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.
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?
No idea... There are contracts with the UK government for up to 30 years... I'd guess, and its only a guess they would all have to be renegotiated...
over a hundred companies of all sizes work in the N Sea.
I have read a number of research pieces showing different split mechanisms (population, geograpghy etc). I don't have them to hand
If only you had access to the internet to link to them and offer some proof.
Am i meant to find this credible?
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.
You say 90 for rUK [ by population] and everyone else says 91 % for iS by geography. I have not seen anything credible argue otherwise from the later
Would you not sacrifice a little wealth for independence?
Personally yes, but it depends on your current financial position.
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.
Ummm.... Robert Mugabe's definition of democracy, maybe. Not "anyone"'s. You don't want democracy [i]per se[/i]. You want whatever form of electoral representation that will put you on the winning side.
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?
Right, so it's all down to how relevant it is [i]to me[/i]? OK, let's play with more recent figures. I'm middle-ish aged (35) so lets go with every election I've been able to vote in, i.e. since 1997. Scotland's 3 for 4. The same people at work I was talking about have only ever had a government they didn't vote for this last election and it's an outrage. And yet they've never been falling over themselves to defend the undemocratic oppression of little old me. I've voted Lib Dem at every election since 1997. Where's my democracy? 🙄
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.
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.
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.
OK then
Which other issues from the 1930s should we be taking into account?
The spectre of propaganda-fuelled Nationalism?
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 - MemberRight, 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 - MemberI'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.
But you started it 😛
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.
Well I'm assuming that the period 1997-2010 involved a common political intent, seeing as the majority of voters in Scotland picked Labour in those Elections.
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?
we could try both. How about it used to not make much difference but since Scotland totally rejected the Tories the democratic defect has become more prevalent than it was 80 years ago. For the middle aged [ NW Will like that :wink ] voters this means the majority of elctions were not what Soctland voted for
If you are 108 years old it is not as bad in % terms 😛
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.
Very happy, The Southern North Sea gas is rapidly running out...
aracer - MemberThe 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 - MemberRest 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
You mean buy the UK- may be true and probably is but the money is the tax from the sales of what they extract and that goes 90% to iS and not to rUK
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
They will need to take their fair share of the liabilities seeing as they got the benefit - is that not why iS has to take UK debt? is it unilateral or bilateral?
you are discounting the idea that their politics might converge again in the future yes? Based on what, other than a hunch
and you are assuming they will based on 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.
