biffer

Having done a wee bit digging, there's a bit more than that I think. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-of-government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production Petroleum Revenue Tax, Corporation tax which is treated in a very specific way and a supplementary charge which seems to have replace royalties about twenty years ago.

Can someone answer a question for me? How does the value of oil translate into tax revenue? When there's say, £100 billion of oil, what's the amount of that money which goes into the taxman specifically for the oil? I'm not interested in Corporation tax and subsidiary taxes at the mo, I know these can massively increase the worth of the industry, I just want to understand how oil extraction relates to oil income for the government.

Why? I like Gallagher

I'm not convinced the movements in the markets were anything to do with the Indy poll. There's a lot of volatility about at the moment because of Israel, Iran / Syria, Ukraine on top of the background economic situation.

The honest answer is "it depends on the rest of the negotiation".

Yeah Gallagher deserved to be there automatically imo

You might be interested in this as well http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/30/stiglitz-enlightened-challenge-to-scottish-education/

I work in the education / research sector. There's a reasonable amount of concern among the majority of people, as this is one of the few areas where we get out more than we put in. However, a short discussion with them usually lets them see pros and cons on both sides. Scotland would have the second best university system in the world (scaled for size of population) but there are worries about research funding, the impact on fees / no fees, student numbers from south of the border, access to european funding, and specific worries in one or two sectors where Scotland takes substantially more than what would be a per-head share of funding in that area. I don't think anyone believes the idea about continuing the pan-UK research arrangement (I know I don't, it'd be completely unworkable), so the lack of any clarity about what would be put in place means it's difficult to know what would happen. I usually point out a couple of things though 1. Typically the UK doesn't get its full return on European funding. European funding usually needs three EU countries involved in the bid. RUK universities would now be in a different country, which could make European funding easier to access, just by working with the same people you always have. 2. The opportunities to influence European funding increase by having a government lobbying for the specific research strengths of Scotland 3. Holyrood has consistently shown a more progressive approach to tertiary education than Westminster regardless of who is in power. This would continue in iScotland In terms of other funding sources, I've heard of one charity (big life sciences one but I'm not going to name it - told in confidence) who have already confidentially told their staff that independence would make no difference whatsoever in their approach. However, you have to understand that research funding is all about the UK Research Councils. They account for the huge majority of University research funding and the detail on how other organisations would approach it is tinkering around the edges.

I think it's the right choice - I would've swithered between Donald and Westwood, but I think Gallagher's record over this year, and his past record on the Centenary course, make him a sound choice.

Deal done. 72% yes vote. Cheers Nige.

I'm never in favour of it but can't find any sympathy for him. He courts controversy and confrontation everywhere he goes and every time he speaks so eventually some loon will attack him.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28993917

Apparently Britain bombing Iraq puts Luxembourg at risk from terrorists. Or something. What a fucktard