Economists Urge Scotland to Vote No......

ruggedtoast

Good grief. Shakey.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Given that the referendum said 'no', the date of March 2016 is of no significance whatsoever. So we might as well consider the hypothetical effect of what a $60 oil price has on the finances of a hypothetically independent Scotland now, as opposed to waiting for some point in the future.

Yes that's exactly what I was saying *roll eyes* it's all hypothetical. The yes vote lost ? There was no point in even posting the question imo.

Rugged whathisface also seems to have gone into default hysterical mode just because I even posted.. Calm down.:eek:

No significance whatsoever. I agree. The only point in time there may have been mild interest for comparison's sake over what oil prices were doing...would be March 2016. But I think everyone, and politics will have well moved on by then even for mild comparisons to be bothered with.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what I was saying *roll eyes* it's all hypothetical. The yes vote lost ? There was no point in even posting the question imo.

Rugged whathisface also seems to have gone into default hysterical mode just because I even posted.. Calm down.:eek:

No significance whatsoever. I agree. The only point in time there may have been mild interest for comparison's sake over what oil prices were doing...would be March 2016. But I think everyone, and politics will have well moved on by then even for mild comparisons to be bothered with.

Glad to see you back. TBH I assumed you'd gone off in a huff.

Still got the blinkers on of course. What the current episode shows is that an independent Scotland would have been utterly dependent upon a single source of income and this is a rather graphic example of what will go wrong if Scotland gets independence.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what I was saying *roll eyes* it's all hypothetical. The yes vote lost ? There was no point in even posting the question imo.

Rugged whathisface also seems to have gone into default hysterical mode just because I even posted.. Calm down.:eek:

No significance whatsoever. I agree. The only point in time there may have been mild interest for comparison's sake over what oil prices were doing...would be March 2016. But I think everyone, and politics will have well moved on by then even for mild comparisons to be bothered with.

Well that March 2016 date was always 'hypothetical', and would have remained so even in the event of a yes vote.

Nice try on trying to avoid the issue tho'.:)

ruggedtoast

Whenever whatever lynchpin the SNP are relying on to justify independence gets pulled out, they just invent another one.

It doesn't matter now anyway, there won't be another referendum in most of our lifetimes, and the chances of the SNP having the balls to try and go through with their threat of sedition are slim to none.

They have found a great way to continue undermining confidence in Scotland for another decade at least, however. I imagine that most business planning to invest in the UK will prefer the investment goes to a part whose regional government isn't constantly stamping its feet about separatism in defiance of the will of its own people.

Not that the SNP really care about Scotland's wealth though, they just seem to want life to be as miserable as possible for as many people as possible so that they can blame the English. And they have a ready and willing army of hard line leftists, bitter nationalists, and doleites ready to try and deliver on that aspiration.

System

Any increase in the UK national debt attributable to the slump in oil prices can be clocked up on Scotland's account ready for next independence referendum.
Because of course we all agree that it is Scotland's oil really.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Well that March 2016 date was always 'hypothetical', and would have remained so even in the event of a yes vote.

Nice try on trying to avoid the issue tho'.:)

Avoid the issue ? I thought the referendum and all the arguments for and against independence were all over. Seems 'hypotheticals' are still worthy of debate. That of course is just fine with me if you want to get into it. But I can hear the groans from here at the thought lol..

As for independence, no one in their right minds would ever base an independent Scottish economy on this wildly fluctuating commodity, certainly not the Scottish Government.



North Sea oil was as low as $10 a barrel as recently as 1999. It then exploded in price on the back of the credit bubble to nearly $140 a barrel in 2007. That was when everyone started talking about Peak Oil and we were told oil could end up costing $500 dollars a barrel. It then fell by 80 per cent to only $40 within 18 months.
The oil industry is used to these wild fluctuations and isn't going to close down the North Sea just yet. Much of the investment is secure.



What could be killed stone dead is fracking, the capital intensive process of driving oil residues out of rock by injecting a cocktail of chemicals under high pressure. Serious investment in fracking hasn't started yet, and Deutsche Bank has estimated that it doesn't make economic sense at less than $80 a barrel.


And far from destroying renewable energy, the price fall may in part be a consequence of green energy's success. Solar is taking off across the world, from Texas to Saudi Arabia. Germany has staked its future on green energy, and it tends to make things work. In Scotland, wind turbines generated more than 100 per cent of Scottish electricity demand last month....


...Scotland isn't doing any worse than the rest of the UK but it has the additional problem of out-migration. People leave Scotland because there aren't decent jobs to keep them here. The consequent relative ageing of the Scottish population is a much more serious problem for Scotland than the oil price. The Institute for Fiscal Studies produced reports saying this on an almost monthly basis during the referendum campaign. Scotland needs growth policies and immigration more than it needs high oil.
Anyway, volatility is simply an argument for an oil fund, like Norway's, which evens out fluctuations in the price over time and conserves value. Most of the value of North Sea oil went south long ago as Scotland donated its hydrocarbon wealth - around £300bn - to the dubious cause of keeping the British balance of payments afloat while Margaret Thatcher and her successors replaced manufacturing industry with a financial services kleptocracy based in London.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/iain-macwhirter-plummeting-oil-price-stirs-troubled-waters.114828069

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Whenever whatever lynchpin the SNP are relying on to justify independence gets pulled out, they just invent another one.

It doesn't matter now anyway, there won't be another referendum in most of our lifetimes, and the chances of the SNP having the balls to try and go through with their threat of sedition are slim to none.

They have found a great way to continue undermining confidence in Scotland for another decade at least, however. I imagine that most business planning to invest in the UK will prefer the investment goes to a part whose regional government isn't constantly stamping its feet about separatism in defiance of the will of its own people.

Not that the SNP really care about Scotland's wealth though, they just seem to want life to be as miserable as possible for as many people as possible so that they can blame the English. And they have a ready and willing army of hard line leftists, bitter nationalists, and doleites ready to try and deliver on that aspiration.

The usual no soft soaping from you. I agree there probably won't be another independence referendum for a while, barring a few things that would mean people would actually ask for one.. EU exit for instance.

But while I don't think there will be the complete Labour wipeout in Scotland as predicted in 2015 ( but you never know ! ).. The SNP are on course to do very well. And certainly will be sending more than 6 MP's down to Westminster this time. Including Alex Salmond if he wins Gordon. The rest is arithmetic and seat numbers as to how much power the SNP will actually have.

I expect in Holyrood elections in 2016, where the SNP at current polling levels are again expected to do extremely well. They will run on a full fiscal autonomy/full devo max ticket. With Scottish Labour playing catch-up. Scottish Labour will either have to split from the UK main party, or risk a trashing in 2016 as well. At the moment Jim Murphy is desperately trying to become SNP-lite in order to win back Labour Yes voters ( all this 'patriotic' stuff and how he won't be told what to do by UK Labour ).. but polls aren't showing much in the way of a bounce on his becoming leader. It won't work and is alienating those who DID support his very unionist stance during the referendum campaign.

And if the SNP do do well in Holyrood 2016, it's likely they'll run a purely 'advisory' ref on full devo max.. Far more likely to win that one convinvingly too. Polls show most are looking for much more in the way of meaningful powers for Scotland ( way more than the Smith commission anyway ) and there will be none of that currency/Eu/ stuff to be overcome in the media either. And if SNP are already holding a bit sway in Westminster...?

Then I guess we'll all still back and wait for the fall-out if any such ref is won. But anyway, that's my own prediction of where things will go in the next few years. But it will of course depend on the SNP keeping their lead in the polls and popularity stakes, Labour not wising up, and the arithmetic after the next election and the Scottish one following on in 2016.

It will also depend on what happens will EVEL and what reaction is IF the SNP do end up holding any part in the balance of power in Westminster. I don't think it will go down very well myself.. and Westminster may end up ejecting Scotland themselves due to popular demand.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Avoid the issue ? I thought the referendum and all the arguments for and against independence were all over. Seems 'hypotheticals' are still worthy of debate. That of course is just fine with me if you want to get into it. But I can hear the groans from here at the thought lol.. .

Of course it is. This is The Debate House Prices & the Economy Board , what did you think it is for?

But since you think it is pointless, why get into it yourself? Why not just leave those who are interested get on with, and go and do something more useful instead, like have a cup of tea?:rotfl:

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, Scotland would have still been part of the UK until March 2016. Lets see what oil prices are doing then and then perhaps revisit this question. But there's no point at this moment in time. Scotland even with a Yes vote.. would still have been in the UK for a while.

Does it matter? I was illustrating the point that Salmond's dream is built on a cloud not the practical realities of the real world. Ranks along side Browns claim of abolishing boom and bust as a faux pas. Salmond and his successor Sturgeon now face a difficult challenge. As they've got to come up with a alternative plans as to how Scotland can finance itself if it were independent.