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

[Thinker 887]

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.

 

My point is this. if the usage of oil as fuel were to fall (and we must all hope that it does), there would be less immediate demand for it. And since there are many places in the world were oil can be more efficiently extracted, the supply to demand ratio would shift. Consequently, oil production would become less profitable.

 

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.

 

IMHO, It's every bit as plausible to dream of a positive future for the UK as it is to dream of a positive future for Scotland.

 

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 didn't say we'd be more vulnerable than Sweden or Switzerland. Only that, like them, we'd be dependent on other nations for nuclear defence. The world has to move from the current situation of fossil fuel use and carbon emissions, to one of nuclear power and carbon capture. Without a shadow of a doubt the technology will spread and it is eminently weaponizable. How many nations in the developing world do you think will obtain nuclear technology in the next 35 years? Quite conceivably most of them. And in many ways that's a less worrying prospect than a rapidly increasing world population all relying on oil or coal-fired power stations.

 

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..

 

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.

 

To be fair, the links you provided were fairly pro-Independence. The link I provided also shows that Scotland has a greater expenditure per head. If oil revenue fails to provide the difference, we'd be worse off.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

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

 

That programme is no longer viewable on iplayer and even if it were, the person being interviewed is not the SNP defense spokesman. If you have a link to a viewable programme or a transcript, I'd be grateful for it.

[Mountain Bear 0]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

So, Scottish per capita GDP excluding oil is higher than the UK's.

 

Sounds like the union is working well...

[The Real PapaBear 0]

My point is this. if the usage of oil as fuel were to fall (and we must all hope that it does), there would be less immediate demand for it. And since there are many places in the world were oil can be more efficiently extracted, the supply to demand ratio would shift. Consequently, oil production would become less profitable.

 

 

 

IMHO, It's every bit as plausible to dream of a positive future for the UK as it is to dream of a positive future for Scotland.

 

 

 

I didn't say we'd be more vulnerable than Sweden or Switzerland. Only that, like them, we'd be dependent on other nations for nuclear defence. The world has to move from the current situation of fossil fuel use and carbon emissions, to one of nuclear power and carbon capture. Without a shadow of a doubt the technology will spread and it is eminently weaponizable. How many nations in the developing world do you think will obtain nuclear technology in the next 35 years? Quite conceivably most of them. And in many ways that's a less worrying prospect than a rapidly increasing world population all relying on oil or coal-fired power stations.

 

 

 

To be fair, the links you provided were fairly pro-Independence. The link I provided also shows that Scotland has a greater expenditure per head. If oil revenue fails to provide the difference, we'd be worse off.

 

I think we're probably in agreement with regards to fossl fuels and their danger to the planet: less so on the nuclear issue - but lets leave that to another day and focus on the issue of independence, and in particular your final line in which you say that the figures pushed out by Westminster "show" that Scotland has a higher level of public expenditure per head of population; except that they don't. In reality it is we who subsidise the rUK and have done for a generation.

 

We account for 8.9% of the UK population but contribute 9.6% of tax revenue to HMG. The Westminster figures show an identifiable expenditure of 9.3% in Scotland. So, in short we contribute much more than we should and get less back than we contribute - even if we only look at identifiable expenditure. And for this, we are called welfare junkies and scroungers.

 

The reason I highlight identifiable expenditure is because Westminster doesn't. Put simply, identifiable expenditure is what each country/region spends on its own services etc. Non-identiable expenditure is expenditure which is deemed to be for the good of the Uk as a whole; stuff like the civil service, defence, the BBC, interest on debt repayments etc.

 

Conveniently enough, the vast bulk of this non-identifiable expenditure, and I'm talking in the region of 97% is spent in England and in particular in the SE and London. Have a wee look around on Google and find out how much of the 9 % of its income the BBC spends in Scotland (spoiler alert; it"s a number between 2 and 4%); then have a look at how much of defense expenditure takes place in Scotland, then look at the expenditure for 'national' museums, culture etc etc etc.

 

If memory serves, NIPS accounts for somewhere in the region of 30% of all expenditure - so the Westminster figures are doubly agregious. They claim,when in fact the opposite is true, that they are subsidising us and use IPS to "prove' this, conveniently omitting to show how much we contribute in the first place something like 7% more than we receive - even forgetting NIPS. If we were to include NIPS then our subsidy TO rUK would be well into double figures.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

So, Scottish per capita GDP excluding oil is higher than the UK's.

 

Sounds like the union is working well...

 

It's working well for those we are subsidising, sure.

[Thinker 887]

I think we're probably in agreement with regards to fossl fuels and their danger to the planet: less so on the nuclear issue - but lets leave that to another day and focus on the issue of independence, and in particular your final line in which you say that the figures pushed out by Westminster "show" that Scotland has a higher level of public expenditure per head of population; except that they don't. In reality it is we who subsidise the rUK and have done for a generation.

 

We account for 8.9% of the UK population but contribute 9.6% of tax revenue to HMG. The Westminster figures show an identifiable expenditure of 9.3% in Scotland. So, in short we contribute much more than we should and get less back than we contribute - even if we only look at identifiable expenditure. And for this, we are called welfare junkies and scroungers.

 

The reason I highlight identifiable expenditure is because Westminster doesn't. Put simply, identifiable expenditure is what each country/region spends on its own services etc. Non-identiable expenditure is expenditure which is deemed to be for the good of the Uk as a whole; stuff like the civil service, defence, the BBC, interest on debt repayments etc.

 

Conveniently enough, the vast bulk of this non-identifiable expenditure, and I'm talking in the region of 97% is spent in England and in particular in the SE and London. Have a wee look around on Google and find out how much of the 9 % of its income the BBC spends in Scotland (spoiler alert; it"s a number between 2 and 4%); then have a look at how much of defense expenditure takes place in Scotland, then look at the expenditure for 'national' museums, culture etc etc etc.

 

If memory serves, NIPS accounts for somewhere in the region of 30% of all expenditure - so the Westminster figures are doubly agregious. They claim,when in fact the opposite is true, that they are subsidising us and use IPS to "prove' this, conveniently omitting to show how much we contribute in the first place something like 7% more than we receive - even forgetting NIPS. If we were to include NIPS then our subsidy TO rUK would be well into double figures.

 

Clearly the figures on tax raised and expenditure can be analysed in a number of ways, but our relative loss or gain always seems to come down to oil. I'll stick in another link (although I'm sure it's old news to you) in the hope that you consider Channel 4 a more neutral source of information than the BBC.

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-oil-debt-decide-scotlands-future/15852

 

With regards to non-identifiable expenditure, it seems legitimate to me to claim that money can be spent for Scotland's benefit without it being spent in Scotland. I daresay I enjoyed the BBCs coverage of Wimbledon at the weekend as much as any other license payer. And I thoroughly enjoyed my visits to the Science Museum, the British Museum and the Natural History Museum in London a few months ago. I certainly feel I got my tax money's worth out of them all and I don't feel particularly aggrieved that many of these type of national resources are situated where the maximum number of people can access them.

[compo 7,215]

log into universal jobmatch and look at the amount of jobs down south and then the jobs available in Scotland then ask yourself, why is there plenty down south and very little up here

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Clearly the figures on tax raised and expenditure can be analysed in a number of ways, but our relative loss or gain always seems to come down to oil. I'll stick in another link (although I'm sure it's old news to you) in the hope that you consider Channel 4 a more neutral source of information than the BBC.

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-oil-debt-decide-scotlands-future/15852

 

Thanks for the link, although you're right it is fairly old news and simply trots out the same old skewed figures, i.e that Scotland receives a higher public spend that the rest of the UK but, again, ignores NIPS and the fact that we contribute a higher share of tax than the rest of the UK outwith London and the SE. Once you factor in NIPS, you get a clearer picture of the true amount spent in Scotland and it is far less than we contribute. The rest of the article is an exercise in imagination about what life would be like if there was no oil, the conclusion of which seems to be that we'd be as well or as poorly off as rUK - a view pretty much echoed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which says that our current contribution per person to the UK exchequer is £8000, compared to the UK avergae of £7,300. If you remove the oil from the equation, we fall to parity with the rest of the UK.

"Thus, excluding North Sea output or when allocating it on a population basis, GDP per capita was very similar in Scotland to that in the UK as a whole."

 

With regards to non-identifiable expenditure, it seems legitimate to me to claim that money can be spent for Scotland's benefit without it being spent in Scotland. I daresay I enjoyed the BBCs coverage of Wimbledon at the weekend as much as any other license payer. And I thoroughly enjoyed my visits to the Science Museum, the British Museum and the Natural History Museum in London a few months ago. I certainly feel I got my tax money's worth out of them all and I don't feel particularly aggrieved that many of these type of national resources are situated where the maximum number of people can access them.

 

I certainly have to admire you generosity of spirit. I'm afraid i'm a bit less altruistic than yourself, since I tend to get a wee bit annoyed at being called a scrounging jock by the very people I'm subsidising. I'm also more than a little miffed at the fact that in order to visit the cultural treasures I have paid for, I also have to factor in a couple of hundreds pounds extra in travel and accommodation costs.

 

So, you'll forgive me if I don't see how spending vast sums on the cultural life of the SE of England or paying the BBC to promote a London-centric view of the world is to the benefit of Scotland.

[Thinker 887]

log into universal jobmatch and look at the amount of jobs down south and then the jobs available in Scotland then ask yourself, why is there plenty down south and very little up here

 

It's actually the north of England that's getting the rough deal when it comes to unemployment (which is no less tragic than if it was Scotland IMO and needs to be addressed).

 

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-22/unemployment-figures-highlight-regional-differences/

[Thinker 887]

Thanks for the link, although you're right it is fairly old news and simply trots out the same old skewed figures, i.e that Scotland receives a higher public spend that the rest of the UK but, again, ignores NIPS and the fact that we contribute a higher share of tax than the rest of the UK outwith London and the SE. Once you factor in NIPS, you get a clearer picture of the true amount spent in Scotland and it is far less than we contribute. The rest of the article is an exercise in imagination about what life would be like if there was no oil, the conclusion of which seems to be that we'd be as well or as poorly off as rUK - a view pretty much echoed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which says that our current contribution per person to the UK exchequer is £8000, compared to the UK avergae of £7,300. If you remove the oil from the equation, we fall to parity with the rest of the UK.

"Thus, excluding North Sea output or when allocating it on a population basis, GDP per capita was very similar in Scotland to that in the UK as a whole."

 

There's far more to the conclusion they draw than that. You don't accept their verdict - fair enough.

 

I certainly have to admire you generosity of spirit. I'm afraid i'm a bit less altruistic than yourself, since I tend to get a wee bit annoyed at being called a scrounging jock by the very people I'm subsidising. I'm also more than a little miffed at the fact that in order to visit the cultural treasures I have paid for, I also have to factor in a couple of hundreds pounds extra in travel and accommodation costs.

 

So, you'll forgive me if I don't see how spending vast sums on the cultural life of the SE of England or paying the BBC to promote a London-centric view of the world is to the benefit of Scotland.

 

A couple of batshit right wing MPs may have called Scots scroungers - it's not a prevalent view.

 

And it makes sense to have national exhibitions whereever they get the highest footfall. What would the alternative be? Splitting the collections up regionally by proportional value? Having them constantly on tour? I'm not saying their aren't examples of London unreasonably hogging resources that could be cited, but that's not one of them - it's completely trivial.