Scotland Debate

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

re:company, dunno,a newy formed, govt owned stateoil?And aye,Scotlands oil.



Not seven days ago Davie Cameron was licking arse in Aberdeen, proclaiming the start of a new oil boom, worth £2 trillion.Now, off course its diminishing, but there's more left than we're taken out already, and then add on the stuff west of shetland and the stuff in the clyde basin.

So, Norway started an oil fund in the early 90's, which is now worth more than the oil that funded it and will technically, never run out and makes each and every Norwegian citizen a $ millionaire.Recently they had to create anew bank to take on some of the 'burden' of their fund because it was too big for one bank!...so lets be honest, themain reason that westminster has formed the most unholy alliance is because of our oil...it funds loads.

I like many back then when the oil started flowing will be able to remember the exhortations on UK government to do what Norway did and create an oil fund rather than spend it. And so we just spent it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

... interesting to see how you cope with a NO vote as you appear so utterly desperate to be away from the English.

...to which I might say it could be very messy - and over the following years the recriminations and complaining about England, Westminster etc will build as Scotland realises things could have been different - so if only for that reason a YES would be a relief.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Well OPEC for one completely disagrees with your optimistic view of both the North Sea reserves and the viability of developing new fields around Scotland.

So who do you believe?Opec or Cameron?...and as for OPEC, I'm not sure if they're the best source of info...they say oil is running out in an area they have no governance to make them look more attractive?

I have respect for many of the views you have expressed in this debate but here you appear to have fallen into the same trap as many in the YES camp i.e. selective quotation and reference only to those statements that support your argument.


OPEC are not alone, I believe, in their concerns.

I'm keen to be seen as pragmatic about any aspect of this topic.OPEC is a collective of oil producing nations in the middle east, nothing to do with North Sea production?They have vested interests in playing down the viability of any other oil producing region as it benefits their resource,yes?
David Cameron is PM fighting to save the union and last week brought his entire cabinet to Scotland for the first time ever and chose Aberdeen...he went to an oil rig, announced the value of North Sea oil to be £2 trillion with tax receipts of about £250 Billion.Now this might be cynical, but what other reason does a really disliked tory PM have for keeping the union intact, except for that £250 Billion?

As for the viability of developing other fields, we're not allowed to find out about the clyde basin as test drilling is banned by the MOD to allow trident subs secret passage uninterupted runs into the Atlantic..those same subs universally unwanted by Scottish folk.
And west of shetland...why would Shell/BP etc want licences if it wasn't viable?

And if OPEC aren't alone, give me links if you can please

 

[Foxholer]

Report in Daily Telegraph Business approx 3-4 weeks ago. Was not particularly positive towards oil production/demand in general and specific in their pessimism for North Sea.

I have respect for many of the views you have expressed in this debate but here you appear to have fallen into the same trap as many in the YES camp i.e. selective quotation and reference only to those statements that support your argument.


OPEC are not alone, I believe, in their concerns.

So you are happy to believe the DT's (selective) reporting of an Opec Report. Yet you criticise others for their 'selective quotations'!

As a neutral, I see that as somewhat hypocritical!

But that last comment ('not alone, I believe') is a doozy!

As for the actual argument. Shouldn't it be about Reserves rather than Production. North Sea is maturing - only having 40 years or so of life. So the thrust of any debate/argument should be 'what happens after that?'. Norway's approach seems to have been reasonably effective! So if Scotland plans to use it for Scottish people, surely that's a better use of it, for them, than simply having Westminster use it to for general funding! Pretty selfish on both sides - and plenty emotive! Easy to see how the Nationalist cause has become more popular - maybe in line with how aware Scots are that 'their' wealth is being syphoned/pumped off elsewhere!

And that doesn't consider known/estimated reserves in other areas of Scottish territory.

And west of shetland...why would Shell/BP etc want licences if it wasn't viable?

That's a bit niave though!

 

[MegaSteve]

I like many back then when the oil started flowing will be able to remember the exhortations on UK government to do what Norway did and create an oil fund rather than spend it. And so we just spent it.

I can remember it also being said, to justify the huge sums of UK taxpayers money being spent on North Sea exploration, that in return free gas would be on offer to UK households... Well, I am still waiting...

 

[Deleted member 18588]

So you are happy to believe the DT's (selective) reporting of an Opec Report. Yet you criticise others for their 'selective quotations'!

As a neutral, I see that as somewhat hypocritical!

But that last comment ('not alone, I believe') is a doozy!

Firstly I did not quote the OPEC report as "gospel", I merely stated that there are concerns about the viability of the remaining North Sea stocks.

Secondly you attempt to validate your position by stating that you are a neutral within this debate but assume I am not. I would contend that all of us living outside Scotland are essentially neutral as we are not being consulted and can only, therefore, be interested bystanders.

Thirdly your quote that reference to OPEC not being alone in their concerns is a "doozy" is, itself, quite baffling.

Finally it is worth noting that the Clyde Basin reserves are both unknown in their quantity and whereabouts. They could, in fact, fall within Northern Ireland's notional territorial waters.

And in reply to adi's question about other links might I suggest a simple Google search :- "declining oil reserves in the North Sea

 

[MegaSteve]

Were his lips moving?

Same for business leaders... Back when the UK [foolishly] dabbled with the thought of joining the Eurozone many leading business leaders said that if we didn't join they would have to rethink their position in the UK... Guess what... They are all still here operating as before and most probably happy they weren't listened to...

 

[FairwayDodger]

Same for business leaders... Back when the UK [foolishly] dabbled with the thought of joining the Eurozone many leading business leaders said that if we didn't join they would have to rethink their position in the UK... Guess what... They are all still here operating as before and most probably happy they weren't listened to...

Of course. CEOs of large companies are effectively just politicians anyway.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

There is a world of difference between googling 'declining north sea oil reserves' and viability of future North Sea oil reserves.Of course they're declining, they're a finite resource, but its still worth trillions.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

There is a world of difference between googling 'declining north sea oil reserves' and viability of future North Sea oil reserves.Of course they're declining, they're a finite resource, but its still worth trillions.

My point is that neither Holyrood nor Westminster seems to have a solution to the medium term issue whereby reserves are not only diminishing but the financial viability of drawing some of those remaining stocks is also questionable.


I think we are agreed that the resource has, until know, been mismanaged. Where we may differ is over the possibility of the remaining resource generating sufficient long term tax revenues to support Mr Salmond's seemingly ambitious spending plans.


Free long term care for the elderly etc; is not (or should not be) a short term commitment.

 

[Foxholer]

So you are happy to believe the DT's (selective) reporting of an Opec Report. Yet you criticise others for their 'selective quotations'!

As a neutral, I see that as somewhat hypocritical!

But that last comment ('not alone, I believe') is a doozy!

Firstly I did not quote the OPEC report as "gospel", I merely stated that there are concerns about the viability of the remaining North Sea stocks.
.......
And in reply to adi's question about other links might I suggest a simple Google search :- "declining oil reserves in the North Sea

I don't believe there is any doubt that NSOG stock is declining.

And you actually pointed not to the Opec report, but the DT's report on it - which involved selective use of it to make a different story imo.

Secondly you attempt to validate your position by stating that you are a neutral within this debate but assume I am not.

Codswollap! Where is that assumption - except as one of your own!

It was exactly that 'hypocrisy' (or illogicality?) that I was pointing out.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I don't believe there is any doubt that NSOG stock is declining.

And you actually pointed not to the Opec report, but the DT's report on it - which involved selective use of it to make a different story imo.


Codswollap! Where is that assumption - except as one of your own!

It was exactly that 'hypocrisy' (or illogicality?) that I was pointing out.

I quoted both sources i.e. Daily Telegraph & OPEC.

If you were not making an assumption over my nposition why did you feel it necessary to state your own.

"doozy" remains outstanding unless you have followed my advice re: Google.

 

[Foxholer]

I quoted both sources i.e. Daily Telegraph & OPEC.

Only after asked to!

If you were not making an assumption over my nposition why did you feel it necessary to state your own.

In an attempt to ensure nobody made an assumption about my preference! Obviously didn't work - for you!

"doozy" remains outstanding unless you have followed my advice re: Google.

I had already read both those articles - and others! It's the classic throwaway 'everyone knows that ....'!

As for your statement 'I would contend that all of us living outside Scotland are essentially neutral as we are not being consulted and can only, therefore, be interested bystanders.' I think that's simply as wrong as it's possible to be!

Everybody in the UK has a vested interest because Scotland is part of the UK. Whether they get a say in what happens in this particular referendum is beside the point! There is (was) definitely an argument for everybody in UK having a vote in this referendum, but that isn't what will happen. And the fact that many in the rUK are campaigning against the 'Yes' certainly disproves you point.

Neutral - No; Neutralised - Maybe!

Now. Back to the actual debate. I wouldn't want either of us to be accused of being 'argumentative'!:rofl:

 

[CMAC]

I note quite a few other companies and organisations are also 'looking at' the possibility of moving if its a yes vote.

A point to note, rather than argue the semantics, is that any large company with shareholders has a legally binding duty to assess and report on all potential risks and threats it can 'see' in the coming year. So in publishing these comments they are only showing a duty of care and a professional responsible attitude to their shareholders with a possible solution should the 'risk' materialise, in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Only after asked to!


In an attempt to ensure nobody made an assumption about my preference! Obviously didn't work - for you!



I had already read both those articles - and others! It's the classic throwaway 'everyone knows that ....'!

As for your statement 'I would contend that all of us living outside Scotland are essentially neutral as we are not being consulted and can only, therefore, be interested bystanders.' I think that's simply as wrong as it's possible to be!

Everybody in the UK has a vested interest because Scotland is part of the UK. Whether they get a say in what happens in this particular referendum is beside the point! There is (was) definitely an argument for everybody in UK having a vote in this referendum, but that isn't what will happen. And the fact that many in the rUK are campaigning against the 'Yes' certainly disproves you point.

Neutral - No; Neutralised - Maybe!

Now. Back to the actual debate. I wouldn't want either of us to be accused of being 'argumentative'!:rofl:

Question of semantics; neutral or neutralised.

Without a say it is difficult regard an interest as vested as one has no influence over it.

Whether or not it is right that we lack of a voice in the argument is a whole new debate. (could be another 37 pages & nearly 1100 posts!!)

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Out of interest, are there any non Scottish resident posters who have had their opinions widened by the Scottish debate.

On the first couple of pages we had a few, good riddance, close the door type of posts. Most posts now seem to be either asking us to stay or putting strong arguments against a yes vote.

 

[Val]

I note quite a few other companies and organisations are also 'looking at' the possibility of moving if its a yes vote.

A point to note, rather than argue the semantics, is that any large company with shareholders has a legally binding duty to assess and report on all potential risks and threats it can 'see' in the coming year. So in publishing these comments they are only showing a duty of care and a professional responsible attitude to their shareholders with a possible solution should the 'risk' materialise, in my opinion.

And plenty are still to show their hand.

The biggest issue is for businesses are far as I see it is the uncertainty over currency, that is a major stumbling block to over come. Danny Alexander has re-iterated that there is no prospect of a currency union and it is not a bluff, that leaves a lot of Scottish companies who cross border trade into other parts of the UK with a major headache.

 

[MegaSteve]

Out of interest, are there any non Scottish resident posters who have had their opinions widened by the Scottish debate.

On the first couple of pages we had a few, good riddance, close the door type of posts. Most posts now seem to be either asking us to stay or putting strong arguments against a yes vote.

A concern now is if its a yes vote call me Dave will find a way of wriggling out of his promised referendum on Europe...

Bottom line is [for me] we are better together but if you choose otherwise then I wish you well... Still concerned this is a bit of a gun against head manoeuvre to get devomax rather than independence... Whatever the final outcome its going to be a 'difficult' few years, post vote, benefitting the political classes...

 

[Foxholer]

And plenty are still to show their hand.

The biggest issue is for businesses are far as I see it is the uncertainty over currency, that is a major stumbling block to over come. Danny Alexander has re-iterated that there is no prospect of a currency union and it is not a bluff, that leaves a lot of Scottish companies who cross border trade into other parts of the UK with a major headache.

Not so much 'show their hand' as 'have their AGM'!

There would be nothing to stop Scotland from using the Pound as its currency though. Just has a different set of risks to Currency Union!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

A concern now is if its a yes vote call me Dave will find a way of wriggling out of his promised referendum on Europe...

Bottom line is [for me] we are better together but if you choose otherwise then I wish you well... Still concerned this is a bit of a gun against head manoeuvre to get devomax rather than independence... Whatever the final outcome its going to be a 'difficult' few years, post vote, benefitting the political classes...

Many in Scotland, including me, would support Devo Max but we do not have the choice. The no campaign have been totally silent on this matter.
So we are left with whatever Westminster will impose on us. Even though our voting patterns means that we are not represented.

Given the choice many will choose freedom.