Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

IIRC, the Saudis remain profitable all the way down to $6/bbl (not that they have the power to push prices that low).

What will be interesting is when shale oil companies in the US go bust and their assets are bought up at a fraction of their value. At that point, they will be able to get oil out of the ground for little more than the operational costs.

The oil squeeze has a way further to go yet and with it any chance of the SNP making any kind of coherent economic case for independence. Of course the bluster and spin will remain but ultimately it's just BS.

The SNP are concentrating fire on the Tories making a political case for them. Particularly the pointlessness of having any Scottish MP's at Westminster.. They're doing pretty well so far it has to be said. If the Scotland Act is anything to go by.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Don't underestimate the real antagonism between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Saudis will maintain low prices to hurt Iran. Heading for $20 a barrel at this rate.

It's not an overwhelming concern among Scots voters at the present time. Up until now has no discernible effect on independence or SNP support either way.

BUT, if it ever was to go back up the union would be in serious trouble indeed, and very quickly. It is an ongoing mistake to build such a one sided case against independence on oil prices. For all the SNP was accused of doing so for... I'd say since prices fell. It's been pretty much the only thing pro-union advocates have to say regarding a 'positive case for the union'. 'Oh look you'll be skint ha ha lol' isn't exactly extolling the virtues is it. :cool:

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP are concentrating fire on the Tories making a political case for them. Particularly the pointlessness of having any Scottish MP's at Westminster.. They're doing pretty well so far it has to be said. If the Scotland Act is anything to go by.

So be it. If the Scots feel that there are good political reasons to quit the Union then so be it. I just don't get it.

The cuts to services required would be huge. You'd be talking about the best part of 20% of the Scottish Government budget going. That would mean massive redundancies and huge cuts to welfare, education and health. You aren't going to get those sorts of savings from tinkering around the edges.

If Scots value being ruled from Edinburgh more than being ruled by London more than they value their Granny being treated for cancer and little Johnny being able to go to Uni then so be it. The fact is that isn't the vision being sold to the Scottish people. Can't think why...

The positive vision is that within the Union, all parts of the Union are stronger as we can support each other. In other times there have been flows from Scotland to England (presumably in the early 80s when oil prices were high and British industry was under the pump for example). Currently they're going the other way as they probably were in other periods when oil prices were low such as in the early 90s.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

So be it. If the Scots feel that there are good political reasons to quit the Union then so be it. I just don't get it.

The cuts to services required would be huge. You'd be talking about the best part of 20% of the Scottish Government budget going. That would mean massive redundancies and huge cuts to welfare, education and health. You aren't going to get those sorts of savings from tinkering around the edges.

If Scots value being ruled from Edinburgh more than being ruled by London more than they value their Granny being treated for cancer and little Johnny being able to go to Uni then so be it. The fact is that isn't the vision being sold to the Scottish people. Can't think why...

The positive vision is that within the Union, all parts of the Union are stronger as we can support each other. In other times there have been flows from Scotland to England (presumably in the early 80s when oil prices were high and British industry was under the pump for example). Currently they're going the other way as they probably were in other periods when oil prices were low such as in the early 90s.

Well I guess it all depends where you're getting your figures from, and who Scots trust to do the best for the people who live in Scotland. I'm afraid the Conservatives have never come very high in the 'trust factor'. Labour have crashed and burned in that department also. The Conservatives are now in overall charge.

Once Scotland votes Yes, and she will (imo) at some point around 2020/1 unless Labour recover... That's when negotiations over debt and deficits begin. None of us have any idea what Scotland would start out with in economic terms ( though can safely say it won't be a currency union ).. As it is simply lumping UK wide 'obligations' and applying UK wide policies in their entirety onto a newly independent state for the next 20 years. And then pretending, because you are pretending.. that everyone 'knows' and can accurately predict and forecast future oil prices, is a fools game.

Politically, Labour jumped the shark with the referendum campaign. They and most Labour No voters simply thought that politics would 'go back to normal' afterwards. Labour in Holyrood and Miliband in No 10. Neither happened. Time for a rethink.

Take Labour out of the Westminster equation ( ie not in power for a while) and you're left with the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in England. That in short, is never going to be a scenario that's ever going to end well for the union.

Labour need to get their game together. And quick. There's no way Scots will keep voting to stay in the union while they feel their political representatives are just ignored, or have no say in anything much. Or plastered up on English billboards as pickpockets come to that..

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well I guess it all depends where you're getting your figures from, and who Scots trust to do the best for the people who live in Scotland. I'm afraid the Conservatives have never come very high in the 'trust factor'. Labour have crashed and burned in that department also. The Conservatives are now in overall charge.

Surely you can't believe that an independent Scotland is solvent with oil prices where they are. I refuse to believe you are that stupid.

The oil price is down by two thirds and every oil rig in the North Sea is running at a loss. That is an inescapable fact and you can pretend the problem doesn't exist if you like but it won't make it go away. Oil, directly, is 15-20% of Scottish GDP. Without the stabilising revenue from Westminster you would have found that c. 10% of Scottish GDP has gone in the last 18 months. That's just sums. It's not opinion.

GDP = gross value of output – value of intermediate consumption

To put it slightly differently:

GDP = (gross value of oil output + gross value of non-oil output) – value of intermediate consumption

If the oil price falls by two thirds then the gross value of oil output will ultimately fall by two thirds (complicated slightly by the fact that oil isn't all sold at spot prices, most is sold forward but ultimately the price of oil contracts will tend towards the spot price).

Now GDP has changed:

GDP = (0.3 x old gross value of oil output + gross value of non-oil output) – value of intermediate consumption

GDP, by definition, has fallen by about 70% of the value of oil output at the higher figure. As oil is about 15-20% of the GDP of Scotland, GDP has fallen by about 10%.

princeofpounds

Shakethedisease wrote: »

http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/scottish_debt_mountain_is_a_molehill

I am utterly flabbergasted that claims like this are even given a second of consideration.


You really think that a seceding state can walk away from a fair share of mutual obligations? That's a total fantasy (and a dishonourable, duplicitous and selfish one at that).


It's like joining your friends at a restaurant and refusing to pay the bill because the you weren't the one who technically ordered.


I do find the discussion around independence interesting and it was a valid debate for the nation to have, but when it strays into fantasy propaganda it does all of us a disservice.

princeofpounds

I just realised that 'article' was from a member of 'Economists for Rational Economic Policies'. Those people are total loons, most of them washed-up Marxists.


It just makes me sigh.

elantan

princeofpounds wrote: »

I am utterly flabbergasted that claims like this are even given a second of consideration.


You really think that a seceding state can walk away from a fair share of mutual obligations? That's a total fantasy (and a dishonourable, duplicitous and selfish one at that).


It's like joining your friends at a restaurant and refusing to pay the bill because the you weren't the one who technically ordered.


I do find the discussion around independence interesting and it was a valid debate for the nation to have, but when it strays into fantasy propaganda it does all of us a disservice.

Oh I totally agree we will pay our share of the debt ... and we will take our share of the bounty as well ... it will be fine ... nothing to worry about

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Oh I totally agree we will pay our share of the debt ... and we will take our share of the bounty as well ... it will be fine ... nothing to worry about

I think that before another referendum there ought to be a fully agreed balance sheet drawn up of all the liabilities and assets and how they will be divided in full detail so that all parties have full knowledge of the situation.

Of course this would take at least 100 years but it would be worth it in the end.

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Oh I totally agree we will pay our share of the debt ... and we will take our share of the bounty as well ... it will be fine ... nothing to worry about

Will? You need to persuade 50%+1 to vote Yes in a generation's time first. Better hope the oil price comes around and that Londoners are still happy to pay for your kids' 'free' uni education in the meantime.