Born Under a Union Flag: Rangers, Britain and Scottish Independence

[Scott7 6,166]

I'd be interested in the source of these claims, because I don't think the SNP defense spokesman said any such thing.

 

BBC TV interview with Andrew Neil about 2/3 years ago.

[Zappa 0]

Oil isn't only used for producing power you know - and even if/when the day comes that we use alternatives to fossil fuels for power production oil will still be used for its myriad of other uses. The value of oil may one day fall, but I doubt whetehr you or I will be alive to witness it.

 

However, the fact remains, it will one day run out. On that we are agreed.

 

Traditional oil deposit formation theories have been getting called into question for almost 7 decades since Kudryavtsev proposed the abiotic hypothesis in 1951 and in fact more and more scientists who aren't worried about their grants and backhanders from the oil industry are leaning towards abiotic theories purely because the scientific evidence is extremely compelling. Fossil oil theory which first surfaced about 125 years ago is itself a fossil.

 

BUT! I'm going off topic with this.....

[The Real PapaBear 0]

BBC TV interview with Andrew Neil about 2/3 years ago.

 

need more than that if it's to be credible, mate

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Traditional oil deposit formation theories have been getting called into question for almost 7 decades since Kudryavtsev proposed the abiotic hypothesis in 1951 and in fact more and more scientists who aren't worried about their grants and backhanders from the oil industry are leaning towards abiotic theories purely because the scientific evidence is extremely compelling. Fossil oil theory which first surfaced about 125 years ago is itself a fossil.

 

You're not still trotting out the same old stuff about Kudryavtsev's abiotic hypothesis are you? Man, change the record - we've heard it all before.

 

[neutralscot 0]

So, fossil fuels are not in fact made from fossils but from naturally occurring pools which replenish the supply? Jeez, everyday a school day….

[Thinker 887]

and Scotland are one of Europe's (if not the World's) leaders in alternative/renewable energy......

 

Great, as long as we have somebody to sell our generated electricity surplus to.

 

Renewable energy like wind, wave and solar (sadly) cannot meet the energy needs of the planet - the only viable alternative to carbon producing fuels for much of the world is nuclear fission, which despite its dangers is more than capable of producing an ample amount of energy. That's the near future of energy generation.

 

Beyond that, a single scientific breakthrough in say, fusion power, could transform the picture completely. That may sound like science fiction but it was predicted within our lifetime. I have no doubt that there are children alive today who'll see it happen.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Thinker

[Thinker 887]

Oil isn't only used for producing power you know - and even if/when the day comes that we use alternatives to fossil fuels for power production oil will still be used for its myriad of other uses. The value of oil may one day fall, but I doubt whetehr you or I will be alive to witness it.

 

Well over 80% of oil is used as fuel.

 

However, the fact remains, it will one day run out. On that we are agreed.

Given that, would you rather spend the remaining decades using the proceeds of the oil revenue to invest in new technologies and developing the nation's education and skills base, as an Independent Scotland would do, or are you happy to watch as the UK continues to waste the revenues from oil down the drain of foreign wars, unemployment benefits and Trident?

 

I'd rather the see the UK government invest in the positive things you mention, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of neglecting our national security in the hope that friendly, powerful nations will maintain world peace. The number of nations with nuclear technology continues to increase, and not all foreign wars are unnecessary.

 

some bullet point figures here:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/

 

point number 6 answers your question, although I would recommend reading the other 9 points as well

 

and in much more detail here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/12/GCS2009/Q/pno/0, pages 1 - 6

 

I notice that the nice even pie-chart is for the onshore economy. UP to 20% of out national tax income could be from oil.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266

 

It's a critical part of the pro-Independence economic plan. If the price goes up, we're quids in. If, on the other hand, it drops, we'll lose out.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Well over 80% of oil is used as fuel.

 

yes? and? I don't get your point. the value of oil won't fall because a greater or lesser amount is used for fuel. All it would mean is that we have use of the resource for longer.

 

I'd rather the see the UK government invest in the positive things you mention, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of neglecting our national security in the hope that friendly, powerful nations will maintain world peace. The number of nations with nuclear technology continues to increase, and not all foreign wars are unnecessary.

 

If the UK govt had any intention of investing in the positive things I mention they would have started decades ago. The UK doesn't do long term investment.

 

Your remarks on securty don't really make a lot of sense, if you'll forgive me. Why would we be any more or less vulnerable than Sweden or Switzerland or any of the other half dozen small uropean members of NATO who don't have nuclear weapon? The number of nations with nuclear technology, if by that you mean a viable weapon, has increased by 2 in the past 35 years, neither of whom are any threat to us. Not all foreign wars are unnecessary, granted - only the ones in our lifetimes.

 

I notice that the nice even pie-chart is for the onshore economy. UP to 20% of out national tax income could be from oil.

 

Of course it is. The pie chart, and the other information, was provided in response to your assertion that Scotland does not have a diverse economy outside of the oil industry, which the facts show it clearly does. As you can see from the information provided, oil currently accounts for about 15% of our GDP. It could account for 20% if the price rises significantly, but I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting that tjis would be a bad thing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266

 

It's a critical part of the pro-Independence economic plan. If the price goes up, we're quids in. If, on the other hand, it drops, we'll lose out.

 

Thanks, that's an interesting link (from the virulantly anti-independence BBC) which shows that if we don't get a penny from oil then Scottish GDP falls to being the same as the rest of the UK.

[Hildy 0]

We have been wedded to England for generations. We don't know what it's like not to be standing together in an increasingly hostile world. We do know what it's like to be unified though, and on the same side when the situation is desperate.

 

The idea that oil is even being discussed when the subject is so serious, and so permanent, is quite absurd. Independence isn't for a few decades - it's forever. Once we leave, there will be no turning back.

 

As for football allegiance having an influence - it's the one subject where there is regular agreement between Rangers and Celtic fans. The Rangers support is almost certainly more unionist than independence-minded, but every Celtic fan I know is voting NO. It is possible that the Celtic support is more unionist than we are.

 

This is the current state of play in my neighbourhood. I spoke to someone from the NO camp last week about how things were looking. She told me that my area was running at around 90% NO, but she was still concerned. As she explained: "The YES camp will come out in droves, but the NO camp might feel that it doesn't need to. We need to make sure that NO-inclined people actually make the effort to turn out and vote".

 

I'll be voting NO.

[Scott7 6,166]

need more than that if it's to be credible, mate

 

BBC News, Straight Talk with Andrew Neil, 27 March, 2010.