FEATURES
. . . . .
ABOUT
. . . . .
CONTACT
. . . . .
SHOP
. . . . .
RADIO WoS
. . . . .
NEWS . .
. . .
SUBSCRIBE
. . . . .
WoSLAND
. . . . .
WoS FRONT PAGE
| Welcome to WoS Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board, it looks a bit ugly, and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Jock News; tracking the road to independence | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 9 2008, 08:28 AM (27,580 Views) | |
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 08:28 AM Post #1 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
I'm putting this thread (which I'll shortly pin) here largely for my own benefit, to keep some pertinent facts to hand for the ongoing debate over the next couple of years. However, since my English pals are now facing the very real prospect of having a Tory government for the rest of their lives (only ONE Labour Prime Minister in the last 100 years would have had a majority in Westminster if Scotland was independent), you might also be passingly interested. (And it'll keep it from cluttering up the ordinary "news" thread.) Today, I've uncovered a report from the not-notoriously-socialist-or-separatist Adam Smith Institute on Scotland's economic prospects as a separate nation, a subject which attracts much hot dispute over who subsidises who in the UK. http://www.adamsmith.org/briefings/briefin...es-20071120102/
Please note that I don't necessarily believe that "growth" is any kind of route to happiness or a fair and decent society. It's just useful data to help people develop an informed view of the debate. |
![]() |
|
| romanista | May 9 2008, 09:03 AM Post #2 |
|
Rick Lindeman
![]()
|
As one could wonder if the growth of ireland has that much to do with the tax rate of the celtic tiger |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 09:10 AM Post #3 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-o...lease.php?id=36 The infamous McCrone Report, which was classified as "secret" and suppressed by the Labour government in the mid-1970s when SNP support was rising. It was released in 2005 after an SNP request under the Freedom Of Information Act, as 30 years had passed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4238744.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4303750.stm Quick highlights (and bear in mind all these figures are based on much lower oil prices than we have now):
"We English, who are a marvellous people, are really very generous to Scotland." - Margaret Thatcher in The Times, 12 February 1990. "The oil price is likely to stay at about $10 to $12 a barrel at least in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we are worlds removed from the oil prices and production levels of the mid-1980s." - Donald Dewar (the first First Minister of the Scottish Parliament) to the Scottish Grand Committee, 1 February 1999 "We promised Iraq democratic government. We will deliver it. We promised them the chance to use their oil wealth to build prosperity for all their citizens, not a corrupt elite. We will do so." - Tony Blair speaking to US Congress, 18 July 2003. |
![]() |
|
| Targaff | May 9 2008, 09:28 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
If the intention of the thread is as a repository for pertinent facts why are they being punctuated with a left-right-left of "ironic" quotes? Facts speak for themselves, which is why there's not a great deal to be said to counter the data. I do find one piece of wording in there a bit iffy, though: it strikes me that the revenue to the government (from rent, royalties and whatever else) could well be a wholly different thing to the oil's gross value. If that's the case, then the comparison of the latter against the estimates of the former is a fairly major piece of misdirection. I'd be curious to see how the different parties arrived at those figures, because at a glance the SNP's figure doesn't look like an unreasonable estimate of the revenue due on that amount of oil. |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 09:33 AM Post #5 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
McCrone wasn't an incompetent goon - the figures quoted represent "Government revenue" specifically, not total commercial value. However, the price of oil suddenly rocketed in the mid-70s, as can be seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...s_1861_2006.jpg ...tripling almost overnight as a result of the OPEC crisis of 1973, which nobody had been expecting at the time they made the original estimates quoted. The prices kept rising, peaking at over 10 times the pre-1973 price by the early 1980s, and stayed high for a decade, before falling somewhat (to prices that were still typically several times those of the pre-1973 figures) through the 1990s, then exploding upwards again after Bush and Blair's Iraq jaunt. |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 09:39 AM Post #6 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
I find the habitual and epic-scale lying of Westminster and the Unionist parties with regards to an independent Scotland's economic prospects to be highly pertinent with regard to whether their statements can be trusted and believed over the coming year or two leading up to (it seems) the referendum vote. The idea that Dewar, for example, really believed that the oil price would remain stable at the freakish low point it very briefly hit in the late 90s is absurd - either he was Earth's biggest idiot, or was lying to try to forestall a surge in SNP support following the creation of the Scottish Parliament. |
![]() |
|
| aldo_14 | May 9 2008, 09:58 AM Post #7 |
|
Remember remember
![]()
|
As an aside, the oil price (crude, per barrel in US$ - so it's skewed by the weak $ perhaps) since 1947 / 1869; ![]() ![]() 1999 appears to be the lowest price and, whilst you could (tenuously) argue that the earlier periods in the 1st graph indicate oil could hold at a lower (compared to now) price, it seems bizarre to assume that OPEC wouldn't want to raise prices (as they did) and that cheap oil wouldn't equal more consumption and inflation. |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 09:59 AM Post #8 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
Opinion poll data: March 2008 poll on the simple yes/no referendum question currently being proposed by both main Holyrood parties (as opposed to a multi-choice referendum also including "increased powers within devolution"): http://www.tns-global.com/corporate/Rooms/...A7970AE7B%5D%5D 41% for independence, 40% against (December 2007 poll on same question: 40% for independence, 44% against) (August 2007 poll on same question: 35% for independence, 50% against) Swing in seven months: 16% to independence. You can see why Wendy Alexander doesn't want to wait any longer. |
![]() |
|
| Targaff | May 9 2008, 02:40 PM Post #9 |
![]()
|
I wasn't suggesting that McCrone was incompetent, more that he knew how to play the numbers game. While the Government's estimates were clearly wildly inaccurate, for example (which I'm not disputing), it's then a facile argument to make that quoting figures that resulted from a crisis nobody could have predicted in a manner designed to make those estimates look that much worse is something of a, let's say, statistical exercise. Good for the goose and all that. As for the quotes, it's not so much that they're irrelevant as that I don't really see that they bring anything more to the table "Parliament lies to further own ends" isn't really something specific to this issue and it's somewhat self-evident from the rest of the text. Not going to belabour the point if that's what you want to do, it just strikes me as a bit odd. |
![]() |
|
| Anonymous X | May 9 2008, 03:26 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
Stu, going back to the ASI report you quoted: "If an independent Scotland chose to follow the Republic of Ireland's low-tax route", etc. That would mean a significantly reduced welfare state compared to the UK as is now. As in really cut-to-the-bone. No proper public health system, as one example. I'd personally prefer an independent Scotland that was pro-welfare state with its oil money, ala Norway, etc. Things on current course, an independent Scotland will lose all the humane social advantages that Scotland currently has over England. |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 03:57 PM Post #11 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
Like I said, I'm no fan of the Adam Smith Institute and its fundamentally Thatcherite ideology, just providing the information as a reference. But I think slashing welfare would be political suicide in Scotland, and Alex Salmond is a very clever man (and an economist by profession) - I'm sure he could come up with a sensible balance, helped by the fact that we have a multi-billion-pound resource that Ireland lacks. |
![]() |
|
| caleyjag | May 9 2008, 07:52 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
I'd love to see an independent Scotland, though I feel we will have to get our finger out if we are to make it an attractive place for foreign businesses to invest. Too many workshy jakey neds walking the streets at the moment, although I'm not convinced it's more than the UK average. |
![]() |
|
| Dave de Vil | May 9 2008, 08:45 PM Post #13 |
|
Doesn't do cheery
![]()
|
How do things stand regarding Europe? Remember that the UK is one of only two (with Germany) net contributors to the EU. Presumably if independent Scotland was economically succesful it'd continue to give more than it takes; BUT an England/UK rump without the Scots may well head towards withdrawal leaving the likes of Bulgaria and Spain to suck on the Caledonian's well-oiled tits. Two can play at this game. |
![]() |
|
| Steve S | May 9 2008, 08:48 PM Post #14 |
![]()
|
Did you have a point? We've subsidised England for years. Should they withdraw we'd simply be subsidising someone else; I fail to see the drama. |
![]() |
|
| Dudley | May 9 2008, 09:56 PM Post #15 |
![]()
In the angry dome.
![]()
|
I'd be incredibly interested to see figures supporting this, even the most optimistic I've seen have it as a wash between oil revenue and Scotland's massive extra public spending per head. |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 09:59 PM Post #16 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
It's not "massive extra". It's not even as much as London. And it's bigger than most parts of England because the country is so much more widely spread out. |
![]() |
|
| CdrJameson | May 9 2008, 10:02 PM Post #17 |
|
Andy Krouwel
![]()
|
I don't think that's really got anything to do with Scotland per se, it's just the Adam Smith Institute plugging low taxes. They're just saying country X will do better than country Y if it has lower taxes. The Scotland reference just gives it topicality. |
![]() |
|
| Steve S | May 9 2008, 10:21 PM Post #18 |
![]()
|
The Gavin McCrone report of 1974 is the document you're looking for. |
![]() |
|
| Dudley | May 9 2008, 10:49 PM Post #19 |
![]()
In the angry dome.
![]()
|
You're going to need something just a tad more recent than that. You said "We've", not "In the past We". |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 9 2008, 11:08 PM Post #20 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
It's a good point, what with the price of oil having plunged so much in recent years. |
![]() |
|
| Steve S | May 9 2008, 11:15 PM Post #21 |
![]()
|
Blimey Dudley, it isn't like you to argue over pedantic minutiae.....oh, wait. How about the Oxford Economics report of late 2007? |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 10 2008, 07:07 AM Post #22 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
Handy explanation in The Times, if anyone's been finding the events of the past week hard to follow: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle3904917.ece |
![]() |
|
| Dudley | May 10 2008, 08:32 AM Post #23 |
![]()
In the angry dome.
![]()
|
Pedantic miniature? You made a massive, controversial statement and then backed it up with a 34 year old report, which you didn't even post. |
![]() |
|
| RevStu | May 10 2008, 08:34 AM Post #24 |
|
Laird/Beast Of Glencairn
![]()
|
Sigh. Try reading the quotes in the third post, under "Scottish Prosperity with Oil and independence", particularly the last two. |
![]() |
|
| Dudley | May 10 2008, 08:42 AM Post #25 |
![]()
In the angry dome.
![]()
|
EDIT : Wait no, I might need that later, wouldn't want to see it get "lost". |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · This is WoS · Next Topic » |














9:59 AM May 23