A welcome break
It was sheer good luck that made me take a holiday in the
first two weeks of January this year; the
holiday was a late booking, for reasons I shall
not bore you about, and my wife and I went to
Tenerife. It was hard to imagine it was
January, and TV pictures of Scotland covered
with snow seemed barely believable. Friends
have congratulated us on our foresight in being
away during the worst winter for years, but it
was just luck.

One thing always puzzled me about Tenerife, and that is the
price of diesel and petrol; it is only possible
to catch a glimpse of filling station prices as
the bus goes past, but they seemed to range
between 70 and 90 cents a litre. The currency
difference was about 10%, or 10 euros for 9
quid, so 90 cents was 80p – or thereabouts, on a
good day. Precise figures depend on fluctuating
values day by day, so I can only give a ballpark
figure. The point is that I paid £1.059 per
litre for diesel in Edinburgh just after
Christmas, in a country where millions of litres
of oil are being pumped daily; Tenerife has no
oil rigs, no oil at all, in fact, and oil is
shipped in by tanker, for there is no other
way. It is an island in the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean, and the filling stations will be
running at a profit. So who’s daft?
Chilcot Inquiry
I have to confess that I am becoming less and less convinced
of the value, or the point , of the Chilcot
Inquiry; so far we seem to be getting an awful
lot of 20/20 hindsight, and so many ifs buts or
maybes that you query as to why there is
supposed to be a Cabinet in the British
Government.
There
are oohs, and aahs, as one politician after
another sits in the witness box and tells the
“honest truth”, since political truth is an
oxymoron; the latest, Clare Short, was
obviously trying to put in an advance defence
for the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, by saying
he was “marginalised”, and feared he would lose
his job! He got over that quickly, and managed
to sign the cheques, though not as correctly as
the Armed Forces needed; one wonders if this
was his way of registering his grudging
acceptance of having to do his job, but holding
back. Pity it did not affect Mr Blair, but the
troops on the ground.
Word is that Mr Blair could be recalled, but as he is now
past history, the appearance of Mr Brown will be
more interesting.
Voting Reform
It is unclear what the Prime Minister is up to with his
proposal to introduce voting reform if he is
re-elected; the system he wants, the
Alternative Vote, is the most minimal advance on
first past the post. No person will be elected
unless they get more than 50% of the vote, so
the ballot paper will be marked: 1, 2, 3, 4
etc ; the bottom ones first preference will
be chalked off, and then their second preference
will
be allocated to the other candidates until someone gets 50%.
Tedious, but not proportional representation,
and the least one can do.
When we read that reform of the House of Lords (Labour
manifestos 2001 and 2005) is also included
(Still 735 Lords to 644 MPs after 13 years of
Labour rule), as is a Bill of Rights – Act of
Succession anyone?, then we can put that as pie
in the sky. Oh I almost forgot – a referendum
on the voting plan, as it is a major change but
face still firmly set against any Scottish
Referendum. Hypocrisy writ large.
Parliamentary
Questions
Readers
will know that for my sins I receive all the
answers to the Written Parliamentary Questions
in Holyrood, and I have appended below one
such; if you look at the number of the
Question, 30236, that is the number of Questions
asked in this Parliament. Well, it is higher
because they are actually up to 31,000; at a
rough cost of £100 per question, the opposition
has cost the taxpayer 3 million quid since the
SNP became the Government. Some of them are
necessary, but a lot of the questions are
irrelevant, and only there to frustrate the
Civil Service and the Government; the one below
being a case in point where a properly thought
out and framed question would have saved the
taxpayer £800.
Scottish Parliament – Written Answer
1 February 2010 (Holding Reply Issued 27 January
2010)
Index Heading: Finance and Sustainable Growth
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and
Lauderdale) (LD):
To ask the Scottish Executive when it was first
informed of the pending or actual collapse of
the Globespan Group.
(S3W-30236)
Mr Stewart Stevenson :
We were not aware of the potential of the Globespan Group
going into administration until the evening of
16 December 2009. Although we were aware from my
meeting with the company in September 2009 that
it would have to borrow more money to sustain
some of its activities, our discussions did not
include any request for or offer of financial
support; nor were there any discussions with
lending institutions regarding Globespan. No
approach was made by the Group or any other
party seeking our input into any rescue package.
Contact with the Globespan Group at official level has been
on air route development. Discussions with
Scottish Enterprise after the company went into
administration have been on approaches by
airport operators seeking replacement carriers.
We had no discussions with Scottish Enterprise
on the Globespan Group prior to this, and
therefore there was no request to Scottish
Enterprise to offer support.
While responsibility for the company and its customers now
lies with the Administrator, the Partnership
Action for Continuing Employment (PACE)
responded as soon as we were aware that the
Group had gone into administration. On
22 December PACE officials prepared
comprehensive information packs on support
available through PACE, which included the offer
of one-to-one counselling, advice on career
development and opportunities, and access to
high quality training for issue by the
Administrator directly to Globespan employees.
Mr Purvis asked 8 other questions of a similar vein about
Globespan, all of which were covered by the
above response; the tenor of the questions was
looking for some way to blame the Scottish
Government for the Globespan collapse.
Ae stap furrit,
twa staps back?
Kenneth
Fraser
Sae we didnae win Glesca Nor-Aist, an oor unfriens wul
threip, yit agane, that the wheels hae faan aff
the S.N.P. baunwagon. The affcome o this
election wes whit aabodie expeckit. We kent that
Lawbour haed gotten the feck o the votes there
i the European Election in June, an haed a
majority o 10,000 ti fend. This time it wes
8,000.
Why soud there hae been nae chynge? Weel, it
seems ti me that in a sait sic as this,
elections are gey lik the experiments o auld
Professor Pavlov. The Lawbour candidate kythes,
waffs a reid rosette, an aabodie (or at ony rate
a third o them) cums oot an votes fir it. “We’ve
aye votit Lawbour”, an they aye dae. Whit haes
Lawbour duin fir its faithfu uphauds owre the
lest 74 years? No muckle. The consteituency cums
first in Scotland fir ilka meisurement o
puirtith an hardship. Maist o the voters, nae
dout, bi this time hae nae howp o a better life.
Gin they haed, they micht think aboot no votan
Lawbour!
Bit aa this haes happenit mony times afore. There hae
been, stertan wi Hamiltoun in 1967, 29
by-elections in Scotland – nearly aa in sauf
Lawbour saits, as bi the law o averages they are
bund ti be. Lawbour haes wun 21 o them an the
S.N.P. ainly 5. That’s aboot ane ilka aicht
year. Nou an again, Lawbour forgets it cannae
tak the voters fir grantit; the S.N.P. wins a
sait frae them; syne Lawbour gets its ack
thegither agane, an brings the Pavlovian voters
back ti the “Sit up an beg” poseetion. Fir us,
on the tither haun, we hae nae chyce bit ti
fecht on lik a general o the Gryte Weir, makkan
ram-stam frontal attacks on weel-fendit
strangpynts, an (five times oot o sax) bein
thrawn back. Bit we ken hou ti pick oorsels aff
the flair an aa, an there is aye anither victory
ti cum. Gin we luik, no at ae election, bit at
the lang tairm, naebodie can say but that the
S.N.P. haes grown in strength owre the lest 50
year, sae frae that pynt o vizzy, the baunwagon
is aye rowan alang – be it in fits an sterts.
Gin we may tak a len o the wirds o General de
Gaulle in 1940: “Scotland haes lost a battle,
bit she haesnae lost the weir.”
Dealaich na
bancaichean
Calum MacEacharna
O
chionn goirid stèidhich Riaghaltas Breatainn
planaichean na bancaichean a dhealachadh.
Shaoil mi gun robh seo neonach! B’ e Brown an
duine a bha ag iarraidh air Lloyds HBOS a
cheannach, co-dhùnadh eaconomach eagalach do dh’
Alba. ’S e banca tuilleadh ’s mòr a th’ anns an
Lloyds Banking Group. Chan eil òrdughan
mar seo math do luchd-ceannaich no an
eaconomaidh. A-rithist, tha e soirbh a
dh’fhaicinn dìreach cho dona ’s a tha Brown mar
neach-eaconomaidh. Fad nam deich bliadhnachan mu
dheireadh chunnaic sinn fàs anns ar eaconomaidh
ach b’ e fàs mealltach a bha seo. Thachair e air
sgàth gun robh cosgaisean airgid ìseal,
smachd air creideas lag, is iasadan
cunnartach an àite fàs fìor ann. Choirich Brown
trioblaidean anns an t-siostam-banca
Ameireaganach ach chaill daoine an seo airgead
air barantasan RA. Bha na bancaichean a’ toirt
seachad iasadan de dh’airgead RA do luchd-iasaid
RA, ann an làn sealladh sùil mhi-mhothachail
riaghladair RA. Ged a dh’fhaodas càs
Breatainn a bhith gu math cosail ri càs
Ameireaga, ‘s e rudeigin a chruthachadh an seo a
th’ ann.
A-nis tha Lloyds a’ reic a bhancaichean ann an
Alba, Cheltenham & Gloucester, is a gnìomhachas
eadar-lìon, Intelligent Finance. ’S urrainn do
RBS bancaichean Natwest agus
companaidhean-àrachais Churchill is Direct Line
a reic. Cha do rinn Brown na planaichean seo
nuair a bha e a’ smaoineachadh air Alba. Tha
gnìomhachas an àrachais mòr, gu h-àraidh ann an
Glaschu, is tha mi an dòchas gun ceannach
cuideigin na gnìomhachasan sin is gun cum iad na
h-obraichean anns a’ bhaile. Le
dealachadh nam bancaichean ’s dòcha gum
faic sinn banca Albannach ùr mar TSB a-rithist.
Ach tha feum againn air luchd-ceannach
prìobhaideach stèidhichte ann an Alba ga
cheannach, an àite companidhean mar Tesco no
Virgin. Phut Brown airson riaghailtean ùra
airson duaisean-airgid is chan fhaigh
luchd-obrach banca le tuarasdalan os cionn
trichead ’s a naoi not duais mar airgead. Gheibh
riaghladairean cumhachdan mas fheudar dhaibh
“cùmhnantan a shracadh suas far am bitheadh neo-bhunaiteas
na thoradh a leanadh pàigheadh” a rèir an
Sunday Telegraph. ’ ‘S e co-dhùnadh
poileataigeach a tha seo ach bu chòir do Brown a
dhèanamh aig an toiseach.
Airson an ath riaghaltas tha tòrr obrach romhpa.
Bu chòir dhaibh na bancaichean a dhealachadh gu
buidhnean nas bige sa chiad dol-a-mach. Ann an
Alba bu chòir do riaghailt nam bancaichean a
bhith fo smachd Dhùn Èideann agus Righaltas na
h-Alba.
Break up the Banks
Calum Mackechnie
Recently the British Government established
plans to break up the banks. I thought that was
strange! Brown was the man who required Lloyds
to buy HBOS, a frightening economic decision for
Scotland. The Lloyds Banking Group is too
big a bank. Orders like this aren’t good for
customers or the economy. Again, it’s easy to
see just how bad Brown is as an economist.
Throughout the last ten years we saw growth in
our economy but it was a false growth. It
happened because interest costs were low,
control of credit lax, and there was dangerous
lending in place of real growth. Brown blamed
difficulties on the American banking system but
people here lost money on UK mortgages. The
banks were giving loans of UK money to UK
borrowers, in the full view of the less than
observant UK regulator. Although the British
crisis might be very like the American crisis,
it is something that was created here.
Now
Lloyds is selling banks in Scotland, Cheltenham
& Gloucester, and the internet insurance company
Intelligent Finance. RBS can sell the Natwest
banks and the insurance companies Churchill and
Direct Line. Brown didn’t make these plans when
he was thinking about Scotland. The insurance
industry is large, especially in Glasgow, and I
hope that someone will buy these businesses and
keep the jobs in the city. With the break up of
the banks maybe we will see a new Scottish bank
like TSB again. But we need a private buyer
established in Scotland to buy it, rather than a
company like Tesco or Virgin. Brown pushed for
new rules for bonuses and bank employees with
salaries in excess of thirty nine thousand will
not receive bonuses as cash. Regulators will get
powers if necessary “to tear up contracts that
would result in payments being made that would
cause instability," according to the Sunday
Telegraph. ’ This is a political decision
but Brown should have done it at the start.
For the next government there is a lot of work
in front of them. They should break up the banks
into smaller groups in the first instance. In
Scotland banking regulation should be under the
control of Edinburgh and the Scottish
Government.