Hong Kong Money Markets Boost Scottish Banknotes

[Guest scottishguy]

Recently we had a discussion on GT about the various Sterling Banknotes in circulation.

 

I contributed that I had seen recent evidence of European Bureaux De Change increasingly accepting and changing Scottish notes - albeit at a slightly lower rate than the Bank of England ones.

 

Now this from the South China Morning Post (link shortened below)- where some current dealers are valuing the Scottish notes higher than the BoE notes!  

 

Those inscrutable Chinese know a thing or two!!

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/cmqvw8c

[Bob]

Slightly off topic (okay, more than slightly off topic), I wonder about your opinion as to whether the Scots are going to commit economic suicide and vote for independence next year. If that actually occurs, I'd recommend you keep yuan, dollars, euros,gold, or anything but Scottish notes up your kilt, Scottie. 

[Guest scottishguy]

"Economic suicide" - you are a hoot Bob - according to figures from the world-respected Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Scotland would be the sixth richest country in the world. 

 

Even those arch-opponents of Scottish Independence, the UK Prime Minister, the UK Chancellor, the leader of the "NO" Campaign, even former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson, concede that an Independent Scotland is economically viable. Nobody with any economic credibility is seriously suggesting otherwise.

 

Sorry, but the "too poor" argument has been blown out of the water

So has "too wee" and "too stupid",  in case you planning to use those next - but I think you're just tugging my haggis.

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/caprgen

[Bob]

Not tugging your haggis in any manner. 

 

I've talked to several Brits up here in Chiangmai (haven't run into a Scot as of late) and they all seem quite sure that Britain would be economically better off without Scotland (they keep saying that more money per capita goes from the government to Scotland than the other way around); on the other hand, they all predict that the vote will not go for independence.  I read a few articles (including the one you "urled") and I really can't figure it out (economically) one way or the other.

 

Just seems a bit weird to a yank as myself as Great Britain (or the UK) without Scotland doesn't seem right (guess I've always considered the two entities one and the same).  Plus maybe I'm unfairly coming from a point of view that our parts (the states) don't even have that option.

 

Obviously up to the Scots but it will be interesting to those of us across the pond.

 

P.S.  Sixth richest country in the world?!?  I only had a minor in math in college but, given several studies indicate that all of Great Britain is the 8th richest country in the world, how do you manage to go up a couple of notches with 32% (or thereabouts) of the land mass of the UK and less than 1/10th the population?!?  That's gotta be a really good trick (Bernie Madoff work that out for you?....and, yes, some haggis tugging is merited here!)

[Guest scottishguy]

It's quite simple - as well as all the other assets and exports - you take 90% of a major asset (the largest Oil and Gas reserves in Europe) which is worth billions, maybe trillions of $ - and instead of dividing the revenues from that between 65 million people you divide it amongst 5 million.

 

But I don't say it - the OECD figures prove it.

 

Call me naive but I reckon official figures from an International economic agency trump a few elderly Brit expats in Chiang Mai who obviously haven't a clue that Scotland pays more IN to the UK in revenues than it gets out in expenditure.

[Guest fountainhall]

This is a thorny issue. But cut through the rhetoric, do some research, and I suggest you'll find Scotty is 100% correct. Let me try and lay out some 'facts'.

 

At the present time, it’s clearly a tad difficult to cite current sources on the value of Scottish oil to an independent Scotland and the lack of such revenues to the rest of the UK should Scotland vote for independence. Westminster is painting one picture. The Scottish National Party inevitably paints a far rosier picture.

 

However, there are many reports and papers written prior to the current political debate which got a handle on Scotland’s oil output, its annual contribution to the UK exchequer, as well as, importantly, the amount of oil in at present undrilled offshore fields and the costs required to develop those fields.

 

The oil industry presently contributes about 20% of all revenues accruing to the UK government. One allied fact often totally omitted from the debate is that the industry presently employs 440,000 in pretty highly paid jobs in the UK (mostly in Scotland), and this is clearly very significant given the existing employment climate around Europe.

 

A key impediment to further exporation is the UK government’s decision in the March 2011 budget to increase to 81% the tax on much of the oil produced. The industry itself suggests that if the tax were reduced, there would be greater incentive to develop what are now marginal fields. With investment of £8 billion per year over 5 years, the industry reckons there are 24 billion known barrels of energy (split between 2/3rds oil and 1/3rd natural gas) available to be tapped. With Brent Crude now around US$100 per barrel, that £40 billion investment could return £1.6 trillion from the oil alone – without any estimate for the natural gas! More than 85% of those reserves lie in what would be regarded as Scottish international waters.

These are the oil industry’s own figures from its 2011 Report written prior to the Independence debate becoming front and centre (58 pages if anyone wants to wade through it). Even allowing for some exaggeration and a reduction in the oil price (surely unlikely once the world economy picks up steam again) - and assuming I have extracted the correct information, the value of the oil under the Scottish part of the North Sea remains massive.

http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/cmsfiles/modules/publications/pdfs/EC026.pdf

 

But there is another more emotive issue here involving chicanery at the heart of the UK government when North Sea Oil was first discovered and the extent of its revenues to the UK Exchequer were becoming known. The following comes from an article written in The Independent newspaper back in December 2005.

Oil was first discovered off the UK in 1970. In 1974, a document on oil revenues was prepared for the UK Cabinet Office. It was then buried in the Westminster archives until recently released under the Freedom of Information Act. This 19-page document forecast that –
 

 

An independent Scotland's budget surpluses as a result of the oil boom, wrote (its author) Professor McCrone, would be so large as to be "embarrassing".

 

Scotland's currency "would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian Kronor." From being poorer than their southern neighbours, Scots would quite possibly become richer. Scotland would be in a position to lend heavily to England and "this situation could last for a very long time into the future."

 

In short, the oil would put the British boot, after centuries of resentment, firmly on the foot standing north of the border.

 

Within days of its receipt at Westminster in 1974, Professor McCrone's document was judged as incendiary and classified as secret. It would be sat upon for the next thirty years.

On learning of the report, Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, recently said –
 

"I was astonished by how direct the paper was, and appalled at the extent of what has been hidden from the people. McCrone was saying that an independent Scotland would be Europe's Switzerland. The Labour party were saying that it would be like Bangladesh . . .”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html

Presently, though, Bob is correct. Public spending in Scotland is indeed higher by about £1,200 per head of population than in the UK as a whole. If you take oil revenues into consideration and apportion that part due to Scotland, though, the situation would actually have been reversed in most of the last 40 years.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn135.pdf

 

So it seems that with independence, provided it is accompanied by a reduction in the tax on production to encourage higher levels of investment, Scotland's oil will generate major profits for many years to come.

[Guest fountainhall]

And lest we forget, it was Scotland who provided the King of England after the death of Elizabeth I. The son of the beheaded Mary Queen of Scots, King James the VI of Scotland, became King James I of England. And a gay old queen he turned out to be!

 

Also, Scotland already has many of the institutions for nationhood. A separate and different system of education, a separate legal system, a separate religion . . . and perhaps one might add a separate spirit of adventure which has resulted throughout history in more Scots travelling far and wide, not always covering themselves in glory, one should add. Indeed, it was a certain pair of Scots, Mr. William Jardine and Mr. James Matheson who were responsible for the British acquisition of Hong Kong. (The fact that this involved selling opium to the Chinese in great quantities, the start of the Opium Wars and a speeding up of the gradual disintegration of the Chinese Empire, I will ever so conveniently gloss over!) 

[Guest scottishguy]

I take issue with nothing Founty has posted and am grateful to have his positive and independent contribution - but I would like to make three clarifications regarding revenue and spending in Scotland:

 

1. Northern Ireland tops the list of UK public expenditure (2011/12 figures - the latest available) at £10,624 per capita. Scotland is some £550 behind, then Wales, then England. So yes, it's true that more is spent per head in Scotland than some other parts of the UK, but not all. There are a number of reasons for this - geography being one. As Bob rightly says we have have 1/3rd of the land mass but less than 10% of the population - which means the cost of service delivery is considerably higher. 

 

2. However, the average tax receipt per person in Scotland has been higher in each of the last thirty years than it has been across the UK as a whole. Over the last thirty years, people in Scotland have contributed an average of £1,350 more each year than across the UK as a whole, or £222 billion extra in taxes, so the extra expenditure is not some kind of "gift" - it's our own money!

 

3. Despite the higher public expenditure - the net result is Scotland pays more IN to the UK than she gets OUT. Scotland is a net contributor to the UK and far from the "subsidy junkie" that is suggested. Fountainhall is spot on to highlight the supression of the McCrone Report which stated that an Independent Scotland would be in "perpetual surplus"  - the covering up of that Govt report is a national scandal.

     

[NIrishGuy]

Whilst I've no intention of getting into the whole fiscal debate above ( as I'm simply not smart or knowledgable enough to bother) I'd like to just say I hope that Scotland doesn't vote for independence  - simply for the fact that the rest of us here in Northern Ireland would miss you :-( 

 

I should also point out that SHOULD you go for it and become as rich and as prosperous as SG believes above ( and I don't doubt it actually) I would ask you to remember that WE MISS YOU and would be very grateful if you'd like to ( continue) bailing us work shy Northerners here out with some cash  - as even though again SG is right the N.Ireland is top of the Uk ependiture list, I know one thing- I'm not seeing a damned penny of it ! :-( 

 

So, the basic message is - if you stay GREAT - keep sending the money - and if you go AWWW we're sad- but we're also we're skint, so could you send us some money ?

 

There I think that just about covers the bases ......but if not and as a sign of good faith for things to come no matter what way the vote goes SG I think you should show good intent and start by sending me £500 cash and we'll say no more about it until after the vote and then we can work out how much more you've got to send after that ! :-)

[Guest scottishguy]

I'd love to help our celtic friends out - but most of my money already goes to a "charity" who seems to have no trouble spending every fucking penny and more besides! 

 

And fear not - there's no plan to erect Border Controls, just as there is none between the UK and Eire right now  - so even after Independence (if it comes to that) you'll still be able to sail over to Cairnryan just as easily as you can now and no need to miss us at all.

 

PS -  if things are really that bad in NI we have a new Sikh Temple just opened this week in Glasgow which gives free food to all visitors - unfortunately nae fags or booze though!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22300608

[Guest fountainhall]

The free meals might be a bit tempting, though! 

 

A little bit off topic, but I always wondered why Glasgow had such a bad reputation - pre Scotty's time, of course!   Edinburgh always got the kudos for being beautiful, having its castle and Royal Mile and its romantic history with Mary Queen of Scots, Holyrood House etc. etc. Yet on my last visit to both cities, I found Edinburgh's main drag, Princes Street, full of mostly cheap shops in ghastly, modernised buildings whereas Glasgow's architecture was much more appealing and the city much more classy and fun.

[NIrishGuy]

SG said something like "And fear not should the vote be a yes there's no plan to erect Border Controls"

 

Well, on the Scottish side of the border you Scots may think so but I have it on good authority that the English have already started pre-ordering up thousands of tons of rocks and boulders and that planning permission has already been applied for for Hadrian's Wall Mark Two just in case so they can make an early start to THEIR border controls ! :-)

 

* But I'm guessing that would suit the average Scot just perfectly - especially if they got the English to pay for it !! lol

[Guest fountainhall]

And once that wall is up, the Scots can hurl their haggii at the English at will from on high 

 

Note: koko - I had to look that one up - it's the official plural of haggis!

[NIrishGuy]

I fear perhaps you are mistaken there FH as what with it being the English building and paying said wall I'm guessing the concrete steps needed to get to the top of the wall to enable the throwing of Haggii or anything else for that matter will be firmly and solely built on the English side only just like in the past and should the Scots feel the need to chuck haggii or deep friend Mars bars over the wall at any point they are going to have to rely on some form of a good old fashioned tried and tested Roman catapult device.

[Guest fountainhall]

Perhaps those catapults will soon enable them to hurl barrels of boiling oil!

[Guest scottishguy]

Listen guys, there will be no new Hadrian's Wall.

 

The English will be too busy scouring the FUKS (Former UK States) for a new home for their Weapons of Mass Destruction once we evict them from the Clyde.

 

I hear the Welsh First Minister has offered to host them - but has forgotten to ask the Welsh people how they feel about it.

 

So, NIrish,  it might be a matter of "Trident missiles - coming to a port near you!"

 

[NIrishGuy]

Well now when it comes to storing bombs you'd think we would have been the FIRST people the UK Government would have looked to as lets face it we have more experience on that front than the rest of you put together !!!!  lol

[NIrishGuy]

And just just for Clarity SG if the rest of the former UK states are to be known as FUKS - does that make the rest of us Fukers !!??  -   Actually no, probably best you don't answer that one just in case goes in the wrong direction and you all have to come back to us fukers saying you want to remain as we might have taken great offence by then at the very idea of your even suggesting leaving and start building the wall anyway - either way you're still sending the money - right ??   :-)  

[Guest scottishguy]

We shall send you the Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland who will be out of a job at that point

 

As Frank Carson would have said "She's a cracker!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NIrishGuy]

Actually on reflection we'll reserve judgement on the vote and will promise not yo try to swing the vote in our favour anymore - IF you promise to keep her !!! Just imagine going home a fiver short in your pay packet to her on a Friday night !! ugghhhhh the very thought of it :-)

[Guest fountainhall]

Just imagine going home a fiver short in your pay packet to her on a Friday night

 

Better that than waking up next to her every morning if there isn't a bottle of Scotch nearby! 

[Guest scottishguy]

Sad fact is I worked quite closely with her when we both attended the same University.

 

She was never what you'd call pretty, but the years have been rather less than kind to her.

 

I on the other hand have become fabulously handsome.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

. . . when we both attended the same University.

 

Ahem?  (She was obviously quite a late bloomer  )

[Guest scottishguy]

I never saw her bloomers - nor had any desire to.

 

I imagine they'd be quite large though, with re-inforced gusset.

[Guest scottishguy]

UPDATE: 

 

Labour party lied over true worth of North Sea Oil admits former Chancellor

 

Speaking to Holyrood magazine, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey said that the current UK government is "worried stiff" that Scots might vote Yes in the 2014 referendum which will mean Westminster losing billions in tax receipts from North Sea oil.

 

Speaking candidly, the senior Labour party figure who was Chancellor from 1974 to 1979 said that the rest of the UK "would suffer enormously" if Scotland voted for independence but that Scotland "could survive perfectly well".

 

Follow links for full story - much of which confirms what Fountainhall contributed earlier.