Oddquine

That is the biggest problem with the abysmally undemocratic FPTP system, nobody votes for what they want......just against what they don't want. Comes to something when the choice is just to vote for the least bad option. At least an SNP vote is a vote for something....maybe not something Westminster wants....but something worth a try.....and it makes a change having a chance to try making a difference for Scotland, even if it is still in a UK situation. Nowadays, it doesn't really matter which Unionist Party you vote for, because you'd be hard pressed to get a Rizla between their policies. There's got to be something wrong with a system which fights elections on policies aimed at gaining/retaining a few marginal seats, claims a majority even though they don't get more than 35% of the popular vote and is then able to dictate the lives of the majority of the population. Might make for "strong and decisive" Government....but that doesn't make it good, fair or democratic Government...makes it more of a dictatorship by the few for the few.

As a response to the oft repeated fallacy that the SNP wants to get down to Westminster to break up Britain, WGD has an article which explains exactly why so many pro-indy voters are not getting back in the box with the lid marked subservient BritNats, as was expected after the NO vote. From https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/the-ministry-of-dont/ We’re awake and we’re dreaming of a country where our voices are heard, where our demands are met, where our governments do what we tell them to do. Openly, in front of us. No back doors, no secret meetings, no duplicity, no underhand dealings. If we can't get that in an independent Scotland just yet...why should we not have the right in a "democracy" to try and get it in the UK, for once....a Scottish voice for Scotland, and the disadvantaged, instead of a Scottish voice for the UK and the continuation of the elite Westminster duopoly which cares more about the money in their pockets than the well-being of the people who vote for them.

I have written and discarded three lengthy responses to DD's post #46 so far, and may never be able to construct one to get past the swear filter...so I will only say for now that I am more than somewhat unsettled at the thought that Unionists appear to think that it would be preferable for UKIP, the BNP and/or Britain First, all UK political parties, to have some decisive say in the governance of this country, but not the SNP, thereby pretty much disenfranchising 1.5 million+ Scots voters. Some democracy, some Union and definitely no Better Together. Almost makes one wish we had emulated Ireland and killed for independence, instead of trying to be civilised about it against an opposition who couldn't even spell civilised, far less act it. Unionists are really bad winners......and there is nothing worse, imo. Edited to add...............A more controlled take than mine on the attitude of those unionists who are becoming little short of hysterical over the possible influx of a number of SNP politicians is on https://commonspace.scot/articles/679/hysteria-why-the-frenzied-demonisation-of-scotland-and-the-snp-is-doing-little-good-for-unionism And a quote from it......Hugo Rifkind, son of soon-to-be former Tory MP Malcolm Rifkind, said on Twitter: “It's slightly mad that Unionists oppose the SNP being in coalition at Westminster. Is that not what ought to happen? In a union?” Rifkind went on to point out that the electorate have voted for UKIP in EU Parliament elections despite the fact they want to exit the EU, and the Liberal Democrats have representatives in the House of Lords despite wanting to abolish it. Why is any of this different to the SNP scenario at Westminster?

I heard about the NuLabour leaflet which was being dished out (by Royal Mail) in the Glasgow area, and have been waiting impatiently for my copy(to give me something substantive on which to rant) but so far nothing....I'm feeling rather neglected....not a leaflet so far from anybody (bar the one I kept from what I delivered myself locally). However, the Rev Stu has been provided with a copy by an alert reader, and critiques it here http://wingsoverscotland.com/ten-bad-reasons/ As he has made a better job of it than I would have, and more politely, I'm afraid you will probably not be getting any pearls of wisdom from me about it (and I can hear you all saying "Thank God for small mercies!)

I can't disagree about the political party system. Like religion it is propaganda with a purpose....to keep the masses under control. Somewhat over excitable about the SNP aren't you. Charles......tearing the UK apart, indeed? Don't you mean giving we Scots the chance to choose for ourselves, for the first time ever, if we want to be a part of this union or not? Tearing the UK apart would perhaps be a fair description if they declare UDI on getting over 50% of the popular vote in an election, without having put that prospect in their manifesto......otherwise, if anyone tears the UK apart, it will be the majority of people in Scotland, not the SNP...all however many million of us. You don't seem to have quite grasped the notion that, even with their increased membership, the SNP is only 95,000 people, not all of whom even want independence, so there is Buckley's chance of the SNP tearing anything apart. Why don't you consider that the tearing apart might be a direct consequence of the attitude of the Unionist Parties in Westminster to the peripheral nations in the UK, Westminster's obsession with monetarism, and its propensity for clutching every useful power in the UK to the collective Savile Row suited and/or ermine adorned breasts more than to the growth of a relatively small political party.....which would not have grown as much if not for the attitude of the Unionist Parties in Westminster to the peripheral nations in the UK, Westminster's obsession with monetarism, and its propensity for clutching every useful power in the UK to the 1,350 or so expensively maintained Savile Row suited and/or ermine adorned collective breasts. Think on, Charles, if the UK was so great, and our lives were as we would prefer, why would any one of us be seeking to divest ourselves of perfection? I repeat, and deny it if you can, (and explain why you think it if you do deny it) that if Devo-Max had been among the referendum choices, then the majority in Scotland would have voted for that option, and the UK would have been safe for at least a generation, probably longer. Given we were promised a minimum of Devo-Max in the VOW, the SNP is not going to Westminster to break up Britain, but to try and get the Unionist Parties to adhere to their VOW.....which will make the Union safe for you for a fair while. I'd have thought you'd have been pleased with that prospect. If they do not succeed,,,,,then the UK may well break up..but that won't be down to the SNP, but to the refusal of the Unionist Parties to derail their gravy train..and you know that very well.

I am facing facts, Charles. Methinks you are the one who isn't. All my remarks refer to Unionist rhetoric since the referendum, and mostly in the last few days. I challenge you to comment on the way Westminster and the MSM have reacted to the aftermath of the referendum,without actually acknowledging that there was a referendum. Instead of sneering at me, how's about you respond to my post.......say, maybe, the bit which says If I were a Unionist, I'd be reading the utter crap and bile being printed in the media and listening to the similar keech being broadcast over the airwaves, since Bitter Together "won" the election referendum...and I'd be fearing for the continuance of the Union they voted NO to protect for at least a generation. Or even How come, though, on the very rare occasions over the last 60 or so years when it was the MPs voted in by Scotland; who decided the Government of the UK, that that wasn't a problem to this almost paranoid extent? It couldn't possibly have been that it was because we voted for a party approved by, and an integral part of, the duopoly system which has effectively made the UK a dictatorship run by by the British establishment for the British establishment and not a democracy run for the people by the people Like Westminster, you are banging on about us still fighting the referendum....when we patently are not..........we are fighting the GE2015 campaign. In fact, logically, we are fighting the GE2015 in order to make it more likely that we will stay in the Union.......because, if we can get what the VOW promised us re as near as dammit Federalism and if, using our votes, we can defeat some of either of the two main parties more divisive cuts to the more disadvantaged, then it is quite possible that the result, in the medium term at least, would be that the UK would continue to exist, just as if Devo-Max had been on the ballot paper in the first place. Alternatively, if you don't like my take on things in the General Election run-up..you might prefer to read and comment on http://williamduguid.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/pigeons-meet-cat.html?spref=fb

If I were a Unionist, I'd be reading the utter crap and bile being printed in the media and listening to the similar keech being broadcast over the airwaves, since Bitter Together "won" the election...and I'd be fearing for the continuance of the Union they voted NO to protect for at least a generation. In fact, "Bitter Together" and their MSM lickspittles did a great job at sowing real division in the UK....a much better job than the YES supporters have done in dividing Scotland, methinks, despite the whimpering of unionists. It is reminiscent of the UK attitude to the Irish when they were ungrateful enough to try for Home Rule, or the view of us from England in the days and years after the Union of the Crowns and Parliament, even down to the vituperative, casual racism......but the difference is that now we know what they all think of us and our place in this "Union of Equals", because this time we have access to the English versions of the printed media, while in the 17th and 18th centuries, we didn't....and this time we have a voice, even if not one in the UK MSM...and it appears, not allowed one in the UK Parliament after 2015. From being sycophantically, mendaciously and cringingly love-bombed, between pointed threats and efforts to undermine any future for Scotland on independence all through the referendum, we now see the real Westminster, the real Union and our real place in it. We see that a democratically elected SNP contingent in Westminster, voted into place under the same rules as every other MP elected in the UK, possibly with a big enough voice to be able to decide vote outcomes, is viewed by the MSM, the Westminster government, most Westminster politicians, including Unionist Scots, and an element in the English population to be unacceptable......although they don't put it quite as politely as I just have. From the MSM, we get the likes of "Invasion of the Ginger Rats" (bliddy hell, just imagine a swarm of Danny Alexanders!); the incest and folk-dancing "cartoon"(and calling it a cartoon is dignifying it almost as much as saying George Osborne can count or Scottish Branch Labour MPs have intelligence); "The Terrifying Prospect of the Scots ruling England" and "Nightmare Scenario facing Britain" (so welcome to the world we have inhabited for the last three centuries, England); "Doomsday Alliance" of the SNP and Labour(though there won't be any Coalition and Labour policies will only be voted for on merit); "Seeds of Tyranny being Sown in Scotland" (as if being controlled for decades by one or other of the two cheeks of one bahookey, or just one of the cheeks and the bit which separates them from each other. but not from their purpose, isn't tyranny)<think this last bit in brackets after the last example is a bit convoluted.....it's hard trying to get round a swear filter. Happy to explain what I was trying to say including swearies, in a PM if anyone can't work it out. > How come, though, on the very rare occasions over the last 60 or so years when it was the MPs voted in by Scotland; who decided the Government of the UK, that that wasn't a problem to this almost paranoid extent? It couldn't possibly have been that it was because we voted for a party approved by, and an integral part of, the duopoly system which has effectively made the UK a dictatorship run by by the British establishment for the British establishment and not a democracy run for the people by the people. And before anyone comes in and says that the people elect their representatives......kindly bear in mind they elect the representatives the Political Parties, which have become the UK establishment, choose to stand in constituencies, even if that means candidates never clap eyes on the place they will represent until they turn up for the interview by the local party constituency panel before facing the Party members, who will choose one of them. Having been heavily involved in SNP politics in my time, knowing our membership numbers at the time, and having a pretty good idea of the membership levels locally of the other political parties, the representative for Moray in Westminster may well have been voted for by a majority of the people in Moray......but they were chosen by political parties who try very hard not to put forward people who are going to seriously rock the party boat, therefore each of them were chosen as candidates by relatively few (or less than that) of the population of the constituency. (But I am in danger of ranting about the political party system being as pernicious and power hungry as religions, lobbyists, and every other specific interest group which can see power/influence emanating from a relatively few committed people who have an agenda which will make them money, as long as they have a demography they can claim to represent who are too apathetic to even join them and have input.) But, just think....all this vituperation/nastiness/division could have been avoided.....and the push for independence set at the peep that the devolution settlement of 1997 was meant to set it.........if only Cameron had allowed the Devo-Max option in the referendum options. Where we are now is not because of the SNP, because if the SNP hadn't existed from the 1930's, it would have been any other party with Home Rule/Independence as part of its manifesto......something which both the Liberals and Labour used to include at one time. Where we are now, in this maelstrom of Unionist umbrage because we YES voters haven't folded our tents and slunk off to lick our wounds, before re-emerging as compliant BritNats like the NO voters, is down, imo, only to the belief of Unionists in Westminster, and possibly among unionists in the Scottish population, that Scotland ceased to exist as a nation when a majority of our Parliament signed the Treaty to abolish their institution....for money for themselves...which seems to be more important to people with that mindset than the future of the people who aren't them. If the Union breaks up, it will be Westminster's and ONLY Westminster's fault, because they refuse to cede any meaningful power.

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/tory-contract-kick-us-out-in-5-years.html Not a pro-indy site, for those of you who won't read one on principle..in fact not even one by a Scotsman in Scotland. Written last November, but still as appropriate now.....the opening paragraphs In 2010 David Cameron and the Tories unveiled a 16 point "contract" with the electorate which stated "if we don't deliver our side of the bargain, kick us out in five years". If you search for this "contract" on the Tory website, all you get is a desperate plea for you to tell them your salary and give them your email list so that they can send you targeted political spam. This suggests that they Tories have realised how badly they have failed to deliver their side of the bargain, but rather than accept that they should now be kicked out by the electorate, they've decided to hide the contract and hope that everyone has completely forgotten about it. Here's my annotated version of this Tory "contract". I do hope some of you who voted him in on the strength of this contract will do as you are told..and vote to kick him out in May. The latest Lord Ashcroft Poll https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/snp-set-rout-labour-scotland I hope the SNP hasn't peaked too soon.

The next one for leader of the Lib Dems will surely be 'Danny Boy' if he keeps his seat! Rather see Michael Moore getting it myself, if he keeps his seat. Don't like Danny Alexander..never have.....do like Michael Moore. If we had Independence, I could bring myself to vote Scottish LibDem if Michael Moore was leader,,,,but would find it as hard to vote for a party led by Danny Alexander as some people found it to vote YES because of Alex Salmond. I suppose it's a trust thing.

The level of LibDem representation will depend on the voters in England..and they don't at the moment seem too keen on a party which is keeping the nasty party in power and which promised to get rid of tuition fees then dumping them with bills for £9000 a year, given that the only way they can get out of paying it is to take a job which brings in less income than they would expect if they got one using their degrees. I can see the Greens doing better there as an alternative to UKIP for the unaligned or disgruntled voter. If the LibDems blocked the most extreme Tory ideas, I shudder to think what they might have been, given the results of the ones they marched through the Aye lobby to support. With the best will in the world, the way to stop the enacting of poor policies is to refuse to support them at all..not support them and then tell the media how much they didn't like doing it, but it could have been worse if they hadn't been there...when they have no idea just how bad it will turn out to be.and will never find out because they won't be affected. The only MPs I have any time for are those who don't vote to protect the possibility of career elevation to Government, but those who vote with a nod to giving a toss about the consequences to their constituents....all their constituents and not just those who voted for them and think the same as them. I like the Dennis Skinner/Charles Kennedy types and loathe the Ian Duncan Smith/Jim Murphy/Danny Alexander ones (did try and find a Tory who rebelled to vote for something to benefit the hoi-polloi.....but failed).

I can see Charles Kennedy being returned. Given he has only voted in 30% of divisions in Westminster, (and did a bit of rebelling against the coalition party line), and has only spoken in 15 debates and asked 5 written questions in the last year, mostly on defence, the EU and Highland issues, all important to Scotland, he must be spending a lot of time dealing direct with his constituents...and that is the key to garnering a personal following, as it is amazing how many vote for useless MPs/MSPs/councillors because they feel they know them personally. It will help him as well that he has not been reported ad nauseam in the media, over the referendum and since, bad-mouthing pro-indy voters. Do wish, though, that Labour (Scottish Branch) would get round to arguing the case for voting Labour for Westminster, (over and above the "Vote SNP get anyone but Labour" and "SNP BAD" mantras) and stop continually fighting the GE on devolved policies only appropriate to the 2016 Scottish election.....or is it just that they don't understand the difference.....or hope we don't?

Jesus Wept! Westminster are still fighting the referendum within the GE campaign.....seen their latest way to waste our money? From the Daily Fail.........https://archive.today/fyqh4#selection-1077.0-1129.65 Union flag to be plastered across Scottish bridges and roads with message 'Funded by UK government' to counter independence Provocative Treasury move to put Union Flag on all state-funded projects Roads, flood defences and broadband hubs will all be branded with logo Plan drawn up to hammer home the benefits of Scotland remaining in UK Logo is also similar to one used on foreign aid funded by Britain "Under the plan, any firm who wins a UK government contract will have to agree to display the logo on the finished work." "The Treasury says that there is £466billion of new projects in the pipeline, which the Government is helping to fund using public money." Be intrigued to see how much of that comes to Scotland as direct UK input in the first place......and how long is the pipeline.......one year, two years, twenty years, fity years? The idea is almost reminiscent of the VOW....remember that one.......just sign this bit of paper now, because I might have a delivery for you at some point later on..but this time its to persuade us to vote for a Union Party, (preferably Tory and Danny Alexander and friends, of course), and not the SNP. Wonder how well the "vote for the Union and you never know what you will get, but we promise a share of the £466 billion, that your taxes go towards funding, incidentally,though we're not telling you how much of it you'll get, or on what Westminster will spend it, as we can't actually do very much about any capital infrastructure spending in Scotland on devolved issues......but we do most faithfully promise you that if you vote for us, you will get a share of that money, over heaven knows how many years, when we find something we can spend it on" will play out.......bearing in mind how Westminster managed to reduce the promised FFA/HomeRule/Devo-Max/As Near Independence As Dammit VOW to Devo-SFA (and I'm not alluding to Scottish Football). I do hope that, given the list of expensive projects in the pipeline for London and the South (like HS2), and the £200 billion cost of Trident in the pipeline, the Scottish voters have more sense than to believe they will keep their word this time...or any time. But the whole idea is going to be interesting in Scotland, seeing as the majority of state-funded projects are not directly funded from Westminster, but are funded via the Block Grant....and the Block Grant is just some of our own taxes returned, so we are funding most, if not all, of it ourselves via the Scottish Government Block Grant, Local Government and PPI deals. I can see trouble ahead with that idea. But given they appear to have money to piddle up against Hadrian's Wall, wouldn't they be better cutting back on some of the austerity......then we can buy our own flags or plaques if we want to bum up the profligacy of Westminster. Westminster really do need to think things through, though......twitter hashtags are just an open invitation to the Scottish sense of humour and swearie power....and those produced by, on behalf of or prompted by Westminster, even more so. Following on from NuLabour's #MyFutureScotland fiasco, #FundedbyUKGovernment is here and being given laldy with the hashtag being appended to everything from photos of Ravenscraig (no more) via a graphic of some UK tax avoiders, Tony Blair and the Iraq War, Westminster paedophile dossiers, the aircraftless aircraft carrier, Trident and the sleeping £300 a day Lords, plus IDS's £39 breakfast, Jim Murphy's 2 Cans of Irn Bru and the half a million quid for HoC champagne. Really liked the tweet which said it shouldn't be #fundedbyukgovernment anyway but #subsidisedbychina! Twitter users are having a lot of fun.......and I'll get some good window posters from among their offerings!

Guess!

Seeing as the various indy threads were mostly amalgamated into one, thought I'd start the GE one as CTO means us to continue. Been thinking of starting it since the Unionist parties began their GE campaign on 19th September but now that it has all ramped up nicely and the POOR MUST CONTINUE TO PAY DOWN THE BORROWING, NO FAIR TO ENGLAND IF YOU DON'T ALL VOTE UNIONIST, SNP BAD, SNP BAD and SNP BAD etc slogans of all Unionist parties are in full swing....time to flex my two typing fingers. I will get 100% serious in the fullness of the next 69 or so days........but to start us off with a comment on the Vote SNP get Labour/Vote SNP get Tory/ Vote Labour get SNP/Vote Tory, get SNP/ Vote UKIP get Labour/Vote UKIP, get Tory/Vote UKIP, get Labour and SNP crapiola......is the Wee Ginger Dug https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/vote-snp-get-dettol/

It would only be 8 times more important if we used it to fund day to day expenditure, as Westminster has from the day the first barrel came onshore. The oil income, in fact, is a smaller proportion of Scotland's GDP than it is in Norway or Saudi, for example. Financial services would have been a bigger problem re GDP proportions, which was why I found it difficult to be overly worried as banks and insurance companies threatened to move their company registration/head offices to England. I have always wondered why reasonably intelligent people, as I am sure many unionists are, failed completely to notice that the "forecasts" of Scotland's inability to meet their obligations were based on Scotland having the same funding obligations as the UK has presently......ie a share of the funding of 1350 legislators and their maintenance, a Defence budget including Trident, 200 + Foreign Embassies/Consular Offices (11 in the USA alone), around 450,000 Civil Servants, a debt approaching £1.4 trillion, an Income tax system which is so complicated as to be incapable of collecting all the income tax due, a benefits system not fit for purpose and which is currently predicated on subsidising employer profits, with tax credits the next biggest benefit cost after pensions, etc. For your information, DD, Scottish tax revenues per head are almost the same as the UK average without oil, according to the IFS. We have a deficit currently mostly due to Westminster spending on Westminster priorities. Only the foolish would think that, having left the Union because it no longer works for us and our aspirations and priorities, any Scottish government would continue with the incompetent Westminster policies. I agree with your belief that the rest of the UK is better with Scotland as a part, if only as the Trident parking place and bombing ranges, but, despite the two year referendum process, I remain to be convinced with facts that Scotland is better by being part of the UK, though I am prepared to be convinced if you can produce anything other than the self-serving dishonest rhetoric and threats produced by the Better Together Campaign. The whole process reminded me of a controlling husband, whose wife wants a divorce, being abusive and miscalling her to her face, and to anyone who will listen, threatening her with the dire consequences he would deliberately put in place to ensure she would never have any life without him. That attitude, over the piece, made the Unionist pleas to "Stay with us, Scotland, we love you" extremely hard to swallow.......and is what still sticks in my throat, at least.

For someone who 'doesn't need to bother' you rather seem to have gone to the bother of bothering... But without bothering nearly to the extent to which, for instance, Oddquine tends to bother! Oddquine is bothering because she is still very angry at the dishonest machinations of the Better Together Campaign; because she will not accept that staying in the Union is the best thing for the future of Scotland and the Scottish people, although she accepts that until the next referendum, we are stuck with it; and because, having accepted that we are stuck with it for the moment, and still being angry at the dishonest machinations of the Better Together Campaign, particularly regarding the VOW, she is now in the general election phase of trying to help make the best of a bad job...and that will not be accomplished if either the Tories or NuLabour get an outright majority in Westminster and there is not a strong SNP presence. I note, Charles, you still make no effort to combat any information in posts but content yourself with snide remarks which rarely address the content or context of posts made. Rev Stu may not be your cup of tea, and you may not agree with his conclusions .......but, unlike the unionist MSM you favour, he does at least make an effort to scrutinise the bottom burps of the non-SNP Westminster and Holyrood politicians and point out their inconsistencies, spin and downright lies. If you are not simply trolling, the way to respond to posts which give verifiable information is to either give facts of equal import to negate those given..or explain where a mistake has been made in the interpretation of those facts and offer your alternative interpretation.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-sudden-change-in-fortune/ In about five months,we appear to have gone from......“Scotland heading for a ‘Great Depression’ after a Yes vote with Gordon Brown telling us that the Deutsche Bank report showed that Scotland was ‘in danger of falling through an economic trapdoor" to The European regions that could be better off going it alone in which Deutsche Bank, citing the likes of Flanders, Catalonia and Scotland, says that Many of Europe’s most prosperous regions could be better off by going it alone and abandoning the nation states of which they are currently a part. As Rev Stu says if independence would mean Scotland would be subject to a new Great Depression, yet still “better off” than if it stayed in the Union, our blood runs cold at what must be coming down the line for the UK. I am struggling not to say........isn't that what we Yessers said all along?

Ach, Scarlet, the only thing that would give us what we really, really need is independence. Failing that, the VOW as promised by Broonie and not disputed by anyone in the Better Together Campaign, as they panicked mightily at the result of one solitary Poll which gave Yes a lead, would have been a second best, because if we had been allowed "as near as dammit" Federalism/FFA/Home Rule, I suspect that might well have put Independence off until after my demise, at least. Sure the poor effort produced by the Smith Commission doesn't approach the promises made to save their skins (or our tax resources for the Treasury and white elephant Trident's parking spot)...but we didn't ever expect it would, because Westminster has form in that respect......think Kilbrandon and Calman. Some of us aren't daft! What is so bliddy hypocritical is NuLabour in Scotland and the UK hailing the Smith Commission Proposals as "Home Rule". Millibland has "promised" that the "Home Rule bill for Scotland" would be introduced in the first 100 days of a Labour Government in Westminster..and Smurphy, on 22nd January on the Radio said the extra powers had been delivered and we now had home rule...and now, Smurphy, fighting for a Westminster seat in May (afaik) is doing one of his now famous 180 degree U-Turns and promising VOW#2 which is more powers than Home Rule, as defined by Broonie et al in VOW#1, according to him. To me, more powers than the Home Rule etc which was promised IS Independence, nothing less! Now maybe I am too inclined to believe that people mean what they say, or should, particularly when it is not just a forum post stating opinions, or a White Paper giving possible options/scenarios, but statements designed to produce a specific outcome..like the VOW#1 announcement, in fact, which was designed and timed, to produce a last minute swing back to NO by the Devo-Maxers who did not have their favoured option on the referendum paper. Smurphy and his NuLabour ex-Better Together Election Team know fine well, despite their "going along with Head Office rhetoric" in the MSM, that Smith is nothing like Home Rule, because they themselves had made darn sure it wasn't, and it is dawning on them that 45% of us, at least aren't happy with their lies, which doesn't bode too well for 41 NuLabour seats in Westminster in May....so they are hoping that we are all as thick as they think we are. I fervently hope we are not. Edited to add that seemingly the Smurph has been out and about today......promising the voters in Edinburgh that Scottish Labour will give the Scottish Parliament the final say over Benefits...but then it is easy peasy to promise what you know you will have no right to deliver........though, to be fair, I'd not even believe Millibland if he came up to Edinburgh to say it, as they seem to forget too easily that everything they promise, not just to Scotland but in the UK, has to get past the 650 members of the Commons and the 775 members of the Lords before it is anything more than a wish list to "buy" votes. (and he was also in Aberdeen at an oil and gas summit "urging action to support jobs". Wonder what he promised them?) Edited again to add an aside on Jim the Smurph's three cities in one day tour on his motorised Irn Bru crate.......according to someone who was there at the Oil and Gas Summit, rather than urging action to support jobs, it appears he left after 30 minutes of sitting silently. So at least he didn't go in there mouthing off promises he couldn't keep.)

You have the heart of Bruce, Mr Watt.........reading in one go a whole thread in which both Charles and I have posted! I said in my post #116 (I think) Westminster MPs will not sanction the VOW......... because the VOW as described by Gordie Broon, and not denied by any of the Unionist party leaders is not what is contained in anything which has emanated from the Smith Commission and will be entering the UK Parliamentary system for sanction...or at least the application of the Westminster wrecking ball system And the UK Branch Office/Accounting Unit which is the Scottish NuLabour Party agrees with me. (Though they gloss over the fact that the UK NuLabour Party were instrumental in removing a lot of the powers we were meant to be getting!) Gordie is back to be the saviour of Scottish NuLabour, as it doesn't look as if Smurphy is cutting the mustard as expected......and all over the MSM today is the promise (no hollow laughter, please!) of "more powers for Scotland" if we vote NuLabour in 2015. Really they have! Honestly! And they expect us to believe them this time? Yeah..right....and that's a large winged pig I see swooping past my window giggling at our gullibility. Apart from the fact that we don't actually have all the powers from the 2012 Scotland Act yet, and won't have all the powers, proposed by the Smith Commission, if they even get through Westminster, until at least 2020.......how do Smurphy and Gordie propose to get any single extra power through Westminster, between 2015 and 2020 against the predominance of English constituency MPs (of both parties), who don't even want us to get all (and in some cases any) of what is in the Smith Commission report. (Ooops.....forgot Gordie won't BE there in May to get anything he promises through Westminster.and we haven't yet been informed if Smurphy is definitely standing himself.......though I'm betting he will!) Has anyone noticed, as well, that from "The NHS is only safe with a NO vote", Scottish NuLabour (and the UK Parent body) are now saying, for GE purposes " Vote for us to save the NHS and stop TTIP" ..and.....appropriate for this thread...what happened to the "£200 billion oil boom if the Scots vote NO, promises PM", as plastered all over the Hootsmon seven months before the referendum. And now we are getting NuLabour saying "they are fighting against the Bedroom Tax" when they didn't even bother to turn up to vote on their own bill against it......and if they had, they would have won..as 47 MPs didn't turn up and the bill failed by 26 votes. Probably that was as a result of pairing, (which should not be allowed at all, imo), but given “Pairing is not allowed in divisions of great political importance”, it appears the only political importance of the Bedroom Tax is to give NuLabour a wee something to rail against in General Election so they don't look quite so blatantly right-wing as the Tories. I'll bet those who are paying the Bedroom Tax, because of the lack of homes available for down-sizing would consider it a politically important issue.......but we don't get asked what should count as politically important. I'm going to quote a comment made on FB, by a FB friend of a mate of mine. and I hope it goes through without falling foul of the swearie filter.........I think it says it all regarding the crap emanating from NuLabour Scottish Branch so far in the GE run-up....... "That really is some top-class bollocks. If Faberge made bollocks, those would be delicate gold and sapphire-encrusted bollocks with fine platinum scrotal hairs. They would be bollocks fit for a prince."

I suppose the jobs which go in the interim, while oil prices are low may be lost forever, particularly if R&D comes up with new technology which requires less bodies on the ground. That would be a pity, particularly, with the increasing retirement age, as it will mean fewer jobs for new entrants to the industry. Can't disagree with the detrimental environmental effects of people who think they are protecting the environment. I have never quite understood why those protecting the environment don't go back to basics......like setting out to protect the whales on the same kind of sailing ships our ancestors used to catch them on. It would be much more sensible, as well, to have the regular meetings our Governments have to decide on the latest cutbacks in carbon usage via tele-conferencing than by all congregating in some far off corner of the world, employing innumerable planes for the two way journeys. We're not good at thinking logically, are we........but hey, our lords and masters must have their jollies, mustn't they? When I moved up to Caithness, we put up a grid-connected windmill, just a 2.5KW one, and I realised how stupid the idea was re "being green" when I saw the size of the hole dug to accommodate the amount of concrete required to anchor just that relatively small one to the ground. If we had to consider the carbon cost of production, transport and installation, as well as the monetary cost of purchase, then it would have taken much longer to pay for itself, if it has yet. Not far from where I lived in Lybster, there is an onshore rig, slant drilling under the sea, and I always wondered how much the flaring added to "global warming". That one rig is obtrusive enough sitting on the cliff......the thought of many of them, or fracking installations, for no other reason that I can see except to make profit for oil companies and taxes for Governments makes me as angry as I am already over the prospect of renewing Trident. If you believe in the whole global warming theories, which don't convince me so far, tbh, why is there no consideration made as to the carbon cost of many of the methods used to "cut" carbon usage. If it was really the problem many scientists and Governments appear to believe, why are they not cutting air travel, especially for government officials on jollies, cutting the use of big government cars, cutting back/stopping the production of cars with big petrol/diesel engines, expanding public travel options, taxing petrol/diesel to a level which drives personal transport off the roads except for absolutely essential usage, reducing the plethora of similar carbon-based goods which all do much the same thing but look a wee bit different....how much choice over every darn little thing do we need? We are happy to nanny-state the obese, the smoker, the alcoholic and the drug-addict...why not those addicted to travelling in a carbon-costly way and having a choice between mostly unnecessary carbon-costly consumer goods? Until we change our ways, by choice or force of law, if "Global Warming" is the problem they say it will be, if we continue as we are doing, then we are doomed...or at least our descendents are.....but then that's just fine by us, because we won't be around to see it happen.

Seems to me, when removing oil from where it currently languishes becomes unprofitable in the medium/long term for companies, then companies will abandon the unprofitable wells. Are they currently completely closing down and permanently abandoning wells which may, as technology advances, become viable again? Like yourself, Laurence, I know nothing about oil fields under the sea.......or on-shore fracking, if it comes to that, but as far as I can see, the drop in price of oil is not down to the amount of oil available to be removed, but down to the amount of oil being removed. The more oil on the market, the less it costs to purchase and vice versa. It seems to me that the current situation is markets acting as markets do.....following supply and demand. As companies, like Governments, have to do forward planning re investments etc based on an assumption as to their future receipts, if they, as the Scottish Government did, pre September or so, assumed prices would continue to hover around the mid-level of prices being received at that time, then a drop in those receipts, if essential to forward planning, would, of necessity, bring in a requirement to reduce costs in order to remain viable. From my reading, it looks as if much of the problem for company profits and investment levels and government taxation receipts is a mainly political one, influenced by a number of considerations....not the least of which is OPEC, which is refusing, at the moment, to reduce their output, because to do so would benefit countries they aren't overly keen on, like Iran and Russia, and would also encourage the expansion of fracking in the USA and UK etc, reducing their oil import requirements, and the whole supply/demand thing has not been helped by the fact that the Iraq/Libya "troubles" haven't stopped their oil production as expected. The only unviable oil production at any time is that which costs more than the current barrel price of oil to produce...which is not the case with many of the OPEC countries, but is the case with many of the shale oil newcomers, in the USA in particular..so OPEC, or at least Saudi in OPEC, appear to be trying to push the high-cost producers out of the market (for the moment, at least), and reduce supply in that way....and with that supply gone, demand for what is left will then rise, as will the price.....and then the whole cycle starts again when the geopolitical climate requires it. "Free market" economics is only as free as they are allowed to be by those who control the markets, as we saw in the financial markets before the crash. Theoretically, worst hit would be oil exporting countries who use their export income as current spending, while in countries which import most/all of their oil, reduced barrel prices should filter down to the consumer over the piece in reduced energy/fuel prices,reduced costs for companies paying energy/fuel costs for production and delivery, reduced cost of goods in the shops........and a boost to the economy.. Not holding my breath on that here, though. To go even more O/T and opinionated...... However, imo, the situation with oil only goes to illustrate that we really need to be looking much more seriously at greener, less finite, alternatives (short of covering the North of Scotland with onshore windfarms!). I'm not saying that as a "greenie", because I'm not at all convinced about global warming theories, but I have always felt, as I have watched greed for income, by individuals, businesses and Governments subsume pragmatism and commonsense, that those of us using and abusing the world's finite resources nowadays are being supremely selfish and short-sighted. I'd much prefer we used less of what cannot ever be replaced, so that my great great grandchildren can use some of it, if they have to by then, to live nearly as comfortably as we do. Why do we appear to think that because we feel it is our inalienable right to be able to drive everywhere, slob about a comfortably warm house in t-shirts, and predicate our happiness/lifestyles on being able to buy many/most of the 6000 or so consumer goods produced from the finite oil we leech from the ground, because, currently, we can, rather than because we must........ it really doesn't matter that our great great grandchildren may be denied any opportunities to enjoy a small part of that lifestyle.......because we have widdled it all up against the wall of our entitlement to only have to consider our lives now, rather than those who will come behind us looking for a life in their turn? I'd rather have less oil income, less pointless, unnecessary consumer goods etc and a (healthier) population which thinks first of getting on shank's pony rather than into a car to travel from the front door to the corner shop now.....so my descendents will have, available to them, if they need it, some of the finite hydrocarbon resources we are currently wasting on our high living to benefit the pockets of the oligarchies running the world. That's partly why I am for a blanket ban on fracking until it is absolutely essential, if it ever is....because we don't need the oil to live as we do now, but businesses need it to make profits now..as if they didn't already make enough.

I think Scarlet has crossed the line in his reference to Oddquine Don't you hope and pray that in your next re-incarnation you will be born on another planet where the inhabitants are more enlightened, less dedicated to power and money and privilege, less warlike, more fair to all, Scarlet has no evidence that Oddquine is dedicated to money privilege and most notably warlike I read English as she is wrote, Laurence, and I didn't take from Scarlet's comment any allusion to me specifically, bar his thought that I might wish not to be reincarnated on an earth as it is now, in which the inhabitants, of which I am one, as you are yourself, are dedicated to power and money and privilege, warlike, unfair to the disadvantaged. But he needn't worry....... I have decided I am going to be reincarnated on this planet as an irritating mosquito, immune to pesticides and too fast to be swatted, whereupon I will spend the eternity of my new existence annoying politicians.

How do you mean........losing its viability?

Windmills (Can't resist !)

I sincerely hope you don't think that article was balanced and unbiased Laurence. Charles is a native of the Highlands, afaik, Laurence......so are you saying that, by dint of his origins he does not hold a specific view of the whole referendum debate and does not slant his opinions to promote that view.....or do you just think, because you agree with him, he is correct and everyone else who thinks differently simply do not yet recognise that Unionists have the monopoly on wisdom?