egafd.com

Salmond believes the entire process of setting up an independent Scotland and the entire government infrastructure to support that, together with all the negotiations on splitting the assets. will be completed in 18 months time!!!!!!!!!

For me one of the key questions to ask Salmond is "Why are you so scared of independence?"

Having a currency union with the remainder of the UK where interest rates are set by the Bank of England and Scottish spending plans have to be okayed by the Westminster government does not strike me as independence any more than Spain that has to kow tow to the EU Central Bank is truly independent.

Only twice, 1964 and 1974, has the contribution of Scottish votes changed the UK government from one party to another (Con to Lab) .
Your comments regarding 2005-2010 are untrue.
The oil is forecast (UK governement) to run until at least 2050. There are other industry experts who reckon up to 100 years worth. The west coast is at present relatively untapped, see the McCrone report, as it would have interfered with Trident.
Regarding the Barnett formula, over the last 5 years, Scotland has contributed 9.5% of UK taxation and has received back 9.3%. Yes we have a higher public spending rate than the rest of UK, around ?1400/year. It has been argued that London has the highest public spending rate however, conveniently, the London sewerage project, London Underground upgrade and HS2 have been incorporated into national figures so it is difficult to be exact...funny that, eh?

On the "whose oil is it anyway?" question it is generally accepted that it will be split as per international waters. This is why in 1999, the UK government moved "the maritime border" between Scotland and England from a right angle to Berwick out at an angle which incorporated approximately 10% of the UK oil and gas fields.
David, I agree with your point on "true" independence but would also point out that th UK government would not ratify Scotland's plans. It would be the BofE who would have a board (proposed) made up of 1:9 Scotland: rUK. Personally I would prefer our own currency.

It is worth pointing out that the Scottish government has been ?5bn out in terms of estimating oil and gas revenues over the last 2 years.

That is a bit of a big hole for a country with an economy the size of Scotland's.

Since 2002, oil and gas revenues have on average increased or decreased by nearly 35% each year, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Difficult to run a country's budget where 15-20% of your total tax revenue is oil and gas as is the case of Scotland,

"Only twice, 1964 and 1974, has the contribution of Scottish votes changed the UK government from one party to another (Con to Lab) . Your comments regarding 2005-2010 are untrue."

You may be right, but what I stated about the 2005-10 Westminster government I have read several times in different publications and have heard it on TV aswell.

"The oil is forecast (UK government) to run until at least 2050. There are other industry experts who reckon up to 100 years worth. The west coast is at present relatively untapped, see the McCrone report, as it would have interfered with Trident"

So there might be another 36 years of oil left, until 2050, it might run a lot longer, but it is certainly a finite resource.

"Regarding the Barnett formula, over the last 5 years, Scotland has contributed 9.5% of UK taxation and has received back 9.3%. Yes we have a higher public spending rate than the rest of UK, around ?1400/year. It has been argued that London has the highest public spending rate however, conveniently, the London sewerage project, London Underground upgrade and HS2..."

I'll take your word for it if those are the figures, that Scotland has paid more in than it's got out, you have obviously researched this more than I have. I was always under the impression that with the Barnett Formula Scotland continues to benefit. As London is the headquarters of the UK (and is as far as I know Europes biggest city, it used to be the worlds biggest city) it is inevitable more money will be spent on its transport network than gets spent on, say, the transport networks of Edinburgh or Glasgow. The London sewerage project I don't know what the figures on that are, and HS2 benefits the whole of the UK - if one calls saving about 30 minutes or whatever it is on train journeys. Personally I don't think HS2 should happen, it is a huge expense for little gain, but eventually there will be superfast rail links from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Paris and beyond, and HS2 will be part of that.

And Norway's budget is 35% oil/gas. Aye it's a nightmare all this oil!

As Salmond wants to keep the pound and as the Bank of England will be 'lender of last resort' for an "independent Scotland" (wont really be independent though will it?) then it seems England will pick up the tab when things go wrong north of the border. Very unfair on us, very beneficial for them.

I'll go 54-46 for a No vote. Then I can piss myself laughing at McSalmond and his bitch thinking...."fuck me we lost. Now how can still make a lucrative career out of politics??"....

on bank bailouts:
The UK governement contributed ?66bn to RBS and HBoS combined. The US federal reserve contributed ?285bn and ?115bn to those banks.

Uk gave nothing to Barclays, but the US federal reserve gave them ?552bn and the Qatari royla family gave them ?6bn.

The UK also offered ?7bn to the Irish economy.