Recently, social media has been full of comments from people who voted No in the Indie Ref, remarking on matters that were debated before the vote. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to voice their opinions on Indie matters but few of them seem to appreciate the irony that, while insisting Yes voters accept the result and move on, they don’t seem able to follow this advice themselves.

There have been some very insensitive comments on food banks and rather bizarre complaints about NHS privatisation in England, and there has even been one No voter insisting that there was never any evidence that a scottish Government would genuinely lead an independent Scotland in a different direction to the UK, apparently in complete ignorance of such things as free tuition, free prescriptions, mitigation of bedroom tax, free care for the elderly, free public transport for disabled people, etc., etc. Ah well, there’s no arguing with some folk.

The latest subject for No voters who are unable to put the Indie Ref in the past is North Sea oil. Kezia Dugdale, in First Minister’s Questions, was leading the way on this one, demanding an acknowledgement that the Scottish Government had not foreseen the collapse in oil prices and wanting an admission that their plans for an independent Scotland would have been thrown into chaos by the current oil price. This refrain was picked up by many No voters on social media, with one commenting that a total reliance on oil would have been disastrous and using this as some justification for having voted No.

Wow. Where to start on that lot?

First of all, the Scottish Government did not foresee the collapse in oil prices. But can Kezia Dugdale, or anyone else on the planet for that matter, provide evidence that anyone foresaw it? Of course not.

As for the claims about total reliance on oil, that’s a valid comment if anyone had ever claimed Scotland was totally reliant on oil. It’s not. GDP is a crude financial measure but oil represents only around 15 – 20% of Scotland’s GDP. We are not totally reliant on it. Yes, life would be more difficult but it wouldn’t be as if the country would collapse.

This, however, is to miss the issue that it doesn’t matter. It’s a "What if?" question. Scotland isn’t independent and isn’t likely to be so for many years yet, so why bang on about something that didn’t happen? It also assumes, quite illogically from people who kept warning about the volatility of oil prices, that the current state of affairs is permanent. That’s utterly absurd. How can prices be volatile when they are high but permanent when they are low?

It is worth taking a look at the oil market just to examine whether prices are likely to remain low. The answer must be a resounding No. Let’s also remember that Scotland isn’t the only country affected by this. It is a worldwide issue and some countries, notably Russia, where oil and gas make up around 70% of their exports, are undergoing a real crisis. Even so, Russia hasn’t entirely collapsed despite the Rouble doing so and Vladimir Putin yesterday claimed that things would be resolved within two years. Just as well he’s not listening to Scotland’s No voters, eh?

The thing is, there is a reduced demand for oil worldwide. When OPEC recently met, Saudi Arabia effectively neutered that organisation by refusing to cut oil production, deciding to allow market forces to set the oil price. This has been seen as a way to strike at the USA’s shale gas and oil industry and make the USA more dependent on oil imports again. The Saudis are coming in for a lot of criticism but it is rather unfair. After al, isn’t a free market economy what the West wants? Besides, OPEC only produces around 30% of the world’s oil, so why should they bear the responsibility for cutting production when other countries carry on pumping the stuff out? Saudi Arabia, incidentally, provides around 10 – 15% of the world’s oil, which leaves at least 85% produced by other countries who seem happy to point the finger at the Saudis while making no effort to reduce their own production.

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, No voters might want to consider that this is a country which really is almost totally reliant on oil yet seems quite content to allow the price to fall. How can they manage it? Well, for one thing, it’s going to be a short term issue, as will be explained shortly. The other reason, though, is that, unlike irresponsible countries like the UK, the Saudis have not completely squandered their oil revenues. Norway is another country that’s been sensible. Oil accounts for over 30% of Norway’s GDP but you don’t hear them screaming about disaster. Not yet, anyway. That’s because they built up reserves of cash and investments from oil revenues to act as a buffer in hard times. Does anyone seriously think that funding tax cuts for the well off was a better deal?

So, why is this a short term concern? It’s down to market forces. The break even price for oil companies is said to be around $75 - 80 per barrel, depending on the difficulty of extraction. North Sea oil is obviously at the top end of the range. So, if prices remain low, oil companies will eventually go bust. That will mean no oil at all, anywhere in the world. Can you imagine that happening? Of course not. There is a demand for oil and the price will rise when that demand outstrips the supply.

In the short term, of course, there is pain. This is because the greed factor rules corporate minds. Oil companies will shed staff and shut down operations at the drop of a hat in order to preserve the massive salaries of their Chief Executives and the dividends to their shareholders. As always, it’s the ordinary workers who will suffer. North Sea oil people are screaming for help which is ironic since they never said a word when Hall’s meat processing factory went bust with the loss of a thousand jobs, or when standard Life announced 1,000 job losses, or when Woolworths went bust. Now they are demanding that the Scottish Government do something to save jobs, something which is very difficult considering that it is world markets creating the problem and that these same people demanded that control of oil revenues remain under Westminster control. It cannot be denied, of course, that the Scottish Government has a duty to assist the overall economy of Aberdeen and the North east but their power to intervene in the oil industry itself is very limited. Let’s hope they can do something but quite what that something is, remains to be seen. At the end of the day, businesses rise and businesses fall, depending on scientific progress. How many genuine blacksmiths are there in the world these days? You only need to look at the preponderance of the "Smith" surname to know how common blacksmiths used to be but they are few and far between nowadays. One day, oil Executives will be in the same category.

It’s not all doom and gloom, however. One thing the fall in oil price might bring about is a realignment of world energy policy. Maybe, if oil becomes too expensive to extract (which it won’t once the market readjusts), we might see patents for electric cars being released by the oil companies who snapped them up to prevent the technology expanding and killing the oil demand. We might see more investment in renewable energy sources rather than oil-fired electricity generating plants. We might also see a little less hysteria from the No voters, although that’s maybe stretching things a bit too far.