Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Yes campaign wanted to set up an Indy Scotland where 20% of the national budget would be wholly reliant on direct taxation of the oil industry.

Yet now you admit it's not a good idea...

The point is Shakey, if the OBR get oil forecasts wrong it's little more than a minor inconvenience to the UK at this point, given it makes up around 1% of UK GDP and around 2% of tax revenues.

But for an iScotland that's absolutely devastating, as it represents closer to 10% of GDP and 20% of tax revenues.

The point is Hamish. Is that you're right about the OBR forecasts. Getting forecasts wrong on volatile commodities is pretty run of the mill. It's the very definition of 'volatile'.

Basing the Scottish economy round oil prices wouldn't be a good thing. But it's not enough of a reason on it's own to stay in the UK for many people. There are many other factors to consider. The White Paper was the SNP's 'vision' of the possibilities. But it wasn't the only one, and there were many others..

Surely time to look forward now though ? So much to look forward TO as well... Differences between independence and staying in the union growing ever closer. Wasn't drastically reduced public spending a 'BetterTogether will only happen in an independent Scotland' thing too ?

In reality things are tougher. Under plans outlined by George Osborne, the chancellor, on November 25th, Britain will see a decade-long pause in public-spending growth, the longest-running squeeze on Leviathan since the 1950s.

Spending will fall from 45% of GDP in 2010 to 36% in 2020, the biggest tightening by any big, rich economy over that period. What does all this mean for the British state?

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21679219-though-latest-round-cuts-will-be-shallower-billed-british-state-taking

Shakethedisease

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder how any country can manage without the broad shoulders of the uk!

I know !

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Can I ask where did you get the £6 billion figure from? Just curious as I've heard 6,7,8,9,10 and on and on and on. Who knows the real truth?...

You're right, there's a few different figures been bandied around. You pays yer money, you takes your choice.

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder how any country can manage without the broad shoulders of the uk!

You're welcome to give it go.😀

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Norway rely on 30%of its income from oil ... we rely on 15% .. some how they manage

So do all these other countries that don't even have oil ... I know it's amazing to think there is a world where people survive without oil money ... but it's true

Norway manages by not spending a large chunk of the revenues from oil taxation.

An independent Scotland could do the same thing of course but as oil prices were at a record high at the time and part of the SNP pitch was a Yes vote would mean an end to austerity it seems unlikely at best that a credible case could be made for a SWF too. I mean the SNP were promising one but it was innumerate to imagine that it could have actually happened.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

You're welcome to give it go.😀

Well, I did want to but not enough felt the same

zagubov

That's the way it is. The one consoling thought is that everything that affects Scotland badly can be blamed on that decision.

The unionists won, all negative interactions between the UK and Scotland fall on their plate.;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Salmond didn't make the predictions himself. The White paper took them from the same sources the UK Treasury did. Everyone was wrong.

Which is of course completely irrelevant.

The point is that the oil price did fall, and we're damn lucky Scotland didn't vote for indy, as the results would have been catastrophic.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Norway manages by not spending a large chunk of the revenues from oil taxation.
.

Whereas Scotland spends all of it, plus all the onshore tax revenue, and then borrows the same % of GDP the UK does, and then still needs subsidising from rUK to the tune of many billions a year after all that....

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

No I've never been ... have a few friends that stay there they seem to like it. .. yep they say things are very expensive ... buy they also earn a lot more and can afford things ... there's always two sides isn't there

Building a $825 billion fund (the largest in the world) sure makes a difference.

Little point in making meaningless comparisons.