That figure is out by 60 billion. 90 billion is a lot, for sure, but I don't understand why you feel the need to present inaccurate figures. There seem to be two related issues which concern you with the deficit
lol actually we are both wrong its £126 billion apparently
see this http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/psf.pdf
The UK has had a public debt since 1692; it's not a real problem when viewed on long timescales (hint: inflation)
I didnt argue for a knee jerk austerity either, Japan before Greece has taught us that is not always the way to handle this and I believe growth is the most important factor in dealing with debt. There is an argument for quantitative easing and stimulus spending in the short term as there is for doing nothing and letting the markets correct themselves. But these things are best done when the government doing them is not already up to its eyeballs in debt.
There comes a point when acountry is spending more on debt repayments than on major services and that is a point we have already reached, sadly.
But never ever inflation as a fiscal lever. Please don't tell me you think we can just inflate our way out of this debt this time without any consequences at all. That is just too deluded. The constant long term devaluation of our currency shall have consequences far more serious than any one recession.
The rate of depletion is not linear, as that graph I posted a few pages back demonstrates - the majority of revenues will have been realized within another decade or so
lol correct it is not your graph showed two spikes not one there may be a third and a fourth etc.
10 years seems a very short time for this, why all the new investment in the fields if that is the case.
Anyway when all is said and done the Scots should not base the decsion on leaving the UK on the oil, I agree it would be a rather short sighted thing to do.
Extremely unlikely, at least without the political will to invest in large scale nuclear power projects
It will be necessary eventually although I suspect they will develop other ways to mine for oil, perhaps ransack the Antarctic too.
That isn't my argument
Your argument was that Scotland would be in a terrible situation if it left the union due to its excessive spending budgets and its dwindling oil reserves unable to support them ergo it should stay in the union because it needs the money from the rest of us. Correct? My argument is that they would have to adjust the spending and it was an achievable goal as they are spending far too much anyway but so is everyone. There is no alternative as the debt mountain is too high to inflate away and is growing rapidly every minute. A shift in the culture is what is required ultimately. What happens when the debt doubles in a few years time? Perhaps you would recommend hyperinflation to save us all from bankruptcy. We certainly arent growing as a country like we used to when we had an empire to offset our excesses.
I perfectly well understand the "Barnett formula" and it's implications
Your posts would indicate otherwise, this one for example;
The "vagaries of the present spending policy" are not the primary or even major cause for this. "Regional distortions" are a simple fact of life. Money will always flow from the richer regions to the poorer ones on macro and micro levels
But this is not what is happening and the barnett formula is entirely pertinent to your "argument" as it is the convention that is used to apportion said monies to Scotland, N Ireland, and Wales.
I find the haughty arrogance of your posts more amusing than tiresome. Its difficult to take someone so seriously who is this sure of themselves and their position and considers any other opinion as missing the point or not relevant.
Honestly its not all that complicated what you have to say or particularly revelatory so it might be a little pointless to continue debating with you, if it ever was to begin with.
We should just let people who read this decide on what they think is correct from either of us, if any of it, and leave it at that.