Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Obviously you missed this tidbit:

Scotland produced 1.42mboe/day last year. That is approximately 520 million barrels of oil in the year.

Even if we assume that output remains constant and doesn't fall with price, that's a drop in the value of output from $53bn to $31.2bn p.a..

As Scotland's GDP was a little under $250bn in 2014 according to the Scottish Government:

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy

That implies a cut of 8% of GDP. That's before we factor in the loss of production that will necessarily occur as CAPEX last year fell dramatically:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4f0442e0-bcd2-11e4-a917-00144feab7de.html#axzz3StwqyYh6

That's another 4% drop in GDP, again before a single oil company has cut production.

So what about production? Is that likely to remain stable?
What about the wages of workers on the rigs? Consumption is a very important component of GDP (approximately 70% of UK GDP) and wages are the backbone of consumption:
The fact is that an independent Scotland would be facing collapsing oil revenues and a disastrous depression right now as GDP fell by c.20% over a 2 year period. Thanks to being in the Union, that scenario has been entirely avoided.

Or are the FT and Scottish Government just Unionist stooges?

And that's before we look at what's happened to gas prices.

You need to sell an awful lot of whisky to make up for all that oil.

Here's another report by those authors. Published a month before the one you referred Leanne to. However the actual doc seems to have 'disappeared' from the NIESR site itself ( ! ).

New reports published today by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) have re-emphasied Scotland’s key economic strengths and the potential to improve Scotland’s economy with the full powers of independence.

1) New Gross National Income (GNI) calculation implies that :-

The major revelation in the report is that new calculations of Scotland’s finances may upgrade Scotland’s economic position even further. Evidence already shows that Scotland is the wealthiest area of the UK outside of London and the South East. Scotland put in 9.9% of tax and received 9.3% of spending (GERS figures).
The report by John McLaren and Jo Armstrong concludes by suggesting that GNI calculations may place Scotland in an even stronger fiscal position:


“this implies that Scots are richer than had heretofore been recognised. This also means that previous (GERS-based) estimates of the Scottish fiscal balance are underestimating revenues and overestimating the size of any inherited net deficit” (page R12).

2) Previous Government figures (GERS figures) have excluded certain tax figures for the North Sea

The most common reference point on Scotland’s finances have been the GERS reports. While they include offshore revenue, they have excluded the resulting tax take in areas such as corporation tax and dividends. The inclusion of these figures in Scotland’s tax take provides a substantial boost to Scotland’s fiscal position.

3) An independent Scotland will be one of the wealthiest nations in the world

In GNI per capita, by the calculations including offshore tax, Scotland is in the world’s top 10. On both rankings Scotland is considerably better off than the European average.

4) Scotland’s economic position is even stronger compared to the UK
McLaren and Armstrong state that the GNI findings suggest “Scotland would have a very large current account surplus, which would in turn mean that its economic prospects would be much brighter than the rest of the UK’s” (page R13).
6) Pensions will be in a stronger position within an independent Scotland

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/think-tank-scotlands-economy-stronger-than-previously-thought/

etc etc.. I'll leave it to you to explain why in one NEISR report in Feb 14 they were saying stuff such as the above.. then in a CPPR report in March 14 were saying things looked ( in your words ) 'bleak'. I'll also leave it to you to work out which one got the major media coverage.

In short, it seems economists and media reports can fit figures to suit an awful lot of the time.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Most level headed people would agree that a 'normal' general election or a council election would get a different turnout to that of a decision to break up a sovereign state.

The result was indeed determined by those that voted but it would be wrong to deduce that 55% of the Scottish electorate were in favour of staying or that 45% of the Scottish electorate were in favour of independence..

The turnout was the highest in history. More people had a say than ever before taking part in democracy. It is therefore wrong of you to take things out of context. Only those who actually voted count. And this is true of every single election and referendum held. Why you want to lump in those who could vote but didn't in order to arrive at a 37% figure I am at a loss to imagine. Unless it's to play cold hard reality down.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

Project fear or project reality?
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice I suppose.

Do you or did you live in Scotland during 2014? If not I would say you're not qualified to judge what Project Fear entailed in its entirety.

My relations in England had no idea what was going on here. An odd newspaper article on page 9 was about it. Here it was wall to wall. I know in my own circle of family & friends not much else was discussed and chewed over for many, many months.

elantan

I honestly do believe that anyone that didn't live in Scotland for a large portion of last year can not understand what our country went through, my family and friends down south and abroad really didn't hear much about it at all ( apart from my Facebook)

I have a friend moving home from the USA this year three of her Facebook friends who never met before became friends in real life then met online, every one of them were campaigning and are still involved in CW,WFI,RIC and SNP as well as fracking groups, She has been warned she's gonna be busy campaigning when she gets back, and she can't wait as she feels she missed out on a huge part of her countries history.

Its not going away here, its getting stronger and all the petty wee arguments going on here are just really good for practise

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Do you or did you live in Scotland during 2014? If not I would say you're not qualified to judge what Project Fear entailed in its entirety.

My relations in England had no idea what was going on here. An odd newspaper article on page 9 was about it. Here it was wall to wall. I know in my own circle of family & friends not much else was discussed and chewed over for many, many months.

Most of what you would call project fear was (I think) common knowledge down here. If I'd been a voter in the independence referendum I'd like to think that I would accepted that the stakes were high and to counter the SNP's blue sky thinking, a dose of fear was an appropriate response. The fact is both sides put their respective cases and the electorate made their choice.

Leanne1812

elantan wrote: »

I honestly do believe that anyone that didn't live in Scotland for a large portion of last year can not understand what our country went through, my family and friends down south and abroad really didn't hear much about it at all ( apart from my Facebook)

I have a friend moving home from the USA this year three of her Facebook friends who never met before became friends in real life then met online, every one of them were campaigning and are still involved in CW,WFI,RIC and SNP as well as fracking groups, She has been warned she's gonna be busy campaigning when she gets back, and she can't wait as she feels she missed out on a huge part of her countries history.

Its not going away here, its getting stronger and all the petty wee arguments going on here are just really good for practise

I couldn't agree more. I don't think anyone who wasn't here or didn't engage can really understand what it was like in Scotland. It was electric & an incredible time in our wee nation. I'll never forget it and Im so thankful for all the great memories.

One of my campaign group has been protesting/campaigning for over 40 years and said the referendum was them all rolled into one. The camaraderie and all the friendships formed with like minded people you might otherwise never have met was just amazing.

I miss the buzz still.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

Most of what you would call project fear was (I think) common knowledge down here. If I'd been a voter in the independence referendum I'd like to think that I would accepted that the stakes were high and to counter the SNP's blue sky thinking, a dose of fear was an appropriate response. The fact is both sides put their respective cases and the electorate made their choice.

I disagree, I think you might feel it was common knowledge but you appear to have taken an active interest in it so possibly sought out or read articles and contributed in forums etc. I think the masses in rUK couldn't really have cared less except for feeling we were greedy scroungers and as such should probably leave. Yes, it makes sense doesn't it that Scotland the scrounger was bombarded by the westminster elite as soon as 'that' poll was published :-)

I can say that although pensions were safe and DWP issued a statement to that effect it was still a scare tactic used in canvassing & leaflets by the No camp. People obviously felt it wasn't a risk worth taking and I totally understand that but the negative campaigning achieved its aim.

I was initially a No voter but decided as this was such an important vote I should really try and inform myself. When I did I changed to Yes. It still sticks in my throat that in the final days Labours message to the electorate was 'if you don't know vote No'

I've just remembered that awful advert that got absolutely slated......' Paul, eat yer cereal!' That was so woeful it was hysterical. Yes, they underestimated the women who live here :-)

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Its not going away here, its getting stronger and all the petty wee arguments going on here are just really good for practise

How true lol ! I used to call up in my head posts and threads I'd taken part in here all the time. I was most taken aback by the couple we'd met on holiday... He was an absolute confirmed 100% No, always going on about 'Salmond this, and Salmond that..and his wife was really unsure. But we met up for drinks every night and bantered good naturedly back and forth.. I had an answer for everything thanks to posting here. They were still No's though at the end of the hols.

I got a phone call about a week before the vote from him saying he was going to vote Yes, that I'd made him 'think' and search for things on his own.. and when I enquired where his lovely wife was.. he laughed and said 'She's away to a Yes rally, wrapped in a saltire at the Kelpies'...:D

Ah yes the buzz was good. But those last few weeks with tv and newspapers.. my heart sank everytime I turned the news on. It was all far too much. And way over the top. All those supermarkets, banks, Murphy acting like the walking wounded and Nick Robinson stuff.. with hardly ever a right of reply from anyone on the Yes side..(in fact Robinson edited one out ! )... sigh.

Oh well, on to the next two elections then. Clapton mentioned Portillo earlier... I think some of us will be up the whole night waiting and hoping for a few of those moments.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

I do my own analysis when I can. I am lucky enough to have the skills to do so.

If anything Gen you are being too conservative on the economic impact from falling oil prices.

The oil industry up in Scotland supports the wider economy far more than some would imagine. I know of a software company which has had to cut back expansion plans because they are under pressure to reduce their maintenance charges to an outfit in Aberdeen. We are talking of just one example, but a loss of 2 high quality roles nonetheless.

Few people would normally link manpower loss in the IT business to the oil price reduction. It is but one example.

An adult response to this situation is to accept that there will be occasions when the larger part of the Union bails out specific regions. The hope / expectation is that when oil prices do rise the UK at large can recoup some of this support given in good faith.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Here's another report by those authors. Published a month before the one you referred Leanne to. However the actual doc seems to have 'disappeared' from the NIESR site itself ( ! ).

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/think-tank-scotlands-economy-stronger-than-previously-thought/

etc etc.. I'll leave it to you to explain why in one NEISR report in Feb 14 they were saying stuff such as the above.. then in a CPPR report in March 14 were saying things looked ( in your words ) 'bleak'. I'll also leave it to you to work out which one got the major media coverage.

In short, it seems economists and media reports can fit figures to suit an awful lot of the time.

What you are posting comes from before the fall in oil prices. That changes everything.