George hits a North Sea gusher
The oil and gas sector has been a good friend to chancellors of the exchequer for more than 30 years.
And for those who thought it was in terminal and rapid decline, today we got evidence that the relationship is still going strong - in one direction at least.
Chancellors like the offshore industry rather more than it likes the Treasury. And if there's one thing that really riles leaders in the offshore sector, it's sudden changes in tax regime.
This may have been a budget for growth, but it doesn't look helpful to growing the biggest single investing sector in Britain.
In any case, the "budget for growth" argument looks somewhat weaker when you look at the Office of Budget Responsibility report, out on Budget day, which says the measures for business growth might help in time, but for now - it's not going to make any difference to OBR trend growth assumptions. Ouch.
In the oil and gas sector, they plan over long-term time horizons, investing in kit that costs billions and lasts a generation.
So having thought they had an understanding and listening ear in the coalition government, they were stunned to find that the tax bill is going up by £2bn.
Last financial year, the industry was paying £6.5bn across corporation and petroleum revenue taxes. This year, buoyant oil prices have pushed that up to £8.9bn. Next year, with the higher rate, the Treasury take is forecast at £13.4bn.
No stability
According to Ernst and Young's oil and gas expert, Derek Leith, oil fields will face a marginal tax rate as high as 81%.
"This demonstrates to industry in an unambiguous fashion that there is no real concept of fiscal stability in the UK," he said.
"Many companies will be frantically re-appraising their plans for capital investment in the UKCS in the coming days".
Trade body Oil and Gas UK says investment will be decreased, imports of oil and gas will be increased and UK jobs will go overseas, following oil basins where the tax regime is more investor-friendly.
The added complication is that George Osborne says the tax rate could come down if the oil price does. But it's not clear how long that lower price would have to be sustained, or how low the tax rate could go. That's unhelpful if you're making a business case for investing billions.
You can choose to interpret this as so much bleating from an industry making vast profits from the windfall of high prices. There isn't much doubt that George Osborne wants to bracket Big Oil with Big Banks in the public's demonology. In return, he may find the industry less friendly in future.
Cash cow
How will this play in Scotland? Will people be more grateful for some pressure being taken off fuel prices than they will be irritated by one of the country's big and successful industries being treated as a cash cow?
We may know more as people get to debate this through the election campaign. But when Gordon Brown doubled the rate from 10% to 20% in 2006, also infuriating the industry, it didn't play as a big issue with the public.
Former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling concedes that the Treasury has previous on this, but claims the latest tax grab is on a new scale.
He argues the industry's investment decisions are usually made far from the UK, often in the US, where capital expenditure can as easily go to African or Asian prospects.
For the SNP, it's certainly a powerful reminder that the North Sea keeps on giving. Alex Salmond was pointing out today that the extra oil and gas corporate tax would allow a 50p per litre cut in tax.
For those arguing for lower fuel prices, there has to be a question over their green credentials when they are quick to abandon a fuel price accelerator specifically designed to encourage less fossil fuel use.
Banks thumped
On that front, it's worth noting that at least one measure in the Budget should help investment in Scotland's renewable technology. Putting a floor under the price of carbon, in the emissions trading scheme, also puts a floor under investment decisions, and helps add the predictability that investors crave.
The Green Investment Bank remains on track, but it's moving very slowly down it. £3bn is being committed to help fill the funding gaps that the market won't. It hopes to lever in as much as £15bn from private sector partners.
But the scale of the challenge is such that the GIB needs access to market borrowing, and it's not going to get that for another four years - crucial years for the sector.
In other parts of the Scottish economy, the banks are unhappy they're getting thumped again. This much was predictable. Even as corporation tax rates were cut faster than expected, it was offset by a higher special levy on banks. The bankers point out they are facing four different tax regimes within two fiscal years.
The life assurance sector will take time to absorb changes to its tax regime, with drastic change to the way tax relief is calculated for those who write protection policies. At least that's been well trailed within the business, but there's not much agreement on whether it's going to constrain the market or simply mean higher costs for customers.
The digital games industry is pleased about research and development tax credits, making their investment go much further. But they're very unhappy that George Osborne remains unresponsive to demands for special tax breaks that could help them compete for talent with Canada.
Pothole priority
With £70m more than expected to spend at Holyrood next year, and a total of £112m spread unevenly over four years as a result of this 2011 Budget, that is thrown into the Holyrood election campaign as a modest source of spending sweeties.
That some of it is attached to an English priority of filling in potholes, on which £100m is being spent down south, will surely fuel demands for Scotland's roads to get similar treatment.
The element from shared equity support for first-time home-buyers (£250m for England) is already being claimed by the construction industry.
Some is being spent on skills and science, which may not be seen as needing that extra spend.
Tax holidays
Some of the money is attached to the plan for 21 new enterprise zones in England.
Scotland had them in pre-devolution days, including, at different times, Arbroath, Dundee, Inverclyde, Invergordon, Hamilton, Motherwell and Monklands.
But there is evidence suggests such zones don't work well - that they merely relocate business activity, create jobs at very high cost, and don't have the hoped-for lasting effect.
Nevertheless, the coalition government's approach to regional policy may provoke Scotland's politicians to consider whether they could usefully learn lessons in focussing regeneration attention with business rate holidays, relaxed planning and more generous capital allowances.
The other factor that may play into Scottish politics and its economy is a renewed look at whether Northern Ireland deserves its own reduced corporation tax, to limit the damage done to business by having corporation tax at more than twice the rate charged across the Irish border.
In the unlikely event the Treasury accepts that case, be sure that it will fuel a lively debate about doing likewise in Scotland.
Comment number 1.
At 24th Mar 2011, Patch Bruce wrote:Effectively this Tory policy grabs an extra £2bn out of the Scottish economy. In all westMonster helps its self to over £13 billion of subsidies from Scotland. This will play big on the doorsteps of Scotland over the next few weeks. Not only will it have a negative effect on jobs and investment all over Scotland, it clearly demonstrates how the UK government uses revenues raised in Scotland as a crutch for the uk economy. Of course when a crutch is no longer needed, it sits gathering dust, ignored.
Even the staunch unionist labour supporters in the west of Scotland are beginning to see the truth, This failing union costs Scotland Billions of pounds per year. Like in the eighties the Tories carry out a cross border raid, to fill there treasury, after all, they only have one westMonster seat to loose, so what do they care about Scotland. And with pretty inept leadership within the labour party both north and south of the border, the Tories will be in power for some time to come. This one budget policy, may just be the catalyst needed to tip the balance in favour of independence.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 24th Mar 2011, goggyturk wrote:I don't understand why anyone is surprised by this behaviour. Disappointed, yes, surprised, no. The oil industry has always been treated by a cash cow by Westminster, regardless of what stripe of government is in office.
This decision will cost jobs and investment, particularly amongst the smaller operators that are the future of the industry. Shell or BP can divert their money to Australia or West Africa, but Ithaca or Faroe might find that more difficult. The other thing that is continually overlooked is the increased cost that comes with increasing oil prices, which in turn massively increases the up front risk of any new project.
As for the comment about getting the money back at the pumps, the idiot who said that has obviously never compared the profits on the upstream production side (huge) with the actual profits made at the pumps by the few operators who still bother with the forecourt (tiny). We truly live in a mediocracy these days.
Just to compare, the banks are charged £2.5 B for plunging the world into an economic crisis, while the UKCS is fined £2 B for providing thousands of highly paid jobs in one of the few industrial sectors where we still excel. Unbelievable.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 24th Mar 2011, spagan wrote:A Tax on Scotland's North Sea jobs in order to subsidise Chelsea's Tractors.
When will we learn that Westminster Seriously Damages Scotland's Health.
Slainte Mhor
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 24th Mar 2011, redrobb wrote:The butterfly effect comes in many forms not just weather! Anything that affects profits margins invariably gets pushed onto the next level of exploitation. UK Gov't taps UK business who then firstly exploit employees or it gets too hot in the kitchen and just vacate UK to a more comfortable tax climate to insure those nice divvies keep rolling in....For sure some of these potentailly affected lost jobs / manufacturing have got to be in CONDEMS areas, so folks lets get tactical its the only message you can send for sure it might not be listened, but they'll hear its noise......
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 24th Mar 2011, X_Sticks wrote:Another chancellor who knows nothing about the oil industry. Sees the large numbers involved and thinks "I'll have some of that".
Be under no illusion, this will cost jobs in Scotland. The investment requred to develop new oil fields is enormous, and the large profits made by the oil companies largely dissappear in bringing forward new fields. Many new fields and developments will not now go ahead. The larger oil companies will put their investments into areas where they do not have prohibitive levels of tax. Smaller companies will just stagnate.
On top of this the reduction of new developments will impact on research and development of technology, which Aberdeen has been a world leader in for the past 30 years. Many of the cutting edge development companies will move away from Aberdeen to wherever the oil companies are continuing to invest.
Once again Scotland loses out to provide a crutch to westminster.
How much longer are the people of Scotland going to put up with this blatant theft of our resources by westminster? The sooner we break the union ties the better for our country and the better for our children and grandchildren.
We certainly could not do any worse on our own.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 25th Mar 2011, Wee-Scamp wrote:Gordon Brown hit the industry with a windfall tax a few years back so this isn't just a coalition thing.
But as a long time commentator and participant in the industry I agree absolutely with #2 and #5. This tax increase is very, very bad news for Scotland, for Aberdeen, for the industry and for our energy security and not just because of how much it will take out of the industry but because the Govt didn't discuss it with us it now creates massive uncertainty and distrust.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 25th Mar 2011, sid_ts63 wrote:morning , proof if proof was ever needed.
1. Scotland is bankrolling the UK.
2.despite being told otherwise for years there is still a large amount of oil and gas in the north sea.
3.westminster doesn't give a jot about Scotland and Scotland's people they are quite happy to take all the oil and gas and in return dump all the nuclear subs old and new on Scotland and if they could get away with it they would have nuclear power stations all over our country all providing power for the South east of England.
Sid
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)