Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 24th August 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

SNP prepares for battle over North Sea cash



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 May 2008
THE SNP Government is demanding talks with Westminster on transferring billions of pounds of annual North Sea oil and gas revenues north of the border.
In an escalation of cross-border hostilities, Finance Secretary John Swinney has also written to Chancellor Alastair Darling arguing that Holyrood should set its own levels of petrol duty and road tax.

Drivers and hauliers have backed the move but
Treasury sources dismissed the demands, saying major changes were unlikely. Swinney's letter, which details the Nationalists' response to the Chancellor's budget statement earlier this year, also cites a motion agreed by the Scottish Parliament earlier this month which voices "disappointment" at some of the decisions taken in the budget and regret that measures to tackle fuel poverty are insufficient.

On the transfer of valuable oil and gas revenues, Swinney says: "Such a change would mean that we could finally invest these revenues in the future wealth and success of Scotland after decades of unfortunate policy decisions by the UK Government that have seen oil revenues directed towards filling the black hole in Britain's finances rather than being invested in the sensible manner that has been adopted elsewhere.

"The transfer of oil and gas revenues would form part of discussions between officials on a move to greater financial independence for Scotland."

Swinney also criticises the "consistent failure" of the UK Government over decisions on fuel and vehicle excise duty.

He adds: "There is the need to recognise that people living in rural areas are disproportionately affected by increased fuel prices because of the greater distances involved and fewer alternatives to the car.

"While those who live and work in urban areas have the choice of which vehicles they can use, such choice is not available to farmers and others who live in rural areas.

"I request that in the future you agree for decisions on fuel duty and vehicle excise duty to be taken in Scotland given that we would take greater consideration of the rural impact of such policy levers, and the impact on our haulage industry."

The Finance Secretary previously wrote to Darling prior to the UK budget statement in March calling for a meeting between officials to discuss a move to greater financial independence for Scotland. He added: "I would be grateful for your confirmation that you are content for such meetings to now take place".

Road users backed the move. Phil Flanders, the Scottish director of the Road Haulage Association, said: "It's a very positive idea and it's right that the decisions on road tax and fuel duty in Scotland should be taken according to Scottish needs. Bring it on, as they say in politics.

"Our Northern Ireland colleagues have the option to go south and fill up and save a few hundred pounds a tank. We don't have that here."

Neil Greig, head of policy in Scotland for the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said: "It's an interesting idea and I can imagine it being very popular. It will be very relevant to drivers in rural Scotland. It is a sad fact that the people who have little or no option to choose public transport and who are the ones most reliant on cars are the ones who must spend most to drive."

He added: "However, the question will be what the money is spent on. Right now, little of the money raised from drivers is spent on roads."

A Treasury spokesman could not confirm whether Swinney's letter had been received but added: "We will be replying to Mr Swinney in due course."

A source at the Treasury signalled that Whitehall would be unlikely to give the SNP what they wanted.

He said: "The position on taxation is already set out very clearly in the existing legislation. I don't think we should be expecting any changes."

Scottish Labour reacted with scorn. The party's finance spokesman Iain Gray said: "This is nothing short of political posturing from the SNP and it's a blatant attempt to divert attention away from their statement this week that exposed the party's lack of ideas to take Scotland forward."



The full article contains 689 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 18/05/2008 00:22:56
Demanding, now that isn't John Swinneys style.
2

,

18/05/2008 00:49:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Edward,

18/05/2008 00:51:11
At last a Scottish Government that works for Scotland as opposed to the previous bunch who just didnt work
4

Cincinnatus,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 00:56:19
The challenge then is do we want to squander that wealth on the fripperies the SNP are currently funding. Rather than focus on a creating a sustainable and profitable economy.
5

Jwil,

18/05/2008 00:56:46
"A source at the Treasury signalled that Whitehall would be unlikely to give the SNP what they wanted."

So its a flat no then? What's new?

Scottish Labour's.......... finance spokesman Iain Gray said: "This is nothing short of political posturing from the SNP...."

No! Its about money being stolen from Scotland.
6

mesmiths,

fife 18/05/2008 01:12:29
WARDOG #2 WOW. How long before that news is burried away, under the usual unionist dependency arguments, never to be mentioned again.

Labour should note that we the people don't see such moves as this one from Swinney, simply, as 'picking fights' or 'aggitation'. We see them as natural actions of a government that puts Scotland first and last and which is not in fear of masters in London.
7

,

18/05/2008 01:24:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Guga II,

Rockall 18/05/2008 01:26:46
"Scottish Labour reacted with scorn."

That is about what you would expect from the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party (North British Branch).

This Parcel of Rogues don't give a damn for the Scottish people or for the effect extremely high fuel prices have in rural Scotland. They don't care that all the money from Scottish oil is stolen by their political masters in London to subsidise the English. They don't care that none of the money is being placed in an oil fund for the future development of Scotland.

The Labour Party in Scotland are bought and sold for English gold, and have as much consideration for the Scottish people as the traitors that sold us out in 1707.
9

ptdoug,

18/05/2008 01:33:57
The Labour party in Scotland are traitors...no more, no less.
10

gerad,

greenock 18/05/2008 02:44:12
Please give us a chance to prove we can Independent. Come on Brown call a Election.
11

Castaway,

18/05/2008 03:09:31
Norway, which had used its "accidental inheritance" to set up a Petroleum Fund worth $210bn at the end of 2005, equivalent to $45,000 for every person living in Norway.
The fund was valued at $ 387.3 billion, Norway's central bank reported - March 2008
This is a fund was set up to help manage Norway's petroleum wealth well, avoiding the dreaded “resource curse” that afflicts so many countries rich in natural resources.
12

Hugo of Garven,

18/05/2008 07:51:27
"SNP prepares for battle over North Sea cash"

If you don't ask, you dont get.
13

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 18/05/2008 08:35:13
THE UNION with england is DEAD!
14

Cludgie,

18/05/2008 08:48:14
Well, it's this simple... If your next door neighbour came into your house and plugged in an extension cable which ran to his house and started running all his power from your house, you might be a little miffed. Time to unplug Whitehall's extension cable (umbilical noose) and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Here's a deal for Darling... we retain our own oil and gas revenues and London stops the "subsidies"... although the only reason they are able to provide aforementioned, is because of the wealth they have robbed from Scotland's natural resources.
15

Alan B,

18/05/2008 08:59:51
For all the false claims about the snp causing fights this is the first contentious issue.

The snp is right however. There policy seems to have been stability in the first yr and now start standing up for scotland.

In england they have been fed the line scotland are subsidy junkies. Scottish unionist politicians have also lied to the people of scotland about this aswell. Mccrone showed that labours own internal report showed that scotland would have been one of the wealthiest countries in the world if we went independent, but still went to the electrate saying it would be economic meltdown.

Putting the issue of independence aside for a moment, scotland must move to fiscal autonomy asap.

That would put at a stroke an end to the lies about subsidy junkies. It would put to an end english moaning about scotland being subsidy junkies re-educating them in the process, removing much of the bad feeling between certain sections of the populations. It would also allow scotland to benefit from the goldmine in the north sea before it is too late. Aswell as the advantage of allowing us to set fiscal policy to improve scotlands woeful economic growth.
16

Alan B,

18/05/2008 09:02:25
Brown is supposedly scottish. Allowing scotland to keep its oil wealth is in scotlands advantage.

Will brown put scotland before his career?

I am not holding my breath.
17

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 09:04:15
In the last year Norway has taken in around £7,500 per head of population in oil revenue to be used as they see fit.
Scots were probably taken in for a similar amount by the UK government who squandered the lot.
18

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 09:14:57
#17 Auld Twa

However, petrol is about the same price in Norway and Scotland. The fuel-duty grandstanding really is just jumping on a populist bandwagon and proclaiming that the price of fuel is unfair, with the knowledge that fuel duty would not change if it was under the Sct Exec's control.

If Scotland did get all the N. Sea oil revenue, it would miss out on the financial revenues raised in the SE of England. Six-of-one, half-a-dozen of the other.
19

Toast,

18/05/2008 09:30:36
And what about backdating our oil revenue 30 years,reducing corporate taxation would make Scotland the no-one destination in Europe for corporate headquarters and Edinburghs financial industry would give london a good run for its money,the only downside would be more parasitic bankers moving north.
20

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/05/2008 09:33:13
#18 Tin Man

That's hardly a forensic financial analysis! How about giving some figures to back up your point?
21

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 09:35:18
Alan B (15): "In england they have been fed the line scotland are subsidy junkies."

If oil revenue is included, then Scotland certainly isn't subsidised -- even before the recent increase in oil prices, oil income roughly balanced higher Scottish public sector/welfare costs. However, what would Scotland's position be without oil? I suspect many English readers do not accept the view that "It's Scotland's Oil!", in which case the economic argument is somewhat different.
22

Alan B,

18/05/2008 09:35:19
#The Tin Man

"If Scotland did get all the N. Sea oil revenue, it would miss out on the financial revenues raised in the SE of England. Six-of-one, half-a-dozen of the other."

The thatcher monetary experiment that generated the finacial wealth for the south east of england was based on north sea oil.

If u look back to the 70s britain was in economic meltdown (sout east included). The uk had to hold out the begging bowl to the imf for emergency load to keep us afloat.

The labours mcrone report showed that scotland would be one of the wealthies countries in the world if we went independent at that time.

An snp question to the tory treasury in the mid 90s about the how much scotland contributed compared to what we take out. this showed that scotland has contributed an excess of £27 billion (believe it was based on 90% of oil), for a period between i think 79 and 95. that was like england giving £270 billion to the us as a pressie. As income tax from scotland would have been roughly 200million for a 1p in the pound at the time that was like u giving away a 1/3 of all income tax.

The fact is ireland who was significantly poorer than scotland in the 70s and Norway who was roughly the same are now both significantly wealthier. A heavy price for the union.
23

Alan B,

18/05/2008 09:43:20
#Fairfax

Good Morning.

" I suspect many English readers do not accept the view that "It's Scotland's Oil!""

did u get the links about the £27 billion u asked for on Friday? Was not sure if u had left before i posted them.

It is either in scottish waters or it is not.

U are right without oil then the economic argument changes.

My biggest arguments are not oil per se. But the under performance of the scottish economy. To address that i think scotland needs control of fiscal policy and also the address monetary policy.

Monetary problem being too high interest rates for the scottish economy by using sterling because of the higher growth and inflationary pressures from the south. (the north of england have a similar problem).

u will notice the eddie george (the govenor at the bank of england) comments about unemployment being a price worth paying in the north to control inflation in the south.

I can understand where he was coming from as his remit was righly inflation control. But the underlying problem was the failure of governments to address north south divides.
24

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 09:46:35
Alan B (22): "If u look back to the 70s britain was in economic meltdown (sout east included). The uk had to hold out the begging bowl to the imf for emergency load to keep us afloat."

The IMF loan, in 1976, was in many ways the beginning of monetarism, since its conditions encouraged the reduction of public spending that had caused Britain's problems in the first place. Oil was welcome income, but would have simply been wasted without the beginning of the end for massive susidies to inefficient heavy industry dominated by union leaders more interested in Marx than Adam Smith.

"The thatcher monetary experiment that generated the finacial wealth for the south east of england was based on north sea oil."

Oil was, of course, important in the late 1970s and early 1980s, particularly to the Treasury, but the financial wealth of SE England really wasn't based on oil. Why do you believe this to be so? It is true that oil was important to Treasury income, which increasingly spent it on welfare as the zombie industries of heavy industry were allowed to wither.
25

Alan B,

18/05/2008 09:46:49
#Fairfax

this is one of the links i posted. this was on the bbc site about the £27 billion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/forum/answers.shtml

search for 27 billion and see the answer rather than the question.

also

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970205/debtext/70205-22.htm

The fig i believe were based on 90% of oil being scottish which was the high end of the uk range of the oil divide (which was something like 80-90%).
26

Brian S,

London/Edinburgh 18/05/2008 09:51:06
I'm with the SNP on this one.
27

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 09:53:09
#22 Alan B

The changes brough about by the Thatcher government also helped to generate the finacial wealth that we see in Scotland, now. However, that was two decades ago, and the World has moved-on.

Ireland is not Scotland. Ireland was a predominantly agrarian society 20 years ago, Scotland was an urbanised, industrailised society. Ireland has an entirely different outlook on social security.

I am not really qualified to comment on Norway, but it is a beautiful country, and Bergen definately looks nothing like Glasgow, and I don't think it ever will.
28

Alan B,

18/05/2008 09:59:32
#Fairfax

I consider monetarim to have started in 79 with the election of thatcher. this was becuase of the failure of labours inflation policy ie income policy to control inflation.

Monetarim is the targetting of the money supply to control of inflation. Britain first targetted M3 and then when the correlation between M3 and inflation did not really materialise we targeted M4.

Monetarism was not really about fiscal policy. but moneratists beleive it should be run along with supply side policies. It was really an abandonment of Kenyes. Going back abit now in my knowledge but it was argued becuase of the break down in the trade of between growth and inflation in the late 60s known as the phillips curve.

We do not really pursue moneratism any more as Lawson moved to inflation targetting in the late 80s. although it is the same tool (interest rates) for the same end.

"Oil was welcome income, but would have simply been wasted without the beginning of the end for massive susidies to inefficient heavy industry dominated by union leaders more interested in Marx than Adam Smith. "

Agree

"Oil was, of course, important in the late 1970s and early 1980s, particularly to the Treasury, but the financial wealth of SE England really wasn't based on oil."

I see where u are coming from. What i meant was oil helped keep the uk afloat financially at the time to allow thatcher to bring in the supply side policies. It were those supply side policies that transformed the se economy. Without oil wealth it would have been near impossible for thatcher to do what she did.

Heath actually tried a very light weight thatcherism but backed of when trouble started.

Would thatcher have been able to have interest rates at 17/18% (against correct me if my memory is wrong of the early 80s and cut taxes if it were not for the oil wealth).

I guess what i am saying is without oil thatcher would not have had a platform to transform the south east so quickly. Many people i
29

Alan B,

18/05/2008 09:59:54
cont..

Many people in the north (england included) believe that run a london first or pro south economy.
30

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 10:00:33
Alan B (23): "did u get the links about the £27 billion u asked for on Friday? Was not sure if u had left before i posted them."

I did (for which thanks), but I'm still a sceptic on this: I'm not convinced these calculations have correctly costed the Scottish welfare state, the public sector, although it's certainly a difficult estimate -- I don't know the answer, as yet. Of course, if oil is excluded from the equation, then there has been no nontrivial subsidy.

"u will notice the eddie george (the govenor at the bank of england) comments about unemployment being a price worth paying in the north to control inflation in the south."

This is a divide, but the Treasury often took the opposite view: inflation in the South had often been greatly worsened by government policies (before the 1980s) which, essentially, printed money to avoid unemployment in heavy industry, overwhelmingly to the benefit of the North (both England and Scotland). If you believe George was wrong to take the view that unemployment in the North was justified to avoid unemployment in the South in the 1980s and 1990s, do you also view the earlier opposite decisions were unjustified, when inflation had been the price for supporting the North.
31

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 10:00:34
#21 Fairfax,

I believe the above study only allocated around 82% of UK oil resources to Scotland - somewhat at the lower end of the scale. I'm not sure why English people not accepting the position of oil and Scotland really makes any difference to the argument.

Oil was tremendously important to the finances of the Thatcher Government for a great proportion of its time in office. Nigel Lawson, in his memoirs indicates the central position of these revenues. The idea it was a successful industry to be milked.
32

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 10:06:19
#25 AlanB

I think this may be the link you are after:

http://tinyurl.com/57hswf

It takes account of total government expenditure on Scotland - and by dint of extent, the size of Scotland's public sector and all other issues associated with Government spending in Scotland.
33

b.allan,

alba 18/05/2008 10:06:20
Go John Swinney!! Get us our money back from those treacherous people in Westminster.
34

Alan B,

18/05/2008 10:06:55
#The Tin Man

I agree we have to move on. But i think it is important when we look to the future we understand our recent economic history.

McCrone while no longer relevent for today is important as it shows what unionist parties have down against scotland interests.

I heard Brian Wilson on tv a few yrs ago when mccrone story broke (snr labour in 80s) argue that everyone knew scotland would be very wealthy if we had gone independent in 79.

However labour lied saying it would be an economic meltdown. That is the point. Poeple like him would privately know scotland would be better off independent but would run election campaigns saying the opposite.

It shows that labour of the john smiths, cooks, browns could not be trusted.

Even tony benn was on record as saying scotland would just waste the money and needed england to run them. And he was supposedly one of the real democrats.






35

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 10:09:41
The extremely interesting book, bu Murkens and Keating (2002) "Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide", in its own calculations also notes that Scotland ran a large surplus throughout much of that period too - the only part of the UK to do so, each and every year.
36

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 10:10:22
Grant (31): "I'm not sure why English people not accepting the position of oil and Scotland really makes any difference to the argument."

I suspect that many of the English begin from the axiom that oil was, and remains, a UK resource, in which case Scotland has, arguably been subsidised by England.

"Oil was tremendously important to the finances of the Thatcher Government for a great proportion of its time in office."

That's certainly true: from 1979 until, roughly 1985, I would say, slightly more than half the length of Thatcher's administration. However, following that, the restored economic health of the general UK economy, and in particular SE England, began to eclipse it.
37

Al Ford,

Insch 18/05/2008 10:14:53
This is an entirely legitimate move by the Scottish Government even though Mr Swinney will be in no doubt as to the nature of the response which he will receive from the UK government. A positive response would be helpful to the Scottish economy. A negative one will be electorally advantageous to the SNP.

If you make use of the technology at your fingertips by taking a look from time to time at what the provincial governments of Canada, e.g., do by way of revenue raising, you will not take long to realize that oil revenues are not per se inalienably and necessarily the province of central government. Tell the Canadian provinces that they cannot raise their oil revenues and see what happens.

So, even though Scotland is not yet independent, it is not unreasonable or inappropriate for the Scottish Government to be raising the question of oil revenues now, together with bringing forward the other very sensible proposals reported above, which would appear to have widespread support, as one would expect.
38

Alan B,

18/05/2008 10:15:11
#The Tin Man

Off course ireland is different and so is norway.

However the point is ireland was poorer in the 70s and is now richer (without oil).

Norway was had similar wealth and is not richer with a huge oil fund.

Scotland had a goldmine and has little to show for it with a slow growing economy.


Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Netherlands,Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland , Belgium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

all have higher gdp per capita ppp than the uk. Showing small countries are outperforming the big ones in europe.

why have we performed so poorly against other small nations why? are we unique in that we just cannot do better. or is it something to do with the way the union has not served our interests.

Take monetary policy. Interest rates in the uk have been too high for the scottish economy for most of the last 30yrs. (north of englands too). Governments will not make the structural changes necessary to address the north south divide so that interest rates are more in line with nothern needs.

High interest rates when u have slow growth and low inflation kills the economy. If u have low growth and low inflation u lower interest rates. That is how u tend to manage western capitalist economies.

Take the euro. interest rates in euro countries are lower and have been for 30 odd yrs (over a period of time). it would most likely be beneficial for scotland to join but we are restricted from doing so. Economic madness.
39

Earman,

Dumfries 18/05/2008 10:16:57
Please please please would the Labour Party in Scotland just THINK what Scotland and its people could achieve if only they - SLAB - would grab with both hands this opportunity to truly represent Scotland instead of the Union. I just cannot believe that each and every Labour MSP is so blind and deaf to simply ignore what they MUST see and hear going on around them. Please, for your Nation's sake, wake up and start to be part of the process towards a dignified, inclusive and properly conducted negotiation towards independence. Surely our people deserve your support and encouragement, rather than the petty and negative comments and assertions currently on offer!
40

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 10:18:19
Alan B (28): "Would thatcher have been able to have interest rates at 17/18% (against correct me if my memory is wrong of the early 80s and cut taxes if it were not for the oil wealth)."

Inflation was also high at this point, so the nominal rate was much higher than the real rate. However, I certain agree that oil income was vital to the Treasury until, say, 1985. As to whether taxes could have been cut without oil wealth, I'm less sure. It would certainly have meant reduced public services and higher unemployment in heavy industry areas (obviously affecting the North more). I suppose I feel that, in some ways, oil wealth was a mixed blessing in the UK in the early 1980s: it would have been better to reduce the State. There is also the detrimental effect of becoming a petrocurrency, which harmed exports and, in particular, manufacturing.
41

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 10:18:44
Fairfax

Go and have a Google at International UN maritime law and explain why most English folk think or believe 90% or all North Sea natural resourses exploited by the UK doesnt belong to Scotland??

And while youre at it try and explain to that idiot Federalist that if Scotland gave up its national identity it would give up its right to own and exploit its own natural resourses.
42

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 10:19:03
#36 Fairfax.

The figures I have for 1985, from the book referenced above, show that in 1985, NS oil accounted for 10% of total UK Government incomes, halfing in the following two years, so you may well be right. Scotland's position in absolute surplus continued for several years after that however.

How, in all fairness can we have "UK resources" (North Sea oil in the Scottish defined sector of the Continental Shelf) and "English resources" (financial wealth from SE England). We either have full UK resources and no talk of subsidies, or we apportion resources to the various parts of the UK and work from first principles in that position. As a nationalist I favour the latter.

Seems to me a case of "what's yours in mine, but what's mine is mine". A very convenient argument.
43

Alan B,

18/05/2008 10:22:22
#Fairfax

"That's certainly true: from 1979 until, roughly 1985, I would say, slightly more than half the length of Thatcher's administration. However, following that, the restored economic health of the general UK economy, and in particular SE England, began to eclipse it."

I think that is the point. Rather than use a scottish resource to transform the scottish economy which was in a complete mess with high unemployment throughout the 80s, it was used to transform the south of england.

This is not nationalistic per se as the north of england got little too.

Lets take a specific policy. thatcher had a tax give away called mirus. Interest rate tax relieve. this was a subsidy to those that bought their own home. Home owership was much higher and rising in the south rather than the north. This was a specific subsidy that favoured the south.

The result of subsidising credit was to have higher interest rates. monetarism as we have discussed was to control the rate of growth of the money supply. if u subsidise credit ie money supply, and u want it to grow at a certain rate then u need to raise interest rates to make the effective cost of credit the same.

Higher interest rates for industry and the higher rate of the pound that is caused was more damaging to the northern economies than the south because of their economic make up).
44

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 10:23:46
Foulkes (41): "Go and have a Google at International UN maritime law and explain why most English folk think or believe 90% or all North Sea natural resourses exploited by the UK doesnt belong to Scotland??"

Certainly: that law applies to the UK, not to England or Scotland, so the current view of international law is that oil has indeed been a UK resource, not a Scottish resource, althought it would, of course, overwhelmingly become so if Scotland seceded.
45

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 10:26:38
#44 Fairfax

UK Law, however already delineates a Scottish and English share of the UK Continental Shelf. The Continental Shelf Act 1964, as amended by the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968.

Indeed, the precedent is already there.
46

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 10:29:10
Grant (42): "How, in all fairness can we have "UK resources" (North Sea oil in the Scottish defined sector of the Continental Shelf) and "English resources" (financial wealth from SE England)."

That's a good point: if one is a UK resource, then all are UK resources. However, that does not imply that we cannot speak of subsidies to particular regions of the UK. For example, East London was subsidised in the 1980s.
47

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 10:32:02
Grant (45): "UK Law, however already delineates a Scottish and English share of the UK Continental Shelf. "

It certainly does, but that does not imply that those areas then become Scottish and English resources at present: the ownership, under international law, resides with the UK.
48

Alan B,

18/05/2008 10:35:15
#Fairfax

Part of the problem with the uk is the tories are southern based party and have no interest in addressing the north south divide. Labour went on and on about it in the 80s but then dropped it with blair as the party seeked power by wooing middle england.

Some of this is structural as the uk was run in a very centralised manor. similar to france rather than germany.

u are rightish. so based on the right wing theory of crowding out. from an econmic perpective should the government and public sector depts etc not have been better moving from the high growth south east (london) and basing themselves say in manchester disributing government depts and institutions like bbc and bank or england through the uk.

from a keynes point of view would it not have been better to move this aggregate demand generated by the public sector and private sector that gravitates to the centre of power to somewhere like manchester that is truely middle britain.

This would have the advantage of allowing lower interest rates by reducing the inflationary impact of the south thus letting the whole uk grow more quickly.
49

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 10:38:46
#46 Very much so. Scotland isn't a region of the UK however. It is fair to say areas like Edinburgh and Aberdeen (City and Shire) more than likely subsidise poorer areas of Scotland like Dundee and Glasgow.

#47 Maybe not, but it already sets the precedent and kind of unbalances your view that many people view the North Sea resource as a UK resource, when legally and implicitly it isn't.

The boundaries themselves may not change, but the English and Scottish legal boundaries already follow international legal principles on the issue.
50

Alan B,

18/05/2008 10:43:32
#Grant

i think glasgow is made to look worse as it does not include the wealthy subburbs which in other cities are included in the city boundaries. loosely talking u would say the wealthies parts of glasgow would be Milngavie and Eastwood but are not actually part of glasgow.

The poor areas are more likely to be ur greenocks on the west coast and lanarkires in the central belt.
51

The Tin Man,

18/05/2008 10:45:26
#38 Alan B

Of course, you are correct (although the Faroes do suffer by comparison). However, if you extend that reasoning, you are proposing an economic argument for Milngavie declaring independence from Castlemilk.
52

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 10:49:33
44

Thank you for explaining yet another union benefit for Scotland. Scotland has indeed lost control of its resourses to Westminster hence why Swinney has to ask Westminster for them back.
And yet Scotland doesnt get a share of what you refer to as the SE English resourses Scotland gets the Barnett formula instead which actually equates to approx the same as 90% of todays NE oil revenues on crude oil alone ie approx 30bn.
So we appear to be subsidising the UK with our income taxation and local taxation our VAT our fuel cost taxation our National Insurance our road tax our company tax our TV licence tax our savings tax our inheretance tax our capital gains tax etc etc.
I think we can happily let England keep its SE income in exchange for our own.
53

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 10:50:59
#50 Very true AlanB. I would think of Milgnavie and Giffnock as part of Glasgow, but they aren't part of the Glasgow Council Area. I even class Lenzie as part of Glasgow....
54

Alan B,

18/05/2008 10:52:25
#51

Not sure how u work that out?

Are u replying to #38 as ur reply seems to have little to do with what i posted, with regard to scotland economic under performance and my views on monetary policy ie interest rates and currency.

55

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 10:55:49
#54 Alan B

No, I was replying to your GDP comparison between the UK and selected, smaller country's.
56

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 10:57:28
55

No matter how good the UK GDP is it doesnt affect the calculations within the Barnett formula so what good is a favourable UK GDP to Scotland???
57

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 10:57:33
#54 Alan B

I would think that interest rates in an indepedent Scotland would either be set by the European Central Bank, or the Bank of England.
58

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 10:59:15
57

Why not the RBS??
59

Nikostratos,

18/05/2008 11:00:16
Typical snp stirring......If they want to do things such as these. Then they best have their silly referendum asap .
60

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 11:00:50
#56 Foulkes

Out of interest, is there a similar formula for, say, Northumbria?
61

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 11:01:41
#58 Foulkes

Highly unlikely, mate.
62

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:01:44
59

Should have had the referendum in 1707.
63

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:02:11
61

Why??
64

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:02:50
60

Havent heard of one have you??
65

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 11:05:34
#57 That is an interesting point actually.

Whilst I'm not completely sold on the idea of EMU, there is anecdotal evidence that Scotland is on a similar business cycle to the Euro area, which has an impact on the conduct of monetary policy. Monetary policy in the UK is purely designed for the benefit of SE England, which is out of step with the rest of England and Scotland too.

The monetary policy of the Euro area is primarily designed for the economies of France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands and incrteasinly Poland. Germany and Belgium (the former being the largest economy in Europe) have a similar economic structure to Scotland in that they are largely post-industrial and suffer many of the same economic problems as Scotland does -slow economic growth. As a result, monetary policy in the Eurozone is largely going to be used as an economic stimulant.

This contrasts with UK monetary policy, largely utilised to slow down an overheating London and SE England.
66

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 11:07:35
#56

You are talking about a commercial bank. I think you mean the government. However, the Scotish enonomy would become considerably more dependent on the exchange-rate between whatever currency we had, and the $US,as oil is trades in $US.
67

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 18/05/2008 11:10:02
#64

I would imaging there is such a thing, just not so widely advertised. After all, a Scotish gov would need a similar mechanism for funding in Sutherland and, say, Aberdeen.
68

Alan B,

18/05/2008 11:11:03
#55 U have lost me. Why by showing that small countries in western europe have outperformed big ones even the uk does it mean that Milngavie should be declaring itself independent.

My simple argument is
1)for a long time we were told that small nations could not compete with big nations. this has turned out to be false.
2)scotland has not done well economically with growth less that 2% over the last 30yrs on avg.
3)scotland has done less well than other small nations when u look at our growth rate.

as such we have to ask why and what changes can be made to address that. My conclusions are
1)take control of fiscal policy. why did films like brave heart and rob roy film in ireland. tax breaks. despite all the talk scotland could not compete and did not have the levers of power to effect change.
2)review our monetary position. ie euro
3)take economics decision for scotland by scotland. ie when scotland was in recession in the 80s we could not vote out the then government but when the south had a recession in the early 90s the tories did not last long.
69

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 11:14:55
Alan B (48): "Part of the problem with the uk is the tories are southern based party and have no interest in addressing the north south divide."

There's some truth to this, but recall also my argument above: for many years, the South had seen policies which benefitted the North. Still, I agree it's an important problem.

"u are rightish. so based on the right wing theory of crowding out. from an econmic perpective should the government and public sector depts etc not have been better moving from the high growth south east (london)"

Agreed. To some extent, this has occurred.

"This would have the advantage of allowing lower interest rates by reducing the inflationary impact of the south"

It would have been generally good, but its effect on the south's economy would have been relatively small, I suspect.
70

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:16:40
66

Are you referring to 58?? if so then why should it matter if Scottish currency depends on the US dollar the English pound or the Euro?? exchange rates fluctuate in and out of favour for all countries depending on various global commercial and financial situations. It wont be long before the Chinese Yuan becomes a major player. Maybe we should tie our currency to the Yuan as a future investment??
71

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:17:50
67

Are you referring to local taxation by any chance??
72

Alan B,

18/05/2008 11:18:33
#The Tin Man

"I would think that interest rates in an indepedent Scotland would either be set by the European Central Bank, or the Bank of England. "

There are 3 choices:

1)scottish currency: has the advantage that interest rates would be set for the benefit of the scottish economy. disadvantage is currency fluxations with our markets in uk and euro area.
2)sterling: interest rates within this area have been too high for scottish economy. There is no government action to address the north south divide to alievate this problem.
3)euro; interest rates within this area are much more closely aligned for the needs of the scottish economy. it removes currency fluxations within the euro single market. has the disadvantage that uk will have a different currency and hence fluxations.

While no option is perfect i would say the euro is the best option for the scottish economy. It would be better if the rest of the uk was too join to but we should not wait. I also worry if the uk joins that scotland gets locked in at too high a rate.

The problem with the situation at the moment is the scottish parliament cannot decide to join even if it views it in scotland economic interest. Jack Mcconnell supported the euro. Labour officially supports the euro but cannot join for political reasons. The lib dems support it too. So there is support for it within the political parties but they will not consider it even if in scotland interests.
73

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 11:18:46
Grant (49): "kind of unbalances your view that many people view the North Sea resource as a UK resource, when legally and implicitly it isn't."

Being legally Scottish does not imply it's not a UK resource. After all, would you argue that UK resources in England, being governed by the laws of England, are therefore entirely English, implying no Scottish share? My point here is that legal jurisdiction does not imply ownership at present, although I obviously agree that it would after dissolution of the UK.
74

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:21:02
72

I believe the Euro is inevitable whether Scotland remains within the UK or not. I believe our political masters are only waiting for a favourable exchange rate to avoid another black Wednesday.
75

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:24:48
73

The UK doesnt share its resourses. Each region raises its own resourses in the form of local taxation the rest goes to central Government except in the case of Scotland like I said we get the Barnett formula in exchange for all our local resourses hence the imbalance.
76

Fairfax,

18/05/2008 11:26:42
Alan B (72): "While no option is perfect i would say the euro is the best option for the scottish economy."

That might be so, but my understanding is that this could not be an immediate choice: there would be several years of qualifying under ECB rules. Therefore, at least initially, Scotland has to choose its currency. To my mind, the natural choice is to drop Sterling, possibly following a short transition period.

"The problem with the situation at the moment is the scottish parliament cannot decide to join"

There is the interesting legal point that Scottish law does not have legal tender for notes: essentially all notes (including Bank of England ones) are, as it were, rather like cheques in status. With that in mind, as far as I can see, there would be nothing to stop the Scottish Government deciding to move to the Euro, although it would then have to fund Pound-Euro currency volatility.
77

Alan B,

18/05/2008 11:29:48
Fairfax

"If you believe George was wrong to take the view that unemployment in the North was justified to avoid unemployment in the South in the 1980s and 1990s, do you also view the earlier opposite decisions were unjustified, when inflation had been the price for supporting the North."

I do not take the view he was wrong. Just that it exposed the problem by which interest rates were too high for scotlands economic benefit.

He was only the messenger and he was wrongly shot down at the time. I liked the honestly. The problem was the it was the governments job to address the structural problems that caused this to exist.

Government since my economic knowlegde early 80s (maybe late 70s) have failed to address this issue.

With regard to policies before that 50s, 60s and 70s it is before my time to really comment on the printing of money and the reasons. I am well aware though that british monetary policy post war is generally seen as poor particularly 60s and 70s.



78

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 11:33:17
#73 Fairfax

""Being legally Scottish does not imply it's not a UK resource. After all, would you argue that UK resources in England, being governed by the laws of England, are therefore entirely English""

Well, it's not really the same thing. There are resources that are under public ownership (ie owned by the state) which may be under English jurisdiction in England, which Scotland would be naturally due a pro-rata share of, on independence. These are shared UK assets, but only by dint of the fact that Scottish taxypayers have paid a share of them. But I don't lay a Scottish claim to the financial wealth generated in London, or any other private economic, taxation generating activity that takes place in England, or anywhere else.

Anything legally defined as Scottish "is" Scottish, and that doesn't necessarily imply "ownership", either.
79

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 18/05/2008 11:42:20
78

How about a share of the gold reserves within the Bank of England are we entitled to a share based on population ratio or assets given to the UK over 300 years or a share based on the Barnett formula??
80

Alan B,

18/05/2008 11:42:54
#69 Fairfax

"It would have been generally good, but its effect on the south's economy would have been relatively small, I suspect."

In trying to address the north south divide i am not trying to hurt the south just sort out the slow economic activity in the north.

If government were to

1) have moved government north to manchester. moved the foreign office to edin, defence and all associated expenditure to newcastle, treasure and renamed bank of england (uk central bank) to glasgow. (2000 high paid jobs with bank of england atleast it was early 90s). BBC to manchester. whitehall to liverpool.

as well as all this spending and associated jobs that come from it. it would also attract the private sector that is drawn to the power centre.

2)the public companies that were privatised. why was bp head quartered in london. it was said if the uk government moved the energy dept to aberdeen it would move headquarters.

bt had something like 200,000 employees most in the south.

3) the government should have reversed the tebit test. rather than just telling people to get on their bikes they should have encourraged companies to do so. immigratiion to solve southern labour market tightness could have been addressed by companies moving north.

a lower corporation tax could have encourgaged this if need be.

4)build a fast train from london to glas/ed. there was motorway from lon to carlise but not to glas until last decade. edin links south are crap.

when euro tunnel was getting built there was the whole thing about link to scotland. they sold the trains bought for scottish link to canada i believe.

5) government should ensure policies do not harm the north. eg mirus, even tax on flights; not the best way to encourage more direct flights.

6)if inflation in the south is a problem preventing the rest of the country having lower interest rates and having lower economic growth. take specific measure to address southern inflation.

eg a)restrict cre
81

Alan B,

18/05/2008 11:43:19
cont..

eg a)restrict credit ie mortages by proportion of salary.
b)raise tax for london only to remove the spending powers. can be dressed up for the higher london expenditure. (3% lit :) )

make the structrual reforms necessary.


82

Grant,

Scotland 18/05/2008 11:46:12
#79 Yes, we'd be due a share of these assets, as well as the liabilities (national debt etc). Then there is the defence estate, diplomatic estate, government investment and real estate and all other capital.

Normally a population or wealth based share is the formula used to distribute the assets and liabilities, Scotland's share would be about one twelfth in such circumstances. That is a cost that rUK would have to bear, but I'm not sure that would be too problematic for them to do.
83

Alan B,

18/05/2008 11:50:47
#76 Fairfax

"but my understanding is that this could not be an immediate choice"

as i say i would like the discussion to start within the sp about the merits or disadvantages of the euro with an economic assessment.

Off course trans