Here we go again
From the outset, Wendy Alexander has had a fairly persistent kicking in this blog. With reason.
It is right, therefore, to record that she performed well today at the weekly session of questions to the first minister.
Did she utterly discomfit the FM? Did she leave him a pitiful wreck, pleading for mercy? Scarcely. He was as bold and confident as ever.
However, she stuck to a single topic - cutting class sizes - and pursued it with restrained vigour.
Mr Salmond's government wants to see a maximum of 18 pupils in early years classes. What will that cost? When will it happen?
Labour MSPs jeered loudly at answers which they felt were somewhat opaque. Nationalists applauded the FM's sundry statements of general principles.
Old trick
As an aside, did I detect the deployment of an old debating trick by Ms Alexander?
Invited to speak, she rose slowly and portentously. Having spoken, she resumed her seat with seeming reluctance, glaring at her opponent all the while.
A wheeze designed, as I recall, to attract attention and give the impression that one's remarks carry particular weight by contrast with those flibbertigibbets who jump to their feet, desperate to be heard.
Anyway, she was on better form today - and drew companionable noises from her back benches as a consequence.
As to the others, Nicol Stephen pursued Mr Salmond with dexterity over the topic of how to pay for the planned new Forth crossing.
Annabel Goldie sounded consensual over action against drugs (see earlier blog) - and received consensual words in response.
'National outrage'
Towards the end of FMQs, Mr Salmond was invited to comment upon oil prices.
He took the chance to denounce what he saw as the "national outrage" that oil-producing Scotland is hit by the cost of fuel - without reaping the benefits of enhanced revenues.
I think I heard a Labour voice mutter: "Here we go again!" Indeed. I suspect Mr Salmond will take every opportunity to raise this point.
I suspect further that Scotland might be inclined to give him, at the very least, a hearing.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Brian
The purpose of FMQT must be to wrong foot the first minister with the questions asked.
As per usual Wen D asked all her questions on the same topic. Does no one in Labour have the brains to come up with more than one question?
When she repeats the same question four times, with minuscule changes she just sounds stupid. Also her first question was about the class sizes funding. The fourth question was that the pledge on class sizes had not been costed. One question contradicted the other.
To be fair she was much better in a limited way today, only a fender bender rather than the usual car crash.
Well might Labour say here we go again. Scotland is the only country every to have oil and get poorer, thanks to the union benefit.
Complain about this comment
Wendy Alexander isn't worth comment, how that woman has the nerve to question anyone about anything is beyond me given her highly questionable track record.
Complain about this comment
The oil issue surely shows a fault line in the SNP's green credentials - on the one hand a pledge (a very noble but challenging one at that) to have a strong renewable energy mix in the future; on the other hand a nationalist sentiment based on extracting (and obtaining full value for) a fossil fuel from the ground to be burnt and further add to global warming. The truly green thing to do would be to leave the stuff in the ground - but that aint ever going to happen when profit and political gain are to be made.
The other irony is that sustained high fuel prices make nuclear more commercially attractive. Personally, I dont understand the Parliament's dogged refusal to even consider nuclear in the future. If we are to be weaned off fossil fuels, we need more than wind power to help us, there's no escaping the fact we need a base load of generating capacity. Wind will never provide this (particularly if they keep refusing permission for wind farms), tidal may help (but is unproven on any large scale). So, what's it going to be?
Complain about this comment
Wendy is apalling, but what is Alex on about 'national outrage'?
I assume his argument is that an oil exporter that petrol should be cheap... so he has two options. Either he subsidizes petrol and diesel even more at tremendous expense (it is exactly this policy which causes many problems in the developing world) or he cuts taxes, which send entirely the wrong message about the environmental crisis we are facing.
I welcome high fuel prices. I understand they are tough, but we need to use less fuel simple as that.
Oh and for the record fuel prices are not necessarily the highest in the UK. (UK 96p/l, Netherlands 100.3p/l, Belgium 95p/l).
Also note the great oil exporter Norway has a fuel price of 94.8p/l. Even in countries with seemingly cheaper fuel, like Poland (79p /l), given the disparity in earning this actually represents a much higher burden on consumers. (PPP GDP per capita in Poland is $16,200, less than half of Scotland's).
Complain about this comment
Alex Salmond is on a hiding to nothing if he thinks we are going to get all the oil revenue.
If Scotland ever became independant (God help us), and he tried to get all the oil revenue, guaranteed the UK (English?) Government would fight in the courts arguing that it was mainly English taxpayers who paid for the original search and development.
He seems obsessed with the opil revenue, sicne he knows there is nowhere else he can obtain the levels of funding that is required.
About time he came clean with some truths before Scotland is permanently damaged economically.
Complain about this comment
Brian, every week you seem to say how well Bendy Wendy did and every week she fails to inspire.
On the fuel front we will have fuel at 150 dollers a barrel by the ned of the year and then it will hit 200 dollers a barrel and then keep going.
If were paying less than £2 a litre for diesel by December next year I will be very surprised
Complain about this comment
alasdair I would lvoe to know where you get petrol. If you can get petrol (far less diesel) for 96 pence per litre then I''ll be round in a minute! I think I, in Glasgow, can get some of the cheapest petrol in Scotland at £1.129 per litre. Where are you getting it for 96 pence?
You are however correct in that it is hard to compare petrol prices without also comparing GDP. If that's the case though why did you omit the USA which probably comes closest in terms of GDP.
Complain about this comment
alasdair01,
I think the argument is more along the lines that Scotland is suffering some of the highest fuel prices in the world whilst not reaping the benefits of her natural resources in the form of oil revenues.
I agree that fuel prices should be high, we actually are less dependent on oil than some other countries, notably the USA for that reason, and subsequently will hopefully feel the pinch less than them as oil prices rise. However, I feel that we have now got to the point where the continued high taxation on petroleum products is becoming counter productive and is starting to make us uncompetitive and harming the economy. No need to subsidise petrol though, just reduce the taxation level a bit.
Also, where are you getting fuel at 96p/l? It most certainly isn't round my way! I think it was 116p/l when I filled up with unleaded last night.
Complain about this comment
96p/l is the average for the whole of the UK (apparently). It is also more expensive in London where I am at the minute....
I checked a website where it listed all the average prices...
Complain about this comment
A few wee signs of raggedness about Mr Salmond, perhaps? Class size reduction will cost a bomb (non-nuclear, of course), tax plans face massive legal challenges, the bill for prescriptions and other populist measures designed to unsettle the English voters, has yet to land on Scottish taxpayers laps.
Of course, the smirk never wavers. But he must be concerned that for all the much-vaunted "competence" of his minority government, support within Scotland for separation remains at rock bottom.
Brian gives Wendy some credit for "getting better." But there are a few contributors here who could rattle Salmond's bars endlessly, without ever repeating themselves.
Interesting bit from Alasdairc01 about the price of fuel in Utopian Norway.
Complain about this comment
Hi sorry. It turns out I copied an old list.. for those interested the prices as of a few weeks ago were...(sorry)
UK €1.388 / l
NOR €1.588/l
POl €1.173/l
NTHl €1.535/l
BEL €1.440 /l
I hope the point still stands....
Complain about this comment
Wendy talking about class sizes after the mess the old Scottish Executive made of Edukation, er educagion, um edumication....... with more 16 year olds leaving education in Scotland functionally illiterate and innumerate than ever before.
What about Robin Dinwoodie's wee taste of the press release from Labour in Scotland on the SNP's Wobbly Wendy (or was that Wednesday) in the Herald? According to Wendy; 7 COSLA members wanted ring fencing back and that COSLA had calculated a £400 million shortfall in their budget over the next 4 years. It seems when Robin checked with COSLA they had said nothing of the sort, disagreed completely with the press release and said the £400 million was a Professor Bleak Midwinter fairy story.
Both barrels in the foot again by Wendy.
As for Eck's rant about oil, he is only stating the bleeding obvious asking where is the Union benefit for Scotland from this natural resource. One clearly is not the cost of petrol and diesel in remote and rural areas.
Complain about this comment
"Here we go again" from the Labour benches. What a damm cheek!!!
Thank goodness we have Alex Salmond as FM, he is quite right to express the outrage of many Scots at the rising costs of fuel.
Complain about this comment
#5 - research and development costs in the North Sea were funded by the oil companies, not the UK government, so they do not have a case. Even now Brown seems determined to ramp up the rape and pillage of Scottish resources by greatly increasing production from the oil fields, to get as much as he can for the "British" treasury before the door of independence slams shut in his face.
Complain about this comment
Usual Brian.
It's Shetland's oil.
The sooner that the people of Shetland wise up to the fact that Mr Salmond is trying to steal it from them the better.
N.B. what would Alex be saying if the oil was off Cornwall? I bet it would be "give us our share!!!"
Complain about this comment
akginty,
You're wrong.
It's not Shetland's oil, it's Unst's oil. I know how independent minded the folks of Unst are, and they won't have the crones of SIC in Lerwick commandeer their resources.
However, if it is anyone's oil, it is Aberdeen's, or at least the North East Highlands (given the geographical distribution of oil fields in the North Sea). I'd rather any of these areas saw some benefit from the revenues, than HM Treasury in London.
Salmond is right, it is a national outrage that Scotland doesn't benefit from it's own oil resources but subsidises the rest of the UK to the tune of between £4bn and £6bn per year according to the latest independent study of Scotland's revenues and spending by Grant Thornton accountants.
Complain about this comment
#15 akinty
From the paltry share of the oil revenues invested in Scotland since the discovery of North Sea oil, it might as well be off the shores of Cornwall!
Actually, Shetland has done a great deal better out of oil than has Scotland, by taking shrewd advantage of its location to ensure local investment by the industry from the outset.
Scotland has never been accorded any 'dividend' from the oil revenues, and Aberdeen has not one prestigious building to reflect its status as Europe's Oil Capital.
Indeed, the current local government funding crisis, brought about by the spending of the preceding administration, and the cost of refubishing a listed building to house the city council, speaks volumes!
Complain about this comment
I just don’t get Unionists, of any party…..
Do they not see how Scotland is getting completely stripped of resources? I wonder how many schools this month’s oil revenue windfall could build? Goldies drug points were very valid. But I just don’t see how Wendy and Nicol can’t see, as they moan about lack of cash in Scotland, the great irony in their positions. It is their own parties that have misused Scotland’s resources to a staggering degree and still want to sit on their hands as vast quantities of money are shipped to London never to return.
Salmonds rant about the ridiculous state of Scotland being one of the biggest oil producers in Europe, yet so impoverished, is entirely true. How any sensible thinking scot can hear that and not have serious questions about Scotland’s constitutional position is beyond me.
Complain about this comment
#5 neil_small147
gurugordon has already dispensed with your point about UK (English) taxpayers funding the infrastructure and set-up costs of North Sea exploration and production. Just to reinforce it though, it was the multinational corporations who paid for the infrastructure as part of their investment in the North Sea, with no public funding from Her Majesty's Exchequer. Bear in mind too, that the United Kingdom Economy was dilly-dallying with bankruptcy back in the late 1960s and 1970s. The IMF were called in, I believe by Denis Healey in 1976 to give the United Kingdom a loan to mitigate its parlous and self-inflicted economic state.
As for the rest of your post, I think I follow it very, very clearly. I don't agree with it at all - I don't think an independent Scotland would require this mountain of funding that it currently does not have that you refer to.
But I want to explore this Unionist logic further. It is evident in your post, it is evident in the economic utterings of the Scottish Labour Party and others. It is evident in the Scottish media, and in some sections of the business community.
It implies simply that Scotland is an unsustainable entity. It has an unbalanced economy dependent upon external aid to sustain its public sector. It means that if Scotland were to go independent it would have a huge economic deficit and all the problems that that would bring on. Perhaps, in this case Unionists could explain to those of us in Scotland who want independence, how the Union is of a benefit to Scotland?
In Unionist logic, "unsustainable" Scotland has been bankrupted by the Union, or there has been gross economic mismanagement of our finances and resources on a scale not seen in the developed world. It would imply to me, as a Scottish nationalist. That Scotland has been "impoverished" by the Union, or simply cannot afford to be in the Union. In such a case, it completely undermines the economic case for political union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Scottish Unionists should also explain to English taxpayers why they think that England should continue to subsidise this economic basket case? If Scotland has such a huge deficit - then it is being filled by others. Do Scottish Unionists believe it is fair to "rob", "beg" or "steal from" English taxpayers of their own resources?
As a caveat, I do not believe the above situation is true of Scotland's economic state, but most people in Scotland who support the Union do. And I don't understand why. It completely destroys the case for Union on the Scottish front AND on the English front.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps someone can help me out with confirming or correcting the following. All the comments about it being Shetland's oil or for that case Unst' oil are very confussing to me. As I remember when gas was found of Lincolnshire it was decided by to European countries to divide up the German Sea (North Sea to you and me) into territorial water. When divide up Shetland and Unst weren't mentioned. The territorial waters were not even designated UK waters they were designated Scottish waters and English waters
Complain about this comment
#20 You are quite correct. The UK Government, not the EU or the UN have already delimited the boundaries of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) in the North Sea as "Scottish" or "English", by using international law and precedent. This is enshrined in legislation - the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968. This was done because of the existence of different legal systems in the UK. These precedents and international law put over 90% of the UK oil resource in the Scottish sector.
The vast majority of UK oil resources lie in the CENTRAL North Sea. If look at a map cast your eyes eastwards from anywhere from John O'Groats down to Aberdeen, even as far south as Fife. There are large numbers of oil fields in this area - and are delineated in the Scottish sector.
There are fields to the far north east of Shetland in a second sector of the North Sea, lying on the UK Continental Shelf (Scottish sector) with the boundary with the Norwegian Sector. They aren't delineated as Shetland or Unst, but are placed in the Scottish Jurisdiction area of the UK Continental Shelf.
Complain about this comment
Brian - How many more times are you going to insult our intelligence by trying to tell us that Wendy Alexander is "performing well" at FMQT - when our own eyes tell us it simply is not true?
Others are pointing out that you make this same attempt over and over again despite the obvious truth that - as one person above so accurately puts it - Wendy is "appalling".
If you go on trying to warp reality like this then what's left of your already tattered reputation as an "unbiased" political commentator will be completely and utterly destroyed.
Complain about this comment
Mr Salmond's claim of 'national outrage' in response to a question stage fed to him by another SNP member is disturbing.
It is the worse example yet of the SNP trying to stir up anti-British prejudice.
The oil crises is the result of a weak US dollar, soaring demand from India and China, and instability in the Mid-East, not ownership of the North Sea's small reserves.
It is the oil companies that extract and set the price of oil, not the government. And while London collects the tax revenue, it also invests more in the Scottish economy than the sum of those revenues. Two recent orders at Scottish shipyards for Royal Navy ships worth more than 10 billion pounds is a case in point, among many others.
The SNP regularly berates the British government when a defense facility in Scotland closes, but Scottish independence would close them all. British defense contracts are the largest employer in Scotland and worth far more than the North Sea's dwindling reserves.
The SNP offers both scapegoats and simple sounding answers to the oil crisis, but it is a global crisis and there are neither.
Complain about this comment
Norway has not squanderd its natural resourses unlike the UK has done with the oil reserves of Scotland. Norway has put money away for a rainy day rather than wasting its wealth trying to be a world power .All this nonsense about oil exploration being un green is a red herring how many products are by made up with oil ? the key boards that are used by folk to contribute on this blog ,tvs,shampoo,the mobile phone that im using to post on this blog medical implants etc etc oil is used for more than making petrol. As for Wendy Alexander come on Brian who are you trying to kid ?
Complain about this comment
ALASDAIRC01
I'm glad you're happy about high oil prices but I don't belive you have thought it through - consider the following:
I own a small business providing a highly specialised Health Care service to elderly people in their own homes - anywhere between Gretna to Buckie.
A tank of petrol (35 litres in my case) has risen from under £30 not that long ago to £41 today £1.17 at BP) - that's over a third dearer.
What am I supposed to do to recoup this?
My only option is to increase my charges to these elderly people.
Perhaps an elderly relative of yours will use the services of myself or one of my collegues over the next few weeks/months/years.
If so, I hope you are equally happy that he or she will have to pay substantially more to offset these ourtrageous fuel costs, while you sit with what I imagine is a smug self-satisfied expression on your face.
Welcome to the REAL world Alasdair!
Complain about this comment
Oh yes it IS a national outrage not only in Scotland but across the UK. This Labour government could reduce the fuel duty tax (interesting to note we also pay VAT on the duty, a tax on a tax, what ever next) and reduce the widespread pain being inflicted by this sudden surge in fuel price. While fuel prices are out of the UK governments control, the fuel duty tax is NOT outwith Brown's control and could be used as a means to stabilise prices.
'Economic stability will always be our starting point' a quote from the Labour Party website. Well Gordon the only people you are fooling with that statement is yourself and your party lackies, those of us who live in the real world aren't in the least bit impressed with your 'mission statements'.
Yes we do have to reduce our carbon emissions, yes we do have to reduce our dependency on oil, yes we will have to pay more for oil in the future, but going cold turkey on oil isn't a realistic or economically stable way to go about it.
Complain about this comment
VforVictory
Perhaps you can show us where "while London collects the tax revenue it invests more in the Scottish economy"
In reality we supply the money and get our pocket money back. Every proper analysis including a very detailed one carried out by Oxford University shows this.
On the Royal Navy ships, these have been announced at least three times, but contracts have still not been signed on them yet. No one knows what work will be done in Scotland, apart from the final assembly, which Rosyth has the only facilities in the UK which can handle the work.
Do not worry though after the referendum vote, you can keep your investment in the Scottish economy, and we will keep all our (90% of the UK total) oil money.
Fair enough?
Complain about this comment
VforVictory:
"And while London collects the tax revenue, it also invests more in the Scottish economy than the sum of those revenues."
Trust me. I live in Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe.
The United Kingdom is keen to tell Scotland the Oil is running out.
But there is no investment seen to prepare for the future.
"The SNP regularly berates the British government when a defense facility in Scotland closes, but Scottish independence would close them all."
The SNP have actually already made clear that they plan to ensure that all the Military Barracks etc etc will remain open actually. Show your evidence to back your claim.
"British defense contracts are the largest employer in Scotland."
The Oil Industry actually is unless you have evidence to back up your claim.
Complain about this comment
As an outside observer, not in the UK, I think it is ridiculous that one sector feels that it is entitled to more of one commodity than another simply because it is on one side of the fence or another.
Here in the US, we pay just as much for gas, are a major oil producer, import energy from other countries, and get the total shaft when it comes to prices.
In fact, in the area I live, I am paying a UK owned energy company for my electric and gas!!! Which proceeds partly go to Scotland!!! So, I'm actually paying into your economy, and wasn't there a war 200 years ago about that?! And yet...
This is exactly what will happen if Scotland leaves the UK. The controlling company will still own the fields, the equipment, etc. It won't magically become Scottish property.
Unless Scotland intends to create local, off grid, at cost and environmentally friendly energy sources, it might as well put up and shut up just like the rest of the world.
There's no sense in being outraged.
Even if Scotland managed to get its hands on some of the oil fields after independence... then what would Scotland do? The oil will dry up in 15-30 years anyway and Scotland would be back to buying again from others. And in the mean time the Scottish run companies will charge their Scottish consumers just as much and sell whats left to the highest bidders.
The oil is running out! It's running out everywhere!
Stop using every event in the media to convince the public that there must be an independent Scotland!
I'm not happy about New York City destroying my back yard and taking natural resources from it for their own use, but an independent Upstate New York is just as economically viable as an independent Scotland's. IT ISN'T! And you should know, an independent Upstate New York is will be taken just as seriously, by the rest of the world, as an independent Scotland. IT WON'T!
Complain about this comment
The story of the day wasn't Wendy getting through FMQ's without making a complete fool of herself.
The story of the day was this -:
"I think the mood actually is becoming one of fury in Scotland that we and we alone among the oil-producers of the world, producing 10 times our consumption of hydrocarbons at the present moment, should be faced with an extraordinary position that while every other oil producer, through sovereign funds and the build-up of huge sums of capital, has the resources available to power their economy into the future, what's left for the people of Scotland is paying sky-high prices at the pumps and the industries of Scotland facing escalating costs."
Complain about this comment
Just read this comment on MSNUK and couldn't stop laughing -
Title: Scottish Graduate Fare - Scottish Government - but not for the Scots
"My daughter and I have just left the 'Scottish Graduates Fare' at the SECC totally upset at our findings. We approached the SNP’s stand to discuss employment for graduates within the Scottish Government, but were told they couldn't help us because they were only there to encourage international students to work in Scotland.
We then asked where the stand is for the Scots, and were told 'there isn't one'.
I am disgusted to say this, but I voted for the SNP in the Scottish Elections. Never, ever will I vote for them again.
The SNP are an absolute disgrace, not only to those of us who voted for them, but to those who may consider doing so in the future"
Complain about this comment
moreperfectunion:
"This is exactly what will happen if Scotland leaves the UK. The controlling company will still own the fields, the equipment, etc. It won't magically become Scottish property."
Very true.
However, Scotland will be able to add the tax and duty just like the UK Government does.
"Unless Scotland intends to create local, off grid, at cost and environmentally friendly energy sources."
SNP has accepted enough plans to ensure 50% of Scotlands electricity is met through re-newables by 2010.
"...then what would Scotland do? The oil will dry up in 15-30 years anyway."
Underestimate.
And since you are an 'outsider' can I ask what right you have to have such a negative view on matters you do not fully understand when it does not involve you?
I could understand if you once lived in the UK but jeez America has their own problems that you should focus on.
;-)
Complain about this comment
Moreperfectunion: Exactly! It takes an outsider, with no possibility of being linked to unionism, Toryism, anti-Scotlandism, or any other -ism, to see right through these impostors and reach the truth.
Tell it like it is, Yank!
But you'll never convince the Little Scotlanders that there's a great big world out there... and it's laughing.
Complain about this comment
Ah well, I might as well post the link in this thread too.
Here's a link to a map of the UK oil and gas reserves and infrastructure, with the boundaries of the internationally recognised Scottish territorial waters overlaid (the thick black dotted line).
Note that the territorial waters actually extend beyond the boundaries of the map to the north and west. The dotted line is slightly misleading in that respect.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2533679803_6ce29e81be_b.jpg
Complain about this comment
John,
If 'MorePerfectUnion' is correct then I would like to hear his/her opinion on why the United Kingdom should continue as it is.
Complain about this comment
Wendy was pretty bad today, she usually is. Half the country is still wondering why she is there despite her past illegal activities. That is those who ignore the more academic point that she defends the union to the hilt politically ... but doesn't know that Jersey isn't in the union. (How could it be, prospering as it is?!)
Complain about this comment
At the end of the day, what is Scotland's is the UK's [excuse any misplaced apostrophes]. Likewise, I'd expect, if there was to be oil found anywhere in 'English/Welsh/Northern Irish seas', the profits to be shared through the British parliament's distribution of funds.
The main reason behind this build up by the SNP of the 'fury' that Scots 'hold' is all just used to fight against there being a united UK.
Utter nonsense. It's like saying Fife should keep all it's revenue from A and B, Midlothian should keep all it's revenue from Y and Z and not pool resources and distribute as required.
Complain about this comment
Who is 'moreperfectunion' ? does he have a crystal ball ? Is his argument based on FACT or like most of the rubbish in here, anti or pro unionism is his argument based on nothing more than fortune telling biased by his own personal view. Let's see some FACTS for a change and not RANTS, and that goes for both sides.
Complain about this comment
Indeed, if everyone else can repeat :0
Here we go again-
Going from the recent Oil stories, here's how I see it;
1) When the Oil strike at Grangemouth happened and 1/3 of Scotlands Oil production was stopped re Forties pipeline, our economy lost £50,000,000 per day, £25,000,000 per day going straight to Westminster!!!
2) To get a whole, multiply by three;
3 X £50,000,000 = £150,000,000 per Day x 365 = £54,750,000,000 per year to our economy.
3 X £25,000,000 = £75,000,000 per Day x 365 = £27,375,000,000 per year to Gordon Brown's UK Executive.
3) North Sea Oil is being extracted at a rate of approx 1 million barrels per day!
4) It is claimed that there are 25,000,000,000 barrels of Oil in the North Sea! (I thought it was 27,000,000,000 and more is found each day)
5) So 25,000,000,000/1,000,000 = 25000 Days = 68.5 Years to extract this amount of Oil at this rate.
6) These figures were mainly at the time of the Oil strike and Oil seems to be worth much more now. The UK Government is known for understating Scottish Oil reserves etc. Gordon Brown is planning, To Boost, To Extract our Oil, for the benefit of Westminster, faster than ever!
7) SCOTLAND AND BY CONSEQUENCE ALL SCOTS AND RESIDENTS OF SCOTLAND ARE BEING RIPPED OFF.... ROBBED!!!
There is only one Answer!!!
PS There are no doubts about to who this Oil in SCOTTISH TERRITORIAL WATERS belongs to; geography, lines in the sand etc. The bolder the better!
PPS Mr Brown said: "The issue for us is how we can maintain supply in the next few years, how we can use what are very substantial reserves still in the North Sea."
So whats the score with it "Running Out" Matey :)
Remember Gavin McCrone and his Secret Document 1974, who predicted of an independent Scotland;
"The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe"
I'm sure it was running out then too!
Complain about this comment
As one would expect, the leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament every week asks the First Minister for what she refers to as clarity on various matters of national interest and, as soon as she completes her question, which she is graciously permitted by the governing party representatives to ask in respectful silence, the Labour MSPs proceed to do all they can to prevent the FM from providing that clarity by attempting to shout him down throughout his response like the undemocratic and unparliamentary rabble that they are.
As Mr Salmond said to them today, amid the hubbub, which is a disgrace to the Scottish Parliament and disrespectful of the people of Scotland, "Labour should listen to the dominie (the Presiding Officer) and start behaving like parliamentarians."
The consistently unparliamentary behaviour of the Labour group, which is truly deplorable, appears to be calculated to produce interventions from the Presiding Officer that would disrupt the First Minister's statements if he did not follow the prudent practice of carrying on regardless, apart from chiding the Presiding Officer, as he made so bold as to do today, for interrupting him. This is a sorry state of affairs, which should be brought to an end. Mr Salmond is to be congratulated for rising above these disreputable unionist tactics and maintaining his mastery of the chamber, which appears effortless in comparison to Ms Alexander's laboured efforts.
As for Mr Salmond's reference to the gravely anomalous position that Scotland is in whereby it is susceptible to being seriously harmed by the steeply rising cost of fuel without being able to reap the benefits of enhanced revenues, I suspect that Mr Taylor may be right in suspecting that the people may be willing to give the FM a hearing on this subject when we see the industrial and infrastructure fabric of Scotland being damaged because we are deprived of the means to do something about it. The serious problems which the rapidly rising price of a barrel of crude oil is beginning to cause in Scotland have every chance of being bitterly resented here as the Scottish Government hammers home the message that the rising price of this commodity could and should be to our advantage.
If the UK government remains unwilling to concede that power over oil revenues can be devolved, as it is elsewhere in the world, then the choice before Scotland, as the SNP will, of course, quite properly lose no opportunity to explain, will be: stay in the UK and watch the industrial and infrastructure fabric of Scotland be destroyed or opt for independence and economic salvation.
The oil-price crisis is not only an economic one. It is a constitutional one too. The nearer the price of a barrel of crude oil gets to the 200-dollar mark the more serious both aspects of the crisis will become.
At a certain point, when it dawns on the population as a whole that what we are faced with is so serious as to require us to rethink our whole attitude to the constitutional future of Scotland, a UK general election and an independence referendum will be at hand to allow us to give expression to any change of attitude which may conceivably occur.
Complain about this comment
Nicol isn't exactly a dashing figure, but he's right to raise the question of the Forth Crossing. It's a quarter of the length of the bridge between Sweden and Denmark, yet it's going to cost at least twice as much.
A clue to the mindboggling cost can be found in John Swinney's 2007 statement about the new bridge, where he brags about it being 'the largest construction project in a generation in Scotland'.
As if that's a good thing! The smaller the project, the better and cheaper it is. Unless, of course, your aim is to employ people doing uneconomic busywork.
I expect there's also an element of nationalist sentimentality for manly he-man work. Bridge-building is no doubt a 'traditional industry' - though they've spent £100m on consultancy.
A tunnel would be cheaper, wind-proof, longer-lasting and require less maintenance. Switzerland built the longest rail tunnel in the world (34km) for less than this bridge (3km) is going to cost us.
Complain about this comment
As usual, Brian's blog comments on an event get hijacked by the rant of unionists - now flanked by overseas troops (please Yanks, mind your own mess, will ya?) always too keen to troll and make their point, forcing the other side to fight back.
Again and again, all of you, please wait until Scotland will (and it will!) be asked through a referendum to decide whether remain in the UK or become an independent nation, and then respectfully bow to the will of the majority.
Your arguments pro/against an independent Scotland are irrelevant now: they will eventually be relevant when a referendum is on the cards, and by then they could still be valid or not.
It's a waste of time, both parties are truly convinced to be right and nothing will change their mind.
Obviously I'm not here to stifle a serene discussion on politics or whatever else, but - sincerely - some arguments now taste a bit stale.
By the way, what kind of job some of the most active members in this blog do? Because, seen from here, the pro-union bunch looks like a coordinated team of bloggers paid to spread scaremongering, and the pro-independence lads seem a free-roam troop of young enthusiasts without a proper leader.
None of them with anything to do during working hours? ...apart from students, that is. :-)
Also, nicknames often speak for themselves: pro-unionist sport aliases that smell of Army from afar, and pro-independence show their individualism. What's in a name? A lot, I'd say!
Back to Brian's blog theme...
To me, Wendy is a placeholder, the next Labour leader in Scotland will be Mr. G. Brown once he's over with some things down south. Just bear with us, normal service will be resumed soon.
Furthermore, the FM once and again proves to be very well connected to Joe Public's train of thought. Follow me...
Scotland services used by oil industry workers (e.g. NHS, Education for their children and many more devolved matters) come out of Holyrood's budget, out of Scots taxpayers' pocket.
This is not counterbalanced by a share of the oil revenue made out by the Treasury with fuel duty and VAT on it.
Holyrood is paying the social and environmental cost of the oil industry - and is a hefty bill - without any benefit from hosting such a dangerous, expensive and risky business. Is this fair?
Last but not least,I'd love to be corrected, but I wonder if Aberdeen's current budget problems could simply relate to that...
Complain about this comment
Apart from the fact that the voters greatly appreciate the efforts of this SNP Government there are two more substantial reasons why Scotland will vote YES in the Independence Referendum.
The first is the continuing rise in the price of Oil. A rise not based on some 'fixable' short term problem a la 1970's but on the growing demand for Oil caused by the industrialisation of China and India.
This will not stop, it will increase the demands on a diminishing resource, this in turn will force the price ever upwards despite short term efforts to lower it.
Scotland can either sit back and watch the cash from its best natural resource flow to London in even greater amounts than before or it will say enough is enough, thank you but we will take it from here.
The second reason is beginning to unfold as we speak. It's the sorry state of a country which has consistently produced 10 times its own consumption of Oil based products for 30 years and still has 1 in 5 children in Glasgow living in poverty, more deprived areas throughout Scotland than you can shake a stick at and an infrastructure not fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Millions of words will be spoken and written between now and the referendum about the state of Scotland after Oil and Gas compared to Norway who discovered their Oil and Gas around the same time as we did.
And some of the most important of these words will concern the deliberate deceit of the Unionist parties to hide the truth about Scotland's wealth for 30 years.
The McCrone Report will be spoken of loud and often. By the time people vote they will have seen the SNP in action for 3 years and be conversant with facts which have been kept from them by Labour, Tory and Liberal politicians for 30 years. They won't like what they hear and they will vote accordingly.
VOTE YES
in the INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM 2010
Complain about this comment
Brian, come clean, is it just for the sake of this blog that you continually seem to act as apologist for Wendy Alexander.
As for this issue: if Scots can't see this basic Westminster-served injustice right in front of them and which affects them daily then one can only despair. I suspect otherwise though. I think these kinds of issues are cumulatively the straws that are breaking the Unionist back, for good.
Complain about this comment
InMyKip
Couldn't agree more. There are an awful lot of people on both sides of the debate who seem to think that a strongly held opinion, if repeated frequently enough, becomes fact. It does not. It remains an opinion. Likewise, resorting to petty name-calling when others disagree with you still doesn't make you right, it just makes you look stupid and negates whatever validity your aggument mave have initially had.
Granted, much of the debate is going to be speculation as we simply cannot know for certain what will happen should Scotland become independant so we have to rely, to an extent, on reasoned argument.
However, asserting that something is fact (take the whole EU membership debate in the thread Substantive Respect for example) just because someone has based their opinion on the opinion of someone else, even if that source is the EU President or whatever their title is, doesn't move the debate forward at all. All that it proves is that the person expressing that opinion has allowed themselves to be influenced by that opinion.
So, once again, can we raise the standard of debate to something that is meaningful and actually relevant rather than turning each thread into a string of poorly reasoned party political outbursts?
Complain about this comment
Performance is no substitute for substance; Whilst Wendy seems to have availed herself of a drama coach she seems always to fall short of the mark.
To maintain a good debating discipline within themed questions requires that the questioner listens to the answers and to formulate a questioning response in preference to resorting to the already scripted' stage managed questions, numbers two and three leaders of the opposition at both Westminster and Holyrood are guilty of such self serving acts, using their scripts to build up to their perceived wheezes of punch lines contained within their scripted material.
David Cameron as Prime Minister and Wendy Alexander as First Minister, perish the thought; clearly the former would fall into the category of a Whitehall Farce, the latter possibly another farce based around the West Coast Mafia, West Coast Mafia II, the Return.
Complain about this comment
The "it's our oil" arguement is pointless.
Who in their right mind would possibly base the majority of their plans for financing a country or even a business on a source of funds which they KNOW to be finite and reducing daily?
It WILL run out - sooner rather than later.
At present, the oil belongs to the companies that drill for it - not the UK, not Scotland, not Shetland!
Wee Eck's comments are typical - he must be raging - he cannot influence anything with a minority government, so concerntrates on soundbites.
Solution to high pump prices - simple - reduce the tax level at the pump back to that on which the last budget was based. Pump prices have risen 45% - by definition, therefore, £ income from pump sales have risen by the same. If the last UK was based on the lower price, hgher pump price means "extra" cash.
Of course, this depends on financial politicians knowing what they are doing!!
Complain about this comment
Scottish oil isn't running out. There's up to half left. I'll get a source when I have time. This could make Scotland one of the richest countries per head in the world and if Scotland invested in a Norwegian style oil fund the interest alone could finance Scotland for generations to come and beyond oil. This isn't fantasy. This is exactly what the Norwegians have done and is one of the reasons why they are rated by the UN as the best nation to live in the world. For all the good things about Scotland we're hardly in an enviable position relatively speaking.
Complain about this comment
Bodincus: #42: Sleep safe - we're not out to get you, even the overseas troops are a peacekeeping force. I achieved my "rank" by accident, having had a dozen user names rejected, I saw "brigadier" in a newspaper on my desk. My military bearing is entirely due to my time in the BB - 50 years ago!
Your speculation about people and motives is amusing, though. As someone who spent a working lifetime with texts and styles, I can say with almost total certainty that at least three SNP bloggers are the same person, and several others have the hallmarks of "group efforts." Ask any teacher about that.
As to the jobs of bloggers, I suspect many of the more rabid SNP types are like their party in Holyrood - never done a day's work in their lives. Certainly nothing involving literacy or financial competence.
Bodincus, take away the paranoia and you are right on one point: nobody on this blog is about to undergo a Damascene conversion on the strength of the arguments posed. But the SNP glee club is still a superb promotional tool for unionism.
Complain about this comment
bluelaw - "Oil is not running out - there's more than half left" - eh??
Is it finite? Can you add more? No, and no, so therefore it IS running out, and basing ANY plans on this reducing finance source is lunacy.
BTW - Norway is also one of the most expensive places in Europe to live.
Complain about this comment
“The ‘It’s our Oil Argument’ is pointless’”
Tell that to the sovereign and independent governments of Norway and UAE.
Why do unionists think that being in the United Kingdom will somehow make oil last forever? Oil will run out. Its what you do with the financial windfall that matters.
Norway’s oil benefit will last for at least a century, if not forever, after their oil has finally run dry. They have invested wisely for the people of Norway. Scotland, after 30 years, has still to receive any benefit and has only witnessed complete mismanagement of its resources and having Westminster tell us we are subsidised. The last 30 years of unionist management of Scotland’s resources is hardly an advert for them to handle the next 30.
Scotland, open your eyes!
Complain about this comment
Oil prices have a massive impact on the Scottish Constitutional question.
Put simply
Scotland is a net exporter of oil
UK is a net importer of oil
A rising oil price would be a financial boost to an Independent Scotland as a net exporter.
A rising oil price can only be bad news for net importers like the UK, and Scotland as long as it remains within the Union.
Supply and demand mean that the oil price is only going in one direction.
There will be a tipping point when the rising oil price will make the economic argument for Independence overwhelmingly clear.
That tipping point will see public opinion shift significantly towards independence.
More non-SNP Scottish politicians will start to adopt a pro-independence stance.
Perhaps even the Scottish Press will recognise the inevitability of the process?
Where will the tipping point come?
Somewhere about $200 per barrel I think.
I'll stick my neck out further and put a time estimate on that figure being reached around 2010.
Complain about this comment
You speak as if Scotland is a cheap place to live when it clearly isn't. Norway is a very expensive place to live but here's the catch. Norwegians are per capita amongst the richest people in the world so they can easily afford these very high prices. But more profoundly than that if you were a Norwegian or a Dane or Irish would you swap your economy for the Scottish one or even the SE one. I doubt that very much indeed.
Of course oil is finite. Of course it will run out. That's why we need a Norwegian style oil fund for when it does. The Norwegians currently make more from the interest payments on that fund than the oil itself. As oil loving Americans would say go figure.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Our oil revenue has been wasted by westminster governments to prop up there financial incompetance and their pathetic attempt to be considered as a world superpower.
Just think what we could do with all that revenue, it would not waste it on trying live in a long lost era.
Scotland as a newly refound and regenerated country, would be forward thinking, the revenue would be used to pay for the needs and future of the people of Scotland, not maintain the gentlemen club establishment of westminster/Whitehall, noses in troughs would not be tolerated by the people of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
daviecooper1, the Oil companies do not own the Oil which they drill, nor do they own the sector of the North Sea they are allowed to drill in.
The North Sea is divided into small sectors. Oil companies then seek exploration licenses (more money to the London treasury).
Having discovered Oil they are then licensed to drill and are taxed on their profits like any other company on land.
Yes the Oil will run out but that's all the more reason to prudently build an Oil fund like the Norwegians for the day when Oil does run out.
Apparently Norway is now earning as much in interest these days from its Oil fund than it does in taxes from the Oil itself.
Can you honestly say Scotland has gained as much from her Oil, with zero pounds in an Oil fund and 1 in 5 children still living in poverty in Labour controlled Glasgow?
Perhaps you just don't think Scots are as capable as running Scotland as they were when they ran much of the British Empire?
It's a hard truth for unionists to bear dc1 but we have been done.
It's time to stand up and be counted.
Complain about this comment
The sooner Labour and their associates are wiped out south and north of the border the better, there is no value to them other than being pandered by the media.
Complain about this comment
Bodincus,
For the record, I am a 40 year old in full-time employment. I am an engineer in an oil-related industry and occasionally work offshore and in various locations around the world, including Norway. Yes, Norway is expensive, but its people are well paid, have excellent holidays, and have a very high standard of living. If I had to pick one other country in the world to live in, it would be Norway. Scotland could do a lot worse than look there for inspiration.
As for the nickname, Richard is my real name, I withhold my surname because it is uncommon and makes me too easily identifiable on the internet. I'm not really a rogue (honest!), the name is that of an 18th century pipe tune from the borders or north of England.
Brigadierjohn, I can assure you absolutely that I only ever post under this one pseudonym and do not collude with any of the other bloggers. In fact, I do not have the least idea as to the identity of any of them. Maybe Bodincus is not the only paranoid blogger here.
I'm quite happy to be converted, but you actually have to put forward some sensible arguments and back them up with evidence first. I have spent my entire life examining the evidence and forming my opinion accordingly. I assure you I will continue to do so for the rest of my life.
Complain about this comment
I would urge all who have doubts or misconceptions about the 'claim of right' to the natural resource of North Sea oil, and its value as an asset, to read BrianHillEdinburgh's post, above.
He has said it all perfectly.
I would only add that the way in which that resource is managed is, or ought to be, an issue of concern to all of us.
Were the Scottish Government in control of even a modest 10% of the revenues - as opposed to the estimated 95% in our waters, or the 100% claimed by the London treasury - our entire economy could be transformed.
Properly managed or invested, this invaluable resource could provide a vital legacy for generations to come, instead of being so alarmingly squandered as at present.
Complain about this comment
I'm an oil and gas consultant in Aberdeen.
Having been resident in Scotland for my entire life I know the economic and political situation.
It is now an excepted fact that there is a MINIMUM of 20 years worth of oil and gas in Scottish territorial waters.
However, looking at some of the new discoveries near Shetland and potential discoveries in the future with the high price of oil allowing companies to invest in new infrastructure there will be closer to 40 years of oil production from the Scottish-UKCS. This is where the wealth is in UK oil production (90%+). There is probably less than 10 years of production left in the English-UKCS which is mostly cheap gas anyway.
I do not believe that independence will harm my job prospects or those of anyone in Scotland; where there is energy international investment will quickly appear.
I'll be voting yes for independence.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link on the fact that there are still huge amounts of oil to come out of the North Sea:
http://news.scotsman.com/saveourseas/36-billion-barrels-gone-but.3475760.jp
Complain about this comment
I feel that we have now got to the point where the continued high taxation on petroleum products is becoming counter productive and is starting to make us uncompetitive and harming the economy.
High fuel taxes have been doing that for the last 80 years. Why is it only now that people are waking up to the fact that we have been subsidising the American dream for the last 80 years with our insanely high fuel prices.
The yanks (up until recently) never gave a second thought about hopping in the car and driving miles on a whim. And while out they might spend the night at a motel, enjoy a meal out, perhaps go to an amusement park.. meanwhile we, in the UK, were taxed off the roads. Our motels never benefitted, our restaurants never benefitted. In short our economy was artificially stifled by high tax just so the yanks could enjoy a better life.
And it's not like the yanks made us do it. Nope, it was our own insane government with its addiction to high taxes and high public spending. And what do we have to show for it? A transport system that's the envy of the world? No. Absolutely nothing. Three generations of motorists taxed off the roads by idiots.
If the entire EU had had the same fuel tax rates as the US then demand would have been doubled and we'd all have been motivated to find cheaper alternatives decades ago. Instead of leaving the US to consume it all, heavily subsidised by us.
So high fuel taxes have actually had a detrimental effect for the environment. And continue to do so.
So, for sure, as soon as we get used to six quid a gallon they'll increase taxes again so that the entire world can continue to be subsidised by the British taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
OH my god not the old
"ah but its running" out one again.
You know i have to agree with brigadier john on this one it doesnt matter how many times you say something it doesnt make it fact.
Oil has been running out since i was a nipper. its still running out its a finite resource apparently. Although as far as i remember it was supposed to run out just after the year 2000 if i remember my school books right. Im still waiting. If oil was running out tommorow what has and is westminster doing to ensure that our energy needs are met when the oil runs out.
Im still waiting on that too.
Complain about this comment
There are a variety of arguments to be made against independence and, while none of them appear to me, at least, to have much merit there are a few that are especially marked for, firstly, their disingenuousness and, secondly, a level of strangeness. The one argument that strikes me as being unusually strange is one that is often employed and exercised on such forum as this when debates about independence get into full flow. It basically concerns the observation that humans live on bits of land, Scotland is a bit of land, Fife, for example, is also a bit of land, therfore to argue for an independent Scotland has as much logic as to argue for an independent Fife.
I have no wish to slight the people of Fife, I chose Fife as just a random example, and nor do I wish to demean those earnest Fife-freedom fighters, assuming they exist, who do an admirable job in the face of rationality. But, one is not quite comparing apples with apples when such an argument is employed against its will. I think what such an argument belies is a view of Scotland as a region of the UK, in which case, just state such a belief and argue for that belief in Scotland's status. While, those of us who believe in independence will argue for Scotland as a place in the world that is a de-facto state entity without essential soverignty. An essential sovereignty that would allow Scotland to engage with the rest of the world, sit at the top of the table of the EU, use the powers available to other European states to manage the market-place. The supporters of the union, of course, need to argue why Scotland does not have the case for such equality in this world.
I think that is where just one of the differences lie and it's not a bad difference, in the scheme of things, and so we should just get on with the argument instead of creating strange little analogies between Scotland and any other place on the map.
I recognise, of course, that there are many who support the union who view Scotland as a particular place in the world but a place that has a particular constitution which defers to Westminster parliamentary soverignty. Again, there's nothing wrong, per se, with this argument but what is wrong is to argue that independence is the equal of isolation. An independent Scotland is about engaging with the world at the very highest of levels, the EU and UN, while continuing happy relations with all our neighbours. There is nothing about having a special relationship with our neighbours that entails the need for a central, powerful, archaic, parliament and bureaucracy. Surely something in the fashion of a bi-annual meeting of independent, interdependent countries, Council of the Isles, is the far more mature option for interaction with our neighbours while still having all the state apparatus to engage with the Europe and the wider world.
So, while there are arguments that fail on both sides of the argument and there are other discussions about economic viability of an independent Scotland lets not get ourselves twisted up in arguments that have no momentum. And, what do I think of the argument that Scotland is not economically viable? ... not much, not much.
Complain about this comment
I'm all for more efficient use of energy, but this co2 emissions paranoia is starting to concern me.
Do we all understand the figures, which to be fair are not readily published :
Global co2 man made emissions = 3.5%, the rest is natural.
UK share is 2.5% of that which is 0.0875%
UK cars produce 13% of that, so that's 0.0113% of global co2 emissions.
And just to remind everyone the issue of co2 being related to climate change is actually unproven, and increasingly under fire from independant scientists.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps you just don't think Scots are as capable as running Scotland as they were when they ran much of the British Empire?
I don't know what you're capable of running. I do know there isn't a British Empire any more so somebody fumbled the ball. And I know that the Scottish Labour claque in London aren't capable of running anything unless it's a furnace for burning fifty pound notes.
In all seriousness, if you do get independence, the SNP needs to make sure it drills it into the voters heads that ALL that oil money will be put into a fund. Get it written into the new Scottish constitution if necessary because if you don't it'll go the same way as NI, lottery funds, fuel duty, VED and any number of other taxes. Ie up in fresh air on some crayzeeee scheme to buy votes.
The SNP needs to set the agenda so that all the opposition parties are forced to promise that they too will put ALL the oil money into a future fund. Because we're sensible political parties. We know it's a finite resource.
Particularly Labour. Because if you don't you'll be wandering around Glasgow in 10 or 15 years time wondering what the hell happened to all the money. And a smug, leering Jack-McConnell-alike will be giving 'I make no apologies at all for spending an extra 50bn this year on the NHS'.
Aye, Jack. That's great. Did we actually improve anything though or did all the doctors just go to a one-day week to give themselves time to spend all that money?
Complain about this comment
I'm not in cohoots with anyone and up until now have been a lurker. I read with interest the points that Globaltraveller made in #19 and wonder if any of the unionists would care to address them? the points raised as to what good the union, if we have become such an economic disaster
totally unable to survive independently under this system then it clearly ain't working well for us.
Complain about this comment
The independence debate is slightly perverse in reality the entirety of the british isles needs a revamp.
I'd love for every part of the British Isles where appropriate: England; Scotland; Wales; Ireland and Northern Ireland.
These parliaments would then have full control over their territorial sovereignty, resources and national identity.
But the countries should still share a common foreign policy and military infrastructure with the prime ministers of the countries meeting to make decisions of international import. This mechanism allows the people of Britannia to retain their powerful combined international influence in addition to each having a position in the UN, EU and other bodies; with each being allowed to maintain a separate stance on individual issues as is the will of its people.
Lets face facts; regardless of any Scottish independence outcome there will be no change in the ability of people within the British Isles to travel, work and live freely within its constituent nations. It is in everyones interest to get along.
I think this would meet the requirements of everyone in the British Isles and promote efficient and good governance as the nations would be set on a friendly and competitive footing with one another.
Complain about this comment
Yaaaawwwn.
Always the same. What starts off as an interesting and rational debate about FMQ and the oil prices degenerates into a polarized rant about independence.....
Seperatists should stop trying to claim that somewhow independence will unlock an endless bonanza of oil money (indeed Scotland must get over the idea that it is an oil kingdom, comparisons with the UAE and Kuwait do not hold). Unionists must stop saying that independence would be a total calamity for the economy.
The reasons for supporting the union or partition should not rest purely on economics.
Complain about this comment
If we believe democracy to be the "least bad" form of government, then Scotland should be independent if and when it votes to be so.
Now, unless any of the crystal ball gazers on this blog can share with us all the secrets of their time machine I suggest we ignore any overzealous predictions on either side. That said, I might humbly suggest that a future independent Scotland would be as successful (or disastrous) as the Scots make it. Any oil money would be superimposed on top of that.
So the question Scots must ask themselves is, do you think you are up to the task? If so, then the longer you dither, the less oil money you will have.
If not then stick with the Unionists who, by their own admission (or should that be scare-mongering?), have triumphantly led Scotland to be an "unsustainable", economic basket case after 300 years of union. Hmm...not exactly a ringing endorsement of their stewardship, is it?
Complain about this comment
I read with interest the points that Globaltraveller made in #19 and wonder if any of the unionists would care to address them?
Globaltraveller seems to be using medieval trial logic. We throw the woman into the water and if she floats she's a witch so we kill her. And if she drowns then she's not a witch.
That's the SNP argument. If Scotland is a basket case then it's the fault of the union and so we should leave. And if it's not a basket case then we should leave because we'll be better off. I'm seeing a theme here. Could it be you want to leave the union?
Now there are those (me included) who suspect that this is sheer opportunism on the part of the SNP. Wayhaaay, lets get all that oil money for ourselves. And I don't doubt that if oil stays at the price it's at and if Scotland can somehow break the cycle of socialist wealth destruction and benefit culture that so typifies large ex-industrial areas of Scotland (and England) then it would have to be spectacularly incompetent not to make a go of it. Ireland manages with no oil. Singapore manages without much of a country even.
It's just that it does smack of greedy opportunism. So the UK was all good for 300 years until, hey, look we could abscond with all the oil funds.
It just strikes me as a bit like one of those stories you read, where a couple of pals agree to pool their cash and buy a bunch of lottery tickets on the understanding that if one wins they'll share it all out. Which they do. For years. Until, in this case, Scotland suddenly scores the rollover jackpot and turns around and gives it:
'What agreement? We never had any agreement. And anyway, I never liked you'
That's what it looks like to me.
And then, because they feel a teensy bit embarrased at this slap in the face they follow it up with some imagined slight from way back in the past.
'Aye, you were mean to us at Culloden. And that Maggie Thatcher, she closed down all the mines. Just because she hates Scots. You started. It's your fault.'
Listening to the SNP is like listening to Heather Mills.
And then to add insult to injury they plan to take all the money and immediately climbs into bed with the EU.
That's the bit I really don't get. One of the main reasons Norway is so successful is because it has control over all its resources. If it wants to fish seven days a week it can. If it wants to pump oil in the teeth of some EU safety directive or 'green' initiative - it can. If it wants to subsidise oil at the pump - it could. If it wants to stick wind turbines in an area of blanket bog never seen by 99.99% of Scots - it can.
Why, having 'freed' yourself from Westminster would you then want the EU writing laws in French to tell you what to do? Insanity.
Complain about this comment
From the BBC Website today;
A UK Government spokesman said: "The government understands that businesses and families are feeling the pressure from high fuel prices.
"As the prime minister has made clear, the immediate priority is to encourage oil-producing countries in Opec to increase output to help bring down fuel prices.
"The government does not receive a 'windfall' from high oil prices, as changes in revenues are offset by a number of factors resulting in a broadly revenue neutral effect on the public finances."
So the price of Oil doubles, and the UK Treasury hasn't managed to put in place a system for taking in an increased share of the revenue?
Sounds like incompetence to me. Everyone in the world is aware that the Oil Price is rising and is likely to continue to rise- certainly to $200 per barrel and perhaps $300 in a decade or more.
That should be £30bn per year instead of the current £10bn tax-take. Where is that £20bn PER YEAR going to end up? Not even in the UK treasury from the sounds of things
Complain about this comment
#68
Agreed, the fundemental reason for independence is to govern ourselves, as for the oil, it has underpinned the British economy for nearly thirty years,
Complain about this comment
So the price of Oil doubles, and the UK Treasury hasn't managed to put in place a system for taking in an increased share of the revenue?
The potentially increased share of the revenue comes in the form of increased VAT at the pump. So if oil doubles in price then VAT income will double. And since the UK is a net importer of fuel he'll actually get more VAT than if he tried to snaffle the money from the North Sea directly.
The problem with that is that if I pay more VAT for my fuel I can't then spend that money on something else. A meal out for example. So then the treasury doesn't get the VAT on my meal out, its cut of the chefs or waiters wages and the employers NI etc etc. And that's why it's revenue neutral.
Gordon should stick to what he does best. Reading history books ideally. What he'll probably do is what he does second best. Borrowing more money and getting us to pay the interest.
Complain about this comment
U9461192:
"That's the SNP argument. If Scotland is a basket case then it's the fault of the union and so we should leave."
Of course. It is British policy that has failed Scotland.
And British Policy that will continue to fail Scotland.
"Why, having 'freed' yourself from Westminster would you then want the EU writing laws in French to tell you what to do? Insanity."
Ah, this is your arguement for calling the SNP and her supporters racists against England.
The EU is the future. Scotland has not benifited from the European Union under Britain. Immigration the recent problem. Good for Britain but Scotland can not get enough Temp workers to pick the fruits etc etc
It is not that we are against England but we just want someone to fight for Scotland for once.
Complain about this comment
At 2:14 pm on 30 May 2008, alasdairc01 wrote:
Yaaaawwwn.
"Always the same. What starts off as an interesting and rational debate about FMQ and the oil prices degenerates into a polarized rant about independence....."
From The Sunday TimesMay 18, 2008
"A study by leading accountants shows 'black gold' would generate a £4.4 billion budget surplus, making it one of Europe's richest countries, according to a new study.
The surplus would allow Alex Salmond to maintain existing levels of public spending, while cutting corporation tax from 28% to 12.5%, reducing income tax by 5p in the pound and still having £2 billion every year to invest in a Norwegian-style oil fund to safeguard Scotland against a future decline in North Sea oil revenue.
...
Maurice Fitzpatrick, an accountant with Grant Thornton, who has examined the economics of an independent Scotland for the past decade, said: “There is no doubt about it. The figures point to a very rosy picture.”
He added that the report, commissioned by The Sunday Times, may have underestimated the Scottish surplus because the calculations assume that Scotland would receive 82.5% of North Sea oil revenues. Salmond, however, is demanding a 95% share, which would raise Scotland's budget surplus to an estimated £6.2 billion."
Scotland wealth of natural resources is a major reason for backing independence. Funny how The Times can print such stories yet we get next to no coverage in Scotland about it from our print media or the BBC!
Complain about this comment
Today Alistair Darling criticised the Scottish Government regarding a local income tax, his quote, "in terms of putting off people we actually need to come to Scotland I think it would be extremely damaging".
At a time when energy prices are firmly on our minds I happened to wonder what became of the plans for the carbon free hydrogen based power plant BP wanted to build in Peterhead which was cancelled by BP because the UK chancer.......sorry chancellor Alistair Darling dithered (oh yes he did) to provide any UK government financial investment, (even though as I remember the then newly elected Scottish Government pleaded with Darling to show some 'enterprise' and back the scheme.)
According to a Scotsman report dated 23rd Jan. 2008, "A REVOLUTIONARY green-energy plant once planned by BP for Peterhead is now to be built in the United Arab Emirates.... Now a deal has been struck by Hydrogen Energy, a joint venture involving BP Alternative Energy, Rio Tinto and Masdar, for a renewable energy scheme in Abu Dhabi, backed by the Gulf state government."
The non-decision, not made by the Labour chancellor not to back BP appears to have cost Scotland (and for the unionists) the UK the opportunity to take a massive step forward in clean energy creation.
Well Mr Darling, "in terms of putting off people we actually need to come to Scotland" you have been extremely successful.
Complain about this comment
Why is it that when this blog discusses the North Sea oil fields no eyebrows are raised when Mr Salmond quotes the total revenue raised in the UK from these oil fields?.
It may surprise some people who are counting on oil to fund the SNP's Independence manifesto that 30% of the oil comes from English waters.
Which makes me wonder how the SNP could possibly fund a 'fully' Independent Scotland?, how will he deliver on all his promises if his own financial planning is so obviously flawed?.
Complain about this comment
Rustigjongens:
30% is a wayyy overestimate.
There is about 90%++ of Oil Reserves in Scottish Waters.
And that percentage gets higher each day because what oil is being found is further North away from England.
Complain about this comment
Post #31:
"My daughter and I have just left the 'Scottish Graduates Fare' at the SECC totally upset at our findings. We approached the SNP?s stand to discuss employment for graduates within the Scottish Government, but were told they couldn't help us because they were only there to encourage international students to work in Scotland.
We then asked where the stand is for the Scots, and were told 'there isn't one'.
I am disgusted to say this, but I voted for the SNP in the Scottish Elections. Never, ever will I vote for them again....."
Be afraid, be very afraid!
Complain about this comment
Helenzzz:
To be fair the UK Government has encouraged migration from non-EU countries which has made lives harder for ordinary Brits.
(before the new rules)
I watched a DVD that shown children of immigrants who came to Britain years ago complaining about the new influx of migration entering Britain because it was harming THEIR JOBS.
I found it quite funny because when their parents entered Britain surely they would of made the 'Native' Brits lives more difficult by working cheaper etc
Just goes to show that Gov's never look inside the country enough before looking at other places.
Complain about this comment
Helenzzz,
I am a member of the SNP and someone who is looking forward to starting university this new term. I have passed on your complaint and should evidence come to light of this situation then you should be apologised to. If not, then I'll apologise in advance.
I'd rather as a member this action was taken when things are not put in place correctly and action is taken for the future to try and prevent it from happening again.
In the first instance, you may have already done this but go and visit the Scottish Parliament and email through the website to gain as much information as possible. I am sure they will be delighted to help you and your daughter. Email your MSP and MP and ask for their help also.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/recruitment/index.htm
http://www.writetothem.com/
I have emailed my constituency members of the UK and Scottish Parliament on various issues and have found them very helpful on a number of occasions.
Please don't let this put you or your daughter off entering government employment.
Oh and I hope I've gone some way to encourage you to vote once again for the only party that has Scotland's interest at heart.
Complain about this comment
birsealmighty:
Thank you for your comments. However, I will never vote for the SNP again; clearly they do not really have Scotland's interests at heart, only their own.
Complain about this comment
#82
Helen,
Perhaps you'd consider Labour ?
Dodgy Donation Scandals
Peter Hain
Wendy Alexander
Harriet Harman
Peter Watt
Chris Leslie
Cash For Honours Scandals
Lord Levy
Jon Mendelson
Tony Blair
Ruth Turner
Jonathan Powell
John Mcternan
Matt Carter
Des Smith
Makes you think, doesn't it ?
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
Much of the debate has evolved around Nort Sea Oil and the revenues gained by Westminster, can I urge you to copy and paste this article into your browser and read the statistics:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4884.html
Makes you think, doesn't it ?
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Helenzzz, might I repectfully suggest that instead of abandoning the SNP because of what happened at the SECC, instead take your complaint too the top man in the SNP, that is the benefit of having a Scottish Government, they are local to us and we can access them and call them to account and should call them to account when we feel they are wrong.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#82 Helen,
Perhaps you'd consider the Liberal Party.
SCOTTISH Liberal Democrat leader Nicol Stephen is renting out a £400,000 Edinburgh house that he bought for his own home with help from the taxpayer, it was reported last night.
Stephen and his wife Caris Doig bought the property in 2002 for £193,333 and received £10,000 a year from the public purse to pay mortgage interest and council tax under the controversial Edinburgh Allowances Scheme (EAS).
Under the scheme, MSPs from outside the Central Belt can get taxpayers' cash to help them find a place to stay in Edinburgh.
But the MSP for Aberdeen South has now taken in lodgers for the two-bedroomed house in the Morningside area of Edinburgh.
Makes you think, doesn't it ?
Complain about this comment
19. At 6:08 pm on 29 May 2008, Globaltraveller wrote:
#5 neil_small147
Fair point in the original funding for exploration of oil.
As for the rest.....
I am not a Unionist, but neither am I a naitonalist. Nor am I a Labour or Lib-Dem supporter. I prefer to see what happens and always give someone an opportunity to show what they can do.
There are many problems when it comes to independence:
Benefits system: this would need a radical shake up to reduce the cost.
Smaller class sizes: how will he achieve this when Councils across Scotland (and the UK) and merging schools and selling off land for private housing? In East Kilbride alone the number of schools has been reduced from 6 to 3, and one of these is an RC school that will not accept non-faith pupils.
Student Loans: already the problems have arisen with the news that several thousand students have been told to pay their endowment. And no Government will ever write off all the student loans, the cost is very high.
Defence: Many Scots have served in the UK Armed Forces and are entitled to a pension. Who will pay for this? And what will happen to defence?
Local Income tax: nice idea but how will it work? What will it cost to implement?
Faslane: I'm no lover of nuclear weapons, but how will he replace the jobs lost.
Energy: the SNP are against nuclear power and coal-fired power stations. Can he explain where our energy will come from? And don't mention "renewables". The Green Party are for these but then they don't like wind farms (kills birds) and tidal barrages (kills marine life).
There are many issues that need dealt with. At present, Scotland does not have enough private companies to sustain the level of benefits, free education, free healthcare and policing that the SNP want us to have.
Scotland is not bankrupt, but the UK nearly is if you look at the true cost of PFI. And much of this debt is owed by Scottish organisations and Councils. You simply cannot pay of this debt.
Alex Salmond is the main reason that the SNP hold the reins of power in Scotland. He is a superb politician but he has only one agenda. It is easy to look competent when the opposition is weak.
Complain about this comment
I don't understand the reluctance to even consider the nuclear option for fuel, it's the one thing I disagree with the SNP about; especially as the practicalities of divvying up the North Sea oil seems pretty insurmountable at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147
"Alex Salmond is the main reason that the SNP hold the reins of power in Scotland. He is a superb politician but he has only one agenda. It is easy to look competent when the opposition is weak."
I absolutely agree with your comment above, and the other comments you have made: # 5 and # 90.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Mr Taylor, Ms Alexander is indeed slow and pretentious. Well spotted. Oh, sorry, did you say portentous? Well, only pretentiously portentous in my judgment, and in yours too, I think. When a tired old debating trick is deployed in such a way that everyone notices it, even the tired old chap sitting at the back struggling to suppress a yawn, it really has not worked all that well. Now has it?
I know that Ms Alexander is currently putting it about that she would not have attracted such an avalanche of rather comprehensively damning criticism as Scottish Labour leader if she had been a man. However, I think that the facts speak for themselves and that those of us who still manfully refuse to be entirely intimidated by the thought police of political correctitude owe it to ourselves and to our respect for the truth to go on speaking the truth.
With that in mind, I feel that the time has come to split a hair. You suggest, Mr Taylor, that "she was on better form today", whereas what I might be prepared to concede is that Ms Alexander was on somewhat less mediocre form on this occasion. A giant stride for her. It should be noted, however, I think, that this was only made possible by the parliamentary courtesy extended to her by her political opponents, who listened to her in silence as she wittered on portentously.
Although this parliamentary courtesy was not extended to the First Minister by the Labour group, Mr Salmond was on his usual masterful form, battling manfully against the slings and arrows of outrageous rowdiness that the Labour group apparently find necessary to prop up their much less impressive leader.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
Benefits system: Reduce the cost? If the Scotland is Independent and we follow Irelands low tax regime there will be more work available for those on benifits.
Smaller class sizes: Just wait and see till the end of their Government and then check to see how far they have progressed. If you are not happy then complain.
Student Loans: I am not 100% sure on this one. I have not saw the details yet.
Defence: 20,000 to 30,000 will be Scots Military. There will be an option for Scots to join the Scots military (I am guessing) and we will pay for the military like we do for the British.
Local Income tax: It is a tax cut. You are already facing rising prices for fuel and food so don't complain about the LIC.
Faslane: These people are incredibly gifted and intelligent people. It won't be hard to replace there jobs with something more useful.
Energy: The SNP are not against the use of coal. The SNP are not the Green Party and has already accepted enough proposals for Scotland to generate their energy (50% of it) through re-newables by 2020.
Complain about this comment
Thomas #94:
Benefits system - you need the work in place prior to removing benefits Chicken and Egg situation so tough decisions would have to be made. You need a strong majority to get these through without political damage.
Smaller class sizes: sorry, but the basic facts are that there are less schools. Back to East Kilbride: the secondary school rebuild programme is via PFI. Councils cannot afford to build additional schools even if they wanted to.
Defence: there are ex-Service personnel who will be in receipt of pensions over the next 25 years who have yet to start payments - some of these are from the defence cuts in the 1990s. That is a major expense on the books yet to come.
Faslane: who is going move a company into the area? It is miles from any major infrastructure. It is located in the most NW point of Europe. No commercial organisation I know of would move there.
Energy: proposals for 2020? That is 12 years ahead. There are issues at present.
I'm happy enough to wait and see what the SNP can achieve, but at the moment all I can see is posturing and smugness as well as confrontational politics.
But to try and stay on topic, we need an effective opposition. There isn't one at present, and this breeds arrogance within the SNP. And arrogance in the Governing Party is not good for the country.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
To be honest much what you have said is all based on assumptions.
Benefits system? It can't be set up until we know what assets Scotland will be given.
Smaller class sizes? Three years to go wait till then and check the progress.
Defence? Agian, who knows if the Scots will join once we are Independent. They might not be offered as good a pension deal or there contracts may be even better.
Energy proposals? The Energy Policy is reserved to Britain but I am far happier and impressed that the Scots Gov has accepted enough proposals for Scotland to generate 50% of our electricity by 2020 through re-newables.
"Energy: proposals for 2020? That is 12 years ahead. There are issues at present."
And does Britain have a magic wand that they use to magically solve the soltions to their problems? These things do take time.
If we were Independent then perhaps they could build Government projects and do far much more.
But right now Britain does not even have 2% of her electricty met through re-newables and is spending under 100 billion clearing up some old nuclear fields.
Is the future you want have expensive nuclear facilities in them?
There not even re-newables. You have to buy Uranium and then you rely on another country for the resources.
Complain about this comment
"96. At 5:55 pm on 31 May 2008, Thomas_Porter wrote:
Neil_Small147:
To be honest much what you have said is all based on assumptions."
Which is precisely what the majority of the SNP's arguments for independance are based on - assumptions.
The SNP will make major gains come the next General Election, and probably in the next Scottish elections. But that does not follow that everyone in Scotland wants to be independant. But a Tory Government in Westminster might prefer that.
Perhaps the UK would be better as a federal state. We're practically that already following the EU Constitution.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
"Which is precisely what the majority of the SNP's arguments for independance are based on - assumptions."
Could you go into detail and explain the SNP's assumptions?
"But that does not follow that everyone in Scotland wants to be independant."
I agree here. Not everyone in Scotland would like Independence.
But I do not agree that a Tory Gov would enhance the Independence cause.
Rising fuel prices would be the largest guess which is enhance the case for Independence.
Just how many thousands do you think are now more vunerable in Scotland thanks to the latest rises?
"Perhaps the UK would be better as a federal state."
I'd agree with this. As long as Scotland was Independent from the rest of the 'Federation' and was in charge of her own taxes etc and equal to the other members of the Federation.
Friend yes, Joined to the hip? No.
Complain about this comment
I watched FMQ's last week and I was utterly disgusted by the behavior of the Labour MSP's.
While Salmond was speaking on the subject of fuel poverty saying how Scotland should be seeing some benefit of the North Sea revenues, the majority of the labour MSP's had rather large grins on their faces and a few of them were actually laughing. My point is this, whether they are the labour party or the tories they all have one thing in common. The people of their constituencies have put their trust in these people to serve their interests, personally i dont know of anyone in Scotland who not suffering as a result of these high energy costs. My only wish was that the BBC News had picked up on this and exposed these people for what they are, they think that its funny? We seeing they are on incomes where they dont feel the pinch everytime they fill their car or try to feed their families.
None of the other parties has offered an alternative to the SNP because they are all dictated to by their masters down in Westminster, the SNP are the only party whose main priority is for the betterment of the people of Scotland. Say what you want about them but at least you have a party in power fighting its corner for all our sakes.
Complain about this comment
"Just how many thousands do you think are now more vunerable in Scotland thanks to the latest rises?"
How many thousands are now more vulnerable across England, Wales and Northern Ireland? It's UK oil, in UK waters. Whether it's in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, it belongs to the UK as a whole and should be dealt with appropriately by Westminster. That's my opinion anyway!
I thoroughly enjoy being British and feel that, should we become independent from the rest of the UK, I would be losing something. I don't particularly care for the irritating nationalistic politics that try to separate us. It's hardly like we're all wildly different countries that require widely varying policies to govern well. I'd say Scotland looks pretty good in most respects.
Complain about this comment
It's Scottish oil just like it's the City of London's profits.
The Nationalists aren't splitting anything up. The remainder of the UK is welcome to continue and the SNP propose keeping the Queen as head of state so as to ferment the social union between Scotland and England.
Scotland looks okish but as an independent could do so so much better.
Complain about this comment
DrewThomson:
"How many thousands are now more vulnerable across England, Wales and Northern Ireland?"
I don't care. My family and friends live in Scotland. They come first.
"It's UK oil, in UK waters."
It is in Scottish Waters. It is under Scottish Legistration so by legal right it is ours.
"It's hardly like we're all wildly different countries that require widely varying policies to govern well."
This says it all. You have shown you are totally out of touch with the differences between Westminister and the Scottish Gov.
Complain about this comment
Hardly out of touch, considering I'm not long out of the Scottish fishing village and community that I grew up in surrounded by a variety of different people in considerably different positions. I now live in England.
I know plenty about the differences between the Scottish Government and Westminster. We are in no way wildly different countries and we in no way require wildly different policies. Of course there are differences and of course Westminster could handle them better, but that's what (the ever increasing) devolution is useful for.
We needn't break up the union for a few (on the grand scale) policies that require tweaking or devolution to Holyrood. We get a pretty good ride sitting with the rest of the UK in terms of our recognition throughout the rest of the world.
Indeed, plenty of well-off Scots in healthy positions in Westminster. Plenty of well-off Scots have used the UK's presence to get different things off the ground.
In terms of cash, I'm sure in many years of independence, Scotland could be doing well for itself. Obviously there will be a number of issues to iron out, but at the end of the day it could still work out.
I'm not one of these pro-union folk that thinks Scotland will go bankrupt or will immediately falter and need help. I am one of these pro-union folk that loves being British and loves being Scottish. I genuinely feel that dropping out of the UK would be detrimental to the way that I, and many others, would feel in terms of our identity and our place in the world. I enjoy being part of Britain and the relations that come from being a union with the rest of the UK. I do not want to break that up, whether we remain 'close friends' with the UK or not.
Complain about this comment
DrewThomson:
The Union is out-dated.
"We get a pretty good ride sitting with the rest of the UK in terms of our recognition throughout the rest of the world."
Last time I checked Britain was in the Top10 most hated countries according to a Poll that had taken place in the Muslim World.
The war in Iraq and Afganistan has not shown what Scotland is about. We are a target for Terrorist Attacks and you are thankful for that ride?
"Indeed, plenty of well-off Scots in healthy positions in Westminster."
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Brown-urged-to-get-rid.4140049.jp
Read up on your evidence please.
I do respect where you are coming from. But I do feel you are ignoring crucial factors out.
The rise of Nationalism North and South of the Border has brought the Union to her knees in recent years. Evidence has shown that more and more are choosing to vote for Nationalist Parties. This may not be shown by seats won by in total votes cast you see an increase in votes giving to Nationalist Parties at every election.
The rise of the price of fuel. Britain imports oil. Scotland exports it. However we are feeling the pinch when it comes to record prices. The SNP are foced on lowering our prices but the Unionist Parties are not budging from their positions despite the great harm this does to the Scots and the Scots businesses and where does out oil wealth go? It does not go back into Scotland quite a few reports indicate that.
If the game carries on how it has then Scotland and England will not last a decade.
But the 'divorce' does not mean we go our seperate ways all together. We could still support one another in the European Union which is the real Union in the future and even co-operate with one another abroad.
It will be better to have two Governments sharing their idea and compromising instead of one Government taking the lead without proper opposition and well messing up.
The benefits are so much more for both countries to become more efficient.
Complain about this comment
Heh
There are no Scots left, you are British, your fundamental right to be Scottish has been removed.
I don't like this!
But do not worry; there are no English left either, so all is fair in this respect :0
I suggest that this Union is removed before any more damage is done.
Only then will you Officially allowed to be Scottish or English again!
I look forward to My Scottish Passport :)
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
"Last time I checked Britain was in the Top10 most hated countries according to a Poll that had taken place in the Muslim World.
The war in Iraq and Afganistan has not shown what Scotland is about. We are a target for Terrorist Attacks and you are thankful for that ride?"
TONY BLAIR, GORDON BROWN and DES BROWNE took us in to the war in Iraq and Afganistan, and guess what - THEY ARE BOTH SCOTTISH.
Don't blame Britain, for the Scots mistakes.
Complain about this comment
Haha,
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Des Brown are "all" British, none of them are Scottish, their rights to be Scottish have been removed.
And I dare say that they agree with this and have no desire to be labelled as Scottish, as officialy they cannot be. Otherwise they would support Scotland.
So blame I will!!!
However, I don't agree with being labelled as British and this to me is as good a reason for Scottish Independence as our countries natural resources being ripped off and squandered as they are!!!
I still look forward to my Scottish Passport :)
Complain about this comment
rog_rocks:
"However, I don't agree with being labelled as British and this to me is as good a reason for Scottish Independence as our countries natural resources being ripped off and squandered as they are!!!"
Yes, and by your fellow countrymen aaahhhhhh!!!
By the way, Scotland is only one country ;-)
Good luck getting in to Iraq and Afganistan with your Scottish passport.
Complain about this comment
The free personal care for the elderly move that was brought in by Labour was never properly costed, and is now 10s of millions of pounds over budget.
The PFI/PPP schemes brought in by Labour were never costed, and are now costing a fortune.
The FM stated that all costs would be available later in the year, but as usual, WA just doesn't listen. Either her great intellect is so overloaded with thinking about what her next question will be (even though it is usually the same question as the last), or she just doesn't want to hear the answer.
The war in Iraq, etc, brought in by Labour were uncosted.
All things brought in by Labour are uncosted. It's just that they thought they could get away with it, because they thought they would be in power in Scotland for ever and ever.
Complain about this comment
Thank you :)
I hope you will support me to obtain my Passport and support Scotland by voting for it's freedom as an independent state in the forethcoming referendum!!!
X
Complain about this comment
I've raised this elsewhere, but I am still waiting for someone to describe how a fabulously wealthy Scotland, the "richest economy in the world," would relate to the poor English and the rest of Europe. I mean in everyday terms.
Could an English family or an
American golfer, for example, afford to come here on holiday. Or will retailers keep prices low, despite knowing about the money sloshing about?
Ridiculous questions? Maybe. But it's real life, not fantasy. So how will this huge economic imbalance affect our relations with the "poor" world.
Once upon a time (I'm talking to nationalists here) Americans were conspicuously wealthy when visiting us. They were, variously, derided, reviled or made to suffer instant price hikes wherever they went.
Is this the future for the independent Scot abroad?
Until there's a satisfactory answer, ie one that satisfied me, not fantasists, be very careful what you wish for.
Complain about this comment
Don't be so childish. Your posts don't even deserve the dignity of a reply.
Complain about this comment
Louse0001:
You know nothing of Politics.
Labour and Conservatives voted for the war in Iraq.
Do not blame the Iraq war on individuals when the Political Parties voted for the war.
Britain went to war in Iraq but a majority in the Scots Gov are against the war.
Complain about this comment
Helenzzz,
I am sorry to hear about your experience at the Scottish Graduates fair, and you and your daughter should not have been turned away as you were as the SNP stand was to encourage all students regardless of origin to stay in Scotland and work.
If you wish I can make some inquiries as to what went wrong and make sure your daughter is given the advice and reassurance she deserves.
As a 20 year old full time worker and part time student I assure you the SNP does care about the opportunities for young people and retaining the best minds for Scotland with the aim of laying the groundwork for a more prosperous nation.
Complain about this comment
"The North Sea has almost as much oil left as has already been extracted, a BBC Scotland investigation has been told. "
So, Salmond was right about something else!! It IS a national outrage that fuel prices are sky-high in an oil-rich country like Scotland.
A bit of a kick in the teeth for all those people on here trying to convince Scots that "the oil's run out", "the oil's in English waters", etc, etc.
Those people here who want us all to swallow their lies about oil are exposed by this news for the schemers and manipulators they are.
There is STILL time for Scots to vote for independence and claim what's rightfully theirs.
Let Salmond and Co use the money to turn his vision of a more prosperous Scotland into reality.
Or would you really prefer 10-15 years of Lord Snooty using you as a guinea pig for experimental tax policies?
Complain about this comment
Re: last night's oil program -
Out of the £30+billion raised from N. Sea Oil only £5 billion would be paid to Scotland if it became independant.
Why?
Because that is how much the various oil companies have to pay to get the oil out.
So, they actually own the oil after they have paid the £5 billion, and are free to sell it to any country(ies) they want. There is no law that says they have to sell it back to Scotland or the UK.
Therefore, when consumers in the UK buy the oil from the oil companies, they buy it from the oil companies, not from Scotland, so it is the oil selling companies that raise the other £25 billion from taxes, when they sell their oil to us.
If the oil companies sold the oil to anywhere apart from the UK, they wouldn't be collecting any taxes for Scotland or the UK.
Do you see what I mean? By saying Scotland is raising £30+ billion from N.Sea Oil, is simply not true. They only raise around £5billion.
Also, it is the oil companies that turn the raw - crude oil in to petrol, amongst other things, not Scotland. There may be some private Scottish companies involved in doing this, but again, it is not Scotland that are making the profits or raising taxes for the treasury.
Complain about this comment
Most people who saw the BBC's 'Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland' will have had their eyes opened to some pretty astonishing facts.
The consensus amongst those who grasped the significance of the issues covered shows, unsurprisingly, that despite being well-balanced and not particularly hard-hitting, the programme has exposed and exploded a number of long-standing and key unionist myths for the bunkum they always were - and injects a new and powerful energy into the strong case for Scottish independence.
More, please!
Complain about this comment
Dougie-Dubh
Oh, my, god, not the oil again.
For goodness sake, we will give you your independence, just ask for it and it will be granted. What is Alex waiting for? Have a referendum now, or at the very least within the next year.
For all out sakes - Go for it!!!!! Don't just keep talking about it!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Brian:
It is true, that here we go again--at same topics over and over...until no solutions are found; but at first sight...solutions can be found.
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS