RuamRudy

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    2,312
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,450 Excellent

About RuamRudy

  • Rank
    Oscillates Wildly

Recent Profile Visitors

3,335 profile views
  1. Given our country's track record of fawning slavishly over the most repugnant of regimes in an effort to sell them more bombs to kill more innocent people, this is hardly headline stuff.
  2. This surely tells you all you need to know about Farage - he never misses an opportunity to show his true colours:
  3. Is the liquid ban a big issue, what with sealed bags now used as standard? I know that there are some restrictions in some locations re: transferring flights, but those seem to be the exception. Maybe we will see the same solution for electronics. I agree with you about the prices - I have never found Dubai Duty Free to be a bargain; quite the opposite, in fact. There is something that seems to change one's perception in airports, and suddenly £10 for a stale sandwich and a cup of coffee seems reasonable.
  4. Unfortunately, due to how data is compiled and attributed to the regions, any figures (yes, even the one that says that Scotland's GVA exceeds that of Yorkshire) have to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. These two (non-partisan) blogs explain just why UK centralisation makes it impossible to accurately attribute to the regions much of the many data sources used to estimate income and expenditure for said regions: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/03/14/why-economic-data-provided-by-london-will-not-help-the-scottish-independence-debate/ http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/03/15/more-on-why-gers-might-properly-be-called-crap-data/ "This is some very approximate data that Scotland does not control being used for a purpose for which it is not fit, which is to say whether or not Scotland would run a surplus or deficit post independence when just about everything, including the data, would be different."
  5. In the mid 90s my company sent me on a very interesting course called 'Oil Field Accounting for Non Accountants'. I distinctly remember the lecturer telling us that oil companies, by law, had to syphon off a defined percentage of income from each field, to be banked for future decommissioning costs. This pot would accrue interest, as with any bank account, and the interest would be classed as income for the field. Whether this is still the law, I do not know, but a few years later, maybe 2000, I was an analyst for some non-operated fields and this was, at that time, a pertinent aspect of the balance sheet. That said, any liability that is not the responsibility of the oil companies will lie with the benefactor. If Westminster has enjoyed 90% of the proceeds from a field, Westminster should pick up the equivalent percentage of the decommissioning costs. I wouldn't agree that incentives are lame. There remain considerable resources to be exploited and it is prudent to ensure that the operating climate is as supportive as possible to ensuring that potential production is not lost. The expensive corporate structures that exist onshore tend to weigh down a lot of fields - management fees, corporate overheads etc all mount up, making a possibly attractive field look like a basket case. Of course, it is in the companys' interests for this to be the case - pile the costs onto the stronger performing fields to lower the tax bill etc, but the emergence of the low cost operators has shown that these fields can thrive without massive onshore HR, IT and Finance operations eating up the profits. I think if the North Sea is to remain viable, we need to protect these smaller companies from the decommissioning liabilty - I understand that some asset sales have decreed that the liability remains with the original producer.
  6. What about it? Do you have figures to prove your point, or is this, yet again, more arrogant nonsense of the sort where you tried to suggest that Yorkshire contributed more the the UK than Scotland (glad we cleared up that error in your understanding)?
  7. While there is much in what you write that holds water, you weaken your argument significantly with such statements as: The above is pure baseless conjecture. The last referendum was grossly distorted by parties on both sides presenting baseless hypotheses cloaked in academic sounding terms to suggest authenticity. Brazil is a vast, complex country of 200 million people, with massive social and economic issues that are beyond the comprehension of most people. Similarly, Russia has had its currencly halved in value due to crippling economic sanctions imposed upon it by the west. To try to suggest that Scotland will resemble either of those countries if it pursues independence is utterly disingenuous.
  8. Should that assurance not come from Westminster, it being Westminster that was in receipt of the proceeds of North Sea Oil and, as is almost universally agreed, wasted them?
  9. Scotland is afforded a grant via the Barnett formula and it spends it - a rather dull end to the hyperbole that people like to scream and dance about when it comes to the deficit. Of course there would need to be structural changes in an independent Scotland - nobody is denying that. How those changes will manifest will be decided by whichever government leads us into independence. It won't necessarily be the SNP, and if it is the SNP, it could very well be a radically changed one, the party being, in effect, a rainbow of views united by the desire for independence. Another thing to bear in mind. The macro economic policy that influences Scotland will be one set in Scotland, with the specific needs of the Scottish economy in mind. I don't mean this to sound like Westminster is overlooking Scottish interests, but UK policy is naturally going to be set where it has the largest impact, and that isn't Scotland. However the future of Scotland is not all doom and gloom. I posted the chart yesterday but will post it again (funnily enough, not a single word was written in response to it previously...). As you can see, Scotland is outperforming every part of the UK with the exception of the South East, with which is seems to be broadly in line, and London, which, of course, is always going to be leading the country. I am not using this chart to suggest that we have already arrived at the land of milk and honey, however the suggestion that we are on our knees and only being kept afloat by our being in the Union is palpable nonsense. We have a tremendous base to work from; we will cut our cloth accordingly.
  10. maybe it could be as you say - not one Scot is in a 'fit state of mind to do that'?
  11. Have you actually paid any attention to the debate beyond the pages of the Express, because so much of your rant is pure conjecture. How does the UK manage its own huge overspend? How does every other country manage it? What is unique about Scotland that it is not capable of running a deficit like every other country in the developed world? Gross generalisations seem to be very heavilly frowned upon on these threads about the UK. At least, every time I mention anything about the English I tend to get the wrath of TVF descending upon me. I am wholly confident that will see the same outrage about this utterly ridiculous suggestion of yours. Better batten down those hatches.... Did you read my post? I mentioned the interview of Sturgeon with Sky News where she explained that there is a commission looking into all options. But you have decided that you know the answer already?
  12. I suspect Paisley will be there to welcome him.
  13. I was never a fan of Thatcher or her policies, but by the time she passed away she was simply a bewildered old lady, more to be pitied because of the cruel way she declined. I certainly didn't shed a tear for her but I was very uncomfortable with the gloating and cheering that took place - bad taste doesn't come close to describing that behaviour.
  14. I imagine being unhitched from the UK macro economic policy and being free to determine our own path will help enormously. The replacement for the Barnett formula has already been proposed by the SNP and rejected by Westminster. You can look it up. Hold on, the Joanna Cherry was unable to answer the question, but you have the answer in your following sentence? Sturgeon pointed out on Sky News that there is a commission currently looking into the options, and expected to report back later in the summer. Sounds a bit like the Brexit madness, except I have more faith in the SNP to deliver a better result that Westminster will with the lunacy of Brexit. Maybe they should take a leaf out of the Tories' book and hammer the poor? Don't you think that Westminster is punishing them enough for the excesses of the Tory party donors, or do you think that they should be squeezed a bit more?
  15. If true, this is hugely disturbing - have we learnt nothing from the horrible events of last year? It is one thing disagreeing with someone, but for that person to feel unsafe in public because of fear of attack over their personal and legally held opinion is something about which we should all feel disgusted.