Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Ah, but depending on the emerging specifics, there are welfare, economic and political elements in the situation which cannot be ignored. However I'd like to know more before favouring one action over another.

.string.

Incidentally, Sturgeon is reported, as saying:

SNP MPs can "guarantee" that support will be delivered to the oil and gas industry by holding the Westminster parties to account, according to Nicola Sturgeon.[/ quote]
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13209073.Sturgeon__SNP_can_guarantee_support_will_be_delivered_to_oil_and_gas_industry/

Just how silly can she get!

The low price of oil is a Tory Plot I suppose.

Edit: see Leanne,'s post below. I mistook this as a recent remark.

Leanne1812

An industry that has contributed substantially to uk coffers doesn't deserve a helping hand during this crisis?

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Incidentally, Sturgeon is reported, ascreating

SNP MPs can "guarantee" that support will be delivered to the oil and gas industry by holding the Westminster parties to account, according to Nicola Sturgeon.[/ quote]
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13209073.Sturgeon__SNP_can_guarantee_support_will_be_delivered_to_oil_and_gas_industry/

Just how silly can she get!

The low price of oil is a Tory Plot I suppose.

That's an old article string.

Thrugelmir

Leanne1812 wrote: »

An industry that has contributed substantially to uk coffers doesn't deserve a helping hand during this crisis?

There's no crisis. Just an over supply of product. As in any sector of industry the weakest least profitable close or reduce the scale of their operations. Until equilibrium is restored.

Why not save the Fort William aluminium smelter?

kabayiri

Leanne1812 wrote: »

An industry that has contributed substantially to uk coffers doesn't deserve a helping hand during this crisis?

In short, no. I'd rather invest in those parts of the UK committed to the future of the UK, not a minority who want to squeeze out all the subsidy they can before leaving.

It's the same with steel or coal. Why single out oil?

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

.string. wrote: »

Incidentally, Sturgeon is reported, ascreating


That's an old article string.

Yes you are right, Leanne, my mistake. Still silly though

Re your previous post, I don't think an industry has such is owed anything, corporate wise, since they made money out of out, but the social consequences need to be catered for, as do the strategic interests of the country by which I mean, of course, the UK.

In general if an industry becomes untenable then it does not make much sense to subsidise it indefinitely, as mistermeanor points out,

It may be that the oil production is still making money for the company in which case fine, or it may be economically necessary to close it down and put it on standby.

If there's a strategic reason to keep the industry (can happen with some industries) there can be a case for underwriting its long term future.

But the people, that's a different matter, at least the UK people. They need some sort of support.

Mistermeaner

Leanne1812 wrote: »

An industry that has contributed substantially to uk coffers doesn't deserve a helping hand during this crisis?

What an ignorant comment. A helping hand during a crisis?

There's no crisis. Oil is cheap and abundant. The north sea oil is expensive. It's highly unlikely this will change. Market forces channel investment to profitable industries.

Please explain how you think public money should be spent on north sea oil and the reasoning for this.

Is this your preference over letting private industry invest in fracking?

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Yes you are right, Leanne, my mistake. Still silly though

Re your previous post, I don't think an industry has such is owed anything, corporate wise, since they made money out of out, but the social consequences need to be catered for, as do the strategic interests of the country by which I mean, of course, the UK.

In general if an industry becomes untenable then it does not make much sense to subsidise it indefinitely, as mistermeanor points out,

It may be that the oil production is still making money for the company in which case fine, or it may be economically necessary to close it down and put it on standby.

If there's a strategic reason to keep the industry (can happen with some industries) there can be a case for underwriting its long term future.

But the people, that's a different matter, at least the UK people. They need some sort of support.

I would agree with some of your points. I'm concerned with the good quality jobs that are being lost and the knock on effect that has.

A failing industry may not deserve to be propped up indefinitely but again, it's the far reaching consequences of massive job losses.

There is still investment being made in the North Sea so I'd not go overboard and say it's failing. It's volatile & right now the industry is in crisis.

Maybe the people who don't seem to think so are not directly involved and dare I say it, because it is a Scottish industry it doesn't matter. One poster has already said as much.

Re the article is was pre election so you can understand why she said what she did.

Leanne1812

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What an ignorant comment. A helping hand during a crisis?

There's no crisis. Oil is cheap and abundant. The north sea oil is expensive. It's highly unlikely this will change. Market forces channel investment to profitable industries.

Please explain how you think public money should be spent on north sea oil and the reasoning for this.

Is this your preference over letting private industry invest in fracking?

I've no desire to interact with you. I find you rude & boorish.