View Full Version : How could the SNP get oil prices so wrong?
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 11:00 AM
The SNP have harped on about Scotland's oil for decades now.
Yet it's oil price forecast from only a year ago ($113 versus $62 a barrel currently) was so woefully optimistic it's not funny.
Glad to see that the parties of the Union are showing great maturity, and are not seeking to make political capital from such a massive error of judgement.
The SNP have harped on about Scotland's oil for decades now.
Yet it's oil price forecast from only a year ago ($113 versus $62 a barrel currently) was so woefully optimistic it's not funny.
Glad to see that the parties of the Union are showing great maturity, and are not seeking to make political capital from such a massive error of judgement.
Prices fluctuate and are difficult to predict so tough titty on the SNP for that one.
One question which Unionist parties don't like being asked is why the failure to set-up an Oil fund which would off-set the unpredicatability of the market.
No maturity shown there at all, they spend the oil money like a teenager with a credit card.
Peevemor
15-12-2014, 11:27 AM
Prices fluctuate and are difficult to predict so tough titty on the SNP for that one.
One question which Unionist parties don't like being asked is why the failure to set-up an Oil fund which would off-set the unpredicatability of the market.
No maturity shown there at all, they spend the oil money like a teenager with a credit card.
Exactly.
OPEC in the past have reduced production to keep prices up, but this time around they've been unable to reach an agreement to do this - largely down to Saudi Arabia who have enough dosh tucked away to take a hit in the meantime.
There's also a theory that prices are being kept low to hurt the Islamic State.
Russia had also budgeted at $100/barrel and given that 45% of their national budget comes from oil revenues, they could find themeselves in real trouble - maybe another reason why prices are being kept low? :dunno:
When oil was first pumped ashore it was $3 a barrel.
What do we have to show for it? Food banks?
CapitalGreen
15-12-2014, 11:43 AM
The SNP have harped on about Scotland's oil for decades now.
Yet it's oil price forecast from only a year ago ($113 versus $62 a barrel currently) was so woefully optimistic it's not funny.
Glad to see that the parties of the Union are showing great maturity, and are not seeking to make political capital from such a massive error of judgement.
The forecasts were for 2017/18, you are 3 years too early with this thread.
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 12:19 PM
The forecasts were for 2017/18, you are 3 years too early with this thread.
Like the SNP forecast, you're entirely wrong... :wink:
(Oil) production in Scottish waters could generate approximately £48 billion in tax revenue between 2012/13 and 2017/18 based on industry estimates of production and an average cash price of approximately 113 dollars per barrel.
Since July 2013 the spot price for Brent crude has only very rarely exceeded the SNP's average price forecast.
xyz23jc
15-12-2014, 12:46 PM
Exactly.
OPEC in the past have reduced production to keep prices up, but this time around they've been unable to reach an agreement to do this - largely down to Saudi Arabia who have enough dosh tucked away to take a hit in the meantime.
There's also a theory that prices are being kept low to hurt the Islamic State.
Russia had also budgeted at $100/barrel and given that 45% of their national budget comes from oil revenues, they could find themeselves in real trouble - maybe another reason why prices are being kept low? :dunno:
10/10! Don't forget the continuous pressure to undermine Maduro in Venezuela also!
Moulin Yarns
15-12-2014, 12:51 PM
Oil and Gas UK response to the Scottish Government.
http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/news/news.cfm/newsid/828
The Scottish Government report quotes various sources with different predictions.
"There is variation between forecasters. Some, such as the OBR, expect prices to fall gradually in the coming years to approximately $92 a barrel in 2017-18. This is based upon a methodology which uses the prices implied by futures markets. Others, such as the US Energy Information Administration, predict that oil prices will fall in 2013-14 before rising again in subsequent years. Finally some organisations, such as the Department for Energy and Climate Change, predict rising oil prices. In recent years, oil prices have exceeded many initial forecasts. For example, in 2010, futures markets implied an oil price of around $85 a barrel in 2011 and 2012. Actual prices over this period averaged more than $110 a barrel. Some forecasters expect this trend to continue. For example, the IMF’s October 2012 World Economic Outlook stated that the risks to oil prices are "tilted to the upside" and "cannot be easily dismissed"
These are widely available and rather than being selective show how difficult it is to predict oil prices.
When the report was published nobody could have predicted what happened in the Ukraine, which is a strong reason for the drop in oil prices.
PS I am not an SNP apologist.
Just Alf
15-12-2014, 01:06 PM
This article on the BBC is a good summary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30289546
I think everyone got it wrong hence the lack of point scoring
Like the SNP forecast, you're entirely wrong... :wink:
(Oil) production in Scottish waters could generate approximately £48 billion in tax revenue between 2012/13 and 2017/18 based on industry estimates of production and an average cash price of approximately 113 dollars per barrel.
Since July 2013 the spot price for Brent crude has only very rarely exceeded the SNP's average price forecast.
I notice you've taken the "mature" route and ignored the point about an oil fund.
easty
15-12-2014, 01:12 PM
When oil was first pumped ashore it was $3 a barrel.
What do we have to show for it? Food banks?
'Food banks' really are the buzz words for the end of this year. Are people really that much worse off this year than they were a year ago?
CropleyWasGod
15-12-2014, 01:20 PM
'Food banks' really are the buzz words for the end of this year. Are people really that much worse off this year than they were a year ago?
Probably not, but those of us not reliant on them are more aware of them than we were a year ago.
Peevemor
15-12-2014, 01:31 PM
Probably not, but those of us not reliant on them are more aware of them than we were a year ago.
:agree: Awareness of many issues increased greatly in the run up to the referendum.
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 01:31 PM
I notice you've taken the "mature" route and ignored the point about an oil fund.
We are where we are and there is nothing that we can do about that now.
We are where we are and there is nothing that we can do about that now.
So you agree that the failure in the past to set up an oil-fund was immature.
Why is it too late to set one up now?
Peevemor
15-12-2014, 01:39 PM
So you agree that the failure in the past to set up an oil-fund was immature.
Why is it too late to set one up now?
Because Westminster needs the cash to improve the English national football team.
lord bunberry
15-12-2014, 01:44 PM
The SNP have harped on about Scotland's oil for decades now.
Yet it's oil price forecast from only a year ago ($113 versus $62 a barrel currently) was so woefully optimistic it's not funny.
Glad to see that the parties of the Union are showing great maturity, and are not seeking to make political capital from such a massive error of judgement.
Your pathetic attempt at trolling is getting tiresome. Every post you make seems to be an attempt to wind someone up.
'Food banks' really are the buzz words for the end of this year. Are people really that much worse off this year than they were a year ago?
I think the question you ask, in response to my original post, would have been better being 'Are people really that much worse off this year than they were 40 years ago?
Some things are definitely much better but as a society I'd suggest most of us are worse off and the difference between the mega rich and the rest of us has become a chasm. Perhaps that's where the oil fund is?
I think the question you ask, in response to my original post, would have been better being 'Are people really that much worse off this year than they were 40 years ago?
That was back in a time when you didn't have beggers on the streets, the odd tramp and wino true, but not the placard bearing desperation which is common place today. The fact that food-banks exist in such a wealthy country is a disgrace and again speaks of the "maturity" the o.p. mentioned, i.e. the lack of it.
Or maybe that's also a case of "we are where we are and there is nothing that we can do about that now".
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 02:12 PM
Your pathetic attempt at trolling is getting tiresome. Every post you make seems to be an attempt to wind someone up.
You need to wind your neck in mate.
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 02:15 PM
So you agree that the failure in the past to set up an oil-fund was immature.
Why is it too late to set one up now?
Why something as specific as an oil fund? If we target a national surplus then that would achieve the same thing.
That was back in a time when you didn't have beggers on the streets, the odd tramp and wino true, but not the placard bearing desperation which is common place today. The fact that food-banks exist in such a wealthy country is a disgrace and again speaks of the "maturity" the o.p. mentioned, i.e. the lack of it.
Or maybe that's also a case of "we are where we are and there is nothing that we can do about that now".
What year was that?
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 02:35 PM
That was back in a time when you didn't have beggers on the streets, the odd tramp and wino true, but not the placard bearing desperation which is common place today. The fact that food-banks exist in such a wealthy country is a disgrace and again speaks of the "maturity" the o.p. mentioned, i.e. the lack of it.
Or maybe that's also a case of "we are where we are and there is nothing that we can do about that now".
Food banks are bad news - no question - but let's not kid on that life is worse now than it was back then. Compared to 30-40 years ago:
how has infant mortality changed?
are people living longer?
how many people need to use an outside toilet?
how many people own their own homes?
how many people now have access to a phone?
how many people have university degrees?
how many more gay marriages do we have each year?
What year was that?
Pre-early-mid 80's.
Food banks are bad news - no question - but let's not kid on that life is worse now than it was back then. Compared to 30-40 years ago:
how has infant mortality changed?
are people living longer?
how many people need to use an outside toilet?
how many people own their own homes?
how many people now have access to a phone?
how many people have university degrees?
how many more gay marriages do we have each year?
Decent points.
How disperate is income between the richest and poorest in society compared to 30-40 years ago is maybe a better indicator.
Moulin Yarns
15-12-2014, 02:45 PM
Food banks are bad news - no question - but let's not kid on that life is worse now than it was back then. Compared to 30-40 years ago:
how has infant mortality changed?
are people living longer?
how many people need to use an outside toilet?
how many people own their own homes?
how many people now have access to a phone?
how many people have university degrees?
how many more gay marriages do we have each year?
On your last point, what is your point? There have been NO same sex marriages in Scotland up to and including today, so we have had exactly the same number as 30-40 years ago.
You really need to do a minimum of research before posting.
Why something as specific as an oil fund? If we target a national surplus then that would achieve the same thing.
Avoid the question. Go maturity!
Maybe because your op was on the subject of oil and the SNP's "lack of maturity" on the subject when the resource has been wasted by successive Westminster partys.
Moulin Yarns
15-12-2014, 02:52 PM
Why something as specific as an oil fund? If we target a national surplus then that would achieve the same thing.
The thing about the Oil resrve fund in Norway is it was ring fenced, and would never be used to pay of debts, resulting in every Norwegian becoming millionaires.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101321953
A national surplus is good, but equally it could become a natioanl deficit if not ringfenced.
You need to check things. In Norway the surplus is invested globally to provide pension funds rather than the typical quick fix our London Government seems to favour.
Moulin Yarns
15-12-2014, 02:54 PM
You need to wind your neck in mate.
Ouch, as Kato says, maturity is earned, and you are in deficit with that remark.
Peevemor
15-12-2014, 02:59 PM
I'm pretty sure that offshore tax revenues accounted for something like 7% of the SNP's budget proposal for an iScotland. Now obviously, even temporarily, losing 3% would make a hole that would require sorting out, but it wouldn't necessarily have been the economic disaster at which the OP is hinting.
Moulin Yarns
15-12-2014, 03:03 PM
I'm pretty sure that offshore tax revenues accounted for something like 7% of the SNP's budget proposal for an iScotland. Now obviously, even temporarily, losing 3% would make a hole that would require sorting out, but it wouldn't necessarily have been the economic disaster at which the OP is hinting.
I've just posted much the same on the Independence thread. :thumbsup:
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 03:04 PM
On your last point, what is your point? There have been NO same sex marriages in Scotland up to and including today, so we have had exactly the same number as 30-40 years ago.
You really need to do a minimum of research before posting.
You might draw your boundaries around Scotland, I do not. Just to be 100% clear on this point I also believe that same sex marriages are an indicator of a more mature and inclusive society.
Moulin Yarns
15-12-2014, 03:09 PM
The SNP have harped on about Scotland's oil for decades now.
Yet it's oil price forecast from only a year ago ($113 versus $62 a barrel currently) was so woefully optimistic it's not funny.
Glad to see that the parties of the Union are showing great maturity, and are not seeking to make political capital from such a massive error of judgement.
You might draw your boundaries around Scotland, I do not. Just to be 100% clear on this point I also believe that same sex marriages are an indicator of a more mature and inclusive society.
Draw your neck in. :wink:
You started with your dig at the SNP, so I think it fair to suggest you were describing Scotland and the differences that have occurred in the past 30-40 years in Scotland.
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 03:15 PM
Decent points.
How disperate is income between the richest and poorest in society compared to 30-40 years ago is maybe a better indicator.
The measure of inequality used is the Gini coefficient, which is a number between 0 and 1 showing the extent of inequality in a distribution of incomes. A Gini of 0 would correspond to a situation where every household had the same net income, whereas a Gini of 1 would correspond to a situation where one household had all the income and the rest had nothing. Hence, the higher the Gini is, the greater is inequality in incomes.
Broadly speaking, the evolution of inequality in Britain over the past 60 years comprises three distinct phases:
- Between 1961 and the late 1970s, inequality was roughly stable, with a Gini coefficient in the range 0.24 to 0.27.
- Inequality rose consistently in the Thatcher years, with the Gini moving above 0.27 in 1985. By 1990, the Gini had reached 0.34 – a rise of 0.07 in just five years.
- From 1990 onwards, inequality stabilised at a Gini of around 0.33 to 0.36.
hibs0666
15-12-2014, 03:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that offshore tax revenues accounted for something like 7% of the SNP's budget proposal for an iScotland. Now obviously, even temporarily, losing 3% would make a hole that would require sorting out, but it wouldn't necessarily have been the economic disaster at which the OP is hinting.
True, it's only £3 billion per annum we're talking about here.
Pre-early-mid 80's.
I remember working to regenerate (as they would call it now) housing in Edinburgh then. Old couples living in a single room with no bathing facilities for 20 years and the like. City was coated in grime. Abandoned goods yards left for years as car parks.... and Edinburgh was one of the better places. Cities were in a pretty sorry state pre-early 80s.
Northernhibee
15-12-2014, 03:21 PM
Your pathetic attempt at trolling is getting tiresome. Every post you make seems to be an attempt to wind someone up.
I hardly think it's trolling - if a party runs their campaign with wildly optimistic/misleading (depending on what side of the fence you sit on) figures then this deserves to be held to question.
Peevemor
15-12-2014, 03:29 PM
I hardly think it's trolling - if a party runs their campaign with wildly optimistic/misleading (depending on what side of the fence you sit on) figures then this deserves to be held to question.
Even though they never made a huge issue of oil revenues in their campaign?
Peevemor
15-12-2014, 03:34 PM
True, it's only £3 billion per annum we're talking about here.
iScotland's GDP per capita would still have been higher than rUK. I'm confident that a solution would have been found.
I remember working to regenerate (as they would call it now) housing in Edinburgh then. Old couples living in a single room with no bathing facilities for 20 years and the like. City was coated in grime. Abandoned goods yards left for years as car parks.... and Edinburgh was one of the better places. Cities were in a pretty sorry state pre-early 80s.
I was talking about beggers on the streets. Something which is common now and not very common at all back then.
Ouch, as Kato says, maturity is earned, and you are in deficit with that remark.
It was the inference that the unionist parties somehow have a monopoly on maturity that caught my attention in the op.
The first past the post system promotes a Punch and Judy outlook, MP's work in a yah-boo-sucks environment, Westminster seems to allow all sorts of self-interest, votes are bought and sold, any suggestion from one party that another may have a good idea is non-existent.
I tried to think of a list of things that are more mature than the main UK Partys but got as far as:
Cottage Cheese,
Violet Elizabeth Bott,
Two chimps chucking their own faeces at each other.
Northernhibee
15-12-2014, 04:03 PM
Even though they never made a huge issue of oil revenues in their campaign?
I think it was clear to all and sundry that the figure was very much optimistic - the overall value differential between actual figures and what they claimed is in the billions. That deserves to be questioned as to why they claimed that original figure.
Just Alf
15-12-2014, 04:08 PM
For accuracy maybe we could get the thread re-named?
how about...
"How could the SNP, UK Gov, Shell, BP etc etc get the oil prices so wrong?"
there... that should do it :-)
For accuracy maybe we could get the thread re-named?
how about...
"How could the SNP, UK Gov, Shell, BP etc etc get the oil prices so wrong?"
there... that should do it :-)
It shows a lack of maturity if only one of those bodies are taken to task on the subject.
snooky
15-12-2014, 06:05 PM
Exactly.
OPEC in the past have reduced production to keep prices up, but this time around they've been unable to reach an agreement to do this - largely down to Saudi Arabia who have enough dosh tucked away to take a hit in the meantime.
There's also a theory that prices are being kept low to hurt the Islamic State.
Russia had also budgeted at $100/barrel and given that 45% of their national budget comes from oil revenues, they could find themeselves in real trouble - maybe another reason why prices are being kept low? :dunno:
This was said by someone on the telly the other night.
I tend to believe that the booms and recessions are created by the chosen few & their disciples for strategic political maneuvers and/or to make lots of money.
CapitalGreen
16-12-2014, 07:34 AM
Like the SNP forecast, you're entirely wrong... :wink:
(Oil) production in Scottish waters could generate approximately £48 billion in tax revenue between 2012/13 and 2017/18 based on industry estimates of production and an average cash price of approximately 113 dollars per barrel.
Since July 2013 the spot price for Brent crude has only very rarely exceeded the SNP's average price forecast.
I suggest you look up the definition of average or alternatively, explain how you have managed to calculate the average price of oil between 2013-18, 4 years before the end of the period.
Hibby Kay-Yay
16-12-2014, 08:04 AM
Like the SNP forecast, you're entirely wrong... :wink:
(Oil) production in Scottish waters could generate approximately £48 billion in tax revenue between 2012/13 and 2017/18 based on industry estimates of production and an average cash price of approximately 113 dollars per barrel.
Since July 2013 the spot price for Brent crude has only very rarely exceeded the SNP's average price forecast.
If it was based on industry estimates, how does that make the SNP wrong?
hibs0666
16-12-2014, 08:11 AM
I suggest you look up the definition of average or alternatively, explain how you have managed to calculate the average price of oil between 2013-18, 4 years before the end of the period.
I have looked at the price for Brent crude December 2018 futures and have reached my own conclusion that $113 a barrel was so optimistic it wasn't funny. Do you still believe that an average price of $113 a barrel is achievable? Is so, on what basis?
More interestingly, if the SNP was so optimistic over oil revenues, where else is its economic projections similarly optimistic?
hibs0666
16-12-2014, 08:12 AM
If it was based on industry estimates, how does that make the SNP wrong?
Which industry estimates was it using? I suggest that a huge dose of optimism bias is evident here as it suited the SNP agenda.
Moulin Yarns
16-12-2014, 08:31 AM
Which industry estimates was it using? I suggest that a huge dose of optimism bias is evident here as it suited the SNP agenda.
I don't know what report was used, but....
“Sir Ian’s report estimates that the prize from increased and effective collaboration could be an additional 3-4 billion barrels of oil equivalent over 20 years, which could be worth £200 billion. By addressing the challenges facing the industry and harnessing the opportunities, enormous benefits can be reaped by the industry and in tax revenues."
and
"The Scottish government claims that there still exists £1.5 trillion of oil to be extracted from the North Sea. However a recent study, based on OECD figures, suggested that improvements in technology meant that there could be as much as £4 trillion of oil and gas left in Scottish waters."
NO **** SHERLOCK!! SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT UNDER ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF OIL, SHOCKER
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-offshore-oil-and-gas-sir-ian-woods-interim-report-published
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wood-sets-out-200-billion-roadmap-for-future-of-offshore-oil-and-gas-industry-worlds-first-gas-ccs-plant-planned
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/sir-ian-wood-predicts-25bn-barrels-of-oil-still-to-come-from-north-sea/
hibs0666
16-12-2014, 08:59 AM
I don't know what report was used, but....
“Sir Ian’s report estimates that the prize from increased and effective collaboration could be an additional 3-4 billion barrels of oil equivalent over 20 years, which could be worth £200 billion. By addressing the challenges facing the industry and harnessing the opportunities, enormous benefits can be reaped by the industry and in tax revenues."
and
"The Scottish government claims that there still exists £1.5 trillion of oil to be extracted from the North Sea. However a recent study, based on OECD figures, suggested that improvements in technology meant that there could be as much as £4 trillion of oil and gas left in Scottish waters."
NO **** SHERLOCK!! SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT UNDER ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF OIL, SHOCKER
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-offshore-oil-and-gas-sir-ian-woods-interim-report-published
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wood-sets-out-200-billion-roadmap-for-future-of-offshore-oil-and-gas-industry-worlds-first-gas-ccs-plant-planned
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/sir-ian-wood-predicts-25bn-barrels-of-oil-still-to-come-from-north-sea/
I very much hope that there is oodles and oodles of oil left and that it can be used to the benefit of all UK citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed.
Moulin Yarns
16-12-2014, 09:19 AM
I very much hope that there is oodles and oodles of oil left and that it can be used to the benefit of all UK citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed.
I don't.
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/germany-breaks-world-solar-power-generation-record-july-2013-51-twh-leaves-us-dust.html
A combination of fossil and renewables is absolutely essential. The more renewables that can be utilised the longer fossil fuels will last, but also the less they will be relied upon.
win/win in my view.
RyeSloan
16-12-2014, 02:59 PM
Avoid the question. Go maturity! Maybe because your op was on the subject of oil and the SNP's "lack of maturity" on the subject when the resource has been wasted by successive Westminster partys.
Wasted? Wasted in that it was spent on providing public spending?
Creating an oil fund means reducing current expenditure. I find it quite interesting that many proponents of an oil fund are the same people who rail against austerity and demand higher public spending. Personally I find that quite a hard circle to square.
Wasted? Wasted in that it was spent on providing public spending?
Through the 80's the amount of dole money handed out amounted to the same as oil revenue taken in - that's a waste in my book.
Creating an oil fund means reducing current expenditure. I find it quite interesting that many proponents of an oil fund are the same people who rail against austerity and demand higher public spending. Personally I find that quite a hard circle to square.
I'm not surprised.
How's about closing some of the tax loopholes or creating a tax-structure which encourages more businesses to be honest. That coupled with the creation of an oil fund would relieve some pressure, no?
Moulin Yarns
16-12-2014, 03:33 PM
Wasted? Wasted in that it was spent on providing public spending?
Creating an oil fund means reducing current expenditure. I find it quite interesting that many proponents of an oil fund are the same people who rail against austerity and demand higher public spending. Personally I find that quite a hard circle to square.
Since 1996, when Norway had a net surplus of just under 50% GDP, it has gradually grown until, in 2011 it sat at a net surplus of around 160% of GDP. In the same period the UK went from a net deficit of around 40% GDP to the 2011 level of around a deficit of 75% GDP.
Looks to me that Norway are doing rather well, and certainly doesn't mean less public expenditure, rather it is distributed better, at a more local level, according to needs.
furthermore, comparing Norway to the UK
Norwegians earn 66.48% more than a Brit
have a 60% greater chance of being employed
have a class divide equivalent to 26.47% of the UK
and there is more but I don't have time.
Peevemor
16-12-2014, 03:41 PM
I very much hope that there is oodles and oodles of oil left and that it can be used to the benefit of all UK citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed.
... or at least whatever's left after maintaining the UK's position as a nuclear superpower. :aok:
hibs0666
16-12-2014, 03:46 PM
Since 1996, when Norway had a net surplus of just under 50% GDP, it has gradually grown until, in 2011 it sat at a net surplus of around 160% of GDP. In the same period the UK went from a net deficit of around 40% GDP to the 2011 level of around a deficit of 75% GDP.
Looks to me that Norway are doing rather well, and certainly doesn't mean less public expenditure, rather it is distributed better, at a more local level, according to needs.
furthermore, comparing Norway to the UK
Norwegians earn 66.48% more than a Brit
have a 60% greater chance of being employed
have a class divide equivalent to 26.47% of the UK
and there is more but I don't have time.
Norway also has a GDP that is 45% higher than that of the UK. People in wealthy countries typically enjoy a better quality of life than poorer countries and so I'm not sure what your point is here.
Hibby Kay-Yay
16-12-2014, 04:18 PM
Which industry estimates was it using? I suggest that a huge dose of optimism bias is evident here as it suited the SNP agenda.
I have a feeling that whatever is said here you will find an opposite 😉
I have a feeling that whatever is said here you will find an opposite
That's what I mean by the "Punch and Judy" nature of party politics. SNP has the idea that an oil fund would be good for the country. Works elsewhere and provides a buffer against an unpredictable market. Is there any way that someone who doesn't vote for the SNP would concede it might well be a good idea? No chance!!
Since 1996, when Norway had a net surplus of just under 50% GDP, it has gradually grown until, in 2011 it sat at a net surplus of around 160% of GDP. In the same period the UK went from a net deficit of around 40% GDP to the 2011 level of around a deficit of 75% GDP.
Looks to me that Norway are doing rather well, and certainly doesn't mean less public expenditure, rather it is distributed better, at a more local level, according to needs.
furthermore, comparing Norway to the UK
Norwegians earn 66.48% more than a Brit
have a 60% greater chance of being employed
have a class divide equivalent to 26.47% of the UK
and there is more but I don't have time.
Was Norway not recently warned by the IMF that it should be spending more of its oil fund because there was too much money in it?
Was Norway not recently warned by the IMF that it should be spending more of its oil fund because there was too much money in it?
Not exactly a bad position to be in all-in-all.
RyeSloan
16-12-2014, 09:10 PM
Through the 80's the amount of dole money handed out amounted to the same as oil revenue taken in - that's a waste in my book. I'm not surprised. How's about closing some of the tax loopholes or creating a tax-structure which encourages more businesses to be honest. That coupled with the creation of an oil fund would relieve some pressure, no?
So cut benefits to create an oil fund
Or raise the spectre of all these dishonest businesses that don't pay tax and suggest you whack them for more money and pay for an oil fund that way.
Seriously?
RyeSloan
16-12-2014, 09:19 PM
Norway also has a GDP that is 45% higher than that of the UK. People in wealthy countries typically enjoy a better quality of life than poorer countries and so I'm not sure what your point is here.
You could also have mentioned that Norway has a population of a mighty 5m....maybe just maybe that assisted in their ability to create an oil fund?
(Yeah yeah I know if Scotland had kept all the oil we would have had one too but the question was why the UK did not have one ;-))
lord bunberry
16-12-2014, 09:34 PM
You could also have mentioned that Norway has a population of a mighty 5m....maybe just maybe that assisted in their ability to create an oil fund?
(Yeah yeah I know if Scotland had kept all the oil we would have had one too but the question was why the UK did not have one ;-))
We don't have an oil fund because we use our money to buy weapons of mass destruction
So cut benefits to create an oil fund
Or raise the spectre of all these dishonest businesses that don't pay tax and suggest you whack them for more money and pay for an oil fund that way.
Seriously?
Are you serious?
So cut benefits to create an oil fund
Where did I say that?
Or raise the spectre of all these dishonest businesses that don't pay tax and suggest you whack them for more money and pay for an oil fund that way.
Is it really a spectre? Do all of these businesses pay their full way tax wise? No bogey man there, it's real, honest.
What I did say was "How's about closing some of the tax loopholes or creating a tax-structure which encourages more businesses to be honest."
No "whacking" involved on the poor businesses intended. Saying that it would be better whacking them and than the people who are getting whacked now.
People are pretty quick to jump towarsd hyperbole on this subject.
RyeSloan
17-12-2014, 10:12 AM
We don't have an oil fund because we use our money to buy weapons of mass destruction
Although Trident is costly your statement is total nonsense.
You can't ring fence one (relatively small) part of government spending and claim that's the reason there is no oil fund.
RyeSloan
17-12-2014, 10:18 AM
Are you serious? So cut benefits to create an oil fund Where did I say that? Or raise the spectre of all these dishonest businesses that don't pay tax and suggest you whack them for more money and pay for an oil fund that way. Is it really a spectre? Do all of these businesses pay their full way tax wise? No bogey man there, it's real, honest. What I did say was "How's about closing some of the tax loopholes or creating a tax-structure which encourages more businesses to be honest." No "whacking" involved on the poor businesses intended. Saying that it would be better whacking them and than the people who are getting whacked now. People are pretty quick to jump towarsd hyperbole on this subject.
You stated the dole money paid in the 80's was a 'waste'....are you suggesting such waste should not be cut?
You also clearly suggested a portion of business was not honest in their tax payments and by removing that we could pay for an oil fund...seems pretty clear to me that you are proposing increased business taxes to pay for an oil fund. Yet increased business taxes could easily provoke higher dole payments, less employment and therefore less overall tax.
The fact is to create an oil fund of any significant amount you would need to have the same compensating reduction in government spending...an oil fund is created by using oil revenue, revenue that is currently spent. It's a nonsense to suggest you just up tax elsewhere to compensate for that and hey presto we have an oil fund and the same level of government spending.
lord bunberry
17-12-2014, 12:01 PM
Although Trident is costly your statement is total nonsense.
You can't ring fence one (relatively small) part of government spending and claim that's the reason there is no oil fund.
You're right but it is one of the reasons. If you add up all the money wasted on trying to prove we're still a big player in the world it would probably come to more than Norway's oil fund
over the line
17-12-2014, 12:27 PM
Just said on the radio, that petrol might drop below £1 a litre soon, due to oil price falling further.
This kind of price fall would of put a fair bit of pressure on an iS, especially a newly formed one.
Great news for the rest of us though, cheaper petrol can only be a good thing IMO.
RyeSloan
17-12-2014, 12:30 PM
You're right but it is one of the reasons. If you add up all the money wasted on trying to prove we're still a big player in the world it would probably come to more than Norway's oil fund
Sorry but that's also nonsense.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/uk-military-operations-costs
Norways oil fund is approx $850bn.
Moulin Yarns
17-12-2014, 12:43 PM
Sorry but that's also nonsense.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/uk-military-operations-costs
Norways oil fund is approx $850bn.
In the words of Tesco, Every little helps. :wink:
hibs0666
17-12-2014, 01:38 PM
You're right but it is one of the reasons. If you add up all the money wasted on trying to prove we're still a big player in the world it would probably come to more than Norway's oil fund
We are and will continue to be major world player as we are lucky enough to have the 6th largest economy in the world.
lord bunberry
17-12-2014, 02:03 PM
We are and will continue to be major world player as we are lucky enough to have the 6th largest economy in the world.
We're not a major player militarily anymore, we aren't needed for anything other than back up and we'd struggle to defend ourselves from invasion. We have wasted billions supporting America in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, when we didn't need to be there.
The British empire is dead, but some people still seem to pretend it isn't.
lord bunberry
17-12-2014, 02:04 PM
Sorry but that's also nonsense.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/uk-military-operations-costs
Norways oil fund is approx $850bn.
How much have we wasted on the defence budget in the last 30 years?
over the line
17-12-2014, 02:39 PM
We are and will continue to be major world player as we are lucky enough to have the 6th largest economy in the world.
Plus we are ranked fifth most powerful military force in the world, behind US, Russia, China and India. Still a global power, whether some people like it or not.
over the line
17-12-2014, 02:57 PM
We're not a major player militarily anymore, we aren't needed for anything other than back up and we'd struggle to defend ourselves from invasion. We have wasted billions supporting America in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, when we didn't need to be there.
The British empire is dead, but some people still seem to pretend it isn't.
I agree that Iraq and Afghan were both a terrible waste of human life and money. Not that it makes it any better, but the UK was far from alone in these tragic deployments.
Edit: I was just about to say "what has this got to do with oil prices"? and then it dawned on me!
marinello59
17-12-2014, 03:00 PM
We are and will continue to be major world player as we are lucky enough to have the 6th largest economy in the world.
Yeap, independence or not we still live in one of the best countries in the world. Just look at how many people from all over the world want to join us. I hate the self loathing that drives some to talk both the UK and Scotland down all the time.
RyeSloan
17-12-2014, 03:16 PM
How much have we wasted on the defence budget in the last 30 years?
Aye OK so you have went from Trident to foreign wars to the whole defence budget now!
Are you seriously suggesting the defence budget should be zero to pay for an oil fund?
lord bunberry
17-12-2014, 03:36 PM
Aye OK so you have went from Trident to foreign wars to the whole defence budget now!
Are you seriously suggesting the defence budget should be zero to pay for an oil fund?
Not zero but does it need to be as high as it is to ensure our safety? We spend billions each year on defence yet were not safe. How much does Norway spend on defence?
hibs0666
17-12-2014, 03:44 PM
Not zero but does it need to be as high as it is to ensure our safety? We spend billions each year on defence yet were not safe. How much does Norway spend on defence?
Norway sends 1.4% of GDP on defence. We spend 2.3%.
over the line
17-12-2014, 05:04 PM
Yeap, independence or not we still live in one of the best countries in the world. Just look at how many people from all over the world want to join us. I hate the self loathing that drives some to talk both the UK and Scotland down all the time.
Spot on, totally agree!
On the whole we have it really easy in the UK, compared to the vast majority of places. Nearly all of us have far too much stuff and have never been truly hungry. Yet we complain like we are hard done to,me included.
lord bunberry
17-12-2014, 05:04 PM
Norway sends 1.4% of GDP on defence. We spend 2.3%.
How much is 0.9% of our GDP?
RyeSloan
17-12-2014, 05:29 PM
How much is 0.9% of our GDP?
Considering it's already been suggested you can't compare Norway in GDP or population terms to the UK we really should look at defence spending on a per capita basis.
Sadly for your oblique point Norway actually spends MORE per capita on Defence than the UK.....
But anyway I get your point you would drastically cut defence spending to create an oil fund, at least you have a position on where the money would come from I'll give you that ;-)
JeMeSouviens
17-12-2014, 09:40 PM
We are and will continue to be major world player as we are lucky enough to have the 6th largest economy in the world.
And? The poor Swiss have to live in only the 20th largest. Unlucky eh?
Thought you could do numbers? :rolleyes:
JeMeSouviens
17-12-2014, 09:41 PM
Plus we are ranked fifth most powerful military force in the world, behind US, Russia, China and India. Still a global power, whether some people like it or not.
And what good does this do us? Or indeed anyone else?
over the line
17-12-2014, 10:02 PM
And what good does this do us? Or indeed anyone else?
Someone made a point that the UK was no longer a global player, I was suggesting that it was. Like it or not.
I don't understand why anyone would want the country they live in to be weaker economically, or militarily anyway? What good would that do us?
over the line
17-12-2014, 10:07 PM
Not zero but does it need to be as high as it is to ensure our safety? We spend billions each year on defence yet were not safe. How much does Norway spend on defence?
So we spend billions and we are still not safe. Are you suggesting if we spent less we would be safer?
over the line
17-12-2014, 10:49 PM
Sorry but that's also nonsense.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/uk-military-operations-costs
Norways oil fund is approx $850bn.
Ah yes, but if that £34 billion spent on wars, had have been invested by the financial/banking elite of the UK that we hear so much about ............... then it would amount to f*** all billion pounds by now, as they would have thrown it away like all the rest of our money!
But I suppose even that would've been better than pointless wars.
lord bunberry
18-12-2014, 08:15 AM
So we spend billions and we are still not safe. Are you suggesting if we spent less we would be safer?
Partly yes. The money we have spent backing up America has made us more of a target, therefore meaning we have to spend money we might not have had to. We should be spending money on defending our borders and fulfilling our UN commitments
Hibrandenburg
18-12-2014, 10:28 AM
Norway sends 1.4% of GDP on defence. We spend 2.3%.
Those fjords are much easier to defend than Porty Beach.
steakbake
18-12-2014, 03:00 PM
Oil prices fluctuate - as do most commodities.
What is perhaps concerning more than anything is the apparent glee that some people have in seeing a major industry in the country dented because it seemingly damages the case for their political opponents. It has shades of the Labour delegates Brian Taylor reportedly saw who were "punching the air in delight" at the news the Royal Bank had failed.
Thatcher destroyed industries to smash the unions for an ideological reason. Seems like the Red Tories take similar ideological pleasure in seeing the Scottish economy being damaged.
Moulin Yarns
18-12-2014, 03:09 PM
I posted this on the 14th.
I was at a Christmas party last night and two of the company I was in are so well connected to the oil industry they have frequent flyer benefits to Houston. Part of our conversation turned to the North Sea oil potential and their view is the UK oil and gas extraction is currently borderline economically feasible. It costs so much more to extract from continental shelf reserves when compared with middle east. One of the guys manages the rig maintenance, the other is a partner in an exploration technology company, and they both said the same, that it is more beneficial to slow extraction rates until the barrel price rises by about 20% than continue to extract at the same rate.
We also discussed the renewables industry which we all agreed was well placed to further make the north sea extraction less economically viable.
Go renewables :greengrin
I've just seen the 3rd large solar farm application for Perth and Kinross in the last 6 months and there are another 5 large scale windfarm applications in the system, not all will be successful IMHO but some will.
HiBremian
18-12-2014, 03:31 PM
Those fjords are much easier to defend than Porty Beach.
Although historically, successful invasions of both Scotland and Norway have taken the land route ;-)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
marinello59
18-12-2014, 03:36 PM
Oil prices fluctuate - as do most commodities.
What is perhaps concerning more than anything is the apparent glee that some people have in seeing a major industry in the country dented because it seemingly damages the case for their political opponents. It has shades of the Labour delegates Brian Taylor reportedly saw who were "punching the air in delight" at the news the Royal Bank had failed.
Thatcher destroyed industries to smash the unions for an ideological reason. Seems like the Red Tories take similar ideological pleasure in seeing the Scottish economy being damaged.
I am very unikely to ever vote Labour again as things stand but that statement is complete and utter nonsense. Ideological pleasure? Really?
One Day Soon
18-12-2014, 04:23 PM
I see we have our equivalent of Japanese soldiers fighting WW2 on lonely pacific islands decades after it finished all across the Holy Ground threads.
The Referendum war is over.
hibs0666
18-12-2014, 04:26 PM
Oil prices fluctuate - as do most commodities.
What is perhaps concerning more than anything is the apparent glee that some people have in seeing a major industry in the country dented because it seemingly damages the case for their political opponents. It has shades of the Labour delegates Brian Taylor reportedly saw who were "punching the air in delight" at the news the Royal Bank had failed.
Thatcher destroyed industries to smash the unions for an ideological reason. Seems like the Red Tories take similar ideological pleasure in seeing the Scottish economy being damaged.
It just a shame that the tartan tories voted against a Labour government to allow Thatcher the opportunity to get into power in the first place.
steakbake
18-12-2014, 06:30 PM
It just a shame that the tartan tories voted against a Labour government to allow Thatcher the opportunity to get into power in the first place.
Laughable myth.
Nothing to do with Callaghan's mismanagement of the country and of course, nothing at all to do with the 3mil+ people who voted for Thatcher over Labour.
The collapse of the government brought the election forward by a few months. You could also blame the Liberals.
steakbake
18-12-2014, 06:33 PM
I am very unikely to ever vote Labour again as things stand but that statement is complete and utter nonsense. Ideological pleasure? Really?
I don't know - you'll have to ask Brian Taylor and the Labour delegates why they were so delighted at the collapse of RBS. And indeed, why there's a few No voters going around at the moment who are very pleased to see a Scottish industry go down the swanny, because it kicks one of the legs from the SNP's stool.
marinello59
18-12-2014, 07:08 PM
I don't know - you'll have to ask Brian Taylor and the Labour delegates why they were so delighted at the collapse of RBS. And indeed, why there's a few No voters going around at the moment who are very pleased to see a Scottish industry go down the swanny, because it kicks one of the legs from the SNP's stool.
I think it's just another example of tribal politics in action. If the roles were reversed Facebook would be full of SNP supporters gloating over No voters. Remember the secret oilfields that never materialised? How about the accusations of scaremongering when it was pointed out that oil prices were volatile and a falling oil price would hit the North Sea very hard. It left an open goal. I wouldn't take the tedious point scoring some Labour supporters are engaged in as an idealogical shift, that would be ridiculous. It's perfectly valid though for the opposition to point out that the ruling party in Scotland did not envisage this happening. That is in no way taking pleasure in what is a very worrying situation, it's what they should be doing. The ruling establishment party in Scotland got this one wrong. Maybe you could point me in the direction of these No voters who are 'very pleased to see a Scottish industry go down the swanny.' I haven't seen evidence of that anywhere.
marinello59
18-12-2014, 07:12 PM
I posted this on the 14th.
I was at a Christmas party last night and two of the company I was in are so well connected to the oil industry they have frequent flyer benefits to Houston. Part of our conversation turned to the North Sea oil potential and their view is the UK oil and gas extraction is currently borderline economically feasible. It costs so much more to extract from continental shelf reserves when compared with middle east. One of the guys manages the rig maintenance, the other is a partner in an exploration technology company, and they both said the same, that it is more beneficial to slow extraction rates until the barrel price rises by about 20% than continue to extract at the same rate.
We also discussed the renewables industry which we all agreed was well placed to further make the north sea extraction less economically viable.
Go renewables :greengrin
I've just seen the 3rd large solar farm application for Perth and Kinross in the last 6 months and there are another 5 large scale windfarm applications in the system, not all will be successful IMHO but some will.
If you had posted that prior to the referendum you would have been accused of joining Project Fear. :greengrin
You stated the dole money paid in the 80's was a 'waste'....are you suggesting such waste should not be cut?
What I am suggesting is that having so many people on the dole in the first place was the waste. Social policy based on a failed monetarist ideaology.
You also clearly suggested a portion of business was not honest in their tax payments and by removing that we could pay for an oil fund...seems pretty clear to me that you are proposing increased business taxes to pay for an oil fund. Yet increased business taxes could easily provoke higher dole payments, less employment and therefore less overall tax.
I am suggesting that some businesses are dishonest. In fact some businneses which make huge profits are groslly dishonest and ride roughshod over a government which finds it easier to save buttons by introducing things like the bedroom tax and lose billlions through unpaid taxes.
However I did propose "increased business taxes to pay for an oil fund" although those who at the moment pay very little or nothing should be made to pay their dues.
What I did say was the we could be "creating a tax-structure which encourages more businesses to be honest."
That doesn't mean higher taxes, that could well mean lower taxes. History shows in places where business taxes are reduced revenues actually increase as more businesses want to operate within that country and businesses inclined to "fiddle" stop doing to keep their noses clean and employment increases bringing further revenue and with less on benefits.
The fact is to create an oil fund of any significant amount you would need to have the same compensating reduction in government spending...an oil fund is created by using oil revenue, revenue that is currently spent. It's a nonsense to suggest you just up tax elsewhere to compensate for that and hey presto we have an oil fund and the same level of government spending.
That isn't a fact unless you're following a myopic out-dated version of the failed Thatcherite monetarist social policies, which the current tory party cannot see past.
Adam Smith's book shows there are more ways than one to skin a cat.
Rather over stating the case but does show the dangers of an economy which isn't properly diversified.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11302549/North-Sea-oilfields-near-collapse-after-price-nosedive.html
Some folk are very happy to give the SNP a doing ;-) over the current oil prices.
Were there any countries, or governments, or indeed anyone with crystal balls that predicted it?
johnbc70
19-12-2014, 02:37 PM
Some folk are very happy to give the SNP a doing ;-) over the current oil prices.
Were there any countries, or governments, or indeed anyone with crystal balls that predicted it?
My issue was the $113 a barrel assumption when it has been that price for something like 4 months in the last 40 years. I am no economist but to me they got that badly wrong and deserve some grief for it.
My issue was the $113 a barrel assumption when it has been that price for something like 4 months in the last 40 years. I am no economist but to me they got that badly wrong and deserve some grief for it.
But he does ask a pertinent question.
Moulin Yarns
19-12-2014, 04:11 PM
My issue was the $113 a barrel assumption when it has been that price for something like 4 months in the last 40 years. I am no economist but to me they got that badly wrong and deserve some grief for it.
Why are people not having a go at the London government for getting it wrong and not creating an oil fund 40 years ago?
Maybe that doesn't fit their agenda?
Maybe because all they want is to have cheap digs at the Scottish Parliament?
Maybe they are disappointed that they discovered that they were promised far more power than is now on offer?
hibs0666
19-12-2014, 04:17 PM
Why are people not having a go at the London government for getting it wrong and not creating an oil fund 40 years ago?
Maybe that doesn't fit their agenda?
Maybe because all they want is to have cheap digs at the Scottish Parliament?
Maybe they are disappointed that they discovered that they were promised far more power than is now on offer?
Nice try at deflection.
Hibbyradge
19-12-2014, 05:04 PM
This is one of the worst threads to have a place on the Holy Ground, imo.
Opportunistic point scoring in the extreme.
If anyone thinks that Alex Salmond or the SNP could have forecast the current oil price crash, then they're crediting them with magical powers.
Powers which no other leaders in the world possess.
If anyone thinks that Alex Salmond or the SNP could have forecast the current oil price crash, then they're crediting them with magical powers.
Powers which no other leaders in the world possess.
The OP is still posting.
Nice try at deflection.
....maybe he could tell us the forecasts made by the Exchequer, the Oil Companies and other relevant countries.
I'll hold my breath........starting from................NOW.....
Moulin Yarns
19-12-2014, 05:48 PM
The OP is still posting.
....maybe he could tell us the forecasts made by the Exchequer, the Oil Companies and other relevant countries.
I'll hold my breath........starting from................NOW.....
Don't do it, that's what he wants. The clue is in his name.
Don't do it, that's what he wants. The clue is in his name.
Mmm mmmdmmg mm bmmmmm.
degenerated
19-12-2014, 06:26 PM
I am very unikely to ever vote Labour again as things stand but that statement is complete and utter nonsense. Ideological pleasure? Really?
I may be blinded by my utter contempt for the man, but Blair mcdougall on twitter appears quite smugly satisfied, borderline triumphant with anything like that
johnbc70
19-12-2014, 07:01 PM
This is one of the worst threads to have a place on the Holy Ground, imo.
Opportunistic point scoring in the extreme.
If anyone thinks that Alex Salmond or the SNP could have forecast the current oil price crash, then they're crediting them with magical powers.
Powers which no other leaders in the world possess.
It's not about the oil price crash though, your right nobody could have predicted that, its about using $113 a barrel as a basis of economic planning for an iScotland. That $113 figure was 100% in their control, nothing to do with any external factors happening now. The fact the price has been that 4 months in 40 years was in my view a price that was not realistic. The price crash just highlights that they made a mistake and for that they do deserve some criticism?
It just a shame that the tartan tories voted against a Labour government to allow Thatcher the opportunity to get into power in the first place.
Wee Eck's going to be voting with Milliband now, though.
Moulin Yarns
20-12-2014, 08:01 AM
Nice try at deflection.
Equally valid question for you, do you not think the UK would be in a far better position to ride out financial crises if there was an oil reserve fund?
That successive London governments didn't set one up lacks the vision to have seen the banking crisis reccession etc. shows poor planning on the part of both Labour and Conservative parties, parties that could have done something about it and planned for a worse case scenario.
lord bunberry
20-12-2014, 08:48 AM
Wee Eck's going to be voting with Milliband now, though.
I suspect Milliband will be "spending more time with his family" after the general election
I suspect Milliband will be "spending more time with his family" after the general election
LOL Maybe not including his brother, though.
lord bunberry
20-12-2014, 10:01 AM
LOL Maybe not including his brother, though.
True. :greengrin
Just Alf
20-12-2014, 10:07 AM
It's not about the oil price crash though, your right nobody could have predicted that, its about using $113 a barrel as a basis of economic planning for an iScotland. That $113 figure was 100% in their control, nothing to do with any external factors happening now. The fact the price has been that 4 months in 40 years was in my view a price that was not realistic. The price crash just highlights that they made a mistake and for that they do deserve some criticism?
You could flip that the other way though and say that you feel there was more validity in using the 40 year old prices then?
Surely in general terms the price has been on an increasing trend for 40 years so even with the volatility the chances are that it's more likely future prices will be at the higher end of the scale than the lowest?
That's not to take away that predicting a price level that then doesn't happen won't leave you with some work to do to balance the books... Just look at Russia right now.
johnbc70
20-12-2014, 10:09 AM
Equally valid question for you, do you not think the UK would be in a far better position to ride out financial crises if there was an oil reserve fund?
That successive London governments didn't set one up lacks the vision to have seen the banking crisis reccession etc. shows poor planning on the part of both Labour and Conservative parties, parties that could have done something about it and planned for a worse case scenario.
You do know a 'London' government as you call it was the government of the UK which Scotland is a part of. Lots of Scots voted for parties that never championed oil funds so do you equally blame the Scots for poor planning and not having 'done something about it'. Also ironic we are quick to blame 'London' for poor planning in not seeing the financial crisis but for the current oil price crisis nobody could have seen it coming.
johnbc70
20-12-2014, 10:11 AM
You could flip that the other way though and say that you feel there was more validity in using the 40 year old prices then?
Surely in general terms the price has been on an increasing trend for 40 years so even with the volatility the chances are that it's more likely future prices will be at the higher end of the scale than the lowest?
That's not to take away that predicting a price level that then doesn't happen won't leave you with some work to do to balance the books... Just look at Russia right now.
Maybe $113 in 10, 15 or 20 years not 2 or 3.
Just Alf
20-12-2014, 10:13 AM
Maybe $113 in 10, 15 or 20 years not 2 or 3.
Fair do's...... :agree:
snooky
20-12-2014, 10:47 AM
http://wingsoverscotland.com/oilmageddon/#more-64684
Moulin Yarns
20-12-2014, 11:03 AM
You do know a 'London' government as you call it was the government of the UK which Scotland is a part of. Lots of Scots voted for parties that never championed oil funds so do you equally blame the Scots for poor planning and not having 'done something about it'. Also ironic we are quick to blame 'London' for poor planning in not seeing the financial crisis but for the current oil price crisis nobody could have seen it coming.
Round in bloody circles yet again. Aint it funny how some countries planned for every eventuality, while ours failed miserably.
Conspiracy theorists believe the current low oil price is manufactured by western governments.
Fair do's...... :agree:
It wasn't that long ago Goldman Sachs were predicting a $200 barrel of oil. Even the Uber experts can be wrong.
Although oil only hit $113 a barrel for a short time the price had remained steady around $110 +/- $1.50 for a record time, with the Uber experts suggesting the only way was generally up! There obviously busy as ... just now revising their estimates!
Even the oil companies in and around Scotland, whose industry is apparently in crisis just now because of the falling price last year announced multi million pound investments.
Given fact of steady prices with the 'expert' opinion being moderate increases and new investment by the industry itself it's hardly surprising the SNP went for such a figure.
No one predicted a crash that I can see.
RyeSloan
20-12-2014, 08:34 PM
It wasn't that long ago Goldman Sachs were predicting a $200 barrel of oil. Even the Uber experts can be wrong. Although oil only hit $113 a barrel for a short time the price had remained steady around $110 +/- $1.50 for a record time, with the Uber experts suggesting the only way was generally up! There obviously busy as ... just now revising their estimates! Even the oil companies in and around Scotland, whose industry is apparently in crisis just now because of the falling price last year announced multi million pound investments. Given fact of steady prices with the 'expert' opinion being moderate increases and new investment by the industry itself it's hardly surprising the SNP went for such a figure. No one predicted a crash that I can see.
Fact is no one can predict these things with any certainty...it's like any economic growth or inflation rate forecast; nonsense.
However if forced to make some sort of assumption surely you do so on a conservative data set, not using a historical high?
Not that I'm overly bothered as politicians forecasting revenue and expenditure are always going to be over optimistic on the first and under on the second, doesn't matter what party that are from.
over the line
20-12-2014, 09:56 PM
It wasn't that long ago Goldman Sachs were predicting a $200 barrel of oil. Even the Uber experts can be wrong.
Although oil only hit $113 a barrel for a short time the price had remained steady around $110 +/- $1.50 for a record time, with the Uber experts suggesting the only way was generally up! There obviously busy as ... just now revising their estimates!
Even the oil companies in and around Scotland, whose industry is apparently in crisis just now because of the falling price last year announced multi million pound investments.
Given fact of steady prices with the 'expert' opinion being moderate increases and new investment by the industry itself it's hardly surprising the SNP went for such a figure.
No one predicted a crash that I can see.
It's a bit like doing the Sky Sports Super Six. It's a bit of a laugh and worth a punt, but you wouldn't base 15% of your nations economy on it would you? SNP were chancing it and have been shown up very quickly. I think we should all be saying a collective "phew", as the folly of the Yes campaigns economical policy has been exposed rather rapidly IMHO.
Glory Lurker
20-12-2014, 10:21 PM
It's a bit like doing the Sky Sports Super Six. It's a bit of a laugh and worth a punt, but you wouldn't base 15% of your nations economy on it would you? SNP were chancing it and have been shown up very quickly. I think we should all be saying a collective "phew", as the folly of the Yes campaigns economical policy has been exposed rather rapidly IMHO.
The Yes campaign's policy was not the SNP's policy.
if we'd voted Yes, we'd still be part of the UK at the moment. Even if we were independent just now, we'd be talking about the SNP's aspirational policies being troubled (assuming they'd even formed the post-independence government), not the provision of the services we've got just now. Without oil, Scotland treads water economically. But we'd not have the inequities of the Westminster system. So, we'd still be up.
over the line
20-12-2014, 11:39 PM
The Yes campaign's policy was not the SNP's policy.
if we'd voted Yes, we'd still be part of the UK at the moment. Even if we were independent just now, we'd be talking about the SNP's aspirational policies being troubled (assuming they'd even formed the post-independence government), not the provision of the services we've got just now. Without oil, Scotland treads water economically. But we'd not have the inequities of the Westminster system. So, we'd still be up.
But it shows the frailties of of the Yes campaigns economical policy. They would not be able to implement their utopian policies with a large proportion of the tax income disappearing all of a sudden.
That is am economical reality and it would have affect the wellbeing of a newly formed iS.
Glory Lurker
21-12-2014, 12:29 AM
But it shows the frailties of of the Yes campaigns economical policy. They would not be able to implement their utopian policies with a large proportion of the tax income disappearing all of a sudden.
That is am economical reality and it would have affect the wellbeing of a newly formed iS.
Again, the Yes campaign did not have an economic policy.
If the oil price bombed in an independent Scotland (again, Scotland would not have been independent just now, anyway) then, yes, it would have an impact on just how far we could extend public spending beyond what we have just now, but that is it. The country would still be sound. And would be in control of who is actually in charge of it. That works for me.
Peevemor
21-12-2014, 11:00 AM
It's a bit like doing the Sky Sports Super Six. It's a bit of a laugh and worth a punt, but you wouldn't base 15% of your nations economy on it would you? SNP were chancing it and have been shown up very quickly. I think we should all be saying a collective "phew", as the folly of the Yes campaigns economical policy has been exposed rather rapidly IMHO.
7%
judas
24-12-2014, 09:42 PM
I remember working to regenerate (as they would call it now) housing in Edinburgh then. Old couples living in a single room with no bathing facilities for 20 years and the like. City was coated in grime. Abandoned goods yards left for years as car parks.... and Edinburgh was one of the better places. Cities were in a pretty sorry state pre-early 80s.
That corresponds with my personal recollection. Dereliction, brownfield sites, desolate dockyards and housing estates that genuinely looked like parts of war torn Beirut, are very much in my memory.
There is no doubt in my mind, that the built environment at least has improved exponentially over the past 35 years.
judas
24-12-2014, 10:04 PM
But it shows the frailties of of the Yes campaigns economical policy. They would not be able to implement their utopian policies with a large proportion of the tax income disappearing all of a sudden.
That is am economical reality and it would have affect the wellbeing of a newly formed iS.
The fact is, that oil in real terms is trending upward. Its a finite resource.
We can all agree about the unpredictability of oil prices, but we must consider that the converse of the current oil price low, as predicted by GS is not only within the realms of reality, but actually very likely.
Speaking about oil in cursed terms is irrational. Having the largest oil reserves in Western Europe is no small matter.
Mibbes Aye
24-12-2014, 10:44 PM
The fact is, that oil in real terms is trending upward. Its a finite resource.
We can all agree about the unpredictability of oil prices, but we must consider that the converse of the current oil price low, as predicted by GS is not only within the realms of reality, but actually very likely.
Speaking about oil in cursed terms is irrational. Having the largest oil reserves in Western Europe is no small matter.
That misses the point completely though. It is a finite resource, say like gold, but it is a resource that exists to be consumed, so it doesn't possess the scarcity value of gold.
Because we depend on energy supply we need consumable resource and because oil is finite we have to discover alternatives because our lifestyles and economies aren't sustainable. That's without even getting into the undesirability of a fossil fuel in the first place!
At some point in our planet's near-future oil will become obsolete, simply because it has to. Even if there were unlimited reserves, we couldn't tolerate the effect from carbon emissions.
judas
25-12-2014, 10:14 PM
That misses the point completely though. It is a finite resource, say like gold, but it is a resource that exists to be consumed, so it doesn't possess the scarcity value of gold.
Because we depend on energy supply we need consumable resource and because oil is finite we have to discover alternatives because our lifestyles and economies aren't sustainable. That's without even getting into the undesirability of a fossil fuel in the first place!
At some point in our planet's near-future oil will become obsolete, simply because it has to. Even if there were unlimited reserves, we couldn't tolerate the effect from carbon emissions.
Happy Xmas.
I don't agree and find your point at odds with basic economic tenets. Scarce oil resources being consumed, drive prices up over time.
I mean what is economics, if it's not the study of how we allocate finite resources to satisfy infinite wants? And, in the context of oil, how would the question be addressed, say by the laws of supply and demand? We know the answer and if required need only look at OPEC controlling supply, to find it.
You are right when you suggest that the worlds reliance on oil will decline over time, but the end game for oil, will be long after those countries with the black stuff have extracted a premium.
Gold ofcourse has value as a default currency. In an era of record debt, quantitative easing and dystopian economic prognosis, it's natural that it's value has soared. Sadly, we don't really have any gold because Gordon Brown (the guy that lectured us about economic trapdoors on the eve of the referendum) sold it, when it's value was depressed.
All in all, regardless of whether a commodity is being consumed or not, it's scarcity playing off against the demand for it will set the tariff. What do you think an orange would cost, from the last healthy orange tree in the world? And what profit would the guy that owned that tree take?
GreenLake
28-12-2014, 07:44 AM
We are and will continue to be major world player as we are lucky enough to have the 6th largest economy in the world.
The government decided to fudge the GDP by including the market for hookers and blow (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888416/Who-said-crime-doesn-t-pay-Counting-prostitution-drugs-GDP-figure-seen-UK-s-economy-overtake-France-fifth-largest-world.html) so officially we are 5th now.
Mibbes Aye
28-12-2014, 04:33 PM
Happy Xmas.
I don't agree and find your point at odds with basic economic tenets. Scarce oil resources being consumed, drive prices up over time.
I mean what is economics, if it's not the study of how we allocate finite resources to satisfy infinite wants? And, in the context of oil, how would the question be addressed, say by the laws of supply and demand? We know the answer and if required need only look at OPEC controlling supply, to find it.
You are right when you suggest that the worlds reliance on oil will decline over time, but the end game for oil, will be long after those countries with the black stuff have extracted a premium.
Gold ofcourse has value as a default currency. In an era of record debt, quantitative easing and dystopian economic prognosis, it's natural that it's value has soared. Sadly, we don't really have any gold because Gordon Brown (the guy that lectured us about economic trapdoors on the eve of the referendum) sold it, when it's value was depressed.
All in all, regardless of whether a commodity is being consumed or not, it's scarcity playing off against the demand for it will set the tariff. What do you think an orange would cost, from the last healthy orange tree in the world? And what profit would the guy that owned that tree take?
You're right, it is basic economics you're describing. Very basic :greengrin
Your metaphor about oranges is probably fair enough. But ask yourself this. Is the global economy heavily reliant on oranges?
If some blight appeared tomorrow that wiped out oranges, it would have a significant impact. Del Monte would probably be screwed. Joking aside, I think it would have a serious effect on the business and trade 'food chain' if you pardon the pun.
Oranges aren't oil though. They're not a key energy source for industrialized economies.
Going by your argument, when we get down to the last hundred barrels of oil, the price will be sky-high and America and China (or whomever) will be frantically outbidding each other for those remaining barrels.
Actually, for a hundred you could read one thousand or one hundred thousand or one hundred million. When oil becomes that scarce, you say scarcity dictates the tariff, if the demand is there.
The point being missed is that major economies can't afford (in so many senses of the word) to pay overly inflated prices for oil to ensure energy supply therefore the demand will shift, it has to shift.
Putting aside the interest of actors like nation states, there's the whole carbon emissions nightmare as well.
No less a body than the United Nations stated publicly in November that we had to eliminate CO2 emissions by 2070 to avoid climate disaster. I note our posters who talk about a wealthy independent Scotland being a land of milk and honey thanks to our supposed oil wealth conspicuously avoided commenting on that bombshell.
It was popular in the ref campaign with some Yessers to roll their eyes and say "Oh, Scotland must be the only country for whom having oil is a problem"
They were wrong.
Having oil is the whole world's problem and it's up to us as to whether we want to leave a world our great-grandchildren and their descendants can enjoy.
Mibbes Aye
28-12-2014, 05:08 PM
Happy Xmas.
I don't agree and find your point at odds with basic economic tenets. Scarce oil resources being consumed, drive prices up over time.
I mean what is economics, if it's not the study of how we allocate finite resources to satisfy infinite wants? And, in the context of oil, how would the question be addressed, say by the laws of supply and demand? We know the answer and if required need only look at OPEC controlling supply, to find it.
You are right when you suggest that the worlds reliance on oil will decline over time, but the end game for oil, will be long after those countries with the black stuff have extracted a premium.
Gold ofcourse has value as a default currency. In an era of record debt, quantitative easing and dystopian economic prognosis, it's natural that it's value has soared. Sadly, we don't really have any gold because Gordon Brown (the guy that lectured us about economic trapdoors on the eve of the referendum) sold it, when it's value was depressed.
All in all, regardless of whether a commodity is being consumed or not, it's scarcity playing off against the demand for it will set the tariff. What do you think an orange would cost, from the last healthy orange tree in the world? And what profit would the guy that owned that tree take?
I find it hilarious when folk repeat the 'Gordon Brown sold the gold' line as an attack on him. Usually it indicates a complete and utter lack of appreciation of context.
It's something that the right-wing press has run heavily with. Funny how some folk who complained about media manipulation in the referendum are happy to do the same papers work for them without a question :greengrin
just to pick you up on a factual matter, we do have gold - we only sold around half of what we had. Still, if the Telegraph tells you that Gordon Brown sold all the gold then who to believe, eh?
When we did sell, gold had been on a steady decline for a couple of decades. The state and nature of the global economy was such that the traditional factors which made gold attractive for investors weren't in place. It's plausible to suggest the price could have fallen further. I'm sure people like you were aware it would pick up again - no doubt you invested heavily and are now reaping the reward? :greengrin
More to the point, my sense is that Gordon Brown had to find money for capital investment. A lot of posters on here will be simply too young to remember what our hospitals and schools were like in the mid-nineties. Crumbling, unfit buildings across every town and city, waiting lists through the roof. the NHS and the education system both needed massive investment. What should we have done? Said, hold on, we want to see if gold rises over the next ten years, so we won't replace your primary school that's falling apart, or we won't employ enough doctors and nurses to stop you waiting a year for a hip replacement?
Aside from raising our taxes or borrowing even more, what did we have at our disposal? One option was some gold, not a huge amount in actual fact. I'm not sure whether people appreciate that the amount of gold sold, even if at today's prices, was pretty small stuff. If we sold it today it would generate around £10bn. To put that in context, that's around 8 or 9% of the annual cost of the NHS. Or to put it another way, the bank bailout cost us around £500bn. The gold wouldn't have really made much difference would it?
I think people need to see beyond the spin and appreciate what happened - we sold some gold and put the money into other instruments which were better-suited to us raising the money to invest in schools and the NHS.
Gordon Brown has his detractors but I don't think anyone doubts his convictions, even if they don't agree with his politics. For a son of the manse, with his views on social justice and a fairer society, I can quite easily believe that the thought of pretty irrelevant gold ingots gathering dust in a vault in London, while our nation's hospitals and schools fell apart, disgusted him. And I think he was right to be disgusted.
RyeSloan
29-12-2014, 01:20 PM
I find it hilarious when folk repeat the 'Gordon Brown sold the gold' line as an attack on him. Usually it indicates a complete and utter lack of appreciation of context. It's something that the right-wing press has run heavily with. Funny how some folk who complained about media manipulation in the referendum are happy to do the same papers work for them without a question :greengrin just to pick you up on a factual matter, we do have gold - we only sold around half of what we had. Still, if the Telegraph tells you that Gordon Brown sold all the gold then who to believe, eh? When we did sell, gold had been on a steady decline for a couple of decades. The state and nature of the global economy was such that the traditional factors which made gold attractive for investors weren't in place. It's plausible to suggest the price could have fallen further. I'm sure people like you were aware it would pick up again - no doubt you invested heavily and are now reaping the reward? :greengrin More to the point, my sense is that Gordon Brown had to find money for capital investment. A lot of posters on here will be simply too young to remember what our hospitals and schools were like in the mid-nineties. Crumbling, unfit buildings across every town and city, waiting lists through the roof. the NHS and the education system both needed massive investment. What should we have done? Said, hold on, we want to see if gold rises over the next ten years, so we won't replace your primary school that's falling apart, or we won't employ enough doctors and nurses to stop you waiting a year for a hip replacement? Aside from raising our taxes or borrowing even more, what did we have at our disposal? One option was some gold, not a huge amount in actual fact. I'm not sure whether people appreciate that the amount of gold sold, even if at today's prices, was pretty small stuff. If we sold it today it would generate around £10bn. To put that in context, that's around 8 or 9% of the annual cost of the NHS. Or to put it another way, the bank bailout cost us around £500bn. The gold wouldn't have really made much difference would it? I think people need to see beyond the spin and appreciate what happened - we sold some gold and put the money into other instruments which were better-suited to us raising the money to invest in schools and the NHS. Gordon Brown has his detractors but I don't think anyone doubts his convictions, even if they don't agree with his politics. For a son of the manse, with his views on social justice and a fairer society, I can quite easily believe that the thought of pretty irrelevant gold ingots gathering dust in a vault in London, while our nation's hospitals and schools fell apart, disgusted him. And I think he was right to be disgusted.
A firm riposte MA!
While I don't disagree with your general point re the gold sale you have to admit that it was done at the worst point possible in terms of getting a good price.
You are right though that the sums involved are actually pretty puny, I suppose it's the fact he sold at the bottom of the cycle rather than the act of selling that is most damaging.
One last thing...the bank bail outs did not cost £500bn. Nothing like that. Sure liquidity to that value (and above!) was provided but that is not the same as the cost of the bailouts. From what I can see the financing costs and interest earned have largely netted off so the actual cost is the cash cost of the share purchases and other support given to the building societies. Best estimates put that around £100bn. OK hardly chump change but it's certainty not £500bn and there is the fact that the governments stake in lloyds and RBS are still worth something (RBS market cap is £44bn so I assume the taxpayers stake is worth c£40bn currently).
I'm not defending the banks here (who could!) but it's interesting to note that the £500bn figure has become standard when describing the cost of the bank bailouts when actually nothing like that was ever spent directly on the banks.
Anyway I digress....oil prices, gold prices one thing is for sure the last people that will actually know what these will be in the future are politicians so there is little value in using their lack of foresight on these things as a stick to beat them with. There is also little value in using oil revenue assumptions (esp. rather inflated ones compared to long term averages) in calculating your (duly inflated) spending plans, which was maybe the op's point.
That said I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread revived in a couple of years with oil prices hitting new highs and people then stating how insightful the SNP's predictions were ;-)
A firm riposte MA!
While I don't disagree with your general point re the gold sale you have to admit that it was done at the worst point possible in terms of getting a good price.
You are right though that the sums involved are actually pretty puny, I suppose it's the fact he sold at the bottom of the cycle rather than the act of selling that is most damaging.
One last thing...the bank bail outs did not cost £500bn. Nothing like that. Sure liquidity to that value (and above!) was provided but that is not the same as the cost of the bailouts. From what I can see the financing costs and interest earned have largely netted off so the actual cost is the cash cost of the share purchases and other support given to the building societies. Best estimates put that around £100bn. OK hardly chump change but it's certainty not £500bn and there is the fact that the governments stake in lloyds and RBS are still worth something (RBS market cap is £44bn so I assume the taxpayers stake is worth c£40bn currently).
I'm not defending the banks here (who could!) but it's interesting to note that the £500bn figure has become standard when describing the cost of the bank bailouts when actually nothing like that was ever spent directly on the banks.
Anyway I digress....oil prices, gold prices one thing is for sure the last people that will actually know what these will be in the future are politicians so there is little value in using their lack of foresight on these things as a stick to beat them with. There is also little value in using oil revenue assumptions (esp. rather inflated ones compared to long term averages) in calculating your (duly inflated) spending plans, which was maybe the op's point.
That said I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread revived in a couple of years with oil prices hitting new highs and people then stating how insightful the SNP's predictions were ;-)
All of which means that Scotland's economy would be a hostage to fortune unless it diversifies enormously.
Moulin Yarns
30-12-2014, 12:28 PM
AW SH IT!! BP have just gone and upped production, prolonging the agony of North Sea Oil production by 10 years. That really screws the economy big time :wink:
Production is forecast to peak at more than 50,000 barrels of oil a day. That's going to drive down the price of a barrel of oil even further, supply and demand, like! :greengrin
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-30632300
Mibbes Aye
30-12-2014, 07:42 PM
A firm riposte MA!
While I don't disagree with your general point re the gold sale you have to admit that it was done at the worst point possible in terms of getting a good price.
You are right though that the sums involved are actually pretty puny, I suppose it's the fact he sold at the bottom of the cycle rather than the act of selling that is most damaging.
One last thing...the bank bail outs did not cost £500bn. Nothing like that. Sure liquidity to that value (and above!) was provided but that is not the same as the cost of the bailouts. From what I can see the financing costs and interest earned have largely netted off so the actual cost is the cash cost of the share purchases and other support given to the building societies. Best estimates put that around £100bn. OK hardly chump change but it's certainty not £500bn and there is the fact that the governments stake in lloyds and RBS are still worth something (RBS market cap is £44bn so I assume the taxpayers stake is worth c£40bn currently).
I'm not defending the banks here (who could!) but it's interesting to note that the £500bn figure has become standard when describing the cost of the bank bailouts when actually nothing like that was ever spent directly on the banks.
Anyway I digress....oil prices, gold prices one thing is for sure the last people that will actually know what these will be in the future are politicians so there is little value in using their lack of foresight on these things as a stick to beat them with. There is also little value in using oil revenue assumptions (esp. rather inflated ones compared to long term averages) in calculating your (duly inflated) spending plans, which was maybe the op's point.
That said I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread revived in a couple of years with oil prices hitting new highs and people then stating how insightful the SNP's predictions were ;-)
It's a fair point about the £500bn - I suppose people have gone with that because it's become accepted as the amount we laid ourselves open to in terms of guarantees and indemnities, though you're right, I think it was far more - £1.2 trillion that was estimated at one point? As for actual spend, I think I recall something in the region of £120-130bn being mentioned. The other factor is of course lost output as a consequence of the measures that had to be taken.
I suppose we just have to be grateful that the action taken at the time stopped that £500bn or £1.2 trillion being called in. I think posterity will be kinder on Brown than the spin that the Tories and their press allies managed to put on matters.
judas
30-12-2014, 08:19 PM
You're right, it is basic economics you're describing. Very basic :greengrin
Your metaphor about oranges is probably fair enough. But ask yourself this. Is the global economy heavily reliant on oranges?
If some blight appeared tomorrow that wiped out oranges, it would have a significant impact. Del Monte would probably be screwed. Joking aside, I think it would have a serious effect on the business and trade 'food chain' if you pardon the pun.
Oranges aren't oil though. They're not a key energy source for industrialized economies.
Going by your argument, when we get down to the last hundred barrels of oil, the price will be sky-high and America and China (or whomever) will be frantically outbidding each other for those remaining barrels.
Actually, for a hundred you could read one thousand or one hundred thousand or one hundred million. When oil becomes that scarce, you say scarcity dictates the tariff, if the demand is there.
The point being missed is that major economies can't afford (in so many senses of the word) to pay overly inflated prices for oil to ensure energy supply therefore the demand will shift, it has to shift.
Putting aside the interest of actors like nation states, there's the whole carbon emissions nightmare as well.
No less a body than the United Nations stated publicly in November that we had to eliminate CO2 emissions by 2070 to avoid climate disaster. I note our posters who talk about a wealthy independent Scotland being a land of milk and honey thanks to our supposed oil wealth conspicuously avoided commenting on that bombshell.
It was popular in the ref campaign with some Yessers to roll their eyes and say "Oh, Scotland must be the only country for whom having oil is a problem"
They were wrong.
Having oil is the whole world's problem and it's up to us as to whether we want to leave a world our great-grandchildren and their descendants can enjoy.
I understand your climate change sentiments. If you believe that global warming is a man made phenomenon, then we need to phase fossil fuels out. And yes, on the basis that mankind takes the initiative toward this end, there will be a change in the demand curve for oil at which point diminishing returns will ensue.
Sadly, you are bound to be dissapointed. The end of oil, as a propulsion fuel is going to be a long drawn out affair. Then there's the oil found in various petrochemicals that comprise routine household objects.
As I have said previously, there is much mileage (if you'll excuse the pun) in oil and those who possess reserves will be the winners.
I think we've met in the middle with the oranges. I think Delmonte is safe for now.
judas
30-12-2014, 08:47 PM
I find it hilarious when folk repeat the 'Gordon Brown sold the gold' line as an attack on him. Usually it indicates a complete and utter lack of appreciation of context.
It's something that the right-wing press has run heavily with. Funny how some folk who complained about media manipulation in the referendum are happy to do the same papers work for them without a question :greengrin
just to pick you up on a factual matter, we do have gold - we only sold around half of what we had. Still, if the Telegraph tells you that Gordon Brown sold all the gold then who to believe, eh?
When we did sell, gold had been on a steady decline for a couple of decades. The state and nature of the global economy was such that the traditional factors which made gold attractive for investors weren't in place. It's plausible to suggest the price could have fallen further. I'm sure people like you were aware it would pick up again - no doubt you invested heavily and are now reaping the reward? :greengrin
More to the point, my sense is that Gordon Brown had to find money for capital investment. A lot of posters on here will be simply too young to remember what our hospitals and schools were like in the mid-nineties. Crumbling, unfit buildings across every town and city, waiting lists through the roof. the NHS and the education system both needed massive investment. What should we have done? Said, hold on, we want to see if gold rises over the next ten years, so we won't replace your primary school that's falling apart, or we won't employ enough doctors and nurses to stop you waiting a year for a hip replacement?
Aside from raising our taxes or borrowing even more, what did we have at our disposal? One option was some gold, not a huge amount in actual fact. I'm not sure whether people appreciate that the amount of gold sold, even if at today's prices, was pretty small stuff. If we sold it today it would generate around £10bn. To put that in context, that's around 8 or 9% of the annual cost of the NHS. Or to put it another way, the bank bailout cost us around £500bn. The gold wouldn't have really made much difference would it?
I think people need to see beyond the spin and appreciate what happened - we sold some gold and put the money into other instruments which were better-suited to us raising the money to invest in schools and the NHS.
Gordon Brown has his detractors but I don't think anyone doubts his convictions, even if they don't agree with his politics. For a son of the manse, with his views on social justice and a fairer society, I can quite easily believe that the thought of pretty irrelevant gold ingots gathering dust in a vault in London, while our nation's hospitals and schools fell apart, disgusted him. And I think he was right to be disgusted.
It's not so simple, you're right.
We were talking about volatile commodities. Oil mainly and then gold - dropped in by another member to demonstrate a point.
I was juxtaposing the relationship between supply, demand, volatility and prices. Using Browns sell off, seemed relevant to the overall point I was making. But my tone was sarcastic.
And maybe with some justification. Let's go off piste (for the threads about oil) and assume that all our leading politicians have integrity (I know it's a leap). They all do what they think is right, and then we let time take its course and judge the results.
It is very difficult then, is it not, to look at the sale of gold, monthly announcements declaring the end of boom and bust, PFI debt, the spread eagled position of Britain at the time of the credit crunch and the implementation by Brown of the Norwegian solution to the banking crisis (oh the irony) and then consider his talk of economic trapdoors, with anything less than a smirk.
You seem to think Brown created some biblical style miracle, with his transformation of crumbling infrastructure and the built environment. Have you seen UK debt today?
Flynn
31-12-2014, 04:38 PM
http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
There are fluctuations in oil prices, heavily influenced by geopolitics, but there is only one way oil prices are going in the long term. UP UP AND AWAY. The only result possible when such an important resource is becoming more scarce combined with demand rising exponentially.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_VpyoAXpA8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_VpyoAXpA8)
A lecture well worth watching about energy, population and simple arithmetic.
Mibbes Aye
31-12-2014, 06:08 PM
It's not so simple, you're right.
We were talking about volatile commodities. Oil mainly and then gold - dropped in by another member to demonstrate a point.
I was juxtaposing the relationship between supply, demand, volatility and prices. Using Browns sell off, seemed relevant to the overall point I was making. But my tone was sarcastic.
And maybe with some justification. Let's go off piste (for the threads about oil) and assume that all our leading politicians have integrity (I know it's a leap). They all do what they think is right, and then we let time take its course and judge the results.
It is very difficult then, is it not, to look at the sale of gold, monthly announcements declaring the end of boom and bust, PFI debt, the spread eagled position of Britain at the time of the credit crunch and the implementation by Brown of the Norwegian solution to the banking crisis (oh the irony) and then consider his talk of economic trapdoors, with anything less than a smirk.
You seem to think Brown created some biblical style miracle, with his transformation of crumbling infrastructure and the built environment. Have you seen UK debt today?
Actually I don't but you are in need of hyperbole, I grant you that.
We were talking about oil and then you took it off on a tangent for an irrelevant, and as it turned out, factually inaccurate dig at Gordon Brown over gold.
In response to Flynn's post above, and in an attempt to get you to answer the original proposition, you can't just apply simplistic arguments about scarcity meaning never-ending price increases.
As I've asked already, do you really think the world's richest nations will keep buying oil, competing with each other for oil, at ever-increasing prices, get to the last drop and then think "Hold on, we've got a global economy heavily reliant on oil, we had better pause everything while we develop an infrastructure around another fuel source".
That's naive in the extreme, isn't it? Oil prices might fluctuate in the short-term but it is a dependency the global economy can't continue with indefinitely for a variety of reasons. That being the case, then why would it?
judas
31-12-2014, 09:28 PM
Actually I don't but you are in need of hyperbole, I grant you that.
We were talking about oil and then you took it off on a tangent for an irrelevant, and as it turned out, factually inaccurate dig at Gordon Brown over gold.
In response to Flynn's post above, and in an attempt to get you to answer the original proposition, you can't just apply simplistic arguments about scarcity meaning never-ending price increases.
As I've asked already, do you really think the world's richest nations will keep buying oil, competing with each other for oil, at ever-increasing prices, get to the last drop and then think "Hold on, we've got a global economy heavily reliant on oil, we had better pause everything while we develop an infrastructure around another fuel source".
That's naive in the extreme, isn't it? Oil prices might fluctuate in the short-term but it is a dependency the global economy can't continue with indefinitely for a variety of reasons. That being the case, then why would it?
I've already said it two or three times, but again, I think the price of oil will continue to rise until diminishing returns set in for producers. This point in time is a long way off in my view, perhaps 40 years.
I think some underestimate the global reliance on oil and the technological difficulties in a finding viable alternative. Naturally, we will evolve beyond this fuel source, but it's a question of what profit/taxation can be extracted before your oil depletion scenario begins to phase in.
Regarding Brown and gold, I can see you are upset. Apologies for any offence. But he sold it (not all I agree) when it was sitting at a historical low; this is just one of his many economic blunders. With respect, we were discussing oil, but my fellow member brought gold into it. I penned a solitary sentence about Brown, you wrote 8 paragraphs about him. ;-)
Mibbes Aye
31-12-2014, 10:03 PM
I've already said it two or three times, but again, I think the price of oil will continue to rise until diminishing returns set in for producers. This point in time is a long way off in my view, perhaps 40 years.
I think some underestimate the global reliance on oil and the technological difficulties in a finding viable alternative. Naturally, we will evolve beyond this fuel source, but it's a question of what profit/taxation can be extracted before your oil depletion scenario begins to phase in.
Regarding Brown and gold, I can see you are upset. Apologies for any offence. But he sold it (not all I agree) when it was sitting at a historical low; this is just one of his many economic blunders. With respect, we were discussing oil, but my fellow member brought gold into it. I penned a solitary sentence about Brown, you wrote 8 paragraphs about him. ;-)
Again, you're mistaken. I just don't like laziness. And your earlier claim came across as lazy to me.
judas
31-12-2014, 10:33 PM
Again, you're mistaken. I just don't like laziness. And your earlier claim came across as lazy to me.
No, just a lack of attention to detail, like you're one about the cost of bank bailouts ;-).
Have a good night.
Mibbes Aye
31-12-2014, 10:56 PM
No, just a lack of attention to detail, like you're one about the cost of bank bailouts ;-).
Have a good night.
:cool2:
Enjoy the festivities too, genuinely.
GreenLake
08-01-2015, 03:31 PM
I find it hilarious when folk repeat the 'Gordon Brown sold the gold' line as an attack on him. Usually it indicates a complete and utter lack of appreciation of context.
It's something that the right-wing press has run heavily with. Funny how some folk who complained about media manipulation in the referendum are happy to do the same papers work for them without a question :greengrin
just to pick you up on a factual matter, we do have gold - we only sold around half of what we had. Still, if the Telegraph tells you that Gordon Brown sold all the gold then who to believe, eh?
When we did sell, gold had been on a steady decline for a couple of decades. The state and nature of the global economy was such that the traditional factors which made gold attractive for investors weren't in place. It's plausible to suggest the price could have fallen further. I'm sure people like you were aware it would pick up again - no doubt you invested heavily and are now reaping the reward? :greengrin
More to the point, my sense is that Gordon Brown had to find money for capital investment. A lot of posters on here will be simply too young to remember what our hospitals and schools were like in the mid-nineties. Crumbling, unfit buildings across every town and city, waiting lists through the roof. the NHS and the education system both needed massive investment. What should we have done? Said, hold on, we want to see if gold rises over the next ten years, so we won't replace your primary school that's falling apart, or we won't employ enough doctors and nurses to stop you waiting a year for a hip replacement?
Aside from raising our taxes or borrowing even more, what did we have at our disposal? One option was some gold, not a huge amount in actual fact. I'm not sure whether people appreciate that the amount of gold sold, even if at today's prices, was pretty small stuff. If we sold it today it would generate around £10bn. To put that in context, that's around 8 or 9% of the annual cost of the NHS. Or to put it another way, the bank bailout cost us around £500bn. The gold wouldn't have really made much difference would it?
I think people need to see beyond the spin and appreciate what happened - we sold some gold and put the money into other instruments which were better-suited to us raising the money to invest in schools and the NHS.
Gordon Brown has his detractors but I don't think anyone doubts his convictions, even if they don't agree with his politics. For a son of the manse, with his views on social justice and a fairer society, I can quite easily believe that the thought of pretty irrelevant gold ingots gathering dust in a vault in London, while our nation's hospitals and schools fell apart, disgusted him. And I think he was right to be disgusted.
Hello mr kettle meet is mr teapot.
More context. (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-10/gordon-brown-sold-britain’s-gold-artificially-low-prices-bail-out-large-ameri)
degenerated
08-01-2015, 05:14 PM
Labour seem to be having their own challenges, more with their credibility and belief that we will all have forgotten about better together though.
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01/08/f5fdd51e9c47804b98a9a3d315a20090.jpghttp://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01/08/f0d626b7dae8f94cf973dad9ea082ee3.jpghttp://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01/08/f1296b992f884e7c081315a385a42def.jpg
Mibbes Aye
09-01-2015, 06:43 PM
Hello mr kettle meet is mr teapot.
More context. (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-10/gordon-brown-sold-britain’s-gold-artificially-low-prices-bail-out-large-ameri)
That's some response.
I make a post, using my own words and that :greengrin
I say the right-wing press have particularly manipulated this issue.
And your reply is to post a link to an article written by one of the main right-wing paper's columnists :greengrin
Part of me wonders if you're actually being supremely ironic, in which case, well-played :agree:
That's some response.
I make a post, using my own words and that :greengrin
I say the right-wing press have particularly manipulated this issue.
And your reply is to post a link to an article written by one of the main right-wing paper's columnists :greengrin
Part of me wonders if you're actually being supremely ironic, in which case, well-played :agree:
That's right. Just like the way they manipulated Salmond's stated desire to make Scotland more like Iceland or Ireland. Shocking really.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/18/labour-squanders-scotland-oil-revenues
marinello59
18-01-2015, 01:46 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/18/labour-squanders-scotland-oil-revenues
The collective amnesia amongst SNP members regarding their dismissal of warnings about the oil price as being volatile as 'scaremongering' is rather worrying really. And now it shouldn't even be mentioned, let alone criticised.
RyeSloan
19-01-2015, 11:18 AM
The collective amnesia amongst SNP members regarding their dismissal of warnings about the oil price as being volatile as 'scaremongering' is rather worrying really. And now it shouldn't even be mentioned, let alone criticised.
The article was hardly impartial was it!
The collective amnesia extends to the 'arc of prosperity' as well but to be fair the SNP are hardly unique amongst political parties in saying anything to justify their position then conveniently forgetting about it sometime later when events prove their chat to be nonsense.
The article was hardly impartial was it!
Exactly.
I neither agree or disagree with the article but it was on topic with this thread.
to be fair the SNP are hardly unique amongst political parties in saying anything to justify their position then conveniently forgetting about it sometime later when events prove their chat to be nonsense.
Which is the most interesting point for me here given the op wrote....
Glad to see that the parties of the Union are showing great maturity, and are not seeking to make political capital from such a massive error of judgement.
...which is laughable.
There is just barely zero maturity (almost minus) in modern party politics.
Spoiled, pampered, self-entitled, self-serving nobodies, imho.
RyeSloan
19-01-2015, 02:06 PM
Exactly. I neither agree or disagree with the article but it was on topic with this thread. Which is the most interesting point for me here given the op wrote.... ...which is laughable. There is just barely zero maturity (almost minus) in modern party politics. Spoiled, pampered, self-entitled, self-serving nobodies, imho.
Ha ha I agree 100%!
What really gets me is the 'if only we had more power we would make every great' line...the most obvious version of that has come from the SNP here recently but in all honesty they are all at it. Sadly more often than not the more politicians meddle the more of a mess they cause (central bankers have zoomed up this list as well of course over the last couple of decades)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.