The Scottish Government

It is my conversational opinion that the fact that the UK government has not set up an oil fund already is a crime. I'm basing that on the state of the economy, and the unfair advantage leveraged by the UK government on business activity in the South East.

Ken, I don't think there's a single thing you and I have in common in political terms. But I admire your oomph.

Crime I think is a bit of an over-reaction. Oil Fund if it had been created at the outset would have been a positive thing in some respects, however the policies followed in the 1980's meant tax revenue was so low, and actual ownership of fields was sold off so it would never have been a Statoil type of fund, with the kind of returns that has been generated for the Norwegian state.

It was a UK owned resource with rights sold mainly in the late 60's when oil was as cheap as chips (slight exageration). As a UK resource and Scotland gaining the beenfits of proximity in terms of job creation and business opportunities, and through the Barnet formula a generous level of transfer payment to Scotland public services, and tax cuts the same as everybody else during the 80's.

So Scotland's future/prsent has been created through the discovery of oil in the north sea, and while you could argue it was Texan Technology not Scottish people that achieved it, Scotland has benefitted from the revenue and spending of oil taxes, while not as sexy as an oil fund, it has ensured improved public services over the past 25 years across the UK. I just don't get this its Scotlands oil argument, I would say its UK oil, but I could also sympathise with the view that it is BP or Exxon's oil as they payed for it and made it a productive saleable resources. Could it be Shetlands oil?, Not a crime, just history and any attempt to significantly alter the way it is now will create poorer public services as the money would being raised would go into this Scottish SWF that would not benefit the Scottish economy directly. Attempts to tighten the tax regime would result in investment, exploration, and production simply being shifted to alternative geographies.

I seem to remember one of the labour big-wigs of the seventies writing that when the oil appeared on the horizon, labour did consider setting up an oil fund. While they were in government.

As soon as that was done it was in the ministerial bag of possibilities.

What I do remember is the kerfuffle about the McCrone evidence to the Treasury Committee that he thought it would be a good idea to have an oil fund. This was again in the 70s. It was obviously not important enough to anyone who could make a difference to Scotland's future to do anything about it.

That was a crime.

Oil fund was mooted by Tony Benn as Energy Minister in the 70's but was sidelined as oil exploitation created great pressure on the economy and we needed to go to the IMF for a bail-out.

I think it was intended to be a UK fund as opposed to a Scottish one though. Ever since then it has become part of general expenditure

And the rest is history...

It is absolutely appalling that there is not a Scottish Oil Fund already. And I would say that also to the SNP. This is not a political issue, it's an issue of decency.

Even Alberta which is a part of Canada is rewarded for its contribution to the Canadian economy.

The 15 billion that went into the treasury last year from the ex-regio resource which is Scotland's Oil Wealth is greater than the sum of money from the top 5 Scottish exports.

And just by way of angry statement, how dare labour or conservative supporters deny that when they saw the size of the wealth coming to the UK that it was their first plan to have a Scottish oil fund. All UK parties have reneged on setting it up, citing administrative difficulties. They did not want to pay something back to Scotland.

Now we have the most underperforming economy in the UK, 7 of the most deprived areas of the UK are in Glasgow, and a population running away to have a future elsewhere.

That there is no Scottish oil fund already shames the name of politics.

North Sea revenue has become embedded in the current tax-take, the result of setting up such a fund would to my view simply impoverish current generations with poor quality public services to benefit future generations. While very laudable I am not quite that giving myself, and as others have pointed out for only surplus revenue to be invested would take a long time to generate the scale of investment vehicle that is alluded to with comparisons to other sovereign wealth finds, and potentially there is not enough oil now for this fund to ever in relative terms be equivalent to these.

A point associated with the current spending arrangements is that a lot of the money is used to support current economic development in Scotland and the broader UK. A moral argument also exists that given the rest of the UK suffered as a direct result like Scotland in many respects with the pressures on currency and diversion of capital investment into delivering North Sea oil into a productive resource (at certain price points) that the benefits of the tax-take should be rightly shared.

Surely any revenue generated should be used not as a sovereign wealth fund but to directly invest in large-scale infrastructure programmes within Scotland to improve the competitive edge of other not so finite business models, and creating a world class education system, it is these that will create wealth and prosperity within Scotland not the buying, sweating, selling of commercial assets abroad.

Why is it that the SNP never answer the obvious questions..
I've read as many reports as I can from both sides of the Independence debate and for me the numbers just don't add up!
Last year we were told Scotland was over 200 million in surplus, but they left out capital spending which would have put Scotland 3 billion in deficit.. The oil fund? given that in the last 30 years we were only in surplus for 4 years, where would the oil fund come from?? there is no spare money to invest????
Overall if we had all the money from Scotland's oil it roughly adds up to the amount extra Scotland gets under the Barnet formula, so in effect Scotland's had this money anyway! The block grant is approx 30 billion, but with social payments its over 50 billion from Westminster! To be honest I can understand the appeal of independence but my honest uneducated opinion is that we are likely to stay in Europe and we'd have a better voice as part of the UK that as an independent Scotland.. I 've noticed how some people look on oil as a bargaining chip when dealing with Europe, but let be realistic, Europe has the largest economy in the world, 12 billion sterling really isn't that important to Europe.. How many realise that the total revenue from the tobacco industry is 13.7 billion (BMA statisitcs) For me I'm all for taking calculated risks but from what I can work out the SNP are looking through very rose tinted spectacles and I'm pretty sure they know it!

Kev 118

It is now obvious that your objective is to deflect attention from the postings discussing the original intent of setting up an oil fund in detail.

If you don't know of Irish terrorists being re-arrested for breaking the terms of their release then you are not reading the rest of the news in the papers you read, hardly surprising.

If you are seriously suggesting that the Justice Secretary and First Minister of the SNP did a deal with the Home Secretary and Prime Minister of the Westminster parliament then you are really naïve, or think we are. The need for a PTA within a Memorandum of Agreement is a standard procedure that all countries would subscribe to if they wish to have one. Our M of A had to be re - negotiated because English courts ruled the existing document did not provide sufficient protection to Libyan citizens the Prosecutor felt should be deported. Nothing to do with Lockerbie in the first instance.

The justification and financial benefit of the oil fund is based on an oil price of $105 / barrel. Current price is less than $70 / barrel for Brent crude. This is 33% less than the forecast price so how does this affect the income. Of course at $70 a barrel it is difficult to justify extracting oil from difficult to reach reserves and will affect the number of years we have to exploit the resource. Perhaps you would like to redo your calculations?

MG

116 Mg

Thanks for your reply, good to see that your happy with the fact you could be living next door to a convicted murder released early only by the good will of the British government. The fact that many said terrorists have now turned to violent crime and drugs fly's in the face of your point ""that they conduct themselves in lawful manner. Failure to do so would result in them being re - arrested to serve their sentence!!!"". Did you just make that statement up?
I know of no case were a convicted terrorist's released early has been forced to serve the remainder of their original sentence.

Again you seem sadly misled and naive in the extreme if you believe that the British government had no hand in Megrahi release, indeed it was the British government that paved the way with the prisoner agreement to begin with!.

The oil fund for sure, it is a no brainer you must ask yourself why Scotland is the only "country" in the world without some sort of oil fund, and as with 90% of the oil being within Scottish waters, it does seem a bit obtuse of our English masters that they not portion a part of the pot to the future benefit of this "country" .

I am open to relevant arguments against independence.
.
Climate change, terrorism, and other such matters have no bearing on the matter although why these should not concern people in relation to independence should be explained to voters at referendum time.