Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Time to move away from oil! How are you planning on filling the gap in the meantime bearing in mind that according to the report you raised it's 16% of Scottish GDP?

All you are doing is making my point for me here: an independent Scotland isn't viable.as things stand and it's pretty much the current Scotland that the SNP wanted to be independent. Scotland would have faced decades of grinding poverty had Yes won.

Once again you fall back to this ridiculous position that there has been lots of money gained by Scottish oil over the last 40 years. Unfortunately that doesn't matter a jot if you're looking to pay next year's bills.

I wish you'd use the UK finances as context now and again. And UK finances without Scotland also. You seem very unwilling to do so.

Bateman was pointing out how ludicrious it is for a country to discover oil off it's shores. Yet still be thought of as a basket case decades later. He's completely correct of course. He's not in any way making your point for you. He's using the subsidy junkie/oil price debate as a reason for independence. Rather than as you do, one against.

Where you fall in that particular debate probably defines one's attitude to the Scottish economy. Of which of course, Westminster has been in charge of, for all of those aforementioned decades. And towards independence.

Time to move away from oil prices being a defining factor in the independence debate. Which it won't be in a few years time. So low for so long, it will be normal and no longer news.

I love turbines. But I have always believed we needed the strategic importance and potentially huge income from the North Sea. If you remove that because you have no choice, you face up to the alternatives – you have to – just like an independent country has to find its way through every headwind and setback. We already see the benefits of people switching to funds and portfolios focused on environmental sustainability as investors see the volatility of the fossil fuel markets.

Renewables are bigger than nuclear now. We already get 15 per cent of all our energy from renewables and expect to meet the target of a 100 per cent equivalent of electricity demand by 2020. Were being asked to up the ante by going for 50 per cent of all energy from hydro, wind and tide by 2030.

Greens argue for a managed transition away from oil and gas to refocus skills and investment towards sustainable sources. Thousands could be employed by investing in renewables and oil and gas decommissioning, rather than, as Patrick Harvie puts it, propping up an industry whose unburnable assets pose a huge economic risk.

In this of course we are challenged by the UK government which again does not have Scotland’s interests at heart. Subsidies have been cut and the experiment of carbon capture ended for short-term savings. Meanwhile British taxpayers are to be fleeced to pay for Chinese nuclear – perhaps a better target for Unionist scoffing ?

How to fill the gap meantime ? There is no meantime. Just preparation for when a Yes vote may occur. There are already independence leaning currency, energy and business forums being formed and going round the country discussing. Town hall style.

Women for Independence Midlothian invites interested citizens to an evening discussing an alternative currency for Scotland. With expert guests from the New Economics Foundation and the Common Weal, we will hear about proposals for a currency for Scotland and hopefully have a lively debate on this important topic.

Speakers start at 7:30pm, doors open at 7pm.

Mistermeaner

Lots of people will be in my local at that time talking bollo cks as well. Common ground on which a union could be built.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

.string. wrote: »

Talking of tax levers and the skilled way they wil be used by the SNP Scottish Government,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11373197/Wealthy-Scots-considering-fleeing-high-SNP-taxes.html



whilst I don't believe everything that the SNP publish neither do I believe everything the Telegraph says,
however the SNP and in particular Shakey have never ventured to say how they see a 'fairer and more equal' Scotland will be created :
does that mean higher taxes for the richer people ?
or more benefits for the poorer people?
or both?

just love to know

Re believing newspapers, I could probably count on the fingers of no hands the ones I trust completely. One needs to balance probabilities. But I look at it this way, I put more credence in something I have to read with a pinch of salt than SNP dictated drivel which needs a whole bucket of the stuff.

I agree that it would be nice to get the details of SNP policies, and predictions. But I guess they are too scared to give it or maybe have no idea anyway - all blow and no action.

kabayiri

Carbon capture - original plans intended to prove the technology for £200m - £225m.

They have spent a billion so far, and there are still problems with it at Drax. The government are entitled to question where they direct their subsidy.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They're doing ok so far with the limited powers they have. There's a lot of people would welcome SNP policy over Conservative policy throughout the UK. Scotland does indeed though have massive potentials in renewables. Unlikely ever to be realised which projects get cancelled, subsidies are cut. Westminster instead preferring to keep Scotland 'over reliant' on oil prices long term until it runs out. More crowing and mileage out of the 'subsidy junkie' stuff that way you see. But is short sighted imo. And I'm not even a massive 'green' either.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a6da9c8e-9c0c-11e5-8ce1-f6219b685d74.html#axzz3xEqcTVm1

would you invest your life savings, pension funds etc into an unproven technology like carbon capture
and more importantly would people in scotland ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

CLAPTON wrote: »

Re believing newspapers, I could probably count on the fingers of no hands the ones I trust completely. One needs to balance probabilities. But I look at it this way, I put more credence in something I have to read with a pinch of salt than SNP dictated drivel which needs a whole bucket of the stuff.

I agree that it would be nice to get the details of SNP policies, and predictions. But I guess they are too scared to give it or maybe have no idea anyway - all blow and no action.

They're doing not so bad so far.

14/1/2016

Constituency ballot :
SNP 52% (-1)
Labour 21% (-1)
Conservatives 16% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)

Regional list ballot :
SNP 42% (n/c)
Labour 20% (-1)
Conservatives 16% (+3)
Greens 9% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+2)

But opposition parties will be most worried by separate findings about satisfaction levels with the SNP’s record in government.

Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have been relentlessly focusing on perceived failures in hospitals, schools and policing under the SNP. But the first opinion poll of election year suggests the strategy has not dented the public’s perception that the SNP are best equipped to run the devolved government in Edinburgh.

Only 20 per cent are dissatisfied with the Scottish Government’s performance on justice, 22 per cent on education and 27 per cent on health. Sturgeon is also by far the most popular politician in the country. She has a net favourability score of 27, miles ahead of Kezia Dugdale (-9), Ruth Davidson (-6), Willie Rennie (-7) and Patrick Harvie (0).

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-course-increase-holyrood-majority-7182713



That must have hurt the Daily Record to write I must say. Only a matter of time before Labour in Scotland start waking up to reality surely. They've been in denial since 2007 now. As has Scottish media.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Carbon capture - original plans intended to prove the technology for £200m - £225m.

They have spent a billion so far, and there are still problems with it at Drax. The government are entitled to question where they direct their subsidy.

Sure they have the right. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the SNP as a party in complete control of Scottish energy policy.. would be far more likely to invest in Scottish renewables ( plural), than in Chinese nuclear.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I wish you'd use the UK finances as context now and again. And UK finances without Scotland also. You seem very unwilling to do so.

Bateman was pointing out how ludicrious it is for a country to discover oil off it's shores. Yet still be thought of as a basket case decades later. He's completely correct of course. He's not in any way making your point for you. He's using the subsidy junkie/oil price debate as a reason for independence. Rather than as you do, one against.

Where you fall in that particular debate probably defines one's attitude to the Scottish economy. Of which of course, Westminster has been in charge of, for all of those aforementioned decades. And towards independence.

Time to move away from oil prices being a defining factor in the independence debate. Which it won't be in a few years time. So low for so long, it will be normal and no longer news.


How to fill the gap meantime ? There is no meantime. Just preparation for when a Yes vote may occur. There are already independence leaning currency, energy and business forums being formed and going round the country discussing. Town hall style.

Okay. Oil extraction is below 2% of UK GDP and as a result has a marginal impact at best on UK GDP. It is a significantly higher share of exports and so the fall in the oil price has had a material impact on export figures.

Luckily, as a broadly diverse economy with large financial, media and manufacturing sectors, the UK is able to absorb a drop off in one area as there are so many others to do the lifting. The Scottish economy, being 1/11th of the size approximately, is dominated by two sectors as is typical in a small economy. In Scotland's case those sectors are oil and financial services.

Concentration risk isn't something that you can simply wish away. In a country with a GDP of about £170,000,000,000 there are only so many large economic sectors that can make that up. You can't even really choose which ones they are because most of the big economic sectors that exist in a country do so due to network effects.

For example, there is nothing natural about Scotland these days that makes it uniquely able to produce good whisky. However, it has a concentration of people with the skills to do so, factories it can be made in. Beyond that Scotland's whisky industry has strong marketing and distribution networks and great ties with retailers of whisky. It is possible to buy whisky made in Japan or Tassie for that matter which is just as good, it doesn't benefit from the network effects. If I ask for a scotch in a bar in Mexico I'm going to be disappointed to get something made in Australia!

The Scottish Government can't simply wish a new scotch industry into being.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sure they have the right. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the SNP as a party in complete control of Scottish energy policy.. would be far more likely to invest in Scottish renewables ( plural), than in Chinese nuclear.

Great, so you'd have a renewables sector with one small non-price sensitive customer. That doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Okay. Oil extraction is below 2% of UK GDP and as a result has a marginal impact at best on UK GDP. It is a significantly higher share of exports and so the fall in the oil price has had a material impact on export figures.

Luckily, as a broadly diverse economy with large financial, media and manufacturing sectors, the UK is able to absorb a drop off in one area as there are so many others to do the lifting. The Scottish economy, being 1/11th of the size approximately, is dominated by two sectors as is typical in a small economy. In Scotland's case those sectors are oil and financial services.

Concentration risk isn't something that you can simply wish away. A country with a GDP of about £170,000,000,000 there are only so many large economic sectors that can make that up.

The UK economy is as vunerable as anyone else's to global factors and a decline in oil price revenues ( deflation ? ).. Let's not pretend it's all 'milk and honey' out there as part of the UK economy.
Without full powers over the Scottish economy, then obviously the Scottish Govt cannot ever remove the concentration risk you point out. That's where the sticking point is. And round in circles this debate goes.

Add a possible Brexit into the mix, which I hope doesn't happen, but polls are bouncing around and Leave near 50% far more than I personally would like to see at this stage ( before the campaign's have even fully started ! ).. Then everything is up in the air.

There's some serious considerations going on as far as I can tell into offering Scotland a 'deal' if a Brexit looks likely. And not just in the Guardian, though I quote that as the most recent 'view from the outside'.

So let us start talking now, out loud in Brussels as well as in Europe’s opinion pages and in national parliaments, about the offer we are going to make to the Scots, should they prefer Brussels to London in the event of Brexit. Let’s also discuss in which ways we are going to repatriate financial powers from London to the European mainland. It is strange enough that Europe’s financial centre lies outside the eurozone, but to have it outside the EU? That would be like placing Wall Street in Cuba.

Joris Luyendijk http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/11/europe-turn-tables-bullying-britain-david-cameron-eu

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects

Scottish EU referendum poll: Remain: 52% (+1) Leave: 27% (-2) (via Survation / 08 - 12 Jan)

Is all uncertain isn't it. Do you think England will vote to stay ?