Could this be the oil industry's Libor?

Shell, BP, Statoil and pricing agency Platts investigated for price manipulation.

The offices of several European oil companies, including Shell, BP, Statoil and pricing agency Platts, were yesterday raided by investigators from the European Commission, who are looking into the potential price manipulation of oil, refined products and biofuel, dating back more than a decade.

A Commission statement confirmed they were examining the possibility that; “the companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a price reporting agency to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products."

"Furthermore, the commission has concerns that the companies may have prevented others from participating in the price assessment process, with a view to distorting published prices," it said.

It also made clear that although investigations were ongoing, it did not mean the companies involved are guilty of any wrongdoing.

The four companies all confirmed that the Commission had made what it called “unannounced inspections” yesterday, and that each was cooperating fully with both EU and national anti-competition authorities over the matter, with Statoil adding the suspected collusion could go back as far as 2002.

Even slight distortions in the assessed prices of oil products can have a massive impact on the price end-users pay. Echoing the recent Libor rigging scandal, which saw Barclays and UBS heavily fined by UK and US authorities over the fixing of the London Interbank Offered Rate, this investigation is the latest in a series of such probes around the world, signalling increased scrutiny on financial benchmarks across a range of markets.

If the allegations are proven to be true, it could prove to be another PR disaster for Britain’s beleaguered oil companies, particularly BP, whose reputation, and balance sheet, has not yet fully recovered from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010; recently receiving a record $17.6 billion fine in the US, having already spent billions on the clean-up operation in the Gulf of Mexico.

Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Brierley is a group editor at Global Trade Media

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour must learn the secrets of the Scottish Conservatives

 A Faustian pact with the SNP is not the short cut back to power some in Labour think it is. 

If Labour wants to recover as a political force, in Scotland or nationally, it must do the hard work of selling voters on a British, progressive party. But some in both the SNP and Labour sense a shortcut - a "progressive alliance"

Progressives might be naturally cautious about taking advice from a Conservative, but anybody covering Scottish politics for a Tory website is very familiar with life in the doldrums. And there are a few things to be learnt down there. 

First, as Scottish Labour members will tell anyone who listens, the SNP talk an excellent progressive game, particularly on any area where they’re in opposition. But in government the Nationalists have simply navigated by two stars - differentiating Scotland from England to the greatest extent possible, and irritating as few people as possible, all in order to engineer support for independence.

Independence itself would, according to nearly all objective assessments, involve a sharp adjustment in Scottish public expenditure, and painful consequences for those who depend on it. Yet this does little to dent the SNP’s enthusiasm. All their political reasoning is worked out backwards from that overriding goal.

There is no reason to believe that the nationalists' priorities at Westminster would be any different. Joining the SNP in "progressive alliance" would be a poison pill for Labour. 

For the larger party would be in a double bind. Govern cautiously, respecting the relative weakness of the left in England and Wales, and the SNP will paint its coalition partner as "Red Tory", taking credit for whatever was popular in Scotland and disowning the rest. 

But drive through a more radical programme with SNP votes (presumably after dismantling "English Votes for English Laws"), and risk permanently alienating huge sections of the electorate south of the border. Those Miliband-in-Salmond’s-pocket pictures would be just the start.

Scottish Labour is familiar with the reality of the SNP in power. But that's not to say it isn't making its own mistakes. Too often, it tries to strike the same sort of bargain with small-n nationalism.

Constitutionally-focused politics isn’t kind to social democrats, as Irish Labour will tell you. So it’s clear why Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale would wish to believe that there is a split-the-difference constitutional position which would, as this article has it, offer “an escape from the black and white world of referendum politics”.

But incantations about "federalism" and "home rule" aren’t going to save Labour. They’re an attempt to appeal to everybody, and are neither intellectually nor politically adequate to the challenge facing the party.

Holyrood is already one of the most powerful sub-state legislatures on earth, so "federalism" is at this point mostly a question of how England is run. If “more powers” were actually going to stop nationalism, we’d have seen some evidence of it during the last 20 years.

And as political tactics go, it won’t woo back voters whom the SNP have persuaded that independence is a progressive cause, but it will alienate voters who care about the union.

Here, Scottish Labour should learn from the Conservatives. The leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, realised that voters were always going to have better non-Conservative options on the ballot paper than the Tories, so there was no way back that didn’t involve selling voters on Conservatism. A new Conservatism in important respects, but nonetheless a British, centre-right party.

Labour too must recognise that they are never going to be a more appealing option than the SNP to voters who believe separatism is a good idea. Instead, they must sell voters on what they are: a British, centre-left party. The progressive case for Britain, and against independence, is there to be made.

Labour needs to sell the United Kingdom, and the Britishness underlying it, as a progressive force. As long as left-wing voters remain attached to independence and the SNP, despite all the implications, Labour will be marginalised and the union in danger. 

Henry Hill is assistant editor of ConservativeHome, and has written their Red, White, and Blue column on Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland since 2013. Follow him @HCH_Hill.