Home & Garden1 min ago
A question for Scottish ABers
49 Answers
On the Today programme this morning Alex Salmond once again spoke of ‘Scottish oil’ which, of course, does not exist; it is UK oil.
If the Scots get a referendum on independence it will have to be made clear to them before they vote exactly how much of the North Sea will be, by international convention, Scottish waters, and which oil rigs that will encompass (ignoring for the moment the fact that much of the infra-structure does not belong to Scotland anyway).
What I’d like to know is what Scots people imagine at the moment will become Scottish oil if and when independence comes. What are they expecting?
If the Scots get a referendum on independence it will have to be made clear to them before they vote exactly how much of the North Sea will be, by international convention, Scottish waters, and which oil rigs that will encompass (ignoring for the moment the fact that much of the infra-structure does not belong to Scotland anyway).
What I’d like to know is what Scots people imagine at the moment will become Scottish oil if and when independence comes. What are they expecting?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
KARL's political contribution is interesting but mostly irrelevant. I am still waiting to hear Scottish people telling me what they CURRENTLY expect from independence in the particular case of UK oil.
Some years ago The Scotsman published a article pointing out that sea borders usually follow the line of land borders (as someone has already mentioned) in which case the sea border will run south-west to north-east making a huge chunk of the sea due east of Scotland English waters. I have a suspicion that the talk of "Scottish oil" has led some Scots to assume that everyting east of Scotland will be Scottish, which is not so.
All I ask is that before the Scottish people vote they should know the facts, both about "Scottish oil" and the subsidy they get from the rest of UK.
Not that it matters much in practice. All polls show so far that the Scottish electorate would vote No to independence anyway.
Some years ago The Scotsman published a article pointing out that sea borders usually follow the line of land borders (as someone has already mentioned) in which case the sea border will run south-west to north-east making a huge chunk of the sea due east of Scotland English waters. I have a suspicion that the talk of "Scottish oil" has led some Scots to assume that everyting east of Scotland will be Scottish, which is not so.
All I ask is that before the Scottish people vote they should know the facts, both about "Scottish oil" and the subsidy they get from the rest of UK.
Not that it matters much in practice. All polls show so far that the Scottish electorate would vote No to independence anyway.
I do love the we get more money argument!
Do we contribute more though? No one has beena ble to answer me this with any facts to back it up.
Im a Scot living in England so don't particularly care what happens but everyone in Scotland says we contribute more and everyone in England says they subsidise them!
I would just love to know from both sides what they base this on?
Do we contribute more though? No one has beena ble to answer me this with any facts to back it up.
Im a Scot living in England so don't particularly care what happens but everyone in Scotland says we contribute more and everyone in England says they subsidise them!
I would just love to know from both sides what they base this on?
You're right, Chakka, that the line of the Scotland/England border - if extended out to sea - would mean lots of the North Sea would be England's; however, that's the very part of that sea where the oil is beginning to run short. Future hopes, as I suggested in Response No 2 to this thread, are more likely to lie much further north in the Norwegian Sea and North Atlantic. England would have no access to that.
Someone suggested that the Northern Isles might seek independence from Scotland, but that's about as likely as Wales and/or Northern Ireland seeking independence from England. If they did that, England would have access to only a tiny section of the Irish Sea east of the Isle of Man, about the same south of Ireland and a bit of the Channel. In effect, they'd have no sea oil at all apart from what they pump out from around Poole Harbour!
Someone suggested that the Northern Isles might seek independence from Scotland, but that's about as likely as Wales and/or Northern Ireland seeking independence from England. If they did that, England would have access to only a tiny section of the Irish Sea east of the Isle of Man, about the same south of Ireland and a bit of the Channel. In effect, they'd have no sea oil at all apart from what they pump out from around Poole Harbour!
If what you are after is an indication as to literally "what Scots people....are expecting" then you will not get a simple, single answer and certainly there is no room for them all on AB. As with anyone (the English included), opinions and expectations vary. So far you have a variety of indications as to views on the sentiment you expressed in most of your post (the first 80% or so), but I am quite certain that, broadly, the "expectation" will be that if Scotland becomes independent then oil within Scottish economic territory will be Scottish, not British and not English. No member of the public, Government, or others are likely to be inclined to point the fields out to you but, specifically, once the lines are drawn then they will see oil within those borders as Scottish for Scotland to administer in accordance with existing and future exploration rights as varied by Scottish authorities from time to time if and when they decide to. All government revenue due on the exploitation of the oil will flow into Scottish coffers, nobody else's. It is in particular in that context that Mr.Salmond refers to oil within Scottish territorial waters (and they are already identifiable) as Scottish oil - de facto and also in fiscal reality post independence. However, the question of independence or not does not solely rest on Scottish oil but oil is a significant corollary to the discussion because of its economic importance. As already pointed out, it is for the people of Scotland to spend the funds available to them and an independent Scotland would arguably score a double whammy by gaining control of very significant oil and gas reserves plus reducing expenses by opting out of the British military debacle. My impression is that those in Scotland who support independence (and the numbers are very significant, as are the undecideds) are all the more likely to stick to their decision when told that they are being subsidised by England - they see this as part o
...... they see this as part of the irritant that has characterised, and still does, the relationship between the two nations. Pro- independence people would rather have independence than be patronised, as they see it, and they express tiredlness of the status quo. They are aware of oil revenue being worth having but I do not sense this being the nub of the matter.
It used to be said that there was enough 'money' tied up in distillery bonded warehouses on Speyside to pay off the entire British national debt. That may no longer be true, after the shenanigans of our casino bankers, but Scotland does have a commodity that the entire world beats a path to its shores to get. Imagine...none of that income would be headed for the British Treasury! My point is that an independent Scotland would not have to rely solely on oil.
As already pointed out, rational Scots imagine that any oil within the areas internationally agreed to be under Scottish hegemony will belong to Scotland.
As already pointed out, rational Scots imagine that any oil within the areas internationally agreed to be under Scottish hegemony will belong to Scotland.
I can't see that there's much disgreement here. Scotland would obviously be entitled to oil from what would thn be Scottish waters.
I'm puzzled, though, about the hardware and infrastructure. Woud not those compNIES and organisations hich have built the rigs and the pipe lines have some say?
Sherminator - I'll try to find out what the English or UK subsidy to Scotland is and report back. I'm not sure that Scotland contributes anything to England, does it?
I'm puzzled, though, about the hardware and infrastructure. Woud not those compNIES and organisations hich have built the rigs and the pipe lines have some say?
Sherminator - I'll try to find out what the English or UK subsidy to Scotland is and report back. I'm not sure that Scotland contributes anything to England, does it?
PRELIMINARY REPORT:
The government figures for 2005, made much of in The Scotsman, are that Scotland raised £34b in taxes and spent £45.3b, making the English subsidy £11.3b.
Simon Heffer in the Telegraph claims that the subsidy has now doubled to £22b and I am trying to confirm this.
The only dissenting voices I can find are from those who talk of the "Scottish oil" flowing into England, which is, of course UK oil in the first place.
The government figures for 2005, made much of in The Scotsman, are that Scotland raised £34b in taxes and spent £45.3b, making the English subsidy £11.3b.
Simon Heffer in the Telegraph claims that the subsidy has now doubled to £22b and I am trying to confirm this.
The only dissenting voices I can find are from those who talk of the "Scottish oil" flowing into England, which is, of course UK oil in the first place.
Quizmonster is correct - as far as the various operators within the industry are concerned nothing would change except the landlord would be different. Over time some terms of regulation and taxation might/would change, but that happens already as demonstrated by the UK Treasury's increase in taxes on the oil companies (which the present Scottish Government want partly or wholly reversed).
If the figures on taxation (and/or "subsidy") ignore how much the UK Treasury earns from oil that is extracted in Scottish waters (as it is my impression they do), then they are misleading when it comes to this discussion of a "subsidy" - the income from taxation of Scottish assets and turnover is then understated by the amount earned fromn oil and gas extraction around Scotland. Underquoting in such a manner is both a straight forward error if the intention is to establish the productivity/cost of Scotland as an area of the UK and it is also one that serves those who want to slant the facts to suit an argument. An independent Scotland would hold the revenue of the oil in question and it would not be right to regard it as "a different matter" and simply lump it in with all oil revenue in UK territory and not account for it as revenue from Scotland. Yes, currently the oil is regarded as UK oil but that would change with Scottish independence and the UK's oil and revenue from it would drop very significantly - the oil around Scotland would no longer be the UK's. The areas that the UK would lose can already be identified and that is what is already referred to as Scottish oil.
My immediate concern was to establish the size of the present subsidy from England that many Scots deny exists.
But you're quite right, KARL. If Scotland achieves independence then England's gain from cancelling that subsidy will have to be set against the losses we'll suffer when so much UK oil becomes Scottish oil. I wonder whether anyone has done the arithmetic...
And what will Scotland do with her oil? If she relies on it for income (and what else is there except whisky?) then she'll be in dire straits when the oil runs out.
As I said at the beginning, all of this has to be sorted out so that the Scots know exactly what they're voting for in the referendum.
But you're quite right, KARL. If Scotland achieves independence then England's gain from cancelling that subsidy will have to be set against the losses we'll suffer when so much UK oil becomes Scottish oil. I wonder whether anyone has done the arithmetic...
And what will Scotland do with her oil? If she relies on it for income (and what else is there except whisky?) then she'll be in dire straits when the oil runs out.
As I said at the beginning, all of this has to be sorted out so that the Scots know exactly what they're voting for in the referendum.
When I first mentioned whisky above, Chakka, I briefly wondered what England had that was in any way similar; namely an actual product that the whole world admires and demands. I couldn't think of one! The ONLY place one will ever be able to buy Scotch whisky is Scotland.
On the other hand, Britain's much-vaunted and vastly profitable financial services 'industry' is based in London, but it COULD be centred anywhere. If bankers took it into their heads to remove themselves to Zürich or wherever, as they sometimes threaten to do, what income-source similar to Scotch is left?
I must have overlooked something, surely. (I say that sincerely and not as a bit of urine-extraction!)
On the other hand, Britain's much-vaunted and vastly profitable financial services 'industry' is based in London, but it COULD be centred anywhere. If bankers took it into their heads to remove themselves to Zürich or wherever, as they sometimes threaten to do, what income-source similar to Scotch is left?
I must have overlooked something, surely. (I say that sincerely and not as a bit of urine-extraction!)
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
How it Works3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
