It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scotland's Lucky Escape

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




The Scottish economy has 99% of the GDP if the UK without any oil revenue so hardly an oil based economy.


Really, so why was it such a big deal for you guys during the referendum?

Where was this other 99% coming from?




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: ScepticScot




The Scottish economy has 99% of the GDP if the UK without any oil revenue so hardly an oil based economy.


Really, so why was it such a big deal for you guys during the referendum?

Where was this other 99% coming from?

Because we were basing it on the next thirty to fifty years of extraction. not just one or two. Blinkered is all i can say.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Do you seriously believe that the entire economy of Scotland is based around oil????



edit on 6-1-2015 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

No but you said that



The Scottish economy has 99% of the GDP if the UK without any oil revenue so hardly an oil based economy.


The implication is that oil would only have made up 1% of the Scottish economy.

Which is quite frankly laughable.

We all remember being told that our oil would make us the rich man of Europe and we would be the 9th richest nation with all our black gold and so on, but now its price has plummeted you seem to be trying to say we were never really needing that oil anyway.

Just face it, a independent Scotland would have relied on a steady oil reserve and a stable international oil price both of which it does not have. Eventually the oil will run out and what is left is now only worth $50 on the barrel compared to over $100 not so long ago.

So you can say what you want but please stop taking back your old arguments now that you know they are not all they were cracked up to be.

EDIT: Just to clarify, because its not very clear in your post, are you saying that even with out Oil Scotland makes up 99% of UK GDP?
edit on 6-1-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol




Because we were basing it on the next thirty to fifty years of extraction


I just love that you don't realise that you are pretty much arguing against yourself.

so those predictions that our oil would be our saviour were based on 30 to 50 years of extraction and did not take into account the fluctuating price and there was no real plan for after we run out of oil.

The whole argument is kind of mute anyway seeing as the Yes Vote lost.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

We also export Whiskey, and our beef and shellfish are considered to be some of the best in the world.

It's not all about oil!



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Double post, dam Android.
edit on 6-1-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yes and the Scottish Whisky Industry were one of the biggest "No" voters because they said that the independence plans would hurt there profits and they would not be able to export as much whisky.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
No I said that Scotland's GDP if 99% of the UK without oil, with oil it is much higher. That does not mean oil is only 1 % of the Scottish economy.
The oil was and is a bonus. The economy was never based round it as you stated.
You do understand that the Scottish economy is not just oil don't you?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

THIS!



No I said that Scotland's GDP if 99% of the UK without oi


Don't you mean that Scotland's GDP is 99% OF the UK?
edit on 6-1-2015 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The GDP of Scotland (per capita) is 99% of the UK's (including the massive effect of London) without taking into account oil revenues at all. Is that clear enough?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Soloprotocol




Because we were basing it on the next thirty to fifty years of extraction


I just love that you don't realise that you are pretty much arguing against yourself.

so those predictions that our oil would be our saviour were based on 30 to 50 years of extraction and did not take into account the fluctuating price and there was no real plan for after we run out of oil.

The whole argument is kind of mute anyway seeing as the Yes Vote lost.


Absolutely correct other than it did take it into account and there was a plan.
Also worth pointing out tho whole thread was started by a no supporter. We know the result was No we just also know that was the wrong decision.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
So yes or no.

Does that mean then that you are saying that excluding oil, Scotland therefore must make up 99% of the UK's GDP?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I will assume you are now just trolling or having a laugh and actually do understand the concept of per capita



edit on 6-1-2015 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The best example is Norway. They have a population of 5 million, but only one area accounts for 75% of all GDP - that's the research centers based on Oil/Gas exploration. Other parts of Norway like Oslo have industries like film production and agriculture.

Scotland has the Oil/Gas industry in Aberdeen and the coast (10,000 people). Then there are the creative software industries as well as film production. All cities have universities with international students. In any case, the big money doesn't come from oil production, but from oil exploration. They'll take a gamble on drilling 100 exploration wells, for a few dozen to be profitable.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

No I do Its just I am not quite sure you do.

Because it sounds like you are trying to argue that Scotland makes up 99% of the UK's GDP.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Since in an earlier post you didn't seem to know that Scotland has any source of GDP other than oil you will forgive me questioning your understanding of per capita.
To simplify still further if there was no oil at all in Scotland's part of the North Sea there would still be no real difference per person in size of the economy between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Can therefore explain your argument that Scotland's economy is totally oil based?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Soloprotocol




Because we were basing it on the next thirty to fifty years of extraction


I just love that you don't realise that you are pretty much arguing against yourself.

so those predictions that our oil would be our saviour were based on 30 to 50 years of extraction and did not take into account the fluctuating price and there was no real plan for after we run out of oil.

The whole argument is kind of mute anyway seeing as the Yes Vote lost.

Who said it was our saviour.? Only you as far as i can see. I said it was Bonus Money and that if managed correctly, something the Westminster has never done would have stood us in good stead for the future, you know, like Norway has done. Doesn't matter now anyway, the likes of yourself voted to stand still and accept what's to come from Westminster.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake



You should probably realize as well its not about stars or flags regarding the majority of long term members, its about voicing our opinion then discussing that opinion. And in the process possibly learning something.


If ever a post deserved a star its this one.


a reply to: ScepticScot



Since no one agrees what the promised new powers actually are the odds of them being delivered are pretty slim.


I'll reserve final judgement until the election manifesto's are published....but I've got to agree, its becoming more and more unlikely that any of the major parties will deliver on the promises they made in the run up to the referendum.....and that would be absolutely disgraceful and a total betrayal.
I'd feel angry and betrayed myself and as you know I'm English and pro-Union.

If they fail to deliver on increased devolved powers to Holyrood then we ALL should make a stand and force them to do so - anything less would be a sign of just how weak, compliant and impotent we ALL have become.

But alas, I suspect it'll all be to no avail and yet another case of same old same old.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Scotland never would have gotten a bailout from the EU.

1) They would still be under UK control at this point as the referendum was never due to take effect until later this year.

2) It wasn't a given that they would get EU membership. They would have had to have applied to join the EU, and wouldn't have met ANY of the basic economic requirements for membership. Unemployment alone would have stopped them from being approved.

3) It's also not likely that they would have gotten any support from the World Bank or IMF either, especially if, as suggested, they were going to keep the UK Pound Sterling as their currency against the wishes of the UK Government. Using a foreign currency outside of their control would mean that they wouldn't be able to borrow money or issue bonds.

An independent Scotland would have been VERY deep in trouble.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join