3 ms·

Because Canada has a massive Oil sector, Scotland doesn't so much - and with a tinge of hypocrisy they want a bigger share of the revenue proceeds from North Se

by jariel 6y ago

Because Canada has a massive Oil sector, Scotland doesn't so much - and with a tinge of hypocrisy they want a bigger share of the revenue proceeds from North Sea Oil. Canada's economic influence in the world is fairly strongly tied to Oil to the point where over the last 30 years it's correlated with the buying power of the dollar, and certainly the economic veracity of most Alberta. It also fundamentally alters the surplus/deficit scenario - it's a 'major component' (though not nearly like Norway). iPhones and many foreign cars in Canada are about 25% more expensive than they were a few years ago for example. Environmental issues aside, there is a lot of downside - it's not just like all that industry can be shifted from one part of the economy to the other.

neom 6y ago
I completely agree with everything you're saying, and I also agree it's not easy to switch the components of the economy out willy nilly (oil for solar or wind farms, for example) - but I do believe if we don't make a concerted effort to finish a shift of phasing out our reliance on oil and its use as our international leverage, we're going to be in a world of trouble in 40 or so years.
lizknope 6y ago
I thought Scotland DID have a large oil sector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil You can argue whether it is Scotland's or the UK's but I live in the US and it is up to Scotland and the UK to sort out independence and their place in the EU.
- batpangolin 6y ago
  Yes, in fact the 'jobs split' between Scotland and England is probably more in Scotland's favor than any putative split of the oilfields after Scottish independence would be. There is a concentration of oil infrastructure in Scotland and oilfields which would be in English territorial waters are serviced from Scotland.
- jariel 6y ago
  They did, but according to their stats Scotland has 100K people 'dependent' on the sector, Alberta alone has 400K. Alberta is 4.5M pop. Scotland is 5.5M. Alberta will unfortunately not be able to turn those Oilsands dredgers into windmills. The windmills will probably be made and installed by totally unrelated entities. If I were the King of Alberta I would play all my cards on some kind of carbon capture tech because it's not entirely infeasible. Maybe not for cars, but for installed engines and there will be plenty of demand for fuel if it can be used without CO2 emissions especially.
RobertKerans 6y ago
> Environmental issues aside, there is a lot of downside - it's not just like all that industry can be shifted from one part of the economy to the other. Yep. But the planning for it has to be done, because this change is visible on the horizon. If it isn't planned for, the shift will be forced, happen rapidly, and most of the ill effects will hit those least able to handle them. (I mean, it probably won't be, or at least not even close to the level it needs to be, and only thing most people can do is vote...) I'm from the north of England, and the economy of the region has, as long as I've been alive, been depressed. Heavy manufacturing leaving the area (leaving the UK...): that's a major cause. But coal mining used to be central -- it was dying for a long time but it was really put to the sword in the 1980s. It was inevitable that it had to happen, just as I think this is, but the way it happened devastated the region -- and that's translated into several decades of damage, and has had hugely detrimental effects, particularly social. The idea was that retraining would happen, the economy would be shifted, but they were mostly empty promises (why do people of a certain age hate Thatcher with every iota of their beings? Well...). Most of my family are from or live in the north of Scotland, and it's gone from the majority of them being employed in oil industry or oil industry-adjacent jobs to...not in the last 10-15 years. It's biting hard there (though there are jobs in renewables: not enough, but much better than situation was in NE England)

by jariel 6y ago

neom 6y ago

I completely agree with everything you're saying, and I also agree it's not easy to switch the components of the economy out willy nilly (oil for solar or wind farms, for example) - but I do believe if we don't make a concerted effort to finish a shift of phasing out our reliance on oil and its use as our international leverage, we're going to be in a world of trouble in 40 or so years.

lizknope 6y ago

I thought Scotland DID have a large oil sector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil You can argue whether it is Scotland's or the UK's but I live in the US and it is up to Scotland and the UK to sort out independence and their place in the EU.

batpangolin 6y ago
Yes, in fact the 'jobs split' between Scotland and England is probably more in Scotland's favor than any putative split of the oilfields after Scottish independence would be. There is a concentration of oil infrastructure in Scotland and oilfields which would be in English territorial waters are serviced from Scotland.
jariel 6y ago
They did, but according to their stats Scotland has 100K people 'dependent' on the sector, Alberta alone has 400K. Alberta is 4.5M pop. Scotland is 5.5M. Alberta will unfortunately not be able to turn those Oilsands dredgers into windmills. The windmills will probably be made and installed by totally unrelated entities. If I were the King of Alberta I would play all my cards on some kind of carbon capture tech because it's not entirely infeasible. Maybe not for cars, but for installed engines and there will be plenty of demand for fuel if it can be used without CO2 emissions especially.

RobertKerans 6y ago

> Environmental issues aside, there is a lot of downside - it's not just like all that industry can be shifted from one part of the economy to the other. Yep. But the planning for it has to be done, because this change is visible on the horizon. If it isn't planned for, the shift will be forced, happen rapidly, and most of the ill effects will hit those least able to handle them. (I mean, it probably won't be, or at least not even close to the level it needs to be, and only thing most people can do is vote...) I'm from the north of England, and the economy of the region has, as long as I've been alive, been depressed. Heavy manufacturing leaving the area (leaving the UK...): that's a major cause. But coal mining used to be central -- it was dying for a long time but it was really put to the sword in the 1980s. It was inevitable that it had to happen, just as I think this is, but the way it happened devastated the region -- and that's translated into several decades of damage, and has had hugely detrimental effects, particularly social. The idea was that retraining would happen, the economy would be shifted, but they were mostly empty promises (why do people of a certain age hate Thatcher with every iota of their beings? Well...). Most of my family are from or live in the north of Scotland, and it's gone from the majority of them being employed in oil industry or oil industry-adjacent jobs to...not in the last 10-15 years. It's biting hard there (though there are jobs in renewables: not enough, but much better than situation was in NE England)