Mr. Barnesian, when has the EU ever reduced the power the centre has over the nation-states?
The EU is an entity that the elected governments of 28 countries have created for their mutual benefit. The national governments have a lot of power within the EU to shape it for all our benefit. I hope that is what Cameron is aiming to do with the leaders of the other 27 countries.
The problem with all large organisations is the central bureaucracy that bloats and accumulates unaccountable power. In a large public company, the non-execs on behalf of the shareholders (ie national leaders on behalf of their electorate) will instruct the CEO to sort it out PDQ or be fired. The technocrats who run the EU (and the IMF) should occasionally be fired to show who is in charge.
I do think that Cameron has an opportunity, together with other national leaders, to make a really big improvement to how the EU operates. I just hope he isn't small minded and UK tactical with an eye on his back benchers. He needs to provide leadership within Europe.
As I said, I am an optimist.
No the EU is an entity defined by its treaties and those treaties make very clear what the aim of the EU is. It has ever been so and there are plenty of politicians in Europe still willing to be honest about that. It is only in the UK that politicians still pretend it is some sort of superannuated trading agreement. It is not. It never has been and it never will be. If you want the UK to be part of a European State then that is of course a perfectly admirable aim even if one I disagree with. But to try and pretend that the EU has ever been intended to be anything other than that eventually is disingenuous.
If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...
Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.
I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).
But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
And if it is an unreformed EU continuing on its path of integration and interference would you still be voting YES?
I find it incredible that anyone can say with 100% certainty which way they will vote.
I'm undecided at present - I await the offer.
As I said yesterday for me it is easy. What Cameron is asking for as a maximum in his negotiations is only a tiny fraction of what I would want as a minimum. Combined with the fact that any deal he does could be reversed by a future government or overturned by the ECJ, that is more than enough to ensure I vote OUT.
The revisals to the ONS figures seem to be largely because they have introduced an "interim" solution to the nonsense that purports to be our construction figures. There may well be more to come.
If there is a fly in the ointment it remains the deficit. On growth figures like these it really should have fallen more sharply than it did. This period of growth is getting very mature and we are heading into choppier waters with Greece, South America and, potentially, China. Our structural deficit remains huge. It is demonstrated by the fact we have such a deficit after 7 years of growth. One does not need to be over biblical to appreciate that our grain stores are worse than empty and we are ill prepared for famine.
I think Osborne gets this and wants to greatly accelerate deficit reduction. I expect the Budget to be eye wateringly tough. He may be able to use Greece as a bit of cover for that.
FPT - and my apologies if this comment has been made before - the graphic shows the depth of Labour's problem. Half the voters it lost thought it was too right-wing. The other half thought it was too left-wing.
Not sure you can infer that from the graphic. Sure, they lost as many to left-of-centre parties as to right-of-centre ones but the numbers are so small that I'd have thought that many, and probably most, of these were simply floating voters doing what floating voters do: looking for either the best vehicle to protest or the most reliable party to look after them and their country.
Put simply, enough of Brown's electoral coalition decided that Ed was Crap that he should never be prime minister. They either weren't bothered at the prospect of a Cameron government or actively thought it the best option seriously available.
Agreed. Labour never looked credible in terms of policy or leadership. Floating voters responded to that in different ways.
I think it was slightly more subtle than that - obviously perceptions of Miliband amongst what one might term 'gut' voters was appalling, as his 'successes' were mainly in the echo chamber of political anoraks. The policies however were on the whole credible - there weren't any promises of socialist Utopia, but the problem was there was no sense of what the party actually wanted to achieve or a vision of what a Labour Britain would look like to sell to voters. As a result, the manifesto (and policies before) was less a suicide note, more a death warrant to be signed by the party's enemies who could paint it as whatever they liked - first the SNP in Scotland by focusing on Labour's attempts to convince voters it was based in fiscal reality, then the Greens with attempting the same in England, before the Tories could finally move in and say 'look, Labour can't get a majority without these people who'd drag it miles to the left, something a significant minority of their party is amenable to anyway, so you can ignore any attempt to seem credible'. It's why unusually for a campaign with this outcome, there wasn't the usual constant bombardment of 'tax bombshells' and 'black holes' (other than a brief ineffective salvo in January). There was no need to take Labour's policies apart - as there wasn't any definition to them even if they were actually on the whole fairly credible. Instead both of Labour's enemies could just define them where they wanted - Red Tories in the north (one of the SNP's daftest fantasies and would be one of the Greens' if they didn't have madder ones, but effective) and as more left-wing than they were letting on either through choice or electoral necessity in the south.
If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...
There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined
What both of them ? Ken is ancient and Hezza aint even an MP.
Giggles! OK, how about those in the Tories who think Osborne is not a new Messiah but is only a very naughty boy
Name and shame !
Oh I couldn't, I would be typing names for the rest of the morning and according to some rumour, it is supposed to be the start of a heatwave and I have to get serious sun tanning in before the snow arrives. Er! Supervising the gardening from the lounger.
I'm sure there is a long list of MPs who are really annoyed at the CoTE for creating a booming economy, slashing unemployment and setting the ground for a thumping majority.
Exclusively on the opposition benches mind you.
A CotE who considers himself, rightly or wrongly, to be a brilliant political strategist is guaranteed to take his eye of one ball why he tries to hit another.
Most of what he has done has the potential to explode if not sooner then definitely later. Pensions for a start, were designed to ensure that there was no way to get at the money, which would only be paid as an annuity. I can only see a large number of people who had pension savings now going to have to survive on the state's largesse. Or booming economy, on the back of ultra, low interest rates. What will happen when the rates go up? Or rapidly decreasing unemployment, with a rapidly ageing population, we are going to need even more workers from the EU and outside if we want to have our backsides wiped and catheters changed regularly.
And I really don't think a majority of 12 is thumping. As for 2020, a week is a long time in politics, 5 years can seem to be an eternity.
Wow you guys have been having a bit of fun this morning !!
Anyway for those who take vicarious pleasure from the Scottish economy being situated somewhere between Greece and Zimbabwe, I can highly recommend the following site:
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Mr. Barnesian, when has the EU ever reduced the power the centre has over the nation-states?
The EU is an entity that the elected governments of 28 countries have created for their mutual benefit. The national governments have a lot of power within the EU to shape it for all our benefit. I hope that is what Cameron is aiming to do with the leaders of the other 27 countries.
The problem with all large organisations is the central bureaucracy that bloats and accumulates unaccountable power. In a large public company, the non-execs on behalf of the shareholders (ie national leaders on behalf of their electorate) will instruct the CEO to sort it out PDQ or be fired. The technocrats who run the EU (and the IMF) should occasionally be fired to show who is in charge.
I do think that Cameron has an opportunity, together with other national leaders, to make a really big improvement to how the EU operates. I just hope he isn't small minded and UK tactical with an eye on his back benchers. He needs to provide leadership within Europe.
As I said, I am an optimist.
No the EU is an entity defined by its treaties and those treaties make very clear what the aim of the EU is. It has ever been so and there are plenty of politicians in Europe still willing to be honest about that. It is only in the UK that politicians still pretend it is some sort of superannuated trading agreement. It is not. It never has been and it never will be. If you want the UK to be part of a European State then that is of course a perfectly admirable aim even if one I disagree with. But to try and pretend that the EU has ever been intended to be anything other than that eventually is disingenuous.
Richard - you make a fair point. Its original purpose is still enshrined in its treaties. But there have been changes as it adapts to a changing world and changing requirements of its nation states.
Two examples are a) the disruptive creation of the eurozone and b) the enlargement driven by Maggie at the height of her powers in response to Delors intervention in UK politics. I suspect her motive was to dilute and weaken the EU, reduce the power of the German/French axis and make a European State less achievable. And she succeeded. It is still evolving. It can be steered to some extent. That is Cameron's challenge.
Scots GDP is 98% of the UK, in fact take London & SE out of equation it is higher than anywhere else, WITHOUT oil. With oil, even at these low numbers, Scots GDP is higher than the UK average including London and SE of England. That is not a headline you see in the Daily Mail, Express or Telegraph, is it?
The 7b Scot black hole is an annual 75b UK black hole shared prorata or close to it. On top of 1.5 trillion already needing to be paid off. Real figures and a real problem for Westminster.
The economic case is frankly made perfectly well without oil, as any oil revenue has always been seen as a bonus and not the current reason for indy. Bad taste, but with people living to a lower age the pension issues in Scotland compared to rUK are ever so slightly mitigated too.
In the 70's I would agree your current case TSE might have had more validity, oil was a key element of the pitch for independence, which is why Westminster lied and hid the real figures for as long as was possible to avoid the real possibility of having a Switzerland north of the Tyne. No chance of that under Thatcherism! Interesting she said if SNP had over half the seats they had a mandate for indy without a referendum.
With virtually every seat at WM and in Scot Parl decided by FPTP or constituency (not list) in SNP hands, 95% anyway, there is a mandate for change but the approach of Gov General Mundell is to support EV for English Laws yet last night it was EV for Scottish Laws too.
No matter your political views the situation is untenable when promises are not delivered, smears are not disclosed to save the shredded political reputations of current office bearers and finally when the first 5 words of a deal described as close to federalism or devomax is knocked on the head with a laugh from the squiffy Tories who left the bar for 5 minutes to vote for the status quo. Twas ever thus.
If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...
Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.
I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).
But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
Dear god help us all.
I'm in favour of staying in but minded to vote No so they have to improve the deal.
I am in a (surely large) group who would like to stay in but whose blood is boiled by some of the ever closer union measures and pronouncements.
Personally I'm in that group and AKAIK lots of my friends are in that soft in group. However I'll almost certainly be voting out because 40 years ago we voted for the status quo, but got massive integration and I can't see how a Yes would not lead to more integration.
Oh well, the unionist Donald ("Father of the Nation") Dewar used to claim, in the full knowledge that he had of the true value of the oil back in the day, that the economy of an independent Scotland would be like Bangladesh (then the poorest country on the planet).I would contend that being compared merely to Greece is an improvement of sorts :-)
If you really want to know why the oil price issue is not killing the pro-independence movement stone dead it is because unionists have been proven to be total liars about Scotland's economy in the past, and so have zero credibility. It is now commonplace for unionists to claim that Scotland would have been economically strong if only it had become independent decades ago when the oil value was massive, but it is too late now. People know that is the very reverse of what the unionists said then.
Those cheering (and bear in mind it sounds to many Scots like cheering) the low oil price should reflect on a few points:
The oil price was as low as $9 a barrel in 1999. Oil price remains volatile and is already well up from its $44 low.
Of course, the argument for independence is not all about the oil price, it is about what many now see as obvious-if Scots want to improve the outlook for Scotland they would be well advised to take matters into their own hands. They would be foolish to be reliant upon a Westminster, intent on having as one example, a Scottish Affairs Committee (or whatever it is called) with a majority of MPs from outside Scotland perverting the government of Scotland against the expressed wishes of its people.
No economy no currency no central bank and open borders as new members of the EU. All were made clear by the SNP during the referendum campaign - weren't they...?
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Are you suggesting that if Scotland voted for independence Scotland would be entitled to a cash payment equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund - because that's what an independent Scotland would have done had it been independent the whole time?
Having a sovereign wealth fund requires fiscal discipline. This is something that Scotland does not have in abundance as demonstrated by Gordon Brown.
I'm sure there is a long list of MPs who are really annoyedting the ground for a thumping majority.
Exclusively on the opposition benches mind you.
A CotE who considers himself, rightly or wrongly, to be a brilliant political strategist is guaranteed to take his eye of one ball why he tries to hit another.
Most of what he has done has the potential to explode if not sooner then definitely later. Pensions for a start, were designed to ensure that there was no way to get at the money, which would only be paid as an annuity. I can only see a large number of people who had pension savings now going to have to survive on the state's largesse. Or booming economy, on the back of ultra, low interest rates. What will happen when the rates go up? Or rapidly decreasing unemployment, with a rapidly ageing population, we are going to need even more workers from the EU and outside if we want to have our backsides wiped and catheters changed regularly.
And I really don't think a majority of 12 is thumping. As for 2020, a week is a long time in politics, 5 years can seem to be an eternity.
Yep what did the CotE ever do for us.
As far as I can see it, the main arguments against his course of action are that austerity was not actually needed (for a country which issues its own currency).
This may be so but the reality is that the deficit/GDP was pretty out there and I think prudent fiscal planning was required even though boom and bust had been abolished (!).
As for pensions, it is peoples' money. If the worst comes to the worst, they can always sell their Lamborghinis. Interest rate rises will, as you say, be a shock to people but as recently as this morning, interest rate forecasts are being pushed out. Not to say it won't hurt when it comes but we are giving ourselves a better chance of being able to withstand higher rates by waiting a bit.
And now "rapidly decreasing unemployment" is a big problem is it? I think, in the words of the great (!) Alan Greenspan, the all-important "pool of available workers" remains at non-critical levels.
So in summary, GO has presided over a strong economic recovery which, because he realises (as mentioned above, unlike some) that expansion won't last forever, he is trying to entrench before a reversal.
@EKourtali: Greek government is thinking of returning to the negotiating table by tonight, Greek media report
Clueless politicians. Smacks of desperation, and panic.
Maybe. The proof is in the final deal. If the Greeks get all that was on the table before, plus a nice dollop of debt relief thrown in, as I would say is very likely, then all the pissing around will, from a Greek perspective, have been worth it. The clueless politicians will suddenly have been said to have played a blinder.... we are still in the last stages of the game of "chicken", we will find out which side is clueless in the next day or two.
If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...
Your deduction would be wrong if I am a typical example.
I comment on the Guardian blog in favour of voting NO and against the unelected Euro technocrats (and for Greece deferring paying it debts for a few decades and staying in the Euro with a dual currency).
But I am very much in favour of a reformed EU and will be voting YES in the UK Euro referendum.
Dear god help us all.
I'm in favour of staying in but minded to vote No so they have to improve the deal.
I am in a (surely large) group who would like to stay in but whose blood is boiled by some of the ever closer union measures and pronouncements.
Quite right. I was inthat group for a long time, but in the end it proved too irksome and now, pending some amazing deal the chances of which I regard as negligible no matter how good Cameron is, I'm in the Out camp for now.
If reading the comments in the Guardian's blog on the Greece situation were my only guide to people's politics, given the bile against the EU spewed out in large quantities, I'd deduce that the entire left-wing intelligentsia would be voting to leave the EU come the UK referendum. I wonder if they will ...
There is a lot of talk about a split in the Tory party but I can definitely see a split in the Labour Party on the horizon if things get really bad in Greece.
What fun! Just imagine what would happen if the lefties in the Tories joined
What both of them ? Ken is ancient and Hezza aint even an MP.
Giggles! OK, how about those in the Tories who think Osborne is not a new Messiah but is only a very naughty boy
Name and shame !
Oh I couldn't, I would be typing names for the rest of the morning and according to some rumour, it is supposed to be the start of a heatwave and I have to get serious sun tanning in before the snow arrives. Er! Supervising the gardening from the lounger.
I'm sure there is a long list of MPs who are really annoyed at the CoTE for creating a booming economy, slashing unemployment and setting the ground for a thumping majority.
Exclusively on the opposition benches mind you.
Or rapidly decreasing unemployment,
.
Not a problem in Scotland - due to the SNP's anti business agenda unemployment is RISING in Scotland.
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Are you suggesting that if Scotland voted for independence Scotland would be entitled to a cash payment equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund - because that's what an independent Scotland would have done had it been independent the whole time?
Having a sovereign wealth fund requires fiscal discipline. This is something that Scotland does not have in abundance as demonstrated by Gordon Brown.
An Independent Scotland would have hosed the lot to up the wall, Darien style.
Wow you guys have been having a bit of fun this morning !!
Anyway for those who take vicarious pleasure from the Scottish economy being situated somewhere between Greece and Zimbabwe, I can highly recommend the following site:
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
A UK sovereign fund would have been a far more effective use of the oil money, I agree. But it would also have meant higher taxes - see Norway. And the fact is that now Scotland needs oil money to finance its day to day expenditure. And even with the oil money it does not have enough to fund current levels, so needs the transfer of wealth that Barnett provides. As a social democrat who believes in redistribution that is all fine by me.
Oh well, the unionist Donald ("Father of the Nation") Dewar used to claim, in the full knowledge that he had of the true value of the oil back in the day, that the economy of an independent Scotland would be like Bangladesh (then the poorest country on the planet).I would contend that being compared merely to Greece is an improvement of sorts :-)
If you really want to know why the oil price issue is not killing the pro-independence movement stone dead it is because unionists have been proven to be total liars about Scotland's economy in the past, and so have zero credibility. It is now commonplace for unionists to claim that Scotland would have been economically strong if only it had become independent decades ago when the oil value was massive, but it is too late now. People know that is the very reverse of what the unionists said then.
Those cheering (and bear in mind it sounds to many Scots like cheering) the low oil price should reflect on a few points:
The oil price was as low as $9 a barrel in 1999. Oil price remains volatile and is already well up from its $44 low.
Of course, the argument for independence is not all about the oil price, it is about what many now see as obvious-if Scots want to improve the outlook for Scotland they would be well advised to take matters into their own hands. They would be foolish to be reliant upon a Westminster, intent on having as one example, a Scottish Affairs Committee (or whatever it is called) with a majority of MPs from outside Scotland perverting the government of Scotland against the expressed wishes of its people.
So let the SNP make that argument. We'll be poorer for many years and people's living standards will decline, but we have to go it alone because we have so little in common with the countries of the rUK, is a perfectly rational point of view.
Wow you guys have been having a bit of fun this morning !!
Anyway for those who take vicarious pleasure from the Scottish economy being situated somewhere between Greece and Zimbabwe, I can highly recommend the following site:
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Would it have been better for the UK to run a significant surplus during the glory days of Oil revenue? Ideally yes although the North Sea was always a relatively modest part of GDP for the UK as a whole. No doubt you will be able to link to all the Nationalists who complained that public spending was far too high in those years.
Would having such a fund help now? Again, subject to questions of scale, clearly yes. The dislocation caused by the cut backs in the North Sea are a real challenge hitting the small numbers of Scots who are Higher Rate Taxpayers particularly hard.
Is any of this of any relevance to the viability of the Scottish economy in 2015? Not at all.
If the SNP want an independent Scotland they should concentrate on making our economy a success that can stand on its own two feet. It is depressing how little interest they show in that.
Oh well, the unionist Donald ("Father of the Nation") Dewar used to claim, in the full knowledge that he had of the true value of the oil back in the day, that the economy of an independent Scotland would be like Bangladesh (then the poorest country on the planet).I would contend that being compared merely to Greece is an improvement of sorts :-)
If you really want to know why the oil price issue is not killing the pro-independence movement stone dead it is because unionists have been proven to be total liars about Scotland's economy in the past, and so have zero credibility. It is now commonplace for unionists to claim that Scotland would have been economically strong if only it had become independent decades ago when the oil value was massive, but it is too late now. People know that is the very reverse of what the unionists said then.
Those cheering (and bear in mind it sounds to many Scots like cheering) the low oil price should reflect on a few points:
The oil price was as low as $9 a barrel in 1999. Oil price remains volatile and is already well up from its $44 low.
Of course, the argument for independence is not all about the oil price, it is about what many now see as obvious-if Scots want to improve the outlook for Scotland they would be well advised to take matters into their own hands. They would be foolish to be reliant upon a Westminster, intent on having as one example, a Scottish Affairs Committee (or whatever it is called) with a majority of MPs from outside Scotland perverting the government of Scotland against the expressed wishes of its people.
The oil price was $16 a barrel in 1999 and $35 at the end of 2000. The whole point of the oil price is that it is volatile, and at $62 currently it is still well down on the highs of 147. It could easily go down again. The projections of oil prices are massively down on what Salmond claimed. You have a real nerve accusing other people of lying.
'against the express wishes of its people'?? Do grow up you small minded childish boy. Scotland has devolution and is getting more. Its wishes were asked for and it voted against independence (despite Salmond's fraudulent figures). Meantime we still get Scottish MPs voting on English matters where the same matters have been devolved to MSPs. and for which they have no responsibility themselves. 'express wishes'?? You are a joker.
@EKourtali: Greek government is thinking of returning to the negotiating table by tonight, Greek media report
Clueless politicians. Smacks of desperation, and panic.
Maybe. The proof is in the final deal. If the Greeks get all that was on the table before, plus a nice dollop of debt relief thrown in, as I would say is very likely, then all the pissing around will, from a Greek perspective, have been worth it. The clueless politicians will suddenly have been said to have played a blinder.... we are still in the last stages of the game of "chicken", we will find out which side is clueless in the next day or two.
Varoufakis has studied Game Theory. Greece has no cards, but to extract further concessions at this point would be a blindingly good bluff - if that is indeed their game. If someone (The EU) will never call your bluff, doesn't matter how shit your cards are.
Oh God not another thread populated by delusional cybernats somehow trying to make the ridiculous claim that they will net fund us! Presumably now via shortbread and haggis sales or some such given that oil revenues will barely cover the benefits bill for a couple of square miles of Glasgow's east end.
Wow you guys have been having a bit of fun this morning !!
Anyway for those who take vicarious pleasure from the Scottish economy being situated somewhere between Greece and Zimbabwe, I can highly recommend the following site:
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
The structure of the market is fundamentally different now because of all the drilled and ready to go shale oil wells in the US and Canada. If supply from the ME is disrupted, prices go up, but only to a certain point, when all those capped rigs start pumping again. For the medium term, I'd see an $75-80 ceiling on oil.
The collapsing oil revenues make a compelling, reasoned case against Independence - but I suspect they will have little impact on the public mood. From my experience, the bulk ofYes supporters have long since stopped listening to reason - they have made the leap of faith and, for the time being, any argument against is merely "talking down Scotland". At the moment, Scotland reminds me of the UK in the early months/years of Blair's reign - ie the SNP are getting the benefit of the doubt no matter what. Supporters of Unionist parties will just have to be patient and wait for the penny to slowly drop that the SNP do not walk on water and have/do cock(ed) up like any other government. And that process will be delayed longer than usual by the Nationalists talent for muddying the waters by taking the credit for any good news and blaming Westminster for anything bad (irrespective of whether it's a devolved issue or not.
Your response to me was gratuitously offensive-and frankly far worse than most of the comments by supposed "cybernats" in Labour's foolish dossier.
By the way, the oil price did trade at $9 intraday, just as I said-though if it had bottomed at $16, it did not signal it was going to stay down did it?? In later years it touched $150 (intraday!)
The collapsing oil revenues make a compelling, reasoned case against Independence - but I suspect they will have little impact on the public mood. From my experience, the bulk ofYes supporters have long since stopped listening to reason - they have made the leap of faith and, for the time being, any argument against is merely "talking down Scotland". At the moment, Scotland reminds me of the UK in the early months/years of Blair's reign - ie the SNP are getting the benefit of the doubt no matter what. Supporters of Unionist parties will just have to be patient and wait for the penny to slowly drop that the SNP do not walk on water and have/do cock(ed) up like any other government. And that process will be delayed longer than usual by the Nationalists talent for muddying the waters by taking the credit for any good news and blaming Westminster for anything bad (irrespective of whether it's a devolved issue or not.
The Scottish voters wont be fooled by this Nat distraction technique forever.
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Are you suggesting that if Scotland voted for independence Scotland would be entitled to a cash payment equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund - because that's what an independent Scotland would have done had it been independent the whole time?
Having a sovereign wealth fund requires fiscal discipline. This is something that Scotland does not have in abundance as demonstrated by Gordon Brown.
If Scotland had voted for independence the negotiations around the amount of debt Scotland would inherit may well have taken into account these revenues. As Cameron would have likely resigned if he had lost, it could easily have been Alex S negotiating with Ed M for a share of the family silver !!
I know some of you guys stretch the envelope sometimes but using Gordon B's as an example of why Scotland couldn't run its own economy is a bit of the wall, Adam Smith that great English economist must be turning in his grave !!
Source: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00475500.xls In 1999 the oil industry was still making large profits that could be taxed. Now, even with the price of oil averaging $100 a barrel in 2014, the industry is losing money. The maximum £2.8 billion figure in the Scottish government oil report assumes the oil price rises to $100 a barrel, costs fall 30%, and production increases. And even in the unlikely event this golden scenario comes to pass, Scotland would still have a deficit £5 billion higher than its share of the UK deficit.
David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.
The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.
Not sure what he thinks the first two letters of ISIL actually stand for... "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so he is calling it the Islamic State as well. It is so typical of the sort of PR bullshit he seems to enjoy
I disagree. "Islamic State" is PR branding by ISIL. It suggests a degree of legitimacy as a government, and authority as a representative of Islam that they do not deserve.
They are a bunch of murdering thugs, who use religion as an excuse, not a state or a Caliphate. And they should be treated as such
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Are you suggesting that if Scotland voted for independence Scotland would be entitled to a cash payment equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund - because that's what an independent Scotland would have done had it been independent the whole time?
Having a sovereign wealth fund requires fiscal discipline. This is something that Scotland does not have in abundance as demonstrated by Gordon Brown.
If Scotland had voted for independence the negotiations around the amount of debt Scotland would inherit may well have taken into account these revenues. As Cameron would have likely resigned if he had lost, it could easily have been Alex S negotiating with Ed M for a share of the family silver !!
I know some of you guys stretch the envelope sometimes but using Gordon B's as an example of why Scotland couldn't run its own economy is a bit of the wall, Adam Smith that great English economist must be turning in his grave !!
For what it's worth I wanted Scotland to vote for independence - more out of curiosity than anything else. My point about Brown is more that Scotland - though not the SNP - had control of the Treasury for fair amount of time so Brown could have done something about it - albeit a little bit late.
As for national debt - I'd have been happy to let Scotland off repaying any of it. In fact, I'd have been quite generous just so that if it all went horribly wrong for Scotland - the rest of the UK would have been more than entitled to tell Scotland where to go if they came calling for help.
I'm sure there is a long list of MPs who are really annoyedting the ground for a thumping majority.
Exclusively on the opposition benches mind you.
Yep what did the CotE ever do for us.
As far as I can see it, the main arguments against his course of action are that austerity was not actually needed (for a country which issues its own currency).
This may be so but the reality is that the deficit/GDP was pretty out there and I think prudent fiscal planning was required even though boom and bust had been abolished (!).
As for pensions, it is peoples' money. If the worst comes to the worst, they can always sell their Lamborghinis. Interest rate rises will, as you say, be a shock to people but as recently as this morning, interest rate forecasts are being pushed out. Not to say it won't hurt when it comes but we are giving ourselves a better chance of being able to withstand higher rates by waiting a bit.
And now "rapidly decreasing unemployment" is a big problem is it? I think, in the words of the great (!) Alan Greenspan, the all-important "pool of available workers" remains at non-critical levels.
So in summary, GO has presided over a strong economic recovery which, because he realises (as mentioned above, unlike some) that expansion won't last forever, he is trying to entrench before a reversal.
Call it fixing the roof.
Erm! No. I would call it "running round filling in the cracks in the walls and covering with multiple layers of bespoke wall paper" and hope nobody notices.
As for Lamborgbinis, if there is a glut in the market, then it won't matter how much you paid, you will only get pennies on the pound.
Now, somebody who read one of my earlier comments, raised me from my lounger with what I thought was a euphemism, now can someone tell me what a lawn mower is?
@EKourtali: Greek government is thinking of returning to the negotiating table by tonight, Greek media report
Clueless politicians. Smacks of desperation, and panic.
Maybe. The proof is in the final deal. If the Greeks get all that was on the table before, plus a nice dollop of debt relief thrown in, as I would say is very likely, then all the pissing around will, from a Greek perspective, have been worth it. The clueless politicians will suddenly have been said to have played a blinder.... we are still in the last stages of the game of "chicken", we will find out which side is clueless in the next day or two.
Varoufakis has studied Game Theory. Greece has no cards, but to extract further concessions at this point would be a blindingly good bluff - if that is indeed their game. If someone (The EU) will never call your bluff, doesn't matter how shit your cards are.
Game theory is exactly about not bluffing but, classically, of determining a winning strategy when your opponent has the same information as you.
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Are you suggesting that if Scotland voted for independence Scotland would be entitled to a cash payment equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund - because that's what an independent Scotland would have done had it been independent the whole time?
Having a sovereign wealth fund requires fiscal discipline. This is something that Scotland does not have in abundance as demonstrated by Gordon Brown.
it could easily have been Alex S negotiating with Ed M for a share of the family silver !!
I think we saw what the great British public thought of Ed and whether we wanted him to be PM in May.
David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.
The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.
Not sure what he thinks the first two letters of ISIL actually stand for... "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so he is calling it the Islamic State as well. It is so typical of the sort of PR bullshit he seems to enjoy
I disagree. "Islamic State" is PR branding by ISIL. It suggests a degree of legitimacy as a government, and authority as a representative of Islam that they do not deserve.
They are a bunch of murdering thugs, who use religion as an excuse, not a state or a Caliphate. And they should be treated as such
But ISIL is just a acronym of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so I can't see the point that Cammo is trying to make about calling them ISIL. Why not call them something that is in no way connected to statehood. "Murderous Barbarians and Thugs" might be a good start.
@RobDotHutton: Mark Reckless walks through Portcullis House behind Douglas Carswell, wearing a visitor pass. He was the future once. #sictransitgloriamundi
ie. Standard democratic response from the EU. Don't like a government? unhappy about the cut of their jib ? Think it might be having too much independent thinking ? Best to sabotage it and appoint someone we like the look of, never mind what the voters want. Ask George Papandreou
Oh God not another thread populated by delusional cybernats somehow trying to make the ridiculous claim that they will net fund us! Presumably now via shortbread and haggis sales or some such given that oil revenues will barely cover the benefits bill for a couple of square miles of Glasgow's east end.
I want more boundary change or Grexit threads...
The cybernats are outnumbered 7-1 by people expressing views to the contrary on the thread actually
Source: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00475500.xls In 1999 the oil industry was still making large profits that could be taxed. Now, even with the price of oil averaging $100 a barrel in 2014, the industry is losing money. The maximum £2.8 billion figure in the Scottish government oil report assumes the oil price rises to $100 a barrel, costs fall 30%, and production increases. And even in the unlikely event this golden scenario comes to pass, Scotland would still have a deficit £5 billion higher than its share of the UK deficit.
That's very interesting, just what has caused the costs to increase almost 10.5 times per barrel of oil. Obviously there would be some fixed costs and an element of inflation (£10 in 1999 = £15.73 now), but the increase seems out of all proportion. Massive wage inflation ?
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Are you suggesting that if Scotland voted for independence Scotland would be entitled to a cash payment equivalent to a sovereign wealth fund - because that's what an independent Scotland would have done had it been independent the whole time?
Having a sovereign wealth fund requires fiscal discipline. This is something that Scotland does not have in abundance as demonstrated by Gordon Brown.
If Scotland had voted for independence the negotiations around the amount of debt Scotland would inherit may well have taken into account these revenues. As Cameron would have likely resigned if he had lost, it could easily have been Alex S negotiating with Ed M for a share of the family silver !!
I know some of you guys stretch the envelope sometimes but using Gordon B's as an example of why Scotland couldn't run its own economy is a bit of the wall, Adam Smith that great English economist must be turning in his grave !!
Of course Scotland could run its own economy, but surely it is incumbent on those advocating independence to be honest about what kind of economy it would be. Scotland would be highly dependent on oil to maintain current levels of expenditure - and would need oil to be at $100+ on a permanent basis to have a chance of doing that. It would also need its own currency, as being part of a Sterling zone would mean fiscal policy being set from London, which would effectively mean Westminster controlling the Scottish government's spending.
North Sea oil was and is a UK resource and will be so until the day Scotland becomes independent. The Scots endorsed that on 18th September 2014.
ie. Standard democratic response from the EU. Don't like a government? unhappy about the cut of their jib ? Think it might be having too much independent thinking ? Best to sabotage it and appoint someone we like the look of, never mind what the voters want. Ask George Papandreou
I've never really understood this point. If France voted that they should take Cornwall from the Brits, would we say "we accept your democratic mandate and - hey - here's Cornwall."
In any discussion there are two sides. One sides democratic mandate does not exceed the other's. If the Eurozone governments say "we are not prepared to deal with the current Greek government" that is quite within their rights. Just as you can choose not to buy from Amazon. Choice is a two-way thing.
Plenty of problems still to be resolved in those areas-but few believe any of the opposition parties would be an improvement on the SNP. That applies to many who do not favour independence.
Also, I think you will find that education was never transferred to Westminster at any time.
Your response to me was gratuitously offensive-and frankly far worse than most of the comments by supposed "cybernats" in Labour's foolish dossier.
By the way, the oil price did trade at $9 intraday, just as I said-though if it had bottomed at $16, it did not signal it was going to stay down did it?? In later years it touched $150 (intraday!)
Oil traded at $9 intraday yesterday? $9 a barrel? Where?
Yesterday's low for Brent (active contract) was $61.35 at 11:43
Well his career in comedy is secure if politics doesn't work out. The EU hasn't suddenly become corporatist and drowning in pork barrel, its always been that way. What he really means is when the majority of the EU governments were left leaning and the EU followed the sorts of policies he approved of (WTD etc), it was fine, but now that most EU governments are right leaning, not so much.
@politicshome: .@ChrisLeslieMP says Labour would "oppose" cutting the top rate of tax to 40% n"right now", saying it would be "crass and unjust" #bbcdp
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Your response to me was gratuitously offensive-and frankly far worse than most of the comments by supposed "cybernats" in Labour's foolish dossier.
By the way, the oil price did trade at $9 intraday, just as I said-though if it had bottomed at $16, it did not signal it was going to stay down did it?? In later years it touched $150 (intraday!)
Oil traded at $9 intraday yesterday? $9 a barrel? Where?
Yesterday's low for Brent (active contract) was $61.35 at 11:43
I had to reread the comment too: You've mentally stuck "yesterday" into the sentence, as I did on first reading ^_~
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Oh God not another thread populated by delusional cybernats somehow trying to make the ridiculous claim that they will net fund us! Presumably now via shortbread and haggis sales or some such given that oil revenues will barely cover the benefits bill for a couple of square miles of Glasgow's east end.
I want more boundary change or Grexit threads...
The cybernats are outnumbered 7-1 by people expressing views to the contrary on the thread actually
Source: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00475500.xls In 1999 the oil industry was still making large profits that could be taxed. Now, even with the price of oil averaging $100 a barrel in 2014, the industry is losing money. The maximum £2.8 billion figure in the Scottish government oil report assumes the oil price rises to $100 a barrel, costs fall 30%, and production increases. And even in the unlikely event this golden scenario comes to pass, Scotland would still have a deficit £5 billion higher than its share of the UK deficit.
That's very interesting, just what has caused the costs to increase almost 10.5 times per barrel of oil. Obviously there would be some fixed costs and an element of inflation (£10 in 1999 = £15.73 now), but the increase seems out of all proportion. Massive wage inflation ?
More likely costs of retrieval plus Health and Safety. Getting the oil out of the sea bed in one of the most inhospitable seas and busiest sea lanes on the planet with out polluting and /or going bang (see Piper Alpha) is always going to become more expensive as the risks become known over time. Plus, having to keep the environmentalists happy.
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
There is a consistent meme on this site that all the bailout money that Greece received was used to pay off German banks. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the Greeks borrowed from the German banks in the first place, it is worth looking at the primary government deficits of Greece over the last eight years. That is, ignoring interest and principle payments, how much has Greece spent more than it has collected in taxes:
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Which bank(s) ?
HSBC has $5bn of Greek debt, other holdings are too small to mention (a couple of hundred million dollars here and there)
There is a consistent meme on this site that all the bailout money that Greece received was used to pay off German banks. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the Greeks borrowed from the German banks in the first place, it is worth looking at the primary government deficits of Greece over the last eight years. That is, ignoring interest and principle payments, how much has Greece spent more than it has collected in taxes:
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Which bank(s) ?
HSBC has $5bn of Greek debt, other holdings are too small to mention (a couple of hundred million dollars here and there)
You know what they say, a couple hundred million here, a couple of hundred million there and it soon adds up to real money.
Personally I think the SNP never really answered the economic arguments especially via a vis using Sterling. Others will disagree, and fair enough but that would've swayed me to vote No if I had had a vote. I can also accept that none of this might matter in the slightest if the "heart" says "independence whatever".
"A United Europe" through ever closer union has never been taken very seriously by the Brits, who've probably underestimated the continental drive and seen it as some wooly rather funny foreigness, whereas the continentals get exasperated by the UK's transactional view of the EU as "business".
Essentially, the 1957 treaty was signed in a drive to stop France and Germany shooting each other and offered redemption from WW2 for its signatories. Germany had a way back to respectability, France could pretend it was a big power and hadn't lost WW2, Benelux didn't want to get crushed between the two, and Italy probably wanted better governance and some shelter from a less than democratic past. Move forward and Greece, Portugal, Spain, all wanted the EU politically as a shelter from the army taking charge, and the easterners in due course wanted anything that helped keep the Russians out politically.
None of the above applied/applies to the UK. WW2 is morally unambiguous for us. We were right, we won (with a huge lot of help from our friends). We are an old democratic nation state, not badly governed at all (despite our moanings on here!), on an island a long way from Russia with a friendly superpower at our back. The empire was gone and we needed people to do business with, if there were funny mutterings in French about esprit communautaire or ever closer union well best ignore them they'll go away (yes that's you Ted Heath).
The nonsense which is the Euro in its current form perfectly demonstrates this. The "heart" of the continentals got ahead of themselves (let's do it, it'll help union, we'll fill in the details later), and the "head" of the British (well most of us) perfectly correctly pointed out this was going to fall flat on its face, have all kinds of sovereignty ramifications and would cause endless grief, unless a real United Europe with real tax and spend transfers was created, which nobody was actually being asked by the European elites to vote on. Syriza do not seem to have grasped that they gave away much of the sovereignty and "democratic will of the Greek people" when Greece joined the Euro, but their "hearts" tell them they still want the Euro for all the political warm feeling it gives them about being politically European and in the first rank of nations. What a bloody mess.
I'm really on the fence about our membership. I'm genuinely persuadable because the original goal of not shooting at each other is really rather good, but I fear unless there's more reform than I think there will be we might have to peaceably go.
David Cameron today called on the BBC not to use the phrase 'Islamic State' when referring to the terror group operating in Iraq and Syria.
The Prime Minister - who calls the group 'ISIL' - said Muslims would 'recoil' at the phrase being used to justify the 'perversion of a great religion'.
As far as I can tell, IS, ISIS and ISIL seem to be used more or less interchangeably by commentators and the media.
Not sure what he thinks the first two letters of ISIL actually stand for... "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so he is calling it the Islamic State as well. It is so typical of the sort of PR bullshit he seems to enjoy
I disagree. "Islamic State" is PR branding by ISIL. It suggests a degree of legitimacy as a government, and authority as a representative of Islam that they do not deserve.
They are a bunch of murdering thugs, who use religion as an excuse, not a state or a Caliphate. And they should be treated as such
But ISIL is just a acronym of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so I can't see the point that Cammo is trying to make about calling them ISIL. Why not call them something that is in no way connected to statehood. "Murderous Barbarians and Thugs" might be a good start.
Sure, but most people who hear "ISIL" don't translate it. It makes people associate them with the (P)IRA or INLA rather than giving them the trappings of statehood.
ie. Standard democratic response from the EU. Don't like a government? unhappy about the cut of their jib ? Think it might be having too much independent thinking ? Best to sabotage it and appoint someone we like the look of, never mind what the voters want. Ask George Papandreou
The EU has poor form in that area, it is true. But the rest of Europe is not obliged to help Syrizia meet their election committments either, especially if they are unreasonable, and them falling as a result would be a result of their own actions.
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
A bit like us just now paying off WW1 debt.
I'd heard we made a payment this year on some debt that has been on the books since the early 18th century - very low interest I guess, so it was always low down the list of priority in terms of paying off debts. Still, if true, that's 300 years of interest payments we've been making on it
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Which bank(s) ?
HSBC has $5bn of Greek debt, other holdings are too small to mention (a couple of hundred million dollars here and there)
In which case the directors of HSBC should be prosecuted for breach of fiduciary duty. There is no excuse whatever for any manager of other peoples' money to have even one penny invested in Greek debt.
There is a consistent meme on this site that all the bailout money that Greece received was used to pay off German banks. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the Greeks borrowed from the German banks in the first place, it is worth looking at the primary government deficits of Greece over the last eight years. That is, ignoring interest and principle payments, how much has Greece spent more than it has collected in taxes
Yes, the Greeks suck at collecting taxes, this should have entered into the risk calculations of those German banks when they lent them the money. If it turned out to be an unwise commercial decision they should have carried the can for it, without that fundamental check capitalism doesn't work.
Irrespective of how bad the Greeks are at collecting taxes, how much of the money they are receiving as a "bail out" goes immediately out the door to those creditors, and how much stays in the Greek economy. If the answer is "lots" and "not much" then its the banks that are being bailed out not the Greeks.
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Which bank(s) ?
HSBC has $5bn of Greek debt, other holdings are too small to mention (a couple of hundred million dollars here and there)
In which case the directors of HSBC should be prosecuted for breach of fiduciary duty. There is no excuse whatever for any manager of other peoples' money to have even one penny invested in Greek debt.
Actually, there are plenty of reasons why you might have small holdings as part of transactions on behalf of clients.
But I agree that there's really no excuse to have $5bn worth.
More likely costs of retrieval plus Health and Safety. Getting the oil out of the sea bed in one of the most inhospitable seas and busiest sea lanes on the planet with out polluting and /or going bang (see Piper Alpha) is always going to become more expensive as the risks become known over time. Plus, having to keep the environmentalists happy.
Some of those costs are Health and Safety. A lot are environmental costs. All North Sea installations these days are zero release. That means every single thing that comes onto the rig is sent back to the beach. This includes not only the fluids used in drilling but also the cuttings from the drilling itself which are collected in skips and sent back to the beach. It also includes the rainwater that falls on the rig as this could potentially be contaminated with oil based fluids. Rigs are sealed units with no drains allowed to the sea. The only exception is the sea water pumped up for the fire deluge systems which is then allowed to circulate back into the sea due to the volumes involved.
The types of rigs being used has also changed hugely as has what can be done to actually get the oil out. Running a drilling rig today costs around 1/2 a million sterling a day - in Norway perhaps 50% more - whereas in 1999 it would have been around a tenth of that.
Of course right now a you can drill a well for about half the price it would have cost you 2 years ago due to rig rates plummeting - there are currently 11 rigs stacked in Invergordon with no contracts.
One point on the projected revenues though. It is very likely they are being significantly underestimated. This is not a political thing as some Nats might claim. Some of the big companies have been caught out badly over the last few years because they bumped up reserves. It has now swung the other way. BP are bringing the Clair Ridge on line in 2017. The field contains - at a Conservative estimate - 7 billion barrels of oil. But BP are saying their recovery (and hence their stated reserves) are only 640 million barrels. That is a recovery rate of only 9% which is less than a third of normal recovery. I expect that will increase significantly over the next few years as they get into production and become more confident of their recovery.
ie. Standard democratic response from the EU. Don't like a government? unhappy about the cut of their jib ? Think it might be having too much independent thinking ? Best to sabotage it and appoint someone we like the look of, never mind what the voters want. Ask George Papandreou
The EU has poor form in that area, it is true. But the rest of Europe is not obliged to help Syrizia meet their election committments either, especially if they are unreasonable, and them falling as a result would be a result of their own actions.
Absolutely, but that is done by saying "no, sorry, hard luck". It's not done by holding "secret" talks with opposition leaders and trying to manufacture panics so that the government falls.
What did you think of the final BBC Top Gear? I thought the short films were genuinely some of their funniest. I was crying with laughter during large chunks of it - especially the pimped up 4x4s. The classic car bit was so close to the knuckle someone like me that I winced with recognition
Weird empty hanger inbetween though. Wonder what the ITV version will be like.
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Which bank(s) ?
HSBC has $5bn of Greek debt, other holdings are too small to mention (a couple of hundred million dollars here and there)
In which case the directors of HSBC should be prosecuted for breach of fiduciary duty. There is no excuse whatever for any manager of other peoples' money to have even one penny invested in Greek debt.
Actually, there are plenty of reasons why you might have small holdings as part of transactions on behalf of clients.
But I agree that there's really no excuse to have $5bn worth.
If you have a good expectation of the EU bailing out your questionable investments indefinitely it would be foolish not to make those investments, they have good interest rates, and in all likelihood are completely safe. Previously this has always been the case, the EU is drowning in moral hazard, I am not confident this time will be any different.
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Which bank(s) ?
HSBC has $5bn of Greek debt, other holdings are too small to mention (a couple of hundred million dollars here and there)
In which case the directors of HSBC should be prosecuted for breach of fiduciary duty. There is no excuse whatever for any manager of other peoples' money to have even one penny invested in Greek debt.
Actually, there are plenty of reasons why you might have small holdings as part of transactions on behalf of clients.
But I agree that there's really no excuse to have $5bn worth.
Greece is 7-4 to stay in; 2-5 to leave the Euro this year. Assuming Greece leaving means a default (It could also default and stay in I guess) then that's a 33% implied probability or so.
Greek bond yields are only 14 or so %. The betting odds suggest that is too low for the capital risk.
Conversely, the yield perhaps suggests the 2-5 is decent ?
It's not an exact proxy either way and obviously you can't stick a 5 Billion Euro bet on with Paddy Power but food for thought.
So the Greeks concede, their govt falls and they don't even get a referendum before signing up to 50 years of debt serfdom ?
They signed up for 50 years of debt serfdom when they borrowed the money.
Just think of the endless amount of money we could be sinking in Greece now the EU was a Transfer Union as well... and they wouldn't even have a bill to pay, in the same way that poor parts of the UK that receive extra government money don't pay it back.
Right now the UK has exposure to Greece through:
1. Our IMF commitments 2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank) 3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Which bank(s) ?
HSBC has $5bn of Greek debt, other holdings are too small to mention (a couple of hundred million dollars here and there)
In which case the directors of HSBC should be prosecuted for breach of fiduciary duty. There is no excuse whatever for any manager of other peoples' money to have even one penny invested in Greek debt.
Actually, there are plenty of reasons why you might have small holdings as part of transactions on behalf of clients.
But I agree that there's really no excuse to have $5bn worth.
If you have a good expectation of the EU bailing out your questionable investments indefinitely it would be foolish not to make those investments, they have good interest rates, and in all likelihood are completely safe. Previously this has always been the case, the EU is drowning in moral hazard, I am not confident this time will be any different.
But that's not what happened in the last Greek debt restructuring. Private sector bond holders saw c. 50% haircuts.
Miss Plato, the links were awful. Just 2/3 chaps there, a dead, silent hangar, and the silent credits [arguably pretentious] were immediately talked over. BBC also didn't plug it at all, to minimise ratings so they can try and get more for Evans et al in a false comparison.
Quite liked the second film, I, er, forgot what the first was.
The only redeeming feature of the links was that May was dressed as Doctor Who and Hammond as The Master.
I've also heard the ITV+Netflix rumour. I hope it's rather good.
Comments
If there is a fly in the ointment it remains the deficit. On growth figures like these it really should have fallen more sharply than it did. This period of growth is getting very mature and we are heading into choppier waters with Greece, South America and, potentially, China. Our structural deficit remains huge. It is demonstrated by the fact we have such a deficit after 7 years of growth. One does not need to be over biblical to appreciate that our grain stores are worse than empty and we are ill prepared for famine.
I think Osborne gets this and wants to greatly accelerate deficit reduction. I expect the Budget to be eye wateringly tough. He may be able to use Greece as a bit of cover for that.
Of course the ECB support is needed without it, the banks really are bust. Greece has no cards to play.
Most of what he has done has the potential to explode if not sooner then definitely later. Pensions for a start, were designed to ensure that there was no way to get at the money, which would only be paid as an annuity. I can only see a large number of people who had pension savings now going to have to survive on the state's largesse.
Or booming economy, on the back of ultra, low interest rates. What will happen when the rates go up?
Or rapidly decreasing unemployment, with a rapidly ageing population, we are going to need even more workers from the EU and outside if we want to have our backsides wiped and catheters changed regularly.
And I really don't think a majority of 12 is thumping. As for 2020, a week is a long time in politics, 5 years can seem to be an eternity.
Anyway for those who take vicarious pleasure from the Scottish economy being situated somewhere between Greece and Zimbabwe, I can highly recommend the following site:
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/
The focus on oil prices is interesting, most of the countries who have economies dependent on oil have built up sovereign wealth funds to smooth out the impact of lower oil prices. Even a modest Scottish fund from 1980 onwards, say 20% of oil and gas revenues, would make the above figures look very different. Given how uncertain the Middle East is at the moment, there is certainly scope for severe disruption to oil supplies, what then for the price of oil?
Two examples are a) the disruptive creation of the eurozone and b) the enlargement driven by Maggie at the height of her powers in response to Delors intervention in UK politics. I suspect her motive was to dilute and weaken the EU, reduce the power of the German/French axis and make a European State less achievable. And she succeeded. It is still evolving. It can be steered to some extent. That is Cameron's challenge.
That is not a headline you see in the Daily Mail, Express or Telegraph, is it?
The 7b Scot black hole is an annual 75b UK black hole shared prorata or close to it. On top of 1.5 trillion already needing to be paid off. Real figures and a real problem for Westminster.
The economic case is frankly made perfectly well without oil, as any oil revenue has always been seen as a bonus and not the current reason for indy. Bad taste, but with people living to a lower age the pension issues in Scotland compared to rUK are ever so slightly mitigated too.
In the 70's I would agree your current case TSE might have had more validity, oil was a key element of the pitch for independence, which is why Westminster lied and hid the real figures for as long as was possible to avoid the real possibility of having a Switzerland north of the Tyne.
No chance of that under Thatcherism! Interesting she said if SNP had over half the seats they had a mandate for indy without a referendum.
With virtually every seat at WM and in Scot Parl decided by FPTP or constituency (not list) in SNP hands, 95% anyway, there is a mandate for change but the approach of Gov General Mundell is to support EV for English Laws yet last night it was EV for Scottish Laws too.
No matter your political views the situation is untenable when promises are not delivered, smears are not disclosed to save the shredded political reputations of current office bearers and finally when the first 5 words of a deal described as close to federalism or devomax is knocked on the head with a laugh from the squiffy Tories who left the bar for 5 minutes to vote for the status quo. Twas ever thus.
If you really want to know why the oil price issue is not killing the pro-independence movement stone dead it is because unionists have been proven to be total liars about Scotland's economy in the past, and so have zero credibility. It is now commonplace for unionists to claim that Scotland would have been economically strong if only it had become independent decades ago when the oil value was massive, but it is too late now. People know that is the very reverse of what the unionists said then.
Those cheering (and bear in mind it sounds to many Scots like cheering) the low oil price should reflect on a few points:
The oil price was as low as $9 a barrel in 1999. Oil price remains volatile and is already well up from its $44 low.
Of course, the argument for independence is not all about the oil price, it is about what many now see as obvious-if Scots want to improve the outlook for Scotland they would be well advised to take matters into their own hands. They would be foolish to be reliant upon a Westminster, intent on having as one example, a Scottish Affairs Committee (or whatever it is called) with a majority of MPs from outside Scotland perverting the government of Scotland against the expressed wishes of its people.
Having a sovereign wealth fund requires fiscal discipline. This is something that Scotland does not have in abundance as demonstrated by Gordon Brown.
As far as I can see it, the main arguments against his course of action are that austerity was not actually needed (for a country which issues its own currency).
This may be so but the reality is that the deficit/GDP was pretty out there and I think prudent fiscal planning was required even though boom and bust had been abolished (!).
As for pensions, it is peoples' money. If the worst comes to the worst, they can always sell their Lamborghinis. Interest rate rises will, as you say, be a shock to people but as recently as this morning, interest rate forecasts are being pushed out. Not to say it won't hurt when it comes but we are giving ourselves a better chance of being able to withstand higher rates by waiting a bit.
And now "rapidly decreasing unemployment" is a big problem is it? I think, in the words of the great (!) Alan Greenspan, the all-important "pool of available workers" remains at non-critical levels.
So in summary, GO has presided over a strong economic recovery which, because he realises (as mentioned above, unlike some) that expansion won't last forever, he is trying to entrench before a reversal.
Call it fixing the roof.
A possible outcome might be for the ECB to pay the IMF debt for them as a quid pro quo for the government urging a yes vote.
Incidentally, has everyone seen this? http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2015/06/greek-referendum-question-published-and-it-makes-no-sense
The question is genuinely incomprehensible.
Thanks for perverting my argument-I guess it goes with the unionist territory.
Tsipiras is apparently reconsidering the Troika's offer.
https://twitter.com/ekathimerini/status/615816516764745728
I rather wish they'd just left The Last of Us alone, but given it's one of the best games ever made the sequel is perhaps unsurprising.
Would having such a fund help now? Again, subject to questions of scale, clearly yes. The dislocation caused by the cut backs in the North Sea are a real challenge hitting the small numbers of Scots who are Higher Rate Taxpayers particularly hard.
Is any of this of any relevance to the viability of the Scottish economy in 2015? Not at all.
If the SNP want an independent Scotland they should concentrate on making our economy a success that can stand on its own two feet. It is depressing how little interest they show in that.
'against the express wishes of its people'?? Do grow up you small minded childish boy. Scotland has devolution and is getting more. Its wishes were asked for and it voted against independence (despite Salmond's fraudulent figures). Meantime we still get Scottish MPs voting on English matters where the same matters have been devolved to MSPs. and for which they have no responsibility themselves.
'express wishes'?? You are a joker.
I want more boundary change or Grexit threads...
Not as good as music, though, with titles like "The only Rock anthology you'll ever need, part 2!"
Your response to me was gratuitously offensive-and frankly far worse than most of the comments by supposed "cybernats" in Labour's foolish dossier.
By the way, the oil price did trade at $9 intraday, just as I said-though if it had bottomed at $16, it did not signal it was going to stay down did it?? In later years it touched $150 (intraday!)
They were being paid in oil revenue....
I know some of you guys stretch the envelope sometimes but using Gordon B's as an example of why Scotland couldn't run its own economy is a bit of the wall, Adam Smith that great English economist must be turning in his grave !!
Scottish oil production:
1999 - 181.3 million tons
2014 - 56.6 million tons
Scottish oil industry revenue:
1999 - £12.667 billion
2014 - £20 billion
Scottish oil industry costs:
1999 - £6.441 billion
2014 - £21.086 billion
Source: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00475500.xls
In 1999 the oil industry was still making large profits that could be taxed. Now, even with the price of oil averaging $100 a barrel in 2014, the industry is losing money. The maximum £2.8 billion figure in the Scottish government oil report assumes the oil price rises to $100 a barrel, costs fall 30%, and production increases. And even in the unlikely event this golden scenario comes to pass, Scotland would still have a deficit £5 billion higher than its share of the UK deficit.
I disagree. "Islamic State" is PR branding by ISIL. It suggests a degree of legitimacy as a government, and authority as a representative of Islam that they do not deserve.
They are a bunch of murdering thugs, who use religion as an excuse, not a state or a Caliphate. And they should be treated as such
As for national debt - I'd have been happy to let Scotland off repaying any of it. In fact, I'd have been quite generous just so that if it all went horribly wrong for Scotland - the rest of the UK would have been more than entitled to tell Scotland where to go if they came calling for help.
As for Lamborgbinis, if there is a glut in the market, then it won't matter how much you paid, you will only get pennies on the pound.
Now, somebody who read one of my earlier comments, raised me from my lounger with what I thought was a euphemism, now can someone tell me what a lawn mower is?
Puts they rest of your argument in context.
They are a bunch of murdering thugs, who use religion as an excuse, not a state or a Caliphate. And they should be treated as such
But ISIL is just a acronym of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so I can't see the point that Cammo is trying to make about calling them ISIL. Why not call them something that is in no way connected to statehood. "Murderous Barbarians and Thugs" might be a good start.
Just like to say this is the first of two Scotland threads that I've written.
Second one should go up tomorrow. And I'm really proud of the second one.
ie. Standard democratic response from the EU. Don't like a government? unhappy about the cut of their jib ? Think it might be having too much independent thinking ? Best to sabotage it and appoint someone we like the look of, never mind what the voters want. Ask George Papandreou
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/28/2523A87B00000578-0-image-a-1_1422446405140.jpg
North Sea oil was and is a UK resource and will be so until the day Scotland becomes independent. The Scots endorsed that on 18th September 2014.
In any discussion there are two sides. One sides democratic mandate does not exceed the other's. If the Eurozone governments say "we are not prepared to deal with the current Greek government" that is quite within their rights. Just as you can choose not to buy from Amazon. Choice is a two-way thing.
"Like they have in Education and Health? "
Plenty of problems still to be resolved in those areas-but few believe any of the opposition parties would be an improvement on the SNP. That applies to many who do not favour independence.
Also, I think you will find that education was never transferred to Westminster at any time.
Yesterday's low for Brent (active contract) was $61.35 at 11:43
@politicshome: .@ChrisLeslieMP says Labour would "oppose" cutting the top rate of tax to 40% n"right now", saying it would be "crass and unjust" #bbcdp
Oil traded at $9 a barrel intraday in 1999, as I said.
Pay a 56 year old civil servant's pension for a day...
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/greek-bailout-fund#/story
1. Our IMF commitments
2. UK banks holdings of Greek government debt (the largest private sector non-Greek holder of Greek debt is... a British bank)
3. Our payments to the EU (where we are a net contributor) and Greece is a net debtor.
If we leave the EU and become a member of EFTA/the EEA, then 3 will be dramatically reduced (we will almost certainly still have to pay something, but it will be an order of magnitude less). We'll still have 1 & 2, and there's not much we can do about that :-)
Piper Alpha) is always going to become more expensive as the risks become known over time. Plus, having to keep the environmentalists happy.
Option A is drachma and short term turmoil
Option B is painful serfdom but inside the Euro
Option C is fudgey can kicking.
They're largely head v heart questions.
Personally I think the SNP never really answered the economic arguments especially via a vis using Sterling. Others will disagree, and fair enough but that would've swayed me to vote No if I had had a vote. I can also accept that none of this might matter in the slightest if the "heart" says "independence whatever".
"A United Europe" through ever closer union has never been taken very seriously by the Brits, who've probably underestimated the continental drive and seen it as some wooly rather funny foreigness, whereas the continentals get exasperated by the UK's transactional view of the EU as "business".
Essentially, the 1957 treaty was signed in a drive to stop France and Germany shooting each other and offered redemption from WW2 for its signatories. Germany had a way back to respectability, France could pretend it was a big power and hadn't lost WW2, Benelux didn't want to get crushed between the two, and Italy probably wanted better governance and some shelter from a less than democratic past. Move forward and Greece, Portugal, Spain, all wanted the EU politically as a shelter from the army taking charge, and the easterners in due course wanted anything that helped keep the Russians out politically.
None of the above applied/applies to the UK. WW2 is morally unambiguous for us. We were right, we won (with a huge lot of help from our friends). We are an old democratic nation state, not badly governed at all (despite our moanings on here!), on an island a long way from Russia with a friendly superpower at our back. The empire was gone and we needed people to do business with, if there were funny mutterings in French about esprit communautaire or ever closer union well best ignore them they'll go away (yes that's you Ted Heath).
The nonsense which is the Euro in its current form perfectly demonstrates this. The "heart" of the continentals got ahead of themselves (let's do it, it'll help union, we'll fill in the details later), and the "head" of the British (well most of us) perfectly correctly pointed out this was going to fall flat on its face, have all kinds of sovereignty ramifications and would cause endless grief, unless a real United Europe with real tax and spend transfers was created, which nobody was actually being asked by the European elites to vote on. Syriza do not seem to have grasped that they gave away much of the sovereignty and "democratic will of the Greek people" when Greece joined the Euro, but their "hearts" tell them they still want the Euro for all the political warm feeling it gives them about being politically European and in the first rank of nations. What a bloody mess.
I'm really on the fence about our membership. I'm genuinely persuadable because the original goal of not shooting at each other is really rather good, but I fear unless there's more reform than I think there will be we might have to peaceably go.
Sure, but most people who hear "ISIL" don't translate it. It makes people associate them with the (P)IRA or INLA rather than giving them the trappings of statehood.
Irrespective of how bad the Greeks are at collecting taxes, how much of the money they are receiving as a "bail out" goes immediately out the door to those creditors, and how much stays in the Greek economy. If the answer is "lots" and "not much" then its the banks that are being bailed out not the Greeks.
But I agree that there's really no excuse to have $5bn worth.
The types of rigs being used has also changed hugely as has what can be done to actually get the oil out. Running a drilling rig today costs around 1/2 a million sterling a day - in Norway perhaps 50% more - whereas in 1999 it would have been around a tenth of that.
Of course right now a you can drill a well for about half the price it would have cost you 2 years ago due to rig rates plummeting - there are currently 11 rigs stacked in Invergordon with no contracts.
One point on the projected revenues though. It is very likely they are being significantly underestimated. This is not a political thing as some Nats might claim. Some of the big companies have been caught out badly over the last few years because they bumped up reserves. It has now swung the other way. BP are bringing the Clair Ridge on line in 2017. The field contains - at a Conservative estimate - 7 billion barrels of oil. But BP are saying their recovery (and hence their stated reserves) are only 640 million barrels. That is a recovery rate of only 9% which is less than a third of normal recovery. I expect that will increase significantly over the next few years as they get into production and become more confident of their recovery.
Quiz question for you all :-)
In how many years in the last decade has the UK run a primary budget surplus?
And the same question for Italy and ohhh... Germany....
Weird empty hanger inbetween though. Wonder what the ITV version will be like.
Greek bond yields are only 14 or so %. The betting odds suggest that is too low for the capital risk.
Conversely, the yield perhaps suggests the 2-5 is decent ?
It's not an exact proxy either way and obviously you can't stick a 5 Billion Euro bet on with Paddy Power but food for thought.
Quite liked the second film, I, er, forgot what the first was.
The only redeeming feature of the links was that May was dressed as Doctor Who and Hammond as The Master.
I've also heard the ITV+Netflix rumour. I hope it's rather good.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/29/tunisia-terror-attack-hotel-workers-witness