SNP Would Bankrupt an Independent Scotland, But Benefit England

I always love it when prejudice masquerades as fact, but here's a few points for starters on how you're badly misinformed on a few fronts.

(1) North Sea oil output peaked in 1999 not 2001. But perhaps you might like to know that revenue today from the North Sea fields is some 300 to 400% higher than it was during that peak. As a consequence the main determinant of revenue must be price- given the inverse relationship I've just described above, wouldn't you agree?

(2) Scotland's surplus of £1bn which you seem to recognise - but which you don't actually allude to - does indeed include a share of all forms of debt interest and liability. This is extremely clear in Scotland's fiscal accounts as laid out in the Government Expenditure and Reveney (Scotland) analysis. For completeness you might like to mention the scale of the UK's deficit, compared to Scotland's surplus. I'm not sure how that translates into a subsidy from England, after all England was in deficit, Scotland was in surplus.

(3) When exactly were the debts of the "Scottish [sic] banks" transferred directly on to the UK's balance sheet - thus bankrupting the UK economy? Why would Scotland be any different to this?

(4) I'm no spokesman for the SNP, but I think you'll find their calls for control over taxes and spending means just that - fiscal autonomy. No Westminster interference in Scottish public finances. Or in your own prejudicial tones - no English interference in Scottish public finances.

(5) I notice you've failed to mention shared UK assets, such as defence, government capital, investments, reserves etc - which Scotland would be due a share of on independence? Why?

A subsidy of £32billion, £8billion net? Only a very biassed "analysis" indeed would arrive at that figure. Let me give Nadeem a little clue, when a country is a subsidy junkie you ditch it as fast as possible but maybe England knows a little too much about Scottish genius to be so stupid as to do that.

http://hackedgadgets.com/2007/02/02/how-is-the-fake-candle-power-trick-done/

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/06/crackpot-or-genius-has-a-shell-boffin-stumbled-on-a-scientific-breakthrough/

Of course in such a world, this world, who will have a need for money or people who make a living writing about it? The SNP knows more than you do Nadeem. Maybe "It's Time" as the SNP say, for you to retrain as something useful rather than an excuse-maker for ongoing asset theft around the world.

The article above states that UK oil peaked in 2001. As many more countries have passed peak oil this implies that world crude oil production probably peaked in 2005, on an annual average basis.

Peak Oil will be getting more attention soon as oil prices continue rising.

The IEA 2009 MTOMR was just released and shows further downgrade in non OPEC and OPEC forecasts.

http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=413

This presentation shows some critical slides from the IEA 2009 MTOMR.

http://www.businessinsider.com/iea-oil-report-2009-6#global-supply-and-demand-1

For more info on peak oil, please read the following article

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5395

These two charts of crude oil and all oil forecasts have been updated for the IEA MTOMR 2009 including the downgrade of future Iraq production.

World Crude Oil, Lease Condensate and Canada Oil Sands Production to Dec 2012

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/crudeIEAMTOMR2009.png

World Liquid Energy Supply, Demand and Oil Price to Dec 2012

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/oilIEAMTOMR2009.png

 1. I did state that due to crude oil revenues that currently there is a £1 billion net surplus to the UK after the £8 billion net subsidty on a grant of £32 billion, this gap will dissapear within the next 1 to 2 years and be replaced by a deficit.

2. Yes your right Crude oil peaked in 1999 not 2001, but has since fallen by 50%, and no the revenues are about 50% higher not 400%, but that shows that the gap between surplus and spending has narrowed since.

3.The icelandic banks bankrupted Iceland, the Scottich Banks would have bankrupted Scotland. Ireland has been supported by being in the EURO.

4. Control over taxes should mean a reduction in the Westminister grant.

5. The ownership of the public infrastructure in Scotland (excluding Nukes) would belong to the independant Scotland, the alternatives is that it all be privatised and the proceeds set against the debt of £75 billion.

Very ill informed article. The UK is a sinking ship - sooner Scotland gets off the better.

We have seen what the best of Scottish politicians has to offer the country.

Gordon Brown has bankrupted the UK, as a scottish PM would bankrupt scotland.

Take your Prime Minister back from the rest of the UK.

I think you will find that it was the whole Labour Party that has pretty much sunk the UK, and Tony Blair is More responsible for this than Gordan Brown.

Most reasonable economists know that an independent Scotland would get along fine in the long term - after all, look at the big picture - it has around 1/3 of the natural resources of the UK with only 10% of the population.

And with full fiscal powers, Edinburgh could lower corporation tax, attracting more business from the rest of the UK which is disproportionately centered on London.

Regarding the banks, I see the UK government has now made a profit there.

RUBBISH

Scotland would go bankrupt when it has booming1/3 of the uks natural resources

oil and gas,fishing and agriculture,tourism,whisky,mineral(silicon) and 1/4 of europes wind potential and 1/10 of europes tidal potential. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH EUROPE WILL NEVER WANT US WILL THEY!!!!!!!!

Come you could not pull wool offer the eyes of a mouse never mind a educated person.

Crunch the numbers, RBS and HBOS would have bankrupted scotland many, many times over.

Infact the Icelanders would have been better off.

"RBS and HBOS would have bankrupted scotland"

Remind me - which part of Scotland is Halifax in?

This article is perhaps the most hilariously inaccurate and ill-informed piece of drivel I've read since the Scottish elections, and that's quite a feat considering I've read all of Alan Cochrane's in the Telegraph.

For the reasons other posters have listed above and more besides, it's plain that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Still, I suppose we should be grateful that it kept you off the trading floor destroying the economy for the five minutes it must have taken you to knock out.

The Facts are that the Bank of Scotland took over Halifax in 2001, officially the company name was Bank of Scotland until it went bankrupt.

RBS - Royal Bank of Scotland.

The problem is not with scotland itself, but rather that it is drowning in a sea of socialism that near gaurantees an independant scotland would go bankrupt.

RBS alone would have bankrupted Scotland. It massively over-extended itself. Ambition got the better of it and the English taxpayer was forced by Brown to pick up the bill.

I've not bothered to check Nadeem's facts. However, I already know that Scotland would suffer, if it ever does become independent.

Nadeem also points out that Scotland would sink under the weight of socialism, that I totally believe without a doubt. Then again, I'm sure many of you, ignorant fools, who are pro-Scotland, are easily manipulated and abused by a bunch of loons in false uniform, and they are the SNP.

Anyway... i'm pro-British, and I come from a long line of Scots who have served this United Island for centuries, that Island is the United Kingdom. Unfortunately it's been used and abused by a bunch of crooks who were elected by a bunch of loons who couldn't give a damn about politics.

These arguments will go nowhere. Let the Scots decided. What about those, Scots who live in England, do they vote? What about the English in Scotland, do they vote? Do I have a say, being a little bit Scottish? History is some way involved, in England we sing God Save the Queen. In Scotland we sing about sending Edward home, to think again.

How long does memory have to prejudice the present day.

If there is going to be a vote, just get on with it

Nadeem, I'm afraid that you've been conned by the usual suspects (the BBC, CH4 news and all of the mainstream news outlets in the UK)into believing that the revenues from the North sea oil and gas industry are only 10-11billion per year. The true figures are more shocking.

I enclose an excerpt from a commons debate initiated by the Conservative MP Nicolas Soames in 2011. This is what rump-UK loses if Scotland votes ‘yes.’

NICHOLAS SOAMES SECURES ADJOURNMENT

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS

HC 1018-i and -ii.]

"The taxes forecast to be raised from the industry in 2011-12 include some £6 billion in income tax, national insurance contributions and corporation tax paid by the supply chain companies, with an additional £11 billion from taxes on production itself. That amounts to 25% of all the corporation tax received by the Exchequer. The production of indigenous oil and gas improved the balance of payments by £35 billion in 2011, thus halving the trade deficit, and the supply chain added another £5 billion to £6 billion with exports of oilfield goods and services. Incidentally, that is an aspect of the industry that is doing extremely well here and overseas, and it is flying the flag for Britain effectively".

Also in the same debate he mentions that this industry employs over 400,000 people in the UK with more than half outside Scotland.

Finally, with regards to the 'scottish' banks. These private entities have contributed hundreds of billions in corporation tax plus PAYE from their thousands of employees in the UK to the Westminister exchequer over the last 30 years. Given that the UK took the tax revenues then it also seems fair that they deal with the depts-you can't have it both wways I'm afraid.

All things considered, Scotland has the potential to be an extremely wealthy little country (>50% of Europe's oil remianing oil reserves, 25% of Europe's potential green energy plus UK export no:3-Scotch Whiskey).