Breaking up the Union. What would it mean for the constituent countries?

1) The investment in oil infrastructure on and offshore will need to be paid for if scotalnd wants to take it over
2) Many services are funded at the national level for example coastguard and defence, VCA, DVLA, Dft,DSA, VOSA, Highways agency, Transport police, certain aspects of the railways and rail operators are all centrally funded, there are others but I cannot recall them just now.

As I said it is naive to think that Scotland only gets its settlement under the barnett formula, and its naive to think that Scotland could simply cut its financial ties with the UK and take all the remaining oil revenue.

Doesn’t really matter what you think – whatever happens, nobody will be asking your opinion. 😆

Toys – I don’t understand what grounds you can possibly consider that the oil does not come to Scotland. (apart from wishful thinking) Its been accepted by the UK government for many decades – see McCrone report for example. The oil fields are already divided into English and Scottish waters, there is clear international law on it.

Its naive to think that England ahas any claim on the oil at all.

Who paid for the oil exploration – not the UK government but the oil companies

Lots of money goes the other way as well. Electricity goes to England for free, UK wide companies who raise some of their profits in Scotland report the profits in London so are taxed there, Scotland has to pay a share of stuff such as the Olympics, trident, and so on.

(apart from wishful thinking)

It isn’t wishful thinking, as I have stated I don’t actually care other than I think you should have it. But you won’t get it.

Most importantly Scottish independence would not come from a Scottish only referendum, that is constitutionally not possible. It would need to be approved by the UK who could under international law veto it. They obviously won’t, as long as Scotland accepts that they won’t get all the oil revenue..

PS the electricity and gas are also under the list of reserved matters, so Scotland will likely have to negotiate over them too.

you’ve never been to the mountain bike capital of the world then?

Ooh, ooh, I have, I have. And you’re correct, some of the signs in Canada were in french and english.

The oil question is actually a bit of a sideshow in any case. If an independent Scotland were reliant on a relatively small amount of non-renewable natural resources income, it would not be viable.

TJ – do you have ANY idea how expensive it is to drill, refine and distribute oil?

Quite a lot – which is why the state doesn’t bother doing any of it. It just taxes/imposes duties on the companies that do.

Most importantly Scottish indepnedence would not come from a Scottish only referendum that is constitutionally not possible

Says who?

The investment in oil infrastructure on and offshore will need to be paid for if scotalnd wants to take it over

Investment in infrastructure is paid for by oil companies, not the UK government although it is of course tax deductable from the revenue generated by such an investement. This one of the reasons that we don’t have things like significant gas storage facilities in the UK as despite it being in the UK’s interests it isn’t profitable enough for the oil companies.

Says who?

Say the British constitution, I’ll find you a ref in a minute.

Edit ahhh good old wikipedia, an article on scottish independence. see the legality section here which pretty much backs up what I said above verbatim.

Investment in infrastructure is paid for by oil companies, not the UK government although it is of course tax deductable from the revenue generated by such an investement.

Not so they have often been joint ventures. Whether through direct or indirect methods (like cheap or leased land, lower rates etc etc)

Say the British constitution

Do we actually have one of those?

Not so they have often been joint ventures

Well in my 15 years working in the offshore oil industry North Sea I’ve yet to see one of those. All the production facilities have been owned and operated by differnt oil companies with the licenses to produce the oil also being held by said companies. Technically the oil is still owned by “UK plc” and is merely produced under licence. I am not aware of any joint venture, nor any direct government investment, that has taken place in the offshore side of things unless of course you are referring to Britoil which was completely privatised in ’85.

Can you point me in the direction of examples?

All the production facilities have been owned and operated by differnt oil companies with the licenses to produce the oil also being held by said companies. Technically the oil is still owned by “UK plc” and is merely produced under licence.

I don’t doubt this is true in anyway, but it does not disprove what I said. I’m off to a m,eeting I’ll get ya some examples later.

Of course it shows what you said is piffle. The UK government did not invest in oil exploration so a putative Scottish government would have nothing to pay back.

You are clutching at straws

How much should Scotland charge to England to lease Faslane?

There really should be a UK-wide tax on the use of the word ‘piffle’. I think that’s something we can all agree on.

And ‘bullshine’.

Say the British constitution, I’ll find you a ref in a minute.

The rump state practically always claims the secessionist state can’t legally secede.

Konabunny – indeed – see Kosovo and Slovenia

Clubber – how about balderdash then? Or Codswallop?

Yep, those too I’m afraid TJ.

But but but but but………..

It’s for your own good TJ… Nanny knows best.

Claptrap? Twaddle? Bunkum? Tripe? Baloney? Tosh?

TandemJeremy – Member
Claptrap? Twaddle? Bunkum? Tripe? Baloney? Tosh?

Don’t be so hard on yourself, TJ, sometimes you write some worthwhile stuff.

You walked into that one TJ 😀

Faslane = Fort Sumpter 😀

TJ; Been in God’s country since 1970,could you please use

Baws,Keich,pish,haver,blawearie,

Duckman – will do

Look TJ the basic flaw in your many flawed argument is this:

The excess you may or may not achieve from oil extraction facilities that may or may not be yours will be spent funding the deficit on everything else.

It’s a futile, pointless, meaningless and self defeating dream. Get over it.

Scotland will need a radical overhaul in the event of independence. Probably a good thing, but don’t imagine for a second that you’ll be well off.

Yossarain – actually the surplus would be used to invest in infrastructure and jobs. The oil wealth would give the time and money to do this. Scotland would need a restructured economy – an independent Scotland would find this easier.

One of the huge economic mistakes over the last few decades is the wasting of the oil money on paying for the Thatcher “economic miracle” ie on benefits and tax cuts.

compare that to Norway who have a national fund from oil money surplus that ensures they will remain rich. Scotland could do the same.

Just out of interest what are all these jobs going to be?

You cannot compare the Norwegian model to Scotland. They are not the same. Just google it.

You’re living in a dreamworld TJ, oil is not the saviour of Scotland and never will be.

Yossarian – Of course it can be, If an independent Scotland took the same amount of taxes off the oil as the UK does it would be a significant sum more in the economy than Scotland has now. This creates a surplus to be used for investment around 5 – 10% of GDP extra in the economy.

Blimey Charlie O’Reilley; have you lot not seen the weather out there??? Oh, maybe it’s raining in Scotland or something probbly…

compare that to Norway

..which is a massive country by comparison to Scotland, has far, far greater resources and an even smaller population. And very high taxation.

Its naive to think that England has any claim on the oil at all.

Was it only Scots who first explored and drilled for oil, was it? No, it was a British effort, alongside the Norwegians. So I’m imagining quite a chunk of tax revenue was spent on the exploration and that. And seing as how Scotland wasn’t generating a lot of tax revenue at that point, I’d say thet the rest of the UK does indeed have a good claim to the oil revenue. What about Wales? They’d be absolutely stuffed without money from the UK coffers. So, we just cut Wales off cos it’s ‘uneconomic’, and let them all starve?

And why d’you think Thatchler made so much fuss over the Falklands. Ooh look, vast untapped oil reserves in the South Atlantic. You don’t want to benefit from any of that then? Fine.

It’s a very selfish and insular attitude you have TJ. You bang on about Scotland being ruled from Westminster etc, and not liking the Tories, but the majority of Londoners don’t vote Tory either and we have to put up with the buggers. And there’s 7 million of us, so more voices.

And when the oil runs out, what would you do then? Eh? You haven’t thought about that, have you?

So where’s yer conclusive proof that Scotland will be better off as an independent nation then? Hmm?

So I’m imagining quite a chunk of tax revenue was spent on the exploration and that

Well your imagination is wrong

the comparision to Norway is actually quite close. Apart from Norway got rid of its colonial masters a while ago

So where’s yer conclusive proof that Scotland will be better off as an independent nation then? Hmm?

http://www.wikipedia.com

I can’t be bothered to read all of that ^^ so someone may alread have said this, but TJ seems to have forgotten about the oil and gas in the southern North sea (off the coast of England)! 😆

Elfinsafety
It’s a very selfish and insular attitude you have TJ. You bang on about Scotland being ruled from Westminster etc, and not liking the Tories, but the majority of Londoners don’t vote Tory either and we have to put up with the buggers. And there’s 7 million of us, so more voices.

Leave it Elf, it’s not worth it 😉

The entire population of Scvotland wouldn’t even fill all the sports grounds & music venues in London 😆
Let the provincials do what they like , no-ones going to notice anyway 8)

im not sure breaking up the union would be a good idea

are we sure the scots wouldnt turn it into a sectarian bloodbath
what with all the niel lennon bombs
and it didnt work out too well for india and a truckload of other ex colonial countries

JEngledow

90% of the oil is in Scottish waters, 90% of the gas in English waters

TJ seems to have forgotten about the oil and gas in the southern North sea (off the coast of England)

dunno about the fossil fuels, but there’s plenty of wind and hot air up there 😆

Well your imagination is wrong

Really? Enlighten me then…

So, Scotland found and financed all the exploration itself, did it?

the comparision to Norway is actually quite close

Nowhere near close mate. Norwegian oil and gas production is mainly state-owned. So, you’d have to buy yer oil fields and platforms off the companies that currently own them, if you wanted a nationalised industry. How you going to do that? Plus, taxation in Norway is massive. Everything is taxed, including food.

Seriously, stop wibbling on with this pipe dream, cos it ain’t gonna happen. Just get on with being British, like the rest of us. Why is that so bad?

Just get on with being British, like the rest of us. Why is that so bad?

Little Scotlanders innit 😆

..which is a massive country by comparison to Scotland, has far, far greater resources and an even smaller population. And very high taxation.

Absolutely

TJ – I used to work for a Norwegian oil company, based mainly in Aberdeen. I’ve heard this conversation a thousand times over dinner with people who ACTUALLY know how it works. Norway and Scotland are utterly different and even the Norwegians are looking to diversify now, despite have far greater reserves of both oil and gas AND already having a well established renewable energy grid.

Elf – the oil companies paid for the exploration. No state funding.

I dislike the insular parochial and xenophobic view that comes from England. I want a more positive and outward looking engagement with the rest of the world and I believe that even apart from the oil and independent Scotland would be a significantly better place to live.

However I don’t feel particularly strongly about it.

Yossarian – they are ahead of Scotland yes – but its something to aspire to – without the dead hand of Westminster Scotland would make better progress as can be seen from renewables

I’d like to know why you think the two countries are utterly different – they are actually very similar