Osbourne says no to currency union.

😀

bigjim – Member
…1) is anyone considering moving savings to English banks?…

I keep the bulk of my funds overseas.

I expect the UK sector to tank again.

Too many lies in the press just like the lead up to the GFC. A recovery isn’t a recovery if debt money is increasing – a bit like one of Jerry Springer’s TV guests thinking they are rich because they got a new credit card.

Yes, is a vote for divergence of the two economies

Currency union requires convergence

Do you want independence or the pound?

Anyone can feel free to understand how a lender of last resort works or simply display ignorance (yet again). The funds were not given, they were lent at penal tax of interest and paid back to the FED. That is how it works. Oh and given to US subsidiaries of foreign banks too.

So plenty of fails in the alternative view.

“Stress Test – Reflections on financial crisis” by Timothy Geitner – non economic and tells you all you need to know and why the DOs proposal is folly. 558 pages worth more than all the 600+ of garbage in the BoD.

B n D – yS will keep ignoring this until well after the vote. But it’s as clear as day. AS wants convergence not independence.

I keep the bulk of my funds overseas.

@epicyclo – really ? UK bank deposits are very well insured by the government (£50k I recall), if you are worried you can spread them around numerous banks at at the limit. During the financial crises people realised that (say) Lloyds Jersey was not government guranteed by Lloyds UK was. Ditto with Icelandic banks where individuals and local authorities lost a lot of money placed with them and which the Icelandic Government didn’t cover (or the amounts where too large to be covered)

Anyone can feel free to understand how a lender of last resort works or simply display ignorance (yet again).

So the UK’s lender of last resort is the US Federal Reserve. Fine, that’s simple – a lender of last resort in a completely different country is fine with you in that situation.

Bailouts – during the financial crises there where two types, loans and equity. Loans where made as the normal markets closed down so the FEB/BoE etc stepped in. The loans have in the large part been repaid (certainly in the US, some still outstanding in the UK). The equity investments in the US have been rapid and as far as I am aware no UK banks had equity investments made by the FED into their US subsidiaries. Loans yes, but now repaid.

The relevant point here is that without a central bank Scotland cannot do the same.

We did discuss this a bit a while ago with regard to the Australian / New Zealand situation where there are no independent NZ banks as they are all owned by Austrian Banks and there was legitimate concern that the Aussies might not step in to save NZ banks/subsidiaries in the future. There is little appetite for sending taxpayers money abroad to save foreign banks even if they are owned locally.

No Ben, that is not correct

No Ben, that is not correct

I just copied and pasted what you wrote – so which bit is not correct?

So the UK’s lender of last resort is the US Federal Reserve.

No @Ben. The FED is the lender of last resort of USD’s in the US. So if you have a UK bank in the US the fed can lend them USD, almost certainly the BoE would then backstop/guaranty the loan.

So THM was wrong when he said that:

During the crisis the FED acted as the lender of last resort.

?

If providing £640bn of loans to prop up UK banks wasn’t acting as a lender of last resort, how would you describe it?

I think Ben is referring to the fact the FED was lender of last resort to UK PLC as shown by their records*. that is they lend us money so we coudl bail out the banks [ in this sense we nationalised in all but name rather than kept them liquid]
* there was a link a few pages ago to this but i did not read it to be clear.

I am not sure why THM thinks the lender of last resort does not charge interest on the money.
The IMF, for example, does the same.

No, the loans were direct to banks:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed

OTT ben can you drop me an e-mail re a bike issue

Not sure if kinetics is just you or where you work
If just you I will mail you there if that is ok

You may just get some of my English pounds if you act quick enough 😉

YGM – it is just me 😉

what, no one frothing at the mouth and accusing Sir Ian of not knowing anything yet?

jambalaya – Member
“I keep the bulk of my funds overseas.”

@epicyclo – really ? UK bank deposits are very well insured by the government (£50k I recall)

It’s not the banks I am taking precautions against (but I do spread the cash around), but the possibility of the £ going into freefall. I don’t care about economics, just arithmetic, and nothing seems to be adding up.

I have done nicely out of being careful like this in the past. I could be wrong this time, of course.

bigjim – Member

what, no one frothing at the mouth and accusing Sir Ian of not knowing anything yet?

He certainly doesn’t know his own head- in February his Wood Review gave a range of 12-24bn boe (though stated that the range of industry forecasts gives a high end of 34bn), with recommendations which he predicted would increase this by another 3-4bn at the low end. Now the likely best outcome is 16.5bn not 24bn? Barely above his low end estimate.

Wonder what’s changed?

Ben, the FED provided liquidity to the US banking system. At the time, that included the subsidiaries of UK banks (not the UK banks themselves). In return, they are now asking for the UK subsidiaries to be separately capitalised which is causing a lot of aggravation/stress for the UK banks. Indeed many are simple scaling back their US operations.

Your quote of my words was merely making the distinction between acting as a lender of last resort and bailing out the banks. They are not the same thing at all despite what yS and others would like you to believe. That is merely a tactic to deceive as is claiming that I did not say that they charge interest. Not only interest but penal rates. Hard to misunderstand really.

…a bit like one of Jerry Springer’s TV guests thinking they are rich because they got a new credit card.

I like that analogy. 🙂

Glad to see you still read my posts when it suits you -it was an intentional error done to prove this point.
Thanks
Twice now you have read my posts when it suits you. However when I posted up the democracy claim evidence you do not read trolls post and you never saw it – even when others commented on them you missed it.You are still repeating the claim you know is false and still offering no evidence for it.

As NW said FFS you expect people to believe you? Really do you expect folk to believe you did not read the “troll” on democracy?

And you have the nerve to call AS the DO I think we all know what you are on this thread and I think ducks was spot on.

Ninfan, Beveridge is merely 8k pages too late. He is just saying what we knew from the outset. Just 8k pages of denial of what is blatantly obvious ever since.

The FC work is a give away from the start. So now his advisors are saying that you cannot (in effect) walk away from debt obligations and plan D is at best only a very short term solution, what bit of magic will the DO try to pull off next. Do they still print comics in Dundee? He could have new source material.

His list of enemies is extraordinary – now even his advisors are distancing themselves from his nonsense. That is some skill (sic)

I just copied and pasted what you wrote – so which bit is not correct?

Fantastic work bencooper.

Fantastic indeed – but as one meaning of that word suggests, incorrect, The FED has specific responsibilities, it doesn’t even cover all US financial institutions and it certainly has no responsibility to the UK.

THM in his heyday

FWIW I think you are doing a sterling [ see what I did there] job of explaining this to us all and now we all know the lender of last resort never helps foreign owned banks except for when it does.

this thread just keeps giving 😆

Hows aboot you lot stop calling each other names? any chance of that happening or do I need to shut this down?

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee277/brittassert/vic_bob_handbags_zpsd74e25e2.jpg%5B/img%5D

THM’s frustration has shown for some time. The rational explanations given much earlier in the thread which attempted to explain why the nonsense was nonsense have slowly been replaced by the sort of ridicule which our leaders probably deserved in the first place.

So, back to Oil. Sir Ian Wood says Scottish Government’s estimates are too high. If there’s one man who should really be listened to on the subject, it is probably him.

BBC linky

http://dickwinchester.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/

fwiw he is not impartial

“I believe the debate should not be about nationalism*, but growth and economic success, and the quality of life for citizens and all that goes with that. Against these measures, it’s very hard not to conclude the case is heavily weighted towards Scotland remaining in the UK and getting the best of both worlds – I want the best for future generations of Scots.”

* IMHO that is a playing the man

He says what is best to get the political outcome he wants JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE

From BBC article

The figure of 24bn barrels is quoted in the White Paper as an estimate from industry body Oil and Gas UK.

and

Sir Ian claimed there are about 15bn to 16.5bn barrels of recoverable oil left, and that the figure from the White Paper is 45% to 60% too high.

from UK Goverment regarding his interim report November 2013

41 billion barrels of oil and gas have already been produced from the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS), and 20 billion or more could still to be produced. Sir Ian believes that implementing the recommendations of the review will deliver at least 3-4 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) more than would otherwise be recovered, worth £200 billion. The report comes five months in to Sir Ian’s review with a final report to be published in early 2014.

Doesn’t add up does it? Three different estimates, two of which are supposedly from the same source.

45% to 60% too high.

That lets you know it is spin as it is only 33% less [ 16 billion] than the white paper estimate so said that way to make it look worse

Spin there for sure

Not a particularly useful addition WML as it plays the man, not the ball. The Oil & Gas Commission recommends implementing in full the conclusions of the Wood Review. Hardly undermines the Wood position.

There’s a difference of opinion on the volume of recoverable oil. Differences of opinion on investment incentives and earnings to flow from it are to be expected because that’s what stimulates debate and forms policy. Differences of opinion on how much of the stuff there is to have a policy on ought not to be so far apart.

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/

fwiw he is not impartial

“Faced with depleting reserves and costly renewables, an independent Scotland could ultimately be forced to import energy generated from onshore fields from its English neighbour.”

Aye, right!

two of which are supposedly from the same source

That says it is from his interim report. Go to the final one.

oldbloke – Member

So, back to Oil. Sir Ian Wood says Scottish Government’s estimates are too high. If there’s one man who should really be listened to on the subject, it is probably him.

As I explained earlier today, his statement today disagrees with his own review never mind other people’s. So what the hell is going there I do not know but clearly something is wrong.

They also disagree with the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change’s reporting, which he references in the review (which places the proven reserve at no less than 30.3 billion barrels- 20% higher than the white paper figure and almost twice Wood’s new estimate. That’s leaving aside the probable reserve, let alone likely future strikes)

Who’s right? I don’t know. But if you’ve got to pick one person to believe, it’s probably not the guy who’s disagreeing with himself. In this case, maybe i’ll go with the UK government’s version, which is by far the most optimistic 😉 Yet weirdly it’s the much lower white paper figure which is described as optimistic.

which places the proven reserve at no less than 30.3 billion barrels

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.

https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-uk-field-data

But if you’ve got to pick one person to believe, it’s probably not the guy who’s disagreeing with himself.

Wise words

I like that 8)

yet strangely enough their OBR released a far more pessimistic account this week, with far more publicity. Hmm

Good lord you are not suggesting those honourable politicians from the UK are spinning and BS Perish the thought – what next the DO tells the truth 😯

oldbloke – Member

two of which are supposedly from the same source

That says it is from his interim report. Go to the final one. [/quote]

http://www.woodreview.co.uk/ Final Report (24th February)

Page 3 – Forward section 7 he says this is potentially 24 billion boe.
Page 5 – Executive Summary he says between 12 and 24 billion boe
Page 5 – Footnote 4 states between 12 – 22 – 35 billion boe (where he based his 12 – 24 boe fig from above).

Is there a more final version than this before I read any further?