Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: No offence but you do talk a lot of bollocks sometimes, Do_I_Not_Like_It.
The UK deficit is far lower now than during WW1 or WW2. The Tories have raised a massive eyebrow at it nonetheless and decided the solution is to reduce public spending and taxes. They are wrong, of course, and have perpetuated the recession.
Ho hum.
There's no point you trying to draw conclusions or make points about situations if you don't seem have a grasp of the basic facts. It makes it look like your rants are just that, rants, and therefore to be ignored.
You just proved my point. You just admitted the UK has a deficit. It makes no difference if it's a record high or a record low - it exists. That's a fact.
I have no problem with that.
My problem is with people attacking an independent Scotland for possibly having a deficit, whilst ignoring the fact that every nation of Planet Earth has a deficit. That's double standards.
During the Scottish independendce referendum, the stay side were attacking the leave side because an independent Scotland would have to borrow money!
Because in 307 years, the UK government has never ever ever ever ever borrowed a penny? Right?
Or am I wrong?
Why do we get held to this higher standard? That's the point I'm making.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Well the issue is the amount of deficit. Scotland is running at 9% whereas the UK is running at 2%. And that's after all the silly things we have done. But it only takes a few years at 9% to end up in a situation like Italy. Where they are one bad curry away from having a heart attack followed by economic collapse.
And it becomes and issue when you only have a population of 5 million and a yearly deficit of 15 billion. That's nearly £3000 pounds per person that needs to be changed. That's a lot of money.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Still no announcement of when Article 50 is being invoked...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The people decided it. Parliament is there to make what they want happen. Happen.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
The people decided it. Parliament is there to make what they want happen. Happen.
Bloody hell! Somebody else agrees with me
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I distinctly recall David Cameron promising to invoke Article 50 the day after the Referendum. Not resign.
Well Teresa May has to invoke it.
She said brexit means brexit.
Lets see some proof of that.
Germanny is weaker, it has issues.
There's no better timing when high queen merkal is beset by local issues.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I distinctly recall David Cameron promising to invoke Article 50 the day after the Referendum. Not resign.
David Cameron said a lot of things in 6 years, the vast majority of which were about as useful a toupee in zero gravity!
The pressure is on May to come up with at least something for the Tory annual conference, otherwise she'll go the same way as Major and Cameron...
These Tory-Euroskeptics don't mess around.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The people decided it. Parliament is there to make what they want happen. Happen.
Bloody hell! Somebody else agrees with me
Yep
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I seen that as well, Silent Puffin, and I don't need to tell anybody on this forum I voted leave, but even I'm embarrassed at that!
It's cringeworthy and hypocritical coming from the Barclay brothers.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Scotland is currently running a 12.7 Billion pound deficit, or about 9% of GDP.
I'm not having a go at you welshhoppo, because you're not the only person to have made this point, but it's a point that seriously annoys me. Why?
Because every government on planet Earth is running a deficit.
The UK's deficit is at an all time high. It's debt is nearly off the scale, and yet, nobody raises an eyebrow at this.
But Scotland? That's a special case if they ever get in debt. As if no government in the galaxy has ever had to borrow money, or rack up a debt, or a deficit.
I hate the double standards of this argument.
God almight, a few years back, the Bank of England printing presses nearly broke down with all the money they had to print for quantitative easing.
Money, that is essentuially, worthless, because you can print an unlimited amount of it.
And yet, nobody raised an eyebrow at this. If an independent Scotland did it, critics would say it was the prelude to world war three or something.
Ok, rant over.
You are correct that a deficit is not an inherently bad state for a government to be in; economies do work according to different rules to personal borrowing after all. But that doesn't mean that there aren't rules, rather just that the rules involved are different.
Borrowing is inherently easier for governments, because their gilts represent good quality returns for long term investors, as an electorate can essentially be taxed at whatever rate is necessary to acquire repayments. When spread over a long term period, inflation devalues the real time amount value of what was borrowed, which allied to the quantitative easing that most governments tend to gradually do, means that a government can actually effectively borrow a small amount over their current tax receipts and not have to pay anything back. Naturally, the ability to cut costs, raise taxes, and print more money mean that a government has far more tools for effectively managing a deficit than your average personal borrower.
But these flexibilities come with their own restrictions. If you print more money and devalue your currency too far, whilst you might boost exports, countries who import more can suddenly run into all sorts of difficulties. If you raise taxes too high in any one field, you can force individual businesses or profitable industries to decide to relocate elsewhere. The complications that can ensue are myriad, and as a result, the best thing to simply do is to run a tax surplus if at all possible, with an eye to borrowing for specific projects or time periods. Whilst you can run at a slight deficit indefinitely in a best (or worst, depending on your perspective) case scenario, your ability to bounce back from a long running or extensive deficit invariably ends up coming down to the economic health and diversity of your countries economic portfolio, the extent to which its economy can flourish in an economic boomtime, the number of people living there, the ability to stimulate the economy in a downturn, and so on.
In Scotland's case, it has certain factors working against it in that regard. It has a relatively small population allied with a very slow birth increase, high economic dependence on a few key industries which are volatile (such as oil or luxury goods), little in the way of a manufacturing sector, and so on. That doesn't mean that it can't be economically successful, far from it, simply that its ability to function as an independent state would be inextricably linked to reducing public spending to what the public can sustainably afford. So you might find universities have to start charging, defence has to be virtually cut altogether, and so on. Some of those cuts will be palatable to the public , others less so.
Inevitably however, it comes down to the fact that right now, Scotland essentially can only maintain its current spending levels indefinitely if it is linked to the British economy, which gives it the resilience it requires to do so sustainably. If the Scottish Government was to try borrowing at a high level indefinitely whenever required by economic fluctuations to maintain current spending levels, it would invariably end up in a position similar to Greece , which I think we can all agree would be in nobodies interests. The Scottish economy is just that little bit too vulnerable and volatile for that sort of approach. I suppose they could defer it (much like the British Government often does) with PFI shennanigans, creative accounting, and various other tricks, but the reality is that ultimately nobody, not even governments, can borrow forever with no penalties, and a Scottish one would have far less scope for games than the British one.
Still no announcement of when Article 50 is being invoked...
I saw a very interesting comment by Sadiq Khan the other day.
Sadiq Khan wrote:He told Sky News: "We are talking to business leaders, businesses, business representatives to see what we can do to make sure London doesn't lose out on the talent, the innovation, the partnership that has let us be the greatest city in the world.
"The good news is the Government gets it. The good news is in all the conversations I've had with members of the Government, from the Chancellor to the Brexit Secretary to the Foreign Secretary and others in Government, I think they get it.
"I'll be meeting the Prime Minister soon to discuss our issues but I think the Government recognises it is in nobody's interests for us to get a bad deal with the EU."
There's a lot of speculation (i.e. leaks) that he's talking about separate work visas for the London area, which I consider an interesting prospect. If we're going to retain access to the single market, we're going to have to bend on the freedom of movement rules, at least sufficiently that all sides involved can spin negotiations as a victory for themselves. This is, I think, the start of the dickering I mentioned before. We're waiting for the French elections to pass first, so we can (most likely) deal with a more sympathetic France (and thus Europe), but reading between the lines, hints of our negotiating strategy are starting to trickle out, and this is looking to be one of them.
Speculating from the bystander's chair, I'm inclined to think that some sort of freedom to work within certain areas of the UK will be proffered as our offering towards freedom of movements. It's not just London, there are other areas like Gibraltar which could use a closer link. So we'll probably see an offer for an extended visa/work permit for EU nationals within those geographical regions, which are more or less automatically granted/rubber stamped indefinitely, allied with a ceding of British general rights to live and work abroad, to fudge our way through the freedom of movement principle and let them declare a victory. That will let us get to the serious dickering over the Common Market, which could go several ways depending on what they all think works best, or what their priorities are.
Tens of thousands of people claiming the main benefit for long-term sickness will no longer face repeated medical assessments to keep their payments.
Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green said it was pointless to re-test recipients of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) with severe conditions and no prospect of getting better.
More than two million people receive ESA, which is worth up to £109 a week.
The move has been welcomed by charities supporting those with severe illness.
It will be unveiled at the four-day Conservative Party conference, which begins in Birmingham on Sunday.
Michelle Mitchell, head of the MS Society, described it as a "victory for common sense".
Shadow work and pensions secretary Debbie Abrahams said it was "a welcome U-turn" by the government, but "the devil was in the detail".
"What about mental health conditions, conditions that are fluctuating, conditions that may not necessarily have a physical manifestation?" she said.
'Unnecessary stress'
Applicants for ESA have to undergo a work capability assessment to find out if they are eligible and they are re-tested to ensure their condition has not changed. Some are re-tested every three months and others up to two years later.
Under the government's change, those who are deemed unfit for work and with conditions that will not improve will no longer face re-testing.
Illnesses such as severe Huntington's, autism or a congenital heart condition are among those that are likely to qualify for continuous payments without reassessment. The criteria will be drawn up with health professionals.
Mr Green said a "key part" of making sure those who are unable to work receive "full and proper support" includes "sweeping away any unnecessary stress and bureaucracy".
I think it an interesting thing that one of the first five or so policies to slowly trickle out of May's office is the scrapping of all this pressure on disabled benefits Osborne pursued with such perverse determination. With all the Atos and Concentrix scandals, it has turned into a real PR nightmare for the Tories, one that emphasised how removed the rich boys of the Cabinet were. When you consider the money saved (and more beside) essentially got blown on dropping a handful of bombs on Libya, it was really quite disgusting how they were chasing people who really do need and deserve the support of the state for a few bob.
I'm still making up my mind on May as PM, and I'm still not overly fond of her, but this is a mark in her favour in my book.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/01 11:18:31
Ketara wrote: Scotland essentially can only maintain its current spending levels indefinitely if it is linked to the British economy...
That's no surprise given that most its income and much of its expenditure is controlled by the UK government. This would not be the case with an independent Scotland, which would certainly have different priorities when it comes to expenditure and would possibly have a differing tax regime as well. The GERS data is basically worthless when it comes to the finances of an independent Scotland.
Ketara wrote: We're waiting for the French elections to pass first, so we can (most likely) deal with a more sympathetic France (and thus Europe)
That isn't going to be much help though as any deal will need to be ratified by all EU countries and several have stated categorically that freedom of movement is a red line issue, if the UK want's free trade it will have to accept genuine free movement. The likes of Poland isn't going to be interested in a visa scheme.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/01 11:42:12
Ketara, I don't doubt what you're saying about the economics, but the purpose of independence is to do things differently. From the top of my head, I can think of a number of things that will save money from day 1 of Indy Scotland:
Our 10% contribution to Trident, 20 billion, won't be going to London.
Another 10 billion that won't be going from Scotland to fund HS2.
30 billion is a decent sized sum for a country like Scotland.
Also, as we would be entitled to 10% of the UK's assets, who knows what deal would be cooked up between Edinburgh and London?
Economically, we'll be fine, of that I'm sure.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
For me the single market isn't everything. If tariffs are the price we pay to get the EU off our backs then I'm happy to accept them. We should give them an offer; we'll do tariff free trading if they drop their demands for free movement and contributions to their market. If they refuse this offer then they can explain to their people that the sales and jobs are drying up because they have to make a political point. We buy more off them, and the customer is always at the advantage.
Of course when the Italian and German banks implode it'll be a moot point anyway.
Also, petrol head question here; how come British police don't use Jaguars more often? Why are BMWs chosen over them? They're pretty much the equal of a Beamer give or take a few minor points. They're cheaper than Beamers, they're way cooler than Beamers, and since they're built here in Britain the money sent on them will remain in the county and funds jobs here.
Maybe depending on how Brexit goes they will start using them more often. I can live in hope.
Ketara wrote: Scotland essentially can only maintain its current spending levels indefinitely if it is linked to the British economy...
That's no surprise given that most its income and much of its expenditure is controlled by the UK government. This would not be the case with an independent Scotland, which would certainly have different priorities when it comes to expenditure and would possibly have a differing tax regime as well. The GERS data is basically worthless when it comes to the finances of an independent Scotland.
I'm not basing my assessment off the GERS data, but my own analysis which I drew up back during the referendum. I went through the various income/expenditures of the Scottish Government with a reasonably fine toothed comb, stripped out a lot of things I assumed Scotland wouldn't be contributing to (like Trident), estimated figures for a new fully devolved administration (something often left out by other people), and so forth. Essentially, there was so much spin over the whole affair, I realised I didn't trust anyone's figures, and so came up with my own. There's enough publicly available statistics that anyone can draw up a rough, unbiased estimate if they really want to. I'm not pretending my own figures were the be all and end all, but I deal with enough figures on a day to day basis at a high enough academic level to trust my own diagnosis. Funnily enough, it lined up more or less with all the other figures punted about once you accounted for their various tricks (so including the highest possible rate of oil in the SNP figures, ignoring it and minimising growrth rates in the Remain campaign figures, etc).
The conclusion I reached was that if the oil market is doing badly, Scotland is about 4% in deficit, and if it's doing well, they can rise a few percent in surplus. The oil market essentially makes or breaks the Scottish economy right now. Everything is malleable to an extent, but the fact remains that an independent Scotland would essentially have to make some cuts. Not vast cuts, not deep cuts, but they'll have to lose a few of the nicer benefits that living in Scotland entails, and any subsequent recessions are likely to hit far harder than if Scotland were still part of the UK. For many, I imagine that would be an acceptable price to pay for an independent country, for others not so much.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, I don't doubt what you're saying about the economics, but the purpose of independence is to do things differently.
I did my best to account for that sort of thing, but there are plenty of additional costs to counter savings from things Scotland wouldn't bother with subsequently.
Thing is, I'm not trying to spin a case for remain or leave one way or the other, I want you guys to stay (because I view it as part of my own country and you as my countrymen) but if the democratic result was 'Leave', I wouldn't gainsay it. I'm against having a referendum every five years, but that's more on the basis that I think it's impractical, inconsiderate, and slightly undemocratic to keep running the same question every five years, I wouldn't object to it being run again in 15-20 years if the demand was there again. And likewise, if the result was leave in that one, I'd demand the result was upheld in the name of democracy.
At the end of the day, many people would view minor cuts and greater economic vulnerability as an acceptable price to pay for indepedence. Which is fair enough. I think all the back and forth and spin from both sides is the really insulting thing, because it tries to mislead people and stop them assessing things based on the concrete evidence and hide the actual impact of their vote one way or the other.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/10/01 12:00:26
The conclusion I reached was that if the oil market is doing badly, Scotland is about 4% in deficit, and if it's doing well, they can rise a few percent in surplus.
That is in line with other assessments I have heard.
At least Scotland doesn't have the banking vulnerabilities that it used to
That isn't going to be much help though as any deal will need to be ratified by all EU countries and several have stated categorically that freedom of movement is a red line issue, if the UK want's free trade it will have to accept genuine free movement. The likes of Poland isn't going to be interested in a visa scheme.
They might be. Ultimately, they have little to trade on that score, not many British people are settling in Poland or Romania. The only reason it's even being mentioned is because they're trying to link it to access to the free market. Which makes sense, because everyone wants to push for what works for them as hard as they can, and linking things up like that is a common negotiating strategy.
Once we look past vague 'principles' that could change in three years time and all the overheated rhetoric, we're left with the barebones of 'what do both sides want?' The Visegrad group don't care about 'European principles' that must be adhered to at any cost, what they want to do is protect the right of their citizens to work within the UK. So if it turns out that 85% of their citizens already work within the M25, and there's a proposed solution that permits those 85% to keep on doing so with little to no issues, they'll most likely go along with it. If, on the other hand, it's only 20% of their citizens in the UK, they'll undoubtedly oppose it. I have no figures to hand, but common wisdom always has it that most jobs/immigrants flow to the capital, so it's more likely to be the case than not. In which scenario, we might find it's a real point that everyone can get down to brass tacks over, work out some specifics, and solve it as an issue. If we can get our passporting rights, European citizens can keep working in the capital/Gibraltar, and regular citizens on both sides travelling/working outside those zones get an acclerated visa or something, the freedom of movement issue may well be solved to everyone's satisfaction.
The thing to remember here is that everyone has something to lose. All sides want to make a deal. Europe doesn't want us walking away completely anymore than we want to do it. Both sides are taking a hard tack right now because that's standard in negotiations of this scale and complexity. That will ease once the negotiations begin in earnest though.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/01 13:23:41
The problem here is that there isn't two sides, there are many, and 28 of them will need to unanimously agree to whatever deal there is. Freedom of movement isn't a vague principle, its at the core of the EU, and people will metaphorically die in a ditch over it. Of course there will be some form of deal (whenever it appears) but I find it unlikely that it will make the Brexiteers happy.
Ketara wrote: Scotland essentially can only maintain its current spending levels indefinitely if it is linked to the British economy...
That's no surprise given that most its income and much of its expenditure is controlled by the UK government. This would not be the case with an independent Scotland, which would certainly have different priorities when it comes to expenditure and would possibly have a differing tax regime as well. The GERS data is basically worthless when it comes to the finances of an independent Scotland.
I'm not basing my assessment off the GERS data, but my own analysis which I drew up back during the referendum. I went through the various income/expenditures of the Scottish Government with a reasonably fine toothed comb, stripped out a lot of things I assumed Scotland wouldn't be contributing to (like Trident), estimated figures for a new fully devolved administration (something often left out by other people), and so forth. Essentially, there was so much spin over the whole affair, I realised I didn't trust anyone's figures, and so came up with my own. There's enough publicly available statistics that anyone can draw up a rough, unbiased estimate if they really want to. I'm not pretending my own figures were the be all and end all, but I deal with enough figures on a day to day basis at a high enough academic level to trust my own diagnosis. Funnily enough, it lined up more or less with all the other figures punted about once you accounted for their various tricks (so including the highest possible rate of oil in the SNP figures, ignoring it and minimising growrth rates in the Remain campaign figures, etc).
The conclusion I reached was that if the oil market is doing badly, Scotland is about 4% in deficit, and if it's doing well, they can rise a few percent in surplus. The oil market essentially makes or breaks the Scottish economy right now. Everything is malleable to an extent, but the fact remains that an independent Scotland would essentially have to make some cuts. Not vast cuts, not deep cuts, but they'll have to lose a few of the nicer benefits that living in Scotland entails, and any subsequent recessions are likely to hit far harder than if Scotland were still part of the UK. For many, I imagine that would be an acceptable price to pay for an independent country, for others not so much.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, I don't doubt what you're saying about the economics, but the purpose of independence is to do things differently.
I did my best to account for that sort of thing, but there are plenty of additional costs to counter savings from things Scotland wouldn't bother with subsequently.
Thing is, I'm not trying to spin a case for remain or leave one way or the other, I want you guys to stay (because I view it as part of my own country and you as my countrymen) but if the democratic result was 'Leave', I wouldn't gainsay it. I'm against having a referendum every five years, but that's more on the basis that I think it's impractical, inconsiderate, and slightly undemocratic to keep running the same question every five years, I wouldn't object to it being run again in 15-20 years if the demand was there again. And likewise, if the result was leave in that one, I'd demand the result was upheld in the name of democracy.
At the end of the day, many people would view minor cuts and greater economic vulnerability as an acceptable price to pay for indepedence. Which is fair enough. I think all the back and forth and spin from both sides is the really insulting thing, because it tries to mislead people and stop them assessing things based on the concrete evidence and hide the actual impact of their vote one way or the other.
North sea is reducing output.
It peaked years ago.
Also even oil giants Saudi are doing so well.
Independent Scotland might of bad a rough start
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
The problem here is that there isn't two sides, there are many, and 28 of them will need to unanimously agree to whatever deal there is. Freedom of movement isn't a vague principle, its at the core of the EU, and people will metaphorically die in a ditch over it. Of course there will be some form of deal (whenever it appears) but I find it unlikely that it will make the Brexiteers happy.
Freedom of movement has been under threat since before brexit, see Switzerland, the closing of the Schengen area, and so forth. A political principle which is completely inflexible will shatter eventually.
Plus, to reiterate from a while back, the people willing to 'die in the ditches' so to speak are far from the majority, and poorly represented in the national governments. The Visegrad group don't care about EU principle, they care about the facts on the ground. The only person who's really thrown his all into maintaining it is Hollande. Once he's out the picture? We shall see.....
Out of curiosity, I just did some digging on migrant locations in the UK. There's about 8 million foreign born people in the UK, about 40% of them live in London. Most of the rest are along the East of the country running from Kent up to the Midlands. If you run by foreign citizenship instead of foreign birth, the proportion living in London seems to increase sharply for people from Germany and the Visegrad group, so we're probably looking at around 65% of economic migrants being located in London, and most of the rest in Kent and Essex. So not as good as one could hope, but room to work with.
Freedom of movement has been under threat since before brexit, see Switzerland, the closing of the Schengen area, and so forth.
Which is all the more reason for the EU to fight for it. The UK has a herculean task on its hands to get free trade without free movement and to be honest I don't think that it is up to it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/01 13:54:05
Well in that link I posted earlier, oil only brings in about 2 billion a year. But it dropped last year to sixty million. So Scotland will have to find its money elsewhere.
Just get Rock star North to make a game each year, that should help out.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
welshhoppo wrote: Well in that link I posted earlier, oil only brings in about 2 billion a year. But it dropped last year to sixty million. So Scotland will have to find its money elsewhere.
Just get Rock star North to make a game each year, that should help out.
You have to think wider than the pure revenue figures from the sale of oil. Many many jobs and supply chain companies also relied upon that business operating, which has now almost dried up completely. That in turn lowers tax receipts and increases claims upon state resources in the form of benefits and suchlike.
Not only that, but it's fallen rather drastically, historically speaking. That two billion last year was already exceptionally low, and a real problem for Scotland (had they been independent). Here's a chart from 2013:-
Oil is simply not a sustainable income to rely upon, it would seem. Scotland, as an independent nation, would need to put itself in a position whereby the oil can dry up completely and it remains solvent, or it will forever be vastly exposed to that one market for providing a suitable quality of life.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/01 15:52:05
Westminster could have a controlling stake in a semi-nationalised oil industry, and we could create an oil fund, and pretty soon, we'd be sitting on 600 billion pounds worth of oil in the fund, just like Norway have done...
Westminster's handling of North Sea Oil has to be one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated on the British people. It has been so badly handled as to be criminally negligent...
Instead of the nation prospering through a national infrastructure programme with the money or something similar, a few spivs and speculators robbed this country blind.
And people ask me why I want the hell away from Westminster rule...
It breaks my heart to see what Norway did with their Oil compared to Britain pissing it away down the drain...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I'm with you on that one. It disgusting how that oil has been managed. I don't know what it is but we're really good here at squandering our talents and assets here.
I'm with you on that one. It disgusting how that oil has been managed. I don't know what it is but we're really good here at squandering our talents and assets here.
It is because the people in charge of the country have no talents beyond getting elected.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I'm with you on that one. It disgusting how that oil has been managed. I don't know what it is but we're really good here at squandering our talents and assets here.
I'm not afraid to hold up my hand and say I'm biased on this issue with regards to oil and Scottish independence. I admit it.
But leaving aside that issue, and taking a cold, hard look at it, let's consider the following:
We know from interviews and documents released under the 30 year rule that politics was involved in this.
Tony Benn wanted an oil fund, but was overuled, as Labour were worried about the SNP surge in the 1970s. We know from the McCrone report that Westminster downplayed oil revenues to stiff support for Scottish independence.
And we all know about Thatcher's tax breaks with oil money to win elections...
Party politcs was put above the national interest. And that's what makes me mad, angry,
So much could have been done with that cash. Roads, railways, hospitals, anything...
I'm with you on that one. It disgusting how that oil has been managed. I don't know what it is but we're really good here at squandering our talents and assets here.
It is because the people in charge of the country have no talents beyond getting elected.
At least years ago, they pretended to be doing it for something more than money, but these days, they're just so blatant. I was reading an artile in Private Eye about Cameron's honours list: packed full of his cronies, school chums, and other hangers on and lackeys.
He didn't give a damn who knew...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: We will just have to make sure that it doesn't happen with the last resource that Britain has. Wit and stiff lips.
Wit? Stiff lips? People complain if they're seperated from their iphones for more than 5 minutes, these days.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/01 18:18:41
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
