Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[StreetCowboy]

And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries.

Hence the hose-pipe bans when it doesn't rain for a couple of weeks.

That's true! but our draughts are mere seasonal hiccups,compared with real draught problems around the world.

The ready answer to draughts is insulation and canned beer.

Drought is a more serious problem, though not in Scotland.

England's water problems would be solved if they stopped using drinking water to wash their cars and flush their toilets.

SC

[StreetCowboy]

Re the brown, peaty water Scottish whisky is not even majority Scottish owned. Diageo (who have just bought Whyte and Mackay from the bankrupt Indian Kingfisher group) is a London based, British firm and Pernot Ricard are based in Paris for heaven's sake. Between them they own over 60% of Scottish whisky production, Scottish based companies (predominantly Edrington Group and W.Grants) own less than a third, with assorted European, Japanese and US companies making up the rest.

]

And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries.

One word missing, Majic..... "up"....... "we have been using UP our own water for centuries."

Scotland has a surplus of water, given the higher than average rainfall for the (present) UK. You cannot overlook the recent drought panics in England, for example this year. The aquifers have been over-exploited and over-extraction from the rivers continues apace, especially for agricultural irrigation. Sure, there were floods within weeks of the droughts, but all that water did little to replenish the deep aquifers. I foresee you peeping over Hadrian's Wall, saying "Please, pretty please, can we have some water?" when we go independent.....

The need for water will outweigh the huge cost of a water grid, and the rump of the UK will have to bear that expense to maintain its industrial, agricultural and domestic use.

MAJIC,folium Who actually owns what is irrelevant it is the revenue/duty generated from oil. whisky,

wind generators, wave power and anything else that you can think of, which at present goes to the

British government, after independance will go to the Scottish government, and when this happens

Scotland will cease to be the only country in history that struck oil and became poorer!!!

Scotland didn't strike oil,the English did it for them. And had they had total control of the developement and extraction of the oil wells it would still be in the ground. Scotland has had their fair share of the oil revenue,through allocated payments from Westminster,which is much higher per head of population than what is allocated to English people,and members of the United Kingdom.

Just look around your Country now,and you will see it is much richer than when oil came on the scene pre 70s.

Talk of Scotland and England pre 2014 is pretty facile, since until then, we are all British. For companies, there may be some difference, depending on whether they are incorporated under Scottish Law (e.g. Britoil, Scotland's largest company at the time)_or English Law (e.g. BP, that bought them over, England's largest company at the time)

I'm not sure what revenue the exchequer gets from export whisky, and the duty on drink onshore is the same whether it is brewed in Scotland or elsewhere.

SC

[cowslip]

"And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries." - not true

I think you need to think about the future....2 centuries have seen a lot of change.....get up to speed

Water is the oil of the future.

PS - who's "WE"?

Edited November 17, 2012 by cowslip

[MAJIC]

Re the brown, peaty water Scottish whisky is not even majority Scottish owned. Diageo (who have just bought Whyte and Mackay from the bankrupt Indian Kingfisher group) is a London based, British firm and Pernot Ricard are based in Paris for heaven's sake. Between them they own over 60% of Scottish whisky production, Scottish based companies (predominantly Edrington Group and W.Grants) own less than a third, with assorted European, Japanese and US companies making up the rest.

]

And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries.

One word missing, Majic..... "up"....... "we have been using UP our own water for centuries."

Scotland has a surplus of water, given the higher than average rainfall for the (present) UK. You cannot overlook the recent drought panics in England, for example this year. The aquifers have been over-exploited and over-extraction from the rivers continues apace, especially for agricultural irrigation. Sure, there were floods within weeks of the droughts, but all that water did little to replenish the deep aquifers. I foresee you peeping over Hadrian's Wall, saying "Please, pretty please, can we have some water?" when we go independent.....

The need for water will outweigh the huge cost of a water grid, and the rump of the UK will have to bear that expense to maintain its industrial, agricultural and domestic use.

MAJIC,folium Who actually owns what is irrelevant it is the revenue/duty generated from oil. whisky,

wind generators, wave power and anything else that you can think of, which at present goes to the

British government, after independance will go to the Scottish government, and when this happens

Scotland will cease to be the only country in history that struck oil and became poorer!!!

Scotland didn't strike oil,the English did it for them. And had they had total control of the developement and extraction of the oil wells it would still be in the ground. Scotland has had their fair share of the oil revenue,through allocated payments from Westminster,which is much higher per head of population than what is allocated to English people,and members of the United Kingdom.

Just look around your Country now,and you will see it is much richer than when oil came on the scene pre 70s.

@ StreetCowboy

Talk of Scotland and England pre 2014 is pretty facile, since until then, we are all British. For companies, there may be some difference, depending on whether they are incorporated under Scottish Law (e.g. Britoil, Scotland's largest company at the time)_or English Law (e.g. BP, that bought them over, England's largest company at the time)

I'm not sure what revenue the exchequer gets from export whisky, and the duty on drink onshore is the same whether it is brewed in Scotland or elsewhere.

@ MAJIC

I take your point as above,the same thing applies to all export revenue,whether it's from Scottish revenue origin or English revenue origin,it all gets added to the collective "Chancellors Pot" ,which is shared out for the good of all UK Countries and Members.regardless of which Country of the UK generated the original product. So it's not in anyones interest to split hairs. which will happen (Big Time) if it comes to a definate split of the United Kingdom,with a Yes Vote.

Divorces are rarely amicable! and most certainly with Bitterness,and lasting animosity!

Edited November 17, 2012 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries.

Hence the hose-pipe bans when it doesn't rain for a couple of weeks.

That's true! but our draughts are mere seasonal hiccups,compared with real draught problems around the world.

The ready answer to draughts is insulation and canned beer.

Drought is a more serious problem, though not in Scotland.

England's water problems would be solved if they stopped using drinking water to wash their cars and flush their toilets.

SC

I don't think we have a real water shortage,as I have previously stated,but even so you have a point concerning water wastage,and misuse!

in May to June this year,we had a lot of rain,every day for a whole month,and many areas of the Country had serious floods.

[Rob8891]

@ MAJIC

Whilst droughts in the UK do tend to be short term, I could agree, there are two major factors that you have not addressed in your recent posts.

1. There is a very clear mis-match of the distribution of pecipitation and the distribution of population throughout the UK. Ask any Scottish school pupil who has studied Higher Geography (and maybe English A level pupils, I left England many years ago), ...ask them about the UK's water budget, regional potential evaporation and this mis-match becomes more stark.

2. There is also a severe lack of suitable large-scale storage areas in SE England in particular (since this is where the majority of the UK's population and the lowest precipitation are found)

Taking these points together, there is no doubt that England has a serious water shortage. Scotland, on the other hand, has one tenth of the Uk's population on 60% of the UK land mass, and some of the highest preciptation rates (and lowest potential evaporation trates) in the UK. Loch Ness alone contains more fresh water than the whole of England.

It is a clear fact that Scotland has a surplus of water, which England will need more and more in the future.

Scotland is also exporting electricity to England, using renewable resources..... England will need this more and more as fossil fuels become more difficult to obtain.... and talking of fossil fuels, you said "Scotland didn't strike oil,the English did it for them."...... <deleted>?????

[MAJIC]

"And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries." - not true

I think you need to think about the future....2 centuries have seen a lot of change.....get up to speed

Water is the oil of the future.

PS - who's "WE"?

We in this instance are: English people,I thought that was clear enough.

Water management is not a major problem in England,(most of which was sorted out many years ago) as regards to consumption of Potable water supplies. As I have already stated the odd short term draught in particular hot summers,in certain areas, is a minor hiccup,and hardly life threatening or worth spending Billions on,and as for pumping it down from Scotland,when there is many other nearer possibilities (such as Wales the Pennines) and cheaper options,is frankly farcical!

And please don't tag on your reply on to the end of my quote! as in: - not true

Edited November 17, 2012 by MAJIC

[Theoutsider]

yes

[MAJIC]

@ MAJIC

Whilst droughts in the UK do tend to be short term, I could agree, there are two major factors that you have not addressed in your recent posts.

1. There is a very clear mis-match of the distribution of pecipitation and the distribution of population throughout the UK. Ask any Scottish school pupil who has studied Higher Geography (and maybe English A level pupils, I left England many years ago), ...ask them about the UK's water budget, regional potential evaporation and this mis-match becomes more stark.

2. There is also a severe lack of suitable large-scale storage areas in SE England in particular (since this is where the majority of the UK's population and the lowest precipitation are found)

Taking these points together, there is no doubt that England has a serious water shortage. Scotland, on the other hand, has one tenth of the Uk's population on 60% of the UK land mass, and some of the highest preciptation rates (and lowest potential evaporation trates) in the UK. Loch Ness alone contains more fresh water than the whole of England.

It is a clear fact that Scotland has a surplus of water, which England will need more and more in the future.

Scotland is also exporting electricity to England, using renewable resources..... England will need this more and more as fossil fuels become more difficult to obtain.... and talking of fossil fuels, you said "Scotland didn't strike oil,the English did it for them."...... <deleted>?????

Here is a list of Dams and Reservoirs in the UK, and where they are situated,try counting them,if you have some spare time! I didn't count the Scottish ones either.

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

Don't forget we have plenty of Lakes and Canals as well.

Edited November 17, 2012 by MAJIC

[phuketjock]

Re the brown, peaty water Scottish whisky is not even majority Scottish owned. Diageo (who have just bought Whyte and Mackay from the bankrupt Indian Kingfisher group) is a London based, British firm and Pernot Ricard are based in Paris for heaven's sake. Between them they own over 60% of Scottish whisky production, Scottish based companies (predominantly Edrington Group and W.Grants) own less than a third, with assorted European, Japanese and US companies making up the rest.

]

And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries.

One word missing, Majic..... "up"....... "we have been using UP our own water for centuries."

Scotland has a surplus of water, given the higher than average rainfall for the (present) UK. You cannot overlook the recent drought panics in England, for example this year. The aquifers have been over-exploited and over-extraction from the rivers continues apace, especially for agricultural irrigation. Sure, there were floods within weeks of the droughts, but all that water did little to replenish the deep aquifers. I foresee you peeping over Hadrian's Wall, saying "Please, pretty please, can we have some water?" when we go independent.....

The need for water will outweigh the huge cost of a water grid, and the rump of the UK will have to bear that expense to maintain its industrial, agricultural and domestic use.

MAJIC,folium Who actually owns what is irrelevant it is the revenue/duty generated from oil. whisky,

wind generators, wave power and anything else that you can think of, which at present goes to the

British government, after independance will go to the Scottish government, and when this happens

Scotland will cease to be the only country in history that struck oil and became poorer!!!

Scotland didn't strike oil,the English did it for them. And if Scotland had total control of the developement and extraction of the oil wells it would still be in the ground. Scotland has had their fair share of the oil revenue,through allocated payments from Westminster,which is much higher per head of population than what is allocated to English people,and members of the United Kingdom.

Just look around your Country now,and you will see it is much richer than when oil came on the scene pre 70s. there are other oil fields and platforms off the English coast as well you know,which the revenue also went into the joint financial pot,known as the United Kingdom.

MAJIC you are living in a dreamworld if you think England struck oil for Scotland. Mabe you should do a bit of research before you

make crazy claims, this might help give you some perspective on reality??

http://www.independe...and-518697.html

If there has been any improvment in the lot of the common Scot it is not the result of a generous

English/UK government, rather the historically inate self determination of the Scottish people.

Edited November 18, 2012 by phuketjock

[phuketjock]

MAJIC some more factual info for you, westminster distribution of wealth in pounds to each

member of the UK. by population and by totals annually.

N. Ireland per head 9,385 population 1.8 million total 16,893,000,000 pounds.

Wales 8,139 3.1 25,230,900,000

Scotland 8,623 5.2 44,839,600,000

England 7,121 53.2 378,837,200,000

It all looks fairly resonable until the totals come up then it becomes obviously

obscene why England are the richest member of this union!!

They collect 4.5 times the total of all the other members added together.

Scotland is approx. 60% the land area of England who collects 8.5 times the

money, 15 times the money Wales gets, and 23.6 times the money N.Ireland gets.

As stated above at 60% the area of England which has just under 2000 miles

of motorway Scotlands 237 miles of motor way is approx. 12% of Englands.

This must be one of the many post oil improvements made to Scotland after the

English found our oil for us.

[cowslip]

"And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries." - not true

I think you need to think about the future....2 centuries have seen a lot of change.....get up to speed

Water is the oil of the future.

PS - who's "WE"?

We in this instance are: English people,I thought that was clear enough.

Water management is not a major problem in England,(most of which was sorted out many years ago) as regards to consumption of Potable water supplies. As I have already stated the odd short term draught in particular hot summers,in certain areas, is a minor hiccup,and hardly life threatening or worth spending Billions on,and as for pumping it down from Scotland,when there is many other nearer possibilities (such as Wales the Pennines) and cheaper options,is frankly farcical!

And please don't tag on your reply on to the end of my quote! as in: - not true

rubbish!

[MAJIC]

"And as for the Enlish needing Scottish water? another Scottish myth,we have been using our own water for Centuries." - not true

I think you need to think about the future....2 centuries have seen a lot of change.....get up to speed

Water is the oil of the future.

PS - who's "WE"?

We in this instance are: English people,I thought that was clear enough.

Water management is not a major problem in England,(most of which was sorted out many years ago) as regards to consumption of Potable water supplies. As I have already stated the odd short term draught in particular hot summers,in certain areas, is a minor hiccup,and hardly life threatening or worth spending Billions on,and as for pumping it down from Scotland,when there is many other nearer possibilities (such as Wales the Pennines) and cheaper options,is frankly farcical!

And please don't tag on your reply on to the end of my quote! as in: - not true

rubbish!

Talking of Rubbish "Water is the oil of the future" that may be true if you live in the,The Persion Gulf? or Ethiopia?

Edited November 18, 2012 by MAJIC

[NxaiPan]

MAJIC some more factual info for you, westminster distribution of wealth in pounds to each

member of the UK. by population and by totals annually.

N. Ireland per head 9,385 population 1.8 million total 16,893,000,000 pounds.

Wales 8,139 3.1 25,230,900,000

Scotland 8,623 5.2 44,839,600,000

England 7,121 53.2 378,837,200,000

It all looks fairly resonable until the totals come up then it becomes obviously

obscene why England are the richest member of this union!!

They collect 4.5 times the total of all the other members added together.

Scotland is approx. 60% the land area of England who collects 8.5 times the

money, 15 times the money Wales gets, and 23.6 times the money N.Ireland gets.

As stated above at 60% the area of England which has just under 2000 miles

of motorway Scotlands 237 miles of motor way is approx. 12% of Englands.

This must be one of the many post oil improvements made to Scotland after the

English found our oil for us.

Rather bizarre way of looking at government expenditure. The relevance of the area of Scotland is basically zero. The key element is how much revenue does each region of the UK actually contribute and then compare that to the levels of government expenditure.

The link below spells this out in detail and the bottom line is quite simple. The only net contributors are London, the SouthEast and East, with the rest of the UK being net consumers rather than contributors. The peripheral regions ( including Scotland) are therefore living off the revenue generated by the SE/E corner of England.

http://www.isitfair.co.uk/Reports/Public/OE%20UKPublicFinance.pdf

[folium]

@ MAJIC

Whilst droughts in the UK do tend to be short term, I could agree, there are two major factors that you have not addressed in your recent posts.

1. There is a very clear mis-match of the distribution of pecipitation and the distribution of population throughout the UK. Ask any Scottish school pupil who has studied Higher Geography (and maybe English A level pupils, I left England many years ago), ...ask them about the UK's water budget, regional potential evaporation and this mis-match becomes more stark.

2. There is also a severe lack of suitable large-scale storage areas in SE England in particular (since this is where the majority of the UK's population and the lowest precipitation are found)

Taking these points together, there is no doubt that England has a serious water shortage. Scotland, on the other hand, has one tenth of the Uk's population on 60% of the UK land mass, and some of the highest preciptation rates (and lowest potential evaporation trates) in the UK. Loch Ness alone contains more fresh water than the whole of England.

It is a clear fact that Scotland has a surplus of water, which England will need more and more in the future.

Scotland is also exporting electricity to England, using renewable resources..... England will need this more and more as fossil fuels become more difficult to obtain.... and talking of fossil fuels, you said "Scotland didn't strike oil,the English did it for them."...... <deleted>?????

Always enjoyed a good geography lesson!

Areas of excess precipitation input relative to consumption are not restricted to the west coast of Scotland. If you look at any rainfall map of the UK you will see that similar areas of excess would include the Pennines, Lake District, moors of the SW and much of central and W Wales. Kielder Water covers the demand of the NE for the foreseeable future, and to supply the major urban areas of England it would make little sense to source water supplies from Scotland.

The bulky nature of water makes it horrendously expensive to transport given the unit price it is subsequently sold on for. There are many more financially viable options open to supplying the input deficient/ high consumption areas, such as linking up the Severn and Thames basins, replicating a Kielder Water in the Pennines, tapping the Lake District or importing more from Wales.

Ironically it is probably the Welsh who are likely to be the beneficiaries of water redistibution far more than Scotland due to the proximity of supply to areas of demand. In terms of water supply for England, Scotland is too peripheral.

[phuketjock]

MAJIC some more factual info for you, westminster distribution of wealth in pounds to each

member of the UK. by population and by totals annually.

N. Ireland per head 9,385 population 1.8 million total 16,893,000,000 pounds.

Wales 8,139 3.1 25,230,900,000

Scotland 8,623 5.2 44,839,600,000

England 7,121 53.2 378,837,200,000

It all looks fairly resonable until the totals come up then it becomes obviously

obscene why England are the richest member of this union!!

They collect 4.5 times the total of all the other members added together.

Scotland is approx. 60% the land area of England who collects 8.5 times the

money, 15 times the money Wales gets, and 23.6 times the money N.Ireland gets.

As stated above at 60% the area of England which has just under 2000 miles

of motorway Scotlands 237 miles of motor way is approx. 12% of Englands.

This must be one of the many post oil improvements made to Scotland after the

English found our oil for us.

Rather bizarre way of looking at government expenditure. The relevance of the area of Scotland is basically zero. The key element is how much revenue does each region of the UK actually contribute and then compare that to the levels of government expenditure.

The link below spells this out in detail and the bottom line is quite simple. The only net contributors are London, the SouthEast and East, with the rest of the UK being net consumers rather than contributors. The peripheral regions ( including Scotland) are therefore living off the revenue generated by the SE/E corner of England.

http://www.isitfair....blicFinance.pdf

NxaiPan, For one your link is pre 2008 and as such bears absolutely no relevance in todays finacial climate,

try addressing the present not the past. You cannot strenghthen your case by using outdated historical information.

Now if you can come up with the same info for 2011/12 that would be relevant, but can you???

[StreetCowboy]

MAJIC some more factual info for you, westminster distribution of wealth in pounds to each

member of the UK. by population and by totals annually.

N. Ireland per head 9,385 population 1.8 million total 16,893,000,000 pounds.

Wales 8,139 3.1 25,230,900,000

Scotland 8,623 5.2 44,839,600,000

England 7,121 53.2 378,837,200,000

It all looks fairly resonable until the totals come up then it becomes obviously

obscene why England are the richest member of this union!!

They collect 4.5 times the total of all the other members added together.

Scotland is approx. 60% the land area of England who collects 8.5 times the

money, 15 times the money Wales gets, and 23.6 times the money N.Ireland gets.

As stated above at 60% the area of England which has just under 2000 miles

of motorway Scotlands 237 miles of motor way is approx. 12% of Englands.

This must be one of the many post oil improvements made to Scotland after the

English found our oil for us.

Rather bizarre way of looking at government expenditure. The relevance of the area of Scotland is basically zero. The key element is how much revenue does each region of the UK actually contribute and then compare that to the levels of government expenditure.

The link below spells this out in detail and the bottom line is quite simple. The only net contributors are London, the SouthEast and East, with the rest of the UK being net consumers rather than contributors. The peripheral regions ( including Scotland) are therefore living off the revenue generated by the SE/E corner of England.

http://www.isitfair....blicFinance.pdf

NxaiPan, For one your link is pre 2008 and as such bears absolutely no relevance in todays finacial climate,

try addressing the present not the past. You cannot strenghthen your case by using outdated historical information.

Now if you can come up with the same info for 2011/12 that would be relevant, but can you???

He can probably only get the statistics after they've been published

SC

[smokie36]

@ Folium....I see you stated earlier in the thread you are entitled to vote in this referendum.

Can you confirm you are resident in Scotland and thus entitled please as you were asked earlier in the thread?

[folium]

@ Folium....I see you stated earlier in the thread you are entitled to vote in this referendum.

Can you confirm you are resident in Scotland and thus entitled please as you were asked earlier in the thread?

To put it politely that's none of your business.....Next?

[NxaiPan]

MAJIC some more factual info for you, westminster distribution of wealth in pounds to each

member of the UK. by population and by totals annually.

N. Ireland per head 9,385 population 1.8 million total 16,893,000,000 pounds.

Wales 8,139 3.1 25,230,900,000

Scotland 8,623 5.2 44,839,600,000

England 7,121 53.2 378,837,200,000

It all looks fairly resonable until the totals come up then it becomes obviously

obscene why England are the richest member of this union!!

They collect 4.5 times the total of all the other members added together.

Scotland is approx. 60% the land area of England who collects 8.5 times the

money, 15 times the money Wales gets, and 23.6 times the money N.Ireland gets.

As stated above at 60% the area of England which has just under 2000 miles

of motorway Scotlands 237 miles of motor way is approx. 12% of Englands.

This must be one of the many post oil improvements made to Scotland after the

English found our oil for us.

Rather bizarre way of looking at government expenditure. The relevance of the area of Scotland is basically zero. The key element is how much revenue does each region of the UK actually contribute and then compare that to the levels of government expenditure.

The link below spells this out in detail and the bottom line is quite simple. The only net contributors are London, the SouthEast and East, with the rest of the UK being net consumers rather than contributors. The peripheral regions ( including Scotland) are therefore living off the revenue generated by the SE/E corner of England.

http://www.isitfair....blicFinance.pdf

NxaiPan, For one your link is pre 2008 and as such bears absolutely no relevance in todays finacial climate,

try addressing the present not the past. You cannot strenghthen your case by using outdated historical information.

Now if you can come up with the same info for 2011/12 that would be relevant, but can you???

Pathetic response, and as you are obviously too idle to look it up yourself, here's the breakdown for 2010/2011, which continues to show that London and the SE remain the only net contributors, with surpluses of revenue over expenditure of 10.3 and 0.7% respectively. Even giving Scotland a mighty generous 83% of N. Sea carbon revenues, it remains a net consumer rather than contributor to UK revenue.

http://www.cebr.com/wp-content/uploads/Regional-surplus-and-deficits-Compatibility-Mode.pdf

Sorry I am not in a position to make up the numbers for 2011/12, though given the recent strength in the financial sector (coming off a low base), these are likely to show an increasingly skewed contribution from London/SE to the periphery.

[phuketjock]

@ NxaiPan

You really should read what you are posting more carefully.

From your own source Quote

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil sector"

Case closed I think!!

Edited November 19, 2012 by phuketjock

[StreetCowboy]

@ NxaiPan

You really should read what you are posting more carefully.

From your own source Quote

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil sector"

Case closed I think!!

So, like the Arabs, we'll use oil revenues to prop up our marginal economy? Let's hope peace doesn't break out in the Middle East, then.SC

[folium]

@ NxaiPan

You really should read what you are posting more carefully.

From your own source Quote

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil sector"

Case closed I think!!

Actually you need to read the attachment of Nxai Pan's more carefully. The score at present is Scotland raising 43% of tax revenue but spending 53% of overall expenditure. The resultant deficit is only matched by a generous slice of N.Sea revenue.

This ties in with today's piece from the IFS on this same issue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20380426

Currently Scotland is being priopped up by N.Sea revenue. This is declining and the brutal question is how would Scotland (if it squeaks the independence vote) or the UK address this issue? Would they cut spending or find a way of plugging the income gap?

[phuketjock]

@ NxaiPan

You really should read what you are posting more carefully.

From your own source Quote

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil sector"

Case closed I think!!

Actually you need to read the attachment of Nxai Pan's more carefully. The score at present is Scotland raising 43% of tax revenue but spending 53% of overall expenditure. The resultant deficit is only matched by a generous slice of N.Sea revenue.

This ties in with today's piece from the IFS on this same issue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20380426

Currently Scotland is being priopped up by N.Sea revenue. This is declining and the brutal question is how would Scotland (if it squeaks the independence vote) or the UK address this issue? Would they cut spending or find a way of plugging the income gap?

From your own source again

" Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "The IFS report confirms that Scotland is more than able to pay our way with public spending offset by revenues raised in Scotland and that with the appropriate share of North Sea revenues Scotland's public finances have been stronger than the UK's in every year from 2006-07 to 2010-11 with an average fiscal deficit lower than the UK's since 2000.

With independence Scotland will be able to face the difficult financial choices ahead from a stronger position than in the UK and use the full range of economic levers to support growth, boost revenues and deliver public services."

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!!!

[folium]

@ NxaiPan

You really should read what you are posting more carefully.

From your own source Quote

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil sector"

Case closed I think!!

Actually you need to read the attachment of Nxai Pan's more carefully. The score at present is Scotland raising 43% of tax revenue but spending 53% of overall expenditure. The resultant deficit is only matched by a generous slice of N.Sea revenue.

This ties in with today's piece from the IFS on this same issue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20380426

Currently Scotland is being priopped up by N.Sea revenue. This is declining and the brutal question is how would Scotland (if it squeaks the independence vote) or the UK address this issue? Would they cut spending or find a way of plugging the income gap?

From your own source again

" Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "The IFS report confirms that Scotland is more than able to pay our way with public spending offset by revenues raised in Scotland and that with the appropriate share of North Sea revenues Scotland's public finances have been stronger than the UK's in every year from 2006-07 to 2010-11 with an average fiscal deficit lower than the UK's since 2000.

With independence Scotland will be able to face the difficult financial choices ahead from a stronger position than in the UK and use the full range of economic levers to support growth, boost revenues and deliver public services."

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!!!

Seems like you and Mr Swinney suffer from the same selective reading deficiency.

At no stage have I said that Scotland today faces its very own fiscal cliff, but this will be very much be an issue going ahead as N.Sea oil/gas revenues decline. Generous spending commitments for populist measures in a shrinking revenue scenario will create an ugly situation of either cutting spending or attempting to plug the gap.

Look beyond the short term and the future for revenues from Scotland as part of the UK or as an independent entity will not be a pretty sight.

Have a read from today's FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/06e3a6f6-31a4-11e2-b68b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2CgZHk9sE

A geographical division of NSea revenue being replaced by a per capita one would be devastating for Scottish financial prospects.

Edited November 19, 2012 by folium

[phuketjock]

@ NxaiPan

You really should read what you are posting more carefully.

From your own source Quote

"Interestingly in the light of the independance debate, Scotland receives no net subsidy

Using Aberdeen University split of the oil and gas revenues ( which gives Scotland 83% )

the oil and gas revenues exactly cancel out the fiscal transfers from the non oil sector"

Case closed I think!!

Actually you need to read the attachment of Nxai Pan's more carefully. The score at present is Scotland raising 43% of tax revenue but spending 53% of overall expenditure. The resultant deficit is only matched by a generous slice of N.Sea revenue.

This ties in with today's piece from the IFS on this same issue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20380426

Currently Scotland is being priopped up by N.Sea revenue. This is declining and the brutal question is how would Scotland (if it squeaks the independence vote) or the UK address this issue? Would they cut spending or find a way of plugging the income gap?

From your own source again

" Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "The IFS report confirms that Scotland is more than able to pay our way with public spending offset by revenues raised in Scotland and that with the appropriate share of North Sea revenues Scotland's public finances have been stronger than the UK's in every year from 2006-07 to 2010-11 with an average fiscal deficit lower than the UK's since 2000.

With independence Scotland will be able to face the difficult financial choices ahead from a stronger position than in the UK and use the full range of economic levers to support growth, boost revenues and deliver public services."

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!!!

Seems like you and Mr Swinney suffer from the same selective reading deficiency.

At no stage have I said that Scotland today faces its very own fiscal cliff, but this will be very much be an issue going ahead as N.Sea oil/gas revenues decline. Generous spending commitments for populist measures in a shrinking revenue scenario will create an ugly situation of either cutting spending or attempting to plug the gap.

Look beyond the short term and the future for revenues from Scotland as part of the UK or as an independent entity will not be a pretty sight.

Have a read from today's FT:

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2CgZHk9sE

A geographical division of NSea revenue being replaced by a per capita one would be devastating for Scottish financial prospects.

What capita? the oil belongs to Scotland full stop, In what fantasy land would an independent Scotland

be sharing their oil revenue with anyone never mind England?? What sauce are you on man??

I can find no reference relevant to your post in your link!! except a headline stating " Scots face tough

fiscal challenge "

[folium]

Seems like you and Mr Swinney suffer from the same selective reading deficiency.

At no stage have I said that Scotland today faces its very own fiscal cliff, but this will be very much be an issue going ahead as N.Sea oil/gas revenues decline. Generous spending commitments for populist measures in a shrinking revenue scenario will create an ugly situation of either cutting spending or attempting to plug the gap.

Look beyond the short term and the future for revenues from Scotland as part of the UK or as an independent entity will not be a pretty sight.

Have a read from today's FT:

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2CgZHk9sE

A geographical division of NSea revenue being replaced by a per capita one would be devastating for Scottish financial prospects.

What capita? the oil belongs to Scotland full stop, In what fantasy land would an independant Scotland

be sharing their oil revenue with anyone never mjnd England?? What sauce are you on man??

I can find no reference relevant to your post in your link!!

You need to read the article...

"The report, being presented in Edinburgh on Monday, highlights uncertainty over whether the oil windfall would be split based on geographical proximity to the oilfields – the most advantageous outcome for Scotland – or via population size.

Should the rest of the UK retain more North Sea oil revenue than the territorially based division implies, Scotland’s public finances would look significantly more precarious than those of the UK, the IFS found.

Looking back, a population-based split would theoretically have made Scotland’s budget deficits as a share of gross domestic product since the mid-2000s about 5 to 7 percentage points greater than the UK as a whole.

An independent Scotland would face a “more difficult fiscal transition than that of the UK as a whole, one which took account of losing tax revenues that have been between 10 and 20 per cent of GDP depending on the year”, he said.

The numbers imply that Scotland is using up its oil-related revenues, as calculated by the geographical method, every year. In 2010-11 the budget deficit would have been 4.4 per cent of GDP after including North Sea revenue, as against the UK’s 6.6 per cent. With the population-based split of the oil income, the Scottish deficit would have been 11.2 per cent.

That rules out a sovereign wealth fund on the Norwegian model. “The alternative of saving oil revenues . . . and building up a fund (or lower debt) to cover, for example, later costs of ageing,” the report says, “does not seem to be an option in current fiscal circumstances.”

Without drastic changes to spending or other taxes “there is nothing to put aside”, Mr Johnson said."

Swinney was on the Today Programme this morning and confirmed that there is no agreement whether oil revenue would be divided geographically or on a per capita basis.Seems, like membership of the EU, that this is another issue where the SNP are making some bold assumptions not wholly grounded in reality. Interesting stuff...

[jpinx]

My goodness - this thread is still bumbling on under the mis-conceptions of how the seabed boundaries are defined under international law and who actually owns the oil. I suppose the thread is too long for anyone to reasonably read it all, so it is worth stating again that the seabed boundaries have been established for many years and Scotland would own the sea bed. The oil belongs to the oil companies - there is no such thing as "Scotland's oil" - it's Exxon's/BP's/etc's oil and the only way Scotland will gain anything is from the fees, duties and taxes raised when the oil is landed, refined and sold. Look for references to how much of what you pay for a litre of petrol is tax - it's most of it. That is where government revenue comes from.

Edit to add ---

Don't listen to the politicans - they are working to a different agenda - one to promote either a YES or NO vote - their portrayal of the reality of the situation is scandalously inaccurate

Edited November 19, 2012 by jpinx

[phuketjock]

Seems like you and Mr Swinney suffer from the same selective reading deficiency.

At no stage have I said that Scotland today faces its very own fiscal cliff, but this will be very much be an issue going ahead as N.Sea oil/gas revenues decline. Generous spending commitments for populist measures in a shrinking revenue scenario will create an ugly situation of either cutting spending or attempting to plug the gap.

Look beyond the short term and the future for revenues from Scotland as part of the UK or as an independent entity will not be a pretty sight.

Have a read from today's FT:

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2CgZHk9sE

A geographical division of NSea revenue being replaced by a per capita one would be devastating for Scottish financial prospects.

What capita? the oil belongs to Scotland full stop, In what fantasy land would an independant Scotland

be sharing their oil revenue with anyone never mjnd England?? What sauce are you on man??

I can find no reference relevant to your post in your link!!

You need to read the article...

"The report, being presented in Edinburgh on Monday, highlights uncertainty over whether the oil windfall would be split based on geographical proximity to the oilfields – the most advantageous outcome for Scotland – or via population size.

Should the rest of the UK retain more North Sea oil revenue than the territorially based division implies, Scotland’s public finances would look significantly more precarious than those of the UK, the IFS found.

Looking back, a population-based split would theoretically have made Scotland’s budget deficits as a share of gross domestic product since the mid-2000s about 5 to 7 percentage points greater than the UK as a whole.

An independent Scotland would face a “more difficult fiscal transition than that of the UK as a whole, one which took account of losing tax revenues that have been between 10 and 20 per cent of GDP depending on the year”, he said.

The numbers imply that Scotland is using up its oil-related revenues, as calculated by the geographical method, every year. In 2010-11 the budget deficit would have been 4.4 per cent of GDP after including North Sea revenue, as against the UK’s 6.6 per cent. With the population-based split of the oil income, the Scottish deficit would have been 11.2 per cent.

That rules out a sovereign wealth fund on the Norwegian model. “The alternative of saving oil revenues . . . and building up a fund (or lower debt) to cover, for example, later costs of ageing,” the report says, “does not seem to be an option in current fiscal circumstances.”

Without drastic changes to spending or other taxes “there is nothing to put aside”, Mr Johnson said."

Swinney was on the Today Programme this morning and confirmed that there is no agreement whether oil revenue would be divided geographically or on a per capita basis.Seems, like membership of the EU, that this is another issue where the SNP are making some bold assumptions not wholly grounded in reality. Interesting stuff...

Implication, speculation, conjecture, Today Programme more journalists and political analysts exercising their jaws, like yourself

without actually stating anything factual. Come back when you have something factual to contribute!!!

[smokie36]

Suggesting Scotland would accept a per capita deal with England over oil revenue is ridiculous full stop.