Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
tonification

Cia - Uk External Debt Of $4.7 Trillion?!

Recommended Posts

"This entry gives the total public and private debt owed to nonresidents repayable in foreign currency, goods, or services. These figures are calculated on an exchange rate basis, i.e., not in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms."

There you go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but they had the benefit of all that North Sea oil. :(

The scary thing is that Norway only has around 10% of the oil in the North Sea. The UK has the other 90%.

Norway have a programme whereby oil receipts are reinvested in other areas for the future prosperity of the country. They now receive an annual dividend slightly in excess of their annual oil revenues.

In other words, through prudence (that's real prudence GB!) they have ensured they will have oil receipts long after the last barrel of oil is extracted from the North Sea.

To be fair to GB, the mis-management of the UK's oil revenues has gone on since the beginning and cannot be laid at GB's door. Apparently the original contracts drawn up by the Conservative Government of the day were written in perpetuity and cannot be changed. I find this incredible, but apparently it is fact.

It is difficult for me to provide links for the above. These claims are regularly made during elections in Scotland and the above facts have never been disputed between the various parties.

On topic, that is an eye-popping level of debt, particularly as it exceeds the US!!! :o

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain this incredible statistic? :blink:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2079rank.html

The explanation is that the UK is the world's biggest international banking centre. We owe more money to other countries than anyone else, but other countries owe more to us than anyone else. The Bank of England has an article about it here. The UK's net external assets have been rising sharply since about 1998, and are currently positive.

Edited by zorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Benn said of north sea oil that it was a gift to the country and governments effectively gave it all to the rich in tax cuts.

I'm not saying I agree, I just remember him saying it :rolleyes:

Edited by TW11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult for me to provide links for the above. These claims are regularly made during elections in Scotland and the above facts have never been disputed between the various parties.

Yup, I've seen such claims and they're largely polemical, like anything in an election campaign! There is little self-interest in dispelling these myths and stating the real figures, I doubt it would play well to label the electorate a bunch of spongers, better to cast them as the noble sons of the soil being done out of their rightful inheritance, etc, etc. It would be like calling the voters moronic for wanting the best health and education services in the world but not wanting to pay for it, who'd dare say it.

The fact is that per capita expenditure in Scotland in 25% above that of England (around £1K more per person) and things like university tuition and personal care remain free, and wheel-clamping is illegal to boot, how lucky is that. At least £9b travels North of the border each and every year despite the North Sea revenues.

But regardless of the facts some seem to believe everything in the South and the UK's overseas adventures are singularly funded by seemingly boundless North Sea oil revenues... one wonders why the HM Revenue & Customs exist at all in England since their Scottish compatriots amazingly pay for everything, including all deficits :)

Lots of jobs, windfall and mooring revenues stay in Scotland and the islands. I wouldn't mention these inconvenient facts at an SNP meeting mind!

Regardless of existing contracts it hasn't stopped a series of new windfall taxes which have been levied over recent years. In Norway most of their fund is invested in industries that would tank in a post-oil era, including major holdings in BP and Shell. The UK should still have a Petroleum Fund though, any government surplus in any area would be good, but the chancellors over the years have all acted like a chav with a new credit card, if only things could be run by a truly prudent Scottish chap ;)

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I've seen such claims and they're largely polemical, like anything in an election campaign! There is little self-interest in dispelling these myths and stating the real figures, I doubt it would play well to label the electorate a bunch of spongers, better to cast them as the noble sons of the soil being done out of their rightful inheritance, etc, etc.

The fact is that per capita expenditure in Scotland in 25% above that of England (around £1K more per person) and things like university tution and personal care remain free (wheel-clamping is illegal too). At least £9b travels North of the border each and every year despite the North Sea revenues.

But regardless of the facts some seem to believe everything in the South and the UK's overseas adventures are singularly funded by seemingly boundless North Sea oil revenues... one wonders why the HM Revenue & Customs exist at all in English since our Scottish compatriots amazingly pay for everything, including their own deficit :)

Lots of jobs, windfall and mooring revenues stay in Scotland and the islands. I wouldn't mention these inconvenient facts at an SNP meeting mind!

There's a lot to disagree with there. I have to point out that university fees are not free despite what the Lib-Dems say. Universtiy fees are deferred. You will pay for them later in life when you earn enough, much like the student loans.

Personal care is a flaky issue. It wasn't free for a while, and then the law was changed. Apparently it's free, but many people still don't get it for free.

The 25% extra spending you quote is related to the Barnett formula which I agree is out of date. However, this spending unless I am mistaken does not take into account such items as defence spending. When that is taken into account England is top of the tree for spending. The simple way for England to receive proportionately more is to increase spending in England. For every 10% increase in England, the increase in Scotland is 8.1%, that is the "Barnett squeeze". Maybe this is what GB is up to with all his extra spending. :lol:

Furthermore, in recent history (since oil revenues have been on tap) 1979-1995 Scotland paid £27billion more in taxes than it received in Government expenditure. That wasn't the SNP that said that, it was the UK Government.

Nobody should argue that Scotland has not done well out of the Union, but conversely, no-one should argue that England has paid for it all with no return. Both arguements are nonsense.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, in recent history (since oil revenues have been on tap) 1979-1995 Scotland paid £27billion more in taxes than it received in Government expenditure. That wasn't the SNP that said that, it was the UK Government.

Nobody should argue that Scotland has not done well out of the Union, but conversely, no-one should argue that England has paid for it all with no return. Both arguements are nonsense.

They're cutting defence expenditure and troops and facilities, what happens in reverse? :o

The UK is greater than the sum of its parts, would things work any better if Scotland and parts of England descended into petty and squabbling regions? Lots of people would rather just boo the England team than confront these difficult issues.

Maybe they could hammer out a deal where Scotland gets its independence and also gets Herr Braun in with the package, a non-negotiable clause, quite a cruel burden though.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its easy to be scottish and think youve been short changed, but the facts our the entire UK not just england used the oil (scotland included). also the union has been good for trade and services for all concerned.

this new wave of regional assemblys got the big thumbs down. all it would have been is a giant layer of red tape and unfairness, squabbling and division. im glad no one wanted it. it was the wrong direction to go.

to me scotland is just another part of the uk.

looks as different as cornwall or wales or blackpool, but life is all the same really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears from the article that a large measure of this huge external debt postiion is due mainly to short term borrowing between banks.

The the BOE paper breaks this debt down - Private companies seem to have accumulated a lot of sterling denominated debt which is offset by the foriegn currencies who buy thier sterling bonds.

Finacial entities -Banks etc.. have a balanced debt structure of foriegn currency bonds and sterling bonds.

As I view the pound going the way of the lira, a great deal of the external debt bought in sterling bonds is at the foriegn holders risk, and private companies inside the economy watching Brown dismantle the real productive base of the economy have been very clever in selling sterling bonds to foreigners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tenant super

They're cutting defence expenditure and troops and facilities, what happens in reverse? :o

The UK is greater than the sum of its parts, would things work any better if Scotland and parts of England descended into petty and squabbling regions? Lots of people would rather just boo the England team than confront these difficult issues.

Maybe they could hammer out a deal where Scotland gets its independence and also gets Herr Braun in with the package, a non-negotiable clause, quite a cruel burden though.

As an Englishman I would love to see each nation with full independence. I am sure Scotland would prosper and England would be free'd from some of the sclerotic bureaucratic wrangling and arguments that result from it's bizarre under-representation within English politics.

I don't think the Spanish model the labour government had in mind (especially the regional assemblies) for England was ever going to find the emotional and historical bonds to find any support . The problem is in England we have not really had a broad debate about self government, it seems odd to me that in a labour government dominated by Scots that this issue has not been pushed to the forefront.

I'd like to see an English Parliament in the next 30 years, perhaps at the next election we will have a labour government with a proper Scottish PM who do not have a majority in England, we might finally start addressing this.

Edited by tenant super

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.