PDA

View Full Version : The SNP : FFA / OIL Revenue Sham Exposed At Last : The Dream Is Dead



rob murray
25-Jun-15, 16:32
The SNP Scottish government has now at last admitted and lowered its estimates over how much revenues will be generated fromNorth Sea oil and gas. The oil and gas bulletin (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00480348.pdf), which laid out five scenarios, saidtotal receipts could be as small as£2.4bn or as high as £10.8bn between 2015/16 and 2019/20.
The best case scenario of £10.8bn is far worse than the gloomiest SNP forecast published last year.
Full fiscal autonomy
Clearly the figures have blownthe SNP's policy of full fiscal autonomy out of the water and holed them beneath the water line, whats worse is the Scottish government tried to "sneak the report out on the last day of parliament".
Last week the SNP trooped through the westminster lobbies with the extreme right wing of the Tory party to vote for full fiscal autonomy. It is as clear as day now that they knew the policy would be a disaster for Scotland - the SNP government's own figures prove it so why did they team up with right wing tories bawling out for FFA if they knew that the finances were a complete and utter bogey ???? Are they nuts ????

The SNP government's credibility is now falling faster than their own massive downgrades to forecast receipts and the report blows a massive hole in proposals for Scotland to scrap the Barnett formula and adopt full fiscal autonomy. Feel sorry for Sturgeon though...literally 15 minutes of fame ! Now whats their serious plans to plug the gap and get new industries moving ?

Yes voters / flat earthers / deniers...your own party has come clean, so admit it the dream is over...............answers please

rob murray
25-Jun-15, 16:41
Cameron has got them by the short and curlies now, he should now give them FFA....and honour Swinneys daft letter to him for more fiscal powers....Swinney wrote his letter knowing damn well fine what the oil revenues predications were...theyve now come clean....what a brainless numpty.....what a stupid "political trick" to pull . Thats the 56 destroyed in a matter of weeks...a laughing stock....Greece here we come, still we used to be very good at piracy years back

gerry4
25-Jun-15, 22:20
lovely to know that england will be of kind as to provide us with money to keep us in the standard of living that we have. A kind thank you to the people of the land of birth. What wonderful people the english are, so proud to of been born one.
Wondering why though so many people in scotland seem to revel in the fact that Scotland is to poor to support itself.

Good bless my fellow english countrymen & women

Surferstu85
26-Jun-15, 01:07
I take it you live in Scotland Rob Murray ? Why would you revel in the thought of us losing money due to the low oil price ? Scotland is more than oil, we have many industries that make this country great. The oil is a bonus that many worse off country's don't have but still manage to run themselves. I for one would welcome FFA so that as a country we could stand on our own two feet. There would be no excuses no blame on Westminster. Or are you so blinded by hatred of the SNP that you rather see the country crash and burn ? Bitter ?

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 09:04
I take it you live in Scotland Rob Murray ? Why would you revel in the thought of us losing money due to the low oil price ? Scotland is more than oil, we have many industries that make this country great. The oil is a bonus that many worse off country's don't have but still manage to run themselves. I for one would welcome FFA so that as a country we could stand on our own two feet. There would be no excuses no blame on Westminster. Or are you so blinded by hatred of the SNP that you rather see the country crash and burn ? Bitter ?

............................

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 09:06
lovely to know that england will be of kind as to provide us with money to keep us in the standard of living that we have. A kind thank you to the people of the land of birth. What wonderful people the english are, so proud to of been born one.
Wondering why though so many people in scotland seem to revel in the fact that Scotland is to poor to support itself.

Good bless my fellow english countrymen & women

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 09:27
........................

Scout
26-Jun-15, 10:08
I take it you live in Scotland Rob Murray ? Why would you revel in the thought of us losing money due to the low oil price ? Scotland is more than oil, we have many industries that make this country great. The oil is a bonus that many worse off country's don't have but still manage to run themselves. I for one would welcome FFA so that as a country we could stand on our own two feet. There would be no excuses no blame on Westminster. Or are you so blinded by hatred of the SNP that you rather see the country crash and burn ? Bitter ? Yes but you forget one thing with the other country's they do not have full free NHS which cost this country huge amounts of money to keep. Benfits yes name me other country's that give out as much as we do. If you were to go alone, how would Scotland cope with keeping NHS free and benfits, Tax that is the only way which will mean with south having lower tax this would attract companies south. It is a fact there are less start up business and new business in Scotland since referendum.

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 12:20
Yes but you forget one thing with the other country's they do not have full free NHS which cost this country huge amounts of money to keep. Benfits yes name me other country's that give out as much as we do. If you were to go alone, how would Scotland cope with keeping NHS free and benfits, Tax that is the only way which will mean with south having lower tax this would attract companies south. It is a fact there are less start up business and new business in Scotland since referendum.

AHem............you to must be blinded by hatred.....................

Redsnapper
26-Jun-15, 12:47
Boring - Boring - Rob Murray - spits out put down , anti Scottish rhetoric but never actually answers direct questions. Why don't we rename this forum as Rob Murray Better Together Mutual Admiration Club

golach
26-Jun-15, 13:27
Boring - Boring - Rob Murray - spits out put down , anti Scottish rhetoric but never actually answers direct questions. Why don't we rename this forum as Rob Murray Better Together Mutual Admiration ClubI want to be a member of that elite group, at least they tell the truth unlike the yesnp

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 13:30
Boring - Boring - Rob Murray - spits out put down , anti Scottish rhetoric but never actually answers direct questions. Why don't we rename this forum as Rob Murray Better Together Mutual Admiration Club

As that the best you can come up.............Another flat earther / truth deniar just like surferstu85...things are getting seriously boring on here...... just to remind you the original post ( not my words but the BBC's as now recoginised by the SNP Scottish government are below ) : but hell so what eh ! the third biggest employer in scotland being booted into touch, astronomical fall in SNP predicted tax revenues, we can all live with this, cant we ?

The SNP Scottish government has now at last admitted and lowered its estimates over how much revenues will be generated fromNorth Sea oil and gas. The oil and gas bulletin (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00480348.pdf), which laid out five scenarios, saidtotal receipts could be as small as£2.4bn or as high as £10.8bn between 2015/16 and 2019/20.
The best case scenario of £10.8bn is far worse than the gloomiest SNP forecast published last year.
Full fiscal autonomy
Clearly the figures have blownthe SNP's policy of full fiscal autonomy out of the water and holed them beneath the water line, whats worse is the Scottish government tried to "sneak the report out on the last day of parliament".
Last week the SNP trooped through the westminster lobbies with the extreme right wing of the Tory party to vote for full fiscal autonomy. It is as clear as day now that they knew the policy would be a disaster for Scotland - the SNP government's own figures prove it so why did they team up with right wing tories bawling out for FFA if they knew that the finances were a complete and utter bogey ???? Are they nuts ????

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 13:33
Boring - Boring - Rob Murray - spits out put down , anti Scottish rhetoric but never actually answers direct questions. Why don't we rename this forum as Rob Murray Better Together Mutual Admiration Club

OK mate...nows your chance ask a direct question...as you put it, because no one has of me anyway other than am I a scot ??? Fire away

weezer 316
26-Jun-15, 14:30
It breaks my heart that 45% of the country voted for this well aware this sort of stuff could happen. It seems they couldn't give a damn about the ones at the bottom.

Even at the SNP's best estimates, if we were independent this coming year, just to maintain eveything where it is, all spending right now at current levels, we would need to:

Bridge the £7bn hole the oil price has blown in our budget. For the UK this would be the equivalent of bridging £80bn
Borrow a further £12bn to bridge the gap in spending and revenues Westminster makes up just now. Thats the part that westminster borrows just now and is included already in FFA calculations. For context, the UK deficit right now is around £75bn a year.


In total, that's £19bn a year (its gonna be even higher next year by the looks of things) but we will hold it at £19bn.

To put that £19bn into context, that is the equivalent of the UK having a Deficit of around £220bn......a year.......every year.........and that would sink the UK.

It would be austerity russian style (go see the reforms Putin enacted there last year) combined with a hefty tax hike on everyone (I am all for this) that frankly no one in the yes camp would care about just because they got a yes vote.

And the worst thing about it is not one yesser will ever admit they bought a crock of nonsense and then had the teremity to criticise others for disadreeing, all the while complaining about them reading mainstream propoganda.

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 15:05
It breaks my heart that 45% of the country voted for this well aware this sort of stuff could happen. It seems they couldn't give a damn about the ones at the bottom.

Even at the SNP's best estimates, if we were independent this coming year, just to maintain eveything where it is, all spending right now at current levels, we would need to:

Bridge the £7bn hole the oil price has blown in our budget. For the UK this would be the equivalent of bridging £80bn
Borrow a further £12bn to bridge the gap in spending and revenues Westminster makes up just now. Thats the part that westminster borrows just now and is included already in FFA calculations. For context, the UK deficit right now is around £75bn a year.


In total, that's £19bn a year (its gonna be even higher next year by the looks of things) but we will hold it at £19bn.

To put that £19bn into context, that is the equivalent of the UK having a Deficit of around £220bn......a year.......every year.........and that would sink the UK.

It would be austerity russian style (go see the reforms Putin enacted there last year) combined with a hefty tax hike on everyone (I am all for this) that frankly no one in the yes camp would care about just because they got a yes vote.

And the worst thing about it is not one yesser will ever admit they bought a crock of nonsense and then had the teremity to criticise others for disadreeing, all the while complaining about them reading mainstream propoganda.

Couldnt agree more, well said....or a crock of anti braveheart propoganda...depending on your view point....if we use this forum as representation / a barometer of "political" opinion then Im afraid we have a fragmented divided nation on our hands that will take generations to heal...I mean how can anyone realistically argue against the facts...even the SNP government...yes the damn government now admit that their oil tax take and projections are and were completly wrong....so how anyone can argue that oil is nothing but a bonus / scotland being a succesful rich country without oil is beyond me when their own representatives admit that the low oil take has holed them........

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 15:25
I take it you live in Scotland Rob Murray ? yes born and bred lineage goes back centuries

Why would you revel in the thought of us losing money due to the low oil price ? Excuse me I didnt rabbit on and fool the electorate on nonsensical predications based on a nonsensical oil tax take
Scotland is more than oil, we have many industries that make this country great. Like what, the 3 largest sectors in Scotland are Oil, Public sector ( reliant on tax ) and Financial Services ( who made it quiet clear that they wont contenance independance and wil move HQ's / jobs if that happened )

The oil is a bonus that many worse off country's don't have but still manage to run themselves.Absolute nonsense, you mean banana republics do you ?? This is your give away remark....SNP propoganda / social media garbage Oil is a bonus...well go down to Aberdeen spout this crap in a bar and take the concequences then...

I for one would welcome FFA so that as a country we could stand on our own two feet. Good for you, at least rcognise many people hold opposite views

There would be no excuses no blame on Westminster. The only folk blaming westminster ( for what exactly ?? ) is the SNP

are you so blinded by hatred of the SNP that you rather see the country crash and burn ? Bitter ? : Best mates are SNP party members and activists pal.....Anyway this is a contradictory statement....If the country crashes and burns it will be because of having FFA thrust on us when oil prices are so low, and only 1 party wants this...the SNP so logically they and by definition YOU want this to happpen

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 16:03
Boring - Boring - Rob Murray - spits out put down , anti Scottish rhetoric but never actually answers direct questions. Why don't we rename this forum as Rob Murray Better Together Mutual Admiration Club

Ok heres some direct questions for you ( try not to use Wings over Scotland please..lets hear yur own thoughts )

1 WHy is the oil barrel price so low ?
2 Why does industry accept that 60 /65 dollars is the ceiling for a long time to come
3 Given independance aspirations / desire for FFA...How will a scottish government plug the fiscal gap caused by low oil tax take
4 Why is it justifyable to have a freeze on council tax and deprive LA's of £500 millions
5 What services do you suggest Highland Council cut given their deficit...and why ?
6 What revenue raising powers do the scottish government have..are they using them ?
7 WHy should millionaires enjoy non means tested benefits ?

Thatll do for starters eh !

BetterTogether
26-Jun-15, 16:07
Someone ought to point the poster to Nicola Sturgeons recent article in the Daily Mail of all papers on cybernats and not making personal digs at people but keeping the debate on policy robust but respectful.

It's also worth noting that the SNP are now distancing themselves from the most vociferous trolls and threatening to take action if any are found to be members of the party.


As for the oil debate I think even the SNP themselves have accepted the figures they put forward have now been discredited.

rob murray
26-Jun-15, 16:24
Someone ought to point the poster to Nicola Sturgeons recent article in the Daily Mail of all papers on cybernats and not making personal digs at people but keeping the debate on policy robust but respectful.

It's also worth noting that the SNP are now distancing themselves from the most vociferous trolls and threatening to take action if any are found to be members of the party.


As for the oil debate I think even the SNP themselves have accepted the figures they put forward have now been discredited.

Well.......the thought did cross my mind...interesting to see Sturgeons comments...but the genies out the bottle now..any tom dick or harry accessing propoganda sites can hide behind pseudo names and re spout nonsense....oh seeing as Sturgeon was at the Oil conference on Monday there was no hiding from the reality for her, she heard it all straight from the real experts..oil operators ! But still had the nerve to have a go at westminster ie give tax breaks for further oil field exploration.....does she not get it....further exploration is all very well but its getting the stuff out the ground at 60 / 65 dollars a barrel ( ie costs deducted from top line barrel price as welll 60 / 65 is a gross figure not net ) and make profit that is the big challenge, tax breaks are only a small part of the equation. But heres the silver buller, could an independant Scotland afford such tax breaks...... She is in obvious agreement with the effects and fiscal hole caused by low prices, announcing this yesterday buys the time until parliament re opens to get their alternative spin together and I await that with interest !

Rheghead
02-Jul-15, 22:20
If succeeding Westminster governments can only see fit to run the UK as a deficit then by the unionist argument, the UK doesn't deserve independence or its own full fiscal autonomy either! Funny how Westminster is keen to keep hold of the oil revenues though, I mean, well, it is only in Scotland that we're so gullible to think that oil is a curse while Westminster need it to go some way to balance the books.

Bystander1
03-Jul-15, 08:15
If succeeding Westminster governments can only see fit to run the UK as a deficit then by the unionist argument, the UK doesn't deserve independence or its own full fiscal autonomy either! Funny how Westminster is keen to keep hold of the oil revenues though, I mean, well, it is only in Scotland that we're so gullible to think that oil is a curse while Westminster need it to go some way to balance the books.

is there some kind of logic in there or is this the same old SNP tactic - when all else fails spout bs ?

Redsnapper
03-Jul-15, 08:21
When you think of how many people have died to gain independance in other parts of the world. I find it sad that so many people here are frightened to support Scotland in the same way. Wouldn't fancy fighting beside any of them in the front line.

Fulmar
03-Jul-15, 08:36
Irrespective of all the above, in order to save this planet for future generations of all living things that exist today, we need to STOP burning fossil fuels and move to alternatives as soon as possible. I have always wondered how the SNP square this particular circle in their own mind as even they must know that reliance on wind power alone is not the answer and they refuse to contemplate nuclear. The bottom line is the oil needs to be left where it is but that won't happen because selfish human beings will not do the right thing.

Redsnapper
03-Jul-15, 10:21
I kind of think that nuclear, in the long term, is just as destructive as oil. If Scotland , or the UK for that matter, was serious about global warming the money would be poured in to tidal and wave energy. The problem is that big business and government is not prepared to invest the money to make this happen because of the up front cost involved. Not that the UK emissions in a global sense , make a whit of difference.

Bystander1
03-Jul-15, 10:25
When you think of how many people have died to gain independance in other parts of the world. I find it sad that so many people here are frightened to support Scotland in the same way. Wouldn't fancy fighting beside any of them in the front line.

Why would anyone need to die in the fight for independence when we have the most powerful wee wumman in the world looking after us. btw, does your named person know that you are out ?

Redsnapper
03-Jul-15, 10:49
Gosh what a wonderful astute reply. I sincerely apologise for having being in being in the army and having stood up for Britain and Scotland. Nice to know I can sleep easy tonight with people like you looking out for us

Shaggy
03-Jul-15, 11:18
I have always wondered how the SNP square this particular circle in their own mind as even they must know that reliance on wind power alone is not the answer and they refuse to contemplate nuclear.

Oh i dunno about the wind power, The SNP could always allow a mega sized wind farm to hook up to e org as there seems to be no shortage of hot air and blowing wind on it. power to the people, from the people!

Redsnapper
03-Jul-15, 12:04
Ha ha - aye your right there. Lots of hot air flying about all the way from Caithness down to Edinburgh

Bystander1
03-Jul-15, 12:29
It's really amazing how many of us have been on the front line defending Auld Scotia. Of course lots of those who served would be called 'Walt'.

rob murray
03-Jul-15, 15:59
On a more serious note Burntisland and Methil in Fife and Arnish on Lewis alll fabrication / engineerng sites, have missed out on contracts The sites operated by BiFab employ a total of 2,500 workers. The GMB and Unite unions said they have had to make repeated requests for a meeting with Ms Sturgeon. The low oil price is now biting into the supply chain big time...not a lot can be done though, if direct oil activities are being squeezed, then in direct activities ie engineering / manufacturing etc all the way through to supplying consumables will also be squeezed. Dont know what sturgeon or anyone can do in this situation ?

sids
03-Jul-15, 19:52
I kind of think that nuclear, in the long term, is just as destructive as oil.

It certainly destroys uranium.

sids
03-Jul-15, 19:54
When you think of how many people have died to gain independance in other parts of the world.

Ok I've thought about it.

And I don't see the connection.

mareng
04-Jul-15, 20:17
I don't think Scotland can make it on its own (FFA), without revenues from natural resources. Those are what makes the difference.

Sure - an indépendant Scotland couldn't weather the prolonged plummet in oil prices, but it is equally devastating for the whole UK - but for one big thing

The Bank Of England pumping huge amounts of money into circulation. Fine in the short term, but it ain't no cure.

Rheghead
04-Jul-15, 22:58
An exercise in maths....

Population ratio between UK and Scotland is 12:1 so the current revenue from Scotland's oil that Scotland gets any benefit from is X/12 or 8.3% of £Xmillion (where X is the amount of revenue at top dollar prices in 2014)

Since then price of oil has roughly halved from its peak in 2014, just before the independence referendum.

So comparing the slump in prices if Scotland were currently independent then the revenue that Scotland would enjoy from its own oil is...

X/2 or 50% of £Xmillion

50% sounds better than 8.3% in anyone's book!

Now we are stuck in the UK, we are only enjoying 4.15% of the revenues that were predicted in 2014.


I'm pro-arithmatic if nothing else no matter how much the unionists want to put Scotland down.

Bystander1
04-Jul-15, 23:13
So on this basis we would only be 103.956% worse off than we are now if of course the majority had believed Fat Eck's sales pitch.
But on a realistic note what on earth do oil revenues have to do with Scottish Independence.
Are we not the richest country in the world governed by the most powerful wee wumman in the world, why would oil revenues be needed?

BetterTogether
06-Jul-15, 09:44
An exercise in maths....Population ratio between UK and Scotland is 12:1 so the current revenue from Scotland's oil that Scotland gets any benefit from is X/12 or 8.3% of £Xmillion (where X is the amount of revenue at top dollar prices in 2014)Since then price of oil has roughly halved from its peak in 2014, just before the independence referendum.So comparing the slump in prices if Scotland were currently independent then the revenue that Scotland would enjoy from its own oil is...X/2 or 50% of £Xmillion50% sounds better than 8.3% in anyone's book!Now we are stuck in the UK, we are only enjoying 4.15% of the revenues that were predicted in 2014.I'm pro-arithmatic if nothing else no matter how much the unionists want to put Scotland down.

You say you're pro arithmetic so 65 million people working together and spreading the finances throughout is better than 5 million.
The only people I hear constantly harping on about being put down are the independence voters, it's becoming a rather tiresome regular occurrence hearing everything's such a major issue for the current sitting crowd in Holyrood does make you wonder how they'd deal with a genuine crisis.
Meanwhile the Oil price isn't rising anytime soon.
The renewables sector is kept afloat with subsidies and costing the electorate bucket loads of money.
The literacy rates are falling but the state is more interested in paying for snoopers to keep an eye on each and every child which the police now have issues with.
The NHS is creaking under the strain of paying for the well offs prescriptions and the instability created by the threat of another referendum and higher taxation is putting off doctors and surgeons from applying for jobs here.
Councils are crippled because they can't raise council tax thus depriving them of hard needed revenue from all those property owners the better off.
All I'm seeing is vote buying and no real decision making. As expected the failing 56 manage to achieve nothing at Westminster but failure after failure.
Meanwhile the anti austerity party are showing their true colours producing policies that would inflict more austerity for longer on the Electorate of Scotland.

Bystander1
06-Jul-15, 13:18
So for those who obviously need an exercise in rithmetic. If 55 people out of 100 say "No way Jose'" ( substitute Eck or whoever you wish for Jose') and 45 people say Eck old pal yer majic, so ye ur. We believe anything you tell us.
So it appears that more people are anti Eck than pro Eck so Eck takes the huff.
I know its a reely reely hard one but I have consulted an eminent boffin from the Gubmint and he says that 55 is just a bittie more than 45 so the No Way Eck people are in the majority.
Try this with Groatie Buckies, Apples, Oranges, whichever you need for reely reely big sums and the result will astound you. Promise.

Rheghead
06-Jul-15, 21:25
You say you're pro arithmetic so 65 million people working together and spreading the finances throughout is better than 5 million.

I say spreading Scotland's wealth over 65 million is bad for Scotland when it can spread it over 5 million. Scotland is a richer country than the rest of the UK. Why should Scotland pay off the UK's debt? Fair enough pay our own share of it but I'm not happy about paying the rest off.

rob murray
07-Jul-15, 12:03
An exercise in maths....

Population ratio between UK and Scotland is 12:1 so the current revenue from Scotland's oil that Scotland gets any benefit from is X/12 or 8.3% of £Xmillion (where X is the amount of revenue at top dollar prices in 2014)

Since then price of oil has roughly halved from its peak in 2014, just before the independence referendum.

So comparing the slump in prices if Scotland were currently independent then the revenue that Scotland would enjoy from its own oil is...

X/2 or 50% of £Xmillion

50% sounds better than 8.3% in anyone's book!

Now we are stuck in the UK, we are only enjoying 4.15% of the revenues that were predicted in 2014.


I'm pro-arithmatic if nothing else no matter how much the unionists want to put Scotland down.

No ones putting Scotland down....youve forgotten to factor in the effect of direct Oil job losses and job losses industries in the oil supply chain will make to the wider economy and tax take...technip announce today laying of 6,000 from a global workforce of 36,000 the bulk going in areas they see as uneconomic...low returns ie the north sea, technip are heaviliy involved in the north / ross shire so direct technip jobs will go and local supply chain jobs will go, more bad news to come....and Im not being the prophet of doom here, these are very hard facts and I cant see a way out of it, exploration tax credits can help but as part of a wider committment from operators and if they pull out / slow down activities ( for example : Dana Petroleum Western Isles oilfield is not now expected to begin until the second half of 2017, the project is also massively over budget comming in at 3 billion instead of initial predicted 1.6 billions ) what can you do ? Work progressing just now is based on assett deployment and spend made last year, looking into next year and there seems to be not a lot happening, several key Ross shire players have nowt on their books for 2016 when usually they have work a year ahead in the pipeline. Interesting piece in P and J yesterday " The future is in no way rosy" : briefly...highlights the rising loss ofNorth East highly skilled jobs and the issues behind poeple moving to other industries...very difficult... as the piece claims ( not counting the pedestrianisation of union street ! ) there has been nothing near the diversification of industry needed to create the number of highly skilled jobs needed to replace oil jobs gone for good.

golach
07-Jul-15, 12:14
Is it just me, but I notice we have not seen much of Squidge the official yes vote wife any where on the Org these days. , I heard a wee rumour she has been picked as a scot nat Msp. I find this strange as she always stated she was just an individual voter, and was not affiliated to the Nats.

BetterTogether
07-Jul-15, 18:21
Is it just me, but I notice we have not seen much of Squidge the official yes vote wife any where on the Org these days. , I heard a wee rumour she has been picked as a scot nat Msp. I find this strange as she always stated she was just an individual voter, and was not affiliated to the Nats.I'm quite sure if there is any credence to the rumour then Squidge will have the good grace to inform us all in due course. Meantime it will remain no more than a rumour.

Rheghead
07-Jul-15, 18:53
No ones putting Scotland down....youve forgotten to factor in the effect of direct Oil job losses and job losses industries in the oil supply chain will make to the wider economy and tax take...technip announce today laying of 6,000 from a global workforce of 36,000 the bulk going in areas they see as uneconomic...low returns ie the north sea, technip arAll ineaviliy involved in the north / ross shire so direct technip jobs will go and local supply chain jobs will go, more bad news to come....and Im not being the prophet of doom here, these are very hard facts and I cant see a way out of it, exploration tax credits can help but as part of a wider committment from operators and if they pull out / slow down activities ( for example : Dana Petroleum Western Isles oilfield is not now expected to begin until the second half of 2017, the project is also massively over budget comming in at 3 billion instead of initial predicted 1.6 billions ) what can you do ? Work progressing just now is based on assett deployment and spend made last year, looking into next year and there seems to be not a lot happening, several key Ross shire players have nowt on their books for 2016 when usually they have work a year ahead in the pipeline. Interesting piece in P and J yesterday " The future is in no way rosy" : briefly...highlights the rising loss ofNorth East highly skilled jobs and the issues behind poeple moving to other industries...very difficult... as the piece claims ( not counting the pedestrianisation of union street ! ) there has been nothing near the diversification of industry needed to create the number of highly skilled jobs needed to replace oil jobs gone for good.

I am not all that interested in the viability of the oil industry except that it is a huge asset and not a curse as you would have us believe. Frankly we are not falling for it so save your breath. Your argument basically goes along the lines that the futureof the oil industry is pants then so must be an independent Scotland. It is as ludicrous as it is bogus and fallacious.
All industries have their upside downs.
It would be like saying in the 1950s that the coal and steel industry will collapse in 30 years time therefore we must hand over the sovereignty of the UK to the USA.

What matters is that Scotland is capable of looking after its own affairs better than anyone else because nobody really wants to. You only have to look at EVEL to work that one out. Scotland is being made to feel like a pariah state within the UK. Not a good strategy for happy families, is it?

Bystander1
07-Jul-15, 19:27
[QUOTE=Rheghead;1123475]I am not all that interested in the viability of the oil industry except that it is a huge asset and not a curse as you would have us believe. Frankly we are not falling for it so save your breath.

Surprisingly that is exactly what I said to a certain Mr Salmond when he told me that every man,woman & child in Scotland would have £300,000 from our oil reserves.
As the richest country in the world why would we need a few paltry £s or Euros in oil reserves anyway ?

rob murray
08-Jul-15, 10:02
"I am not all that interested in the viability of the oil industry except that it is a huge asset and not a curse as you would have us believe".........

Absolutly unbelievable...I never said it was a curse. thank god we have it, I posed the low Oil price and the issue of lost jobs direct and indirectsupply chain as a fact its not a scare tactic its happening : thats all, some people think that this is seroius ( everyone dependant on Oil for a livelihood I would imagine ) I am really glad that you are convinced that we dont need oil and are your not interested in the viability of the oil industry ( scotland top three employer )...or that your not interested in the thousands of Scots who have lost their Oil related jobs. You must know something more than the rest of us in terms of where the replacement jobs will come from ? If so let us into the secret. Thankfully the SNP scottish government are concerned....you seem out of step with them ?

BetterTogether
09-Jul-15, 10:04
What matters is that Scotland is capable of looking after its own affairs better than anyone else because nobody really wants to. You only have to look at EVEL to work that one out. Scotland is being made to feel like a pariah state within the UK. Not a good strategy for happy families, is it?

Can you provide one clear and shining example of how Scotland can look after its own affairs better than anyone else, it certainly wouldn't be the NHS, Fire Service,Police, Education or any other number of issues.

You obviously don't see the hypocrisy of your statement on EVEL on one hand you want and have issue devolved so only Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish issues but want to deny the English MPs the same ability to vote on only English issues.
There are no feelings of living in a pariah state except maybe from the constantly moaning SNP MSPs they sow nothing but discontentment and grievance. So far I have seen little or nothing of them running this country for the betterment of everyone living here.

Oddquine
09-Jul-15, 11:51
Can you provide one clear and shining example of how Scotland can look after its own affairs better than anyone else, it certainly wouldn't be the NHS, Fire Service,Police, Education or any other number of issues.

You obviously don't see the hypocrisy of your statement on EVEL on one hand you want and have issue devolved so only Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish issues but want to deny the English MPs the same ability to vote on only English issues.
There are no feelings of living in a pariah state except maybe from the constantly moaning SNP MSPs they sow nothing but discontentment and grievance. So far I have seen little or nothing of them running this country for the betterment of everyone living here.

Would getting rid of Trident from Scottish soil and using the cost of that more usefully,like investing more in some of the issues yu mention.do as an example of how Scotland can look after its own affairs better than the Union........or maybe not illegally invading, at great cost, foreign countries to make profits for big business?

Nobody has any problem with England having exactly the same rights as Scotland, Wales and NI, ie....their own ability to decide how to deal with devolved competencies, their own dedicated Parliament building, their own dedicated civil servants, their own dedicated ME(nglish)Ps all paid for by themselves out of their own Consolidated Fund using income calculated on the same basis as the incomes of the other devolved Parliaments. Nobody at all is trying to deny English MPs the same rights as Scottish MPs. Scottish MPs in Westminster can't vote on matters which are reserved to the Scottish government,and the same goes for NI and Welsh MPs, and this is because we have a separate Parliament, which is fully funded by the Block Grant, as, incidentally, is the cost of the Scottish Office, which we could very happily live without.

What England wants is not the same thing at all.......England wants to "have the best of both worlds" they want to usurp the UK parliament building, facilities and administration to have their "own" Parliament, which will, as a result, cost them not a single penny more from their "block grant". In fact, they don't even intend to have a "block grant" they want access, for English needs and wants, to every penny left in the consolidated fund after the Scotland/Wales/NI block grants have been paid, and the ability to rack up budget deficits/national debt without having to consider the effects on the other three parts of the UK...and that is unacceptable if, as they claim Westminster is the UK Parliament and not simply the English Parliament writ large with inconvenient additions. The hypocrisy is that of England which thinks they cannot be devolved because it is their inalienable right to do the devolving for every other part of the UK, because all the rest of us are little more than a region of England.


The UK is a Union....don't make me laugh!

Murdo
09-Jul-15, 14:25
Well said Oddquine. We never have been 'equal' partners in this so called union and I defy anyone to convince me otherwise. Just as an aside. Why are finances controlled by the Bank of England and not by the United Kingdom Bank ?

rob murray
09-Jul-15, 15:00
Well said Oddquine. We never have been 'equal' partners in this so called union and I defy anyone to convince me otherwise. Just as an aside. Why are finances controlled by the Bank of England and not by the United Kingdom Bank ?

Cant argue with your points, when it comes down to it we were never equal partners from day one of the unification of parliaments 1707 , in 2015 the questions are : are we "better off" as unequal partners or are we better off with full powers and still remain as part of UK or go the whole hog and be independant ? The Bank of England, was established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in the world, It was established to act as the English Government's banker and with the union of parliaments 1707 creating the UK, the bank of england became the UK bank.... remember why the parliaments were joined..... predominate reason was to enable Scotland to recover from the financial disaster wrought by the Darien scheme which was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland, its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined...so hobsons choice then...go bust or be rescued and thats what happened hence the Banl=k of England was the UK bank from day 1 as we ( Scotland ) couldnt act as UJ bank for finanical reasons...we wiz broke !

Rheghead
13-Jul-15, 22:48
Can you provide one clear and shining example of how Scotland can look after its own affairs better than anyone else, it certainly wouldn't be the NHS, Fire Service,Police, Education or any other number of issues.

You obviously don't see the hypocrisy of your statement on EVEL on one hand you want and have issue devolved so only Scottish MSPs can vote on Scottish issues but want to deny the English MPs the same ability to vote on only English issues.
There are no feelings of living in a pariah state except maybe from the constantly moaning SNP MSPs they sow nothing but discontentment and grievance. So far I have seen little or nothing of them running this country for the betterment of everyone living here.

I wouldn't have an issue with EVEL if the people of England have voted for their own devolution. But they haven't and they have shown no will for it. I say they should go for it. But having English devolution shoved down their necks whether they like it or not is the wrong way to go about it.

Kenn
14-Jul-15, 00:13
If the current powers to be are to be lauded then,
1.Why don't the trains run?
2. Why is The NHS in chaos?
3. Why is education failing?
4. Why is everything blamed on Westminster even when it is devolved?
5. Why are councils not allowed to raise local taxes so services can be provided?

Come on folk take a look at reality.

rob murray
14-Jul-15, 12:26
Well said Oddquine. We never have been 'equal' partners in this so called union and I defy anyone to convince me otherwise. Just as an aside. Why are finances controlled by the Bank of England and not by the United Kingdom Bank ?

I would agree we were the weaker partners from day 1 : For various reasons, the parliaments of Scotland / England were unified in 1707, the Bank of England founded in 1694 and the second oldest bank in the world was as it says, Englands bank, but why did the parliaments united ? STraight to the point here, Scotland in the years leading upto 1707 was a busted flush, the failed Darein Project was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland, lets repeat that...all the money...... its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined and was an important factor in weakening any resistance to the act of union 1707. So Scotlands lowland powerhouse was broke, a united kingdom ( crowns unified a century before ) obviously had to have a central bank, we couldnt handle this, we wuz broke, we couldnt even handle our own countrys finances, we needed a cash injection, if it hadnt been for the failure and loss of money ( the money of the great and good in Scotland who were also according to some records bribed as well, to support the union which helped pay of their debts ) the parliaments would not have united, or put simply, the Scots needed financial support from England, England called the shots, Scottish banks did not have the liquidity required, the Bank of England did.....thats why finances have been controlled by the Bank of England ever since and not by any United Kingdom Bank

Oddquine
15-Jul-15, 17:28
I would agree we were the weaker partners from day 1 : For various reasons, the parliaments of Scotland / England were unified in 1707, the Bank of England founded in 1694 and the second oldest bank in the world was as it says, Englands bank, but why did the parliaments united ? STraight to the point here, Scotland in the years leading upto 1707 was a busted flush, the failed Darein Project was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland, lets repeat that...all the money...... its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined and was an important factor in weakening any resistance to the act of union 1707. So Scotlands lowland powerhouse was broke, a united kingdom ( crowns unified a century before ) obviously had to have a central bank, we couldnt handle this, we wuz broke, we couldnt even handle our own countrys finances, we needed a cash injection, if it hadnt been for the failure and loss of money ( the money of the great and good in Scotland who were also according to some records bribed as well, to support the union which helped pay of their debts ) the parliaments would not have united, or put simply, the Scots needed financial support from England, England called the shots, Scottish banks did not have the liquidity required, the Bank of England did.....thats why finances have been controlled by the Bank of England ever since and not by any United Kingdom Bank

You appear to have bought in wholeheartedly to the rewriting of the Darien Scheme as promulgated by Unionists, and pretty much as I was taught at school. Darien was not so much a story of incompetence and failure by the Scots, but one of betrayal, power,and military and political might used against Scotland to the benefit of England. I won't go into all the background of the events which led from the "Union of the Crowns" until the Treaty of Union, but do want to talk about "the busted flush".

The Bank of Scotland (Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland) was established by special Acts of Parliament, and founded the year after the Bank of England, but was not founded to deal with Scotland's debt, which did not exist until it joined the Union in 1707. In fact, it was specifically forbidden from lending to or otherwise financially assisting the Crown, except where "a Credit of Loan shall happen to be granted by Act of Parliament allenarly." which never happened. The Bank of England, (Governor and Company of the Bank of England), was, on the other hand set up specifically, by William Paterson and Charles Montagu to loan money (at profit) in an effort to provide a solution to England's debt crisis, which did exist.

Darien hit the wealth of individuals not that of the country as a whole. Individuals in Scotland, after Darien, were poorer, particularly in the Lowlands, but Scotland itself was not "a busted flush", unless you are going to apply the rules of a modern economy in which everything is measured by the money washing around in it, to a time in which the norm was for countries to live within their means, because banks and the printing and manipulation of money was not then the main, even the only, point of existence, as it has become today.

As Darien was a privately funded enterprise, Scotland had no National Debt to pay interest on and no need to have one, as it didn't, on its own behalf, undertake foreign wars which had to be funded by people paying taxes. However by 1704, around the time of the Battle of Blenheim, so much bullion had been abstracted from the Scottish economy, in order to help fund the English wars against the French, that it resulted in a scarcity of coin, and the rumour that the Privy Council was about to raise the face value of the coinage, caused a run on the bank at the end of 1704....but it was the private stockholders who bore the cost of refinancing.....not the Scottish people..... and there was still no National Debt.
.
So how can a country be "a busted flush" when it does not owe anybody anything? If the Scots people were so desperate to get the "strength and money of the Union around them", and thought they needed financial support from England........how was it that even staunch supporters of the Union in the negotiating team said that the treaty was “contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom”. The one anti-Union member of the negotiating team, went further saying “The whole nation appears against the Union”.

How come there were petitions against the Union from the Convention of Royal Burghs, the shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes...and not one single petition in favour of it? How come, if the people were so enthusiastic, the Act of Union was signed in secret for fear of reprisals because the ordinary people of Scotland were rioting in the streets in protest. How come, if Scotland was so keen on the Union, that it took the effects/threats of the English Alien Act to force the Parliament, most of whom were being financially damaged by it, to appoint commissioners to discuss a Treaty.

Scotland, in those days, can only be considered a "busted flush" by looking at the situation from this point, three hundred plus years in the future, when National Debt has become the norm to create private profit for the few at the expense of the many, and balancing budgets has become very much the exception rather than the rule it once was. That is almost as ridiculous an assertion as the referendum claim that Scotland cannot manage to be independent because, using the figures drawn from the spending in Scotland as part of the Union, 70% of which is done by Westminster as a share of Westminster priorities, not by Scotland on Scottish priorities, unionists blithely assume that an independent Scottish Government would change nothing at all.... but continue emulating the profligacy of Westminster and wasting money hand over fist. There is a difference which few people on the Unionist side appear to get...that it isn't how much money you have which is important, it is how you use that money to best effect.

Let's face it, regardless of whether you think that the Union was a good or a bad thing for Scotland, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for Scotland today, the fact remains that Scotland’s nobles were bullied and bribed into signing the treaty.....and when they did, it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but for the benefit of their own pockets and lifestyles. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

BetterTogether
15-Jul-15, 17:58
Very nice post Oddquine it reads eerily similar to a post on the same subject on wingsoverscotland website.

Which happens to be the only website that supports that particular version of history.

Which ever way you wish to slice it at the time of the act of Union Scotland was by no means a wealthy country and the vast majority of Historians would say it was becoming impoverished.

Why you think prior to the Act England owed any kind of preference in trading deals or rights is quite odd.

The countries where at the time rivals why would or should England have given any special treatment to Scotland.

Back in those times it was very much a dog eat dog world with England frequently at war with the French or Spanish as the larger more prosperous country it was duty bound to protect its population and until the Act of Union, Scotland was no more than a some what impoverished trading partner without the military or naval might to impose its will on the English.
Which no doubt if the boot had been on the other foot it would of done equally ruthlessly.

To try and impose modern morality on historical events is pointless.

Meanwhile back to Oil the new negotiations with Iran look likely to introduce more Oil into the global supply which experts are claiming will keep Oil prices at current levels or depress them even more than they are currently another blow to the Scottish Oil Industry.

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 09:21
You appear to have bought in wholeheartedly to the rewriting of the Darien Scheme as promulgated by Unionists, and pretty much as I was taught at school. Darien was not so much a story of incompetence and failure by the Scots, but one of betrayal, power,and military and political might used against Scotland to the benefit of England. I won't go into all the background of the events which led from the "Union of the Crowns" until the Treaty of Union, but do want to talk about "the busted flush".

The Bank of Scotland (Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland) was established by special Acts of Parliament, and founded the year after the Bank of England, but was not founded to deal with Scotland's debt, which did not exist until it joined the Union in 1707. In fact, it was specifically forbidden from lending to or otherwise financially assisting the Crown, except where "a Credit of Loan shall happen to be granted by Act of Parliament allenarly." which never happened. The Bank of England, (Governor and Company of the Bank of England), was, on the other hand set up specifically, by William Paterson and Charles Montagu to loan money (at profit) in an effort to provide a solution to England's debt crisis, which did exist.

Darien hit the wealth of individuals not that of the country as a whole. Individuals in Scotland, after Darien, were poorer, particularly in the Lowlands, but Scotland itself was not "a busted flush", unless you are going to apply the rules of a modern economy in which everything is measured by the money washing around in it, to a time in which the norm was for countries to live within their means, because banks and the printing and manipulation of money was not then the main, even the only, point of existence, as it has become today.

As Darien was a privately funded enterprise, Scotland had no National Debt to pay interest on and no need to have one, as it didn't, on its own behalf, undertake foreign wars which had to be funded by people paying taxes. However by 1704, around the time of the Battle of Blenheim, so much bullion had been abstracted from the Scottish economy, in order to help fund the English wars against the French, that it resulted in a scarcity of coin, and the rumour that the Privy Council was about to raise the face value of the coinage, caused a run on the bank at the end of 1704....but it was the private stockholders who bore the cost of refinancing.....not the Scottish people..... and there was still no National Debt.
.
So how can a country be "a busted flush" when it does not owe anybody anything? If the Scots people were so desperate to get the "strength and money of the Union around them", and thought they needed financial support from England........how was it that even staunch supporters of the Union in the negotiating team said that the treaty was “contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom”. The one anti-Union member of the negotiating team, went further saying “The whole nation appears against the Union”.

How come there were petitions against the Union from the Convention of Royal Burghs, the shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes...and not one single petition in favour of it? How come, if the people were so enthusiastic, the Act of Union was signed in secret for fear of reprisals because the ordinary people of Scotland were rioting in the streets in protest. How come, if Scotland was so keen on the Union, that it took the effects/threats of the English Alien Act to force the Parliament, most of whom were being financially damaged by it, to appoint commissioners to discuss a Treaty.

Scotland, in those days, can only be considered a "busted flush" by looking at the situation from this point, three hundred plus years in the future, when National Debt has become the norm to create private profit for the few at the expense of the many, and balancing budgets has become very much the exception rather than the rule it once was. That is almost as ridiculous an assertion as the referendum claim that Scotland cannot manage to be independent because, using the figures drawn from the spending in Scotland as part of the Union, 70% of which is done by Westminster as a share of Westminster priorities, not by Scotland on Scottish priorities, unionists blithely assume that an independent Scottish Government would change nothing at all.... but continue emulating the profligacy of Westminster and wasting money hand over fist. There is a difference which few people on the Unionist side appear to get...that it isn't how much money you have which is important, it is how you use that money to best effect.

Let's face it, regardless of whether you think that the Union was a good or a bad thing for Scotland, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for Scotland today, the fact remains that Scotland’s nobles were bullied and bribed into signing the treaty.....and when they did, it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but for the benefit of their own pockets and lifestyles. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

ABsolutely agree with your last sentence, the "nobles / the great and the good looked after themselves"..and the mass outrage over the union, I wont bother quoting Burns here ( just " a parcel of rogues"as you will be familiar with it surely ? ) ....) .Yes Darien hit the wealth of individuals and not the BOS and you k ow or should know that the individuals concerned were men of means / the nobility the great and the good....the rest of your post well thats the whole point of history eh....a subjective subject open to interpretation and I wasnt expressing my personal take on the situation merely re iterating why, from the history Ive read that Scotland was hit badly financially by the Darien scheme..liquidity crisis etc. When I say Scotland I mean the low lands as there was no real wealth in the Highlands. I am not inferring any modern day comparisons either which you stray into, ( you cant help but get the referendum stuff in here...people voted no for a complexity of reasons not on a single issue ) my post was simply an attempt to answer a posters question : why there was no UK bank, its cos the Bank of England was there in place and solvent from day 1 of the union, Scotland couldnt act as UK bank it didnt have liquidity required to manage the nations finances ( even without the Darien scheme )...... I didnt say that the union was welcome with open arms anything but....and we have always been an unequal partner from day 1. Your point "regardless of whether you think that the Union was a good or a bad thing for Scotland, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for Scotland today, the fact remains that Scotland’s nobles were bullied and bribed into signing the treaty.....and when they did, it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the people of Scotland, but for the benefit of their own pockets and lifestyles"....... is 100% accurate....they were the parcel of rogues sold the country out for their own gain...but as they say we are where are are, and Scotland, over the course, certainly gained overall being in the union !!!

PS a wee thing called religion came into the union equation as well...heres a clue... deposed line...Stuarts...catholics.....shut the door .....keep them out....need to ensure Scotland falls into line...............whats your thought on that ?

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 09:25
Very nice post Oddquine it reads eerily similar to a post on the same subject on wingsoverscotland website.

Which happens to be the only website that supports that particular version of history.

Which ever way you wish to slice it at the time of the act of Union Scotland was by no means a wealthy country and the vast majority of Historians would say it was becoming impoverished.

Why you think prior to the Act England owed any kind of preference in trading deals or rights is quite odd.

The countries where at the time rivals why would or should England have given any special treatment to Scotland.

Back in those times it was very much a dog eat dog world with England frequently at war with the French or Spanish as the larger more prosperous country it was duty bound to protect its population and until the Act of Union, Scotland was no more than a some what impoverished trading partner without the military or naval might to impose its will on the English.
Which no doubt if the boot had been on the other foot it would of done equally ruthlessly.

To try and impose modern morality on historical events is pointless.

Meanwhile back to Oil the new negotiations with Iran look likely to introduce more Oil into the global supply which experts are claiming will keep Oil prices at current levels or depress them even more than they are currently another blow to the Scottish Oil Industry.

Yes Odd Quines post does mirror wingsoverscotland post and I agree with your point, To try and impose modern morality on historical events is pointless we are where we are as they say. The Iran situation....yep will lead to over supply of oil forcing prices down or at best keeping them at 60/65 dollars a barrel with knock on effect on oil revenues ( our bonus )

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 09:51
If the current powers to be are to be lauded then,
1.Why don't the trains run?
2. Why is The NHS in chaos?
3. Why is education failing?
4. Why is everything blamed on Westminster even when it is devolved?
5. Why are councils not allowed to raise local taxes so services can be provided?

Come on folk take a look at reality.

From the BBC Website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-33469379 This is in regard to the NHS. One quote from the article -

"Scottish Labour called it a "crisis" and claimed the number of patients registered at an "understaffed" GP practice was at least two million.

The Scottish government said there was no crisis in healthcare."

Could that be because the Scottish Government is based in the safe confines of a City? They need to live with the NHS we deal with here.

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 09:59
Interesting, some on here would say that the stats are "unionist" lies and anti scottish government propoganda ! Your point of the Scottish government being based within a city..........spot on ......divorced from the realities of rural life ....swap Edinburgh for London eh and all will be well.....not !!

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 10:03
Another thing people say on here is we live in a rural area so cannot expect all the services they have in a city, which I suppose is fair enough, however do we pay less National Insurance contributions than those in a City? I do'nt think we do !

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 10:14
Another thing people say on here is we live in a rural area so cannot expect all the services they have in a city, which I suppose is fair enough, however do we pay less National Insurance contributions than those in a City? I do'nt think we do !

Good point, maybe in an independant Scotalnd we will be able to pay less NI and tax....after all as you say we dont have the services readily available in a city so why should we contribute as much but somehow I cant see that happening eh ?

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 10:32
No, that will never happen. If I thought it would fund the services we need here, I would happily pay for prescriptions. Something as basic as hematology, is a 220 mile round trip. Caithness has an ageing population, surely they should'nt have to be made to endure that trip for the most basic of procedures.

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 11:05
No, that will never happen. If I thought it would fund the services we need here, I would happily pay for prescriptions. Something as basic as hematology, is a 220 mile round trip. Caithness has an ageing population, surely they should'nt have to be made to endure that trip for the most basic of procedures.

Again good point, Im not to up on medical services delivered locally..... issues problems etc but Ive glanced at the NHS thread on here and there is some interesting stuff on there, you should take a look, and your right, an aging population like most of the country.....minimising travel inconvenience should be top of the agenda, puuting the needs of patients first as fard as is possible, and of course more local control and say in services, I maybe wrong but it seems that the health agenda is driven by NHS Highland ( Inverness ) ?

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 11:27
Again good point, Im not to up on medical services delivered locally..... issues problems etc but Ive glanced at the NHS thread on here and there is some interesting stuff on there, you should take a look, and your right, an aging population like most of the country.....minimising travel inconvenience should be top of the agenda, puuting the needs of patients first as fard as is possible, and of course more local control and say in services, I maybe wrong but it seems that the health agenda is driven by NHS Highland ( Inverness ) ?

I would say you are right (about Inverness) Everything is centralized at Raigmore, one of my Consultants told me he offered to come to Wick once a month to hold a clinic, he was'nt allowed. Cost aside, he is a Gastroenterologist ( I will let you look up what that covers!) but suffice to say, for some, a lengthy journey as not always advisable.

As you will have gathered I am a mere incomer (I've been called worse!) so my opinion probably does'nt count, however, you are right in what you say about the whole of the UK has an ageing population, but where we differ to a large majority of the rest of the UK is once Dounreay goes, a lot of people will move South, they will have to because what will they do here? Thurso will eventually go back to what it was pre Dounreay. Now if this area cannot maintain, or attract young families to the area, all you will be left with, is an ageing population, and the money the NHS invest here (Caithness) will reflect that.

Now I might be completely wrong and the SNP has something up their sleeve to replace Dounreay with another employer which will maintain the employment level we see at Dounreay today, but I can't see it.

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 12:43
I would say you are right (about Inverness) Everything is centralized at Raigmore, one of my Consultants told me he offered to come to Wick once a month to hold a clinic, he was'nt allowed. Cost aside, he is a Gastroenterologist ( I will let you look up what that covers!) but suffice to say, for some, a lengthy journey as not always advisable.

As you will have gathered I am a mere incomer (I've been called worse!) so my opinion probably does'nt count, however, you are right in what you say about the whole of the UK has an ageing population, but where we differ to a large majority of the rest of the UK is once Dounreay goes, a lot of people will move South, they will have to because what will they do here? Thurso will eventually go back to what it was pre Dounreay. Now if this area cannot maintain, or attract young families to the area, all you will be left with, is an ageing population, and the money the NHS invest here (Caithness) will reflect that.

Now I might be completely wrong and the SNP has something up their sleeve to replace Dounreay with another employer which will maintain the employment level we see at Dounreay today, but I can't see it.

We are all "incommers" eh ! Your opinion counts 100% you live in Caithness, I mean technically Im a Caithnessian, lived there for 36 years and been out over 20 years, living down south in Ross shire ( to some on here Im an exile and in Ross shire Im an incommer lol lol lol ) Totally agree with Dounreay run down concequences...realistically the only thing that would have replaced Dounreay is....another nuclear site and thats not on the agenda for the SNP. A wee while back about 2 years ago when renewables was the big thing...Scotland was going to be..."the saudi arabia of renewables" : HIE along with other agencies in propoganda endorsed by the scottish government, issued a weighty newspaper insert all about how the Dounreay run down would be harmonised along side renewable "opportunities"...nowt to worry about.... jump from one local job to another, well given "problems" with wave and tidal devices, theres little chance of that, the off shore wind farm ( Beatrice Filed ) can create jobs mostly based in Wick as the supply base but a couple of thousand dounreay jobs ( and the local supply chain providers as well ) wont be replaced by this project..I mean I really hope it comes off as Wick needs a major lift and I hope that the Meygen firth tidal project comes off to as that will create jobs. The way I see it, people say over 50 could basically retire live on Dounreay pensions with wife or themselves working part time..Tescos etc, younger people at Dounreay with sought after skills will up and go, and we will have a diminished aging population, between 1955–58 Thurso’s population expanded from around 2,500 to about 12,000, as the nuclear plant attracted skilled migrants from all parts of the United Kingdom. By 1960, it dropped back to around 9,000, after a lot of the initial Dounreay construction crew left the area.

See the attached url http://www.gov.scot/resource/0042/00425985.pdf and read through the pdf : a new vision for Thurso...but look at the footer it actually says..a new vision for Wick and Thurso...I will leave you to make up your own mind on the "vision"

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 13:16
See the attached url http://www.gov.scot/resource/0042/00425985.pdf and read through the pdf : a new vision for Thurso...but look at the footer it actually says..a new vision for Wick and Thurso...I will leave you to make up your own mind on the "vision"

Everything in that PDF is relevant, will it happen, I doubt it. As I said on another thread, I think it was Liz asking why the Orkney's have lovely roads and so on, and loads of tourists unlike Caithness, well sad as I am I worked out how many tourists they would get from the cruise ships if all were full in July alone, 31,229 tourists pumping money into their economy. Scrabster, on the other hand has five Cruise ships due in this year. They are missing a trick there.

As for renewables bringing jobs to the area, it did'nt happen. I worked in a hotel in Thurso last year, and at certain times there was not a room to be had in the area (I know I phoned just about anybody I could think of!) that was not due to tourists, but workmen either working on the windmill things, visiting Dounreay or the substations. We had people staying for months doing this, their companies paying bills that ran into thousands of pounds. So even if there was jobs available to the local area, they either do'nt want them, or they are not being advertised.

The thing is you can explain it better than I can, I know what I am trying to say, it just does'nt come out right!

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 13:37
Everything in that PDF is relevant, will it happen, I doubt it. As I said on another thread, I think it was Liz asking why the Orkney's have lovely roads and so on, and loads of tourists unlike Caithness, well sad as I am I worked out how many tourists they would get from the cruise ships if all were full in July alone, 31,229 tourists pumping money into their economy. Scrabster, on the other hand has five Cruise ships due in this year. They are missing a trick there.

As for renewables bringing jobs to the area, it did'nt happen. I worked in a hotel in Thurso last year, and at certain times there was not a room to be had in the area (I know I phoned just about anybody I could think of!) that was not due to tourists, but workmen either working on the windmill things, visiting Dounreay or the substations. We had people staying for months doing this, their companies paying bills that ran into thousands of pounds. So even if there was jobs available to the local area, they either do'nt want them, or they are not being advertised.

The thing is you can explain it better than I can, I know what I am trying to say, it just does'nt come out right!

Lol lol lol....I'll try : incomming work men will be working with companies who hold supply contracts with Dounreay or windmill suppliers / installs and maintenance work, so unless a local knows who these companies are and has a skills set that is in demand and is prepared to work all over ( incoming workmen will be going where their companies put them ), then there are limited opportunities for locals, thats why jobs arent advertised, there is very little need for locals to be directly involved. The PDF is at best fanciful and at worst a complete waste of public money sure theres some "cool" post industrial ideas based on creative industries / arts etc....but thats always going to be small time and attractive to "arty people"....not decrying it, but its hardly going to make a dent in post Dounreay employment is it ? Renewables.............I will forever poke the scottish goverment and Salmon in particular over Renewables ( wave and tidal, plenty of wind....from the nats ) as its not happening primarliy because of below

Some Renewables Problems
1 The industry is in start-up format and is heavily capital intensive, which puts off investors, companies have been initially grant funded to try and secure private investment, and private investment usually comes in“groups” ie no single investor involvement
2 the withdrawal of grant funding for private companies which acts as a‘push’ mechanism in the absence of private investment,” has also now pushed away private investment
3 no technological design consensuscurrently exists that the industry can unite around : ie competition in the industry defers any sharing of product design / knowledge, they are all re-inventing the wheel so resources are wasted
4 Companies can raise capital but nowhere near enough to produce fully workable devices (see 1 2 3 above )
5 The Danes took over 20 years to dominate wind energy markets with a serious government led strategy that resolved these issues ........so over to you then scottish government...solve the problems then we may get the promised jobs....but get a move on eh !!

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 14:22
I would say you are right (about Inverness) Everything is centralized at Raigmore, one of my Consultants told me he offered to come to Wick once a month to hold a clinic, he was'nt allowed. Cost aside, he is a Gastroenterologist ( I will let you look up what that covers!) but suffice to say, for some, a lengthy journey as not always advisable.

As you will have gathered I am a mere incomer (I've been called worse!) so my opinion probably does'nt count, however, you are right in what you say about the whole of the UK has an ageing population, but where we differ to a large majority of the rest of the UK is once Dounreay goes, a lot of people will move South, they will have to because what will they do here? Thurso will eventually go back to what it was pre Dounreay. Now if this area cannot maintain, or attract young families to the area, all you will be left with, is an ageing population, and the money the NHS invest here (Caithness) will reflect that.

Now I might be completely wrong and the SNP has something up their sleeve to replace Dounreay with another employer which will maintain the employment level we see at Dounreay today, but I can't see it.

Talking about centralisation....did you read this in the courier more centralisation ( sneaky cuts in our services ) ...... THE planned closure of Police Scotland call centres in Inverness and Aberdeen should be delayed until an investigation is carried out into the deaths of a couple left in their car for days following a motorway smash according to a former police chief. One-time NOrthern Constabulary area commander Matthew Reiss said the reason for JOhn Yuill and Lamara Bell not being found for more than three days after they crashed their Renault clio on the M9 at Stirling on July must be established.

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 14:27
I'll be honest with you, I was trying to be polite about the PDF, to me it was an just an exercise in let's show the locals we are trying to do something, then they will leave us alone sort of thing. There is just nothing sustainable in it, well not without a lot, and I mean a lot of investment. But, they have to get the basics right. I come from a retail background which included 24hr opening, and I mean 24 hour, from 8am Monday morning until 10pm Saturday night (this was England) now I'm not by any means suggesting the little shops do this, however I remember the ship "The World" docked just outside Wick a couple of years back and the shop owners bemoaning the fact no money was spent in the local shops. It's a bit difficult when a lot of the shops still close at lunch time, and basically close when they feel like it. The same can be said for Thurso, when the cruise ships and coaches are in, to my knowledge there is no late night opening (usually Thursday in other places) very few shops/cafes open before 9am, and even less open on a Sunday, even on the run up to Christmas.

There is a lot of people say Tesco's took the trade away from the little shops, or should I say, independent retailers. Well that could be because Tesco's are there for the convenience of the customers, they do'nt close at lunch time, they are open until quite late in the evening. If you close your shop at 5pm and people do'nt finish work until 5 or 6 pm, where are they going to go? Also, the internet is open 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

While people will say, this is the way we do things like it or lump it, that's fine, but do'nt moan when the tourists whip over to Orkney as fast as they can and spend money which should have been in the shopkeepers pocket, over there.

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 14:34
I'll be honest with you, I was trying to be polite about the PDF, to me it was an just an exercise in let's show the locals we are trying to do something, then they will leave us alone sort of thing. There is just nothing sustainable in it, well not without a lot, and I mean a lot of investment. But, they have to get the basics right. I come from a retail background which included 24hr opening, and I mean 24 hour, from 8am Monday morning until 10pm Saturday night (this was England) now I'm not by any means suggesting the little shops do this, however I remember the ship "The World" docked just outside Wick a couple of years back and the shop owners bemoaning the fact no money was spent in the local shops. It's a bit difficult when a lot of the shops still close at lunch time, and basically close when they feel like it. The same can be said for Thurso, when the cruise ships and coaches are in, to my knowledge there is no late night opening (usually Thursday in other places) very few shops/cafes open before 9am, and even less open on a Sunday, even on the run up to Christmas.

There is a lot of people say Tesco's took the trade away from the little shops, or should I say, independent retailers. Well that could be because Tesco's are there for the convenience of the customers, they do'nt close at lunch time, they are open until quite late in the evening. If you close your shop at 5pm and people do'nt finish work until 5 or 6 pm, where are they going to go? Also, the internet is open 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

While people will say, this is the way we do things like it or lump it, that's fine, but do'nt moan when the tourists whip over to Orkney as fast as they can and spend money which should have been in the shopkeepers pocket, over there.

The convenience of the customer ?? Aye that 'll be right, good points made though, the PDF......spot on, an exercise in wind / ticking boxes / self indulgent waffle ( mostly ! ) Arts / creative industries, yep, but remember the customer is king as you rightly say

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 14:41
Talking about centralisation....did you read this in the courier more centralisation ( sneaky cuts in our services ) ...... THE planned closure of Police Scotland call centres in Inverness and Aberdeen should be delayed until an investigation is carried out into the deaths of a couple left in their car for days following a motorway smash according to a former police chief. One-time NOrthern Constabulary area commander Matthew Reiss said the reason for JOhn Yuill and Lamara Bell not being found for more than three days after they crashed their Renault clio on the M9 at Stirling on July must be established.

That was just outside Stirling, I read the Courier online and this was in it - http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/police-control-room-staff-told-to-log-calls-with-pen-and-paper-1.889692. God knows what the sergeant did with the bit paper, but he certainly did'nt pass it on. What a horrible, horrible preventable tragedy, it was bad enough that poor soul lying next to her dead/dying boyfriend for three days, but what if they had had their children with them, it just does not bear thinking about.

They are going on about enquiries into this and that, why do'nt they just ask the Sergeant why he did'nt pass it on? Those families need answers now, not in six months time.

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 14:56
That was just outside Stirling, I read the Courier online and this was in it - http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/police-control-room-staff-told-to-log-calls-with-pen-and-paper-1.889692. God knows what the sergeant did with the bit paper, but he certainly did'nt pass it on. What a horrible, horrible preventable tragedy, it was bad enough that poor soul lying next to her dead/dying boyfriend for three days, but what if they had had their children with them, it just does not bear thinking about.

They are going on about enquiries into this and that, why do'nt they just ask the Sergeant why he did'nt pass it on? Those families need answers now, not in six months time.



Yes its a terrible, terrible unbelievable tragedy, there's more going on here than meets the eye though : BBC news today : a high abentee level has been a regular occurence at the call centre ie 10% absentee rate
"A 10% absence rate is completely unacceptable in a high pressure environment where people's lives depend on calls being handled quickly and efficiently.
"Service centre staff are already overburdened from excessive centralisation, but the sheer number of vacancies and lost advisor hours are only putting them under more strain."
"The buck stops with the Scottish government on this and the public will no doubt wonder why it is constantly on the back foot with Police Scotland."

Willie Rennie is calling for, quite rightly,a wider review into the operations of Police Scotland. Given the circumstances, I dont want to get involved in the politics, and the above ARE NOT MY words...in case some troll trys it on. Full report is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-33547375

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 15:11
Yes its a terrible, terrible unbelievable tragedy, there's more going on here than meets the eye though : BBC news today : a high abentee level has been a regular occurence at the call centre ie 10% absentee rate
"A 10% absence rate is completely unacceptable in a high pressure environment where people's lives depend on calls being handled quickly and efficiently.
"Service centre staff are already overburdened from excessive centralisation, but the sheer number of vacancies and lost advisor hours are only putting them under more strain."
"The buck stops with the Scottish government on this and the public will no doubt wonder why it is constantly on the back foot with Police Scotland."

Willie Rennie is calling for, quite rightly,a wider review into the operations of Police Scotland. Given the circumstances, I dont want to get involved in the politics, and the above ARE NOT MY words...in case some troll trys it on. Full report is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-33547375

I worked for BT in a call centre in Dundee, the worst thing that could happen there was either their line or Broadband was delayed. I could not take the stress of working in a call centre whereas you make one mistake and lives are lost. I have no objection to them carrying out a review of Police procedures and so on, if this was the catalyst to get things in order, carry on, but as I said, it cannot be a long drawn out affair. Those families must be in utter torment.

rob murray
16-Jul-15, 15:14
I worked for BT in a call centre in Dundee, the worst thing that could happen there was either their line or Broadband was delayed. I could not take the stress of working in a call centre whereas you make one mistake and lives are lost. I have no objection to them carrying out a review of Police procedures and so on, if this was the catalyst to get things in order, carry on, but as I said, it cannot be a long drawn out affair. Those families must be in utter torment.

Yes an unbelievable issue, the issue must be resolved and very quickly for the peace of the family.

Mr Z
16-Jul-15, 18:40
Just another angle on the tragic accident. When you report an accident you are asked to stay at the scene until emergency services arrive. Help them with condition of any casualties over the phone or has that all changed in the last few monthsI know it's not the fault of the person who reported it but you think he/she would have checked in the car or asked by person on other end of phone if there were anyone involved. Like stated earlier this is a strange one in many ways

cptdodger
16-Jul-15, 19:36
Just another angle on the tragic accident. When you report an accident you are asked to stay at the scene until emergency services arrive. Help them with condition of any casualties over the phone or has that all changed in the last few monthsI know it's not the fault of the person who reported it but you think he/she would have checked in the car or asked by person on other end of phone if there were anyone involved. Like stated earlier this is a strange one in many ways

As I said before, I have been following this in the Dundee Courier, as it happened outside Stirling on the A9. Now, I do'nt know what the circumstances of the person that made the call were, however this was a post on the Facebook Page -

"The caller didn't see the car leave the road. If they had, they'd have called 999 instead of 101 (although as reported in the 'Sunday Times', even that wouldn't have been guaranteed to result in immediate attention).

Accounts I've read say that the only way to have seen the spot would have been from the flyover. And to have reached it from there would have required a 20 mile round trip before stopping on the hard shoulder."

So from that, I would imagine the person only saw the car, and reported it.

BetterTogether
13-Sep-15, 18:01
Well worth a read a report discussing the FFA/ FFR position of the Current incumbents of Holyrood.


http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7722

golach
23-Oct-15, 13:56
What price oil now Eck?


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/21/north-sea-tax-revenues-plummet-negative-first-time-history

rob murray
23-Oct-15, 14:16
What price oil now Eck?


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/21/north-sea-tax-revenues-plummet-negative-first-time-history

Yep and today, right now Brent crude is $48.08 a barrel....but its all crap...oil is just a bonus isnt it an added extra to a world economic powerhouse, so who cares eh ? Interesting that Fergus Ewing is now saying the UK government intervention etc is helping save the day.....read below :

Fergus Ewing, the Scottish energy minister, confirmed that his SNP administration supported the UK government’s tax cuts and subsidies. He said those changes would eventually see the sector return to better health.“The fiscal reforms from the UK government, which the Scottish government has long called for, will encourage additional production and investment that will boost government revenues in the coming years,” Ewing said. Recent data suggested production was increasing, adding to the potential for higher tax receipts in future.A senior Conservative party source said the UK government was likely to forgo billions of pounds in taxation and in tax incentives for the sector to help it survive the slump in prices and the financial challenges posed by decommissioning old platforms.
“Once again, this demonstrates the benefit of pooling resources and sharing risks across the UK and how the UK and Scottish government working together can best support one of our major sectors in the years and decades ahead,” he said.
Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s public services spokeswoman, said it was “remarkable” that the sector had effectively cost taxpayers money for the first time, adding that it raised challenging questions for the SNP’s promises during the independence referendum.
“The dramatic collapse in the oil price, and the devastating impact this would have had on our ability to pay for schools and hospitals, shows we made the right decision to keep Scotland in the UK and reject the SNP’s fantasy economics,” she said. “The SNP government need to be transparent about Scotland’s finances and the impact falling oil revenues has.”

rob murray
23-Oct-15, 14:46
read this take on oil prices from the zelous propoganda machine................ wings over scotland http://wingsoverscotland.com/oilmageddon/ no one is "delighted" at the oil collapase and job losses, but the SNP stacked their fiscal case for independance on a figure plucked from thin air......best guestimate, ok its not the SNP's fault that oil has collapsed but it did and if we were independant there can be no denying the country would have a major economic crisis on its hands as direct and indirect ( supply chain ) job losses are being hard hit, and is the case in Aberdeen many support jobs will never ever come back...at $110 a barrel money was a plenty and ineffeciences could be tolerated, now at less than $50 oil companies are making effeciecy savings so when the price bounces back they wont need to ramp up so many support staff....