-
L-O-L
Danny Alexander was citing a Zoopla-penned PR puff piece today to try and 'prove' that property prices will fall in Scotland by the magic figure of '£30,000'. Talk about academic rigour. I'll be getting my energy estimates given to me by Mumsnet next.
If you'd troubled to read any literature or watch the debates the question of the oil reserves has been addressed by Salmond and many others very fully, and quite candidly.
The official position is that Scotland's economy does not depend on its long term revenue from oil. It's a very useful, very welcome short term stop gap maybe. Read page 40 of the Wee Blue Book? http://wingsoverscotland.com/WeeBlueBookDesktopEdition.pdf
Mendacity? Oil is a political substance. It's been deliberately obscured and mis-reported since it was discovered. I know people that work in the industry as engineers and they are pro-independence. That's enough for me. In terms of 'known' oil fields rumours of huge fields off the coast of Shetland are well deserved-why did Cameron fly up there a few weeks ago?
This is Chakrabortty's take on mendacity relating to the Deutsche fag-packet proclamations:
Which is why this weekend’s newspapers were bursting with dreadful warnings from Deutsche Bank about how a yes vote would be “a political and economic mistake as large as Winston Churchill’s decision in 1925 to return the pound to the gold standard” or the missteps in Washington that triggered the Great Depression.
That note of alarm came from the foreword to a two-page research note issued by Deutsche. Over the year, I have read thousands of such finance-house briefings – indeed, I have dim memories from very early in my career of having contributed to a few – and can say two things about them with confidence. First, for all the numbers and letterheads, they are not the word of God. They are a cross between a commentary and a forecast: think of a horse-racing tip without the colourful names, or Simon Heffer with more graphs. The Deutsche paper fits the form to a T: the bank’s group chief economist’s remarks are less economic than political in nature. “Why anyone would want to exit a successful economic and political union … to go it alone for the benefit of ... what exactly, is incomprehensible to this author.”
Fair enough: it’s one man’s view. But the other rule of research notes is that there’s bound to be another expressing a contrasting opinion. Such as the email I received from the head of the global strategy team at Société Générale. It argues that a yes vote would lay bare the fact that, without Scotland’s oil exports, the rest of the UK simply doesn’t pay its way in the world – and so independence would see “sterling quite rightly plunge into the abyss”.
Two well-known financial strategists, two divergent views – but only one gets amplified by the media. Funny that.
You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
deleted
If I had a vote, this is the reason I would vote 'no'. The habit of the 'yes' campaigners to take data, subtly but significantly alter that data, and to strip the data of context to make an argument that the data do not support. I would be thinking, my gut says 'yes', more self-determination is a good thing, but my mind would say what else are these guys fooling with?
The problem with Uber's statement is a) it is untrue, Scotland does not have 60% of the EU's natural resources, no amount of saying it is true will make it so, and b) it is irrelevant. The point was made to support Scotland's attractiveness to the EU as a new member state, but Scotland's oil (not 'natural resources') would not be a significant factor in that decision. The world currently has 1041 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, of which Scotland has 3 billion. Most oil production is traded freely, having less than 0.3% of the world's oil is not going to make Scotland a must-have new member of the EU - a fact that former energy economist Salmond knows very well.
I'm not saying the 'no' campaign is any less mendacious, I am saying that the 'yes' campaign is trying to lead part of the UK away into an uncertain future for Scotland and a certain diminution for the rump UK based on shoddy stats. Plus the absurd argument that they will be fine with a currency union that the rest of the UK does not want and which is entirely incompatible with political independence.