That looks like the final one rene59.

The New Stateman’s article refers to the Primary Dealer facility, which was designed to replace the liquidity lost as a result of the failure of the tripartite repo market (essentially an inter bank collateralized loan market). Primary dealers are those who are entitled to bid in auctions of US Treasuries (US Government Debt Securities). The facility enabled banks to borrow against US dollar denominated securities that they owned and the British Banks being primary dealers were entitled to use this facility. Likewise they used some of the facilities offered by the European Central Bank. To the extent, these facilities (and other functioning market facilities) were insufficient to meet their liquidity requirements, then they would need to seek help from their home central bank.

15 to 25 billion barrels might not seem a lot in UK terms but in Scottish terms with a 5 million population… Well I let youse fill in the rest.

Is this before or after you add in the 8bn barrels recently discovered in the Clair field?

And we haven’t even started on any fields to the West of a Scotland which were blocked by the MoD.

Basically there’s a lot of oil left. Whether it’s “a lot”, “a huge lot”, or “f*** me that’s a lot” is pretty irrelevant – it’ll be a very nice bonus to go into an oil fund for the future.

Yet again this is being spun as if somehow having all this oil is a bad thing for Scotland.

Yet again this is being spun as if somehow having all this oil is a bad thing for Scotland.

Yes, while at the same time the shale gas reserves in England which may be “a lot”, “a huge lot”, or “f*** me that’s a lot” is simultaneously a good thing.

It is bizarre indeed.

I suggest you don’t believe all these ‘facts’ being bounded around by the iS camp about the WOS. My mates dogs mum great aunty Nora said……
Also BTW, if it transpires any of this has been made up by a iS supporter who does work in/around Shetland then they will have broken the confidentially agreement and will need to update their CV.

oldbloke – Member

Are you sure you’ve not got a decimal wrong there? 404 million T at 7.5 barrels to T = 3030M barrels = 3.03billion barrels.

Hah, you’re not wrong, I was working with the wrong dataset and got a number that looked right and just assumed it was right 😳 Correct DECC estimates are 11.1 to 21bn boe- which invalidates part of my argument, as I was wrong to say the DECC estimates are higher than the UKOG industry estimate used in the White Paper, which in reality is much the same as the DECC range.

However, this still leaves Sir Wood’s new “likely best outcome” right at the lower limit of the DECC figures which he used in his review, (incorporating his expected 3-4bn “low side” increase). And of course doesn’t affect the main point, which is that Sir Wood has presented us 2 wildly different figures.

So, we’re left with the White Paper being consistent with UK Government figures, UK industry figures, and Sir Wood’s published review. But Sir Wood’s new figures being inconsistent with all of those including himself.

I liked my wrong numbers, they were conclusive and dramatic 😉 But the main points are much the same, and the credibility of these new numbers is still, being generous, dubious.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28085418

Add to that Scotland only has modest shale gas reserves… Not that I agree with fracking, but I’m sensing a theme here 😆

bencooper – Member

Is this before or after you add in the 8bn barrels recently discovered in the Clair field?

And we haven’t even started on any fields to the West of a Scotland which were blocked by the MoD.

Basically there’s a lot of oil left. Whether it’s “a lot”, “a huge lot”, or “f*** me that’s a lot” is pretty irrelevant – it’ll be a very nice bonus to go into an oil fund for the future.

Yet again this is being spun as if somehow having all this oil is a bad thing for Scotland.

lots of natural resources is great for any country

doesn’t explain why you want to tether your new economy to the pound

surely you need your own currency rather than being shackled to a poorer economy, the convergence requirement will surely hamstringyour new utopia?

Ian Wood has said that his comments were in response to the N-56 criticism of the OBR.

So basically he got the hump and decided to lower his own estimates 😉

doesn’t explain why you want to tether your new economy to the pound

I don’t, I think in the long run we should have either our own currency or the Euro. In the transition period, however, it makes sense for everyone that Scotland keeps using the pound.

The recently discovered Clair field that was discovered in 1977? Edit my bad missed the ‘in.’

big_n_daft – Member
surely you need your own currency rather than being shackled to a poorer economy, the convergence requirement will surely hamstringyour new utopia?

maybe, maybe not. If a CU did prove hamstring to us. We could always switch anytime there after.

That Clair field that’s been producing since 2005 and discovered in 1970’s, what new oil?

To some extent the amount of oil is irrelevant its the cost to extract and the margins that are important. It’s why Chevron have put Rosenbank on hold and why majors like Shell and Chevron are selling assets and making people redundant.

Good grief Junkyard I think THM should take out a restraining order- you are embarrassing yourself.

THM is entirely correct re the role of the Fed, it’s simply that you lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand the basic concepts of central banking. Obviously that’s not unusual, it’s just most people refrain from shouting their inanities on the subject like a monkey flinging his own excrement.

Also can you stop degrading any serious argument or discussion by reverting to the same argument that all politicians are liars, and everyone is biased hence can’t be listened to. You do yourself no favours because it stops you from engaging in the actual issue – the bias of the individual ceases to be important when the message is provably or objectively valid i.e a currency union between two diverting economies is undesirable, and to make it work sovereignty has to be pooled.

Thank you Mefty, but I think the subtleties of what constitutes a primary dealer will still be lost. Odd to be reading this very section in Geithner’s book this afternoon. I had forgotten the tri-partite repo stuff. The inside track on negotiations with Bob Diamond and Lehman was also interesting.

Oil can be a good and a bad thing as history has shown. The impact of rising oil prices on sterling just as Scotland was facing the decline in traditional manufacturing was a definite negative. Ditto volatility in oil prices can cause uncertainty for investment. So not always a good thing.

I don’t, I think in the long run we should have either our own currency or the Euro. In the transition period, however, it makes sense for everyone that Scotland keeps using the pound.

maybe, maybe not. If a CU did prove hamstring to us. We could always switch anytime there after.

both of you have provided a very good reason why CU for rUK is a no-go, speculation on when iS will leave the pound will lead to currency uncertainty for rUK and will be negative for the rUK economy

please explain why CU has any long-term benefits for rUK when you take the divergence of the economies, the lopsided benefits for the financial sectors and the “when will they leave” currency uncertainty into account

BnD – no one (other than a complete fool) enters into (negotiations over) a currency union when one party has stated from the outset that it sees the union only as a temporary measure, History shows how and why that is a bad idea but yet again the DO is apparently able to re-write history and theory. He’s a veritable magician. I missed the class when they taught that trick.

And that’s not including the fact that CUs require monetary and fiscal integration. Just little points…..pffff, details, details….

bainbrge – Member
Good grief Junkyard I think THM should take out a restraining order- you are embarrassing yourself.

THM is entirely correct re the role of the Fed, it’s simply that you lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand the basic concepts of central banking. Obviously that’s not unusual, it’s just most people refrain from shouting their inanities on the subject like a monkey flinging his own excrement.

Quite, but I put up with it on a daily basis despite ignoring it. You would think getting things wrong over and over again would be enough for someone to desist. But no…..yawn. Used to be funny, now just tiresome.

big_n_daft – Member
both of you have provided a very good reason why CU for rUK is a no-go, speculation on when iS will leave the pound will lead to currency uncertainty for rUK and will be negative for the rUK economy

please explain why CU has any long-term benefits for rUK when you take the divergence of the economies, the lopsided benefits for the financial sectors and the “when will they leave” currency uncertainty into accountI don’t particularly care for any option tbh. I doesn’t bother me in the slightest what currency will be used. So I’m not about to put forward argument any reasons. I’m very much a yes vote for better or worse.

Regarding the currency you’d hope sense would prevail after the vote and both would say right let’s talk about this sensibly. I doubt a broken Scotland will help the markets south of the border all that much.

Regarding the currency you’d hope sense would prevail after the vote and both would say right let’s talk about this sensibly. I doubt a broken Scotland will help the markets south of the border all that much

why would not having the pound break iScotland?

The English don’t want a currency union Link

big_n_daft – Member

why would not having the pound break iScotland?I dunno ask the better together mob, they seem to think it will.

I don’t think its all that important which is used.

bainbrge – Member
Good grief Junkyard I think THM should take out a restraining order- you are embarrassing yourself.

a thm multi? :Sherlock: 😆

bainbrge I am leaving the personal stuff as I am trying my best to not name call on here [ I dont always manage it but ouch my shins

Also can you stop degrading any serious argument or discussion by reverting to the same argument that all politicians are liars,

I only say it when someone says that AS lies – he does they all do. There seems a view that AS is lying but rUK pledges and papers are true. neither should be believed and all should be taken with a pinch of salt. if there is a bias it is in only believing the guff your side says.
Perhaps I should I go for that sort of balance THM does when speaking about AS in my posting then?

everyone is biased hence can’t be listened to

You can listen to who you like. I can point out they are biased

You do yourself no favours because it stops you from engaging in the actual issue

I disagree i engage in all issue I dont make claims and then pretend i did not read the subsequent posts that proved me wrong and then repeat the claim.

]the bias of the individual ceases to be important when the message is provably or objectively valid i.e a currency union between two diverting economies is undesirable, and to make it work sovereignty has to be pooled.

Can you highlight the quote recently where I have said anything remotely like this please? I think you are confusing me saying wood is biased with this I think you are just making that up tbh in order to have a go as I dont recall saying anything like that – its a big thread happy to be corrected on that point if you want to cite it.

A CU involves a strange fudge of independence that is not complete independence It cedes some independence and some fiscal sovereignty has to be pooled. AS argues for a strange sort of half way independence that is more like devo max IMHO. THM is correct in that claim

t I put up with it on a daily basis despite ignoring it. You would think getting things wrong over and over again would be enough for someone to desist

CAN I SEE YOUR DEMOCRACY FIGURES THEN ?
really THM your mate* might agree with you but you need to be reading another thread to think that you just did not get pages and pages of negative comment for your MO and content on here.
To quote NW at you

JY showed you the numbers and you’ve made no attempt to rebut. They simply don’t say what you claimed. I could accept that as a mistake at the time but to maintain it now is clearly dishonest.

Northwind – Member – Block User – Quote
teamhurtmore – Member
TBF, didn’t even bother to read, so not sure what was said to rebut anyway and have no interest.

I think I’ll use that policy- anyone that provides hard facts that contradict my bullshit, I’ll just declare a troll and not bother to read it and therefore I will be right. FFS.

EDIT: as someone claimed it was a multi from you – I doubt it but have they posted on this thread before? i dont recognise the name and my suspicions [ might just be paranoia] that they post late at night just before THM as if they had been out riding and chatting #paranoid but interested Seems strange to wade in and attack me given the grief was mainly from others

I like the way THM always thanks those who agree with him I would if I had time but it would be like an oscars speech and I would forget someone 😉

The English don’t want a currency union

but most of the Yes voters are expecting to get it, the Yes campaign are making out the main parties no to CU is a bluff and that they’ll get it and then drop it when it suits iS with rUK happy to take all the associated costs

I’m still waiting for a Yes supporter to state convincingly why CU is in the interest of rUK

I dunno ask the better together mob, they seem to think it will.

but you are the Yes voter who seemed worried by it

I don’t think its all that important which is used

your back pedalling is louder than a Hope pro 2 freewheel 😉

Not back peddling in the slightest, if you’re after logically reasons for why I’m voting yes, personally, good luck. Mines would all be ideological or emotional if I was to verbalise them, have been for about the 15/20 years I’ve known that I’m a separatist. Doesn’t mean I can’t spot nonsense when I see it. 😉

Why I think this thread is kinda dry, it’s completely missing out on why people vote. And that’s usually more to do with instinct than facts.

I’m still waiting for a Yes supporter to state convincingly why CU is in the interest of rUK

o Scotland and the UK engage in a significant amount of cross border trade. In 2011 an estimated £45.5 billion of Scottish exports were to the rest of the UK (with at least the same flow in the other direction). For both countries reciprocal trade represents a significant contribution to their respective economies.
o Scotland’s natural wealth would make a positive contribution to the Sterling Area economy. For example, Oil & Gas UK estimate that North Sea output, the large majority of which takes place within Scotland’s marine boundaries, boosted the UK’s balance of payments by £40 billion in 2011.
o Scotland’s economy represents a significant share of Sterling Area output -approximately 10% of current UK GDP or around the same size as the entire UK financial sector.
o A shared currency would help facilitate an orderly transition. For example, it would facilitate the orderly transfer of assets and liabilities which the Working Group highlighted “would seem to be a sensible and efficient solution”. This would be more transparent if the debts of both countries were denominated in the same currency.
o A shared currency would help facilitate the orderly supervision and oversight of systemically important financial institutions which operate across both countries

That is from the Scottish white paper so it may be biased [ if i am allowed to say this] but you are free to believe it or not

seosamh77 – Member

Not back peddling in the slightest if your after logically reasons for why I’m voting yes, good luck. Mines are all ideological.

enlighten please?

is it a celtic nationalism, pictish revivalism, hatred of the Westminister yoke, rebellion against the landowning classes, creation of a social democratic utopia? or something else?

Why I think this thread is kinda dry, its completely missing out why people vote. And that’s usually more to do with instinct than facts.

I agree i think the economic argument is probably stronger for no as there is uncertainty [ inevitable ] as AS proposal is a dogs dinner but people will not be voting just on that hence why constantly debating it is a bit pointless and we shoudl discuss other things
the NO , on here, are unwilling as they know the economics is their strongest card. – ie fear and uncertainty

EDIT I wrote than before seeing Big N daft post but that kinda demonstrates it

o Scotland and the UK engage in a significant amount of cross border trade. In 2011 an estimated £45.5 billion of Scottish exports were to the rest of the UK (with at least the same flow in the other direction). For both countries reciprocal trade represents a significant contribution to their respective economies.

but we trade more with others and currency isn’t an issue and the net impact is negligible

o Scotland’s natural wealth would make a positive contribution to the Sterling Area economy. For example, Oil & Gas UK estimate that North Sea output, the large majority of which takes place within Scotland’s marine boundaries, boosted the UK’s balance of payments by £40 billion in 2011.

North Sea output will have little impact on rUK balance of payments as it’s nearly all in iS realm

o Scotland’s economy represents a significant share of Sterling Area output -approximately 10% of current UK GDP or around the same size as the entire UK financial sector.

so any divergence of the economies could have a material impact on rUK

o A shared currency would help facilitate an orderly transition. For example, it would facilitate the orderly transfer of assets and liabilities which the Working Group highlighted “would seem to be a sensible and efficient solution”. This would be more transparent if the debts of both countries were denominated in the same currency.

it reduces iS costs but increases rUK costs and currency risk, I don’t like that deal

o A shared currency would help facilitate the orderly supervision and oversight of systemically important financial institutions which operate across both countries

it reduces iS costs but increases rUK costs and currency risk, I don’t like that deal

That is from the Scottish white paper so it may be biased[b]tripe[/b] [ if i am allowed to say this] but you are free to believe it or not

FIFY

the NO , on here, are unwilling as they know the economics is their strongest card. – ie fear and uncertainty

EDIT I wrote than before seeing Big N daft post but that kinda demonstrates it

the economics are easiest issues to poke the holes in. Pointing out that we have a great country now (yes we could do better but point me at utopia) and that dissolving the Union will diminish both iS and rUK permanently is a bit less tangible.

also the Scots have been daft enough to respond surveys they ask “if you would be £x better off independent would you be more likely to vote Yes”, it’s your fellow countrymen who have monetised the argument.

for me the question is whether the “marriage” is over or do we just need counselling, but as with any separation, if it ends up with a divorce both parties will look to their own future

big_n_daft – Member
seosamh77 – Member
Not back peddling in the slightest if your after logically reasons for why I’m voting yes, good luck. Mines are all ideological.

enlighten please?

is it a celtic nationalism, pictish revivalism, hatred of the Westminister yoke, rebellion against the landowning classes, creation of a social democratic utopia? or something else?Nothing to do with nationalism tbh, im not a nationalist. More to do with breaking up the current power structures and start a fresh(I’m well aware that an IS will start as a carbon copy of what already exists), but overtime a belief that the Scottish people will start to innovate and further develop democracy(which is stagnant as hell under westminster, to the point of becoming undemocratic IMO) and essentially form something that can be copied and adopted elsewhere. Pie in the sky stuff, yip, but Britain is sown up it needs torn apart and rebuilt. I don’t care for a society where money and finance is the be and end all.

That’d be the vague ideological reason(not explained particulay well. It’s late!)

Emotionally that would come straight to to a dislike of the class system that britain represents.

I don’t have all the answers, never will, and I’ll never be a politician nor correctly be able to convey what I mean. I just instinctively think the break up of the union and more local control is correct.

seosamh77 – Member
a thm multi? :Sherlock:

So that’s what is meant by a multi!! No need of that. No idea who BB actually is other than someone who talks a lot of sense and understands the topic of the thread (tends to stand out). But since I am not even in the UK (hence posting times) the “conspiracy theories” are about as far fetched as the DO’s grasp of reality. Typical yS stuff though.

You cannot present a case for the rUK and CU as it’s falls over at the first hurdles – as said earlier you have to commitment to a union to make it work not a temporary wish, you have to cede sovereignty and at least some sense of risk symmetry etc…..

Why I think this thread is kinda dry, it’s completely missing out on why people vote. And that’s usually more to do with….

…what Murdoch tells them.

And of course doesn’t affect the main point, which is that Sir Wood has presented us 2 wildly different figures

You sound from the the rest of that post like you’ve dug into the issue, so presumably you’ve read his report? So you’ve seen his concerns about dropping extraction efficiency, the impact and recommendations to improve it?

So his argument makes sense – if there are 24Bn barrels, we’re heading to extract much less, here’s some ideas to get a bit more, but there’s still going to be some of that we leave behind. Because of that, extrapolating future oil revenue on the basis of current revenue levels from a total of 24Bn barrels is false.

Working on current revenue generation from his mid teens Bn barrel numbers plus lower revenue from another slice assuming the recommended changes in fiscal environment from the Oil & Gas Commission Scot Govt ran (and containing the guy whose blog WML highlighted earlier) plus recognising no income from a slice we’re going to get out might have been a more reasonable assumption to include.

I can see why the headlines don’t aid understanding and the Wood Review and Oil & Gas Commission report are 140 pages between them which few are going to read.

also the Scots have been daft enough to respond surveys they ask “if you would be £x better off independent would you be more likely to vote Yes”, it’s your fellow countrymen who have monetised the argument.

+1. It saddens me that people think this way. I laugh when fellow Scots wish to end the class system, and I imagine wealth inequality by distributing oil wealth amongst a smaller percentage of the UK population. The more oil wealth that nationalists say there is, the more shallow their argument. In JY’s own words, that is comedy gold.

You can not blame the scots for monetising the argument when the default position in society/politics is to monetise arguments! 😆

oldbloke – Member

You sound from the the rest of that post like you’ve dug into the issue, so presumably you’ve read his report? So you’ve seen his concerns about dropping extraction efficiency, the impact and recommendations to improve it?

Yes, and that’s all built into the report’s figures of course, and is what leads to the 12-24bn basic, with 3-4bn (low side) potential for increase from the review. The 12-24 is the current position without improvement.

I wonder if there is any measure of how effectively the various Westminster governments shared oil wealth among the whole UK population?