By G.A.Ponsonby
Few could have failed to notice the ‘row’ over oil revenues in an independent Scotland.  The debate has pitched Unionists, the CPPR and the OBR against the Scottish government, academics and the oil and gas industry.
Oil is running out according to Unionists who then apparently claim that there is so much that ‘too wee’ Scotland couldn’t handle it.  Yep, just like Qatar and Norway – these wee countries making such a mess of the resource that their oil funds are creaking at the seams.

However there’s another unremarked aspect of the debate - just whose oil is it?

Now, yes I know, the oil is effectively the UKs - and as long as Scotland remains in the UK then that won’t change.  But what I mean is, in which part of the UK does the oil resource reside?

Most reasonable observers will accept that around 90% of the oil resides in what are identifiable Scottish international waters.  Vince Cable let slip the truth this week when he acknowledged that it is indeed ‘Scotland’s Oil’.

The UK government many years ago designated the North Sea area within which the oil resided as ‘Extra Regio’

This was done to ensure that activities on the continental shelf were not classified as occurring in any particular nation or region of the UK.  It was an effective ruse to hide Scotland’s wealth.

We see a similar ruse even today when the media are reporting on positive aspects of the oil and gas sector.  Listen carefully to BBC reporters who will more often than not describe the oil as a UK resource, and new discoveries as happening in UK waters.

It’s UK this and UK that as the word 'Scotland' is said through gritted teeth, if at all.  It's all technically correct of course, but given that BBC Scotland is supposed to be our broadcaster then one would have thought that the current debate required that new discoveries and record investment in Scottish waters would be described as such.

However there is a striking difference when referring to the banking crisis, where both Bank of Scotland and the RBS are frequently described as ‘Scottish Banks’.

For decades of course these ‘Scottish Banks’ generated billions for the UK exchequer, but they were never described as Scottish.  In fact you would have been hard pressed to hear anything at all about the money that poured into the UK Treasury from these banks during one of Gordon Brown’s ‘boom’ periods.

But when boom turned to bust then a kilt and a Jimmy Wig was hastily stuck onto these Great British institutions faster than you could say ‘subsidy junkie’.

Strangely, the English banks such as Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, that also cost the taxpayer a pretty penny, are never referred to as such, they are simply … banks.

It was the same with the English riots that became ‘British’ overnight, and the practice is of course as old as the hills.  The recent gas shortages in England were described as a "UK shortage", despite the fact that Scotland produces far more gas than we use - the rest being piped south of the border.  In fact England's shortage is the reason we pay higher gas prices, because even with Scotland's surplus, England still has to import expensive gas from Russia.

There's more of this UK/Scottish flip flopping in sport.  Most of us will recall how success is embraced by the Union flag (see Andy Murray) whilst failure wipes away the tears with a saltire.

So, listen out the next time BBC Scotland reports on the new oil boom and investment in the sector – it’s a sure fire bet they will describe the territory as UK.

The banks?  Well a Union flag awaits the day when they start generating profits for the Treasury.  Before then a Scot will either flop at Wimbledon or a Brit will triumph.


# UpSpake 2013-03-31 09:38
The lights are set to go out all over England as investment in power generation has failed to cope with future demand.

Which country in the UK has seen absurd levels of immigration?

Do those coming to the UK (England - London) come with cooking fires and tents?

Is the deficit not purely a failure of the Westminster establishment who have utterly failed their constituents in almost every aspect of governance?

In Scotland, we are in power surplus yet we pay more for that power than those in London to where that surplus is sent.

Do we not detect that London's problems are only our problems when, to solve London's problems, they have to milk us dry.

Rhetoric is just that, it is up to our politicians to provide leadership here rather than being reactionary. Difficult for some.
# xyz 2013-03-31 17:09
Who bailed out the banks anyway - UK taxpayers?

Only partly -

Banks operating in the US were also bailed out massively by the Federal Reserve.

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

Snippet of some of the information in the GAO Audit:

Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,0 00)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,0 00)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,0 00)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000) ,

and many many more.

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.


Donate to Newsnet Scotland


Latest Comments