2141 replies to this topic

[LY_Scott]

Well let's see what comes out over the next few days Ross like I said. I'm not jumping the gun on this.

[Rosssco]

All I'll say (could be wrong) is that it's potentially quite relevant for its local area coverage by the P&J, but it is not evidence that the NS is in for a bounty tax take despite its slightly sensationalist headline (norm for the P&J - broadsheet it is not..)

[LY_Scott]

But I could argue you're just not going to see this in the daily record or the Scotsman. They just don't do stories that could benefit the yes camp. The story was brought along with the line more to come so I'll read that when it does. I expect if anything in it the Sunday Herald will make a meal of it in a couple of days.

[Rosssco]

But I could argue you're just not going to see this in the daily record or the Scotsman. They just don't do stories that could benefit the yes camp.  

 

 

But why do you think this will benefit the Yes camp? You possibly won't see it in national newspaper as its not really national news. Its news for those living / working in Aberdeen, especially on the back of recent announcements by Shell that they are cutting 250 posts, and last month that one of the other major operators are cutting a similar amount.

 

And what do you think this means overall to the viablity of the NS oil in relation to a potential future Scotlands finances?

 

I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative, but I'm not sure this is a big news story for nationalistas..

[LY_Scott]

Ross. Fk knows. Let's see how it develops. The shell jobs were onshore as I understand btw

[Rosssco]

Furry muff..

 

Yes, the Shell jobs are onshore posts. Natural shift from major operators to minor operators + oil services companies. Still building and investing in offices and onshore support here, just that alot of it is not only focused on NS oil any more.

[LY_Scott]

http://www.energyvoi...-oil-forecasts/

[LY_Scott]

http://www.thesunday...dard-2014_08_17

[Rosssco]

So, the first article suggests OBR revenue predictions are wrong, SNP predictions are more right, but it could be anywhere really? The commentary notes at the end arn't exactly un-biased either...

 

Can't read the second link fully. As above really.

 

So what's the summary of all this? The OBR are wrong and deliberately providing mis-leading figures, maybe. NS O&G will provide a potential bounty to Scotland for generations to come, maybe? Or that we shouldn't base our economic future on the promise of a highly variable, depletable resource?

 

The problem is that there are so many "could's" in all of it. The reality is is that there will be years (most likely) when Scotland would enjoy high tax revenues, and others where it will be much lower, as inevitably the NS is a mature field that primarily being supported by the high oil price. So supposedly we were bought (and sold) for English gold, but now we're bought and sold for the promise of more black gold..?

[LY_Scott]

Its just one of many reasons Ross.

[Rosssco]

And it seems the "a-political economic think-tank" that is N-56 just happens to be headed by Dan MacDonald - "N-56 was founded by Dan Macdonald, who is a member of the advisory board for Yes Scotland, which is campaigning for independence." 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-28827295

 

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one..

[LY_Scott]

This substantial new report from a leading business organisation blows another huge hole in the credibility of the OBR's oil forecasts, especially as it comes just days after esteemed Scottish economist, Prof Sir Donald Mackay, said the OBR's calculations were 'precisely wrong' and 'hopelessly at sea'.

[Rosssco]

Ah, another "leading business organisation".. Nothing new here TBH.

 

Nationalists say "oil worth loads, we're minted". UK gov says "oil's going to run out, you're not minted"..

 

Edited by Rosssco, 18 August 2014 - 10:31 AM.

[LY_Scott]

Professor Sir Donald MacKay Sir Donald was a founding Director of a number of companies, including a bank, financial services company and an oil operating company. He has served as a Non-Executive Director with a number of private companies including Grampian Holdings and the Malcolm Group. He was Chairman of Scottish Enterprise and a Board member of a number of public companies (South of Scotland Electricity Board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority). As an economic consultant, he advised the Scotch Whisky Association for a period of 20 years from 1981. He was also an Economic Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland for over 25 years. He is presently Chairman of the Scottish Mortgage Trust and a Director of Edinburgh Income and Value Trust.

[Rosssco]

Yes, I have Google too

 

So well-informed oil-economist says OBR predictions "pessimistic". Good, and I hope they are pessimistic as people should not make the assumption that we will have some form of bonanza when (assuming negotiations go our way) we get the tax income from these oil fields. Both sides can spin it either way as nobody really knows, hence its a risk. 

 

Its a bit like the optimistic set-up costs argument really, where everyone gives that funny "are ye taking the pish" look when the SNP quote £200 million as set-up costs..

 

So lets choose the most optimistic set of figures and go with them. We'll call it 'Plan A'

[LY_Scott]

Let's face it Ross. You'd still vote No regardless

[Rosssco]

Let's face it Ross. You'd still vote No regardless

 

And you'd still vote Yes regardless

 

If I genuinely thought that Scotland could do very well from oil and gas, that the tax revenue from it would be used wisely and not spent on short-term SNP manifesto promises (every political party, Scotland or UK will use oil money to support their own political agenda), there wasn't the highly variable nature associated with it and the different fiscal issues we would have becoming a "petro-economy", we weren't going to continue milk it for tax as per the UK, and we weren't going to take on a large amount of liability as far as decommissioning support, regulation, support of lost oil jobs and industry in years to come..

 

.. then it would make me think more..

[G-Bob]

 the SNP quote £200 million as set-up costs..

 

 

If they said 200 billion I might be more inclined to agree.

[Mangham54]

 

 the SNP quote £200 million as set-up costs..

 

 

If they said 200 billion I might be more inclined to agree.

 

 

£200 million only???... How much did it cost to just erect Holyrood, wasn't it about twice that?

 

Chuffin' ell I am sure the rebranding of departments will cost more than that, let alone any pension negotiations for those employed by the state. There must be a hope that pension providers will just re-write their policy documents to match. With an admin fee of a mere £2/head (which itself would be a hell of a negotiation, as my pension provider charges a £23 admin fee)  that would cost in excess of £1m, based on the approx 545,000 public sector workers in Scotland.

 

Next there is the need to replace all your school books that have references to the United Kingdom and Scotland's involvement, anything with references to the £, especially if Downing Street point blank says no.

 

However... This is just another anti-Scottish Vote Yes opinion and clearly not backed up with facts, verified by Heir-Salmond.

 

Edited by Mangham54, 18 August 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[Mangham54]

Feck it all... Just roll back and use the pre-decimalised pound, all the resources will be stored somewhere along with hundreds of thousands of text-books.

 

Even Michael Gove with his (previously) backwards education policies would support that move.