phuketjock Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 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 jpinx, you are of course correct I will try to call it " Scotlands oil revenue " from now. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) There are people who follow politicans regardless of what patently-obviously ridiculous statement come out of their mouths. Witness the recent USA elections and some of the absolutley appalling mis-truths which were actually supported by large numbers of people. Now when it comes to things as emotive and obscure as nationalism and government finances the politicans have more than enough opportunity to lead their followers up the garden path - but follow they will, like lambs to the slaughter, without a thought for actually doing any research of their own. It's a sad commentary on the human condition. This thread has not descended into the realms of passports, embassies, trade agreements, etc. Fortunately Scotland has already got it's own legal and education systems running well and separately from the rest of the UK - thanks to the total indifference of the English during the implementation of the Act of Union. What is not often recognised - but I am guessing is talked about in private - is the creeping conquest of Scotland by english incomers arriving and taking up their right to vote. This is how Ireland was conquered in Elizabethan times. The same tactic is successfully running in many countries around the world and is one of the main reasons behind such atrocities as Bosnia. Be under no illusion about an independent Scotland. If the vote goes YES there will forever be a big minority of discontented anglophiles who could easily cause big trouble in Regional and District elections. In short - be careful what you wish for - you just might get it........... Edited November 19, 2012 by jpinx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Assimilation is underway....there is little to fear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) 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 jpinx, you are of course correct I will try to call it " Scotlands oil revenue " from now. Thank you. Yea! right enough,and why not bring back the 9,000,000 + from America,and the 4,000,000 + from Canada who are of Scottish blood,so they can all have their share of the North Sea Oil Revenue.Scotlands oil revenue. Edited November 19, 2012 by MAJIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketjock Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 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 jpinx, you are of course correct I will try to call it " Scotlands oil revenue " from now. Thank you. Yea! right enough,and why not bring back the 9,000,000 + from America,and the 4,000,000 + from Canada who are of Scottish blood,so they can all have their share of the North Sea Oil Revenue.Scotlands oil revenue. MAJIC Just come back from the pub then?? good on yerr laddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJIC Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) 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 jpinx, you are of course correct I will try to call it " Scotlands oil revenue " from now. Thank you. Yea! right enough,and why not bring back the 9,000,000 + from America,and the 4,000,000 + from Canada who are of Scottish blood,so they can all have their share of the North Sea Oil Revenue.Scotlands oil revenue. MAJIC Just come back from the pub then?? good on yerr laddie I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and take it you know something about your ancesters then? Edited November 19, 2012 by MAJIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Assimilation is underway....there is little to fear. McBorg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) English ancestry and royalty can be found mostly in Germany, though nowadays the influx of ex-commonwealth countries is a significant minority who have yet to exercise their rights. Scotlands ancestry is similar to Irelands, except for the fact that Ireland managed to defeat the vikings, whereas Scotland had to be assimilated. USA has a large and influential minority of scottish and irish, but nothing compared to the influence of the jewish minority there. One can pontificate endlessly about what makes a person a rightful user of the country's nationality and why we should defend nationalities - which is exactly why all borders, nationalities and passports should be abolished. No country is homogeneous, they all have areas of differing cultures, language, etc without those areas being any less of a part of that country. The world is our home and we need to get along together a lot better than we have been doing. Edited November 20, 2012 by jpinx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Assimilation is underway....there is little to fear. McBorg? McMurray nowadays. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2012/10/scotlands-referendum-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 Plus a distinctly tongue in cheek map of Scotland showing its post-independence state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokie36 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Is that one owned by Murdoch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Is that one owned by Murdoch? Thankfully not. "The Economist Group is an associate and not a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. The Financial Times Limited, which is a Pearson subsidiary, owns 50% of the share capital of The Economist Group but does not have a controlling interest. The bulk of the remaining shares are held by individual shareholders including the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders. The Economist Group operates as a separate and independent business." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 As an aside the Economist was set up and initially run by a Scottish entrepreneur, James Wilson from Hawick, in 1843. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketjock Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist...um-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist...um-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." Well it's either "jousnalistic political poppycock" or not. Or perhaps it only registers as such if it does not agree with your stance.... Just to repeat my earlier comment: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist...um-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." I'm not sure it's right to cherry pick and assign credibility to a single paragraph from a document that you describe as "journalistic poppycock". Are there any facts that you think that they should have included in the documents? Or facts that they put forward, for which you have alternative facts? Or any alternative conclusions that you can draw, accepting the same facts? SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 At no stage have I said that Scotland today faces its very own fiscal cliff, . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketjock Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist...um-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." Well it's either "jousnalistic political poppycock" or not. Or perhaps it only registers as such if it does not agree with your stance.... Just to repeat my earlier comment: 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. If it makes sense to you follium just you keep repeating your self, no sweat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketjock Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist...um-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." I'm not sure it's right to cherry pick and assign credibility to a single paragraph from a document that you describe as "journalistic poppycock". Are there any facts that you think that they should have included in the documents? Or facts that they put forward, for which you have alternative facts? Or any alternative conclusions that you can draw, accepting the same facts? SC SC can you not see that by "cherry picking " I am illustrating what journalists and politicians do by picking cerdible information that supports their view and using it to persuade people like follium that what I say is MORE credible tham someone elses info. It is still journalistic political poppycock when I use the same tactic!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 A racist post has been removed. Please follow the rules: 7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 So will Scotland be applying to join OPEC then? That'll improve my mate's standing amongst his fellow United supporters SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist...um-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." Well it's either "jousnalistic political poppycock" or not. Or perhaps it only registers as such if it does not agree with your stance.... Just to repeat my earlier comment: 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. If it makes sense to you follium just you keep repeating your self, no sweat. This is beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch. Do you have any meaningful comments to make or opinions to express? That's the normal nature of a debate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Some interesting reading from the Economist: http://www.economist...um-independence http://www.economist.com/node/21552572 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." I'm not sure it's right to cherry pick and assign credibility to a single paragraph from a document that you describe as "journalistic poppycock". Are there any facts that you think that they should have included in the documents? Or facts that they put forward, for which you have alternative facts? Or any alternative conclusions that you can draw, accepting the same facts? SC SC can you not see that by "cherry picking " I am illustrating what journalists and politicians do by picking cerdible information that supports their view and using it to persuade people like follium that what I say is MORE credible tham someone elses info. It is still journalistic political poppycock when I use the same tactic!!! So what are you trying to say that is more credible than what is written by the journalists of the Economist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I am amazed and somewhat depressed at the lack of objectivity -- but this is a forum so I suppose I should expect that It certainly stops me contributing much....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phuketjock Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 More jousnalistic political poppycock. But once again from your own source " Scotland's accounts of revenue and expenditure, based on Treasury data, show that it is not a ward of the state, grossly subsidised from Westminster. In fact it performs better than all regions outside the south-east of England, and has done particularly well in the past decade (see chart). In 2010-11 Scotland's GDP was £145 billion ($225 billion) including a geographical share of North Sea oil and gas, around 10% of Britain's, with 8.4% of the population." I'm not sure it's right to cherry pick and assign credibility to a single paragraph from a document that you describe as "journalistic poppycock". Are there any facts that you think that they should have included in the documents? Or facts that they put forward, for which you have alternative facts? Or any alternative conclusions that you can draw, accepting the same facts? SC SC can you not see that by "cherry picking " I am illustrating what journalists and politicians do by picking cerdible information that supports their view and using it to persuade people like follium that what I say is MORE credible tham someone elses info. It is still journalistic political poppycock when I use the same tactic!!! So what are you trying to say that is more credible than what is written by the journalists of the Economist? Oh Dear follium I was trying to illustrate how journalists, in particular political journalists, loosely adapt the facts to persuade you and me and unfortunately thousands of other hapless people that their take on things is the only possible viable view. The difference between you and me is you seem to prefer the journalists view rather than the facts which really are the only credibilities that are indisputable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I think people can make up their own mind based on the information they find credible and their own personal feelings on the situation. The thread is not about making judgments about how other posters make decisions. Stay on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinx Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent. Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting. I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folium Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent. Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting. I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES Thank you for that. As it is such an emotive issue it is possible to argue that the key point of debate prior to making a decision is to consider all the consequences of deciding one way or the other. IMHO the long term consequences of independence would be highly detrimental at the very least on the financial/economic front, as a geographically peripheral nation with a small population and a shrinking revenue stream, would be very vulnerable to economic problems. Thus I would (at least today, based on my current understanding of the issues), vote with my wallet rather than my heart and thus vote NO. jpinx To address your comments dirtectly I would say that all nations are political constructs, anachronistic or otherwise, and unless you happen to live in a tiny nation with an utterly homogenous poulation, all nations are guilty of ignoring to some degree the cultural values and differences of at least some of their population. Do all the residents of Marchmont/Morningside, Springburn/Maryhill, Kirkwall/Lerwick share the same cultural values and differences, could any government represent all their interests? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent. Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting. I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES You're obviously an English nationalist. When James VI assumed the throne of England, there was no-one more pleased than the Scots. We need to remember that oil will run out, but we will always have our English serfs SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetCowboy Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Scotlands independence is a highly emotive issue for many - including a lot of people who are not personally involved, but who feel that nationalism or "empire-ism" is a "good thing". Inevitably there are more commentaries than truths, so making a judgement is, to say the least, difficult. Perhaps people need to look at their own motives for believing Scotland should or should not be independent. Statistics can be used to prove anything. Discovering what makes people want YES or NO is much more interesting. I'll start the ball rolling by saying that the united kingdom is a politically manufactured anachronism which ignores cultural values and differences. So I will vote YES Thank you for that. As it is such an emotive issue it is possible to argue that the key point of debate prior to making a decision is to consider all the consequences of deciding one way or the other. IMHO the long term consequences of independence would be highly detrimental at the very least on the financial/economic front, as a geographically peripheral nation with a small population and a shrinking revenue stream, would be very vulnerable to economic problems. Thus I would (at least today, based on my current understanding of the issues), vote with my wallet rather than my heart and thus vote NO. jpinx To address your comments dirtectly I would say that all nations are political constructs, anachronistic or otherwise, and unless you happen to live in a tiny nation with an utterly homogenous poulation, all nations are guilty of ignoring to some degree the cultural values and differences of at least some of their population. Do all the residents of Marchmont/Morningside, Springburn/Maryhill, Kirkwall/Lerwick share the same cultural values and differences, could any government represent all their interests? The residents of the places you have mentioned pretty much cover the full range of political views of the United Kingdom, and to pretend that there is some difference in the range of views of the (English, Irish and Welsh) versus the (Scots) is a wicked deception. There may be some small (though statistically significant) difference, but the range and nature is similar. For all our heather heathen pretence, we Brits are Brits SC Edited November 21, 2012 by StreetCowboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts