Scottish Independence

[Thesiger]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-hidden-agenda-behind-fight-against-independence.16465360

Mr Bell. As like so many others you skim over the most important issue to the well being of Scotland, namely it's economic well being. Mr Salmond and his stooges won't go into detail because the chippy, nationalist card resonates better with a populace largely unaware of economic realities. Your own fag packet calculations are typical.

Consider this:

1. An independent Scotland will be legally bound to take its share of the UK deficit. That is £ 80bn.

2. Servicing that debt will cost over £ 3bn pa.

3. Scotland will then have to take on it's share of the liabilities for bailing out two Scottish banks. The paper liability is £ 1.25tr. (Source M&G Funds)

4. All of the above aside Scotland spends £ 11bn pa more than it contributes to the union (source Oxford Economics).

5. Leaving the bank liability aside you are left with a £ 13bn annual deficit.

6. If Scotland received all of the annual oil revenues then that would cut the deficit to £ 7bn per year.

With a public sector accounting for 25% of jobs; negligable manufacturing and a nominally contributing private sector where is the £ 7bn going to come from to balance the books?

And what happens when oil production falls to a UK GDP equivalent of .2% in 2022?

I hope you have a solution because I don't want my kids growing up in New Slovakia

[Lemon Yoghourt]

Thank goodness we have Westminster to look after us then!

[Seymore Porn]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-hidden-agenda-behind-fight-against-independence.16465360

Mr Bell. As like so many others you skim over the most important issue to the well being of Scotland, namely it's economic well being. Mr Salmond and his stooges won't go into detail because the chippy, nationalist card resonates better with a populace largely unaware of economic realities. Your own fag packet calculations are typical.

Consider this:

1. An independent Scotland will be legally bound to take its share of the UK deficit. That is £ 80bn.

2. Servicing that debt will cost over £ 3bn pa.

3. Scotland will then have to take on it's share of the liabilities for bailing out two Scottish banks. The paper liability is £ 1.25tr. (Source M&G Funds)

4. All of the above aside Scotland spends £ 11bn pa more than it contributes to the union (source Oxford Economics).

5. Leaving the bank liability aside you are left with a £ 13bn annual deficit.

6. If Scotland received all of the annual oil revenues then that would cut the deficit to £ 7bn per year.

With a public sector accounting for 25% of jobs; negligable manufacturing and a nominally contributing private sector where is the £ 7bn going to come from to balance the books?

And what happens when oil production falls to a UK GDP equivalent of .2% in 2022?

I hope you have a solution because I don't want my kids growing up in New Slovakia

So why are Diamond Dave, Gleggy and Milliband so keen to keep us in the union? Maybe you should move to England.

[Limpin' Jez McKenzie]

2. Servicing that debt will cost over £ 3bn pa.

4. All of the above aside Scotland spends £ 11bn pa more than it contributes to the union (source Oxford Economics).

5. Leaving the bank liability aside you are left with a £ 13bn annual deficit.

6. If Scotland received all of the annual oil revenues then that would cut the deficit to £ 7bn per year.

Bell says the oil revenues are £11.7bn. That would cut the deficit from £14bn (on the above figures) to £2.3bn.

Whose figures are right?

[Lemon Yoghourt]

Joan McAlpine's response to the recent furore over her comments last week...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... referendum

[Goat Boy]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-hidden-agenda-behind-fight-against-independence.16465360

Mr Bell. As like so many others you skim over the most important issue to the well being of Scotland, namely it's economic well being. Mr Salmond and his stooges won't go into detail because the chippy, nationalist card resonates better with a populace largely unaware of economic realities. Your own fag packet calculations are typical.

Consider this:

1. An independent Scotland will be legally bound to take its share of the UK deficit. That is £ 80bn.

2. Servicing that debt will cost over £ 3bn pa.

3. Scotland will then have to take on it's share of the liabilities for bailing out two Scottish banks. The paper liability is £ 1.25tr. (Source M&G Funds)

4. All of the above aside Scotland spends £ 11bn pa more than it contributes to the union (source Oxford Economics).

5. Leaving the bank liability aside you are left with a £ 13bn annual deficit.

6. If Scotland received all of the annual oil revenues then that would cut the deficit to £ 7bn per year.

With a public sector accounting for 25% of jobs; negligable manufacturing and a nominally contributing private sector where is the £ 7bn going to come from to balance the books?

And what happens when oil production falls to a UK GDP equivalent of .2% in 2022?

I hope you have a solution because I don't want my kids growing up in New Slovakia

Where do these figures come from?

[Thesiger]

Where do these figures come from?

From the 'Comments' section below Bell's article.

The two big unknowns are surely the proportion to which the UK national debt is apportioned to Scotland and the extent to which the UK's current petroleum production comes from geographically 'Scottish' waters.

[Lemon Yoghourt]

the extent to which the UK's current petroleum production comes from geographically 'Scottish' waters.

This will be the big debate, I think. Weren't the boundaries between Scottish and English waters changed in England's favour by the Labour government around ten years ago, or so?

Population seems like a good way to settle the debt issue, imo.

[Phil T]

Population seems like a good way to settle the debt issue, imo.

Most of Scotland's population live in England...

[Goat Boy]

Population seems like a good way to settle the debt issue, imo.

Most of Scotland's population live in England...

A tenth of Scotland is English I think and all those cunts seem to be in Edinburgh!

[Thesiger]

the extent to which the UK's current petroleum production comes from geographically 'Scottish' waters.

This will be the big debate, I think. Weren't the boundaries between Scottish and English waters changed in England's favour by the Labour government around ten years ago, or so?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 21144516/7

An Illustrative Geographical Share

In order to estimate this share, GERS draws upon academic research carried out by Professor Alex Kemp and Linda Stephen from the University of Aberdeen 25. Kemp and Stephen (2008) estimate Scotland's share of North Sea revenue based on a detailed financial model of the North Sea oil and gas industry and an assessment of Scotland's geographical share of the North Sea.

In their analysis, the researchers base the Scottish boundary of the UKCS on the median line principle as employed in 1999 to determine the boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK for fishery demarcation purposes. Other alternatives are possible. Scotland's estimated geographical share of the North Sea sector, used in this report, is highlighted in the following diagram. Demarcation by the median line is highlighted by the dark shaded area in Figure 5.1. All oil and gas fields located in this region were apportioned to Scotland under the assumption of an illustrative geographical share.
Figure 5.1 UK Continental Shelf and Scottish Boundary

Source: Scottish Government Marine Directorate

Based on a detailed database of North Sea oil and gas fields, Kemp and Stephen estimated the tax revenue raised in each field. Their detailed modelling took account of production levels and a range of costs including research and development, and decommissioning. Taking the median line as the line of demarcation, the authors assigned revenue from each field to Scotland and the rest of the UK. The authors' most recent estimates show that Scotland's geographical share of oil production stood at 97 per cent in 2010, while its geographical share of gas production remained at 58 per cent. Scotland's share of total hydrocarbon production was 81 per cent in 2010, up marginally from 80 per cent in 2009.

Details of the methodology used by Kemp and Stephen are provided in the paper Kemp and Stephen (2008), 'The Hypothetical Scottish Shares of Revenues and Expenditures from the UK Continental Shelf 2000-2013' which is available from the weblink below. 26 Using estimates of Scotland's geographical share of total North Sea revenue, it is possible to apportion the total UK revenue figure from the ONS Public Sector Finance statistics to Scotland.

Under this geographical allocation, Scottish production would account for around 90% of the UK's petroleum exploitation.

[Ranking Ted]

So why are Diamond Dave, Gleggy and Milliband so keen to keep us in the union? Maybe you should move to England.

The points raised by Thesiger are vitally important and too often written off by flag sucking Nats whose sole, tired comment is 'but we've got oil, 'n that'.

The Joan McAlpine answer of 'if you don't like it, go and live in england' is sadly typical of the debate, Joe. I'd hate to think people would have to leave Scotland but I fear that that would be exactly what would happen post-Independence.

[Ranking Ted]

Population seems like a good way to settle the debt issue, imo.

Most of Scotland's population live in England...

A tenth of Scotland is English I think and all those cunts seem to be in Edinburgh!

Cunts? Really?

[Goat Boy]

Lighten up.

[Ranking Ted]

Ach, you're right. Not the time or place for this type of chat. I don't really come on here to get indignant. If only YY could be roused from its 70s torpor. Roll on the Cup.

[johnnydefault]

Population seems like a good way to settle the debt issue, imo.

Most of Scotland's population live in England...

A tenth of Scotland is English I think and all those cunts seem to be in Edinburgh!

Or on the telly being interviewed every time they're speaking to the leader of some residents campaign group in the highlands and islands

[johnnydefault]

I think it will all unravel for eck unless the economic picture drastically improves. If there is a time to do it, this is not it and his gamble that 2014 might see us out of the woods looks like it may not be such a 'cert'.

I'm also getting a bit cheesed off with the Salmond disciples who are pulling the 'unionists don't have anything positive to say about why we should stay in the union' tag line at every turn. I don't really think those folk need to say owt other than - 'I'm fine the way things are - it's you mad cunts that are holding the referendum, argue away positively if you like'

[Lemon Yoghourt]

the extent to which the UK's current petroleum production comes from geographically 'Scottish' waters.

This will be the big debate, I think. Weren't the boundaries between Scottish and English waters changed in England's favour by the Labour government around ten years ago, or so?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 21144516/7

An Illustrative Geographical Share

In order to estimate this share, GERS draws upon academic research carried out by Professor Alex Kemp and Linda Stephen from the University of Aberdeen 25. Kemp and Stephen (2008) estimate Scotland's share of North Sea revenue based on a detailed financial model of the North Sea oil and gas industry and an assessment of Scotland's geographical share of the North Sea.

In their analysis, the researchers base the Scottish boundary of the UKCS on the median line principle as employed in 1999 to determine the boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK for fishery demarcation purposes. Other alternatives are possible. Scotland's estimated geographical share of the North Sea sector, used in this report, is highlighted in the following diagram. Demarcation by the median line is highlighted by the dark shaded area in Figure 5.1. All oil and gas fields located in this region were apportioned to Scotland under the assumption of an illustrative geographical share.
Figure 5.1 UK Continental Shelf and Scottish Boundary

Source: Scottish Government Marine Directorate

Based on a detailed database of North Sea oil and gas fields, Kemp and Stephen estimated the tax revenue raised in each field. Their detailed modelling took account of production levels and a range of costs including research and development, and decommissioning. Taking the median line as the line of demarcation, the authors assigned revenue from each field to Scotland and the rest of the UK. The authors' most recent estimates show that Scotland's geographical share of oil production stood at 97 per cent in 2010, while its geographical share of gas production remained at 58 per cent. Scotland's share of total hydrocarbon production was 81 per cent in 2010, up marginally from 80 per cent in 2009.

Details of the methodology used by Kemp and Stephen are provided in the paper Kemp and Stephen (2008), 'The Hypothetical Scottish Shares of Revenues and Expenditures from the UK Continental Shelf 2000-2013' which is available from the weblink below. 26 Using estimates of Scotland's geographical share of total North Sea revenue, it is possible to apportion the total UK revenue figure from the ONS Public Sector Finance statistics to Scotland.

Under this geographical allocation, Scottish production would account for around 90% of the UK's petroleum exploitation.

Thanks, Thesiger. I stand corrected.

[Thesiger]

Thanks, Thesiger. I stand corrected.

I think you're right on the narrower technical point that there were some amendments in 1999 (and there's a rather rabid website claiming that Scottish waters now don't start until Carnoustie). On the bigger point, it's still true that there is no definitive and legally binding delineation of where 'Scottish' petroleum reserves lie. Even the above diagram (published on the Scottish Government website) is an 'interpretation' of where Scottish reserves might extend to, based on a Fishing Grounds parallel.

[copehead]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-hidden-agenda-behind-fight-against-independence.16465360

Mr Bell. As like so many others you skim over the most important issue to the well being of Scotland, namely it's economic well being. Mr Salmond and his stooges won't go into detail because the chippy, nationalist card resonates better with a populace largely unaware of economic realities. Your own fag packet calculations are typical.

Consider this:

1. An independent Scotland will be legally bound to take its share of the UK deficit. That is £ 80bn.

2. Servicing that debt will cost over £ 3bn pa.

3. Scotland will then have to take on it's share of the liabilities for bailing out two Scottish banks. The paper liability is £ 1.25tr. (Source M&G Funds)

4. All of the above aside Scotland spends £ 11bn pa more than it contributes to the union (source Oxford Economics).

5. Leaving the bank liability aside you are left with a £ 13bn annual deficit.

6. If Scotland received all of the annual oil revenues then that would cut the deficit to £ 7bn per year.

With a public sector accounting for 25% of jobs; negligable manufacturing and a nominally contributing private sector where is the £ 7bn going to come from to balance the books?

And what happens when oil production falls to a UK GDP equivalent of .2% in 2022?

I hope you have a solution because I don't want my kids growing up in New Slovakia

The idea that Scotland has a liability for some banks because they have the word Scotland in their names is laughable.

It's like suggesting Halifax is liable for the debts of the Halifax part of HBOS.

That being the case I imagine the rest of the points have an equally tenuous link to reality.