Scottish Independence Referendum: Your Vote

IveSeenTheLight

Yes

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

1) Nothing I have heard, this side of the border, leads me to think that Alex Salmond et al are currently having a 'mature, neighbourly' relationship with rUK.

I find this interesting.
I think the media have a huge influence and it appears the media are portraying things differently across their regional papers.
I guess what sells more ay!

noodle_doodle

No

baldelectrician wrote: »

I would suggest you look at some of these sites for information on independence;

http://www.newsnetscotland.com

http://www.wingsoverscotland.com

http://www.bellacaledonia.org.uk

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk

http://www.womenforindependence.org

http://www.labourforindy.com

http://www.reidfoundation.org

http://www.scottishcommonweal.org

http://www.nationalcollective.com

http://www.derekbatemandotnet1.worldpress.com

How come this hasn't been flagged as spam?

Turbopost 10 cybergnat websites and then you have the cheek to say you can find "information" therein. Propaganda yes, information no!

IveSeenTheLight

Yes

noodle_doodle wrote: »

How come this hasn't been flagged as spam?

Turbopost 10 cybergnat websites and then you have the cheek to say you can find "information" therein. Propaganda yes, information no!

Is it spam? or is it providing links for you to access and obtain whatever information you may glean from them?

I've not looked at all the sites but quickly looked at two to ascertain your claims for spam or not.

LAbour for Independence appears to be a political party formed to provide Labour voters a platform to voice their support for a Yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum

Business for Scotland was set up by six Scottish business owners and directors. Business for Scotland is an independent and political party neutral business and economic policy think tank and network who's goal is to improve the performance, ambition and confidence of the Scottish business community.

I don;t think these are Spam at all.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I find this interesting.
I think the media have a huge influence and it appears the media are portraying things differently across their regional papers.
I guess what sells more ay!

As a neutral Salmond my observation doesn't come across as sufficiently heavyweight to have the capability to follow this through alone. The bun fight with Westminster being an example. May win votes north of the border by generating a negative view. However exposed the lack of thought to alternatives. This is just the currency issue. There's hundreds of smaller points that will all need ironing out.

Thrugelmir

baldelectrician wrote: »

I feel you may be misguided by thinking Scotland is a subsidy junkie

1. Scotland gets £1200 more spent per person- this you will have heard.
2. Scotland contrubutes £1700 more per person - this you may not have heard

In other words - Scotland will be better off from day 1 of independence and won't have Westminster holding us back

Based on now. What will be the impact is Scotland were to vote for independence. Similar to the currency point. There's huge uncertainty as to the future. From a Scottish point of view oil and gas tax revenues can only decline. Also what % of the Scottish population work in the public sector?

IveSeenTheLight

Yes

Thrugelmir wrote: »

From a Scottish point of view oil and gas tax revenues can only decline.

Consider this.

Yes the North Sea Oil and Gas is in decline, however: -

1) There is still the Atlantic which has opportunity to be explored (although tougher to access due to the weather)

2) That declining revenue would be supporting 5.25 million as opposed to 65 million, therefore tenfold better

3) As the reserved decline, the likelihood is that the price would rise (although this is a global market and is unlikely to be affected much.

Actually the biggest risk to UK Oil & Gas is if the sanctions on Iranian Oil is lifted, it could dramatically reduce the price of Crude Oil.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Consider this.

Yes the North Sea Oil and Gas is in decline, however: -

1) There is still the Atlantic which has opportunity to be explored (although tougher to access due to the weather)

2) That declining revenue would be supporting 5.25 million as opposed to 65 million, therefore tenfold better

3) As the reserved decline, the likelihood is that the price would rise (although this is a global market and is unlikely to be affected much.

Actually the biggest risk to UK Oil & Gas is if the sanctions on Iranian Oil is lifted, it could dramatically reduce the price of Crude Oil.

In 2009 the UK ranked 40th in the world for proven gas reserves (BP's figures). So I wouldn't get overly excited about a lack of gas. Given the US will be a net exporter in a few years time as well.

The issue for North Sea extraction is the cost. Without a high price then the return may negate any investment.

UK is looking to link with Iceland for electricity generation. So threats that Scotland can hold the UK to ransom are over egged in the long term.

IveSeenTheLight

Yes

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The issue for North Sea extraction is the cost. Without a high price then the return may negate any investment.

What you are seeing is larger operators selling off the fields to smaller operators who can produce at lower costs

i.e. Amerada to Dana
Exxon Mobil to Apache
BP to Taqa
etc
etc
etc

Thrugelmir wrote: »

UK is looking to link with Iceland for electricity generation.

Interesting, I'll go and do a bit of research into why the powerhouse of Iceland can be an exporter to the UK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So threats that Scotland can hold the UK to ransom are over egged in the long term.

Are there threats on this matter? I have not seen them.
Perhaps you could share a link

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What you are seeing is larger operators selling off the fields to smaller operators who can produce at lower costs

i.e. Amerada to Dana
Exxon Mobil to Apache
BP to Taqa
etc
etc
etc

The size of the Company has no bearing on the cost of production. The big players will withdraw if there are larger reserves with more potential elsewhere. Which makes redeployment of resources more cost effective given the scale of the operation. Smaller operators will require more external support in the form of outsourcing if anything. Thereby pushing up costs of extraction and transportation.

baldelectrician

Yes

Thrugelmir wrote: »

From a Scottish point of view oil and gas tax revenues can only decline.

Noted;

There are variables;
1. Scotland produces 6 times more oil / gas than it uses-now take that into context of the Russian gas costing more or being sanctioned off

Also remember that the rest of the UK is a net importer of energy. Scotland produces nearly 50% more than it uses at present and this amount is rising.

Another point- the banking sector is fickle, just look at the treats the banks come up with when there is a threatened bank tax hike or bonus cap.
Banks are just a crowd of people in offices- they can move to another banking part of the world and take their taxes with them
Scotland has the benefit of the oil (which isn't relocatable) as well as the farming,food, engineering and energy sectors

Scotland has large resources of oil that is untapped- BP and Britoil were prevented from drilling in the Clyde basin TWICE; once in 1981 and once in 1983

map of UK and Scottish fishing / oil rights


The difference between the referendum in 1979 and the one now (where Westminster parties were against change) is that now we have the internet and social media.
it is harder to pull the wool over peoples eyes now

For example= Westminster won't get away with changing the voting rules for a referendum which makes a Yes majority vote count as a NO.
Westminster introduced a 40% rule which effectively made everyone who voted other than YES count as a NO. In other words dead people (still on the voters role) had their vote counted.

"The referendum resulted in a 51.6% support for the proposal which, with a turnout of 63.8%, fell short of the required 40% condition for the Scotland Act 1978 to be implemented. A second referendum to create a devolved legislature in Scotland was held in 1997, which led to the enactment of the Scotland Act 1998 and the creation of a devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999."

On a reply to noddle doddle

Please feel free to post links about pro-UK sites.
I have put links to pro-independence sites as these are not readily publicised.
The mainstream media don't let the public know- I can pretty much guarantee that (other than yesscotland.net) the BBC won't have links to the ones I mentioned