5 ms·

Doesn't the fact that Scotland owns the oil fields answer the economic problem, at least while everyone still wants oil? (not rhetorical, I haven't seen the num

Doesn't the fact that Scotland owns the oil fields answer the economic problem, at least while everyone still wants oil? (not rhetorical, I haven't seen the numbers & I presume that's what TFA and its sequels aim to address, among other things).

iso1631 4y ago
Since the 2014 referendum upto 2021, total oil revenue has been about £5b, that's £700m a year Pre-covid, Scottish public spending was about £15b a year more than tax revenue. I believe the SNP position is that historical revenues should be taken into account for historic debt, but Scotland still has to convince the world to lend it a hell of a lot of money every year to pay for those services, even if they took all the North Sea old revenue (which seems an odd thing for a government with Green backing to be relying on)
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > but Scotland still has to convince the world to lend it a hell of a lot of money every year to pay for those services, even if they took all the North Sea old revenue (which seems an odd thing for a government with Green backing to be relying on) The revenues from oil are going to be somewhat predictably stable for the next ten to fifteen years, there is simply too much infrastructure in Europe that relies on burning or otherwise using fossil-origin oil and gas. Banks and other investors can make an investment backed by this expected income.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    They haven't been for the last 10 to 15 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/350890/united-kingdom-uk-north-sea-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/350890/united-kingdom-uk...
    - mvc 4y ago
      "past performance is no guarantee of future results"
      - iso1631 4y ago
        Betting an economy on a high price of oil seems risky, especially when you're a minor player
        mvc 4y ago
        I'm more worried about what happens when the oil runs out. Apparently it's the only thing of any value in Scotland and in 30 years, we're supposed to be net-zero. What happens when Scotland's geographical resources cease to be of any use to wealthy English people?
        iso1631 4y ago
        Without independence, same as now. Given that even including north sea revenue Scotland is still subsidised by London There's tons of future stuff that could be invested in Scotland -- offshore wind and tidal and pumped hydro for example. That investment isn't there because the UK (and the EU for that matter) is market led and the market wants short term results over long term investment.
        mvc 4y ago
        > Without independence, same as now. Given that even including north sea revenue Scotland is still subsidised by London Forgive me if I've misinterpreted, but you seem to think that's an argument for staying in the UK but I see it as an argument for getting out. It's a crutch, and Scotland needs to figure out how to stand on it's own power. Why should rUK subsidise indefinitely? What if suddenly it decides to stop? And why shoudn't it?
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Yes, but that was a time where cheap oil from Russia and Saudi-Arabia was plentiful. Scotland as an EU member however could be sold to the public as a better choice than a warmonger and a dictatorship.
bradleyjg 4y ago
My understanding is they’ve peaked and are declining.
Codesleuth 4y ago
I don't think it's a fact - this article[1] explains a lot of the complications around ownership. Currently it's taxed as part of the UKCS (UK Continental Shelf) and assignments of operation are part of the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA)[2] which doesn't consider any particular region of the UK as owners, but as part of a whole regional area instead. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-200... [2]: https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/ https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/
petesergeant 4y ago
The current situation is that the UK, not Scotland, owns the oil fields. A maritime boundary would need to be drawn and negotiated. If Westminster really wanted to stick the boot in, they could offer Shetland a vote on becoming a Crown Dependency first.
- mvc 4y ago
  The fact that Westminster can if it chooses to "stick the boot in", together with the possibility that it might, is evidence enough IMO to support independence. The trust has gone. I want us ruling our own affairs.
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    Would you support Shetland independence, even if it meant Scotland losing most of its oil revenue?
    - mvc 4y ago
      The oil revenue is a short-term concern. In 30 years, hopefully there's zero oil revenue. But what happens in the meantime is important. I have zero faith that a UK government will invest in alternatives that will generate wealth for people living in Scotland.
physicsguy 4y ago
At a time when North Sea gas revenue is declining, and we're trying to move away from fossil fuels? That's not a strong place to base an economy around.

iso1631 4y ago

Since the 2014 referendum upto 2021, total oil revenue has been about £5b, that's £700m a year Pre-covid, Scottish public spending was about £15b a year more than tax revenue. I believe the SNP position is that historical revenues should be taken into account for historic debt, but Scotland still has to convince the world to lend it a hell of a lot of money every year to pay for those services, even if they took all the North Sea old revenue (which seems an odd thing for a government with Green backing to be relying on)

mschuster91 4y ago
> but Scotland still has to convince the world to lend it a hell of a lot of money every year to pay for those services, even if they took all the North Sea old revenue (which seems an odd thing for a government with Green backing to be relying on) The revenues from oil are going to be somewhat predictably stable for the next ten to fifteen years, there is simply too much infrastructure in Europe that relies on burning or otherwise using fossil-origin oil and gas. Banks and other investors can make an investment backed by this expected income.
- iso1631 4y ago
  They haven't been for the last 10 to 15 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/350890/united-kingdom-uk-north-sea-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/350890/united-kingdom-uk...
  - mvc 4y ago
    "past performance is no guarantee of future results"
    - iso1631 4y ago
      Betting an economy on a high price of oil seems risky, especially when you're a minor player
      - mvc 4y ago
        I'm more worried about what happens when the oil runs out. Apparently it's the only thing of any value in Scotland and in 30 years, we're supposed to be net-zero. What happens when Scotland's geographical resources cease to be of any use to wealthy English people?
        iso1631 4y ago
        Without independence, same as now. Given that even including north sea revenue Scotland is still subsidised by London There's tons of future stuff that could be invested in Scotland -- offshore wind and tidal and pumped hydro for example. That investment isn't there because the UK (and the EU for that matter) is market led and the market wants short term results over long term investment.
        mvc 4y ago
        > Without independence, same as now. Given that even including north sea revenue Scotland is still subsidised by London Forgive me if I've misinterpreted, but you seem to think that's an argument for staying in the UK but I see it as an argument for getting out. It's a crutch, and Scotland needs to figure out how to stand on it's own power. Why should rUK subsidise indefinitely? What if suddenly it decides to stop? And why shoudn't it?
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Yes, but that was a time where cheap oil from Russia and Saudi-Arabia was plentiful. Scotland as an EU member however could be sold to the public as a better choice than a warmonger and a dictatorship.

bradleyjg 4y ago

My understanding is they’ve peaked and are declining.

Codesleuth 4y ago

I don't think it's a fact - this article[1] explains a lot of the complications around ownership. Currently it's taxed as part of the UKCS (UK Continental Shelf) and assignments of operation are part of the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA)[2] which doesn't consider any particular region of the UK as owners, but as part of a whole regional area instead. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-200... [2]: https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/ https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/

petesergeant 4y ago

The current situation is that the UK, not Scotland, owns the oil fields. A maritime boundary would need to be drawn and negotiated. If Westminster really wanted to stick the boot in, they could offer Shetland a vote on becoming a Crown Dependency first.

mvc 4y ago
The fact that Westminster can if it chooses to "stick the boot in", together with the possibility that it might, is evidence enough IMO to support independence. The trust has gone. I want us ruling our own affairs.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  Would you support Shetland independence, even if it meant Scotland losing most of its oil revenue?
  - mvc 4y ago
    The oil revenue is a short-term concern. In 30 years, hopefully there's zero oil revenue. But what happens in the meantime is important. I have zero faith that a UK government will invest in alternatives that will generate wealth for people living in Scotland.

physicsguy 4y ago

At a time when North Sea gas revenue is declining, and we're trying to move away from fossil fuels? That's not a strong place to base an economy around.