To ask all Scottish MNrs to work together 2

[siiiiiiiiigh]

Sorry, filled the last thread with this, thought I'd better be part of Team Scottish MN and work together for those of us on the old thread...

Here's Armando's thoughts. I vote him in for everything.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/scottish-referendum-massive-voter-turnout-means-politics-changed-for-ever

I stand corrected - it is National and not Nationalist Party.

Whether Nationalist has developed negative connotations is open to debate...

Indeed. The British nationalists in George Square were not particularly edifying. I believe one SNP MP has suggested dropping the 'N'

Well it's quite hard to "move on" today Daughter when I read earlier that after years of research researchers have discovered a method of extracting previously in accessible oil in the North Sea, just published today...ah well.

Anyway despite me not agreeing with the vast majority of people on this thread I can see generally it has tried to stick to the purpose, I just found it awful that a woman's looks had to be brought into it, unacceptable.

And agree with SC, the Yes voters were not given the information to make an informed choice either, which is the main reason that the yes side didn't win.

I don't agree given they had the advantage of it being government policy but if Yes can't get its message out that is Yes' s fault.

as I said in my ranty late night posts last night, some of you were between a rock and a hard place

I really wasn't.

I think what I meant Phaedra is that the information Yes voters were given by the Yes campaign was far from accurate or factual in many cases.

Phaedra what I meant was that your vote for No was forced into uncertainty by the Vow - you were force to vote for something you didn't know much about and neither did the PM when he proposed it. Hence the rock and hard place.

Well it's quite hard to "move on" today Daughter when I read earlier that after years of research researchers have discovered a method of extracting previously in accessible oil in the North Sea, just published today...ah well.

I saw that, Clair Ridge. I posted about it, not saying it was definitely there, but musing that it would probably be "discovered" just after the referendum. I remember people being called crazy conspiracy theorists for that (again, not on MN).
I also see that we've gone from having 20 years' worth of oil at best to having at least around 50 years' worth in Clair Ridge alone. There was a comparison of 2 articles from the BBC before and after the referendum (on that subject), they contradicted each other perfectly.

A lot of what Allan Massie says in today's Scotsman spoke to me - at least, where I'm at: Evolution needed on both sides

Clair Ridge was sanctioned by BP back in 2011, it's not really been a secret, it's one of its biggest North Sea projects

www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/press/press-releases/4-5-billion-clair-ridge-project-receives-approval-for-development.html

It might not have been a "secret" I'm just musingwhy it wasn't in the media last week....that is all, obviously no room in amongst the scare stories about oil running out eh?!

I stand corrected, apparently we have oil to last around 100 years.

Clair Ridge was by no means a secret, but the amount of oil in the North Sea was played right down.

My point is more that it's being discussed like it's some new exciting discovery or secret, sorry numanoid to quote you but "it would probably be discovered just after the referendum" if you google it BP has been talking about it for years

You have loads of oil, the key point is this oil is expensive to extract, so you may for example have a field which contains 100mmbbls but in fact you can only extract 35-40% which will make a huge difference to tax revenue. If oil increases to $150-$200 a barrel it could be wonderful. But it may not which is the point. Companies are already putting large projects on hold in north sea because Economics don't add up.

From what I read (I may be wrong, sorry if I am), they knew there was oil but apparently, not how much. It just made me as people were shot down on social media for being suspicious that employees were sent home on paid leave until after the 18th after the PM's visit, and told that the barrel-loads of oil supposedly at Clair Ridge was a myth.

Certain media outlets and various apparent experts bombarded us with reports and opinions saying that the North Sea didn't have enough oil to sustain us (economically) for more than 20 years or so at a push. Either they weren't entirely truthful or their predictions were extremely poor.

Apparent experts?

Sorry I took a while to post cambio, just saw your other post now. How much was known about the potential of Clair Ridge before the referendum may always be a mystery, unfortunately.

Shetland and Orkney said that if they got more than 60% No they would elect to stay within the UK - they got 63% and 67% so assuming they had not joined Scotland they would have kept most of the oil for the UK -

I just mean that their predictions were so bad, SirChenjin. We had people named as leaders in the industry and experts in the field telling us we had nowhere near enough oil to sustain us... I'm sure they are high up in their fields, but I'm confused as to how their predictions were so far out.

Shetland and Orkney are still part of Scotland, so they would have had to gain independence from Scotland in the event of a Yes vote and apply/ask to join the UK again. I guess the oil question would then have to be negotiated.

I think let's see in 20 years time how bad their predictions were, not on the basis of one report. The oil industry is hugely volatile. A lot can happen between now and then that could make or break the North Sea

Too many variables and too many unknowns. Do you believe that Ian Wood was involved in a conspiracy to cover up the figures?

Both sides present their own spin. Oil industry can't overstate its reserves so will present its base case although there may be upside on that, and AS will show everything that's there but not state that you can only get out 40% of it.

I always remember thinking in the run up to the vote that it wasn't right to depend on oil anyway. It's a nice added extra but a truly independent Scotland should be aiming to function without it. It would have helped in the medium term to get them on their feet but shouldn't have been the deciding factor of its long term future success.