BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Deasun1967

Listed below are comments made by Deasun1967 between Wednesday, 4th March 2009 and Friday, 9th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

The plebiscite to end all plebiscites 10:14am on 09 Oct 2009 Gonephising - Superb, the funniest thing I have read for a long time and of course, deanthetory calls you pathetic. Says it all really!
Oiling the political wheels 12:59pm on 18 Jun 2009 I take it that Mr Murphy has never heard of the McCrone report?

From another source:

"It's Scotland's oil" according to the SNP, and of course it is. There is no reasonable authority denying that, if Scotland were an independent nation, North Sea oil would be under Scottish jurisdiction, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Of course, Scotland isn't independent and in theory Scotland benefits from the collective economic endeavour of UK plc through the Barnett Formula. But it remains the case that Scotland, even within the UK, is a nation with its own legal system and jurisdiction. It is perfectly legitimate for Alex Salmond to claim that Scotland is the only oil-producing nation in the world not to have benefited directly from oil wealth.

And they don't have to be independent states. In 1976, the Canadian province of Alberta established the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund to set aside a proportion of government revenues from oil royalties. The same year the US state of Alaska set up the Alaska Permanent Fund which pays an annual cash dividend to every person who has been resident in the state for over a year.

The mother of all oil funds is of course the Norwegian state savings vehicle, renamed the Government Pension Fund of Norway in 2006. It is now worth some £170bn and owns one percent of European equities. Wall Street banks come to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund for emergency bail-outs.

Both Alaska and Alberta are looking to ways of emulating the Norwegian model, and even the UK energy minister Malcolm Wicks has said that the Norwegians probably had the right idea about how to use wealth generated from natural resources. The Guardian in October 2007 reported him as saying: "If you could replay history, the idea as in Norway of building up a national fund is actually quite an attractive one."

Of course, the main reason why the UK didn't look at any kind of oil fund, even though they were being set up across the world, was that they didn't want to alert Scottish opinion to the extent of the wealth off shore. This was confirmed two years ago in the secret Scottish Office memo from the economist Gavin McCrone, released under the Freedom of Information Act. "Britain is now counting so heavily on North Sea oil to redress its balance of payments," he wrote in 1974, "that it is easy to imagine England in dire straits without it." McCrone said the UK government was underestimating the wealth from North Sea oil essentially for political purposes.

Since 1975, £250bn in revenues have been collected by the UK government from North Sea oil. If Scotland had been a thriving economy during that time, then perhaps it would have been academic where the oil revenues went - but, of course, it was not. As the vast wealth from North Sea oil was being used in the 1980s to pay for mass unemployment and Margaret Thatcher's tax cuts for the rich, Scotland witnessed the destruction of its once world-beating industries. Scotland was effectively de-industrialised during the years of great oil wealth. The legacy of that catastrophic economic transformation is still apparent today in the appalling health statistics in West Central Scotland, where life expectancy is around a decade shorter than in many southern English regions.

There was an historic injustice here that is recognised by anyone who understands the true story of the North Sea. Alex Salmond is calling for one-tenth of the "windfall" from the recent increases in the price of oil. It amounts to around £500m. Many would say that this is cheap at the price. If the Barnett Formula is to be reviewed, and this seems now to be accepted wisdom in Whitehall, then it is time to revisit the black stuff and ensure that Scotland gets some tangible benefit from the 25 billion barrels still lying under the North Sea.
Oiling the political wheels 12:57pm on 18 Jun 2009 I take it that Mr Murphy has neve heared of the McCrone report?

And from another source:

"It's Scotland's oil" according to the SNP, and of course it is. There is no reasonable authority denying that, if Scotland were an independent nation, North Sea oil would be under Scottish jurisdiction, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Of course, Scotland isn't independent and in theory Scotland benefits from the collective economic endeavour of UK plc through the Barnett Formula. But it remains the case that Scotland, even within the UK, is a nation with its own legal system and jurisdiction. It is perfectly legitimate for Alex Salmond to claim that Scotland is the only oil-producing nation in the world not to have benefited directly from oil wealth.

And they don't have to be independent states. In 1976, the Canadian province of Alberta established the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund to set aside a proportion of government revenues from oil royalties. The same year the US state of Alaska set up the Alaska Permanent Fund which pays an annual cash dividend to every person who has been resident in the state for over a year.

The mother of all oil funds is of course the Norwegian state savings vehicle, renamed the Government Pension Fund of Norway in 2006. It is now worth some £170bn and owns one percent of European equities. Wall Street banks come to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund for emergency bail-outs.

Both Alaska and Alberta are looking to ways of emulating the Norwegian model, and even the UK energy minister Malcolm Wicks has said that the Norwegians probably had the right idea about how to use wealth generated from natural resources. The Guardian in October 2007 reported him as saying: "If you could replay history, the idea as in Norway of building up a national fund is actually quite an attractive one."

Of course, the main reason why the UK didn't look at any kind of oil fund, even though they were being set up across the world, was that they didn't want to alert Scottish opinion to the extent of the wealth off shore. This was confirmed two years ago in the secret Scottish Office memo from the economist Gavin McCrone, released under the Freedom of Information Act. "Britain is now counting so heavily on North Sea oil to redress its balance of payments," he wrote in 1974, "that it is easy to imagine England in dire straits without it." McCrone said the UK government was underestimating the wealth from North Sea oil essentially for political purposes.

Since 1975, £250bn in revenues have been collected by the UK government from North Sea oil. If Scotland had been a thriving economy during that time, then perhaps it would have been academic where the oil revenues went - but, of course, it was not. As the vast wealth from North Sea oil was being used in the 1980s to pay for mass unemployment and Margaret Thatcher's tax cuts for the rich, Scotland witnessed the destruction of its once world-beating industries. Scotland was effectively de-industrialised during the years of great oil wealth. The legacy of that catastrophic economic transformation is still apparent today in the appalling health statistics in West Central Scotland, where life expectancy is around a decade shorter than in many southern English regions.

There was an historic injustice here that is recognised by anyone who understands the true story of the North Sea. Alex Salmond is calling for one-tenth of the "windfall" from the recent increases in the price of oil. It amounts to around £500m. Many would say that this is cheap at the price. If the Barnett Formula is to be reviewed, and this seems now to be accepted wisdom in Whitehall, then it is time to revisit the black stuff and ensure that Scotland gets some tangible benefit from the 25 billion barrels still lying under the North Sea.
Courageous stuff 12:21pm on 24 Apr 2009 As pointed out by BT on an earlier thread, if the money is retained by the Scottish Government (or a Whitehall department), it is an efficiency saving simply because that money can then be redirected to another area. The money is not lost, it is simply put to another use. However, if the money is retained by the Treasury, it is a cut because it cannot be put to another use by the Scottish Government. Simply really and I'd bet New Labour (not dead, only resting, apparently) would be screaming blue murder if the Tories were doing this.

Also, are Andy Kerr and Iain Gray the only two people on these islands who think that the Scottish budget has been increased?

Additinally, I see the Treasury forecasts are falling apart, even before the proverbial ink dries: "The British economy shrank at the fastest rate in 30 years in the first three months of this year, raising fresh doubts over Alistair Darling's budget forecasts just 48 hours after they were announced.

"Official figures released this morning showed gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 1.9% between January and March. This is the sharpest three-month decline since the third quarter of 1979, the year when Margaret Thatcher came to power.

"The fall was far worse than the 1.5% decline forecast by City economists. It contradicts the chancellor's claim on Wednesday that the economy shrank "by a similar amount" to the fourth quarter, when it contracted by 1.6%.

"ING economist James Knightley said: "Today's GDP report again highlights how optimistic Darling was in his budget assumptions and that the risk to the fiscal deficit remains heavily to the upside."

"The downturn is forcing the chancellor to borrow £175bn this year.

"The data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that output in the first quarter was 4.1% less than a year ago, the worst annual decline since the end of 1980."

And as for growth of 3.5% in 2010-11, if only, if only. I wonder what colour the sky is in Darlingworld.
Stop the press - we're in recession 12:29pm on 23 Apr 2009 "The new rate, announced by Chancellor Alistair Darling in his Budget statement on Wednesday, breaks Labour's 2005 manifesto pledge not to raise income tax for high earners during this Parliament."

Another bwoken pwomise. Where's Wendy when you need her! (Not that I mind a tax hike for the rich, mind you).
Stop the press - we're in recession 2:17pm on 22 Apr 2009 Reluctant Ex-Pat - I notice that you still haven't addressed my point on the previous post. Mind you, it does show that you fundementally misunderstand (or misrepresent) the GERS report both in terms of geographic share of oil wealth and normally means by which to assess short-term debt or surplus. Still, never mind.

I see your still pedalling the 'gold-plated regulation' stuff. How about the following:-

Has the media developed a communal case of amnesia? Gordon Brown stated in his 2002 Mansion House speech stated that:

"What you, as the City of London, have achieved for financial services we, as a government, now aspire to achieve for the whole economy."

Or from the same speech:

"Strengthening the competitive environment means attaining the highest standards in the provision of financial services and it is because of the issues raised on auditing, accounting and the regulation of financial services that in February we announced a thorough review of the UK's current regulatory arrangements for financial reporting and auditing which will make its initial report next month, and why - more generally - we have created a new standing committee on financial stability and the financial services authority - and I applaud Sir Howard Davies on the work he has done. "

Perhaps the 2006 version will show he has have learned the need for effective regulation of the financial markets? Or perhaps not:

"To meet the challenge of global markets we created a single unified FSA.

"In 2003, just at the time of a previous Mansion House speech, the Worldcom accounting scandal broke. And I will be honest with you, many who advised me including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown.

"I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy - fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based. I know Sir Callum is committed to reducing regulatory administrative burdens and the National Audit Office will now look at the efficiency and value for money of our system."

That's the same FSA which couldn't even comprehend some of the more innovative financial vehicles, never mind regulate them.

Gordon Brown seems to have a thing about financial regulation. He hates it. Again from his 2006 speech: "Progress if we invest in and nurture the skills of the future, advance with light touch regulation, a competitive tax environment and flexibility."

By 2007 this has become "enhancing a risk based regulatory approach, as we did in resisting pressure for a British Sarbannes-Oxley after Enron and Worldcom"

I could go on but I think it is clear that, not only was GB Chancellor for all those years, he was an enthusiastic proponent of precisely the financial practises which caused our current financial and economic meltdown.
On Budget 09:54am on 22 Apr 2009 38 - Reluctant Ex-pat - You have seriously misunderstood the GERS report. You seem to think that it states that Scotland was awarded a proportion of North Sea Oil revenue. It does not. It state that IF a geographical share of revenue is included the balance would be "x", not that it was. That's one huge misleading error. Further, I note that you chose to quote the theoretical balance including long term capital expenditure. It is much more common to quote the current budget balance which state that: "In 2006-07, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £6.7 billion (6.4 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £6.0 billion (5.5 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a surplus of £0.8 billion (0.7 per cent of GDP) including an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue." Needless to say, the UK position as a whole is proportionality worse, regardless of which measure you chose.
Inserting steel 1:11pm on 06 Mar 2009 And Reluctant Ex-pat, have you noticed the opinion polls which state that support for the union and independence are neck-and-neck? And of course, if no-one is interested in independence then the status quo would be returned by the Scottish electorate (on a low turnout). Why are you so afraid to ask their opinion?
Not the last word 11:43am on 05 Mar 2009 Bigadierjohn - "I'd like to see the SNP with an overall majority for a full term before I make any choices about their more far-reaching proposals. I happen to think that's fair and reasonable, but feel free to disagree."

Oh come on! How can the SNP (or any other party) win an OVERALL majority in Holyrood? The system was designed specifically to prevent this possibility. Your 'fair and reasonable' post therefore means that none of the SNP's more 'more far-reaching proposals' could ever been enacted. But then again, I'm entirely sure that you are aware of this. Disingenuous in the extreme and neither nor reasonable!
Not the last word 1:21pm on 04 Mar 2009 Actually, I think I may have been a wee bit generous to the Labour Party in my previous post. From a different source:

A Labour spokesman said: "We've been clear all along when it comes to a referendum. There's one draft Bill out there which has been rigged and we would vote against it."

I wonder where that spokesman has been for that last couple of years.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Deasun1967