Oddquine

Lol! Like that... "Chickens Coming Home to Roost", scenario, Scarlet..may well nick it and claim it as my own! To be fair, as a start, while the feartie No voters.....those who used to come into the YES Shop and say, I would love independence, but I don't think we are ready for it yet...... gain confidence in our ability to manage our own money and make a difference, it might work in the short term, once we see what we are actually going to get out of it once it has been through the Westminster wringer. Though I haven't finished reading it, I'm not clear yet if it continues the inability to alter individual tax rates, which is the case with the Scotland Act 2012, which comes in this year, and which hamstrings the taxation options available to the Scottish Government.because what Government is going to increase/decrease one rate of tax if that means they have to increase/decrease all rates of tax by the same rate? However.......Scameron seems to think that that is our lot......all we are ever going to get....and in return, it appears he is going to have a two tier Union, with the whole UK paying for England's Parliament and parliamentarians in the Union Parliament buildings, while those of us with devolved parliaments have to fund our own, on top of helping to fund Westminster.......and the Scots (and only the Scots, despite both Welsh and NI MPs having devolved legislatures and voting on English only legislation as well) are to become second class citizens of the Union. For those who don't know what "devo-max", "home rule" or "as near as dammit federalism" means.....believe me, it doesn't mean 70% of our income still heading down to the Westminster Treasury and 85% of the decisions on welfare spending being made in Westminster......that is "devo-as much as we think we can get away with". If it wasn't so darned pathetic, it would be almost funny to hear them now getting their knickers in a twist because Nicola Sturgeon has said that the SNP would vote on the likes of the NHS, where changes to the NHS in England would impact on Barnett consequentials, which would cut Scottish Block Grant. You'd think, if our highly paid and subsidised MPs had an intelligence at a level a shade above that of an amoeba, they would have remembered that the SNP always has voted on any "English only" legislation, which would impact on Scotland........which is why they voted against the English tuition fee hike in 2010. That is their job, and why I vote for them....to make Scotland's voice heard in Westminster, standing up for Scotland's interests, given the Scottish Secretary (whose office costs are also charged to us, btw.....so we paid them to trash the Scots in the referendum), is as much use in standing up for Scotland as a one legged man would be in a bahookey -kicking contest. Interesting months ahead in the 2015 GE run-up, methinks. Project Fear #2 anyone.......vote SNP let the Tories in from NuLabour.......and vote SNP let Labour in from the Tories.............me, I'll vote SNP for Scotland!

And the Command Paper as a result of the VOW has arrived. Woohoo! Of course it means squat until it gets through the Westminster process, and if we are being brutally honest...it is as near as dammit "federalism","devo-max" or "home rule" as per the VOW as I am as near as dammit Charles Bannerman! For those who can be bothered ploughing through 134 pages of not a lot but verbiage disguising the not a lot (I'm still struggling to make sense of it) it is here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397079/Scotland_EnduringSettlement_acc.pdf Did have a snigger at the Enduring Settlement bit, though.........the settlement will be as enduring as Westminster promises, agreements, manifestos and vows, which is usually until Westminster can crumple them up and throw them in the bucket labelled "we won, so we can ignore this now". But at least the original thread question has been answered.......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. But then, did anyone with a modicum of intelligence think it was ever going to happen as promised, once the result was NO? Really? Honestly? For those who can't be bothered reading it. Wings (who else) describes it perfectly........here........ http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-bag-full-of-nothing/

Because Charles is funny? Almost as funny as these other Unionists....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=SKYT6Sj-eCQ&x-yt-ts=1421914688

What an amazing tansformation from building a political party since the 1970s on the slogan "It's Scotland's Oil" .... to a mere "bonus". It would be Scotland's oil if the Treaty of Union hadn't been signed by Scottish "grandees" on the make, Charles.you know it and I know it! So it was a fact, not a slogan.....unless, of course, you think that Scotland ceased to exist as a country in 1707, as Westminster has tried to insist! And the one thing I'm darn sure of is that any party of canny Scots, in a country with our other resources, and a population 85% less than that of the UK, wouldn't have widdled all the oil income up against the Westminster wall to buy votes in the on-going obsession to turn the UK into America-lite. If you stop to think about it, most of what we spend now is because we are in the Union, not because we'd be spending at that level in an independent Scotland. We are paying annually........interest on the UK debt, which pays for, among other things.......Westminster's nuclear gonads; the waste due to the incompetence of the UK procurement system, particularly in the MOD; the subsidies to the city state of London; wars in countries which wouldn't be bothering us much (if at all) if we hadn't been warring all over the world for centuries; the cost of wages, subsidies and gold-plated pensions for a bloated Government of 1350 well-paid, but incompetent politicians; more than half of them unelected placemen; wages and pensions for the 405,070 FTE employees in the civil service; 239 foreign embassies/consulates//trade offices etc and staff, in 152 countries (plus 21 organisations representing us in the likes of the UN,......and those figures don't include honorary consulates). I could go on, but you get my point, I'm sure....a country of 63 million people, with a Government which still has delusions of imperial grandeur and importance, needs much more money to keep it in the style to which it has become accustomed than a wee country of 5 million people without the same delusions. Bear in mind, we are paying a share of all of the above, both via identifiable expenditure which is allocated specifically to Scotland in the UK accounts, like the UK Government departments within Scotland which deal with reserved issues and what we receive in benefits and pensions.....and also what we don't get back from Westminster out of our taxes, which goes into unidentifiable expenditure, like debt interest and the costs of the reserved departments at Westminster..... at the same time as we are paying for our own Government and its maintenance to deal with devolved issues from a relatively small proportion of our tax input, those issues devolved to us which, in the rUK, are being paid for mostly from borrowing, on which we help pay the interest.

Oddquine you may find a connection to the Bannerman's Not so far......got what seems like flaming hunners of (so far) unconnected Fraser lines though! IBM, the GE this year can't help but be more interesting than any one to date...and I hope a lot more fun. I await the first GE thread with my two typing fingers poised at the ready.

....like potential oil revenues? Oddquine, we disagree fundamentally on the issue of separation but your verbosity is hardly a major vice and I am somewhat prone to it myself. Furthermore anyone who knows what a Pyrrhic victory is and can spell it correctly has my profound respect. However I am these days transferring my CTO allegiance to the Old Inverness threads where I am actually also finding a great deal of empathy with some of my former adversaries on this thread. Now, now, Charles......which part of the oil revenues would have been a bonus are you not quite getting yet? It's Westminster which needs it to lessen the annual borrowing increases......not us to balance the books, if we were independent. Might well join you on the Old Inverness threads if they get into really old stuff....like the map to which alternative maryhill linked .........you don't get rid of me that easily! Been reading through the older threads bit by bit, as I'm doing my Inverness/Inverness-shire paternal genealogy and am having a job trying to identify connected places. None of it goes far enough back, though, as I'm looking at Inverness and surrounding parishes in the couple of centuries up to the 1920s..so more history than reminiscences.

I know who Oddquine is............but who the hair oil is Chris Carter? When I read the title, I thought it might be a critique of all the untruthful and exaggerated claims made during the Referendum Campaign by Better Together and Unionist politicians, who all threatened Scottish meltdown, because, without the nurturing Westminster bosom, our pensions would not be safe, the oil would run out in 15 years, the Clyde wouldn't get the contract for the navy frigates, because the UK doesn't give warship contracts to foreign countries etc, etc ad nauseam. And then I read the start of the first line When the present independence initiative was started by the SNP, the stated intention was that The Queen or her successors would no longer be the Head of State, and realised it was just another Unionist correspondent from somewhere on their own planet demonstrating their ignorance......again. I did do him/her the courtesy of reading the last bullet point in his/her article and am away to beat my head off the nearest brick wall and cry! It is not the losers of the referendum who can't let it go......we YES voters have moved on to the GE campaign to try and actually get the Smith Commission proposals, abysmally pathetic as they are, through the dual-layered Westminster wrecking ball. It is those who won who can't let it go and move on...maybe because, deep down....they know fine well that it was never a fair battle and will be proven a pyrrhic victory.

And both are provinces of Canada in a federal union arrangement.......and not previously independent sovereign countries in a Treaty of Union, Scarlet!

Don't think anyone was jumping up and down, except maybe the bloke in Germany who couldn't get his notes changed. I was more interested in the fact that it appeared to be specific advice not issued until after the NO vote which theoretically made us "Better Together", rather than leaving it to the various financial institutions to make their own decisions as to what they will or won't accept, as had been the case. Having said that, the bloke maybe did what I always used to do on my rare forays over the border......changed all his notes for Scottish ones just to see what would happen when he tried to spend/change them. A lot of shops in England, on my trips over the border in the 80s, lost my custom due to their refusal to accept what they called "Mickey Mouse" money. The Committee of Scottish Bankers can accept what they like......doesn't mean the people carrying Scottish, NI notes(1 for 1 value, backed by assets) on holiday have to like them being refused (though I wonder if the restrictions apply to all non-English notes which circulate in, and may be carried outside, the British Isles, or just the Scottish ones)....not if we are all British and all of us outside England happily accept English notes.

From the BofE site Seven banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are authorised to issue banknotes. Legislation is in place to ensure that holders of banknotes issued by the authorised banks receive a level of protection similar to that provided to holders of Bank of England notes. In particular, the banks must hold backing assets equivalent to all of their banknotes in circulation, to ensure that if one of the authorised banks were to fail there would be sufficient funds to pay out all noteholders. The Bank of England monitors the seven banks’ compliance with this legislative regime. The seven authorised banks (or their predecessors) have been regulated with regard to the backing of their banknotes since 1845. Part 6 of the Banking Act 2009 (the Act), which came into effect on 23 November 2009, updated and modernised the framework for commercial note issuance to provide enhanced noteholder protection. Three banks are authorised to issue banknotes in Scotland: Bank of Scotland plc; Clydesdale Bank plc; and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Four banks are authorised to issue banknotes in Northern Ireland: Bank of Ireland (UK) plc [1]; AIB Group (UK) plc (trades as First Trust Bank in Northern Ireland); Northern Bank Limited (trades as Danske Bank); and Ulster Bank Limited. In the event of an authorised bank entering an insolvency process as defined in the Regulations, those assets will be ring-fenced for one year or any longer period that HM Treasury may decide, for the sole purpose of reimbursing noteholders through a Note Exchange Programme. To back their banknote issue, authorised banks may use a combination of Bank of England banknotes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England. Bank of England banknotes held as backing assets may be held at an authorised location or at the Bank of England. Banknotes held at the Bank may include £1 million notes (Giants) and £100 million notes (Titans), which in physical terms are permanently held at the Bank. These backing assets would be used in the event that the Bank had to implement a Note Exchange Programme. May not have been quite the same in your days in Scotland, though, as it looks as if the rules may have been tightened up after the banking crash. Are Scottish & Northern Ireland banknotes "legal tender"?In short ‘No’ these banknotes are not "legal tender"; furthermore, Bank of England banknotes are only legal tender in England and Wales. Legal tender has, however, a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he/she owes under the terms of a contract (and in accordance with its terms), or pays this amount into court, he/she has good defence in law if he/she is sued for non-payment of the debt. In ordinary everyday transactions, the term "legal tender" in its purest sense need not govern a banknote's acceptability in transactions. The acceptability of a Scottish or Northern Ireland banknote as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. If both parties are in agreement, Scottish and Northern Ireland banknotes can be used in England and Wales.

Just thought those of you who might live outside Scotland, but be heading back home after visiting family here over the holidays........remember to change your Scottish notes for English, for seemingly, in Germany, at least, and I'd be surprised if it was only applicable in Germany.......the response to changing Scottish/notes for Euros is "Sorry, since October 1st 2014, we can only change Bank of England notes from the UK". and "Apparently the British Government in London recommended that all European banks only change English notes, I'm sorry, it seems to be a political decision." Better Together? Hell, Yeah........isn't that blatantly obvious? And we have every single pound of our issued notes covered by deposits in the Bank of England....which is a sight more than can be said for the Bank of England currency, which is covered by fecking borrowing we all have to pay!

Nothing to do with having a leaning towards Rangers, Sneckboy...but I have always had a lot of time for Ally McCoist as a Scotland player, and have always thought he was a decent enough bloke...though I have no opinion on whether he was a good, bad or indifferent team manager. While I think wages in the top of the top divisions, world-wide, for players and management, are beyond ridiculous, Ally McCoist can hardly be blamed for a Rangers Board which appears to use Danny Alexander's calculator to work out club income and expenditure, and fail abysmally to balance both sides of the equation. I am horrified, but not at all surprised, that the Ranger's Board, from what I have read, saw fit to talk publicly about his wage for his notice year only, without mentioning his no-wage and short pay wage periods...it obviously suited them to make Ally look worse than he was.so they could pretend to be less bad than they are. Given the continuing spending levels at the club, the administration experience has, so far, not taught the Rangers board, and many of the fans, that you can't buy success forever. Too many Rangers supporters are more interested in maintaining their "biggest, best and most important club in Scotland because we are the most heavily indebted" tag, and feel they are entitled to always win games without giving any credit to the ability and application of the "diddy" teams.....and can't quite get the heads round the fact that the "diddy" teams haven't quite bought into their "we just have to turn up on the pitch to win, because we are Rangers" mantra. At some stage the Rangers will have to learn to cut their clothes according to their cloth.or they will be facing administration #2...and maybe then the SFA will actually do their job properly without doing a Westminster-style exercise of producing laws/rules/loopholes off the top of their heads on the spur of the immediate situation. Rules/Laws produced after the event tend to be knee-jerk, not properly considered and open to future abuse. The fact that Westminster, and time to time the Scottish Government does stupid doesn't make stupid the only way to go. (and I don't do Christmas Sherry.but will admit to a bottle of Fleurie!)

Not that I'm by any means a Rangers fan, and am happy to be contradicted,,,,,,,,but didn't Ally work, when the club was in administration for nothing, and then took a pay cut from his contracted wage for some time to help the finances? He will, in that case have spent a relatively small proportion of his time as manager receiving the wage to which he was contractually entitled. Seems to me that over the piece, if that was the case, Rangers did quite well out of him. Hardly his fault that the players, who were being paid, didn't do their jobs against "lesser" teams.

Yes. I made the point that it was more important to get any changes to devolved powers right than get them quickly and that therefore the Commission should not allow itself to be bullied into meeting unrealistic timetables. It was the three musketeers that stated the timetable for the delivery of all the extra power that they promised, they should not have made promises that they could not keep before the next General Election! I also made the point that the referendum was about independence and nothing else. There has been no democratic test of the appetitie of the electorate for further devolved powers. I therefore requested that any proposed legislation to make significant changes to the legislation should be put to the electorate in a referendum. Another referendum CB would enjoy that Interestingly I recieved no acknowledgement of my submission. Now that's no surprise. There is Buckley's chance that the invitation to the ordinary punter to stick their oar in was ever going to be anything other than a cosmetic exercise, given the level of responses and the timescale allowed, but was inserted to make it appear that the Smith Commission gave a toss about what we punters thought. If anyone thinks otherwise, I suspect the zip in the back of their heads has stuck half way down/up, and the top half of their brains have escaped from reality. I have, over the piece, before and during the referendum, responded to various Scottish Government initiatives, like the terms of the written constitution, and in every case have had, at the very least, an acknowledgment of my input. I never assumed that meant they had read it, tbh, (I'm not daft), but it did show that they gave enough of a toss to bother to set up what was probably an automated response. Westminster /the Smith Commission,it appears, did not even feel they had any obligation at all to courteously acknowledge anything they received which was not produced by someone appointed to sit on the Commission from the various political parties....and .which illustrates, imo, that, having "won" the referendum, they no longer felt they had, or feel they have, any obligation to even acknowledge and accommodate any of the opinions of those of the hoi polloi who voted in it, whether they voted YES or NO, in the VOW scenario.

Was interested in your post, Scarlet,and did a bit of digging because I'm not overly inclined to look into how Westminster works unless it specifically has a deleterious effect on Scotland. Started in Wiki and followed links given..and from what I can see.............. Theoretically, the Money in the NI fund for England, Scotland and Wales is not available for general expenditure, as taxes are, for the Government. It is only meant to be used for straight benefits, and not the means tested stuff....but a percentage of NI doesn't go into the NI Fund, but is side tracked into the NHS.....though not sure if it is for the NHS over the whole UK , or just England. I am, of course, adding my own comments to what it, and the links it refers to say...starting with, and I quote "Each year there is a surplus of the order of £2 billion". In 2005/6 it was claimed to have a surplus of £34 billion and the forecast was that, by 2012, the surplus would be over £114.7 billion. However, the Government Actuary Department has now found that they were talking out of their bahookies, much like most UK politicians do, and it is now forecast to be £30 billion by 2016. That surplus is loaned to the Government.....quelle surprise! Would you believe we actually have National Debt Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, who have investment accounts they use to juggle money around to try and make the economic future of the UK look less bad. They currently control....... Court Funds Investment Account, Crown Estate (dormant), Insolvency Services Investment Account, National Insurance Fund Investment Account, National Lottery Distribution Fund Investment Account, Northern Ireland Courts & Tribunals Service Investment Account, Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund Investment Account, Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund Investment Account. The Commissioners are any THREE of nine out of The Chancellor of the Exchequer(God help us....Osborne, with a degree in Modern History(which has taught him nothing), a one time freelance journalist on a diary column in a local paper, and from then a researcher/special adviser in Westminster!), The Governor and Deputy Governors of the Bank of England(who didn't notice us heading towards a banking crisis, though I assume they know a wee bit about how an economy should work, even though they didn't notice it wasn't working), The Speaker of the House of Commons(and Bercow's qualifications are what, bar Conservative Students Federation, a degree in Government, Merchant Banking and lobbying Parliament?)The Master of the Rolls (the second/third most senior judge in England and Wales.so we can asssume he has a law degree), The Accountant General of the Senior Courts (who I can't find, but is likely a lawyer who can write, add and subtract, so is in charge of administration) and The Lord Chief Justice....who is obviously a lawyer by education and practice. Day to day running is in the hands of the Civil Service, and On the comparatively rare occasions when it is necessary for a fundamental policy matter to be put to the Commissioners for a decision it is referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor and the Deputy Governors of the Bank of England, who together constitute a quorum and are sometimes referred to as the "active" Commissioners. In practice the only references made to them are when it is necessary to make formal appointments, for example of Attorneys at the Bank of England and of the Comptroller General and the Assistant Comptroller. According to the CRND, they control, over all accounts, around £35 billion in assets, the biggest of which are the National Insurance Fund Investment Account, the National Lottery Distribution Fund Investment Account and the Court Funds Investment Account. The CRND website is quite interesting. Anyhow, as at 28th November 2014, the total in all investment funds are £22,279,000,000, of which the NI fund has £16.651,000,000. The CRND are meant to keep about £8 billion liquid (around 2 months contribution income). In the view of the UK Government, which, at the time of their decision on no-upgrading had no obligation to consider human rights/fairness, and didn't until they joined the EU, (which didn't force them to think about anyone outside the EU countries), they really needed every penny they could get together to fulfill the Welfare state obligations for a growing and aging population and pay their own salaries and expenses as big businesses had started to learn how to spot the Government loopholes in tax laws, and avoid paying tax at all. Given that NI is also meant to pay for the NHS, and what goes into the NI fund is net of that part of the income.....seems to me that, by living overseas, you are saving the UK a fair chunk of NHS costs, as the older we get, the more we cost in health services. If it is saving money they are about....possibly cheaper to pay pension at the current rate, and then old folkies could emigrate to live with family overseas and not cost the NHS, and the Welfare State in general, the cost of keeping them alive. The pension cost is ameliorated a bit by the low death age in NuLabour controlled areas of Glasgow where people are dying before getting to pension age and therefore subsidising those of us who live much longer, such as those in the South of England. At the rate pension age is increasing, I think the Government is hoping we all die before we get there.....and maybe then they will be able to "afford" to pay all ex-pats the same pension. But worry not, Scarlet.because the UK is heading towards the point where they can't afford the state pensions for those of us in the UK, far less those of you who have been shafted for years because you don't live in the countries the UK does upgrade for..which includes Israel, the USA, Turkey, Switzerland and various others (but no Commonwealth countries). In thirty years, our pensions will be frozen as well! The Scottish edition of the Express, which in April 2014 was headlining " Pensions Safer within the UK" as a reason to vote NO, the other day was headlining "Death of the State Pension". (but we've already voted NO, so honesty isn't a problem in the Scottish media any more). I assume all the over 60's who voted NO, expect to be dead before it becomes a problem for them.....and are happy to leave their children to worry, so they don't have to. But then, their children, by that stage may not live long enough to reach retirement age at all, and have to work until they drop dead.

So "Scotland's Oil" - which is conspicuous by its absence from that Opec list under the title of "UK" - is a pretty minor player on the oil scene then? Who has ever said otherwise.....so your point is just what exactly? My point is that Salmond and chums spent half the referendum campaign bigging up this declining resource which Alex M now tells us isn't even big enough to allow export to take place and hence for us to have a seat at the top table in terms of calling the oil shots world wide. Clearly dependence on this kind of situation would have increased 12 fold should it have, back in September, come to apply not to a population of 60 million, but just to 5 million who would have had no say whatsoever in market conditions relating to an asset which the SNP claims is crucial. Actually, none of us did but you and your fellow naysayers, Charles. We have always said it was a bonus.......as it should have been for the UK. We did however say that anyone who is happy to believe that the OBR, who can't get the oil forecasts as to number of barrels, or income, right over six months (given they do it twice a year) can forecast anything remotely accurately forty years ahead needs their brains looked for (or words to that effect). I thought Alex Salmond, in fact, didn't big anything up, given he didn't use the highest guesstimate by the Oil and Gas lot either....but did the same kind of median jobbie which gets us our version of poverty. Given that, on estimating oil production, whether using barrels or a guesstimate of income receivable, there are enough uncontrollable variables which makes a complete mockery of the whole exercise anyway.........just like forecasting anything ahead using computer models with the information available from one snapshot in time, I'd much prefer to go with the guesstimates of the folk who are producing the stuff, than the folks who are trying to stop us walking away with the stuff.but maybe I'm just too cynical. As Eddie George said " When it comes to forecasting, there are only two kinds of economists, those who don’t know and those who don’t know that they don’t know.” What seat at what top table? OPEC is a cartel.....not a lot different to the electricity companies.It is just 12 countries deciding the selling price of oil, instead of half a dozen companies deciding on the price of gas and electricity. Out of interest, what say does the UK have over oil; pricing.bar maybe the OBR causing problems by downplaying the prices, currently anyway? Logically, if there isn't much oil left, then the smaller the country and population it has to help fund, one way or another, the longer it is going to be useful..particularly when that country isn't having to help pay towards 1300 legislators , Trident, and the benefits for an extra 55 million people.......all those economies of scale. And to get back to the thread subject.ie Westminster and the VOW, I see the NuLabour party shafted us in order to try and head off EVAL by taking chunks out of the Smith Commission draft report. I guess all the Scottish NuLabour lot think the same as Jimmy Hood.

So "Scotland's Oil" - which is conspicuous by its absence from that Opec list under the title of "UK" - is a pretty minor player on the oil scene then? Who has ever said otherwise.....so your point is just what exactly?

"Oil Prices Plunge After OPEC Meeting" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30223721 and Westminster will be crapping itself............more cuts on the way (or more borrowing) !

Danny Alexander's take on it all.......Press Release...... 'This plan delivers all that was promised in the referendum - and much, much more. This is nothing less than Home Rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom, for which Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for generations. Lord Smith and all the commissioners deserve our heartfelt thanks for their work in making it happen. 'With control over £2.5 billion of social security, new economic powers, and Scottish taxes paying for the majority of devolved policies, the Scottish Parliament will be financially self-sustaining for the first time. 'We now need to work on an equally radical plan for devolution of power within Scotland. We need to reverse the tide of centralisation of recent years, and give real power back to communities in the Highlands and Islands and across Scotland. 'This is a plan that 100% of Scottish people can unite around, and which everyone who has the best interests of Scotland at heart will now work to deliver. This is a major step on the road to a federal UK which we should all embrace and not fear.' Not going to comment on any of it bar the last paragraph, but I have bolded the parts which make me understand why he is completely unable to work a calculator and is therefore part of the UK Treasury Team. However, sure as eggs are WMDs to crack on Jim Murphy's jaiket when he's in it, to send him greeting to the papers like a big jessie.....this........if he means the devolution almost being offered, depending on what all the other UK MPs decide....is not a major step and .45% at least of us won't be uniting around it as our settled will. Any little concession from our Imperial masters is welcome.....but I suspect that it will never herald a federal UK......though it may well herald independence, and before a generation passes. (Anyhow, a federal UK will still mean wars for resources for big business and still leave Scotland hosting Trident, or its upgraded big brother.)

I know certain people won't read Wings on principle.....http://wingsoverscotland.com/bams-to-the-slaughter/.....but I do kinda have to agree that the Westminster Government is utterly crap at running an economy successfully and making sure everyone gets enough to eat (rather appropriate variation on being able to organise a p1ss-up in a brewery), but it surely is good at the metaphorical knifing of opponents. While NuLabour in Scotland was going after the SNP at full antagonistic and irrational throttle, on behalf of The Government (and their own careers) the Tories were constructing a trap for them.and they have obligingly scampered in, like lemmings heading over a cliff! Is it one of the requirements to being a NuLabour MP to have everything remotely useful...like thinking past the end of the nose ability, removed from the brain prior to becoming a candidate?

There is, of course, the alternative view that the powers offered are in fact too far reaching in that they may be in danger of weakening the UK as a Union. Let's not be totally seduced by the Separatist propaganda that "more powers = good, not so many more powers = bad." Remember that more than half of us voted to stay in the UK so many would regard powers which weaken the UK as not the most clever idea. I don't suppose Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall has changed the display in his window since I passed it this morning just a few minutes before the proposals were formally announced. That would only be the POV of someone who thinks what is predominantly the English Parliament, with the inclusion of a small number of MPs representing the peripheral nations in the Union, and its English constituency MPs should control the Union and dictate to all parts of it. You can see the Imperial mindset most clearly in the way that there has never been any consideration of a separate English legislature in a separate English Parliament, paid for by the English taxpayer out of their own resources,..as there is in Scotland, Wales and NI, but simply removing non-English MPs (and for that read Scottish and not, to my knowledge, Welsh or NI MPs) from the UK Parliament during English only(whatever that is) business, thus allowing all of us to donate towards the pay and perks of those English MPs and the maintenance of their Parliament building as usual, while also funding our own legislatures. Ah, Charles...but as you kept on telling us..you voted NO to keep the Status Quo (which you don't particularly like anyway, because it hasn't done you personally any good)..and you haven't got the Status Quo, have you? And many did undoubtedly, after the VOW, vote for what was promised (ie pretty much the DevoMax, as it was understood, which was not allowed on the ballot paper).and they are not getting that either. What would have strengthened the Union would have been DevoMax......what is going to undermine it is this mishmash of mostly pointless "powers", which may well not be actioned anyway by the time it gets through Westminster. After all, Calman proposed devolving Aggregates Tax and APD...and that didn't happen in the Scotland Act 2012...so why would we expect it will happen this time round. Seems to me the only ones who got what they expected were we YES voters.because we didn't expect much of real use to improve things in Scotland for Scots....and that is what we got. Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall is counting down the timetable, is he not? That timetable is still ongoing.next landmark is Burns Night!

To be fair, they can't be regarded as amounting to anything but adding a lot of stuff/responsibilities plus claw backs (and extra costs)....to ensure we all stay in the same place......particularly Westminster. And we should all bear in mind that this has to get through Westminster, unchanged after 2015 GE, to even be the poor outcome our magnanimous overlords have so very kindly conceded. One useful thing though......we will need to set up methods of administering all our new "powers", now.......which will save us set-up costs for them when we do finally get independence! I wish to goodness the Radio Unionists would stop saying it gives "substantial powers" and "Home Rule", when it gives, even before the Westminster eventual tweaking, control of nothing much which will be of any real use to grow the economy and tackle inequality. And any real use is negated by the claw back clauses if we actually use any of the "powers". It is a very convoluted and rather dishonest method of making us run very fast on the same spot we have been running on since 1999.

I sometimes wonder how "Westminster" manages to run the affairs of the UK, given the time it seems to spend going out of its way to be "anti Scottish". Doesn't have to go out of its way to be anti-Scottish.....it just has to be blinded by the pro-London bling......and then it comes naturally and is automatic! No spending time thinking about it required......which is just as well, as they really don't seem to spend much time thinking about anything bar their careers and holding on to them! And do you really think Westminster Governments are entitled to describe what they do to the affairs of the UK using the term "running them"..I think you missed out an "into the ground" there?

As we await, with bated breath, the conclusions of the Smith commission.....and before we go through the pain of watching those recommendations being torn to pieces as it heads through the Westminster Parliamentary system..the Daily Ranger is preening, patting itself on the back.......and lying through it's teeth, because if what has been being leaked as the outcome of the Commission, and before the process through Parliament produces a final agreement........the VOW has delivered nothing remotely approaching the DevoMax/Home Rule/as near as dammit Federalism which was announced with such eloquent fanfare just before the vote. The Scottish budget will not be one farthing improved for the reluctant tweaking of what we will already be getting in the Scotland 2012 Act in 2015/2016 anyway..there isn't any extra tax and there is no extra spending.

Not announced until Thursday... three days ahead of schedule, as already stated. Your last two sentences merely evoke the shortest of responses - QED. PS - remembering the noise (sic) and claims the SNP made during the Referendum campaign about mega-oil revenues, in the face of plummeting oil prices, I don't seem to hear you complaining too much about that. Strange. Be aware, Charles, I am not an SNP party member, haven't been for about 15 years now.and unlike so many YESers, I haven't felt compelled to sign up to the policies of any party currently available, so I don't post as a supporter of any particular political party(because I am waiting for a political party more aligned to the way I think, and which does not yet exist). I am, however, a cynic when it comes to Westminster and the politics (and cost) of ensuring world influence for the almost bankrupt and corrupt UK and a comfortable lifestyle for Westminster politicians..and it seems to me that if Scotland has the option to maintain and help pay for the Westminster hegonomy....or not....in the long run, it would be better for us to not. Why would I complain about the forecasts from an OBR which has got no oil forecast correct since the date of their inception by one or other of the Unionist Westminster parties (can't remember which of them set up the OBR and which of them set up the IFS...only know that neither are unbiased and free from Westminster control) ? I tend, when I read their year to year forecasts, to wonder why anyone with a lick of sense and a modicum of intelligence would be taking any notice of their up to 50 year forecasts. Much better, imo, to check out oil industry forecasts.......the oil industry has no axe to grind, as they have the option to evade .taxes if they so choose, like every other global company in the UK. Rather makes one wonder if the reason that the OBR understates the oil income forecast is because they know that the oil companies won't be paying what the ordinary punter, who think that all companies pay tax on their profits, would expect to receive and are reducing punter tax receipt expectations. After the fifty odd years I have been in favour,on principle, of Scottish Independence, and the latest two years + of the rhetoric from both sides for and against the concept, the No side has not convinced me that we are Better Together in a country which dumps on Scotland what the English voters would not accept (like Trident and Dounreay and the nuclear "precipitation" which results from their presence). I consider the Tory rhetoric/promises and the LibDem rhetoric/promises on the run up to the 2010 GE, (and I can give you chapter and verse for both) and see what life in the UK, with them in charge, has been like since 2010, and I do wonder how much worse life could possibly be for Scotland with a Government which actually governs Scotland with an eye to what we want, and not what London wants. Sure, the prospects for an independent Scotland going forward is unknown, but then, the year to year prospects for the UK are also unknown, if you are going to be unbiased and consider that, in 2010, Osborne said we would have a balanced budget by 2015, and in 2013, he was claiming a budget surplus in the next Parliament..(yeah, right....and I am sitting watching large pigs with wings hurtling past my living room window). The current forecast is that austerity for the disadvantaged, the method by which the UK Government has decided that the economy will recover, will be working by 2019. I await the Thursday announcement with interest....but would you, Charles, care to guarantee that the announcement will even come close to what will approach DevoMax, as promised....and also guarantee that , whatever it comes up with, will leave the Westminster system the same as it went into it, without amendments (for the first time ever)?