the interests (mitsubishi or what have you).

have to say i don't really understand nationalism in the face of the overwhelming power of the global corporation.

believe me it won't be long before they are issuing their own currencies and the nation state is a distant memory (it's already an anachronism).

Kohoutek

Shakethedisease wrote: »

"Mitsubishi has pledged to invest £100m over five years in plans to turn Edinburgh and the Lothians into a 'green energy hub. The company aims to create research and development hub for offshore wind technology, to try to help the Scottish government reach its renewable energy targets."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2010/dec/03/edinburgh-offshore-wind-power-mitsubishi-jobs?INTCMP=SRCH

I think you guys need to go back and do a little googling before dismissing some of this stuff as 'complete rubbish'..;)

I thought Alex Salmond said "we [i.e. the Scottish] have the skilled and inventive people". That's about a very large Japanese conglomerate investing in Scotland. It will create jobs, but the engineering expertise and intellectual property has been imported from Japan. I think you need to use a little more analysis before swallowing Salmond's demagoguery whole.

chewmylegoff wrote:

theoretically they could export electricity to england, as it's only 1,000km from lands end to john o'groats, and as far as i understand, electricity can be transmitted over greater distances than that whilst still remaining "competitive" in the market place.

Yes, of course they could export it to England, but I don't that's just another example of how Scotland and England are very economically intertwined, it doesn't fit Alex Salmond's rabid anti-English agenda very well.

Unfortunately other close neighbours of Scotland don't really need electricity imports – Norway runs on hydropower, Denmark has its own wind farms, the French have their nukes. Not to mention that Ireland, England and Wales have plenty of coastline to build their own wind turbines and wave generators.

Shakethedisease

I think you need to use a little more analysis before swallowing Salmond's demagoguery whole.

Now, now.. let's not get personal.:) I'm simply countering a few of your points that's all. Some seem to be a little less than informed especially when it comes to my having to point out, that Scotland is in fact already exporting electricity to England. I don't 'swallow' anything which is why I go off and read up a bit before simply accepting points raised (here for instance ?) as complete fact before finding out for myself. I do the same for Salmonds/SNP claims.

Unfortunately other close neighbours of Scotland don't really need electricity imports – Norway runs on hydropower, Denmark has its own wind farms, the French have their nukes.

Aaaah so the Carbon Trust, and Mitsubishi are wrong then ? There isn't any opportunity there for 76 billion, a global market and 63,000 jobs to be created. Oh ok.

unless we're talking about nationalised industires then wouldn't the benefits be the same in terms of job creation and the profits would merely go to whichever private companies controlled the interests (mitsubishi or what have you).

I think the Scottish government would get a pretty large piece of the pie there should it come under independent control. Otherwise the same could be same regarding the UK and oil and gas revenues right ? But I think the UK have done alright so far on the back of privatised oil and gas companies don't you ? There's no reason to assume it'd be different just because the energy has changed.

To get back to the point, there is a reason other parties want to keep the Union intact. And I don't think it's any 'misty-eyed' sentiment either. There's money to be made somewhere.. and I do wonder, the more I read, if the above is a big part of it.

Kohoutek

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Aaaah so the Carbon Trust, and Mitsubishi are wrong then ? There isn't any opportunity there for 76 billion, a global market and 63,000 jobs to be created. Oh ok.

I don't know if they're wrong or not, but I wouldn't be so eager to take things at face value and so literally. The Carbon Trust is a pro renewable energy think tank, their paper doesn't explain properly how they calculated either figure, it just says the marine renewable industry could be worth as much as £76 billion decades from now or could create 63,000 jobs. North Sea oil supports currently supports 450,000 jobs....

What I said about other countries' energy needs isn't made up. Check it yourself...

In Norway, Hydroelectricity was 98.5 % of electricity generation in 2008.

In France, in the year 2009 electricity was produced with nuclear power 76 %, renewable sources 14 % and fossil fuels 10 %.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think the Scottish government would get a pretty large piece of the pie there should it come under independent control. Otherwise the same could be same regarding the UK and oil and gas revenues right ? But I think the UK have done alright so far on the back of privatised oil and gas companies don't you ? There's no reason to assume it'd be different just because the energy has changed.

Electricity production just isn't as profitable as oil production. That's why so many of the world's largest and most profitable companies are oil companies, that's why the Middle East is awash with dollars...

Shakethedisease wrote: »

To get back to the point, there is a reason other parties want to keep the Union intact. And I don't think it's any 'misty-eyed' sentiment either. There's money to be made somewhere.. and I do wonder, the more I read, if the above is a big part of it.

That's what Alex Salmond wants you to believe, clearly.

dunstonh

Alex Salmond is the best thing for the vote to keep the Union.

When you list the positives and negatives you only find a few things on the positives. One of those on Alex Salmond's postive list is that it makes him look more important. Thats a negative for most people.

I just cannot see any significant benefits and far too many negatives.

Kohoutek

dunstonh wrote: »

When you list the positives and negatives you only find a few things on the positives. One of those on Alex Salmond's postive list is that it makes him look more important. Thats a negative for most people.

Good point. Alex Salmond is a classic example of a big fish in a little pond.

Once there is a serious prospect of independence, the Labour party will send people like Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling to campaign against him and debate him, which would probably show him up as the self-serving idiot he is. The Labour party has a huge amount to lose from Scottish independence – they won 41 seats in Scotland in the last general election.