What is Westminsters Plan B

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Wooooooooo i'm Scared.

Its not about being scared, its about being realistic and understanding that there will be some difficult times ahead.

we better awe vote naw then.

Vote how you want, that's the whole point of it.

Who said it will be all milk and Honey,

Many in the 'Yes' camp deliberately try to imply that it will be.
Which is why they deliberately ignore any possible negative aspects surrounding independence - just as you have.

And as for Bitter recriminations...We have seen divides before and dealt with them like decent human beings.

When have you seen divides like this - Scotland is literally being split in half.
People seem to be passionately in the 'Yes' or 'No' camp and appear intolerant of the opposing point of view.

Regardless of what people south of the border think. Regardless of how Eastenders, River city, Corrie etc portrays us on a regular basis, we are not a bunch of drunken, wife beating, drug dealing bigoted savages.

Of course 'you' aren't.
Could you point to any post of mine where I've insinuated anything of the sort.

All I'm saying is the divisions are deep and they'll take some healing whichever way Scotland chooses to go.

For every arsehole there is 10000 decent law abiding citizens....Same as any town, Village, City in the rest of the UK.

Its my experience that its the same the world over.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Do you have a source for that amount of oil? Because I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the reserves that aren't easily accessible and which might not be accessed any time soon because of reasons of cost.

a reply to: Freeborn
The might be the experience online but in the real world most (not al) people talk about it in a reasonable and tolerant way. In fact it is exciting how many people who before would have little interest in politics are involved. What ever the result I hope some of this passion and participation remains.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Do you have a source for that amount of oil? Because I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the reserves that aren't easily accessible and which might not be accessed any time soon because of reasons of cost.

The Clair field was discovered in the 70s. Only in the last 10 years with the advancement in technology have we been able to extract the Oil. The technology is getting better by the day in locating and extracting the Oil.

I'll find some facts and figures from both side of the argument for you later and post them here, £1 trillion is the middle of the road estimate, The Scottish government and Oil and Gas has it as high as £1.5 trillion and as low as half a trillion, but if you believe Westminster we have only 1.5 pints of Oil and enough Gas to fill a clipper left ...bit of a hurry right now.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Scotland will keep the oil as it is in Scottish waters. This is established international law ( as well as being blindingly obvious).
Assets that are up for negotiation are non geographical. For every asset that rUk wants to keep ie trident then there is an offset to any debt Scotland takes.
The only complication is valuing non tangible assets.
Off course Scotland is economically viable. There are many smaller countries with less natural resource or infrastructure doing just fine.

The lawyers are going to be over all this like a rash. Scotland will not get to keep all the oil, London will see to that. The base at Faslane will close, I doubt that London will buy any more naval vessels from Scottish yards, the debt issue will be a huge one... I could go on, but the list is vast and Salmond has been vastly optimistic.

Thanks, "London will see to that".....Another reason for anyone in their right mind to vote yes.
As for Faslane, there is no reason why Faslane cant stay open as a Sub Repair facility, that's what it does now, or as a working yard connected to the Oil and gas industry...It's the Weapons that we want rid of.

London doesn't BUY any vessels from Scottish yards, they sub contract the work out. I dont see why they wont give any future work to Scotland as we are good at what we do and have the facilities to handle the work... or have we become a untrustworthy bunch over night.
Anyway, under the UK governments watch the Yards on the Clyde have been decimated, so any promises from Westminster that the future of Shipbuilding on the Clyde is only safe after a No vote is pretty much....well, without being rude is.... Utter Garbage.

But the weapons are on the subs.

Most of the Weapons are kept in Storage in bunkers at Faslane, round about 300 i believe, i'm not sure how many a sub can carry at a time..16 maybe?. Anyway, they are pretty much useless, if Russia decided to fire off some of the Huge Nukes (Mega Tons) they have at their disposal, Scotland and the rest of the UK would be a smoldering hole in the ground before our Birds even broke the surface of the Ocean.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Even if "Westminster" was losing "90% of the revenue" - this is using very questionable divisions of the maritime border - it is only 90% of around 5 Billion, which is taken from the Governments own figures on revenue from Oil/Gas production.

Chump change.

On the flipside, if you think £5 Billion quid is going to transform Scotland into some gold-paved wonderland, you're deluded.

a reply to: EvillerBob

In regards to the Falklands - all the revenue is to be kept by the Falklands Government. The only change is they may - and there are no concrete plans on this - contribute towards their defence, which is around £60 million a year, give or take. The UK Government will not be taking the revenue from any Oil found there, because the Falklands are not part of the UK.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

8 on each missile, with 16 missiles per sub. Although SOP at the moment is to only float with a few warheads per missile, with the rest being dummies.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

You're deluding yourself if you think that the next Frigate contract will go to the Clyde. The RN has never, I repeat never bought a Warship from abroad. You will get to finish the last carrier and that is it.

If Scotland goes indy, then BAE on the Clyde will shut up shop and Portsmouth will be re-opened. That much has been said by BAe, the MoD and anyone else in the know - totally at odds with what Salmond and Sturgeon tried to tell the dockworkers some weeks back.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: gortex

I'd rather see a country independent and in tatters, than shackled by the English.

How arrogant of them to still think their little country so relevant.

I'm, sorry, but who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Are you Scottish? If so, you're showing the true, ugly side of this vote which is thinly veiled racism.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: EvillerBob

In regards to the Falklands - all the revenue is to be kept by the Falklands Government. The only change is they may - and there are no concrete plans on this - contribute towards their defence, which is around £60 million a year, give or take. The UK Government will not be taking the revenue from any Oil found there, because the Falklands are not part of the UK.

Don't spoil my dream!

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Even if "Westminster" was losing "90% of the revenue" - this is using very questionable divisions of the maritime border - it is only 90% of around 5 Billion, which is taken from the Governments own figures on revenue from Oil/Gas production.

Chump change.

On the flipside, if you think £5 Billion quid is going to transform Scotland into some gold-paved wonderland, you're deluded.

Nice clutch at the lower figures..
from your own link.
Section 2
Government revenues from UK
oil and gas production –

Revenues from UK oil and gas production
increased from £7.4 billion in 2007-08
to £12.4 billion in 2008-09, an increase of
around 67%, mainly as a result of
record high oil prices for 2008 pushing up re
venues to the highest ever level.

Revenues fell in 2009-10 to £5.9 billion,
a reduction of around 50% from the
previous year, due to falling oil pri
ces, declining oil and gas production and
increased capital expenditure for 2009.

Although expenditure increased and produc
tion continued to decline for 2010, the
increase in oil prices led to a signifi
cant rise in 2010-11 revenues by over 40% to
£8.3 billion.

This upward trend continued in 2011-12 w
ith total revenues increasing to £10.9
billion, due to higher prices and an incr
ease in the supplementary charge from
20% to 32% from 24
th
March 2011.

In 2012-13 revenues dropped by around 45% to
£6.1 billion and then fell again in
2013-14 by around 25% to £4.7 billion as a result of lower production and higher
expenditure.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: EvillerBob

In regards to the Falklands - all the revenue is to be kept by the Falklands Government. The only change is they may - and there are no concrete plans on this - contribute towards their defence, which is around £60 million a year, give or take. The UK Government will not be taking the revenue from any Oil found there, because the Falklands are not part of the UK.

Don't spoil my dream!

So it was never a Plan B...Just a Dream you had..

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: gortex

I'd rather see a country independent and in tatters, than shackled by the English.

How arrogant of them to still think their little country so relevant.

I'm, sorry, but who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Are you Scottish? If so, you're showing the true, ugly side of this vote which is thinly veiled racism.

Sorry, I didn't realise I had to be Scottish to have an opinion on the subject, or to know that freedom is better than not.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I didn't pick the "lowest", but last years figures. There is no reason they are likely to reach the giddy heights of the mid noughties again as production is declining (as you pointed out) and costs are rising (as you pointed out).

Unless you believe, somehow, that an iScotland will somehow overcome the falling production, manage to cut the increasing costs and somehow manage to get the price per barrel up again to where it was years ago?

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Ah, an American then? I suspect you where, which means you probably have some misty-eyed fantasy about what is happening in the UK, what the arrangement is with Scotland how it came to be. Freedom? Freedom from what? They're not oppressed - this isn't Braveheart you know.

I wasn't saying you had to be Scottish to have an opinion, but the fact you're not is even worse as all you've done in this thread is be quite arrogant and rude towards the rUK.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I didn't pick the "lowest", but last years figures. There is no reason they are likely to reach the giddy heights of the mid noughties again as production is declining (as you pointed out) and costs are rising (as you pointed out).

Unless you believe, somehow, that an iScotland will somehow overcome the falling production, manage to cut the increasing costs and somehow manage to get the price per barrel up again to where it was years ago?

We will just rely on Westminster going to War again...prices will surely go through the roof.
Oil and Gas will eventually run out for us all, the upshot of that is the price per barrel will become even more expensive as it becomes harder and harder to get a hold of.

a reply to: stumason

I don't recall mentioning anything about a movie. I'd curious why you think there's something wrong with getting all 'misty-eyed', as you put it and I'm simply pro-freedom and anti-imperialist.

I'm also not American.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

It's the tone of your comments which make it sound like you've watched Mr Gibson's film one too many times.

I am still puzzled why you think this vote has anything to do with "Freedom" or "anti imperialism". Of course, you are aware then, that Scotland not only did very well out of the Empire, but also led the charge? From the soldiers who went abroad to fight the pigmies with their sharpened mangoes, to the settlers who followed in their footsteps, to the administrators who brought "civilisation to the savages", a large proportion of them were Scots.

Blaming England for the "imperialism" is revisionist stupidity at it's best.

And also, you are aware, that if Scotland votes "Yes", it isn't just England that is left. Your ignorance of Wales and Northern Ireland is evident.

Not American? Where are you from then?

Westminster has no Plan B. They don't need one. They are desperate for Scotland to stay part of the UK hence all teh scare stories and disinformation.

Anyone with half a brain that has the opportunity to vote will vote Yes. The logic is ridiculously simple but for some reason there are too many people out there who believe everything fed to them by the very people who spread fear, lies and deceit across the planet.

Wake up people for Gods sake...