Will Westminster MP's sanction the Vow

[Oddquine]

 

And what have they agreed to devolve?   Linkie, please.   As near as dammit to Home Rule/DevoMax/Federalism.....as per the VOW?  I betcha it isn't anything remotely like that.

 

 

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)?

[Scarlet Pimple]

The allusion of devolution may be  close to dissolution--and leave us still trying to find the solution. Which might-be

the conclusion.

 

But,for this, Confucious says "we need agreement on all paths, so we need more fusion"

 

And so ends my musing.

[Alex MacLeod]

No Scarlet. No dissolution. Come May and the 33 SNP seats in Westminster many deals will be made that will see us back on the road to independence.

 

Charles, every three or four years the oil price drops for a few months. It will rise again. Opec will see to that.

[Oddquine]

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.

[Charles Bannerman]

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.

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".

[Kingsmills]

The recommendations of the Smith Commission are underwhelmingly disappointing but hardly surprising. Gordon Brown vowed, on behalf of all three main Unionist parties, that if we voted No home rule we would be delivered and that we would get as close to federalism as is possible.

 

The measures recommended cannot, on any reasonable view, be regarded as amounting to anything close to home rule.

 

On the positive side, however, if delivered, these measures are another step, albeit a disappointingly short and stumbling one, on the inevitable journey to independence.

[Oddquine]

 

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.

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? 

[Oddquine]

The recommendations of the Smith Commission are underwhelmingly disappointing but hardly surprising. Gordon Brown vowed, on behalf of all three main Unionist parties, that if we voted No home rule we would be delivered and that we would get as close to federalism as is possible.

 

The measures recommended cannot, on any reasonable view, be regarded as amounting to anything close to home rule.

 

On the positive side, however, if delivered, these measures are another step, albeit a disappointingly short and stumbling one, on the inevitable journey to independence.

 

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.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

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.

 

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!

Edited November 27, 2014 by Oddquine

[Oddquine]

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?   

[Oddquine]

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.)

[Charles Bannerman]

 

It has emerged today that the Smith Commission, as "vowed", has agreed on recommendations for more devolution. These, presumably to the dismay of Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall and a few other fellow travellers, are apparently due to be published - three days ahead of timescale - on Thursday.

I would imagine that the next steps thereafter will be:-

* The Nats, even though they may stop short of stomping out of the Smith Commission in the huff, throw the rattle out of the pram and try to create more disharmony and resentment by claiming that the proposals don't go far enough.

 

QED

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-smith-commission-fails-deliver-scotland-powerhouse-parliament

 

and a few more.

 

Perhaps it should also be pointed out that the notion that this so-called "vow" actually influenced many people on Sep 18 is nothing more than another item from that "SNP Handbook Of Unsubstantiated Assertions And Wishful Thinking". I would have thought that more would have been influenced in the wrong direction by the Yes Scotland's fictitious oil revenue claims.

Personally I think that this "vow" was a mistake since it merely gave the Separatists a soapbox on which to attempt to build another grudge.

[Charles Bannerman]

.Charles, every three or four years the oil price drops for a few months. It will rise again. Opec will see to that.

 

"Oil Prices Plunge After OPEC Meeting"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30223721

[Scarlet Pimple]

Yep! Are you getting nervous Alex that there may be a lay-off of workers on the oil rigs?

 

Tell us about about OPEC and in what way your employers are associated with them?

[Oddquine]

 

.Charles, every three or four years the oil price drops for a few months. It will rise again. Opec will see to that.

 

"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) !

[Alex MacLeod]

Yep! Are you getting nervous Alex that there may be a lay-off of workers on the oil rigs?

 

Tell us about about OPEC and in what way your employers are associated with them?

As I'm self employed then no I'm not worried about anything. Having been in this industry for as long as I have I've seen prices rise and plummet many times.

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries consisting of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi, UAE and Venezuela. There mission is to  coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its Member Countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.

 

In other words, being the biggest world producers of oil, they will increase or hold back production, as they see fit, to control the price for their own ends. The oil price was allowed to go far too high and now its being deliberately brought down again which actually benefits the producers who also refine and market the product. Companies like BP, Shell etc have to make their upstream product available on the open market. Their downstream arms, i.e refining and petrochemicals must buy the feedstock from the open market so if price drops the downstream arm makes the bigger profit. When the price is high the upstream arm makes the profit. When the price is too high demand from those who do not produce the raw product drops considerably so less profit is made than is made when price drops and demand increases.

 

Kind of like the suggestions that if a football club drops there prices they could increase interest and thus profit.

 

As a point of interest Scarlt, when I came into this industry the oil companies were budgeting for an oil price of around $5 US.

[Alex MacLeod]

 

.Charles, every three or four years the oil price drops for a few months. It will rise again. Opec will see to that.

 

"Oil Prices Plunge After OPEC Meeting"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30223721

 

Of course they do. There's more profit to be made from downstream products at the moment so the raw material needs to be cheaper. Drop the price and demand will increase.

[Scarlet Pimple]

So it seems , Alex, that since they, OPEC countries,  are controlling the market and have a finger in both pies they realty can't lose?

 

It's time we got into electric cars in a meaningful way. Tesla is looking to sell their high end electric car for a huge price but , if it does sell, then the average man -in -the-street won't be long in buying it too.

I suppose that past electric battery driven cars  have never been produced in quantity becaise the current big car makers bought out the inventors.

 

Me? --my next vehicle will have to be a drone.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries consisting of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi, UAE and Venezuela.

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?

[Oddquine]

 

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries consisting of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi, UAE and Venezuela.

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?

[Alex MacLeod]

 

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries consisting of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi, UAE and Venezuela.

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?

 

Not quite Charles. The main exporters of oil are the countries in OPEC. The other players use, in country, a lot of what they produce. Note also that Russia, Azerbiajan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, USA, Canada, Korea, Australia, South Africa, Namibia, and a few other African countries do not feature in Opec.

I know you get your kicks from windups Charles but your comment above shows you're pretty clueless on many subjects.

[Alex MacLeod]

A little bit of education for you Charles.

 

At the moment Saudi Arabia, the voice of Opec, is the worlds biggest exporter of oil. While oil prices were high, a situation created by Opec sticking to an agreed output quota, North America and Canada were able to invest heavily in shale oil extraction. Shale oil extraction is high cost and requires prices to be above $70 a barrel to make it viable. This shale oil has come onto the market and created a world glut in available oil thus knocking the price down. Saudi are not happy that America could overtake them as the worlds biggest exporter. Opec were asked by the non Opec countries to cut output to maintain the price. Saudi and the other member states, all of whom have no love for North America, have decided that they will no longer be the controllers of the price so will not cut back. They argue that North America has created the problem by increasing their output and that its they who should make the cuts. They know that the shale oil industry could collapse if the price is not raised. And thats the nub of it. Shale oil will become un-viable and production will slow. When that happens Opec will cut output and the price will rise.

 

What effect will this have on UK? Hard to say really. As I indicated earlier UK still refines oil and produces oil derivatives at a number of large petrochemical complexes around the country, including Grangemouth. All these require crude oil as feedstock and when the price is low they make bigger profits. Basically, the reduction in revenue from the North Sea is offset by the increase in revenue from the downstream sector. This has been the way of this industry since I joined it in 79 and it will continue so long as there is a need for oil and oil derivatives.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries consisting of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi, UAE and Venezuela.

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.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries consisting of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi, UAE and Venezuela.

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.