‘The UK has large coal, natural gas, and oil reserves; primary energy production accounts for 10% of GDP, one of the highest shares of any industrial nation.’ – in the economic overview

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html

The other project that seems to be mesmerising Scottish politicians is Donald Trump’s proposed golf complex on a sensitive site near the coast in Aberdeenshire. So far as I can tell it seems to be mainly a large housing development with the golf element (and promise of zillions of jobs etc) designed to persuade credulous politicians that they should overturn normal planning procedures to support it.

“By and large companies the size of governments use the same kinds rules and the same kinds of accountants, and they make the same kinds of errors. ”

Absolute nonsense. Companies use double-entry book-keeping and abide by International Accounting Standards( except the Enrons with crap Auditors of course)-government departments don’t.

One might observe that the authors of Enron style abuse end up in goal-their counterparts in government don’t.In the EU it’s worse-Commissioner Kinnock shot the auditor!!

Your banking analogy is entirely eroneous-the asset write downs post sub-prime are nothing to do with accurate accounting for transactions -they are to do with judgements about the book value of assets.
Soc Gen knew precisely how much they had lost-how they lost it is a function of their management systems-not their accounting systems.

Re Wind technology etc-you’ve lost me…your second para certainly takes a leap of logic-Wind Farms in Scottish areas of ecological importance won’t save a single Columbian coal miner-and so far as CO2 saving is concerned this is what
Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, says-
” it costs consumers up to £510 for each tonne of CO2 emissions avoided through wind energy. The level of subsidy for onshore wind farms is very high and it distorts the market, making it more attractive to invest there than in other technologies ” .

Reference your plea for a strategic approach-yes absolutely. It’s what RSPB has been urging on Scotland’s authorities for some time-If you made a start by banning any proposals for SPAs SSSIs RAMSAR sites etc it would surely save a lot of wasted time & money.The conservation criteria are already built into these protective designations.

Anyway I’m glad we are in agreement that the dash for windfarm subsidies in Scotland is out of control.And I agree with you that calm reflection and strategic thinking is required.Of course the State has a role to play-but the RO system as currently set up has been a disaster for environmentally sensitive places whilst achieving practically nothing in energy security or emission mitigation.

Personally-with some reservations-I think Carbon Cap & Trade is a way to drive the market in the right direction-provided ETS starts to auction permits & stop giving them away.

Colin

No it is the market. The wholesale price without ROC is just a different market, one that doesn’t ask the polluter to pay.

If you don’t have a problem with CO2 emissions, or for that matter coal dug by Colombian kids in slave conditions then fine, but a lot of people do.

Nuclear makes a lot more commercial sense in “the Market” if you keep the £75bn clean up costs off the balance sheet, but they shouldn’t be.

Whether it be land fill tax, R&D credits or corporation tax, government actions both create and influence markets.

People who don’t like it complain about the dead hand of the state, but they really scream when they wake up to find there pensions isn’t there anymore. Then it’s where were the regulators? How could the government let this happen?…

As to not accounting for every penny, you are aware of the fact that at this moment in time there probably isn’t a bank in the western world that can give an accurate figure for their exposure to the sub prime collapse.

Hell Frances second largest bank managed to let someone gamble 50bn Euros and lose 4bn of it.

Anyone who thinks that large companies accounts are any better than Governments hasn’t looked at the likes of Enron, Northern rock or indeed the millions and years spend trying to prove complex financial fraud cases.

By and large companies the size of governments use the same kinds rules and the same kinds of accountants, and they make the same kinds of errors.

That’s hardly rocket science, just hard to believe for the people who see the world in terms of “The nasty big bad government spends all my money”.

Peter.

I wasn’t talking about expectations or forecasts-Companies get those wrong quite often-and politicians have made a profession out of getting them wrong-I was talking about accuracy of recording-ACCOUNTABILITY.

The concept that the Government ( you sensibly did not mention EU) “account for every penny” is risible.
This is but one example :-

“I cannot form an opinion on the truth and fairness of the Home Office financial statements for 2004-05″
Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General.

DEFRA, The Treasury etc etc have all had accounting black holes exposed. Any listed company with such an audit qualification would find the heavy mob from the LSE on their doorstep-and as for the EU-their accounts are qualified by their auditors every year-thanks to Commissioner Kinnocks best efforts .

As for Barvas Moor:-

“We’ve got a sort of “Whirl for Wind” version of the “Dash for Gas” with developers trying to put up the biggest number and size of turbine on the windiest cheapest land.”

The penny drops at last!-tell me about it!!!

It’s not “the market” that’s the problem -If their income was restricted to the wholesale market price of electricity none of them would be viable/built. Its the bloody stupid level of the ROC subsidy. ( Read House of Lords Select Committee Report on the scale of unneccessary & excessive subsidy).
BWEA have just published a report crowing about the profitability of the average 2MW turbine- £500,000 pa-for one turbine–of which £300k pa is subsidy-Capex payback in four years-21 years cash flow to count-yippee.
Which Scottish Politician was it who re-designated the Highlands & Islands from a Tourist attraction to a “Wind Resource” ?

God protect us from these people!

Colin

“….!!..whose annual accounts?
I can assure you that the annual accounts of listed companies have zero margin for error.”

So no private company has ever came in under expectations, issued a profits warning, or ended the year on anything other than what they set out the April before… I don’t think so Colin.

No set of accounts for any major body, public, private or charity ever comes in to the penny on what it had predicted a year before and to say that ” the annual accounts of major companies have zero margin of error” is nonsense.

Like Government they account for every penny, but it’s never as predicted 12 months before.

As to Barvas Moor, yeah it has apparently been turned down as just to big and on to sensative and unique a piece of land. It will probably come back scaled down again, but ever application has to be viewed on it’s merits.

We’ve got a sort of “Whirl for Wind” version of the “Dash for Gas” with developers trying to put up the biggest number and size of turbine on the windiest cheapest land.

That’s what happens when you decide to use the market to achieve strategic objectives.

Peter.

“In effect the figures we fought two elections over work out on an annual basis at less than the accepted margin of error in annual accounts”

….!!..whose annual accounts?
I can assure you that the annual accounts of listed companies have zero margin for error.
Perhaps though you meant government departments like The Treasury-or The EU-yes a 3% margin of error would be a vast improvement for them.

Somewhere you commented on “Financial Services” being a more significant factor in UK GDP than is sometimes thought. ( cant find where now)-The Sunday Times Leader today puts the figure at 30%-now that is worrying I agree.

ps-I hope the leaks on Barvas Moor are correct !!

Colin

“Oil Production
1.861 million bbl/day = 679.265 million bbl/year = US$61,133,850,000 p.a. ($90/bbl) or about £31,000,000,000 a year from an economy that is estimated at $2.472 trillion (or about 2.5%).
According to “The Economist” most of the UK’s gas-fields reside in English waters, so any benefit is unlikely to sit well with the Holyrooders.”

The value of the North Sea oil and gas in GDP terms is not one years production at $90 bbl, but inclides all the income of all those involved, the infrastructure and supporting services. It’s more than 2.5% although I am not sure it’s 10%.

What it does do along with Scotland is knock probably between 11-14% off of UK GDP ( the CIA give a GDP not GVA figure)and that means that even losing Scotland a lot of Uk figures will get worse.

In terms of most trade it will help, for example a lot of financial services that take place between Edinburgh and London will suddenly show up on the balance of payments.

Conversely the Oil imports will go alarmingly in to the red and probably gas too because although the bulk ( about 75% I think) is in English waters you are already a net importer. Even if Scotland only gets 20% with less than 9% of the gas usage we’ll be in the black.

I think the mostly likely result in the short term is that it would be broadly neutral for us both. it’s like the Tory Labour debates of the last two elections.

A series of huge battles over £8-£16 bn over five years in cuts or increases dominated both campaigns but when set against annual government spending of near £500 bn.

In effect the figures we fought two elections over work out on an annual basis at less than the accepted margin of error in annual accounts.

Peter.

UK Economy (by sector)
agriculture: 0.9%
industry: 23.6%
services: 75.5% (2007 est.) – No ten percent Oil/Gas!

Oil Production
1.861 million bbl/day = 679.265 million bbl/year = US$61,133,850,000 p.a. ($90/bbl) or about £31,000,000,000 a year from an economy that is estimated at $2.472 trillion (or about 2.5%).
According to “The Economist” most of the UK’s gas-fields reside in English waters, so any benefit is unlikely to sit well with the Holyrooders.

Peter, the figures you provide are difficult to read. Such are the limitations of HTML. However I have hoiked this from Wikipedia as another analysis of UK regional income. The figures (Euros) are for 2004 and come from Eurostat:

London, England 44 401
South East England 31 300
East of England 27 778
Scotland 27 669
South West England 27 348
East Midlands, England 26 863
West Midlands, England 25 931
North West England 25 396
Yorkshire and the Humber, England 25 300
Northern Ireland 23 319
North East England 22 886
Wales 22 567

I would take the figures for the Northern English regions with a pinch of salts. I would hazard that the PPP-value is greater then the nominal value as, by all accounts, things are relatively cheap up north.

Anyhows…, lies, damned lies and statistics. As I consider myself a soul-mate of Peter Cairns – I’d love Scotland to be independent, the sooner the cheaper as far as England is concerned – I will retire from this debate. I remain to be convinced that England gains anything from this union.