Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Well if you can't tell that that was a stupid joke then there is no hope for you. But in any case, you can pretty much find a link to support any opinion you want to express about north sea oil. I expect if I look hard enough I can find a link which says that north sea oil ate my hamster.

Whatever your view on how much there is left, it seems quite silly to make it a totemic issue for the independence debate as it seems quite likely that in 30 years time there will not be a major oil industry in Scotland so it would seem irrelevant for a long term decision unless the SNP's policy was to stop spending the oil revenues and use them to secure the long term future of the country in a similar way to Norway. That is very emphatically not their plan.

Oh don't be so touchy:) .I winked at the end of the sentence to show I knew it was tongue in cheek. As Generali said, it's fun arguing the toss.. don't spoil things with a dose of the grumps.

But as for emphatically 'not' the SNP's plan. That's def news to me. While facts and figs are not available ( as you say we're all in the dark about how much is left and when it's going to run out ).. Some type of emulation of the Norweigan Oil fund has always been touted by the SNP as something they would do should they gain independent powers. And it's not 'quite likely' that the oil with run out in 30 years. No-one knows. You should always add 'imho' if you cannot back up your assumptions with sources even if they are about hamsters. :A

“Of course the growth of the Norwegian oil fund over a relatively short space of time shows that it is not too late for Scotland to get started with its own oil fund, but to do that we will need the normal powers of an independent country.” 20/08/2012

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/aug/oil-fund-investment-would-have-enabled-growth

IveSeenTheLight

grizzly1911 wrote: »

ISTL

I have just come back from the Outer Hebrides and some of the roads up there with almost nil traffic on them are constructed to top notch motorway grade.

Several had twin track sections in the middlke of single track roads going virtually nowhere.

Yet where I live it is potholed to hell.

What has the monarchy and Scotland got to do with anything in this day and age ?;)

I've not yet had the luxury of visiting the Outer Hebrides, I have visited the Shetland Isles on occasions, especially layovers when going on / offshore.

I can understand less use can derive less potholes. Weather has the major impact though and in my local area also is hugely affected by potholes and need better maintenaqnce put in place.

What has that got to do with the Monarchy, probably very little. It was a question posed by another forum member as to how much Scotland should pay to keep the monarchy and I turned the question round to ask why we should be paying and how much should England pay to keep the monarchy.

It's just a bit of tongue in cheek fun, designed to make one consider alternatives to the normal viewpoint.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Some type of emulation of the Norweigan Oil fund has always been touted by the SNP as something they would do should they gain independent powers.

the trouble with that is that massively cutting public expenditure so the revenue can be diverted into a sovereign wealth fund has never been touted by the SNP as something they would do, and without taking that step it is difficult to see how any kind of meaningful fund could be established.

And it's not 'quite likely' that the oil with run out in 30 years. No-one knows. You should always add 'imho' if you cannot back up your assumptions with sources even if they are about hamsters.

isn't this the whole point - if no-one knows how long production at economically meaningful levels will last, then isn't it a bit naive to rely heavily on government revenues from oil in any calculations about whether independence is really a good idea given that it's unlikely to be reversible?

Generali

Just a thought. Perhaps whoever gets to keep the income from the Crown Estate should pay for the Monarchy.

Let the ranting continue.

GeorgeHowell

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, that was the fault of Westminster.

Tories first with Maggie, Labour continuing it for 13 years ( with Tories howling for an even 'lighter touch' all the way.. well, till it went t*ts up that is ).. and now Tories with Lib Dems..

It's true that the Tories started the light-touch business, but no banks went bust, or even came close, in their era. It was Labour that compounded the problem greatly by taking most regulatory responsibilities away from the Bank of England and giving them to the hopeless, hapless FSA. The latter was more concerned, for example, in making insurance brokers send in returns about how many training courses their staff had been on, than it was about whether the big banks were solvent. The Scots can of course be held as responsible as anyone for putting that Labour government in power and keeping it there for thirteen years.

robmatic

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, that was the fault of Westminster.

Tories first with Maggie, Labour continuing it for 13 years ( with Tories howling for an even 'lighter touch' all the way.. well, till it went t*ts up that is ).. and now Tories with Lib Dems..

There's absolutely NO reason to confuse 'English' with 'political parties in power' in UK governments as you seem to be doing. Conservative, Labour, Conservative/Libdem. Those are who were or are 'regulating' the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland then and currently.

There isn't a sniff of SNP regulation to be had as far as I can see ? So mabye yes, mabye no in terms of if they 'would have' regulated them better. Who knows. The fact is, they didn't and had absolutely no control whatsoever over those banks. If there's any 'blame' to be had, it certainly is not based on nationality. But on politcal parties in power at the time. And I've never heard or seen a single quote from the SNP where the 'English' are to blame for what happened with the banks.

If you can provide one, please, feel free.

I believe the argument is that Scotland had absolutely no control over the regulation of those banks and it was all the fault of the regime at Westminster. That's why the liabilities for bailing the banks out should rest with the UK government.

Of course, it would all have been different - and better - if Alec Salmond and the SNP had been able to assume oversight.

Indeed, Scotland would now be part of an 'arc of prosperity' along with Ireland and Iceland.

IveSeenTheLight

robmatic wrote: »

Indeed, Scotland would now be part of an 'arc of prosperity' along with Ireland and Iceland.

Always the comparison with Iceland and Ireland.
What about Norway, Holland, Denmark etc? with similar if not smaller populations?

Incidently, if you want to look at Iceland in terms of recovery, see this article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19599449

Just four years after Iceland's major banks collapsed and the currency plunged in value, the nation is now being praised by the IMF.
The country has seen a return to strong growth and has spared its citizens many of the austerity measures felt elsewhere in Europe.

robmatic

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Always the comparison with Iceland and Ireland.
What about Norway, Holland, Denmark etc? with similar if not smaller populations?

Incidently, if you want to look at Iceland in terms of recovery, see this article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19599449

Sorry, I was referring to Alec Salmond's economic masterplan:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/salmond-sees-scots-in-arc-of-prosperity-1-1130200

Shakethedisease

robmatic wrote: »

Sorry, I was referring to Alec Salmond's economic masterplan:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/salmond-sees-scots-in-arc-of-prosperity-1-1130200

OMG.. that's terrible. Good job we have Osborne's ( also from 2006 ) economic masterplan to see the UK through..

The Irish Republic was seen as Britain’s poor and troubled country cousin, a rural backwater on the edge of Europe. Today things are different. Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking, and that is why I am in Dublin: to listen and to learn.

http://redfellow.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/george-osbornes-paeon-to-the-celtic-tiger-2006/

Lets not get toooo selective over 2006 'masterplan's'. Osborne was singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.:)

IveSeenTheLight

robmatic wrote: »

Sorry, I was referring to Alec Salmond's economic masterplan:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/salmond-sees-scots-in-arc-of-prosperity-1-1130200

Indeed, from 2006 as ShakeTheDisease pointed out.
Notably you chose to omit Norway as a similar comparison.

My post still stands to show that post crash, Iceland is showing strong (certainly stronger than the UK) GDP growth