Volatility and stability
Posted on
April 17, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
The oil industry: volatile, unreliable, risky, bad.
“Oil & Gas UK believes around 470m barrels of oil and gas will be extracted from the area in 2013, a fivefold increase on the average over the past three years. Two million barrels of oil a day are set to come on stream by 2017, up from 1.5m this year.”
The nuclear industry: stable, predictable, good.
“they might be committing all of us to pay more for that electricity than is justified – and not just for a few weeks or months, but till 2060.”
Independence: we just can’t afford to take the chance.
Well some people certainly benefit from Nuclear power . “Somerset land ‘sold to nuclear giant’ by Lady Gass.” Not us then.
At present prices, the current reserves of North Sea oil and gas are worth some £1.5 trillion. That’s the equivalent of giving £1,000 to every man, woman and child in Scotland every year for the next three hundred years.
Scotland also has 25 per cent of the entire EUs renewable energy. Why are we even thinking of lumbering ourselves with our contribution to the rUKs huge financial costs and risks of nuclear power?
Grim and terrible news. Scotland will be producing the bulk of the so-called “North sea” oil and gas in 2017. Two million barrels a day. About the same as Kuwait. Oh dear. The worst thing is not for a country to lack oil resources, but to discover them.
Does anyone think a struggling sinking state like England will willingly give up an oil and gas cash flow worth about 160 million Dollars a DAY…….thats about close to 1200 million Dollars a week?……
Does it matter that Cameron signed the 2014 referendum agreement, and promised to implement and abidde by its result?…….Do bears excrete in the Woods?…..We shall find out.
Time to face reality. Scotland, whatever they say, is probably going to discover that the fall back position for the London Government in 2014 on September 19th, the day after, is to simply suspend the agreement. Never mind International law, the law of Nations, and all that crap.
The UK “Government” can force through the UK parliament a bill to repeal the Scotland Act, and the Queen, (on the advice of her Ministers) can simply sign an order to suspend the Scottish Parliament and Government. (As was done to the Government of Goeff Whitlam, in Australia.). Do not say You have not been warned.
If this happens, what happens next?……not a lot. Lots of noise, a few riots, and a Lamont devolved administration in a rump devolved parliament, after it has been neutered with a new Scotland (amendments) Act. Do not say You have not been warned.
A Scottish Government thaat does not, within 24 hours of a YES vote being confirmed, call an emergency session of parliament, use its majority to force through a “Declaration of Sovereignty”, and declare UDI, will simply be committing suicide. Do not say You have not been warned.
Sitting passively in office, after 19th September 2014, is not an option. There will be those who think I have gone raving, but long study of the behaviour of the Anglo elite in these British Islands makes me think that it is time to think the unthinkable, and to plan and discuss some ideas and policies for the very real risk that some of the above might happen. Remember, You are dealing with a Tory Government. Forgeet that at your peril. They want the oil, its as simple as that. They will do anything to get it.
Stable, predictable, good? Ask the people of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and those within a radius of hundreds of miles!
Graham – of course England will willingly allow Scotland to take our rightful share of oil reserves. They’ll be dancing in the streets at finally being rid of the terrible burden of volatility that comes from having oil reserves.
If only we could become independent and somehow manage to leave all the oil to England…
Graham Ennis I expect -Albion to be perfidious but not crazy. It hardly survived Suez without international intervention. The Americans thought Suez was madness ,how much more would your scenario play with the UN. No,just expect old fashioned ducking and diving and expect the skills of many in our Scottish Cabinet and others to be just as good in response. We must sustain friendship or at least respect with our current opposition. That is something I feel we must improve.No one said it would be easy!
Doug Daniel says:
If only we could become independent and somehow manage to leave all the oil to England…
I would still vote YES.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-14/nuclear-not-low-carbon-source-energy
I would hazard a guess that revenues from North Sea Oil & Gas have been a flat calm compared to the returns from the City of London financial services in the last few years. At least the oil companies will not need multi-billion pound bailouts too.
@Graham Ennis
I don’t think Westminster will go about things quite as melodramatically as you suggest. Endless delay in negotiation and forcing every bit of the deal to the wire is more like it. If it can be made during that time to appear that Scotland is getting a rough deal – and all the anxiety & scaremongering starts up agan, there’s plenty of opportunity for ScotLab & their undead pals to stand on a platform of ‘re-unifying Britain’ in 2015 or 2016 – assuming, as I do, that Westminster will try to spin out the haggling well beyond ‘Independence Day’.
That’s why it is important that we win well. I really fear that if we vote Yes by only 1% or 2%, there will be plenty of voices to claim that we have no ‘real’ mandate and that the poor deluded voter should be given a second bite at the cherry without all the bother & expense of a 2nd referendum. Life for Westminster becomes much, much harder if we can put 5 to 6% of blue water between Yes and No.
As I’ve pointed out before, the ‘Extinguished Scotland’ paper gives a clear warning of what we can expect in negotiation. Westminster will start – and finish – with Faslane, because that is what they really care about. Concede a long lease on Coulport and the blockage may ease (a little). Concede an ‘equitable’ sharing of oil revenue and it may ease a little more. etc etc.
And, tempting though it may be for a Scottish government under that kind of stress to declare UDI, it would make things a lot worse – bringing almost all the BT threats into reality – cut off from rUK and with no hope of being looked on favourably by anyone we cared about abroad.
We’re just going to have to thole this, if it happens. I think we have a better chance of coming out with a fair deal if the Tories win in 2015 (the Scottish-Skier theory applies). A resentful Labour govt. in Westminster will not be generous, nor forgiving. Anyone who thinks the hard work stops in 2014 is deluded. I hope I’m wrong here, but nothing in the history of Anglo-Scottish relations leads me to think I am.
BTW Does anyone have any clue about the state of things (contamination?) inside Coulport? If there are any dirty little secrets there, which a Westminster govt would not wish to see the light of day, their resistance to giving it up may be even stronger.
@ kininvie
http://www.robedwards.com/2013/04/revealed-nuclear-submarine-mishap-on-the-clyde.html
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46708326&pageid=r&mode=ALL&n=0&_charset_=utf-8&bcd=%C3%B7&query=coulport
I have long thought that if there is the slightest suspicion that we will be messed about, either during the referendum or at the following independence argy-bargy, we should declare that now and invoke human rights and national security monitoring by an external body such as the EU or UN.
Unless guarantees of fair play are irrefutably given by rUK, that marker card should be put slap bang onto the table. I’m sure Wales and NI would honour the democratic will of the Scottish people, but…. Westminster? Good fences always make for bloody good neighbours!
I will take volatile, unreliable, risky and bad any day of the week along with our renewable energies, over nuclear power stations, plus we probably make a nice profit selling our excess supplies to rUK at very reasonable rates. Well it would not be very neighbourly of us to see them in the dark now would it :D.
At this opportune time I would like to ask why in the 1980s Scottish Oil together with a large dollop of money printing wasn’t used to help subsidise heavy industry including the mines in Scotland and Northern England while they modernised and rid themselves of out of date machinery, methods and practices. I mean, Westminster is doing that for the Banks now AND AT THE SAME TIME MAINTAINING THE BONUSES OF THE FAILED BANKERS. Ah well, I’ll answer my own question. Because you fool, Thatcher’s main aim was to destroy the Trades Unions, and the Trades Unions’ power was derived from manufacturing and heavy industry. It didn’t matter to her that by doing what she did she destroyed whole communities … just as long as they weren’t City of London communities.
@Jamie Arriere,
“At least the oil companies will not need multi-billion pound bailouts too”.
You make a really important point here. Even today, you’ll still hear unreconstructed Tories regurgitating tabloid headlines that, in the 1970s, trade unions were holding the country to ransom. The reality was very different of course. But you won’t hear a peep from these same people about how markets really do hold us all to ransom with much more devastating and long-lasting consequences for us than anything that occurred in the 1970s.
Whether its bond markets threatening to withdraw credit lines from sovereign countries or pushing up interest rates and increasing the burden of sovereign debt, to banks that engaged in criminal activities and then demanded that the taxpayer bail them out to save ‘the economy’, or corporations that threaten to go on investment strike, and then follow through with their threat leaving a trail of devastation in their wake which taxpayers have to pick up the tab for.
Yes, Yes, Yes and
Jamie Arriere
Here’s the BBC’s Nick Robinson letting us know the difference between the city and north sea oil –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBRIJ7KMiUQ
@Frances,
Many thanks for this excellent link which I hadn’t seen before. Kind of says it all really. We need to nail this unionist myth that, after independence, sitting on £1.5 trillion of oil and gas reserves will make us poorer.
And let’s not forget that while unionists tell us in one sentence that, after independence, an asset worth some £1.5 trillion will not benefit us, they tell us in the next sentence that an inherited share of UK national debt of some £80 billion will cripple our economy.
@ Frances
More than a few of the myths of the ‘successes’ of Thatcherite economics are dispelled here:
http://www.thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/thatcher-there-was-no-alternative/
And here:
http://www.internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/04/did-thatchers-economics-save-the-economy/
In the case of this latter, type in ‘Thatchers economics’ into the search engine if you’re not taken straight to the link.
This one’s quite good too.
http://www.reasoninrevolt.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-myth-of-margaret-thatcher/
This beautifully written piece, on the other hand, provides yet more evidence of the realities of Thatcher’s legacy. The consequences of three decades of the Tories’ and New Labour’s war on the ‘undeserving poor’:
http://www.skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/a-tale-of-two-maggies/
@YesYesYes. That last one….words fail me. Co-incidentally, I was listening to that nice middle-class programme Moneybox live on R4 today, and even the expert panelists found the complexities of the new DLA almost impossible to understand or explain to the desperately worried people asking for help.
I’d like to think all this is cock-up, not conspiracy. But I’m afraid that the mind-numbing complications of the beneits systems have been evolved over the years to act as a disincentive for applying for anything
@kininvie,
It’s a powerful piece isn’t it? I was a little worried that, in providing several links, nobody would bother looking at the last one. I think even Dickens would struggle to parody this.
Your last paragraph says it all, and if even those clever people on Moneybox are struggling to explain the latest round of Westminster’s welfare reforms, what chance do the other ‘Maggies’ have?
Judging by some other threads, some people are already suffering from Thatcher funeral fatigue. My abiding memory of today’s events, though, is how telling it is that someone’s death should have energised so many of us. It’s that same energy that we’ll use in our determination to win this referendum. That will be the best way for us to tramp the dirt down on Thatcher’s grave.
Hullo Famous Fifteen,
I would say that Your comments are very well meant, but a bit optimistic. The UK is now in deep crisis, socially, economically, and politically. due to the long term deep impacts of Thatcherism, and the fact the UK has no long term resources to resolve the issues, or the policies. However, Scotland possesses about 70-80% of the remaining gas and oil available in UK waters, control of this would allow the British establishment in London to at least stop things economically declining beyond a dangerous point, for another 20 years, but loss of control would be disastrous within say, five years. They actually have a bleak choice. Also, the UK elite are contemplating withdrawal from the EU, or a radically changed relationship with it, that would be de-facto withdrawal. Likewise from the Human Rights convention. They are quite prepared to be ruthless and utterly bleak, to maintain control, and the present system of exploitation. There will never be a Chavez in England, but I can quite easily imagine a Mussolini type figure. (They have’nt got a De Gaulle in them). So Scotland, and what it wants, is regarded, as it was by Thatcher, as an expendable, exploitable internal colony. Colonial revolts, as the Algerians discovered, are very violent and bloody. I fear the worst for Scotland, after a YES vote. The declaration of Sovereignty, (This is in full accordance of International law and the Treaty of Union) is absolutely vital, as it established Scotland’s legal status, and would be immediately followed by most of the non-aligned and third World countries extending diplomatic recognition and support at the Un. Also a good many other States. It has to be done. Fait Accomplice!
I agree about sovereignty issue, but how many times does Scotland need to declare and prove this? And although the breakup of the political union of the UK could turn into something ugly, I believe there are still enough people in England who believe in fair play, believe in the ideals of democracy even as they are beaten back and down and lose faith. Were Scotland to vote for independence then have it squashed, I think it might wake a few down here to what is going on, and they may well take umbrage not for the Scots but for the death of democracy that it would exemplify. I refused to believe Britain could be Balkanised. There are shared values and there is shared history and as has been pointed out in various threads there is an agreement in general by English ordinary folk, that if Scotland votes for it, it should get it. It seems to have taken the British establishment some time to forget how dangerous it is to rile the populace but they’re definitely getting close.
Hi Caroline,
“How many Times does Scotland have to declare the sovereignty issue”?…as many times as it takes. The point I am making is an important legal one, based in international law. If the Scottish Parliament votes to declare “Sovereignty” the day after a YES vote is counted, using the SNP’s majority, that would actually be the first time there had been a LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL vote in the Scottish parliament for Sovereignty. It automaticly starts a legal process at the UN, and it can apply for membership. it enables other States to extend legal recognition. IT IS NOT a ” Unilateral Declaration of Independence”…..that comes later, if the treaty negotiations fail with London. It enables that to be done, legally, in International law, if all else fails. Otherwise the whole thing remains, legally, an internal UK issue. Dreadful. People do not understand this. Once Sovereignty is declared, the Scottish parliament can demand, immediately, all kinds of things from the London Government, like repatriation of all Scottish taxes, royalties, etc…….and establish diplomatic missions, de-facto, with those states that recognise a Sovereign Scotland, and sign treaties with them. Much else, as well. It simply pulls the rug from under the UK Government. They then have to put up, or shut up. Short of sending in armed police and troops to arrest the Scottish Government, (A very disastrous step) they are helpless. All this might seem legalistic, but Scotland has to play the legal international law game on this one, and make shore it works. Or they will get steam-rolled, and ripped off.
@Graham Ennis
My question to you is what practical difference a declaration of sovereignty would make? You’ll know that the Catalan parliament has already declared sovereignty – in advance of any referendum – http://www.euronews.com/2013/01/24/catalonia-s-parliament-adopts-declaration-of-sovereignty/ – but I don’t see much by way of international reaction to it, apart from the Spanish govt’s predictable rejection. The original tribal peoples of Australia have done the same – but I don’t see other states queuing up to recognise them.
A Scottish govt demanding all kinds of things from London just risks a flat rejection and an insistence on negotiation. The rest of the world is not going to come running to help out. I think we all need to understand the degree of suspicion and hostility with which most states regard ‘separatist’ movements; we are enormously lucky to live in a state which at least adheres to the principles of democracy – most don’t.
As usual in this world, power rests where it does, no matter how many fine words the UN, EU etc put on paper stating otherwise. The only way we are going to get a reasonable post-indy settlement is to calculate accurately where the best interests of the rUK lie and how they fit with Scotland’s best interests, and negotiate to achieve the best possible compromise between them. IMO any unilateral declaration of this or that is just piss in the wind, however fine it may sound.
@kininvie
Hi, actually, whatever the Referendum agreement says, the core of the British Tory party and the British establishment will not accept a YES vote, and will try every trick in the book, until they get what they want, (which is for Scotland to have as little as possible, or nothing. Sovereignty declarations were made by the Catalans for the precise reasons I outlined. Everyone is now waiting to see what the situation develops into. But if the Spaniards refuse a negotiation, then the Catalans have clearly established a legal basis for further action. Sovereignty is a legal phase, where the other side gets pushed yet further along the road, and the Global opinion takes note of the wishes of the Scots, or Catalans. It establishes a legal basis, in International law. Are you saying we should not establish the legal basis for independence, when we can, with a simple vote in the Scottish parliament?…..that would be madness. We must do this thing.
The oil price is dropping fast right now but industry experts reckon that will be very short lived as the gap between demand and identified projects opens up as India and China become car drivers approaching Western levels.
O/T all commodities are dropping not least gold, for many recession/Eurozone reasons.
I understand about the sovereignty thing, it was more a jaded comment re. historical declarations of the past, it seems we have to make them all the time. The UN thing is a valid thing to go for, even the Palestinians have got recognition there, it is worth it, it does have meaning and meaning to the rest of the world more importantly. Recognition will come from countries with their own reasons for it, look at how Russia and USA play games with recognising rebel movements as ‘legitimate’ government while the bullets are still flying much less the dust settling, plenty of small countries will recognise Scotland in reaction to this, to bolster their own existence or to get first dibs at beginning trade negotiations. ( the US for example lost out big time in Vietnam because they still had trade embargoes against them, giving Australian and New Zealand banks and businesses time to set up when the Vietnamese began to open up to foreign trade).
Hi Caroline,
Thanks for the post. It clarifies things. You get, exactly, what the game plan is. It is to internationalise things, and to make it impossible for certain things to happen politically in the UK. As it stands, there is no international protection for the YES voter process. It needs to be monitored by the OECAD and G8 groups, and monitors at the polling stations. Then there can be now fraud. (Don’t think they would not do that). 400,000 votes mysteriously disappeared, in a recent Scottish election. The SNP barely squeezed in. ).
The situation is that on paper, if the Tories, on 19th September, 2014, tore up the referendum agreement, then there would not be a lot that could be doen. A court case might get bogged down in the UK Supreme Court for some years, but would be useless. I simply do not trust the London establishment. There is exactly one chance to do this, then its disaster, if it does not work.
Graham, the SNP has been working towards independence for decades and they have rarely put a foot wrong. I am confident they have considered all the possible outcomes of the referendum and Whitehall’s possible resultant ploys, and have planned accordingly. I’m pretty sure they will handle things as required.
Graham,
I’m actually more optimistic than you, in so far, as I said above, I think it highly unlikely that any W’minster government, having signed the Edinburgh agreement, would blatantly deny the clearly-expressed will of people in Scotland. Quite apart from anything else, it would make them look really bad in all kinds of places – not least the US.
Which is why, as I said above, I think they will focus on getting the best deal for rUK, and if that means using every tactic in the book, so be it.
I’ve nothing against declaring sovereignty – provided no one expects it to have any practical benefits.
@Kinivie
Hi, Ask the Catalans why they declared sovereignty. There were very good reasons. They took advice from International lawyers first. It does actually have practical effects. In Scotland, it would activate the clause in the Scottish-English “Treaty of Union”, between the two states, that expressly allows the Scots to withdraw from the Union if they wish to. This actually has legal force in Both Scottish and UK law. It therefore completely undermines the legality of any attempt by the UK Government to not conform to the Referendum agreement, and to refuse independence after a YES vote. Got that?……Scotland gets the law, domestic and international, on its side, when it does a declaration of sovereignty.This enables external states, and organizations, such as the EU, to step in. It’s a safeguard. So why would you not want this?…..every possible thing that can be done, to make Scotland independent, must be done.
My friends,neighbours,relations and workmates are too thick to look after their own interests.