Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not really.. as I think most politicians make snide remarks about others, especially those from other parties. The PM and Milliband do it every Prime Minister's Questions.. 'despicable' was Cameron's buzzword this week I think ?

Ruth Davidson, and Kezia Dugdale were also all over twitter condemning the Sun's wrecking ball article, and those like it since. Are they not sensible confident strong individuals too ? Women in general, as far as I can assertain on social media ( we can discount the newspapers who like the controversy ).. aren't happy with Nicola Sturgeon being portrayed in this sort of fashion. It's not just one article, it's repeatedly. 'Wee lassie' at the Labour conference wasn't it ?

The Daily Record must be really gritting their teeth having to publish their polls lately.. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/exclusive-bombshell-daily-record-poll-5366657

Gerry Hassan has written a fantastic overall analysis of how things stand (for anyone interested, it's a longish read).

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/tartan-tsunami-and-how-it-will-change-scotland-and-uk-for-good

A response as expected. First a Body swerve , then a side step, followed by missing my point and a bit of misdirection. Ending in an article with certainly an aspect of truth but favourable to it's own side.

It epitomises the very reasons why I decided against Independence. Couldn't see the point to be left with a country which hadn't changed in itself but had simply swapped clothes. I think some of the idealists of the Yes campaign may at a future time sit somewhat disillusioned and contemplate I knew what I was freeing myself from, but not what I was freeing myself for.

So perhaps we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. I have no wish to slowly morph into that very thing I oppose.

skintmacflint

kabayiri wrote: »

If Scotland is following an inexorable path to independence I'd prefer the next party in power to focus on the 'Northern Powerhouse' (meaning NW and NE) to develop, along with the other regions south of the Scottish border.

There seems to be little point ploughing money into long term development of infrastructure in Scotland if ultimately they choose to separate.

We need to focus on making the committed part of the UK profitable and ready to take on an increasingly challenging world economy.

There hasn't been a mass shift yet, and already some small signs of discontent with SNP government are visible, in actually talking to people and online in some cases. Certainly 2 close friends who voted SNP have went off the boil in relation to them. So will need to see how things go in the future.

After dividing a country, and with only a 10% difference in votes , the last time Scotland was asked, would be very unwise for Sturgeon to move to quickly. She needs to wait and thinks she can afford to take the time , unlike Salmond who gambled and lost.

I certainly agree the continued uncertainty and publicity wouldn't inspire me if a private investor or in government , to plough money into long term investment in Scotland. Although I'm sure I read or heard this wasn't the case. The problem being one never knows what to believe unless you perhaps deal or work in that area and know what isn't being reported.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The "dramatic decline" has been going on for 15 years now......



Ye cannae change the laws of geology, Cap'n......

Only the temporary price spike of recent years has enabled revenue to flatter the situation given the irreversible decrease in UKCS production, but with the increase in global production from unconventional sources, that elevated price level simply isn't today's reality...

Coming 'oil glut' may push global economy into deflation

OPEC spare capacity set to reach levels last seen in the depths of the financial crisis in 2009, analysts say

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10575292/Coming-oil-glut-may-push-global-economy-into-deflation.html

The Yes campaign needed oil at $113 per barrel for even their, extremely optimistic, forecasts to have any chance of coming to fruition.

Quite obviously, that's a problem......

Some of us saw this coming....

While some of you were still babbling on about imaginary oil booms and fictitious secret oil fields being hidden until after the referendum....

Remind me again, which side has been proven right by events since?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And while we're on this topic....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Scottish Government's *worst case* projection for Oil and Gas revenue turned out to be around 25% over-optimistic for 2013-14.... And oil revenues are only on a one way course downwards over the long term.

So the deficit moving forwards will almost certainly be far, far worse than what was claimed by the Yes campaign would be the case.

I remember challenging a Yes campaigner on this board not too long ago.

She said that Scotland would have it's own "Oil Fund" and that would be how the deficit was to be paid for. (or words to that effect)

When I asked how they planned to build an "oil fund" when Scotland was running a £12bn annual deficit, there was (unsurprisingly) no reply.

That level of ignorance is rife all over twitter and facebook. It's how the Yes campaign managed to garner as much support as it did. If people knew the economic facts, I'd be surprised if Yes support was much more than 20%, ie, the die-hard Nats who thought (and still do) that any price, and any amount of economic carnage, was worth paying to rid us of the hated Westminster government.

hugoshavez wrote: »

Right, and the salient point is whether the poor 12/13 oil revenue (which led to the relatively high deficit) is a particularly bad year, and it'll bounce back in the short term, or whether it's the beginning of a dramatic decline.

Time will tell. Perhaps someone'll gleefully (or mournfully) resurrect this thread when the 13/14 and 14/15 figures are available.

til then :wave:

Guess what.....

Nicola Sturgeon admits independence oil figures were wrong


The First Minster finally concedes the Scottish Government overestimated oil revenues during the referendum after the Telegraph reports they were up to 13 times as much as the latest official projections.

Nicola Sturgeon has been forced to admit for the first time that the SNP had got its independence predictions for North Sea oil wrong as it emerged the growing shortfall in Scotland’s finances is the equivalent of a 17p hike in income tax.

The First Minister bowed to opposition pressure and promised to produce revised estimates after the Telegraph disclosed official figures predicting oil will generate more than 90 per cent less than she claimed during the referendum.

She argued that the UK Government had also got its estimates wrong, but the SNP figures were far more inflated and only a Yes vote would have made Scottish public spending dependent on oil revenues.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11483905/Nicola-Sturgeon-admits-independence-oil-figures-were-wrong.html

Generali

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2015/mar/north-sea-oil-revenue.cfm

From the notorious unionist publication, The Institution of Engineering and Technology:

North Sea oil revenues in the next five years will probably be £9.6bn lower than previously thought due to the falling price of oil in international markets, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said.
The advisory body providing independent economic forecasts and analysis of public finances has downgraded its projections for oil receipts in 2016-17 from £2.4bn in December to £600m, with its forecasts for each of the five years to 2019-20 now less than £1bn.

Generali

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11485800/Alex-Salmonds-new-book-is-literary-masturbation.html

I thought it was an interesting piece of literary criticism by Lord Ashdown

Although pleased with his success, he reflected that the Yes campaign may not emerge victorious because he could not personally persuade every wavering Scot.

“‘I can’t wipe every tear from every person in the country. I just can’t,” Mr Salmond wrote.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No she said 'everyone had got their North Seal oils sums wrong'. The Daily Record do like to put their own slant on things somewhat.

The White Paper figures ( Nov 13 ) came from the OBR after all ! ( as well as DECC and various oil and gas experts ). They all got them wrong too. Alas with oil prices, no-one has access to a crystal ball.

Do you want to borrow Hamish's?

Actually, it isn't something to gloat over. We need a profitable Scotland as a contributing region to the UK. This will probably mean diversifying the economy up there.

Hamish, whilst you have 'the ball' out, who will win the 2.30 today at Chepstow?

Enterprise_1701C

Personally I always thought that the whole of the UK aught to have been allowed to vote on the independence question. The SNP did not want that though, they were too afraid that they would actually end up independent and no longer able to have the level of subsidies that they currently have.

I almost wish they had won. If they had they would now be desperately pleading with us to allow them to leach off us for a little bit longer with the oil prices not attaining the ridiculous levels that they stated they would. We would now be able to remove the ridiculously outdated Barnett formula and might actually have some money to spend on the English.

From now on the Scots must realise that they can't have it both ways. They are part of the UK, money should be spread fairly across the UK, and if Scots want to vote on our laws they should allow us to vote on theirs.

padington

The south East should go independent, we never go up north these days anyway. Maybe keep norfolk for the beaches but anywhere above, let go. Let the Welsh go and watch the backlash against their nationalists and take away the target of scottish 'oppression' and see how quickly the ' SNP ' start becoming the evil establishment.

It'll be worth it, just for the entertainment. Save us a fortune in benifits and we could make a killing on visa's.

.string.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Personally I always thought that the whole of the UK aught to have been allowed to vote on the independence question. The SNP did not want that though, they were too afraid that they would actually end up independent and no longer able to have the level of subsidies that they currently have.

I almost wish they had won. If they had they would now be desperately pleading with us to allow them to leach off us for a little bit longer with the oil prices not attaining the ridiculous levels that they stated they would. We would now be able to remove the ridiculously outdated Barnett formula and might actually have some money to spend on the English.

From now on the Scots must realise that they can't have it both ways. They are part of the UK, money should be spread fairly across the UK, and if Scots want to vote on our laws they should allow us to vote on theirs.

Some points on your post, Enterprise.

I am pretty sure that the rest of the UK would have voted to maintain the Union, there may be a few people that think otherwise but I've seen no appetite for a breakup at all apart from the occasional tounge-in-cheek remark. I note your word "almost".

The SNP would be gleeful if this debate turned into a Scots versus English thing because that is precisely the diversive tactic they have used and are still using to foster enmity and their cause. I caution therefore against using imprecisely the term Scots and Scottish in this subject: The majority of Scots did not want to leave the Union, it is the SNP that are driving that notion. That is why I personally try to remember to direct my remarks coutner to Scottish separatism to the SNP, rather than Scots and try to refer to their fantasy of a post-separation Scotland as Natland (a term invented by one of the posters here - I forget who now).