Cameron’s Prime Aberdeen Angus Bullshit 158


David Cameron is peddling bullshit of the premium Aberdeen Angus kind today.  At today’s oil prices, recoverable North Sea oil is worth a minimum of 1.2 trillion and a maximum of 2.4 trillion dollars.   Cameron is claiming that potential will not be released without government subsidy of 24 billion dollars, and that only the UK government’s “broad shoulders” can raise this.

It is nauseous to dive into such bulllshit to analyse it.  To knock a few noughts off, Cameron is saying that it is impossible to raise £10 investment if you have a guaranteed return of £5,000 and possibly £10,000.  Salmond’s counter that Norway manages these things is perfectly valid.

Am I the only one who wonders why the taxpayer, under Cameron’s plan, the taxpayer – ie you and me – should fund $20 billion to decommission oil platforms when the oil companies made, at today’s values, over $400 billion in straight profit from those platforms?  That payment to the oil companies constitutes 83% of the money from the UK which Cameron claims an independent Scotland would miss out on.  The money would not actually go to Scotland at all – it would go to British Gas, BP, Shell, Exxon and other such needy people, to compensate them for polluting us (sic!).

Finally, the taxation revenue to Scotland from the oil and gas after independence will be a minimum of $240 billion and a maximum of $500 billion more to the Scottish taxpayer if Scotland were independent, than the share Scotland will get within the UK.  Purely in terms of government revenue, Scotland will still be at least US 216 billion better off in taxes even if it pays the precious 24 billion Cameron is harping on about today.

Finally, the Cabinet is in Aberdeen and discussing vital revenue and investment questions, but where are they hiding George Osborne?  Have they hidden him behind a curtain with a bucket on his head?  Come on, we want George! Bring out your Family Trust Fund Public Schoolboys!!

 


158 thoughts on “Cameron’s Prime Aberdeen Angus Bullshit

1 3 4 5 6
  • Mary

    Old Etonian Tories lie through their teeth.

    CanmeraOn in Wellies Money no object for the flooded out citizenry.

    Paterson (Radley College not Eton but similar) followed with some talk of Environment Agency expenditure on flood defences never having been higher.

    Collapse of both stout parties by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority.

    Flood defence cash cut by £250m despite PM’s claim
    Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, says that it is in the “public interest” for official figures on flood defences to be published http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10661814/Flood-defence-cash-cut-by-250m-despite-PMs-claim.html

  • fred

    ” Possibly unlike you, I’ve worked for a political party during an election campaign. ”

    I’d figures you must have learnt the underhand tactics somewhere.

  • fred

    “CanmeraOn in Wellies Money no object for the flooded out citizenry.”

    He’s just trying to woo the floating voters.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    ‘I’d figures you must have learnt the underhand tactics somewhere.’

    What underhand tactics? WTF are you talking about?

  • Clark

    Lots of comments suggest that people think of Scottish independence as some kind of end-point, as if Scotland would become frozen in time, unchanging from the moment of independence onwards; the SNP would be the dominant party forever more, if Scotland were in NATO it’d stay in NATO, etc..

    Rather, independence would be more of a beginning. With independence, Scotland could continue following Westminster policies as much as it might wish, but it would have greater options for diverging from that policies.

    It is the Westminster system that is stuck in the past, with an electoral system that inhibits change and concentrates power mostly in two major and one minor party, and an apparently unmoveable weight of traditionalism. An independent Scotland would have trouble remaining so undynamic.

  • BrianFujisan

    Took a mossy in to put up the link that Mary put up @ 12;22pm….bbc bias

    Cheers Mary….

    But I’m with A Node @ 11;57 Enough of Illegal wars in oor name.

  • A Node

    I will no longer live in a ‘democracy’ governed by a party with the fewest votes if we vote YES.

  • fred

    “BBC bias and the Scots referendum – new report
    Dr John Robertson from University of West Scotland has just published research on bias and fairness in news reporting on the issue of the Scottish referendum, covering both ITV (STV) and BBC. Here’s what he found. ”

    And he is still refusing to hand over the raw data the report is based on so it can be checked.

    Alex Salmond said that an independent Scotland would have monetary union with Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says they won’t.

    Alex Salmond said that an independent Scotland would have automatic membership of the EU, the President of the EU says they won’t.

    Alex Salmond said that an independent Scotland would remove trident and join NATO, NATO says they won’t.

    Nationalists might see that as biassed but it’s true and the voters should know about it.

  • fred

    “LOL. Now the Unionists are getting desperate.

    Should the Scots vote for independence, they may lose the BBC!!”

    I think the problem is that Salmond is telling the voters that should Scotland become independent he will be calling the shots, he will be dictating his terms to the rest of the world.

    The irony is that when the various organisations say “no”, “you won’t be telling us what to do” he always accuses them of bullying.

  • Mary

    One of the weakest and most useless Culture secretaries and formerly ministers in a long line, Hunt, Jowell, etc

    Maria Miller says independent Scotland would lose the BBC
    Culture secretary says yes victory in referendum will be a vote for leaving institutions of the UK, which include the BBC
    • Click here to read the full text of Maria Miller’s speech

    John Plunkett
    Wednesday 26 February 2014
    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/26/maria-miller-independent-scotland-lose-bbc

  • fred

    “Fred, shouldn’t you declare your own interest?”

    What interest? Living in Scotland? Thought everybody knew that already.

  • fred

    “Seeing that you’ve been like a dug wi a bone over WLC’s “snub” of Gorgeous’ roadshow, have a read of this article. Pay attention to the 2nd last paragraph.”

    I’m sorry, you’ve completely lost me there, what is you point?

  • fred

    “Obfuscate all you like.
    There’s a good boy…”

    Look just tell me what point you were trying to make or sod off ok?

    I can’t answer you if I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say.

  • Airdrieonian

    Mr Fred
    Why are you getting annoyed? Telling me to sod off!
    Can’t you work it out for yourself?
    Look back at your own posts for a wee clue.

  • Mary

    Where are Fred the Shred and co lurking these days? A reminder. Incredible that the ‘goodwill of the British taxpayer’, as Cleggover describes the permanent bailing out, is keeping this afloat.

    February 27, 2014
    RBS saga has played out on a grand scale
    By Martin Arnold, Banking Editor

    The £8.2bn pre-tax operating loss announced by Royal Bank of Scotland on Thursday is the sixth consecutive time the lender has slumped into the red, taking its total cumulative deficit since 2008 to about £50bn.

    Such big numbers are nothing new for RBS. At its peak in 2008, the lender had more than £2.4tn of assets on its balance sheet – far more than the gross domestic product of the UK – making it the biggest bank in the world.

    RBS slides to £8.2bn loss
    RBS bonus plan puts Osborne in spotlight
    In depth Bank bonuses
    Project Cook chops RBS down to size
    RBS to piggyback on to Post Office branches

    Having bought NatWest, one of the UK’s big four clearing banks, for £21bn in 2000, RBS was brimming with confidence. It built a £335m new headquarters in Gogarburn on the outskirts of Edinburgh, which housed 3,000 staff and was opened in 2005 by the Queen in a ceremony that included a fly-past of four Tornado jets.

    But the bank’s rapid expansion under Fred Goodwin into a global empire with 40m customers in 53 countries ended in disaster after its ill-judged €71bn hostile break-up bid for the Dutch bank ABN Amro in 2007.

    That deal, beating a rival offer from Barclays, was designed to propel RBS into the big league of global lenders – but it left the bank painfully short of capital when the financial crisis struck a few months later.

    Its balance sheet was so stretched by the ABN Amro takeover that its core tier one ratio – a key indicator of financial strength – fell below the regulatory minimum of 4 per cent. That meant the bank had less than £4 of capital to cover every £100 of risk-adjusted exposure it had on its balance sheet.

    As a result RBS was forced to launch a £12bn rights issue – at the time, the biggest in Europe – only to admit a few months later that it still needed tens of billions of pounds more capital. Over a weekend in October 2008, as creditors withdrew their money from RBS in droves, regulators realised the bank could not open for business the following Monday unless drastic steps were taken.

    The bank was bailed out at a cost of £45bn to the British taxpayer in 2008 and Mr Goodwin resigned and was later stripped of his knighthood. Since then, the assets on its balance sheet have more than halved to £1tn and its staff numbers are set to fall almost two-thirds from their peak of more than 225,000 in 2007.

    The £27.5bn loss that RBS reported for 2008 was the biggest British corporate loss in history – larger than the market capitalisations of many FTSE 100 companies.

    RBS shares remain about a third below the price that the government paid to bail out the bank, making it highly unlikely that taxpayers will recoup any of their money before next year’s general election.

    Political pressure has dogged the bank since its bailout. Stephen Hester, who replaced Mr Goodwin in 2008, was repeatedly forced to waive his bonus during his five years in charge. His refusal to bow to pressure for an exit from the politically unpopular investment banking business ultimately cost him his job last year.

    His replacement Ross McEwan seems more willing to retrench and has a reputation as a cost-killer, having implemented a ruthless efficiency drive as the head of retail at Commonwealth Bank of Australia before joining RBS in 2012.

    But the 56-year-old New Zealander has already been forced to waive his bonus along with his entire executive board in anticipation of the steep losses announced on Thursday.

    The UK government has started selling its stake in Lloyds Banking Group, the other big bailed-out British lender, which has seen its shares soar in recent years and is expected to make a net profit and restart dividend payments this year.

    Many of the big numbers at RBS are shrinking – employees, assets, costs – but the most important number to determine whether Mr McEwan is a success will be the RBS share price, which he badly needs to start going up.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/357bde8a-9f7f-11e3-b6c7-00144feab7de.html

  • fred

    “Standard Life could quit Scotland
    Standard Life is the first major business to warn it could leave Scotland if it votes for independence”

    I read the article and the reasons Standard Life gave make sound economic sense. It would be extremely difficult and risky for them to be in a different country with a different currency than the majority of their customers.

  • Ba'al Zevul (Etc)

    Fred was insistent on the legal basis for the council’s failure to indulge George – thanks for the link, Airdrieonian –
    ‘A West Lothian Council spokesman said: “We are unable to accept bookings for political events on council premises, as doing so would breach section 2 (3) of the 1986 Local Government Act.”’

    Here ya go, Fred –

    (Section 2) Prohibition of political publicity.

    (1)A local authority shall not publish any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.

    [F1(2)In determining whether material falls within the prohibition regard shall be had to the content and style of the material, the time and other circumstances of publication and the likely effect on those to whom it is directed and, in particular, to the following matters—

    (a)whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party or promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another;

    (b)where the material is part of a campaign, the effect which the campaign appears to be designed to achieve.]

    (3)A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to a person for the publication of material which the authority are prohibited by this section from publishing themselves.

    No, don’t thank me for using my internet skills on your behalf, Fred. All part of the service.

  • fred

    @Ba’al Zevul (Etc)

    Yes I had already read that, it was at the end of the link posted by Someone.

    The question is whether matters concerning independence would count as party politics and if hiring out a hall would count as publishing material. Personally I’m not much interested in your opinion knowing that will just argue your party line. My point was that you should have read the article and commented on the contents rather than launching a personal attack on George Galloway.

1 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.