When will indyref2 happen?

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

The idea that these companies have thousands of high paying jobs in a city in the North East of Scotland that lacks in... Well pretty much everything really, out of anything except pure neccessity is laughable

You missed the bit where I said that London has more and better-paid oil jobs than Aberdeen.

[Bairnardo]

You missed the bit where I said that London has more and better-paid oil jobs than Aberdeen.

Not sure how you are quantifying that, or how its relevant to the claims you are making.

[Brother Blades]

You missed the bit where I said that London has more and better-paid oil jobs than Aberdeen.

London has more oil jobs than Aberdeen? Please provide data for this.

[Bairnardo]

London has more oil jobs than Aberdeen? Please provide data for this.

Hes on a theme of talking shite. Ignore.

[Brother Blades]

Hes on a theme of talking shite. Ignore.

I apologise, just want to see the figures to back up the ridiculous claim.

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Brother Blades said:

I apologise, just want to see the figures to back up the ridiculous claim.

Yeah I know, I kinda started off down that road too but have since accepted that as usual he will simply bail out. 

[Brother Blades]

There are more and better paid oil jobs in London than in Scotland and for Total and BP (say) to move the better jobs to London would be prosaically simple.  Both also have, of course, offices in London and also European operations which are both within Europe whilst outwith The EU.
For the companies you mention to move people away from Aberdeen wouldn't be difficult.  Maybe tricker/take longer for BP but not a problem at all for Total.
What global oil companies are excellent at doing is exploiting, "a separate legal and taxation system whilst not being in that country" and Total could close down Westhill within a year and barely notice it.

Ah right, I guess outside your vast IT empire & ensuring your daughters have enough jodhpurs to satisfy their hacking, you’re also an absolute expert on the ins & outs of the global oil majors & service companies?
I’ve a little bit of experience in the industry, I’m pretty sure that every producer I’ve been contracted to, had a large presence in whichever nation they were operating. For instance, one company that were operating 2 rigs in Cote d’voire, had over 300 ground staff in country- that’s just for the stake holder. This was exploration, not production. Please explain your working.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

3 hours ago, Brother Blades said:

Ah right, I guess outside your vast IT empire & ensuring your daughters have enough jodhpurs to satisfy their hacking, you’re also an absolute expert on the ins & outs of the global oil majors & service companies?
I’ve a little bit of experience in the industry, I’m pretty sure that every producer I’ve been contracted to, had a large presence in whichever nation they were operating. For instance, one company that were operating 2 rigs in Cote d’voire, had over 300 ground staff in country- that’s just for the stake holder. This was exploration, not production. Please explain your working.

Found it.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

That's how a lot of international trade works.  Many companies, "deal with a separate legal and taxation system whilst not being in that country".  The only surprising bit is that you're surprised. Quick edit to list some of the countries I have dealt with in the past decade who had, "a separate legal and taxation system whilst not being in that country": Ghana Nigeria South Africa

The USA

Canada

etc etc

 

 

 

 

You are either being obtuse or just deliberately misinterpreting what I said.   

 

 

Of course you could be in another country and deal with another country but it makes a lot easier if you are working through a company presence there. Even the biggest companies will have a small presence to do the donkey work that you won't either have the knowledge or the contacts to do.

 

My brother works for a well-known firm in the oil sector and his job takes him all over the world. You'd be surprised where they have offices set up - usually staffed by experienced, skilled locals with good English language skills. Even when they don't have an office and haven't set up a business entity the they can often still have employees there through a PEO - but that is only viable if you are only needing 4/5 employees based there. It also depends on the country's laws and how you as a foreign company are allowed to do business with their citizens.

 

There's also the reality that for some industrial sectors they need to be close to the seat of government because those industries are highly influenced by both political and economic factors. One reason many UK companies locate in London is to be closer to the decision-making of the UK corporate and legal process. One would think that if there were independence then there would be a similar set-up in Edinburgh - with some Scottish HQs (still reporting to London) in and around the capital.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[philyerboots]

[doulikefish]

You havent been on for ages and thats all you have for us ? Poor effort phil

[Double Jack D]

Interesting, according to GERS, Scotland pays more towards defence than any other country as a % of gdp.

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Double Jack D

[dirty dingus]

[Double Jack D]

In terms of revenue, North sea oil generated just under £1bn from the Scottish sector. This £1bn is to be pooled and shared with uk.

Oil from the Norway sector meanwhile generated circa £30bn to be shared by itself.

 

[John Lambies Doos]

Interesting, according to GERS, Scotland pays more towards defence than any other country as a % of gdp.
 

We need to show Trump this, he'd be proud.

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, Double Jack D said:

In terms of revenue, North sea oil generated just under £1bn from the Scottish sector. This £1bn is to be pooled and shared with uk.

Oil from the Norway sector meanwhile generated circa £30bn to be shared by itself.

 

Is independence going to change who owns the oil?

[Double Jack D]

21 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Is independence going to change who owns the oil?

Independence will change who controls the oil industry and the democratic power the scottish people will hold over those who control the oil industry. 

Little may change, we may still decide to let private companies make billions and give 90% of the tax take to Westminster. At least it will be our choice.

I offer the Norway figures as a mere comparison, we are where we are. 

[harry94]

19 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

As detailed by Richard Murphy there are  issues with both how income raised through the varying taxations is calculated and apportioned. There is no clear way of calculating all tax revenue on a geographical basis in the UK. Because of our London centric economy, the figures are heavily skewed favouring that region. The best explanation from this is from Murphies own website.

 

18 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

GERS is designed to underestimate Scotland's income and overestimate it's expenditure. It doesn't allocate some incomes gathered in London that are actually generated in Scotland. It assumes that Scotland benefits from all UK expenditure when it doesn't.

 

I suppose the issue then is that we really need the mechanisms set up to actually stop that cash from being accounted for out of our borders post independence. In fairness to Murphy, I think he does get a hard time from a lot of the academic community but his expertise on tax avoidance and understanding how companies are structured etc to flow money elsewhere is something that he's recognised as being good at.

We do need to put this all in some proportion though. Basically, GERS argues that against the UK as a whole, Scotland spends about 2.8% more than the UK per GDP and then takes in about 1.1% less than the UK per GDP. It's very easy to spin these figures however you want but looking at it in that sense, we're talking about relatively small adjustments to the economy that completely change that position. Like you point out on the expenditure side, Wilson's commission is then saying that about 1.6% of spending per GDP could be eliminated as these would be decisions Scotland wouldn't take - bringing it down to 1.1% less tax V 1.2% more spending.

Pro-independence figures right now should really be taking this opportunity to visit the Brexit scenarios - the economists making these predictions are quite clear the damage it will make to the GDP of the UK in any scenario - for Scotland specifically, up to 8.5% if anything goes to WTO. The 'uncertainty' argument is completely dead in the water. I thought Salmond's vision was quite regressive on the tax reduction side but it's just natural that you will have this fully fledged, English speaking, member (or approaching it by aligning with institutions) of the EU on the doorstep of England and Wales (I'm assuming Northern Ireland will end up intertwined with either unification further down the line or sooner, an effective return to May's sea border plan once the government have to make a call)  with good infrastructure - a lot of that cash is naturally going to be caught here.

Little England becoming a defacto 51st state and having no decision making powers in Europe needs to be illustrated on every billboard next time round along with figures for how much less investment, reduction in GDP and less in house prices will be impacted due to Brexit. Get pictures of Boris in Trump's pocket or, if he fails to win a second term, find some leading Republican who has a few pictures with him and use them. Don't make it 'hope over fear' shite, that doesn't work on swing voters, just use it to get a few art students out of bed and the hippy movement on board. Also, don't make it just fear, make it a complete laughing stock - get as many pictures of laughing foreign leaders. Also, we don't just 'disagree respectively' with the government - the likes of Boris, Leadsom, Farage etc are corrupt b*****ds and we can safely imply that without committing libel, it literally just takes 5 minutes to read Wikipedia and find this stuff - terrify whoever will be leading Better Together 2.0 early on and hopefully end up getting a 12th tier politician who is incompetent. Someone like Darling really shouldn't be comfortable enough to do it, we want someone like Willie Rennie to blunder into becoming the poster boy.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Agree with your point, indyref wont be won by hope over fear or auob or anything else of the like. We need to fight them with information, have the best media and social media tactics and absolutely destroy the westminster establishment/better together leaders.

[ayrmad]

14 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Agree with your point, indyref wont be won by hope over fear or auob or anything else of the like. We need to fight them with information, have the best media and social media tactics and absolutely destroy the westminster establishment/better together leaders.

Probably means we're fucked then.