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?

Yes, it will still be the fault of the English….
Day to day I’m not sure people will see much difference, there will be nice badges like Nuke Free and Something Else Free but apart from that there will still be politicians doing what is required to be reelected.

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….

Especially if there’s a currency union or sterilization, as we will control the currency that the Scots are using! Bwahahahaha!

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,

This, and it’s this question that Nick Robinson says wasn’t answered in the short edited version. The tax question isn’t mentioned in the short version.

@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?

@jet, IMO (from the UK) No they won’t be. The politicians have to deal with the same facts and economic realities. The difference is it will be “their” politicians rather than “ours”, the yes voters seem happy to accept a poorer economic future in return for being “in charge”

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

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 http://research.comms.db.com/docs/fxblog_scot12sep14.pdf

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%

Have you anything to offer as proof of this understanding as I have never ever seen anyone else argue this. I thought everyone accepted that the geneva agreement applied [ median line from borders out to the north sea] and the split was 91% v 9% [ iS v rUK]
Do you have any evidence for that view?

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

Exactly. You don’t counter an ideological argument with pragmatism, in much the same way that an appeal to emotion will hold little sway with those primarily concerned with facts.

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 **** 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

Several weeks ago the SNP had to admit (due to a freedom of information request) that they hadn’t done any economic modelling following their ‘independence bonus’ claims and Swinney claimed that any analysis would be “meaningless” so do you have a link for that? I’d be interested to see the analysis.

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

I don’t speak for anyone else (I barely speak for myself) but for me the question is about the role of the state. For some (like Ben and seosamh), it is a good thing if a Scottish state exists, whatever happens. They are nationalists – not headbanging ethnic nationalists by any means, but they believe the Scottish people exists, that their voice is distinctive and that they should have a state.

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”.

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, with the added bonus of its own actual government sitting in Edinburgh.
I work with people that complain incessantly about how we’re not a democratic society because they’re not being represented at Westminster, and yet of every single GE they’ve been old enough to vote in, the last one is the only one in which their party wasn’t in power. Point that out to them though, and I’m an arsehole. I think someone else said it a few pages back – there seems to be two versions of democracy at play: one that most people consider to be a shining example for the rest of the world to follow, and one in which less than half of less than 10% of a population not getting the government it voted for every now and again is a sickening affront to all that is good and righteous.

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.

Licenses are not issued annually… Production licenses the are issued for up to 30 years… depending on the government thoughts at the time, and expected field life etc etc.
I could explain more, but blinkered views are much more fun to read…

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

one tory MP = Tory led govt- aye its a great democracy why do they want to leave?

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

Yes it just anti english 🙄 Not doing that again as it exists only in the mind of some english.

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.

You repeating your opinion again is some way short of proof. It is someway short of an attempt tbh. I gave you a reference google will give you many many more. Everyone knows it will split on geographical grounds everyone. You do yourself no favours when you make a claim and fail to offer any evidence to support it and then just repeat it in the face of evidence.

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

yes i agree its a weird miss mash that it being sold that is some way short of full independence
IMHO It is a fudge to attract floating voters- ie keep the monarch etc

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

you think a govt that is representative of what the scots want [ ie not tory] wont serve them better than a tory led one? Really?

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,

I think anyone definition of democracy would include getting it 100% of the time not 66% of the time. I have no idea why you find it peculiar that they dont want to be governed by a party that has basically zero MPs there and why you consider this democratic.

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

The best way is to not have a govt that will privatise and elect one that will care about it, values and it and will support it. Having more money and not GAS will not be better for the NHS. Very few would argue that the Tories value or protect them.

Sorry the post is so long and cut and pastey.

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

😀 they may be but most of us dont mind facts every now and again

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 ?

Belgium story

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?