Oil and Gas if No Vote

[t12aynor]

I have a question which I i am looking to get a varied and informed reply. As we know there is a lot of uncertainty around oil and what would happen to an independent Scotland when it eventually runs out. I would suspect over the oil period the revenues would be invested in other industries (renewable's etc…) providing further sustainable income to supplement this ‘15%’ of our economy that will run dry in the second half of the century.

My Question however regards what would happen to a non-independent Scotland once the oil runs dry in 35 years or so? It appears that right now it acts as significant leverage somewhat in countering higher public spending in Scotland and gives Scotland a bigger voice within the UK… What need would a Westminster Government have for sustaining levels of spending in Scotland? And what effect would this have on a non-independent Scotland?

[Homer Thompson]

I have a question which I i am looking to get a varied and informed reply. As we know there is a lot of uncertainty around oil and what would happen to an independent Scotland when it eventually runs out. I would suspect over the oil period the revenues would be invested in other industries (renewable's etc…) providing further sustainable income to supplement this ‘15%’ of our economy that will run dry in the second half of the century.

My Question however regards what would happen to a non-independent Scotland once the oil runs dry in 35 years or so? It appears that right now it acts as significant leverage somewhat in countering higher public spending in Scotland and gives Scotland a bigger voice within the UK… What need would a Westminster Government have for sustaining levels of spending in Scotland? And what effect would this have on a non-independent Scotland?

You're in the wrong place then

[Thundermonkey]

I reckon there will be no barriers to Scottish self-determination once the oil runs out. In fact, it will probably be suggested by some arsehole Tory MP during PMQ.

[Casual Bystander]

I think the answer is fairly clear. No politician does things out of kindness and there is two main reasons the Westminster parties wish to keep Scotland in the Union. One of them finance the other is votes. Obviously for the Conservatives the votes issue is not relevant but it is for both Labour and Liberals although in post no vote Scotland both of those parties will get hammered at the ballot box so that perhaps will alter their thinking. Finance however is the key. Do people seriously think that the minute Scotland becomes a drain on the UK purse that it won't be considered ripe for cutting loose?

[Confidemus]

That's a very good question.

Now of course oil is a finite resource. No one is suggesting anything different. How long it will last is anyone's guess. I read a comment the other day made by an oil worker who reckons Clair Ridge will still be producing in 100 years.

You then look at how crucial it would be to an iScotland. Labour's Devolution Commission published a paper stating that Scotland is the 14th richest country in the world WITHOUT factoring in one drop of oil.

Now. At the moment, including profit from oil and gas tax receipts, Scotland pays more into the exchequer than it receives back and has done for the last 33 years. When oil does run out, this will obviously be a factor on how much we receive from Westminster. It doesn't take a genius to work out it won't be as much.

But wait, I hear the Britnats cry! What happens when it runs out in an iScotland? All the more reason for us to get independence now and set up a sovereign wealth fund and stop oil money being squandered. Look at the countries that currently do this:

http://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/

Basically, to preserve a sound Scotland in the future, independence is the only choice.

[Thumper]

Do people seriously think that the minute Scotland becomes a drain on the UK purse that it won't be considered ripe for cutting loose?

I'd disagree with that. It's not as if there's great agitation within UKOK for cutting Wales or Norn Iron loose.

The oil is certainly the most attractive thing about Scotland to Westminster, but it's a relatively recent discovery. No country particularly wants to lose large chunks of itself.

As to what happens when the money runs out, well of course this will have a deleterious effect on public services, but seeing as in the event of a No vote we'll have no public services in twenty years anyway I can't say it'll make much difference. The thought of the ageing members of Better Together Aberdeen freezing to death in their beds is heartening though.

[MassiveFanDan]

Look at Wales after the death of coalmining. That's your answer.

[Tio Pepe]

I reckon there will be no barriers to Scottish self-determination once the oil runs out. In fact, it will probably be suggested by some arsehole Tory MP during PMQ.

Doesn't really tie in with the subsidy the union provided Scotland before oil was discovered.

[ayrmad]

Doesn't really tie in with the subsidy the union provided Scotland before oil was discovered.

You'll have evidence to prove this, there are official documents on the go that show we subsidised them even more earlier on in the last century, I'm sure someone will have a link somewhere.

[AUFC90]

Doesn't really tie in with the subsidy the union provided Scotland before oil was discovered.

Sorry but I just don't believe that Scotland, who were branded as the industrial powerhouse of Europe at the time, were being subsidised.

[Tio Pepe]

You cannot cheery pick the minority of years of the union where Scotland has contributed more. Look at the full 300 plus years.

[strichener]

You cannot cheery pick the minority of years of the union where Scotland has contributed more. Look at the full 300 plus years.

Ehm I think you can pick whatever time frame suits TBH.

[AUFC90]

You cannot cheery pick the minority of years of the union where Scotland has contributed more. Look at the full 300 plus years.

Well why don't you prove it then ? From the days when Glasgow was the 2nd city making the empire a fortune through the sugar trade through to us being the industrial powerhouse of Europe to now, where we have blatantly been subsidising the UK for the last 30 years courtesy of our vast natural resources. Not that it matters because it's a fact that we have been subsidising them.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

As I've said elsewhete the concern, irrespective if there is a YES or NO vote, is to deal with the long-term issue of falling production levels.

[AUFC90]

There's a nice wee pic of our contribution to the Union at the start of the 20th century

[speckled tangerine]

Once the oil dries up it'll be "off you pop" Scotland. I'll either be a really old man saying told ye so or, more likely, a long time dead from a preventable disease that I couldn't afford to get treated without expensive medical insurance.

[AUFC90]

As I've said elsewhete the concern, irrespective if there is a YES or NO vote, is to deal with the long-term issue of falling production levels.

Production is expected to rise because of investment to eh.... Increase production.

[Thumper]

There's a nice wee pic of our contribution to the Union at the start of the 20th century

NONE OF THESE FACTS THANK YOU, A CONSERVATIVE WAS TALKING TO YOU.

[Todders]

But wait, I hear the Britnats cry! What happens when it runs out in an iScotland? All the more reason for us to get independence now and set up a sovereign wealth fund and stop oil money being squandered. Look at the countries that currently do this:

http://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/

Basically, to preserve a sound Scotland in the future, independence is the only choice.

That list should be truly fecking embarrassing for any Britnat.

[Bookies Love Me]

Little contribution, a bit dated, from March this year.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21597890-scottish-nationalists-are-right-charge-britain-has-mismanaged-north-sea-oil-unionists

One of the better articles, to explain some past mismanagement and future pitfalls.

ETA: Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.