[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

ninfan - Member

Robinson asked him about 'tax revenues'

Salmond replied in a narrow sense by 'correcting him on a factual point' regards corporation tax

Who mentioned corporation tax?

Well they're a corporation, and he was talking about tax, so obviously corporation tax is within the scope of the question. What other taxes would he be referring to, that might conceivably be affected by a change of head office but not a change of job location?

What other taxes would he be referring to, that might conceivably be affected by a change of head office but not a change of job location?

VAT?

The thing I struggle with in all of this is if the vote is yes a bunch of politicians will still make all the rules but sit in Scotland and not London. In time is their behaviour really going to be that different to any other politicians - will things really be that different in the end?

will things really be that different in the end?

Northwind, according to Peston the other day it was VAT and Banking Levy that were the killers, and corporation tax was pennies since the crash.

Yes, it will still be the fault of the English....

iii) manufactured (the 'placemen' in the closed press conference whooping and hollering like 12 year olds)

As one of the hacks pointed out, it's not a press conference if people are clapping

Does Scotland get all the oil reserves?
I keep hearing supporters of the yes vote saying they will be entitled to Scotland's fair share of UK assets. Does this mean that rUK will be entitled to its fair share of the oil?
At the moment it is UK oil not Scottish oil and as such surely the rUK would be entitled to its fair share of this asset.

ninfan - Member

Northwind, according to Peston the other day it was VAT and Banking Levy that were the killers, and corporation tax was pennies since the crash.

Peston also said that Scotland probably couldn't have hoped to get the VAT either way, so it doesn't make any difference. And neither this VAT or the banking levy are included in the iScotland financial planning

Does Scotland get all the oil reserves?
I keep hearing supporters of the yes vote saying they will be entitled to Scotland's fair share of UK assets. Does this mean that rUK will be entitled to its fair share of the oil?
At the moment it is UK oil not Scottish oil and as such surely the rUK would be entitled to its fair share of this asset.

Pretty much. Geographical 'assets' cannot be divided up in the same way other assets that have been built with public money. Maybe you'd like 90% of Ben Nevis too?

He certainly never answered the point on why they should believe him over business owners,

@kjcc, its quite complicated. Basically all the discovered oil reserves have already been sold/licensed and those contracts are with the UK as a whole, its my understanding the UK will keep approx 90% of the future revenues from these contracts and Scotland 10%. Then there is the question about future as yet undiscovered reserves

The thing I struggle with in all of this is if the vote is yes a bunch of politicians will still make all the rules but sit in Scotland and not London. In time is their behaviour really going to be that different to any other politicians - will things really be that different in the end?

From Deutsche Bank this morning (note the guy who wrote this is globally ranked number 1 by investors). The key words for me are "the economic and financial arguments against independence are overwhelming". The linked research piece should be available to all, it's entitled Scotland: Wrong Turn

[i]DB research has been a regular feature of the weekend news bulletins in the UK with our economists highlighting five key reasons (from the currency dilemma to trade) to show why the economic and financial arguments against independence are overwhelming. Even more hard hitting was the piece's forward written by DB's Group Chief Economist David Folkerts-Landau. David has warned that a breakup would go down in history as a political and economic mistake as large as Winston Churchill's decision in 1925 to return the pound to the Gold Standard or the failure of the Federal Reserve to provide sufficient liquidity to the US banking system, which we now know brought on the Great Depression in the US. In David's opinion, these decisions – well-intentioned as they were – contributed to years of depression and suffering and could have been avoided had alternative decisions been taken. The link to the piece is here

[/i]

note the guy who wrote this is globally ranked number 1 by investors

don't waltz in here with pieces written by actual industry experts, that's not how this is being done 😉

he yes voters seem happy to accept a poorer economic future in return for being "in charge"

you say that like it is a bad thing?
Would you not sacrifice a little wealth for independence?
Do you still live at home with your folks rather than suffer being economically poorer just to be "in charge"?

Why are you struggling to comprehend why some folk might choose this

its my understanding the UK will keep approx 90% of the future revenues from these contracts and Scotland 10%

How about a BBC link for what I am saying 😉

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070

don't waltz in here with pieces written by actual industry experts, that's not how this is being done

That's why neither side seems capable of convincing the other of the error of their ways.

not so sure I think the yes can see that it will/may be economically advantageous to stay but they "value" something else
The no voters, on here at least, though, not all of them, seem to dismiss the wish for democracy as romantic and fanciful and mock it with cry "freedom".

You are right that it shows a stark division in outlook and values

I think it has become generally accepted that an iS will be poorer off compared to staying in the Union. As such it has become a hearts vs heads campaign. The yS have stopped trying to justify the economic argument.

I find it strange how AS will take a single vote extra for Independence as a mandate for changes. In most places in the world Independence has, literally, been fought for by the vast majority of the population and celebrated. Regardless of the result on Thursday, 50% of the voting population will not be celebrating. A true lose-lose situation

JY. In Scotland there is a democracy in case you haven't noticed. There is even the option to vote for the Scottish parliament. It just depends how far down the localism route you want to go. Yes don't seem too keen on the Northern Isles going it alone, but that is surely more 'democratic' than rule from the Central Belt.

@JY, I think the degree of financial pain post independence will be substantial so its not worth it but then again I don't have a massive sense of injustice which IMO is the factor which is really driving the Yes vote. It is about saying f-off to the English IMO and at any cost.

As for the Oil splits that's cased upon a UK population split, something I have seen discussed in a number of different places/research pieces. The Oil / Gas has already been sold via contracts with the UK, so if Scotland leaves technically they no longer benefit from the contract. Can't say I've spent a huge amount of time on this as everyone seems to agree it will be roughly 90/10. I think we all appreciate/expect an agreement would be reached.

seem to dismiss the wish for democracy as romantic and fanciful and mock it with cry "freedom".

If the Scottish Government were truly asking for and offering independence, then I don't think anyone would be mocking it - but they're not!

The foundation of the SNP's demand has remained throughout one of granny flat independence, they want to cherry pick and keep the bits of the union that suit them, thats why they are being treated with contempt! Thats also why the gullible ****s who have leapt to their rallying cry of 'Freedomish' are being mocked,

@ Northwind
And neither this VAT or the banking levy are included in the iScotland financial planning

dismiss the wish for democracy as romantic and fanciful and mock it with cry "freedom".

For me, the only role of a state is to improve the lives of the people it serves. It doesn't have a right to exist outside it. I don't really care what the state is. I don't really care who lives there because I believe people are all more or less the same. But I don't see the point of creating a new state when there's nothing to suggest it will serve its people better - and in fact will serve its people worse because it will have less money. The state can't serve the people without money and social development is much harder in a contracting economy.

The no voters, on here at least, though, not all of them, seem to dismiss the wish for democracy as romantic and fanciful and mock it with cry "freedom".

you say that like it is a bad thing?
Would you not sacrifice a little wealth for independence?
Do you still live at home with your folks rather than suffer being economically poorer just to be "in charge"?

A friend in Aberdeen made the same point to me, and previously I had not 'got it'. I said, but you'll only be as powerful as Belgium, fine he replied, but we'll be masters of our own destiny.

People in England generally don't understand this point of view I think.

jambalaya - Member

Can't say I've spent a huge amount of time on this as everyone seems to agree it will be roughly 90/10.

Yup, but the other way round.

An independent Scotland is going to be less powerful and wealthy than Belgium for quite some time, until things get really established. I can understand some Scots wanting their independence what I don't understand is the "at any costs" aspect or their mistaken belief that somehow their politicians are going to better than Westminster.

JY in terms of values I think the best way to protect the NHS and the welfare state is to have an economy which actually works and is competitive in todays very tough enviornment (eg 1bn people each in China and India with a very large number of smart, well educated hardworking ones too).

I’ve seen a 90%/10% (in favour of the UK) discussion and as I recall it was mainly concerning the existing licenses. Up until a separation date presumably the licenses will be issued by the UK government, so post-independence the oil companies could be operating with UK licenses and the revenues split via a population share. Considering the licenses are issued annually this would seem to make sense. Once these licenses expire an iScotland will issue its own licences and keep all the money.

Considering the licenses are issued annually this would seem to make sense. Once these licenses expire an iScotland will issue its own licences and keep all the money.

Right now with the softening of the oil price some fields in the North Sea are living on borrowed time.

Rigzone has a good article on the decommissioning costs and the legal wrangles about where they will fall.

An iScotland could see the double whammy of a low oil price closing fields and reducing the tax take, while also starting to get hit with the decommissioning costs.

JY. In Scotland there is a democracy in case you haven't noticed

It is about saying f-off to the English IMO and at any cost.

As for the Oil splits that's cased upon a UK population split, something I have seen discussed in a number of different places/research pieces. The Oil / Gas has already been sold via contracts with the UK, so if Scotland leaves technically they no longer benefit from the contract. Can't say I've spent a huge amount of time on this as everyone seems to agree it will be roughly 90/10. I think we all appreciate/expect an agreement would be reached.

The foundation of the SNP's demand has remained throughout one of granny flat independence

But I don't see the point of creating a new state when there's nothing to suggest it will serve its people better

It's this peculiar definition of democracy that is one of the reasons I find it hard to agree with the Yessers. Scotland's had the government "it voted for" 15 times out of the last 21 elections,

JY in terms of values I think the best way to protect the NHS and the welfare state is to have an economy which actually works and is competitive in todays very tough enviornment

Sorry the post is so long and cut and pastey.

I could explain more, but blinkered views are much more fun to read..

Interested in your views and any links even if no one else is

Lots of the N Sea fields are mature, with production cost rising, so revenues could be reduced as companies now have to start to set aside large sums for decommissioning costs... But there are still opportunities West of Shetland for large fields to be found... But they will take time to come on board, especially as I'm not aware of any that actually exist (I've seen the stories and huge fields announcements being suppressed, what twaddle...), and working WoS is expensive.. so generate less take for the government. And depending on how you see it, they have to be large to be worth developing in the first place, so generate for many years, if they come on stream at all...

The Flying Ox - Member

It's this peculiar definition of democracy that is one of the reasons I find it hard to agree with the Yessers. Scotland's had the government "it voted for" 15 times out of the last 21 elections,

People trying to tackle the electoral deficit argument always want to do it over long timescales- going back to the 1920s as you've done makes the numbers look better, as the divide between UK and Scottish politics is more recent. Ancient history just isn't very relevant- anyone who voted for Ramsay Macdonald is 108 years old now.

In my lifetime, it's 3 out of 8. Not so good, and much more relevant to me than my great grandad's lifetime. Which other issues from the 1930s should we be taking into account?

JY I have read a number of research pieces showing different split mechanisms (population, geograpghy etc). I don't have them to hand and it was sometime ago. I said approx 90/10 and you have posted 91/9 with in my book is approx 90/10.

We've covered the democracy arguments before, under 10 years of Labour Scots had the benefit of the government they voted for and all the advantages of being part of a country of 60m people.

Someone mentioned Belgium earlier, an independent Scotland will take many years to be as successful as Belgium and it will be a long and painful struggle. Co-incidently rich French now hold 17 billion euros in Belgium in order to avoid high taxes in France, as we've posted Scotland is likely to cut taxes to attract people, so perhaps an iS will be the newest tax haven for the super wealthy ?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/french-rich-belgium-holdings-tax ]Belgium story[/url]

Licenses are not issued annually...

My mistake then, I wasn't claiming to be an expert on the subject, just trying to recall a discussion I'd heard which goes some way to explain the notion that the rUK might have a claim to a larger proportion of the oil revenue than a simple 'geographical share' (for a period of time at least).

I could explain more, but blinkered views are much more fun to read...

Why not clarify the situation then?

In a very simple nut shell, governments have licensing rounds to allocate exploration licenses. These licenses are normally given to the companies that offer the most attractive package - commitments to exploring the area, money up front to the government, company reliability etc etc. Part of this process will be how much the government is expecting to take from any profit based production (i.e. after the exploration and production costs have been removed). Remember that exploration in deep water could be as much as $180m a well quite a bit really. West of Shetland is definitely deep water, definitely regarded as a hostile drilling environment.
This exploration phase can be lengthy, we have one here that is over 10 years and counting, no well drilled yet! Once a commercial discovery has been made, it will then go into new contract phase, that will last up to 30 years. These always have options for extension. Remember that a production platform is a substantial investment, and not going to be for a years production...
The terms for this may still be the terms negotiated in the exploration phase, but may need to be renegotiated depending on that was found and current market conditions. It is now normally expected that decommissioning costs are part of the factored into the initial process, but it has not always been the case.

Governments take a cut of the barrel price as it comes out of the ground.. And when I say take a cut, its a huge slice of the barrel price. Norway for example is very generous and only take 75% of the profit available. They then take again at the petrol pump, again take another 65 ish % of cost there...

Would you not sacrifice a little wealth for independence?

A little? How much is a little? Would you sacrifice your job?

As for being in charge of your own destiny, lol right. You'll be chasing the same money and investors as everyone else, using the same tools. You'll be in charge about as much as you are now ie not at all. At least, not as a country.

I don't understand this idea of national solidarity as Scotland, when you dismiss solidarity with the UK so readily. Unless.. You think you are not the same as the rest of us? Then that would be nationalism.

@david47

But what happens to the contract if there’s a split; the contract is with the UK, but now the oil is in Scotlands EEZ so will the contract continue with the UK and the fee split by some means or will it be cancelled and re-negotiated as new with the Scottish government?

But what happens to the contract if there’s a split; the contract is with the UK, but now the oil is in Scotlands EEZ so will the contract continue with the UK and the fee split by some means or will it be cancelled and re-negotiated as new with the Scottish government?

I have read a number of research pieces showing different split mechanisms (population, geograpghy etc). I don't have them to hand

cheers david for the info

JY most of the research I get is copyrighted and/or part of paid subscriptions. Can you access the Deutsche Bank piece I linked to earlier, I posted that as they make their stuff open access ?

EDIT here it is again (not on the specific oil division but interesting I though) [url= http://research.comms.db.com/docs/fxblog_scot12sep14.pdf ]Scotland: Wrong Turn[/url]

I say approx 90/10, you say 91/9. I don't see what the fuss is about.

On the oil contracts I strongly suspect they would have been worded in such a way as that Scottish independence makes no difference. The contract allows the company to extract oil/gas from a specific field for a specific period of time with payments going to the uk government.

[i]My mistake then, I wasn't claiming to be an expert on the subject,[/i]

Wonder if Alex Salmond will be saying something similar, when his currency plans go tits up! 😀

I say approx 90/10, you say 91/9. I don't see what the fuss is about.

Would you not sacrifice a little wealth for independence?

Whenever theres a financial downturn it hits the poorer parts of society the hardest. Many people who are currently keeping there heads above water may not be able to ride out the short term financial pain which is going to ensure post independence.

That Deutsche Bank article doesn't paint a very good picture.

I think anyone definition of democracy would include getting it 100% of the time not 66% of the time.

People trying to tackle the electoral deficit argument always want to do it over long timescales- going back to the 1920s as you've done makes the numbers look better, as the divide between UK and Scottish politics is more recent. Ancient history just isn't very relevant- anyone who voted for Ramsay Macdonald is 108 years old now.

In my lifetime, it's 3 out of 8. Not so good, and much more relevant to me than my great grandad's lifetime. Which other issues from the 1930s should we be taking into account?

Ummm.... Robert Mugabe's definition of democracy, maybe. Not "anyone"'s. You don't want democracy per se. You want whatever form of electoral representation that will put you on the winning side.

You did the same with NW posts as well - twisted it to suit your agenda rather than answer his point.

The Flying Ox - Member
...I've voted Lib Dem at every election since 1997. Where's my democracy?

Maybe Clegg left it somewhere up Cameron's arse?

😆
I realise that my admission diminishes my standing somewhat.

If it helps, I didn't pick SNP at the Scottish elections I've voted in.

If the people of a country dont get what they voted for 100% then something is wrong with that democracy

But they did! The electorate of the UK parliament have got what they voted for every time, a local representative member of parliament.

You did the same with NW posts as well - twisted it to suit your agenda rather than answer his point.

Which other issues from the 1930s should we be taking into account?

JY - here is something published on the Bloomberg financial news service yesterday. It shares my view that the known reserves have already been sold to the UK as a whole and thus would be divided 90/10 in favour of the UK. Undiscovered stuff you would imagine would be based upon geographical waters but that too is yet to be agreed.

[url= http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-14/scots-should-be-careful-what-they-wish-for ]Scotland should be careful what they wish for[/url]

It's a pretty damning piece, "The Yes campaign has rested in a fiscal fantasy"

The Flying Ox - Member

Right, so it's all down to how relevant it is to me? OK, let's play with more recent figures

Yup, because playing around with the dataset is definitely a good idea when you're trying to reach a sensible conclusion.

In my lifetime, it's 3 out of 8.

I'm confused. Take the long view, or don't take the long view? I'm getting conflicting instructions.

molgrips - Member

I'm confused. Take the long view, or don't take the long view?

Take the relevant view. We're looking here at the divergence of scottish political intent from that of the UK. The timescale to deal in, is the timescale that this happened on.

When the question is "how big a problem is thing X", saying "Well everything was fine for years before thing X occured, therefore thing X can't be an issue" is pretty much an admission of failure.

The relevant view would be the one which supports your position?

[i]I realise that my admission diminishes my standing somewhat.[/i]

Indeed....go and stand in the corner for the remainder of the day!

Anyway....seems the [s]debating[/s] arguing is just about over....even Ben's given up! From what I can gather, both sides are pretty sure they're voting the right way, but they have absolutely no effect on swaying their opponents views.

its all going to end in tears .....for some! 😯

Yup, because playing around with the dataset is definitely a good idea when you're trying to reach a sensible conclusion.

Take the relevant view. We're looking here at the divergence of scottish political intent from that of the UK. The timescale to deal in, is the timescale that this happened on.

So is the relevant timescale 2010-present? Of course it isn't. It's a ridiculous argument, because the only way you can justify it is to ignore the times when Scotland has had the government it voted for.

Scots assume they'll get almost all of the U.K.'s North Sea oil. That's what a division based on maps would dictate, and this approach hasn't been seriously challenged -- yet. Bear in mind, though, that known reserves are currently a U.K. asset, just as the country's debts are a U.K. liability. This suggests a division on the same basis -- population, not geography -- which would give Scotland less than 10 percent of known oil rather than 90 percent. In practice, some blend of the two approaches seems plausible. In any case, if the Scots vote yes, expect this issue to surface in the negotiations.

even that accepts that geography - which in this case means international law- is primary and not to be seriously challenged.
yes very damning piece
I really do not get how you can think that piece supports your view re the oil and its overall conclusion is

None of this is to say that independence for Scotland would be wrong or unaffordable. The Scots have a distinctive culture, history and political tradition. Their policy preferences are systematically overridden. They have a legitimate desire for self-government, and small countries can and do prosper.

The relevant view would be the one which supports your position?

This assume we want balanced and factual based views though and we rarley do that here

DP

Would you not sacrifice a little wealth for independence?
Do you still live at home with your folks rather than suffer being economically poorer just to be "in charge"?

Yet the SNP vision* of iS is one where you live in the flat upstairs from your folks and mum still does your washing. I'm not quite sure how much wealth it's worth sacrificing for that.

*they're doing the negotiating and setting out the stall, so don't tell me you're not voting for the SNP

*they're doing the negotiating and setting out the stall, so don't tell me you're not voting for the SNP

Am I still allowed to point out that policies can change and that after the first iScottish Government elections we can vote on a party with different policies? 😉

If the people of a country dont get what they voted for 100% then something is wrong with that

I can see why you're upset. In 2005 more people in Scotland voted for the current coalition than they did for Labour.

You can if you like, wnb, but by that stage the independence negotiations will be over.

😀 Well played
FWIW i would support PR - a bit less since i have seen the results though of late 😛

the SNP vision* of iS is one where you live in the flat upstairs from your folks and mum still does your washing

Best if both worlds surely 😉

AGain I agree with the critique that it is a hybrid neither one nor the other

Natural resources would have to be split by geography, otherwise Scotland would be entitled to 10% of gas reserves of what would be the rUK sector in the southern North Sea.

Amusing misrepresentation of what i meant
If the people of a country dont get what they voted for 100% then something is wrong with that democracy- as you well know this was what i meant. Scotland has one Tory MP and a tory led Govt. Its not anyone definition of democracy.

It is economies of scale JY. Split the UK up into population chunks the same size of Scotland and then see who really does decide elections. It oversimplifies thing to say England votes Tory about half the time so we get stuck with a Tory government. There will similarly be great swathes of England where a Tory MP won't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being elected, and vice versa with Labour.

If you reckon then that England gets the government it votes for, then the UK gets the government it votes for.

(I am not accounting for the effectiveness of a government once in position though).

Natural resources would have to be split by geography, otherwise Scotland would be entitled to 10% of gas reserves of what would be the rUK sector in the southern North Sea.

Seems fair enough - I reckon rUK would happily make that trade.

Seems fair enough - I reckon rUK would happily make that trade.

aracer - Member

The relevant view would be the one which supports your position?

I took the revolutionary step of looking at the numbers first, then coming to a conclusion based on the facts, so yes 😉 It'll never catch on though.

I believe that technically a geographic median line is classed as a starting point for equitable distribution, reviewed on a case by case basis based upon relevant factors, of which there is no definitive list.

JY - the oil revenues have already been sold to the UK, the oil companies pay a price to extract it. Think of it like a building which has already been sold to a foreign buyer, independence doesn't change that sale. What is up for discussion is the revenue split and the undiscovered reserves.

Have you read up on the decomissioning costs issue. The SNP are trying to say Scotland gets 90% of the oil but the UK has to pay for decommissioning costs as it had the benefit of all the past production. What all of this shows is how uncertain the future is, these sort of things haven't been worked out and they will be very contentious.

PR: I saw there was a Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party

@ninfan, yes the meridian line can be used for the undiscovered reserves

We're looking here at the divergence of scottish political intent from that of the UK.

Rest of UK my arse. Tell that to the Welsh and Northerners. Looks like it's ok for you to lump us all together, cos we aren't Scottish. Ffs, nationalism again.

But in any case you are discounting the idea that their politics might converge again in the future yes? Based on what, other than a hunch (which is all bencooper could offer)?

Seems fair enough - I reckon rUK would happily make that trade.

That is only one example though aracer. It would have to be done with other minerals also. Would Scotland have rights over North of England fracking? Would fishing income have to be split over similar lines? I know these are small compared to oil, however it seems logical to split by geography.

molgrips - Member

Rest of UK my arse. Tell that to the Welsh and Northerners. Looks like it's ok for you to lump us all together, cos we aren't Scottish. Ffs, nationalism again.

We're not looking for independence from England, or Wales, but from the UK as a whole, so it obviously makes sense to look at the whole rUK vs Scotland. Nothing to do with nationalism, just... well, logic.

the oil revenues have already been sold to the UK

The SNP are trying to say Scotland gets 90% of the oil but the UK has to pay for decommissioning costs as it had the benefit of all the past production

you are discounting the idea that their politics might converge again in the future yes? Based on what, other than a hunch

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9151646/Scotlands-oil-rich-Northern-Isles-tell-Alex-Salmond-We-might-stay-with-UK.html ]Haven't heard much about this issue recently did they change their minds?[/url]

Haven't heard much about this issue recently did they change their minds?

They whole thing was made up in the first place, if there was a genuine movement up there you'd of heard about it.