boab1916
Well-known member
What I always do, blog on the noise.
May election
- Thread starter Glasbhoy81
- Start date
Hoopy427
Well-known member
I enjoyed reading about your earlier days Rose, going to South Africa must have been quite an adventure and I worked with a lot of guys who worked on Canary Wharf like Pat.
And I can understand you're desire for independence, even if I don't agree with it, but please don't base your argument on the points you raised, the Blackwall Tunnel was build in the 19th century and extended in the 70s, the M5 isn't a ring road it goes from Birmingham to Exeter and was opened in the 60s and Canary Wharf was built because of the financial boom in London created by the evil Thatcher starting the free market economy.
None of these things were built because of North Sea Oil. At its peak in the 80s North Sea Oil generated about 6% of gdp, generally its been around 2-3% gdp and I think its currently 0.6% gdp so compared to the London financial market which is the second biggest in the world North Sea Oil is really rather small and certainly didn't build a victorian tunnel.
Glasbhoy81
Well-known member
Supposedly productivity goes up, so the same amount of work gets done. I thought it was bullshit but some office based company tried it, their employees were happier and as a consequence they worked bettet
The Shamrock
Well-known member
I agree entirely about not using your vote. It was only the landed gentry that were allowed to vote and it has taken eons for the working classes to get to a point where their voice is heard. For us wimmin it's even more important we use our vote after the struggle the Suffragettes went through.
Hoopy427
Well-known member
So if I look at all the names on a ballot having listened to their bullshit and false promises, knowing full well none of them give a fuck about me, I have a duty to endorse one of them with my backing?
No thanks, the right not to support any of them is every bit as relevant as supporting their nonsense in my opinion.
The Shamrock
Well-known member
I don't trust any politicians either but I can vote for an ideology that best suits my own beliefs. I wouldn't feel right moaning about the government if I hadn't taken steps to change things. If nobody bothered voting we would end up under military rule and that's why voting is mandatory in some countries.
K
kelly
Guest
This from the christian science monitor will posy a link at the end but if you don't want to click heres a cut n paste
How North Sea oil helped Margaret Thatcher
While Margaret Thatcher was reforming Britain's economy, new oil discoveries in the North Sea were turning the nation into an energy powerhouse. The surge in resources and employment softened the oil-price shocks of the late 1970s and helped Prime Minister Thatcher pull the country out of economic stagnation.Many people know that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who passed away Monday, jump-started a flailing British economy and reshaped it into a more market-driven system. What's far less known is the role that oil played in that turnaround.
When Mrs. Thatcher came to power in 1979, recent offshore discoveries in the North Sea were turning Britain into an energy powerhouse. The surge in oil revenues and her lassez-faire economics provided a mix of resources and policy that softened the oil-price shocks of the 1970s and pulled the country out of economic stagnation.
"North Sea oil rescued Britain from the repeated balance of payments crises of the past and provided a crutch for the public finances at a vital time," writes Jeremy Warner in The Daily Telegraph, "but it also set the stage for a peculiarly unbalanced form of economic growth that dogs the country to this day."
About these ads
In 1975, Britain was in such dire straits that Henry Kissinger, then US secretary of state, quipped, “Britain is a tragedy – It has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in.”
The comment was not lost on Ms. Thatcher, and Britain's first female prime minister made efforts to open up the North Sea to oil production.
"Prior to 1980s the state was heavily involved in oil and gas upstream," said Lejla Alic, an economist at the US Energy Information Administration. "When she came into office they started a large-scale privatization not just in oil, but in the large-scale economy."
Timing played a role as well. The 1970s and 1980s saw significant oil discoveries in the North Sea. The mix of policy and geology paid off. By 1981, Britain was a net-exporter of oil. By the mid-1980s, oil and gas extraction was responsible for 6 percent of Britain's economic output.
The surge in oil production had drawbacks, too. It sent the value of the British pound soaring on exchange rates around the world. That made it difficult for the manufacturing sector to compete and hundreds of thousands were left unemployed.
Thatcher went on to remake much of the British economy, fight a war in the Falklands, and hand over Hong Kong to China, before resigning in 1990.
North Sea reserves peaked soon afterward. The discovery of new oil did not keep pace with the maturation of existing fields. By 2005, the United Kingdom was once again a net importer of oil and reserves had fallen from 4.2 billion barrels of oil in 1991 to 2.8 billion barrels in 2011, according to the 2012 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
That spectacular temporary surge of North Sea oil didn't make Thatcher, but it certainly helped buoy employment as she pushed through her huge and sometimes radical reforms.
How North Sea oil helped Margaret Thatcher
While Margaret Thatcher was reforming Britain's economy, new oil discoveries in the North Sea were turning the nation into an energy powerhouse. The surge in resources and employment softened the oil-price shocks of the late 1970s and helped Prime Minister Thatcher pull the country out of...
www.csmonitor.com
No oil no money ,no borrowing ,no expansion
Hoopy427
Well-known member
Fuck so north sea oil did build the Blackwall Tunnel in 1890! Amazing....This from the christian science monitor will posy a link at the end but if you don't want to click heres a cut n paste
How North Sea oil helped Margaret Thatcher
While Margaret Thatcher was reforming Britain's economy, new oil discoveries in the North Sea were turning the nation into an energy powerhouse. The surge in resources and employment softened the oil-price shocks of the late 1970s and helped Prime Minister Thatcher pull the country out of economic stagnation.
Many people know that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who passed away Monday, jump-started a flailing British economy and reshaped it into a more market-driven system. What's far less known is the role that oil played in that turnaround.
When Mrs. Thatcher came to power in 1979, recent offshore discoveries in the North Sea were turning Britain into an energy powerhouse. The surge in oil revenues and her lassez-faire economics provided a mix of resources and policy that softened the oil-price shocks of the 1970s and pulled the country out of economic stagnation.
"North Sea oil rescued Britain from the repeated balance of payments crises of the past and provided a crutch for the public finances at a vital time," writes Jeremy Warner in The Daily Telegraph, "but it also set the stage for a peculiarly unbalanced form of economic growth that dogs the country to this day."
About these ads
In 1975, Britain was in such dire straits that Henry Kissinger, then US secretary of state, quipped, “Britain is a tragedy – It has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in.”
The comment was not lost on Ms. Thatcher, and Britain's first female prime minister made efforts to open up the North Sea to oil production.
"Prior to 1980s the state was heavily involved in oil and gas upstream," said Lejla Alic, an economist at the US Energy Information Administration. "When she came into office they started a large-scale privatization not just in oil, but in the large-scale economy."
Timing played a role as well. The 1970s and 1980s saw significant oil discoveries in the North Sea. The mix of policy and geology paid off. By 1981, Britain was a net-exporter of oil. By the mid-1980s, oil and gas extraction was responsible for 6 percent of Britain's economic output.
The surge in oil production had drawbacks, too. It sent the value of the British pound soaring on exchange rates around the world. That made it difficult for the manufacturing sector to compete and hundreds of thousands were left unemployed.
Thatcher went on to remake much of the British economy, fight a war in the Falklands, and hand over Hong Kong to China, before resigning in 1990.
North Sea reserves peaked soon afterward. The discovery of new oil did not keep pace with the maturation of existing fields. By 2005, the United Kingdom was once again a net importer of oil and reserves had fallen from 4.2 billion barrels of oil in 1991 to 2.8 billion barrels in 2011, according to the 2012 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
That spectacular temporary surge of North Sea oil didn't make Thatcher, but it certainly helped buoy employment as she pushed through her huge and sometimes radical reforms.
How North Sea oil helped Margaret Thatcher
While Margaret Thatcher was reforming Britain's economy, new oil discoveries in the North Sea were turning the nation into an energy powerhouse. The surge in resources and employment softened the oil-price shocks of the late 1970s and helped Prime Minister Thatcher pull the country out of...
No oil no money ,no borrowing ,no expansion
K
kelly
Guest
North Sea oil: A tale of two countries part 1
By Nick Smith
Published Wednesday, January 20, 2021
The North Sea oil boom of the 1980s created colossal revenues for the United Kingdom and its neighbour Norway. Today, as both nations move towards a fossil-free future, we examine how the aftermath of the boom has unfolded on both sides of the North Sea.
Back in the 1980s, for a whole golden decade, it seemed that the sun would never set on the prosperity North Sea exploration brought to the United Kingdom and Norway. Both nations gratefully cashed in on a new gold rush ushered in by the alignment of two factors. First, the price of oil had rocketed since the global political shocks of the Arab-Israeli War of 1973-4 and the Iranian Revolution of 1978-9. Second, while consumers sought an alternative to dealing with the inflated markets of the Middle East, rapid exploration of the North Sea’s continental shelf meant that economically viable oilfields were coming on stream at considerable pace.
With the energy crisis of the 1970s a thing of the past, Time magazine reported that “the world temporarily floats in a glut of oil”. The Institute of Fiscal Studies stated that “the growth of North Sea oil revenues is the most important fiscal development in the British economy in the 1980s”. In fact, during the 1980s, taxation on oil from the North Sea delivered to the UK’s Treasury (when adjusted for inflation) an average of £18bn per annum, or 10 per cent of its entire income. As a direct result of tax revenues and state investment in oil generated from the North Sea, Norway was able to consolidate its economic independence and resist joining the EU.
What the two countries did with their surplus revenue has effectively mapped their economic futures for half a century. As the UK’s former Secretary of State for the Environment (and later Defence) Michael Heseltine said recently, Britain under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher “squandered the windfall” on short-term consumerist policies such as subsidised housing and mortgage tax relief policies. Heseltine says he would have preferred to see the money invested in a ‘sovereign wealth fund’, a state-owned financial instrument for securing long-term benefits for the nation’s citizenry.
This is exactly what Norway did, investing its surplus revenues in the so-called ‘Oil Fund’ which owns 1 per cent of the world’s stocks, is valued at more than US$1tn and, according to The Economist, is the largest fund of its type in existence.
Today, the economic fortunes of the two countries differ vastly: in terms of GDP per capita Norway is currently the second wealthiest country on Earth (after Luxembourg), while the UK comes in 20th, with a GDP per capita of almost exactly half of Norway’s - US$52,291 (£38,961) compared with $102,907 (£76,686) (projected figures for 2022).
In his book Before the Oil Runs Out, author Ian Jack makes the point that luck plays an “especially big part in dictating how near a tribe, a village or a country lies to a workable carbon deposit”. Even if this is the case, the fact remains that the UK and Norway share a level playing field. According to the Natural Resource Governance Institute, “The two countries have equivalent geology and a similar resource base – the North Sea Basin is effectively split down the middle between them. The UK and Norway both began offshore exploration and production in the mid-1960s with the first oil discoveries made in 1969. Since then, both countries have produced similar amounts of hydrocarbons: the UK has produced 42.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) and Norway 40 billion boe. That the two countries should be so far apart in terms of their current prosperity comes down basically to the British spending their profits while the Norwegians saved theirs. In Aberdeen, the self-appointed oil capital of Europe, during the early 1990s recession a piece of graffiti appeared saying: “Dear God, give us another oil boom. Next time we won’t p*ss it up against the wall.”
Although never one of the great geopolitical rivalries, the relationship between the United Kingdom and Norway has had its moments. If you disregard the Norse invasions of Britain during the Viking Age, you still need to go back two centuries to the so-called ‘Gunboat War’ of 1807-1814 to find military hostility between the nations. It’s said that diplomatic relations were strained, and questions raised in the House of Commons when in 1911 a Norwegian expedition led by Roald Amundsen became the first to reach the Geographic South Pole, in doing so beating the British Captain Scott’s Terra Nova expedition by a month. But Norway’s neutrality during the First World War, coupled with it receiving an invitation to establish a government-in-exile in London during the second, indicates a healthy relationship between the two. There have even been signatures put on documents outlining what the post-Brexit relationship will look like.
For all this long history of entente cordiale, in the world of North Sea oil not everything is as it seems: a subplot of contrasting fortunes is being played out against a backdrop of both countries’ outwardly visible commitment to a greener future. On the face of it, Norway’s green energy credentials are impeccable, with 98 per cent of its domestic power coming from renewable energy sources. The Norwegian government says that “electricity production in Norway is for the most part based on flexible hydropower, but both wind and thermal energy contributes to the Norwegian electricity production”.
This energy mix allows Norway to export most of its fossil fuels, with the country (based on World Factbook estimates) dispatching some 1.25 million barrels per day (or roughly twice that of the UK). With the recent opening of the Johan Sverdrup offshore oilfield (see panel), this figure is predicted to increase sharply in the near future and, according to American analyst S&P Global, “Norway’s new oil bonanza holds lessons for Britain”. The article is openly cynical, accusing Norway of bragging about its green credentials while “the Scandinavian petrodollar state still depends on exporting oil and natural gas for its long-term prosperity”. Even so, the authors can’t bring themselves to condemn Norway’s approach as ‘greenwash’, pragmatically seeing Norway as Britain’s bellwether: “The UK government should take note and support more exploration in British waters,” as part of a North Sea revival.
The Johan Sverdrup oilfield – dubbed ‘a new monster from the deep’ by the BBC – is significant in that it is increasingly being seen as an indicator of the role oil will continue to play in Norway’s economy. This can be seen in the light of a statement from the country’s central bank governor Oeystein Olsen in 2020, in which he said that “the outlook for offshore activities on the Norwegian shelf has also become more uncertain”. Olsen contended that while a half-century of oil and gas production “has made Norway one of the world’s wealthiest nations”, the country has become too heavily dependent on oil prosperity, and “it is now time to make more room for other industries to grow”. While this could be taken as a veiled reference to the success of Norway’s domestic alternative energy policies, Olsen also warns that any transition from an oil-dependent economy would have to be gradual to allow other sectors the “chance to adapt”.
K
kelly
Guest
part 2
If, as Olsen says, the future level of oil demand is coming into question as governments address the issue of combatting climate change, forecast production levels at Johan Sverdrup would seem to indicate that it’s all right to export the stuff so long as you don’t use it at home. As one commentator said: “Norway appears to have cleaned up its act, but it’s just a case of ‘drug user turned drug dealer’.”
With today’s ultra-low interest rates and tumbling stock markets brought about by the Covid-19 heath crisis, there seems plenty of room left for a U-turn as Norway is faced with the prospect of reining in public spending from its economically stagnating – albeit temporarily – sovereign wealth fund.
Meanwhile, Britain’s domestic energy mix has a far higher dependency on oil than Norway’s. According to the UK government Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “over half of the UK’s electricity comes from clean sources including wind and solar energy. However, oil and natural gas are still required for heating, cooking and transport, and vital to the production of many everyday essentials like medicines, plastics, cosmetics and household appliances.” The statement goes on to admit that this scenario “is likely to remain the case over the coming decades as the UK transitions to low-carbon solutions”.
Speaking at the launch of a government review aiming to ‘lead the way on tackling climate change’ Business and Energy Secretary Alok Sharma said that the oil and gas sector “will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future as we move toward net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”.
As with Norway, the UK’s much trumpeted intention to clean up its act at home is highly visible in any amount of government publications, strategy documents, news conferences and white papers. The fact remains that despite the stated commitment to zero carbon emissions by 2050, i
body Oil and Gas UK (OGUK) predicts that oil and gas will still provide two-thirds of total primary energy by 2035.
The picture is further confused by the recent closure of mature North Sea fields and massive falls in oil prices in the wake of Covid-19 – in April, US oil futures actually went negative for the first time in history, with the result that producers were effectively paying people to take it off their hands. OGUK said this would mean “more insolvencies and consolidations in the market”, in a sector worth £12bn and supporting over a quarter of a million jobs in the UK. For now it’s pinning its hopes on a government North Sea Transition Deal.
n 2020 the UK became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 15 years, while industry
If, as Olsen says, the future level of oil demand is coming into question as governments address the issue of combatting climate change, forecast production levels at Johan Sverdrup would seem to indicate that it’s all right to export the stuff so long as you don’t use it at home. As one commentator said: “Norway appears to have cleaned up its act, but it’s just a case of ‘drug user turned drug dealer’.”
With today’s ultra-low interest rates and tumbling stock markets brought about by the Covid-19 heath crisis, there seems plenty of room left for a U-turn as Norway is faced with the prospect of reining in public spending from its economically stagnating – albeit temporarily – sovereign wealth fund.
Meanwhile, Britain’s domestic energy mix has a far higher dependency on oil than Norway’s. According to the UK government Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, “over half of the UK’s electricity comes from clean sources including wind and solar energy. However, oil and natural gas are still required for heating, cooking and transport, and vital to the production of many everyday essentials like medicines, plastics, cosmetics and household appliances.” The statement goes on to admit that this scenario “is likely to remain the case over the coming decades as the UK transitions to low-carbon solutions”.
Speaking at the launch of a government review aiming to ‘lead the way on tackling climate change’ Business and Energy Secretary Alok Sharma said that the oil and gas sector “will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future as we move toward net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”.
As with Norway, the UK’s much trumpeted intention to clean up its act at home is highly visible in any amount of government publications, strategy documents, news conferences and white papers. The fact remains that despite the stated commitment to zero carbon emissions by 2050, i
body Oil and Gas UK (OGUK) predicts that oil and gas will still provide two-thirds of total primary energy by 2035.
The picture is further confused by the recent closure of mature North Sea fields and massive falls in oil prices in the wake of Covid-19 – in April, US oil futures actually went negative for the first time in history, with the result that producers were effectively paying people to take it off their hands. OGUK said this would mean “more insolvencies and consolidations in the market”, in a sector worth £12bn and supporting over a quarter of a million jobs in the UK. For now it’s pinning its hopes on a government North Sea Transition Deal.
n 2020 the UK became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 15 years, while industry
K
kelly
Guest
backwith the sarcasm
Hoopy427
Well-known member
If nobody voted maybe they'd get their act together and stop lying just to get votes, cos that's where we are. They all lie their tits off to get votes, some people buy it some don't. I don't and I won't back them.
Hoopy427
Well-known member
OK North Sea Oil built the M5 in 1962? Can we agree that that's nonsense?
K
kelly
Guest
never said it did
C
CelticRose
Guest
Hoopy, Pat did work on Canary Wharf and he was thinking of working on the black wall tunnel I don’t know exactly what they were doing at the time with it but there was work going on there this was mid 80’s. I was only trying to point out the investment from our North Sea oil didn’t make life any easier for us as Pat had to leave his home and family to go and get work in London which was booming at that time. There was Norman Tebit telling everyone to get on their bikes to go and get work and as Scotland’s heavy industry had been decimated so that’s what we had to do.
and so you say not to use these M5 or Blackwall tunnel as the reasons to base my vote on for SNP. Well to be honest when Pat had to leave me and his two children and go and live in some grotty flat and in jobs with no security like sick pay and god forbid a working man gets holiday pay who could only manage home once a fortnight because we didn’t have a car or afford to travel at the beginning so I don’t care what the fk they were building the result was the same the working people here in Scotland were getting crucified by the thatcher government. It was a deliberate act not to invest in Glasgow or Liverpool in the late 70’s which had lasting impact on people’s lives. So in my mind they stole not only any security and our well being but they stole the most important thing from us and that was ‘time’ that we should’ve had together that we didn’t get.
my vote for the SNP is based on the fact that they are working for the benefit of Scotland and its people and I hope and pray that we are never ever in the situation where we depend on the Tories for our well-being and security.
the Scottish government has provided well for me in my retirement with free bus travel, free prescriptions etc and a feeling that we are in a much better place now with our own devolved Parliament.
C
CelticRose
Guest
Shamrock, I feel really strongly about utilising our vote and agree with you about the wimmin and how some lost their lives in the suffrage movement. I just recently managed to get my daughter to register to vote and my granddaughter too but I think they fell asleep when I tried to explain about the history of the vote for wimmin. Lol
Bellshill bhoy
Well-known member
They also want us to walk or cycle everywhere, all their policies are not practical, if they ever get in government, watch the prices of bike and horses go through the roof, as you’ll not be able to afford to put petrol in your car
Frank Owen
Well-known member
As it happens Glasbhoy81, we are looking at other forms of renewable energy. What we've got to remember is the fact that this type of energy sourcing is very much in its infancy; it can only get better. As long as there's money to be made from fossil fuels they will continue to be used. If life has taught me anything it's that short-termism and vested interest usually wins the day. That applies to ALL major political parties.
Frank Owen
Well-known member
Or to put it another way, if Westminster once again ignore the Scottish people do we just stand back and accept it ? Only my opinion, but the current talk from the tories is nothing more than playing politics. if Scotland votes for a second referendum it will happen. To deny the Scottish people their wish,is to deny democracy. That's a risk I'm sure even they would step back from.
This argument regarding Westminster telling us what we'll get and what we don't get is at the heart of my desire for Scottish independence. If Scotland was merely a region of the UK, then fine, it could be argued that we were just witnessing democracy at work. But here's the crux of the matter; Scotland is NOT a region of the UK. Scotland is a sovereign nation in its own right. Therein lies the difference.
