HardyBamboo Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Interesting post from Business for Scotland with plenty of citations. http://businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/ A few snippets; "All the evidence demonstrates that Scotland is a wealthy nation. Scotland would be the 8th wealthiest nation in the world by GDP per head of population. Scotland’s wealth is also built on solid financial foundations, a diverse economy and substantial economic potential in new industries such as biotechnology and renewables, as well as current key sectors like food and drink, tourism and oil and gas." "Voting for independence – to have control over taxation, regulation and global promotion – will give the Scottish government the tools to create greater opportunities for growth and a better business climate for Scottish business. In short, a Yes vote will improve Scotland’s economy. This will make people in Scotland financially better off." "An independent Scotland will prioritise the interests of business in Scotland following decades of Westminster prioritising London and the South East. This includes the opportunity to create a simpler tax system that supports Scottish business; reforming the labour market to improve employer/employee relations; encouraging migration to Scotland balance Scotland’s unique demographic needs; and supporting Scottish exports globally through a Scottish diplomatic and trade service. The opportunities of independence are vast and long-term." What do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Like a lot of articles in the debate, it's common to see cherry picking of the data. Point 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 is dependent on Scotland assuming it earns a greater share of money from North Sea oil. If oil tax receipts are allocated geographically all quoted figures stack up. Note the point 3 chart refers to geographical split only. If they were to be allocated on a per capita basis then Scottish figures look quite different - something acknowledged in many of the documents cited. So whether any of the positions bear resemblance to our independent nation can't be verified until agreements are struck. In reality, I'd expect a compromise between the geographical and per capita splits (if yes wins) so figures from both sides are best case (unlikely) scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Like a lot of articles in the debate, it's common to see cherry picking of the data. Point 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 is dependent on Scotland assuming it earns a greater share of money from North Sea oil. If oil tax receipts are allocated geographically all quoted figures stack up. Note the point 3 chart refers to geographical split only. If they were to be allocated on a per capita basis then Scottish figures look quite different - something acknowledged in many of the documents cited. So whether any of the positions bear resemblance to our independent nation can't be verified until agreements are struck. In reality, I'd expect a compromise between the geographical and per capita splits (if yes wins) so figures from both sides are best case (unlikely) scenarios. Seriously??? I take it Scotland will get a per capita share of lake Windermere then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Like a lot of articles in the debate, it's common to see cherry picking of the data. Point 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 is dependent on Scotland assuming it earns a greater share of money from North Sea oil. If oil tax receipts are allocated geographically all quoted figures stack up. Note the point 3 chart refers to geographical split only. If they were to be allocated on a per capita basis then Scottish figures look quite different - something acknowledged in many of the documents cited. So whether any of the positions bear resemblance to our independent nation can't be verified until agreements are struck. In reality, I'd expect a compromise between the geographical and per capita splits (if yes wins) so figures from both sides are best case (unlikely) scenarios. My understanding is that this would very likely be the outcome, (based on the median line principle), in fact Tony Blair's Government set the precedent for the UK using this method when they redrew the fisheries boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Like a lot of articles in the debate, it's common to see cherry picking of the data. Point 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 is dependent on Scotland assuming it earns a greater share of money from North Sea oil. If oil tax receipts are allocated geographically all quoted figures stack up. Note the point 3 chart refers to geographical split only. If they were to be allocated on a per capita basis then Scottish figures look quite different - something acknowledged in many of the documents cited. So whether any of the positions bear resemblance to our independent nation can't be verified until agreements are struck. In reality, I'd expect a compromise between the geographical and per capita splits (if yes wins) so figures from both sides are best case (unlikely) scenarios. Do any credible observers actually believe that oil would not be split on a geographical basis? THere is absolutely no reason why rUK should maintain any claim to any assets within the Scottish EEZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Figures from any side of the political debate should be taken with a wee pinch of salt, that's all I'm saying. I wasn't aware that we were able to fact check the future. Neither the yes or no camps are in a position to be concrete about the state of finances without forward agreements, no matter how credible or serious statements seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Figures from any side of the political debate should be taken with a wee pinch of salt, that's all I'm saying. I wasn't aware that we were able to fact check the future. Neither the yes or no camps are in a position to be concrete about the state of finances without forward agreements, no matter how credible or serious statements seem. Mineral and oil rights are a matter of international law. The rUK will have no say whatsoever in an independent Scotland's natural resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Mineral and oil rights are a matter of international law. The rUK will have no say whatsoever in an independent Scotland's natural resources. H_Bs spidey senses just went into overdrive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabianKnight Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 H_Bs spidey senses just went into overdrive I think even HB would agree that the oil would be split geographically... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Mineral and oil rights are a matter of international law. The rUK will have no say whatsoever in an independent Scotland's natural resources. I don't disagree at all that resources are likely to be split geographically, therefore favouring Scotland. However, I would be surprised if Westminster didn't stir up or look to contest the law to some point. In my opinion, I think a compromise would be reached on boundaries. Anyway, my original post was simply referring to the fact that the original article took the data it wanted to show the prettiest picture of an independent Scotland. Bad for doing so? No. Optimistically fantastic and partly based on experimental economic models and statistics, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Figures from any side of the political debate should be taken with a wee pinch of salt, that's all I'm saying. I wasn't aware that we were able to fact check the future. Neither the yes or no camps are in a position to be concrete about the state of finances without forward agreements, no matter how credible or serious statements seem. No they fcuking shouldn't,anyone that thinks Scotland won't get a geographical share of oil is a zoomer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 No they fcuking shouldn't,anyone that thinks Scotland won't get a geographical share of oil is a zoomer. Luckily for me the post above yours pointed out that I do believe we'd get a geographical share, therefore avoiding being a zoomer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Luckily for me the post above yours pointed out that I do believe we'd get a geographical share, therefore avoiding being a zoomer. So you're just another shit stirring arsehole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Optimistically fantastic and partly based on experimental economic models and statistics, yes. No. As you said, if the oil is split on a geographical basis, the figures stack up. As has been pointed out, Scotland's resources cannot be split on a per capita basis, so the figures stack up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Maybe stm is playing devils advocate a bit on this subject? I don't agree with his "optimistically fantastic" comment - the numbers look sensible & realistic to me! There is an awful lot more economic information in the BfS post than just Oil by the way! Another snippet that I meant to include in the OP; "If voters are convinced that Scotland will do better economically a majority support independence. Yet astonishingly around 34% of the electorate currently believe that Scotland would fare worse economically as an independent country; while 37% believe Scotland is incapable of independence. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this. Not a single economic expert supports such a doom laden proposition." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 BFS is an absolute joke of a natblog. It almost outmongs WoS for blockheaded stupidity. I spent a bit of time with my best mate over the Christmas period, he is head of policy at the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. He was fairly hilarious in his description of that blog and its output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 BFS is an absolute joke of a natblog. It almost outmongs WoS for blockheaded stupidity. I spent a bit of time with my best mate over the Christmas period, he is head of policy at the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. He was fairly hilarious in his description of that blog and its output. OK Reynard, can you, (or your best mate), give us some alternative analysis of the numbers then please? Or maybe some of your mates "hilarious" anecdotes about the BfS Blog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 OK Reynard, can you, (or your best mate), give us some alternative analysis of the numbers then please? Or maybe some of your mates "hilarious" anecdotes about the BfS Blog? He certainly wouldn't. He has to appear even handed throughout all of this and cant get involved in the debate. And I simply cant be bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Mineral and oil rights are a matter of international law. The rUK will have no say whatsoever in an independent Scotland's natural resources. And who will determine what these will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 He certainly wouldn't. He has to appear even handed throughout all of this and cant get involved in the debate. And I simply cant be bothered. Nothing like engaging with the debate eh? I am genuinely interested in an alternative point of view.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.