The great oil debate
Roughly a thousand years ago, when I worked on the Press and Journal, the Offshore Europe conference loomed large in my professional life.
As a trainee, I spent a happy spell on the paper鈥檚 business desk, ruled then by the ebullient Dick Mutch.
Today, my attention was drawn to Offshore Europe once more. David Cairns, Scotland Office Minister, is addressing the conference with the message that North Sea oil will remain in Westminster control.
To nobody鈥檚 surprise, Mr Cairns rejects the argument of the SNP that control should be devolved to Holyrood.
The Cairns argument is that transferring political control would introduce uncertainty to the detriment of the industry and, consequently, Scotland.
He says: 鈥淲e must ensure, beyond all doubt, that we are in a position to take full advantage of our remaining reserves in the UK.鈥
The Minister鈥檚 case is cogent and carefully stated. Perhaps, very carefully stated. In the text before me, he speaks in opposition to the devolution of powers.
However, the SNP demand 鈥 as set out in the party鈥檚 鈥100 days鈥 document 鈥 was for the devolution of control over powers and revenues: 鈥渘ear 拢1 billion a month鈥, according to the Nationalists.
In response to the revenues issue, Labour Ministers customarily argue that it would be futile and unwise for Scotland to base an economy upon a declining and economically volatile asset.
Few, I suspect, would argue straightforwardly that Scotland could not have made productive use of past revenues.
To be fair, that falls within the wider argument concerning the finances of independence: the SNP鈥檚 opponents say that Scotland would suffer, economically, from breaking the union and that oil is an intrinsic part of the common UK package. That Scotland cannot pick and choose.
Mr Cairns essentially deploys that argument in Aberdeen today when he says: 鈥淭he interests of both Scotland and the UK are best served through continued economic union and the benefits which accompany a UK-wide approach.鈥
An intriguing debate.
I'm 
Comments
The truth at last! England cannot let Scotland go because they need our oil money (something which they have always dismissed as being insignificant and running out soon).
It is for Scotland to decide what powers we shall have, and this is not up to Westminster. If we want all the powers then we shall have them.
The rest of the UK's economic interests are certainly best served by continuing Union. Scotland's best interests most certainly are not. Strange that Cairns seems to be wanting to debate this issue now.
The fact that David Cairns is trying once again to introduce the fear factor to this debate means that nobody can stop this devolution of oil control.
If it wasn't an option then he wouldn't have to try to scare people away from the option, would he!
"On fairly reasonable assumptions about the profits to be made from North Sea oil, Scotland could go it alone quite comfortably" - Quote, Sir Kenneth Berrill,Whitehall Senior Civil Servant, 1975, in reply to a Foreign Office memo which said the future of the Union was "by no means secure" and that devolution should be used to buy off calls for independence.
Brian there is nothing economically cogent about David Cairns arguement unless you are of the mind to equate 'comfortable' to 'uncertainty'.
We are dealing with politics here pure and simple. Indeed to date the Unionists have failed to put together cogent arguements for the continuation of the union. Unionism as a doctrine as seen in 1975 had failed internally and was replaced by dogma. Being a unionist today has become a matter of faith, and a blind one to.
I think that this is interesting. It's an 11bn a year industry as the man himself is quoted in saying on other sites. That means that (for pocket money) the devolved government only receive a further 19bn in "pocket money", that (to me) just does not seem right.
My question is this however: if Scotland were to become independent, would the UK adhere to UN regulations on maritime borders (200 mile rule) or would they try and hold on to the oil for as long as they could. Would Salmond face problems with the Scotland Act and the "UK waters" outlined in it or would an independent Scotland revert automatically to the 200 mile rule. I don't see the Westminster government giving up their cash cow very easily.
If the Labour Ministers customarily argue that it would be "futile and unwise for Scotland to base an economy upon a declining and economically volatile asset" Then why is it so important to the Uk as a whole, surely the same applies to the UK economy as a whole. Anyway nobody is arguing that oil is the only factor in the scottish economy, there are many other industries that are also of great importance. Major fact is that devolved control of oil matters mean Oil buisness executives will deal with the Scottish government and will therefore relocate their corporate offices from London to Edinburgh, This is what the Westminster Bods are really worried about (well that and the loss of nearly 12 billion pounds a year).
Do the westminster Bods really think we are all that thick up here?
Brian
re Labour ministers customarily argue that it would be futile and unwise for Scotland to base an economy on a volatile and declining asset. Can I use this blog to thank these Labour ministers for their concern for my welfare, but I cannot help wondering why they are so worried about it that they are running so scared of asking our opinion, i.e. a referendum.
I also think that it is a bit rich to worry about us like this when the UK economy for the last 30 years has been based on the same volatile and declining asset. Still that is Labours kipper politics, two faced and gutless.
P.S. What seat does David Cairns represent? Should be a high SNP target come the Westminster election.
Aye, and don't pick up your lottery jackpot winnings because it would be a finite amount and would eventually run out.
I watched the 10 minute video of Alex Sammond speaking well before the start of the year when he was discussing Norway's use of the oil money. More or less the jist of it is that a portion of the money is put into a big bank account and then the interest off it is used to help fund government spending. I think for this reason alone the SNP and thus the Scottish Government should get access to the oil revenue to implement their plan.
鈥淲e must ensure, beyond all doubt, that we are in a position to take full advantage of our remaining reserves in the UK.鈥 read "We know it's your oil - but you can't have it because we (London) need it"
It makes my blood boil! Surely a case of what's yours is ours and what's our is our own!
The sooner independence liberates our country from rubbish like this the better!
As you say, Brian, we can't pick and choose...
But wouldn't it be nice if we had the chance to say whether or not we could ?
But that's another debate.
Norway's Petroleum Fund (Their "savings account" from the Oil Revenue) currently stands at $158 Billion, about 拢80 Billion.
That's what 4.5 Million Norwegians HAVEN'T spent.
Can somebody please show me what the people of Scotland have to show for 30 years+ of North Sea Oil ? Where are the roads, the railways, the world-class hospitals ? Where are the schools ? Where are...
But that's OK, we have a world-class military. Don't we ?
You know, I could go on. And On.
It has been a hoary old cry of the SNP since the glory days of the 70s that "It's Our Oil".
Starting to resonate a bit now, isn't it ?
Wouldn't it be nice if we just get the leavings from the table before the cloth is packed away and see if we can make Our Country a better place ?
Why don't our friends at Westminster tell us exactly how much money they are taking from Scottish oil, rather than always quoting the "implied dodgy" figure of "near 拢1 billion a month" that you keep trying to discredit from the SNP.
It may be an intriguing debate, it certainly was 30 years ago when it might have actually made a difference, but the bottom line is that this is a resource that is quickly going to run out.
What happens then? Will The SNP go to the the English Parliament and ask for their money back? "Sorry it's all been spent, quite a bit of it went on your Parliament building ironically" will be the reply.
Sure there might be reserves off the Western Isles...but has anyone figured out how to get it yet?!
Without the cash cow of oil can Scotland thrive economically? Now that's the real debate.
RE #13
According to those Westminster figures it would take slightly less than two weeks oil money to pay for the Scottish Parliament building.
Not very much after all really. To think we used to complain about the cost. Thanks for putting it into context.
What are UK Ministers afraid of? So long as Scotland remains within the UK it should not matter whether such revenues are distributed either by London or Edinburgh based administrations. Why the reluctance to devolve the issue, unless of course you have good reason.
If Scotland cannot or should not go for full control of her natural wealth, as the Unionists maintain we should not, then surely the best way to shoot the fox of the Nats is to say "well there you go, get on with it and see if your figures add up to ours".
Sadly, on the basis of documents released over the past couple of years under the Freedom of Information Act, I have very little faith in the honesty and credibility of any UK Minister where oil is concerned.
Perhaps it is their greatest fear that the real subsidy junkies are exposed.
it is right to sugest that we cannot pick and chosen what powers we have.
If someone were to come to you and ask that they seperate from you but they want to take control of the income you have, but take no responsibilty for the expenditure (sounds a bit like divorce?)what do you think the response would be?
The current sums don't add up, the the 拢11bn from the oil revenue would not cover the 拢24bn announced by HM treasury for 2006-07 that Scotland got from Whitehall, where would the rest of the cash come from? Is it the suggestion that Scotland would be able to make up the short fall when the likely hood is that, with the proposals already unveiled by the current administration they will be overspent on this 拢24bn (or whatever it turns out being). Add to that any extra expenditure required for the services rendered by Whitehall in terms of say defence or foreign policy (or the increase in cost associated with taking these responsiblities on from Whitehall) and i would think that the 拢11bn would be spent fairly quickly.
Someone mentioned Norway, what about the tax rates in Norway, while the current Scottish Administration is considering reducing tax income, the Norwegian tax system is one of the highest in Europe. VAT is 24%, income tax is 28% for "normal" earners an extra tax is levied on those that earn more than 50,00 euros. Business and other persoanl taxes are also high, while we are considering lowering htem, good for votes, good for headlines, not so good for public spending.
To no 13. We're not a country in the developing world - we've a reasonably well educated population; a historic talent for problem-solving and invention; we're generally level headed but proud of who we are - why shouldn't we be able to go it alone?
Independence wouldn't take away the infrastructure we already have and our own national institutions.
We need to stop trying to compare ourselves with countries with 50m+ populations and thinking about being a world leader - there are 5m of us for goodness sake! Look at neighbours of our own size - Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Portugal all do very well, but none of them are planning world domination. That makes them nice and fairly safe places to live!
Mr Cairns is and will always toe the party line when it comes to policy, his voting record is as follows:
Transparent Parliament-----Against
Investigaiting Iraq war----Against
Student top up fees--------For
Identity Cards-------------For
Invasion of Iraq-----------For
Replacement of Trident-----For
Fully appointed House of Lords-- For
This former Priest who was educated in Italy and England has played his hand,Im sure the elecorate of Inverclyde will take note of his stance and vote accordingly.
It's easy to make fun of David Cairns standing up in front of oil and gas giants, telling them how their industry is volatile.
What's harder is for David Cairns to say with a straight face that you can't make an economic case out of oil, when clearly that's exactly what Westminster is doing and has done. If oil were such a volatile and unsure source of cash, then why have successive governments been spending the monies collected? Why have they banked on that contribution to the economy?
If the oil revenues are so small or dangerous, then why not give them to Scotland? After all, if Scotland can't make an economic case out of them, neither should Westminster.
In this green and renewable era, should we not be talking about 'Scotland's Water' and 'Scotland's Wind'? Geography has once again placed us at an advantage over our friends down south, and there can be no dispute over who owns these resources.
take oil out of the independance debate and see where scotland stands,don`t forget---margeret thatcher promised of fantastic economic times for great britain when oil was first discovered and as usual only the rich have prospered and especially over the last ten years when the scots have been running the uk.just a thought.
With revenues of almost 拢1 billion per month, it sure puts the 拢400m price of the parliament building into proportion..
What a narrow minded arguement this is. Who says its Scotland's oil? It's the U/K's oil and we should be happy to put all of our collective resources into the pot for the benefit of everyone who lives in the U/K.
There is a parallelism between the thinly disguised threats we previously had to tolerate from Jack Mconnell and the rhetoric David Cairns has thrust upon us.
We do not believe you anymore !
Matt McLaughlin,
You'll find that 90% of the North Sea Oil and Gas falls within Scottish waters, this is internationally recognised. Maybe the people of Scotland would be happy to remain part of the union if the money from the Oil revenue was being spent for the benefit of the entire UK, not mainly in the south as seems to be the case. Where is the 2 hour rail link from Edinburgh to London? No, instead we now have a 2 hours link London to Paris. This is mainly to benefit the south again, another example was the millenium dome or the wheel. Not exactly for the accessability of the entire country.
It is frustrating to have been fortunate to find a precious natural resource within you territory, but it is even more frustrating not to be any better off for it. At least in Scotland we now have a GOVERNMENT that is now putting Scotland first and standing up for our rights.
Bring on independence.
Matt, in what way is it the UK's oil? Because they annexed 5000 square miles of Scottish water to come under UK jurisdiction in the creation of the Scotland Act? Those waters were and under UN maritime borders regulations, still are, in Scottish waters. The oil rich waters were re-classed so that the the taxed raised there could not be attributed to Scotland and instead went into the Westminster pot without declaration. This kept the Scots believing that they were being subsidised and kept the amount of tax raised in England nice and high. Unfortunately this double edged sword is not cutting as the English are fed up "subsidising" Scotland and the Scots are getting fed up not having control over their valuable assets (especially when you look at how successful nations surrounding us are).
The fact is that, just now, the oil money is not being used to secure our future which could be done if we had control over it. It is being used to secure London's future no doubt and is used to secure loans taken out by Westminster. Perhaps with control over our water and assets we could secure our future rather than ending up as a parasite on England in the future. At which point we may be turfed out as they have no more to gain and we will have nothing with which to secure a future. Except, perhaps, by exporting water and electricity South.
What we need is the ability to invest in our future which this control would allow us. Investment in renewable energies and the boost economically will allow us to secure a future on our own rather than becoming a subsidy junky when the oil runs out.
Number 15: "If someone were to come to you and ask that they seperate from you but they want to take control of the income you have" - Well considering that the 'income you have' is generated by SCOTLAND, not england, we have every right to take it.
Number 22: The answer to 'Who says its Scotlands oil', is EVERYBODY. If you were at all informed you would realise that International Law states that 90% of all of the UK's oil resources are in Scottish territory.
#22
The UK does not exist and any continued pretence that it does is just a waste of energy. Wake up, there is no unity and the oil in the North sea is in Scottish waters so therefore is Scotland's oil.
The sooner we break up this joke of a Union the better. Scotland's 5 million population will be much better off.
I would be intrigued to know if Alec Salmond's democratic principles include offering Shetland and Orkney a "conversation" on independence? If I lived in Shetland I would be just as frustrated by oil money going to London or Edinburgh...
#21
The 拢400m cost of the Parliament is also put into perspective by that rather expensive train set we saw today (Eurostar) - the upgrading of which has swallowed up 拢5.8 BILLION of public funds.
It's good to know that those who live in London and the South East will be able to stroll along to St Pancras, nip across the Channel for long weekends, cheap fags and booze even quicker than before.
Of course it's the Scots who are subsidised right left and centre don't you know.
So the old argument is raised again - without the oil, we wouldn't have a chance of being a viable independent nation.
Hmm, how do the others manage it then?
While Scotland remains a part of the uk this debate is surely futile. Supose Scotland as part of the uk was to aquire control over NS oil. By extension what would then stop say the NE of Scotland claiming it as their's? Any Scottish claim for NS oil must be settled as part of a larger discussion on full Scottish independence, something the majority of people in Scotland have so far been unwilling to support. Anything less than this is mearly an attempt to pick and choose ...
As a Southerner, I endorse 100% your right to any money that you make from oil, and with the same token, I endorse Westminster to give you no more money that according to your own comments posted here you do not want nor deserve as it is Southern money not Scottish.
You can argue all you want about the revenue that you think England takes from you in regards to the oil, yet I hear not one word from you on the additional 12 billion pounds a year that we, yes we the English HAVE to give you in our tax money, what a bunch of hypocrites some of you are.
As the poster in comment no.27 points out 'the sooner we break up this joke of a union the better', but he is mistaken that it will make the Scottish population better off, no it will make the English population better off.
And whilst your at it, can you take back all your Scottish politicians who seem to so enjoy life dictating to the English what we can and cannot do, imagine if you poor benighted people had to deal with the West Lothian question in reserve?, god even now I can imagine the torrent of abuse being unleashed on these blogs.
As Super Mac once said 'you have never had it so good', so stop bleating on about how unfair your lifes are and start thinking about what an Independent Scotland really means, and believe me it will not be this mythical nirvania that some of the posters here seem to think.
So in finishing, I say yes go for Independence, and let the Scots rule Scotland, and the Englsih rule England with no further economic aid being sought or given from either side.
Fine but one thing that should be remembered is the the majority of the oil and gas is off the coast of the Orkneys and the Shetlands. So it's really theirs. They consider themselves Vikings. Plus they have stated they feel more in common with Westminster than Edinburgh.
So Alex when we get independence from they numpties down south can we switch off the water taps please ?? Lets see how England copes without Scottish water !!!! Or will we see English interference in this process too ???
It all depends if you think the UK internal border maintains latitude at Berwick or continues at the same gradient as between the Solway and Berwick. if the ;latter then half the oil fa;;ls south of the line.
As an Expat Englishman in glasgow I watch with interest.
Some good comments.
Im with the majority on this debate. I myself work within the oil industry and can't believe some of the spin labour have been dishing out regarding north see oil.
Words like 'volatile' and 'diminishing' undermine the work Scotland has and continue to put into the north sea. In truth Westminster has never had it so good from our oil which is why they are running scared. There is alot of oil left in the north sea. Don't let the suits convince you otherwise.
The oil is Scotlands and Labour has only just realised that by devolving Scotland thay have given away one of their greatest assets. They will try by hook and by crook to keep it, but it will be illegal. The oil is in Scottish waters and if Scotland is to become independent then waters around Scotland are owned by Scotland. Westminster is trying once again simply to confuse the issue.
As already stated, the only reason Scotland has not been jettisoned by 'The Union', is the 'acquisition' of the oil and gas revenue for the Westminster coffers. In International Law, England cannot lay 100% claim to the natural resources of anindependant Scotland, even by adopting the UN Law of the Sea Convention for access to natural resources from a neighbouring state.
Norway exhibits very well the benefits of a society based on oil and gas revenue. Taxes and NI are high, but income is such that the standard of living is far higher than the average person in Scotland is likely to achieve with the current UK union.
In terms of the 'alternative' green energy, I'm sorry to burst the bubble, but without a huge amount of infrastructure investment, there is not a great deal of extra income in the export of renewable energy and water to the south. The Scottish power network as is, is not capable of carrying a significant increase in export of energy south of the border. The one plan to import clean power from Norway to the UK, had to come ashore in England as it was not viable through the Scottish network. The investment in HVDC cables joining SE England to the rest of Europe / Scandinavia, indicates that National Grid has evaluated the Scottish power market and found it lacking. The provision of increased, managed water reserves also requires huge investment before becoming a more effective income source.
The situation can be improved by investing some of the Scottish oil and gas revenue into the modernising and expansion of renewable resources, but needs to be done sympathetically so we do not destroy the natural beauty of Scotland, with resultant loss of revenue from tourism.
The oil and gas revenue issue needs to be resolved in Scotland's favour to at least let us try to make a viable future for ourselves from the revenue still available. Surely we can't do worse than Westminster, and can lose the galling 'parasite' stigma popular in the southern media, at the same time.
Here we go.... The old oil debate again.
Let it go Salmond. Yes we all know you were an Oil economist at RBS many moons ago, but face up to the facts. There is probably more oil in all the cars and petrol stations in the UK than there is in the North Sea, and unless we start selling North Sea Crude for about $500 a barrel then its not really going to yield much in the way of revenue.
Don't base the future economic plans of my country on an asset that will be completely used up in less than 20 years.
all change requires uncertainty. The only way to avoid uncertainty is to stay still and do nothing. Seems to me Labour offers stagnation! Also seems that the SNP's wild ravings about oil in the 70', '80s and '90s are now shown to be broadly right. Is David Cairns now saying that all of a sudden all the civil servant reports hidden from the public for 30 years are wrong?
The comments here make it sound as though Westminster is a foreign body we have no control over. Do we not elect representatives to Westminster? Do these MPs not have a say in how the oil revenues are used?
The only time you hear anybody say that Scotland cannot make it on her own is from the mouths of the SNP supporters. There is no doubt we could go it alone, the real question is whether we should go it alone.
Should we not be focusing our efforts in forming closer ties with Europe? Instead of trying to break apart from our closest neighbour?
It seems that the oil issues are simply a side issue the real issue here seems to be about power. The politicians that cannot gain enough of it at Westminster are now trying to get it via another route.
Oh Dear Brian - you've stirred up the usual hornet's nest over oil.
1. Who is David Cairns? Why does a non elected colonial grandee in the basically defunct 'Scottish Office' have any say on anything?
2. The more interesting figures about the Scottish economy are the impact of financial services, whiskey and electricity exports on a future Scottish exchequer - let alone the SME's which employ 80% of the work force.
3. How much have Suntory just invested in expanding their malt whiskey production, how about the millions Diageo are investing in the same industry - not to mention Hennessey / Martel?
4. Just remind the readers what the profit of the Scottish Company Registered Royal Bank of Scotland were last year? 6.6 Billion I remember - 10% company tax on profits yields 66 million from the RBOS alone, not including income tax from their Scottish based employees, tax paid by head office on shares and share dealings, capital gains etc...
5. How stupid does David Cairns think the Oil business is? They will talk with the people that have real power in Scotland and that is increasingly less likely to be Westminster.
6. The technological advances that despite Alistair Darling's spiteful action over Peterhead CO2 project means that many oil fields that are not profitable to the likes of Shell or BP are highly profitable to small specialist companies. For a declining industry just remind us how difficult Shell found it to sell off production fields in the Scottish sector.
7. How stupid does David Cairns think his fellow Scots are?
Scotland Oil if re nationalised and back under the management of the Scottish Government would be very good for Scotland.
At a production rate of 2.2 Million Barrels per day and the price of Oil at $72 per barrel, The Scottish Government would have an annual turnover of $57.816 Billion dollars less the cost of extraction and salaries etc, You could be looking at a Portfolio of $50 Billion per year to a Scottish Treasury.
So What the First Minister stated about the Norwegian Investment Portfolio is correct but the scope for Scotland would be greatly enhanced if the Oil was re nationalised and in the control of the Scottish Government.
With 50 Billion a year and 30 years reserves , I equate that to be a total fund of $1.5 Trillion dollars at current prices and that's not compounding the interest either.
So in reality Scotland can be successful independently. Bust most of all the Scottish people should be given a referendum to re-nationalise the Scottish oil portfolio.
This after they have gained fiscal and political autonomy from Westminster.
A far more interesting question than future oil revenues (of a declining resource) would be:
In this hypothetical independent Scotland, what balance of payment is due to the new nation as a result of a net flow of cash to the rest of the UK? What proportion of oil revenues were spent in Scotland.
Not an easy question since it's not a hypotheticated tax on oil revenues, but probably a more interesting debate than the oil question per se, which seems to be full of non-sequiturs and rhetoric. On a simple factual reading, about 70% of the oil would be under Scottish jurisdiction, but the act of territorial severance would be greatly complicated by a number of other questions - Scotland also produces far more power than we need per head, for example, but consumes far more in social security, for historical reasons. It's not an issue that can be discussed in isolation.
You do realise, don't you, that the infrastructure currently used to get the oil out and refine it, would *not* belong to the 'FM' and his crew, unless they were willing to pay for it, so you'd have oil and no way to get at it! Plus, the rights are bartered away for many years in advance, and I can't see the oil companies agreeing to renegotiate the deals they have already done with the UK Govt and factored into their spending plans. I do wish the SNP cabal haunting these pages would stop howling at the moon, and actually *think* before they start filling the places with their never-changing anti-English posts.
hi brian, and peter no.29,
i'm afraid i had a good laugh at our very important scotland office(ous) little squirt giving it laldy
when alex came on what we saw was a
statesman, confidant and a ease with
himself, great stuff,
westminster is no longer masters of all they survay,and its begining to show..
Everyone who agree's with the break in the United Kingdom are completely crazy, Scotland has 5 million people not 77 million. What do you think would happen if the UK split's the armed forces would have to pull out of scotland which is a loss of allot of jobs, boarder control would have to be set up and allot more money would be wasted. Wake up and smell the coffee, why can't you be like Wales, we all live in this modern world which is the United Kingdom, so start acting like adult's......
Almost since the oil/gas fields were discovered Westminster has claimed the stocks are almost running dry ,
The truth is we are around 50 per cent through the current known stocks , so we shall be drilling for at least another 40 years , even assuming no furhter stocks are discovered.
The "union" with England means the last 40 years have been a huge wasted opportunity for our country as the revenue has gone straight to London and Alex Salmond is 100 per cent correct in trying to reclaim what rightfully belongs to Scotland
Yes, Jak Lad #48, you're right. Scotland is too wee and too puny to stand on its own two feet. Yes that's right, trot out the old Labour and Tory lies. Somebody might still believe them.
The fact of the matter is that this increasing call for independance IS Scots starting to act like adults. The dependency culture of "Scots need the guiding hand of Westminster and the English" just doesn't wash anymore.
Scots are realising up and down the country that not only would an independant Scotland be viable, being in control of our own affairs might actually make us better off.
james #33 well said,all the snp can see is oil 拢拢拢拢拢拢 signs flashing before their eyes ,if and when they do get their independance (and i hope they do soon) the ordinary scots will soon see where that money will end up just as it as in england --lining the pockets of the alrady well off and contrary to what most of the posts here think it`s not only the english who are earning(if earnings the right word) the big money,there are many thousands of your fellow countrymen with their noses in the trough too.
I am getting sick of hearing people say that Scotland would not be able to go it alone. We are a nation of clever people. We have natural resources and our economy could flourish under an independent Scotland with the right people in power.
When people say that the UK is over, that the Britain is non existent, etc. It is right but is not anti English, it is anti British and the last time i checked, there were English brits, scottish brits, irish brits and welsh brits. The English who are proud of England as a nation have nothing to be bothered about, i respect them and wish them all the best but Brits are a breed of their own. They want to see all of these nations turned into one big ugly thing. The rest of us don't want it but are being forced to accept it. Not anymore.
As for Scotland becoming more like Wales, growing up and joining the modern world. I think the problem really is, is that Wales has been annexed for so long. The Brits have a hold of the Welsh, more so than the Scots or Irish. We are living in a modern world, the Union is a medievil concept, gaining my countries right to self rule is a long running modern concept. Scotland was independent, Scotland was forced into Union, Scotland has always wanted to remain independent but has been held back for the last 300 years. Some Scots have been brainwashed into believing they are Brits, that if the Union ended tonight - that border controls would go up, granny down in watford would never be allowed access to Scotland without a visa [even though we can travel to Ireland with just photo id], that our armed forces would become defunkt, and all the other horror stories you hear thrown about by politicians to scare us into union. Most are now waking up to the fact they have been lied to, that our true history has been hidden for years, that the truth about oil and economy was actually myth. Don't think for a minute Scots hate the English.....some do but the majority dislike the idea of Britishness and unfortunately for England the world sees them as the Brit imperialists. Dirt they really should try to scrub off.
Saor Alba a-nis
"the advent of North Sea oil has completely
overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish
nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive
surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the
proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future". So said the McCrone Report writtin in 1974 under a conservative government and handed to labour after an election in the same year.
While that may be in the past no one seems to be able to accurately forecast how long north sea oil will last. I remember being taught at school that it would have ran out by now. What Alex salmond seems to be proposing is that income from what is left should be kept in a fund to benefit Scotland. I see nothing wrong with that. David Cairns meanwhile seems to think the oil should stay in westminsters hands which the McCrone report seemed to disagree with.
So things have obviously changed since then much like the Labour party has.
however perhaps the phrase from McCrone that best emphasises why this argurment about oil is pointless is "that for the first time since the Act of Union was passed, it can now
be credibly argued that Scotland鈥檚 economic advantage lies in its repeal.
When this situation comes to be fully appreciated in
the years ahead, it is likely to have a major impact on Scottish politics, since it
is on social and political grounds alone that the case for retention of the union
will in future have to be based."
Perhaps Mr Cairns could now enlighten us as to what these social and political grounds are.
and for those who love the very informative nature of brians posts i suggest reading the McCrone report in full seeing as brian widdnae let me copy and paste the whole lot. Which is very understandable it is 18 pages long.
I have just read the McCrone report and I could weep.
Scotland has been sold down the river twice!!
Lets not make it a third time!
Brian, I relise you may not wish to have personal attacks on your blog but in Jak Lad's case I feel it was just, since he suggested the Scots should "be like Wales" Normally I would try to debate and reason with a poster who held views in conflict with my own, but in this case I believe it would be more productive to hammer in nails with my head.
I understand that Scotland is a big boy nation but the thing is Voting for the BNP in Britain (sorry England) is classed as racist but voting for the SNP is classed as inderpendence, how is that justified ?
The way the 4 countries in the UK is divided via their own governments are working it鈥檚 just taking time, as I work in Scotland being an English/welsh man I have no problem with most Scot鈥檚 but it鈥檚 the few that want to hit nails with their head. If we all are going to become a real power in this world again we need to stick together not listen to people who have anti-English views..........
Also isn't the law on oil, 'who ever pump's it first own it' So own thow it's in 'SCOTTISH WATERS' it's stil owned by the British government !!!!
I studied the economics of an indepedent scotland for my Dissertation at University. I knew then (2000) there was no doubt that scotland could be successful on its own. Now Ive read the McCrone report in full as a previous poster said, it makes me weep. I didnt realise the full extent of the deceit but now that I do, I hope that scots will get up stand up, demand our right to self determination and give to the next generation a free scotland they can all be proud of. Any scots complicit in this should hang their heads in shame. The truth is out there now and its up to everyone to tell it.
So British Control of the oil is in the best interests of a stable market for all?
Just like it would have been inappropriate for the STB to use Local hero in its marketing abroad.
It's far past time for Scottish control of Scottish matters!
Slainte
ed
As the major producer of oil in the UK it is reasonable Scotland should have a major influence on its production. What next however, Edinburgh City Council determining finance policies or Speyside councils accruing the benefits of whisky revenues. If they strike oil in English waters should only they accrue the benefits? Joining any union requires compromises either inter or intra nationally
Has anyone stopped to consider that the 鈥榚vil鈥 English might not be hording away all of that Scottish oil money for themselves, and perhaps the BRITISH parliament of Westminster might be spending the money on all of us. As a SCOTTISH law student my understanding is if you pay for the exploration and you pay to extract it, you own the oil. The fact that it is on the Scottish sea bed is irrelevant. There is also the fact that ALL government taxes are collected and distributed by Westminster not just the ones they 鈥榮teal鈥, this is the way our system works. It is about time as a nation we stopped harking back to the days of William Wallace and remember that unlike the Welsh we chose to join the Union and we did it on our own terms, small reminder 鈥 the Darien scheme. Or perhaps that was also a disaster because of the English (I didn鈥檛 realise they could control cholera). When are we going to get over the delusion that Independence is the way to go? The whole of Europe is moving towards integration and we are trying to separate. Not that we are serious about it, the SNP are hardly the equivalent of the IRA or ETA and thank goodness for it, those regions are hardly models we want to follow.
As a nation we did well out of the Union, and we did well out of the British Empire, it can be the same as a part of Britain in Europe. We are in a unique position that our budget can be used only for our people we don鈥檛 have to deal with defence or international relations we can work on our social needs. Which can I point out are massive. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe, Glasgow is the knife capital of Europe, our obesity stats are almost at the point of America, our NHS is laughable, as are the education rates, and we have a brain drain which sees people not looking for a job in Scotland but in England. I am proud to be British AND Scottish, yet as I look at that list of social 鈥榓chievements鈥 I wonder why.
#34 As a Shetlander I do not have much time for Edinburgh and the central belt bias, there are few people in the central belt that have no understanding of where Shetland is never mind Shetland culture, but I do NOT feel closer to Westminster in any way. Having said that I do not speak for every Shetlander. There is no move for an independent Shetland and we do feel a link Scandanavian countries. But let me assure you that we are very proud Scots.
#60 We chose to join the Union, and we did it on our own terms.
Who is this we? As I understand our history a few were paid to accept Union with England.
Also I don't seem to recall much dancing and singing in the streets at the time. In fact, quite the reverse.
Post#23 Matt McLaughlin
"What a narrow minded arguement this is. Who says its Scotland's oil? It's the U/K's oil and we should be happy to put all of our collective resources into the pot for the benefit of everyone who lives in the U/K."
Where were you in the 17th. Century Matt, when the great East India Company refused to share the lucrative trading rights to England's colonies with the United Kingdom of England and Scotland? They treated the Scots with utter contempt when they tried to make their case that, since they had a common sovereign, they should share the bounty of both nations. Eventually they did of course, when the English wanted security on their northern border, but the price was high; the subjugation of Scotland to the English Parliament. The spiritual descendants of the ruling class of Scotland who surrendered Scotland's nationhood now sit in the English Parliament, Commons and Lords, telling us that Scotland's wealth belongs to them and we must be satisfied with the crumbs that drop from our masters' table.
As a Scottish Law student, Katherine #60, I presume you are an intelligent person. Why then, when you're urging the rest of us to stop and consider things, you haven't actually considered the blaring contradiction in your post?
You claim that Scotland does well out of the Union. Yet you then go on to state that Scotland has massive social needs, having "the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe, Glasgow is the knife capital of Europe, our obesity stats are almost at the point of America, our NHS is laughable, as are the education rates, and we have a brain drain which sees people not looking for a job in Scotland but in England". While we're at it, we should just mention that the life expentency of men in Central Scotland is amongst the lowest in the Western world and Scotland has the lowest economic growth in Europe.
In what way, then, is Scotland doing well out of the Union? That was your assertion, after all. Or are you claiming that these problems are inherently Scottish ones and, without the Union, would be even worse?
Personally, I don't believe that for a second. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that independance will cause a magic wand to come and make all these problems disappear overnight but I do believe that the Union has failed Scotland and will continue failing Scotland. It's time to start putting Scotland right.
Now Jak Lad may feel that this is a racist view but he speaks as a tired Unionist lacky who can't come up with anything original (just one of the reasons the Union is failing Scotland). It's not racist, it's sensible and to liken voting for the SNP to voting for the BNP just illustrates how desperate and bankrupt the Unionist argument has become.