One point I havent heard anyone explain / mention in the referendum debate regarding oil revenue . At the moment we have to contribute to the Westminster / UK pot of money and the UK government then allocate our share based on the Barnett Formula , which reflects the spending changes allocated to Public services in England . Now everyone knows that oil will run out eventually , although a lot of reports say that it will last longer than the doubters claim , but that will happen regardless of whether we are part of the UK or if we are Independent , so both ways we will have to [ in the long term ] find alternative revenue streams . If we are still part of the UK when the oil runs out , does anybody seriously think that the UK government will turn round and say that we dont have to send them any money for the pot as we no longer have oil , or are they likely to ask us to pay our way anyway and we will have to find it from somewhere else ? So I dont think for a second that being part of the UK when the oil runs out will be of any benefit , we will still have to find ways of paying our way in the union , so the fact that we will have to find ways to replace oil revenue in an Independent Scotland makes no real difference , we either find new ways to fund an Independent Scotland or we find new ways to send money to the Westminster pot so that they can send us a wee bit back . I may not have explained this well ,but I hope the point is made . The UK government will still be looking for our contribution when the oil runs out , I dont think we are going to get a discount , so we have to replace it regardless , I would rather do this as an Independent Scotland .
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:25:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015