Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 22nd November 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Salmond rebuts 'arc of insolvency'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 October 2008
By Hamish Macdonell
Scottish Political Editor
ALEX Salmond insisted yesterday that Scotland would have been better off in the current economic crisis had it been independent.
The First Minister was responding to Labour claims that an independent Scotland would have experienced the sort of difficulties currently affecting Ireland, which is in a recession, and Iceland, which has had a banking meltdown.

Mr Salmond argued that Scotland would have been able to act quickly and decisively, like Ireland had done, to restore confidence in its banks, and might have been more like Norway, which is cushioned by a multi-billion-pound oil fund.

The argument was started by Jim Murphy, the new Scottish Secretary, who seized on remarks made by Mr Salmond several years ago when he praised Ireland, Iceland and Norway as the "arc of prosperity" and said Scotland should aspire to join that group.

Mr Murphy derided the three countries as the "arc of insolvency".

But Mr Salmond responded by insisting that Ireland and Iceland were not suffering because of their size, but because of the global crisis.



The full article contains 178 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Royster,

13/10/2008 00:16:09
Alex Salmond should resign and become a wet-nurse.
2

Cabbie,

Glenrothes 13/10/2008 01:13:42
Another doom and gloom story from the unionist, they never learn, do they?
The more they keep talking Scotland down the more the SNP gain.
3

aedis,

Glasgow 13/10/2008 01:15:24
Alex Salmond is right. Norway is riding this out much better than most other countries; even bailing out Icelandic banks out of courtesy!

We should be in the same position.

Instead, the recent World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey which measures how financially secure each nation's banks are put the UK at No. 44 in the world.

tinyurl.com/5485mp

Similar sized countries (to Scotland) like Sweden were 3rd, Denmark 5th.

Ireland is 9th, Norway is 15th.

Iceland with all its troubles have slipped down to 36th.

All still ahead of the UK.

As are Senegal, Botswana, Peru and El Salvador among others.

Go UK!!!!!!

Another Union dividend!
4

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 01:19:15
This too small to survive an economic crisis doesn't wash on two fronts.

1. Scotland is not yet Independent and therefore not yet in charge of all its resources, financial and otherwise. Holyrood doesn't yet have the mechanism of normal independent countries which are able to adjust quickly to any crisis which comes along.

2. Much larger countries, including the USA, Germany, France and of course the UK are also being tossed around like corks on the high seas.

These are unique, once in a lifetime circumstances and should no more be seen as a barrier to Scottish Independence than the threat of chemical or biological warfare.

As for Mr Murphy and others triumphantly holding up a near Scottish Banking disaster as a reason for sticking with the UK, that sir is dispicable.

Moreover those tired, threadbare arguments are not going down well with the voters as you Mr Murphy, Mr Brown and Mr Roy will see on November 6th.
5

James F,

East Ayr 13/10/2008 01:20:28
Already Jim Murphy is out of his depth. His suggestion that Scotland would have been in a worse state, had it been independent, is bizarre. Scotland has been bled dry of its oil wealth for the best part of 40 years by the leech that is Westmonster Raving Loony UK establishment. Ireland has no oil; Norway has plenty.

The comparison Jim Murphy meant to make (but couldn't find the necessary honesty) is between oil-rich Norway and potentially oil-rich Scotland. Norway is in a stronger position than the UK, Ireland and Iceland. The prospect of oil at $200 to $300 a barrel within the next few years makes it even more important for Scotland to grasp the mantle of independence sooner rather than later.
6

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 02:45:51
5 James F
If you make comparisons with another country you have to look at all aspects. Norway has an oil fund but it also has :
Income tax starting at 28% (UK20%)
Vat at 24% (UK 17.5%)
Vat at 12% on food (UK 0%)
7

Royster,

13/10/2008 02:50:56
Oil price heading down so outlook for Norway is not good as it is their only huge resource. Ireland deficit now 7% of GDP and rising. Ireland, like Iceland, is out of its depth and its policy bolis down to poncing off other EU nations by making promises it can't keep (like the bank deposit guarantee). Also, do you think an oil fund would be enough to stave off a banking crisis? Look at the billions needed. Salmond's answer that the crisis is to blame not the size of the country is laughable. Obviously, small countries cannot cope with big economic shocks because they are small.
8

Royster,

13/10/2008 02:50:57
Oil price heading down so outlook for Norway is not good as it is their only huge resource. Ireland deficit now 7% of GDP and rising. Ireland, like Iceland, is out of its depth and its policy bolis down to poncing off other EU nations by making promises it can't keep (like the bank deposit guarantee). Also, do you think an oil fund would be enough to stave off a banking crisis? Look at the billions needed. Salmond's answer that the crisis is to blame not the size of the country is laughable. Obviously, small countries cannot cope with big economic shocks because they are small.
9

Richardinho,

13/10/2008 02:56:46
#8 Maybe wait to see how the UK fares in this crisis before getting too smug.
10

Royster,

13/10/2008 03:05:53
#9. In the UK, there will be a reession because house prices got too high. That's usual in the UK where the housing market is the best way for most people to make money. However, it will not implode like Ireland's property market which has been living off ultra cheap euro loans for a decade. Ireland well and truly finished.
11

Rufus T. Firefly,

13/10/2008 03:50:15
Salmond could not possibly admit he was wrong. Could he?

Scotland could not have survived the current crisis on its own.

The case for independence is now DEAD.
12

Forward not Back,

13/10/2008 03:59:03
There is so much drivel going on here about how an "independent" Scotland would have handled this situation.

For a start, Scotland wouldn't have had a separate currency. It would either be using sterling or the euro. So, if Salmond had guaranteed all deposits in the sterling zone, money would have rushed north from England. HOWEVER, this would have put the Scottish government on the hook for almost all the deposits in the UK. There is no evidence that Scotland could support this liability on its own. This is why Ireland came under intolerable pressure from Europe over its guarantee but it had to do it, otherwise their banks would now have disappeared, taking down large parts of their economy with it.

That said, to talk about this "arc of insolvency" is a nonsense as well. Iceland is broke because the whole economy was run like a hedge fund and hence that's why the whole country is broke. Ireland's problem is that it needed higher interest rates years ago but because it was locked into the Euro, it boomed too far, despite the attempts to control things by fiscal policy. As for Norway, it's in reasonably good shape and is in better shape than the whole UK - too many people are falling for the spin that Brown is leading the world out of this crisis when he led the UK INTO this crisis!
13

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 13/10/2008 05:07:05
#11 - Rufus T. Firefly -

"Scotland could not have survived the current crisis on its own."
Would you care to offer some proof of this assertion or expect people to believe you without any backing except your own opinion?


"The case for independence is now DEAD." I ask again: Would you care to offer some proof of this assertion or expect people to believe you without any backing except your own opinion?
14

Stepford Nat,

13/10/2008 06:02:17
Mr Slamond needs more respect than he is getting here. Remember he knows his stuff, having previously been an oily economist with Royal Bank of Scotland
15

Royster,

13/10/2008 06:06:38
#13. Have a vote. A 'Yes' vote and you get independence a 'No' vote and Holyrood is abolished.
16

John S,

13/10/2008 06:38:38
Norway's sovereign wealth fund grew to a preliminary $364.2 billion in August 08, which equates to approx $78,711 for every person living in Norway.
The initial investment of $300 million was made in the spring of 1996.
The fund invests Norway's oil and gas wealth in foreign stocks and bonds to save for future generations when the oil runs out and to shield the Norwegian economy and currency from the threat of overheating through huge oil income.
17

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 06:57:01
16 JohnS
As I pointed out in post 6, Norway has an oil fund but it also has very high levels of taxation. It can use yhe money from yaxation to fund its public services thus leaving oil revenues free to go into the oil fund. Are you advocating similar levels of taxation hers?
18

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 13/10/2008 07:30:24
'Scottish' oil is a myth, and a fast disappearing one at that.

The oil is either British or Orkney/Shetlands' (since either of those islands want to be part of an independent Scotland).

An independent Scotland requires an economic base that is far more substantial and long lasting than oil.

The third largest Scottish city is London.
19

Rufus T. Firefly,

13/10/2008 07:39:05
#13 Sierra, Scotland has less than 1 million tax payers. The UK has over 20 million.

Scotland could not have afforded to bail out the 2 Scottish banks, that is clear.

The UK can however due to its size and the level of taxation it can collect.

As for the case for independence, well do you still think its on track?

Nobody in their right mind would vote for independence in the current climate.
20

Royster,

13/10/2008 07:40:17
#16. Yes but that is all they have and its level depends on the market. Selling a big chunk of the assets at today's prices to buy out HBOS and RBS would wipe out a signifiant chunk in a week. Anyway, how much would an equivalent Scottish fund be assuming they had invested in the same assets (ie how big is Scotland's oil revenue relative to Norway's)?
21

Peter Curran,

Kirkliston 13/10/2008 08:17:59
A financial crisis, and the Scottish unionist response is to squeal in terror and run to hide behind Daddy - the UK.

From any standpoint, Scotland would have handled this better if it had been an independent state, indeed, it is doubtful if we would have been in as big a mess in the first place. We are clearly not totally insulated from global financial catastrophes, but it is likely that, without the pernicious influence of the City of London and its gadarene pursuit of the second South Sea Bubble, the old Scottish virtues of caution and financial prudence would have shielded us from the worst effects.

I try to be objective and conciliatory in respect of other politicial viewpoints, but the contemptible instinct of our new, oleaginous Scottish Secretary to exploit the national difficulty makes my flesh crawl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giUZYyxKE0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey-5ymkm784
22

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 08:18:01
I would presume that Brown would still consider bailing-out RBS and/or HBOS, whether Scotland was independent, or not. Presumably they would both still be trading on the LSE, and would still be doing hugh business south of the border.
23

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 08:30:22
#21 Peter Curran

It hasn't got anything to do with independence - that is a blinkered view. It is to do with government regulation and intervention, and that may or may not be better with independence.
24

Royster,

13/10/2008 08:32:11
#22. I thought Scotland was big enough to stand on its own two feet? I see you have adopted the nationalist 'poncing' option.
25

Linda,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 08:34:53
Brown and Darling to blame as their lax financial regulations allowed these Banks to over extend themselves. No Banking crisis in Norway and many other small independent countries.

Ireland has committed up to £320 billions to protect its Banking system so even if an independent Scotland had allowed Halifax to takeover Bank of Scotland it would have acted much earlier just like Ireland to save our biggest Banks.

Ireland acted quicker than UK to save its Banks.
26

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 13/10/2008 09:10:59
#18 "The oil is either British or Orkney/Shetlands' (since either of those islands want to be part of an independent Scotland)."

Still got nothing to offer the debate but groundless flat-out lies, I see.

#6 Makes a valid point - Blair and Brown encouraged us for years in the fantasy of a "low-tax" economy funded entirely on the imaginary money of house prices. But it's highly debatable that OVERALL Norwegians are taxed any more than us, and rather more pertinent is the fact that they don't feel the need too squander billions waving their c*cks around on the international stage with wars and nuclear weapons.

And of course, Norway is the best possible example of where Scotland COULD have been if we'd had the courage to be independent. Their oil fund will protect them against even the worst financial disasters for decades to come, whereas our "prudent" Chancellor didn't put a penny away for a rainy day when allegedly we were in the good times.
27

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:14:33
"The First Minister was responding to Labour claims that an independent Scotland would have experienced the sort of difficulties currently affecting Ireland, which is in a recession, and Iceland, which has had a banking meltdown."

What a crock of party political lying sh*te. If you want to compare the nearest example of an Independent nation to Scotland then its Norway not Ireland or Iceland or Greenland or Narnia or Middle Earth.
Neither Ireland nor Iceland has the same resources available to them as Scotland and Norway.
If you want to compare Ireland or Iceland with anybody then compare them to an Independent England or Wales countries with relatively litte or no resouces.
Its the same old story that Scotland is the only nation on the planet incapable of going it alone.
28

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 09:14:38
Scotland bears little resembalence to Norway, Iceland, or Ireland. The same can be said of Norway, Iceland, and Ireland. The comparison tirade is tiresome.

#25 Linda... No crisis in Irish banking, so there was no need for 320 billion? erm...
29

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 09:14:39
Scotland bears little resembalence to Norway, Iceland, or Ireland. The same can be said of Norway, Iceland, and Ireland. The comparison tirade is tiresome.

#25 Linda... No crisis in Irish banking, so there was no need for 320 billion? erm...
30

Marian,

13/10/2008 09:15:10
It is a sad day for Scotland when New Labour and its media acolytes first response to the unfolding tragic financial crisis hitting RBS and HBOS is to try and score cheap points against the SNP government of Scotland and its leader Alex Salmond. If these myopic unionists took the time to listen and understand what the SNP is about they would have realised that an independent Scotland would have been economically managed very similarly to Norway with its own long-term oil fund to backup its economy and as such would not have been suffering in the way that the UK is going to under the catastrophic errors that New Labour has made.

They should also be aware that there is overwhelming evidence that Gordon Brown has long been a worshipper of the unfettered activities of U.S. and U.K. financial institutions that Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher wrought upon the U.S. and U.K. economies, and that that it is ultimately his inaction as Chancellor in curbing these activities over the past 11 years that has led the UK into becoming the worst affected G7 economy after the U.S.A.
31

Nevsky,

Moscow 13/10/2008 09:15:48
Norway is fine as are the other Scandinavian countries, Ireland is fine..UK going down the pan in debt.

Perhaps it is time to hand the UK over to Europe, the country clearly does not have a clue what it is doing; massive national debt to follow, increase in tax, slashed public spending and a recession in one of the worst performing countries in this crisis.

Better London hands over to Deutsch Bank and let them deal with it!

32

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:16:21
18

The only myth you have displayed on these blogs is the fact that youre a serious poster and not a sh*t stirring idiot of a troll.
33

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:18:56
28

Scotland has more or less the same population as Norway and more oil and gas resouces available to them.
Both countries also have pure water supplies and are in very good locations for wind and wave power.
In fact we have more similarities with Norway than any other nation on the planet.
34

Peter Curran,

13/10/2008 09:20:57
23 The Tin Man

I agree that it has to do with government intervention and regulation, and I believe that would have happened earlier and more effectively in an independent Scotland.

35

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:21:10
20

Well considering there are 250 production platforms in the UK sector of the North sea compared to 85 in the Norwegian why dont you work it out for yourself.
36

Peter Curran,

Kirkliston 13/10/2008 09:26:14
23 The Tin Man

I accept that it is, in significant part, about government intervention and regulation, and I believe that would have happened earlier and more effectively in an independent Scotland. The creaking, dysfunctional behemoth that is the UK has lost its capacity to react effectively to events, together with any objectivity about the world it inhabits.

Scotland sees the world around it clearly, and knows what it must do, but it does not yet have the freedom it needs to implement its vision fully.
37

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 09:27:44
#33 superparcel

Norway is a post-agrarian society, Scotland is a post-industrail society. In that respect, we have more in common with the North of England (population distribution, infrastructure, political outlook, etc).

But you are correct that they are both northern countries with oil.
38

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 09:28:04
35 Parcel
"Well considering there are 250 production platforms in the UK sector of the North sea compared to 85 in the Norwegian why dont you work it out for yourself".

Not relevant - not all platforms produce the same amount of oil. Norway's oil production has been 40/50% higher than total UK production for the last 10 years. (source International Energy Authority). Of course you may not accept it and claim that the IEA is lying as you always do when any respected body comes out with info which does not suit your argument.
39

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:28:14
19

What is abundantly clearer every day is you are a lying torag of a troll nothing more.
The world is full of nations with similar populations to Scotland without our resources raising more than enough to get along just fine.
Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore, Croatia, Slovakia, etc etc etc.
Why dont you try comming up with honest arguments for a change or is defending the impossible too much for you?
40

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 09:29:31
#36 Peter Curran

Maybe, maybe not. An Icelandic situation is just as possible, but it is still irrelevent.
41

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:30:05
38

The relevance is in the potential. Just because the UK government chooses not to produce from some platforms doesnt mean a Scottish Government wont choose to produce from them.
There isnt a single platform in the UK sector that isnt sitting on oil or gas just waiting to be exploited. Norway has its own national oil industry why cant an Independent Scotland?
42

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:32:54
38

Only according to the UK government and NOBODY ELSE.
The IAE gets their data and stats from the UK government and nowhere else as I have explained countless times on here already.

THERE IS ONLY ONE PHUQING SOURCE OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND REVENUE DATA FOR THE UK SECTOR OF THE NORTH SEA AND THAT IS THE UK GOVERNMENT NO WHERE ELSE.

WHICH IS WHY THE FIGURES ARE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME NO MATTER WHO PUBLISHES THEM.
43

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:34:58
38

And Ugly you have already agreed with me that Governments only produce figures and stats which show them in a good light not figures and stats that reflect the true situation.
44

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:41:27
37

Every nation on the planet was an agrarian country as was the North South East and West of England once moron and both Scotland and Norway have evolved into industrial nations.
If you have nothing to post then post nothing it isnt rocket science.
45

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 09:42:46
42 Parcel
Why do you think that putting something in capital letters gives it any more credence. Nobody apart from yourself disputes the figures.

Have you seen how the figures are compiled. They detail production field by field month by month and are taken from the meters on production platforms. So, if the figures are false, loads of people on each platform can see this. If these figures are, as you claim, deliberatley distorted then every oil company operating in the North Sea must be a deliberate part of the distortion.

Also all bodies do not get their figure from BERR. If you consult the OPEC website you will see that it already has provisional figures for August UK production but BERR have not yet released these so where did OPEC get the figures from? Or are they yet another group which conspires with the oil companies to falsify the figures.
46

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 09:45:20
38 Parcel
Contrived distortion of what I said. As I made clear at the time, there is a difference between not publishing something and publishing deliberately false info.
47

Ugly George,

13/10/2008 09:49:46
38 Parcel
" Just because the UK government chooses not to produce from some platforms doesnt mean a Scottish Government wont choose to produce from them."

It is not up to the UK govt - it is up to the oil companies. Platforms etc. can cost over $200000 per day to hire. Do you think that the oil companies are going to spend this sort of money leaving them idle just to keep the UK govt happy. Why would they do that and why would the govt want them to do that considering that that would mean loss of revenue.
48

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:51:22
45

Well its obvious you are having problems reading the small print as I find myself having to repeat my points over and over again to the same troll.

Production platforms dont have "METERS" measuring oil flow numbnuts they have control rooms using Scada instrumentation to monitor all aspects of the production for safety purposes. There are sensors giving data on pressure, heat, valve control etc etc.
The volume measurement is done in the refineries under Government control. Its how they monitor how much revenue to charge or do you think the Government allows the individual companies to tell them how much revenue is due?
49

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 09:52:23
39 parcel
"you are a lying torag of a troll nothing more."

I see that you are adhering to your usual eloquent, erudite and sophisticated method of debate.
50

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:53:30
47

Wrong wrong wrong its the UK national resource and the oil and gas companies are on licence to produce by the UK government which can be withdrawn at any time.
You either know absolutely nothing about the oil and gas industry or yer just a lying torag. I think its both.
51

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:54:04
49

Yes as opposed to lying through my teeth though eh?
52

Ugly George,

13/10/2008 09:54:44
48 Parcel
"The volume measurement is done in the refineries under Government control. Its how they monitor how much revenue to charge or do you think"

So why do the oil companies quote how much they are producing from each field (as they do) if they cant measure it.
53

pehman,

sussex 13/10/2008 09:56:01

The worlds biggest economy (the US) is in recession

The worlds biggest Country (Russia) has closed its stock market, to prevent selling getting out of hand

Is size relevent in this crisis ?

If as maggie tells us the UK is well placed to weather this storm, then why is begging money from China and why is the RBS in in trouble when it owns around 20% of the Bank of China ?

54

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:56:24
52

THEY DONT THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The oil companies get the info from FEEDBACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
55

Ugly George,

13/10/2008 09:56:44
50 Parcel
"Wrong wrong wrong its the UK national resource and the oil and gas companies are on licence to produce by the UK government which can be withdrawn at any time."

So are you saying that the UK govt tells oil companies with platforms in place not to extract the oil.?
56

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 09:58:34
52

The total volume of what flows through an oil pipeline isnt just oil there is water and impurities in there as well which is why its measured after its filtered.
57

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 09:59:03
54 Parcel
"The oil companies get the info from FEEDBACK"

But the oil from several fields flows into the same pipeline before it reaches the terminal so how can they separate out the amounts from each field to give the feedback.
58

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:00:40
55

Government all over the world determine how much oil and gas goes onto the market at any one time I thought everybody knew that? WTF do you think OPEC does all day?
59

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:03:43
57

Which companies are sharing pipelines UGLY?
60

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 10:04:17
58 Parcel
Well answer me this question then. Why would the UK govt restrict the amount of oil flowing when it gets revenue from it. What is their motivation. OPEC does int to attempt to control the price. What is Gordon Brown's motivation. Does he not need any more cash?
61

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 10:05:34
59 Parcel
Several different ones use the Forties pipeline which takes oil from a number of fields.
62

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:07:26
60

Oil production is controlled globally or else there would be feast and famine. OPEC uses the control of oil production as a political tool with threats of either over producing or under producing depending on situation at the time which is why oil reserves are so important.
63

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:08:50
61

Oh dear Ugly only Apache are operating in the Forties nobody else.
64

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 10:11:57
63 Parcel
Apache operate the Forties filed but many others use the Forties pipeline including Nexen from the Buzzard field.
65

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 10:13:20
62 Parcel
So you are saying that the UK and US govts (and many oyhers) collude with OPEC to restrict the production of oil.
66

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:15:50
60

"Well answer me this question then. Why would the UK govt restrict the amount of oil flowing when it gets revenue from it. What is their motivation. OPEC does int to attempt to control the price. What is Gordon Brown's motivation. Does he not need any more cash?"

Maybe you can explain why the Government claims it only produces 1.6bn barrels per annum when the potential for so much more is possible? especially when as you say its so desperate for the cash?
Or maybe the UK sector is now in full production and cant produce anymore and the figures are doctored and put out because the country is in a constitutional crises and the UK government doesnt want the Scots to know just how big the gold mine is they are sitting on.
Lets face it its not as if they havent already been caught lying about the figures is it?
67

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 10:17:14
64 Parcel
PS You claimed earlier that there are 250 platforms in the North Sea. Are you therefore claiming that there are 250 separate pipelines coming into terminals from the North Sea. These pipelines feed into each other before they reach the terminal. Have a look at an infrastructure map of the North SEA. Oh - you will probably claim that that is a lie as well.
68

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:17:17
64

But according to you and the UK government these fields dont produce anything????
1.6bn barrels per annum remember????
You cant have all the fields in production and only produce 1.6bn barrels now can you??
69

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:19:10
67 see 68.

So which is it are these fields in full production or not? and if not then the only measurement is the Forties measured at Grangemouth and the Brent measured at Sullom Voe.
70

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 10:20:06
66 Parcel
If they are lying about the figures tehre must be loads of people working all over the oil industry who could expose it. Why don't they. And who else, apart from yourself, disputes the figures.
71

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:21:17
70

Yes I am one of em how about you where does your experiance with the oil and gas industry come from?
72

Ugly George,

13/10/2008 10:21:54
69 Parcel
"measurement is the Forties measured at Grangemouth and the Brent measured at Sullom Voe"

Not the case. How can these terminals know how much is produced in each field.
73

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:23:19
70

Oh and lets not forget Professor McCrone and all those politicians who suppressed his report they know the truth also as does everybody else who has read the report.
74

Ugly George,

13/10/2008 10:24:00
71 Parcel
"Yes I am one of em how about you where does your experiance with the oil and gas industry come from?"

Now you are saying that you work in the oil industry and have exposed the falsification of prioduction figures,. Why have you not taken this to the press. Must be a good story.
75

Ugly George,

13/10/2008 10:25:30
73 Parcel
How can a projection and forecast reveal truth - it can only say what might happen. It cannot say what did happen.
76

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 10:25:36
I would suggest to Superparcelofrogues that he desists from advertising his amusing ignorance of the oil industry, and seeks help for his Tourette's syndrome.

Produced oil is seperated at source in the N. Sea. Who would flow salty water through a 100 mile pipeline?

Oil companies strictly monitor oil production rates (their shareholders would go balistic if they didn't), and the figures are available in their public reports.

Production from various operators is co-mingled into e.g. the main Forties pipeline, although the pipeline may be operated by Apache.

Oil can only be used as a political tool where production is in the hands of national companies, although I don't think that Norway indulges in that kind of behaviour with Statoil & Norsk.

In the oil business, there has always been 'feast or famine'.
77

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:26:04
70

So how about you Ugly where is the evidence that says they dont doctor their figures and data?
78

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:28:31
76

There are all kinds of impurities in the oil pumped in from offshore including seawater and natural gas numbnuts which is filtered at the end of the pipeline.
Most of the Gas is burned off on the platform itself but not all of it as is most of the water but not all of it.
79

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 10:31:19
77 Parcel
Where is the evidence that they do?

Apart from your assertions that is - assertions not shared by anybody else. I wonder why?
80

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:31:33
75

He also revealed the existing figures to be false and produced the true figures of the time.
Now yer spinning like a dervish.
81

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:33:11
79

The MCCRONE REPORT FOR ONE the unemployment data scandal the immigration figure scandal and the proven beyond all doubt inflation figure lies.
82

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 10:35:25
79

And the Tory party believe they are lying about their data and stats as well.
83

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 10:45:23
#78 superparcel

Whether my nuts are numb, or not, your reference to 'filtering' crude oil betrays a deep ignorance of of the subject.
84

Rob,

13/10/2008 11:02:12
Alex surely realises today that the game is up. Using Ireland as an example right now is ingenuous and he knows it - if the Irish banking system is called it will be proved to be insolvent, not just illiquid.

What will remain of Scotland's banking system (which as we know was not owned by Scotland or Scots) will be down to decisions made by the UK Government who may or may not take a Barnet Formula approach to it. They do have to take account of Yorkshire and the City as well as Edinburgh and if Salmond carries on his smart assed rhetoric we can guess what their inclination will be and who could blame them? He's already put the begging bowl our for a quickie billion and another for £120 million from the fossil fuel level - ie, making a claim on more money that isn't ours.

He now sells the prospect of an independent Scotland in which all the financial institutions will be foreign owned. The man knows no shame and it is tragic that he continues to embarrass the Scottish people with his selfish and doomed agenda
85

Alan B,

13/10/2008 11:17:05
Labour using its own economic incompetence to justify the union is completely ridiculous.

How badly a country is effected by this global financial crisis will depend on how well managed your economy has been. The uk is being hit worse than most due to Browns economic incompetence.

Australia does not have the same banking crisis becuase it did not make a mess of the financial regulations in the same way Brown did.
86

John S,

13/10/2008 11:20:11
Jim Murphy did you read the Seattle Times on Nov 20, 2007
With a per-capita income of $65,509, Norway ranks second only to superrich Luxembourg. Much of the wealth derives from North Sea oil, but Norwegians have barely touched a penny of it, instead putting more than $350 billion into an investment fund for future generations.

Health-care services are considered among the best in the world and are available to everyone, with the cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $200 a year. Elderly Norwegians seeking to escape the harsh northern winters can retire to government-run geriatric communities in sunny Spain

The combination of high taxes in exchange for a dazzling array of social-welfare benefits provided by the state has created an extraordinarily cohesive society with a strong egalitarian streak.

A few other countries with oil money have taken note and "It's a lot easier when you have transparent institutions, an educated population and a long history of democracy with very little corruption," Martin Skancke, who heads the Norwegian Finance Ministry's asset department said.

In Europe's second-wealthiest country, "you won't see opulence or ostentatious consumption," said Stein Iversen, a Norwegian diplomat. Norwegians take pride in their sense of shared values and ability to run things by consensus.
Undoubtedly, it helps to be a small nation-Norway's population is 4.6 million-and ethnically homogeneous.
87

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 11:37:33
42 days detention without trial for all 20-year-olds caught on CCTV in possession of a tin of beer.
88

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 11:38:43
Whoops.... senior moment....
89

The Tin Man,

13/10/2008 11:48:02
#86 John S

Good luck with your Nordic emmigration. However, under EU rules your emmigration to Luxemburg will be easier.
90

Peter Curran,

Kirkliston 13/10/2008 11:58:21
#84 Rob

If Alex Salmond "continues to embarrass the Scottish people ---", they are showing their embarrassment in a strange way, by voting him into office, wiping out Labour in their fiefdom of Glasgow East and returning an SNP candidate to Westminster, planning to remove Labour in Glenrothes, and consistently voting our First Minister the most popular leader in opinion polls.

Strange people, these Scots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey-5ymkm784
91

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 13/10/2008 12:03:01
While Salmond may be a "qualified economist", he is also a qualified bampot. Scotland deserves far far better.
92

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 12:28:40
Independence is normality.
93

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 13/10/2008 13:00:59
Just to get some perspection on this oil/no oil income.

Scotland could have bought and paid for the the 'saving' of the RBS and HSoB with one to three years(variation due to who's figures you believe) of its oil and hydrocarbon earnings.

To say the financial crises would not have impacted Scotland is naive. To say its membership of the Union has saved Scotland from bankruptcy is idiocy. To claim Scotland has been bailed out by Westminster is certifiable idiocy.

Westminsters position today is the same as its always been, save Westminster.
94

Miss H,

13/10/2008 13:21:33
84 In fact the money is all due to Scotland under rules set down by Westminster. It's all itemised. You can argue against each item if you like. The point about getting it in a onner is that it can be used immediately to boost the economy. If you would rather that did not happen you might want to share why?
95

ThomasP,

13/10/2008 13:27:56
There are other countries similar to Scotland inside the European Union who are doing well, why is there no mention to them?

Ireland still has low taxes, Iceland still has control of her fishing grounds, Yes these countries are struggling during a global crisis but the benefits to there Independence is still there.
96

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 13/10/2008 13:34:50
#1 and you should become the t!t.
97

Calvinist,

13/10/2008 14:21:59
If Norway is doing so well why did it have to borrow $5 billion from the US federal reserve on the 29th of September? Some people will believe anything and they're called Nationalists.
98

Stuntman Mike,

13/10/2008 14:37:31
I can't believe Supernat's still pushing the separation policy: for starters, the Norwegians have said that a separatist Scotland couldn't afford to copy their multi billion pound oil fund and Irish growth dropped to miuns 1.3% in the first quarter of this year.
99

Stuntman Mike,

13/10/2008 14:44:20
As for Ireland's having been able to act "quickly an