Reviewing the Scotland Act

 

         It would seem that the new Devolution Commission  has now been appointed, and that, surprisingly, no one from the SNP has been appointed to serve on it.  This is a bit strange, as the Scotland Office Web site says specifically that it is “A Commission to Review the Scotland Act”; as such, it would seem sensible to appoint someone from the current Scottish governing party.  Even stranger that the most knowledgable of the exponents of the Scotland Act and Parliament, former Presiding Officer George Reid, was blackballed by London Labour because he had been in the SNP.

 

              The chair has been “appointed”, and the members have also been “appointed”, by whom, or through what processes,(like the Electoral Commission), we are not privy to; we await to see whether the proceedings are going to be held in public, as is the case with the Scottish Broadcasting Commission.  It will also be interesting to see how the Devolution Commission is going to be financed, since I do not think that any money will be allocated in the Scottish Parliament Budget;  the parties to this are always very conscientious as to how public money should be spent, so one might expect them to fund this themselves.  They could even ask for donors; some of them are good at that

 

            It has been emphasised that the members will be “independent”, rather a peculiar choice of word, as it is the one that really scares them all.

 
 

                  

Capability Brown?

            It would be hypocritical to say one feels a smidgin of sympathy for the Prime Minister in his present plight, because he has brought it upon himself.  Last April he was cock a hoop at finally achieving his life’s ambition, to become the Prime Minister, and since then his misjudgments have been myriad;  he ignored the SNP victory in May, and waited a full month before acknowledging it, but has still not accepted it.  We now know that he leaned on the then leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, Jack MacConnell, to get him to support either Annabelle Goldie of the Tories, or Nicol Stephen of the Liberals for First Minister! What exquisite judgment that shows.

 Mr MacConnell, correctly reading the runes,  refused, and is still waiting for his promised seat in the House of Lords; this would not in itself create a by election, since we had Lord Watson of Invergowrie both a Lord and an MSP;  his spell in the pokey for setting fire to the curtains at Prestonfield House rendered him ineligible to be an MSP, but still OK to sit in the Lords.  We also have that stalwart guardian of the public purse, Lord George – something beginning with F- serving in the Scottish Parliament;  he managed to claim £111,386 expenses from the Lords over two years; according to the Sunday Herald, £45,000 of this was rent for staying in his own flat, no doubt all very legal.  He still sits in the Scottish Parliament.

However, I digress, the point being that gaping holes were appearing in Gordon Brown’s credibility before he took office as Prime Minister, and the Tories inheritance tax move put the kibosh on his attempt to have an October election, which he desperately needed to give him electoral legitimacy.  The furore over the abolition of the 10p tax rate, trumpeted by him in his last Budget as Chancellor, pushed him deeper into the mire.  One can only be astonished that they did not see that one coming.

 

It is worth pointing out that Gordon Brown was not elected as Prime Minister, did not even face a contest in his own Party for the post;  in the same vein Ms Wendy Alexander was not elected leader of the Labour Party in Scotland either,  because there was no election, despite her soliciting £17,000 of donations, which were spent.

 

Now,  contrast the above with their cries of “Shame” and “Foul”, when “Alex Salmond for First Minister” received 633, 401 votes last May.

 
 

 

Grangemouth dispute

 

As I write, there is no resolution of this dispute in prospect, but both Holyrood and Westminster are taking it very seriously, with Cabinet Ministers from both administrations at Grangemouth to see if they can help resolve it.

On the face of things, the workers at Grangemouth have a good pension scheme, non contributory, and based on final salary; this was fairly common until the Tories started mucking about with occupational pension schemes, introducing “portable” pensions, based on money purchase, where many people thought they would do better.  The net result of this was financial “advisers” springing up all over the place, and the insurance companies all getting into the act; the vast waves of mis-selling occasioned by this ploy meant that an awful lot of people became very rich, but very, very few of these were pensioners. Members of the schemes who believed the government hype lost thousands.   Then along came Gordon Brown who abolished tax dividends on pension credits and whacked company pension schemes of an estimated £5 billion a year.

 

So both London parties have contributed to kicking occupational pensions, and  while many will envy the Grangemouth workers, many more will wish that someone would have stood up for their rights.  As it is they stand to lose £1800 a year each, and the company benefits by just over £2 million a year, which seems a wee bit inconsequential, since they say they require the pension money to upgrade the plant at a cost of £200 million – a one hundred year refit?

 

However, a more major problem has now been revealed; we have a private company, INEOS, in control of landing the oil and gas from the North Sea, and in fact they have us over a barrel.  Contrast that with Norway, where they have Statoil, and can exercise a fair degree of control.  It is alleged that INEOS takes over companies, asset strips, and cuts wages and pensions, and they control all our oil and gas.  We should worry.

 

 

 

Written Parliamentary Questions

 

John Wilson (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what the average financial cost if of answering written parliamentary questions.

 

Mr Bruce Crawford: The average financial cost of answering a written parliamentary question is £65.18.  As this figure has not been updated since 2002 we are currently now reviewing the cost calculation.

 

S3W-06776 18 Dec 07

 

                 The Trump affair questions on two dates
 

	20 Dec 07	22 Jan 08	Total	Cost
George Foulkes (Lab)	6	2	8	521
Mike Rumbles (Lib)	8	6	14	913
Johann Lamont (Lab)	1		1	65
Des MacNulty (Lab)	4			261
Sarah Boyack (Lab)	8		8	521
Jackie Baillie (Lab)	25	29	54	3520
Patrick Harvie (Green)	4		4	261
Margaret Smith (Lib)		1	1	65
Total	56	38	94	6127

 

   

And at the end of the day, nothing to show for the vast amount of time and money.
 

 

 

ODDITIES

 

 

Andrew Kerr, that prolific letter writer, has advanced the theory that the British Government should scrap Trident, and use the money saved to buy Grangemouth;  certainly a much more positive move than their bailing out of Northern Rock. 
 

---

 

It is noticeable that many surplus bank buildings, quite a few of them beautiful, have now been turned into pubs, restaurants and night clubs.

Judging by the way in which the banks in general have been behaving, it would be appropriate if the remainder were turned into bookies.
 

---

 

I find it surprising that critics of the First Minister keep referring to him as Wee Eck, because he is not wee.

Perhaps the term should more properly be addressed to one W Alexander,  Twee Eck?
 

---

 

A presentation this week to Holyrood Finance Committee by economists Jim and Margaret Cuthbert has shown that the finance cost of Hairmyres Hospital in Lanarkshire using PFI was almost double what conventional public finance would have cost.

 

We can understand why most criticisms of the SNP not for profit Futures Trust are coming from that lobby.  Another critic is Labour MSP Andy Kerr; he was Health Minister in the last Parliament.
 

---

 

It is not surprising that the threat of  a strike led to a run on fuel;  the vast bulk of drivers normally perhaps £10 to £20 worth.  With word of a fuel strike everybody filled their tanks to the brim, taking twice as much or more than usual.

 

After that, they could only take enough to replace what they used, and try not to make unnecessary trips – so demand dropped.

 

 

           

 

 

 

AT LEST A STAP FURRIT FIR SCOTS

 

Kenneth Fraser

 

   In Januar, oor Meenister o Cultur, Linda Fabiani, lat it be kent that her offeecials war ti tak a vizzy o whit the Government war daean fir the Scots leid, an whit it ocht ti be daean ti mak siccar that Scots wul thrive in future. As readers o this column wul ken aareadie, this anooncement isnae afore time! The Meenister gangs on ti pynt oot that the Government is obleeged, unner the tairms o the Cooncil o Europe’s Chairter fir Minority an Regional Leids, ti tak staps ti forder an spreid the yiss o Scots (the Chairter spells oot whitna staps they are).

   Whan they stert their wark, the offeecials coud dae waur than hae a guid luik at the reports drawn up unner the Chairter anent the poseetion o Scots. The Cooncil  decidit that ilka three year, a Comatee o Experts wad dae this fir ilk o the leids that faa unner the Chairter. They dinnae shaw a braw picture. (Veesit http://www.coe.int an luik up “Legal Affairs”).

   The Comatee first cam ti Scotland in 2002, an they warnae muckle pleasit wi whit they fand. “There is”, they conseedert (richtly eneuch) “nae offeecial policy fir Scots, an the pouers that be haenae taen  ony staps ti proteck the leid”. Syne they gied parteeclars o whit exackly haednae been duin, whuther in offeecial yiss, eddication, braidcastin, or whitever. In 2005 they cam back. Had onything chyngit? Na. This time they telt the Cooncil: “The seetiation o the Scots leid is aye an ill ane” an “Scots still daesnae hae an owerairchan policy”.Whit little uphaud the Government did gie ti Scots wes ti preser it, bit no ti forder it. Agane, they set oot a leet o whit the Government ocht ti hae been daean. Bi the wey, they’ll be back agane this year.

   Bit in fack (as A hae  airgied afore) the Government didnae need ti gang as faur as Europe ti fin an exemple o whit ocht ti be duin; they need ainly kest their een ti Norlan Airlan, whaur that Government taks Ulster Scots a gey sicht mair sairiously  than oors daes Scots at hame, an mairattour, pits its siller whaur its mooth is, ti the tune o twa million pun a year (fir 30,000 speikers). Sae it wad seem that maist o the offeecials’ wark haes been duin fir them, gin they wad but luik.

 

 

 

 

Còmhdhail an Taobh an Iar

 

Cha bhi mi a-mach air na rathaidean a-rithist. Gu fìor. Tha gearan ùr agam - seirbheis nam bàtaichean. Chan ann airson càineadh CalMac a tha mi idir, oir ‘s e an obair aca daoine a ghiùlan eadar tìr-mòr is na h-eileanan agus chan ann a’ creic àiteachan-fuirich airson na h-oidhche. Chan e a’ choire acasan nas motha ma bhios an aimsir tuilleadh ‘s garbh a chur gu fairge. Ach anns an t-aona linn air fhichead, a bheil e math gu leòr a bhith a’ fàgail daoine gun dìon ann am meadhan fàsaich nuair a thèid bàta a chur dheth? Gheibh thu bàta Ile aig Ceann na Creige, còig mìle air falbh bhon Tairbeart (Ceann Tìre). ‘S e seann làrach Western Ferries a th’ ann, agus chan eil an sin ach seòrsa bothain aig ceann a’ chidhe. Chan eil rud sam bith eile faisg air agus nuair a dh’fhàgas am bus thu aig àm a’ bhàta chan eil dòigh agad a dh’fhaighinn air ais don bhaile le còmhdhail phoblach. Dùinidh an oifis nuair a bhios am bàta air falbh no air cur gu tìr, agus chan eil fasgadh sam bith ann. Cha bhi e idir èibhinn ma bhios tusa is do mhàileidean air d’ fhàgail an sin air oidhche dhubh dhorcha leis an uisge a’ dòrtadh agus gaoth a ghabhadh do chraiceann dhìot, gun bhàta ann gu madainn.

 

A rèir coltais cia-tà ma thèid d’ fhàgail aig Ceann na Creige bithidh tu ceum air thoiseach air daoine a bhios air am fàgail aig Wemyss Bay. Tha taighean-òsta anns an Tairbeart ma ruigeas tu am baile.

 

Nuair a bhios sinn smaointinn air conaltradh anns agus gu na h-eileanan, cha bhi e gu leòr a bhith bruidhinn dìreach air na bàtaichean agus cidheannan. Ma bhios ceanglaichean ceart a’ dol a bhith ann feumaidh goireasan ceart a bhith ann cuideachd do dhaoine a bhios a’ seòladh. Le blàthachadh na cruinne tha e coltach gum bi droch aimsir a’ fàs nas cumanta. Chan eil e math gu leòr iarraidh air daoine còmhdhail phoblach a chleachdadh agus an uairsin gam fàgail air cidhe gun fhasgadh - gu h-àraidh a chionn ‘s gu bheil e coltach gum bi a’ mhòr-chuid a bhios san t-suidheachadh sin meadhanach òg, no gu math sean. Tha mi cinnteach nach e uallach CalMac a th’ ann an ceartuair, ach bu chòir uallach a bhith air cuideigin.
 

 

 

Transport in the West

 

I won’t be on about the roads again. Honestly. I have a new complaint - the ferry service.  I’m not wanting to criticise CalMac at all, because it’s their job to carry people between the mainland and the islands and not to sell accommodation for the night. It’s not their fault either if the weather is too rough to put to sea. But in the twenty first century is it really good enough to leave people without shelter in the middle of a wilderness when the boat is put off? You get the Islay boat at Kennacraig, five miles away from Tarbert (Kintyre). It’s the old Western Ferries site, and there’s nothing there but a sort of prefab at the head of the pier. There’s nothing else near it and when the bus drops you for the boat you have no way to get back to the town by public transport. The office closes when the boat is away or in at port, and there is no shelter. It isn’t funny at all if you and your bags are left there on a pitch dark night with the rain pouring and a wind that would strip your skin off, with no boat going to run until the morning.

 

However, apparently if you are left at Kennacraig you’re one up on the people that get left at Wemyss Bay. There are hotels in Tarbert if you can reach the town.

When we are thinking of communication in and to the islands it’s not enough to just consider the boats and piers. If there are going to be proper links there must be proper facilities for people who are sailing. With global warming it’s likely that bad weather will become more frequent. It’s not acceptable to want people to use public transport then to abandon them on an unsheltered pier - especially since it’s probable that most people in that situation will be pretty young or else elderly. I’m sure that it’s not CalMac’s responsibility just now, but it should be someone’s responsibility.