Sooner or later
Imagine Gordon Brown's dilemma. He has to decide when to call the by-election in Glenrothes.
A wicked onlooker might sum up the problem thus: "Is it better to go early and lose - or to go late and lose?"
Of course, Labour might win.
Indeed, should that happen in this constituency which neighbours Mr Brown's own, then the PM's problems would be markedly reduced.
Not removed entirely, but reduced.
If he could be confident of that victory, however, the by-election contest might well be already under way.
As the Scottish play notes, "if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly".
Not a particularly fizzy quotation, I concede, but germane.
However, a swiftly convened conflict was not notably successful in Glasgow East. Or indeed in Crewe. Or indeed in the case of Macbeth.
Tonight Labour will select its candidate for the forthcoming contest.
The shortlist comprises Colin Davidson, a teacher at Bell Baxter; Kezia Dugdale, a Parliamentary researcher; and Lindsay Roy, the rector of Kirkcaldy High.
The favourite? Lindsay Roy - although it is of course up to the local party in Glenrothes to decide.
Should Mr Roy be chosen, expect Labour to dig up comments about him made by the SNP leadership of Fife Council.
Mr Roy was brought in to address problems at Kirkcaldy High identified by HMIE Inspectors.
The council declared their confidence that Gordon Brown's old school would "continue to progress" under the new leadership of Lindsay Roy. They thought him, in short, a good thing. As a rector.
The downside for Labour? Pretty obvious, really. They might well lose. Indeed, most observers reckon they are odds on to get thumped.
Why? Because the swing required for the second placed SNP is less than the party achieved to win Glasgow East. And it's less than the LibDems contrived in their Dunfermline victory.
Plus the SNP took the comparable constituency, Central Fife, at the Holyrood elections last year.
Plus the Nationalists control the council in partnership with the LibDems.
The SNP has selected council leader Peter Grant to contest the seat.
The LibDems are fielding Harry Wills; the Tories Maurice Golden; the SSP Morag Balfour while UKIP go with Dr Kris Seunarine.
The opinion polls, both Scottish and UK, would suggest that Labour is less than popular.
Plus it remains unclear whether the PM will stay away from the by-election, citing (occasionally breached) convention; or lead from the front; or participate visibly in Fife events in his own constituency next door.
Against that? This is a by-election caused by death, not resignation.
Voters tend to be a little less grumpy when the contest is completely inevitable.
Further, Labour is determined to avoid the utter guddle which surrounded their Glasgow East selection.
Still and all, not a set-up designed to delight the PM.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Brian
What's your reading on the Darling's outburst at the weekend? Does he know he's getting sacked already and not care any more? Is he trying to make his position untenable in order to get sacked? Has he just been worn down so much over the last few months that he's just not up to the job any more?
As for the by-election, I think you can safely assume that this vote is not going to be lost by the SNP due to complacency. Hopefully it's preceded by GB's autumn relaunch so that can immediately be dismissed by the electorate as more direction-less water treading .
Complain about this comment
Let's assume that it's Lindsay Roy (having been hotly tipped).
in contrast to removing him from the school after only a few months.The SNP could do worse than to contrast the benefit to the kids by keeping him in post and quote Kevin (from Times Online)
More on the candidates
Complain about this comment
Let's assume that it's Lindsay Roy (having been hotly tipped).
The SNP could do worse than to contrast the benefit to the kids by keeping him in post and quote a pupil from one of the blogs saying how good Roy had been for the school - in contrast to removing him from the school after only a few months.
More on the candidates
Complain about this comment
I guess it will come down to a combination of how enamoured Glenrothes is with the SNP and whether they think Labour have had enough of a kicking already. The closer we get to the next Westminster general election, the larger the prospect of a Tory government will loom - perhaps this is the only thing capable of rousing disaffected Labour voters out of their torpor, although 30 SNP MPs would likely be a more effective opposition!
Brian, what's the latest on the right honourable(!) member for Malawi? "Sooner or later" there will be another by-election - are we to be treated to a "by"-one-get-one-free offer with both contests on the same day? Somehow BOGOF seems an appropriate acronym for these two contests ;o)
Complain about this comment
#1 northy: FYI Nick Robinson's blog (link on right hand side of this page) is currently discussing Darling's utterances.
Complain about this comment
Off topic, I know, but in response to #1...
Everyone here knows I'm an SNP supporter. In fact, I'm planning to take some days off work and go up to Glenrothes to help with canvassing. But I read the whole of the Grauniad's interview with Darling (and listened to Brian's subsequent exchange), and I was impressed. He struck me as decent, honest and competent.
The media are always keen to try to stir up political trouble where none exists. Admitting the UK economy is in a parlous state, and Darling's handling of the stamp duty issue was less than adroit, I think he is probably right that his job is safe - because Labour probably doesn't have anyone else with the talent or the bottle to do it. Those who hope to become leader in future will not want the poisoned chalice of a Chancellorship at the start of a recession.
I think Darling's probably the best UK Chancellor we're likely to get in the next few years, whether or not the Tories win the next UK election. Mind you, if we have John Swinney as Chancellor of the Exchequer after the next election, I shall not be complaining (and I think he'll have an easier job).
Complain about this comment
Bungler Brown will find himself in the same situation as John Major.
Recasting policies and giving away freebies prior to a by-election in a vain attempt to secure votes. It will cost Scotland dear in the long run paying to subsidise South East of England mortgage payers.
With bungler brown at the helm, the new labour ship is looking close to capsizing. I think before the final starboard wretch, the crew will mutiny and make old bunger walk the plank. Let's hope desperate Darling and belligerent Browne do the decent thing and walk too.
Only difference between bungler brown and John Major, is that Major has more personality
The good folk of Fife will post the final note for poor old bungler.
Complain about this comment
#4 forfar-loon
LOL at your BOGOF
Complain about this comment
In many ways I would think this crisis for Labour is whether to choose a candidate that in normal circumstances would have a good chance of winning (by normal i mean outwith the bubble of a by election) and risk damaging their stock for a future opportunity to stand, or to perhaps give the opportunity to a younger acitvist still cutting their teeth trying to build a reputation, although in this instance the fact that by putting a relatiely unknown (however talented) would damage the credibilty of the candidate for future electoral possibiltities by making it obvious they are only in as a paper candidate.
At the end of the day though i would reackon that Labour have to at least make it look like they are fighting seriously for the seat and would pick the strongest possible candidate (as obvisally they allways would do regardless) and hopefully the party will unite behind whomeverthe candidate is and fight a strong battle.
I am unsure currently wheather i will be spending a week down in the area it will depend on when the call is made and what i have on at work at the time. I would like to make it down though seing as fife is my spiritual home. I allways enjoy the banter between the parties, so long as its not taken too seriously, at the end of the day if you cant spend your days trying to take apart your opposistion then go out for a pnt with them in the eveningtheres no point to the whole thing.
Complain about this comment
#8 oldnat: If they do have both on the same day perhaps it will be a "bye-bye"-election?
Complain about this comment
#3 oldnat
I checked the link you provided and discover that Brian's Blog is no.15 in the blog charts in Scotland. Can you give an explanation where these figures are derived from?
Personally I wouldn't write off Labour in Glenrothes yet. Its a different ball game from Glasgow east and the Fife folk a bit more staid.
Complain about this comment
Brown and the Labour Party have already made a mess of the by-election in Glenrothes. Brown insisted that Glasgow East needed an MP immediatly but what about the people of Glenrothes? It's quite a slap in the face and the by-election has not started (officially) yet.
Brown should lead from the front. Ignore the traditions that Prime Ministers never campaigned during by-election. The people want Brown out so we can hear his opinion and we can share ours. Brown could benefit from hearing what the people want.
The Scottish National Party has already more or less won the by-election. I assume that the people would vote for the Nationalists as a protest vote or because of their successful track record at Holyrood. Labour should not delay what is going to happen, it may even stretch to become more of an issue in future so its better to loose now to miminise the damage.
Complain about this comment
The good folk of Fife will post the final note for poor old bungler.
Please can you have Alex Salmond stand against Brown in his constituency in 2010. It won't be enough that he loses the premiership. I want him to lose his seat too.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
1. northy
I would not be too critical of Alastair Darling - I have watched his performances against George Osbourne and he makes Osborne appear like a spoiled brat who gets upset beause his opponent is a far better and more in control than he is - certainly Osbourne's face was invariably red at the end of each encounter whereas Darling remained unruffled throughout.
As far as Darling's interview is concerned, he was merely stating the facts and if we can't understand that or don't like it then tough - the global economy is in a mess and it's going to be tough - what did we expect after the banks let people borrow vast amounts of money they couldn't afford?
As far as the forthcoming election is concerned it may or may not go against labour - I don't think it will matter much in the longer term - people are fed up with a labour government that has deserted large numbers of its former core voters and only supports the rich or the better off as well as those who live off the state, leaving those in the middle to pay the taxes and fend for themselves - the pay back is imminent as large numbers of those who benefited over the last 11 years are now reverting to their previous loyalties, whilst those of us who voted labour over many years and expected better, are as Darling so rightly says, "p----- off'" and have had more than enough.
One glaring example is that the SNP looks like a better bet than labour for fairnes in local taxation, that will ensure those on pensions and relatively low incomes are able to continue living in the houses for which they have paid for many times during their working years, without the punitive unfair taxation that labour inherited from the Tories, and have made even worse.
Noticeable that the labour leadership contenders are all taking about a property tax - no doubt this will be no fairer than the existing council tax as it will be suitable banded to protect the rich and better off and bear no relation to income.
Alastair Darling is correct but I'm afraid it is too late for labour now and many of them still have their heads stuck firmly in the sand.
Complain about this comment
The result will be greatly awaited, but if Labour do lose, then will there be a general election. There will be calls for it but Gordon Brown will not give in.
I would not like to see an election as the economy, at this time would not stand the turmoil that it would cause.
I pity the constituents as I have just been through Glasgow East and got pestered every day on my voting intentions
Complain about this comment
#11 Jake
These blog ratings are part of Iain Dale's blog business (designed, I think, to boost advertising revenue). They were voted on by bloggers (presumably invited by him). His meme on "Where were you when ..." and his "Thatchergate" leak from his Total Politics seem all to be part of his marketing strategy.
Complain about this comment
As a brief follow-up comment (yes, I'm looking at you, forfar-loon). I think it's always a mistake to call your political opponents names, because it leads to underrating them, and then you get beaten at elections when you didn't expect to.
Gordon Brown is not a bungler. He's an intellectual; he's a person with enormous grasp of detail; he's a person with the ability to understand complex systems. Ironically, a great deal of the credit for Tony Blair's surprising success as Prime Minister belongs to Brown.
His political faults are his arrogance, his stubbornness and his distance. Although he clearly inspires considerable loyalty in his inner circle, he lets most of his colleagues know he holds them in contempt and they don't like it. And when he's decided on a policy, you may conjure him in the bowels of christ[1] but he will not own that he was mistaken.
As Prime Minister, he's been unlucky. And some of his earlier turkeys have come home to roost. But he's neither a bungler, nor incompetent. He's an extremely experienced, tactical and wiley political operator. If we who oppose him do not treat him with with respect, he'll bite us.
[1] Prize for anyone who can remember who said that in the Scottish Parliament
Complain about this comment
Simon_Brooke:
I actually see something in Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown is a terrible Prime Minister but I believe that Gordon Brown could do well as the Foreign Minister or at least some type of Diplomant.
Complain about this comment
#17 Simon_Brooke: Thanks for looking at me Simon, but in reference to name-calling (bungler, etc.) perhaps you ought to be looking at #7 Alasdair_McGray rather than me! For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not he ;o)
You make a good point though. We all enjoy lambasting our politicians but, despite all their flaws, those at the top are very capable people (although not necessarily capable politicians!). It's something we should bear in mind when people bemoan the dearth of talent in Scotland - we've got some smart cookies in high positions all over the world.
As regards calling political opponents names, I'm with the brigadier (on one of Brain's recent threads, can't recall which one) - it's good fun once in a while, but loses its edge if over-deployed.
Complain about this comment
#17 [1]
Are you thinking of Oliver Cromwell to the General Assembly in 1650?
Complain about this comment
#17 Simon
Villifying political opponents is fine in its place - on blogs, firing up the activists etc.
It only becomes a problem if the campaign directors start believing their own propaganda and become complacent.
Since Salmond is widely recognised as being one of the smartest political operators in the UK, that seems unlikely to happen.
The "U-boat commander" wants to see a straight Salmond/Brown fight. He'll get it in Glenrothes, as they'll be the real campaign directors.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure all three candidates could make worthy MPs but they all look like "expendables" in military parlance. The one who stands to loose in this election is the SNP man, Peter Grant. I wonder if the SNP have any contingency Plan B for when they fail to gain Glenrothes?
Complain about this comment
#18 Thomas
Brown has strengths, but not those of a diplomat (and certainly not for PM). Chancellor was the best post for him, and he was good in the early days, when he'd had years to analyse and decide.
There's been lots of analysis of his personality over the years, which suggest that he has the wrong skills for politics.
There was a rather nasty thread on Guido Fawkes's blog about his mental state. There are a couple of posts from parents of autistic/Azberger's kids which are worth a look, however.
Complain about this comment
#23
I say Diplomant because apparently Brown is quite good in private debates over seriose matters. The G8 summit at Japan was suppose to have shown Browns skills for pressuring certain countries to continue with their promsies etc etc I would send Brown somewhere as a Diplomant, I guess you wouldn't so we will agree to disagree.
;-)
I very much doubt anyone would offer Brown work though...
Complain about this comment
#20, Handclapping, I was indeed thinking of Noll Cromwell, and if you're right that it was in the General Assembly and not in the Parliament that's definitely an erudition point to you!
Complain about this comment
Handclapping don't lose too much sleep worrying about it - It aint gonna happpen.
Complain about this comment
#22.
"I wonder if the SNP have any contingency Plan B for when they fail to gain Glenrothes?"
For when they fail? Can I aks what has brought you that conclusion?
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is not a bungler. He's an intellectual; he's a person with enormous grasp of detail;
He's 'book-smart'. I see no evidence of his massive IQ. All I see is a conniving, self-serving politician. He's been told since childhood that he's clever and he thinks that being clever qualifies him to tell us all what to do. Let's have Stephen Fry for PM then. He's clever. Or Jeremy Paxman.
he's a person with the ability to understand complex systems.
I see no evidence for that. His speciality is politics. Socialist politics. There's no great complexity with socialist politics. They want to take your money off you and spend it for you. You can't be trusted with your own money. That's it. There's nothing else to know.
The same 'big idea' follows through with every aspect of your life. They want to tell you where to live. Where to work. Where to smoke. Where you can travel. When you can travel. What to eat. etc etc. It's for your own good you know. You can't be trusted.
Ironically, a great deal of the credit for Tony Blair's surprising success as Prime Minister belongs to Brown.
Or possibly a great deal of the blame for Gordon Brown's chancellorship belongs to Tony Blair. Tony Blair could just as easily said 'Stop borrowing and squandering so much money Gordon. It'll end in tears. I shall sack you if you don't.'
A perfect pair of self-serving politicians who have practically bankrupt the UK.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
Thanks for the blog!
Now to answer your question: Gordon Brown, needs to decided to call for this by-election in this riding...
Complain about this comment
Here's hoping that the local branch of the Northern British NuLabor party vote for Kezia Dugdale.
Ms Dugdale, I have nothing against you personally but would delight to the sight of your current boss, Lord George Foulkes on the stump with you in Glenrothes defending distant London Labour (who even their own Chancellor admits are on the wrong end of a doing at the moment) and telling the good people of Fife who can't claim Lords Attendance Allowance (£248/day +£200 if he drives up and down) how difficult things are when you only have the two jobs. Although I'd be happy to see him down to Just The One in London.....George Foulkes - The surest guarantee of an SNP Victory !
Otherwise, a close one to call. Don't write off the Liberals - look what they did next door. The problem may be that the anti-NuLab vote is evenly split between the Nats as a protest and The Liberals as this has been Liberal "heartland" for so many years. GB will be able to trumpet in victory that the corner has been turned in his own back green, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors.
The death of John MacDougall from Lung Cancer was a tragedy and the best outcome is that whoever wins the seat, from whatever party, continues his campaign over asbestosis.
Can't see a wee NuLab Clone doing that though.
Still, can we see His Lordship out anyway? Just for some light relief.
If he's not too busy......
Complain about this comment
Its all very well for that nice Mr Brown to say that it simply isn't done for the Prime Minister to appear at By-elections, but he also happens to be the leader of his party which is, to put it charitably, facing something of a crisis.
Now, when danger threatens is the time to leave his bunker, come forward to rally the troops, sword in hand and d****ing the torpedoes, and show some Leadership..
If he doesn't the country can draw the obvious conclusions.
Complain about this comment
In the face of prevailing winds, shouldn't Labour just put up a paper candidate, in the full expectancy that he / she will be BLOWN AWAY???
:-)
Complain about this comment
There was a rather nasty thread on Guido Fawkes's blog about his mental state. There are a couple of posts from parents of autistic/Azberger's kids which are worth a look, however.
Wow. Funniest thing I've read for a long time. Cheered me up no end.
Could be Aspergers I s'pose. Folk seemed to think they can't lie too well. I see no evidence that Gordon Brown has any problems with that.
Every single one of his pre-budget and budget projections for every single year was wrong. Well you wouldn't expect him to get them bang-on would you? Nope. But you'd think they might tend to be either side of the actual figure. Maybe a bit biased on the optimistic side.
But no. Every single one was too optimistic. Ie 2 budgets/pre-budgets a year. Typically spending (borrowing) plans for 5 years into the future in each budget. So getting on for one hundred budget deficit projections. All wrong. All too low.
That's not coincidence.
That's the economic catastrophe we're looking at.
Complain about this comment
my moneys on thursday december 18-just as parliament begins its month long christmas holiday.Well it worked with Glasgow East!
Complain about this comment
#34 Iain
I still have a suspicion that we might not get a "bye-bye"-election (as forfar-loon put it) in Glenrothes.
If it becomes clear to him that Labour want to dump him, I wouldn't be surprised if he went to see Lizzie and called a snap General Election.
Complain about this comment
Law of averages, Brown will go up, Salmond will go down. It'll be a long wait for the by-election.
Complain about this comment
The Guardian Politics Blog has an article on Glenrothes.
Complain about this comment
According to an ex-colleague in Fife, Kirkcaldy HS in 2008 had the poorest performance at Credit level in S4 ever.
As he points out, it would be silly to have expected Roy to turn round a long term problem in a few months, but it might make it more difficult for Roy to criticise the SNP for not having solved all Scotland's problems in a year.
Complain about this comment
One thing Gordon Brown and his Scottish Labour party have so-far not counted on is the re-emergence of Black Watch and Scottish Regiment campaigners!
Glenrothes is Black Watch home turf and people have not forgotten the disgraceful treatment of the Black Watch.
A potential candidate may yet be lined up to target disaffected Labour voters.
Complain about this comment
#17 Simon_Brooke
If you really believe that the Right Hon. James Gordon Brown, MP, PM was in full possession of his marbles on Saturday 9 August, please listen to the audio I link to in my #122 on the previous thread and explain what you think the following two sentences mean in the light of the fact the UK is a founder member of the EU: "I wouldn't like to see health care being denied to a Scot in England or to an English person in Scotland. I think the principle of the health service that we all accept is the right to healthcare in any part of the United Kingdom, the right to work in any part of the United Kingdom, the right to a pension no matter which part of the United Kingdom you live in."
If that's too hard, perhaps you could explain the meaning you impart to the words "intellectual" and "he's a person with enormous grasp of detail" and "he's a person with the ability to understand complex systems".
In the light of the rest of your comment, I'll try to be charitable, but at best do you not think it shows contempt for the intelligence of his audience?
Complain about this comment
Oldnat
SNP have beenin government for a lot longer than a year. May 2007 to present is 15 coming on 16 months. The we've just arrived excuse has to stop.
I think the SNP bubble will burst. Today we have el presidente on TV proclaiming Hydro Power to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but doing NOTHING to remove the obstacles to new schemes. The guy from SSE standing beside him saying they can't get planning for new schemes.
He wants tidal power, even offered a £10m prize for designs, but has increased the obstacles to getting on with it.
He wants wind power but his government keeps scaling back or refusing plans. He proclaims we will lead the world in renewables. tell the guys getting paid off at campletown, I am sure they won't agree. At this rate we will get nowhere. We need grid improvements to maximise potential but they keep putting off vital decisions. Without this the best areas of Scotland will remain untapped. Poor, very poor
Scotland will soon realise that he is a bit of a wind bag, just like the rest. He says one thing does another. In fact he will say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear.
Gordon might be unpopular and deservedly so but at least he did have a period where he achieved something.
The clock is ticking, actions speak louder than words, we need some action. I think the people in Glenrothes will start to realise that the difference between the two is not all that much. One pile of waffle against another pile of waffle
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, an interesting by-election this could turn out to be.
As anyone who has read any of my previous comments will be aware, I am a (proud) member of the SNP, so please bear my bias in mind.
That being said, I feel the SNP will probably win this one. I say that not out of political loyalty, merely because I honestly believe that whilst Labour have managed to turn things around a teensy bit since the summer when constant think pieces on Gordon being given the boot were circulating, they still haven't managed to really come back all that much.
The SNP on the other hand keep going from strength to strength. Wee Eck is untouchable. Nothing short of a major sex scandal involving at least 5 sheep, a corruption scandal (involving him selling arms nukes to Iran) or reports that he's really an activist for the BNP can rattle him now (I hasten to add none of these are true. That I know of.) Moreover the general mood of the country seems to be far more positive than before the SNP got in, with feelings that despite the economic situation being grim, at least we've got Holyrood there to try and defend us from the Wombles of Westminster.
All the polls show the SNP in a pretty strong position with Peter Grant being well respected in the area, and Labour either pulling another teacher out of school to play in the Big Boy's Playground (and the some-time future Ambassador to Malawi will tell you how well that ends), or some unknown fruit-in-a-suit that'll get slaughtered in any debates they enter into with Grant.
Wonder if they'll hold a General Election in the spring or if we'll get a snap one in January. I'm guessing January to try and hold the "festive" spirit. You know, "season of Goodwill" and all that, rather than "season of Give Labour a Well Deserved Shafting".
If the new PM actually holds one that is. Odds are about equal they'll try and hold out till 2010. 'Course, as someone else pointed out, GB might well go to Lizzie before he can get pushed...
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
New Populus poll for the Times here
Complain about this comment
#41 northhighlander
I've said all along that there is little separating any of the political parties in Scotland, other than the constitutional issue.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Brownedov
The Times report is on polling at the end of August, but the details not released on Populus yet.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #40
A dastardly "l" snuck out of my link to break it. Should be: #122 on the previous thread.
Complain about this comment
#41 northhighlander
I agree with your last sentence because its all written above it!
I would suggest that you do some research before decrying schemes which were non starters from the begining. e.g. The windmills on Lewis were to large and in the wrong place to ever be economical or environmentally sound.
What did GB achieve, sold the UK's gold reserve at a knock down price, remove the 10p tax rate to hit the poorest and this is allegedly being given back to those that it didn't affect but is not being returned to over a million of those who need it back.
Complain about this comment
The Labour choice tonight will be interesting because, again, the head teacher guy will probably be the 4th choice:
1st choice: Alex Rowley, former Gen.Sec. of Scottish Labour, former Fife Council Leader and Brown's agent.
2nd Choice: Christine May, former MSP for the seat.
3rd choice: Kay Morrison, long standing local councillor.
The reality is that politically and professionally, the head teacher has nothing to lose. He can walk back to his career in teaching which by all accounts he excels at. Whilst the others all have implications for labour if they lose, as well as their own careers.
Complain about this comment
Out of interest, will the ballot papers actually state the political party first rather than "Alex Salmond representative to win"?
I think Labour will lose this one as well.
I'm more interested in how the Lib-Dems fare. An early test of Tavis Scott's leadership?
#41 Put Alex Salmond next to the wind farms, then we are guaranteed blowing air all year!
Seriously, how can the FM possibly complain about high energy prices when he is against nuclear power and coal? Tidal barriers are objected to by environmentalists on account of destroying wildlife, and the same arguments about wind farms!
#42 I cannot see a General Election until the last possible minute. If he went to the polls in January, the SNP would make considerable gains in Scotland - but not perhaps as many as some might expect.
Alex Salmond obviously wants an early election, since the longer we wait the more chances are that the popularity of the SNP will drop. And Alex has yet to make any clangers.
Complain about this comment
Although, as I said, Alex Salmond and the SNP have done more in 15 months than Labour in 50 years for Scotland. And the best is yet to come.
And they may do more in the next 15 months than Labour in 50 years for England too.
Cheers chaps. Here's to burying the socialists north and south of the border. No flowers please.
Complain about this comment
#40 Brownedov
The Uk may have been a member of the rebranding exercise known as Masstricht, the European Economic Community (ok rembranding exercise is perhaps a little flippant but im sure my meaning isnt missed) which existed long before then and the UK wasent a member of until the 70's thanks largely to Charles De Gaulls refusual to allow UK to join.
apologies for being pedantic with this however it is a valid point, methinks Brownedov may have been more precise with his comment had he said that the Masstircht Treaty (which was ratified by the Tory UK government) allows for free movement of goods and services between memeber states (just dont tell the Customs and Excise that as they refuse to beleive that under this you can stock up on fags and booze in mainland europe to escape the majority of uk taxes and established the principle of subsidiarity which allowed for devolutuion to the lowest possible level of governemtn for major decision making...quite how that has led to the plethora of EU directives on everything over the years since I will never know.
Back to the point however, I think Labour are often guilty of getting carried away with their hammering of Scottish Independance however in the absence of any firm plans on things such as the NHS, Defence, Pensions, and immigration, all i don know is whatever they are planning on doing should they acheive independance is that it will all be paid for my North Sea oil everyone will get whatever they want for free and that we will collect less tax from business invest as much as Norway and have perfect health care smarter more well behaved kids and finally have lordship over our own lands which were stolen by them nasty english 300 years ago....ok once again being fecesious (im terrible at spelling, and gammar, and many other things but i think iv made my point)
Complain about this comment
#43 oldnat
Only 85 in the weighted Scottish sample BEFORE removing don't knows, so won't be very meaningful but I'll have a go.
In hotel in Dunkirk now before setting off for Blighty by ferry on the morrow, so not sure when I will be able to post (cleft sticks now in short supply on island, I believe) but will do what I can.
Complain about this comment
With Glenrothes looming and the price of living escalating.Will that have an negative effect on the turn out for Glenrothes,all the political parties are trying to hold the centre ground, yet, the honest position of todays economics are bound to have an adverse affect on the publics mood, in terms of voting,so the big question Is,who would benifit most from a poor turn out, say a turn out in the low 30% region?
Complain about this comment
Lindsay Roy was chosen to fight the Glenrothes by-election tonight. On the face of it I would say he is probably the next best Fife candidate to Henry McLiesh.
However, Labour do leave themselves open to a rather obvious charge.
If Kirkcaldy High of all places was in such a state that Lindsay Roy was brought in to save the day because of his excellent reputation as a Headmaster, is Labour not being rather selfish in removing him from post to fight the by-election?
In short, Labour is putting its own party needs before that of the students of Kirkcaldy high School. Not necessarily a clever move.
Complain about this comment
#46 oldnat
Yes - I just realised the link in your #43 was the July equivalent. At least I can have an early night after a long drive with a cleanish conscience. I'll look again and post something when I have the chance.
Complain about this comment
u9461192
#51
Brave talk, considering the nats 30Bn budget is shrinking 3% on a daily basis and the likely- hood that inflation will increase.
Its about economics and stability (u9461192)
People will vote for the best stability,the nats have got to convince the people they have a coherent and stable economic plan.
Complain about this comment
#52 masingo
Sorry if I didn't choose my words carefully enough. I agree that the UK was never a member of the ECSC and was late to the party in the EEC, but I think that it was a founder-member of both the EC and the EU. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
However, your last para seems to be unclear about whether the SNP are committed to staying in the EU. I think they are, but as I'm not a member I'll leave it for one of them to confirm or deny.
What is easy to confirm is Your rights as an EU Citizen.
Complain about this comment
Mr Roy
What is your attitude to the UK MoD delaying compensation to victims of mesothelioma?
Complain about this comment
People will vote for the best stability,the nats have got to convince the people they have a coherent and stable economic plan.
Not at all. Otherwise Labour would never have got in power from the Tories. I mean, do you not remember the 1970's? Never mind if you don't. They'll shortly be arriving, along with the IMF, at a country near you.
All Alex has to do is spend his guaranteed block grant - no worrying about tax revenue shortfalls for him - and continue to snipe at the rapidly sinking UKPlc with Gordon Brown, Squaunderer in Chief, at the helm.
Dead easy. That's all Cameron plans to do either.
Complain about this comment
#55 Brian
The longer that Brown delays the election, the longer KHS will be lacking the whole-hearted leadership it so obviously needs. A quick election will allow Roy to return to his post more quickly (until he retires next year, as most HTs go at 60).
Complain about this comment
I see that David Cairns was at his sparkling best.
Who was the BBC journalist?
Complain about this comment
#51. U9461192 said
"'Although, as I said, Alex Salmond and the SNP have done more in 15 months than Labour in 50 years for Scotland. And the best is yet to come.'
"!And they may do more in the next 15 months than Labour in 50 years for England too.
"Cheers chaps. Here's to burying the socialists north and south of the border. No flowers please. "
Socialists??? Are you referring to New Labour. They're anything but socialist.
Interesting too that you should see the SNP in those terms. Do you want to elaborate?
Complain about this comment
#60
Yes, I remember the 1970s well.
You have got to be realistic here, inflation hurts AS and the public just as much as anyone else,the 85m shortfall in the nats NHS budget is a factor related too the increase in inflation.
The public want to know who can support them in these difficult times,what they dont need is some Dr Who? episode of future times in greener pastures (get real)there is a global economic down-turn and this admins minority is unable to commit nor deal with this complex matter....
Complain about this comment
Angus Mcleod on Henry McLeish's article in the Times (which doesn't seem to be available yet).
If the Lib-Dems don't get a move on, Henry will be leading the fight for a Federal approach.
Complain about this comment
Here's Henry McLeish speaking for himself.
Complain about this comment
Socialists??? Are you referring to New Labour. They're anything but socialist.
Hmmmm. Borrowing hundreds of billions to squander on 'public services'. Increased overall taxation. Increased 'public service employment'. Economy absolutely shot. Not socialist? What else would you call that?
Interesting too that you should see the SNP in those terms. Do you want to elaborate?
Certainly. The SNP will be the liberators of England from such further socialist destruction. Cheers chaps. Big thumbs up all round. You get what you want and we get what we want.
Everybody is happy except for the socialists. Like I said. No flowers. Unmarked grave. Unlamented.
Complain about this comment
#66 oldnat
Pity he didn't stand for the LibDem leadership.
Goodnight ....... early start tomorrow
Complain about this comment
#67
If you are refering too Mr Swinneys efficiency saving programme, then you must by reason accept, that those savings will result in higher unemployment, there-fore you are advocating the thatcher position (supported by your leader) that the arch- nats have a conservative agenda to create mass unemployment in Scotland.
Could I suggest, YOU TAKE YOUR KANGAROO COURT OF MISGIVINGS TO THE PEOLPLE OF GLENROTHES.
Complain about this comment
60. At 10:35pm on 01 Sep 2008, U9461192 wrote:
All Alex has to do is spend his guaranteed block grant - no worrying about tax revenue shortfalls for him - and continue to snipe at the rapidly sinking UKPlc with Gordon Brown, Squaunderer in Chief, at the helm.
That is probably the best comment I've seen here tonight.
Alex is worried about Labour losing, since the Conservatives, without any worries about losing votes in Scotland, might decide to overturn the current formula for one that favours England.
Now, that makes independence more attractive to the general population, but it also means that the SNP have to come up with a very good economic plan. And that means cuts to many of the services now available, since they will be relying on tax revenue. Unless they are going to bet everything on the oil revenue. You can guarantee that the oil issue will end up being dragged through the courts for years.
So if cuts are to be made, where will they come from? Armed Forces? Scots make up a high percentage of the Armed Forces. That means pensions have to be paid - who will pay them? Will the SNP remove the index link? NHS? Council Services?
The SNP have to come clean with a contingency plans for a lack of oil revenue, and the long term plans. They are against nuclear and fossil fuels. How will people heat their homes? How will industry get their energy? From England?
In this world of globalisation, and where we are more and more ruled by Europe. What exactly are the LONG TERM benefits of independence?
Labour have to push these issues at the by e-election. At the very worst they might salvage some dignity from a defeat. At best they might even scrape a win.
Complain about this comment
Well it's Lindsay Roy!
Wonder how they explain that to the pupils and their parents of the school he was sent into, to pull out of the doldrums?
And potential rectors are not exactly falling over themselves to take the posts available either.
Do many youngsters from Glenrothes attend Kirkcaldy High? Still the school jungle drums are very effective communicators. And how much of a 'yes' man is he, to the party machine?
Does he put his country first?
Interesting.
But when can the Glenrothes folk, expect to elect their MP. They must wonder at the rush in Glasgow East, but not for them.
Complain about this comment
#70 Neil
As usual you are confused.
You talk about Cameron adjusting the Barnett formula "to England's advantage". That can only happen within the UK, so your talk of cutting Armed Forces pensions is the irrelevant scare-mongering garbage that you lot have been spitting out for years.
If Cameron makes England independent from Scotland by revoking the Treaty of Union, then Scotland has full access to all of it's resources plus 10% of all UK assets.
Fortunately for Labour, Brown and Roy have considerably more political sense than you, and won't doom Labour to such ludicrous posturing.
Complain about this comment
#71 tammienorrielass1
Kirkcaldy High doesn't draw from the Glenrothes constituency, but family ties are close between Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy, so many voters will have relatives at KHS.
The longer the bye-election is delayed, the worse the effect will be on the school. Schools are communities, and to know that theirnew leader is desperate to abandon you after a few months, will be demoralising for pupils and staff alike.
Even when he loses, and returns to KHS after his election leave of absence, his authority will be shot.
Complain about this comment
#72.
"If Cameron makes England independent from Scotland by revoking the Treaty of Union, then Scotland has full access to all of it's resources plus 10% of all UK assets."
That would be the basic idea. How would you propose we settle our countries debt? Would you presume that Scotland would also pick up 10% of the bill?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#74 Thomas
If you mean the National Debt. Of course. Scotland isn't going to be the only country in the world without a National Debt.
Complain about this comment
I note the usual Scotland's economy is too, small, too weak, based on oil tosh being churned out above.
Mr Small, are you worried for Kuwait which has smaller oil reserves than are to be found in the Scottish sector of the North Sea?
The problems for hydro is that Liebour held back planning applications so they could throw money at the more fashionable wind farms. Another Liebour huff over Wee Eck winning in Banff saw a leading edge power technology in Peterhead being shut down and BP taking their knowledge, future engineering and development jobs elsewhere.
The problem for many of Scotland's wind farms is when they will be needed most, in mid winter, many will have little or no wind.
The Scottish CBI is on record as saying that the Scottish economy is better placed to weather the current storm than the rest of the UK because of the diverse mix of Scottish based companies, from banking to oil.
The harsh reality since 1707 is the Union and the UK has had only one impact on Scotland and that is to stagnate and slow down its economic growth. Westminster taxation continues to suck the life out of Scotland.
As for War Pensions and the like; they will remain payable by the MoD for those of us who served in the UK's armed forces prior to independence. The precedence? The Gurkha's recent victory in the English Courts.
Complain about this comment
#72
Cameron, if? elected would probably legislate for Scottish MPs not to have a vote on English matters, so the Scottish MPs re-mit becomes nil and void in terms of, day to day process of westminster parliament.
What agreement do you think Cameron and Salmond would come to, on the west lothian question?
Complain about this comment
#74 Thomas
PS England can keep the Trident subs, and we'll offset that against the debt.
Complain about this comment
#76.
Of course our National Debt. How do you propose we settle it though. Our countries debt has been built on issues that Scotland and our Scottish Government opposes. Would you agree that Scotland should only accept debts that on occasions, the money has been spent in Scotland or on Scotlands shared interests in the UK and elsewhere. I believe that would be fairer instead of Scotland picking up part of the bill for Trident.
Complain about this comment
#78.
It would be difficult for Scottish MP's to not vote on apprently 'English matters'. If British money is spent on up-grading services in England for the NHS then surely Scottish MP's should be able to vote on this matter since afterall its our money to? England would have to be put an a leash when it comes to spending similar to our Scottish Grant or Scottish MP's should be able to vote on all matters concerning England to control the amount of money England gets.
Complain about this comment
#80 Thomas
The reality of negotiations will be that we won't be able to pick and choose. Scots voters elected Labour MPs for most of the post war period, and they dutifully trooped through the lobbies to vote for the Brit's imperialist pretensions, so we're stuck with it.
Complain about this comment
A thousand curses on this Firefox up-grade. Now, again in [Clears throat and spits - Internet Explorer]
If you are refering too Mr Swinneys efficiency saving programme, then you must by reason accept, that those savings will result in higher unemployment,
You say that like it's a bad thing. Scotland (and the wider UK) could use another good dose of weaning off unnecessary tax-payer sponsored non-jobs. Labour has been in power for 11 years. The SNP for 14 plus months. Where are the re-opened mines? The re-opened shipyards? The reinstallment of the dock-labour scheme? If jobs have to go then they have to go. Getting 'employed' by the government shouldn't be a one-way trip to never-ending payrises, index-linked pensions, annual guaranteed grade increases and tea-breaks.
Complain about this comment
there-fore you are advocating the thatcher position (supported by your leader) that the arch-nats have a conservative agenda to create mass unemployment in Scotland
If I thought the SNP had a conservative agenda I wouldn't have left Scotland. Weather aside. But there is no way the SNP will be able to make a conservative agenda stick. While Labour is out of fashion they have been too successful in their destruction of conservative values. Self-sufficiency. Small state. Low taxes.
The SNP will get involved in a death spiral to squander as much of the oil revenue as possible. Now. On me. Because we deserve it. There will be no oil fund. Labour and the Liberals will see to that.
Complain about this comment
Re 48
Again more excuses. they are two large, in worng place etc. The truth is the SNP government is weak on decision making in this area. All of teh capacity north of Stirling cannot be connected because the grid capacity is not there. Is this a priority for the SNP government? No.
Thereofre we have classic politician talk, say one thing and do another.
When renewable development stops because of this inaction, I bet it will be Westminsters fault and big bad Gordon really is to blame!
As I have said before the more we change the more we stay the same. SNP or labour, there really is no difference.
Complain about this comment
Having resisted joining any one specific particular political party, even during several years of TU activity, I can honestly say I'm slightly tempted to offer my services to the SNP for canvasing duties during the run-up to this by-election. Partly because I feel a strong SNP will fare better if they have to deal with a potential future UK Tory threat. I'm convinced UK Labour will be more than willing to get into bed with UK Tories, if it means thwarting the SNP.
Complain about this comment
84. There will be no oil fund as there is not enough oil revenue to cover existing expenditure, let alone anything left over to invest. Any opposition is irrelevant.
Remember; if investing #1bn a year in any fund, it will be 40-50 years before #1bn can be withdrawn after inflation is considered.
Oil is now down to $105 a barrel, by the way, 30% down on its recent peak. The Grant Thornton forecast of a "#4.4bn surplus" quoted so often by the SNP, is now proven as wildly optimistic.
And which arch-nats confidently predicted $200 a barrel by year's end? Own up, we know who you are.
Complain about this comment
"As the Scottish play notes, 'if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly'."
This is only good advice for someone who's contemplating a surprise attack on a weak and unsuspecting foe. That hardly describes Brown's position.
I'm sure he knows (at least he now should) that another quick contest that goes very badly could be the beginning of the end for his premiership.
Brown's actual position (even if you don't like to hear it) is that he's politically vulnerable and facing a formidable SNP opponent who knows that he's vulnerable.
Brown would be well advised to wait until his own position is stronger and the SNP's weaker before calling the by-election.
Meanwhile you can forget about using language that tries to cast Brown as an aggressor with control over the situation because it's not fooling anyone.
Complain about this comment
81. Oh, take a break from yourself.
You are back to that ridiculous nonsense, believed only by a minority of young nats, that Scotland is not in deficit.
Well, it is. Grow up, get used to it and stop embarrassing yourself by trying to pretend otherwise!
Complain about this comment
#83. U9461192
A thousand curses on this Firefox up-grade. Now, again in [Clears throat and spits - Internet Explorer]
Ironic to see you generally favour the pinko-commie Open Source Firefox over that triumph of capitalism Internet Explorer!
"Conservative" policy to decimate Scotland for strategic political rather than economic reasons was why I left, what's your excuse?
Complain about this comment
#40, Brownedov
The UK is not a founder member of the EU. My father negotiated part of EU accession while I was in my teens, so I remember this clearly. De Gaule said 'non', and the French started a diplomatic incident because my father, although a Scottish Office civil servant, was a Canadian and not a British citizen.
I assume that Brown is there attempting to play the 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' card, pretending that he thinks it probable that an independent Scotland would not automatically be a member of the EU. I did not say that Brown was not mendacious.
I suggest you buy a dictionary.
Complain about this comment
#89 Expat
Do you also accept that the UK is in deficit?
Complain about this comment
Bungler Brown and Desparate Darling are at it with freebies as predicted.
Whatever the X Factor is, this shambolic pair haven't got it. I don't think the judges would let them through to the next round.
Bungler Brown would be upset as he has always craved to be a star, but Desparate Darling has already thrown in the towel, he knows he's a long standing chancer, well past his sell by.
Long gone are the days of sceranading the city for poor old bungler, the fat cats have deserted him. So predictable!
What left for poor old Bungler, frankly, after the 20p tax scandal, Northern Rock, Iraq, Afganistan, dodgey Labour funding and Trident on the Clyde, who cares?
Complain about this comment
#87 You are always correct and the fount of all knowledge, or not as it always seems. Let me enlighten you.
This is still the US summer. The oil price will increase in the US winter, November onwards as they require more energy.
The problem with the oil price is not a shortage of oil supply it is a shortage of refinery capacity. Unfortunately it takes 10-15 years to build a modern oil refinery (I did some design work for Saudi Aramco in Reading last year). Correct it is smoke and mirrors, but they will last for a long time.
There have been no new refineries built in the US for 26 years yet American demand has increased 30%+ in the intravening period. The resulting rate hike is based on such fundamental fears as the US is now pricing the developing world out of refined petroleum supplies and could be for many years to come.
The oil markets are learning the true meaning of the economic term scarcity.
Complain about this comment
#81
Again you change your position from a previous thread.
Mr Porter, I dont suffer fools gladly,untill you make some sense,you will be ignored!
Complain about this comment
#87 With regards to the expectation of $200/stb of oil, that was one Argun Murti the energy advisor of Goldman Sachs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7387203.stm
Who knows perhaps Nats have 'infected' Argun Murti thanks to 'independence by creep' due to saltires on trains. Or mabye you are simply as delusional about the political situation in Scotland as you are about its commentators.
Complain about this comment
Bungler Brown and Desparate Darling are at it with freebies as predicted.
Whatever the X Factor is, this shambolic pair haven't got it. I don't think the judges would let them through to the next round.
Bungler Brown would be upset as he has always craved to be a star, but Desparate Darling has already thrown in the towel, he knows he's a long standing chancer, well past his sell by.
Long gone are the days of sceranading the city for poor old bungler, the fat cats have deserted him. So predictable!
What left for poor old Bungler, frankly, after the 20p tax scandal, Northern Rock, Iraq, Afganistan, dodgey Labour funding and Trudent on the Clyde, who cares?
Complain about this comment
#85 northhighlander
"All of teh capacity north of Stirling cannot be connected because the grid capacity is not there. Is this a priority for the SNP government? No."
Building out grid capacity to that extent in order to carry non-baseload power is an exercise in futility. Carrying baseload power over that distance to satisfy overwhelming demand in a localised area of the Central Belt is merely inefficient.
When push comes to shove, the SNP may have to accept that nuclear may have to be an element of a coherent long-term energy policy - even our future energy independence could be boosted by biting the bullet and mining uranium ore in Orkney.
In my mind, taking on the tough questions around energy policy will be the acid-test of the SNP, as it is by far the most important issue affecting any kind of viable Scottish state.
Complain about this comment
#87, at the time Grant Thornton made that forecast, oil was less than $90 a barrel. So it's more than 20% up on then.
No economy should be built on one resource, of course. But only half of the known reserves of oil and gas in Scottish waters have yet been recovered, and there will inevitably be some exploitable reserves which have not yet been discovered. Furthermore, although the $200 dollar barrel may not happen this year, the price will continue to rise for the forseeable future - your lifetime and mine - and as it does Scotland's income from these resources will rise.
On the other side of the balance sheet, a substantial chunk of the deficit is made up of post-imperial delusions of grandeur. Scotland will not need a nuclear arsenal, nor to take part in America's imperial adventures overseas.
Scotland is one of the richest 10% of nations in the world any way you cut it, and the idea that somehow we couldn't afford to be independent just won't wash.
Complain about this comment
92. Of course I do.
I'm certainly not happy with the state of public finances but I'm also certainly not going to deny it in a ridiculous attempt to score 'virtual' points.
Complain about this comment
"Conservative" policy to decimate Scotland for strategic political rather than economic reasons was why I left, what's your excuse?
A whole host of reasons. In no particular order.
1) I'm not Scottish so I have no natural urge to remain. Quite the opposite. The weather is appalling. I'm amazed there is anybody left.
2) My wife's company agreed to move us to the warmer South of England. Their charge.
3) My kids are just at the age when it might be getting too late to move schools. They'd be in the Scottish 'system'. Highers - whatever they sit - which would tend to target them towards Scottish universities - Scottish boyfriends/girlfriends - basically if we didn't move now we may have ended stuck up there.
4) Downsizing. Made a heap on the big house we bought but heating/maintenance would be more of an issue as we get older - and with oil at 140USD a barrel. It was costing 1000GBP a month in January (yep - thats one thousand) and that was just to heat half the house for a few hours each day. Yes - it was a big house. Now I'm filthy rich and waiting for the housing crash to play out.
5) Escaping the potential slide into ruin once the SNP get independence. Not because the SNP are incompetent. But because the Socialists will promise to spend every cent of that oil money on more instant gratification. And the essentially socialist Scottish public will go for that. Yeah, it's oor oil. Lets paaaaarty. But one day there'll be no oil but 70% of the 'jobs' will be non-jobs funded by the government. And how will they pay for that? Not by taxing me out of my big house. I'm off.
Since you ask.
Funny though. You were running from the Tories and I'm running from the socialists. Maybe that's why the SNP are the only ones left.
Complain about this comment
#99
Simon, if you believe that Scotland, is as rich as you say, then back it up with an Independent economic plan.
If you are arguing for an increased rate of the price of a barrel of oil,what rate of inflation would an Independent Scotland have.
Complain about this comment
99. You've brought into every nat myth, hook, line and sinker, haven't you.
As I am always having to advise people: Confirm what you are told by others before you accept it as fact.
The Grant Thornton forecast on future prices, not just current prices. Read up on it.
The "half of the oil is still unrecovered" is based largely on highest-possible forecasts from still-undiscovered oilfields and is only a best-case-scenario forecast. It is most certainly not a guaranteed fact. Read up on it.
I remember arch-nats claiming the new 'Buzzard' field is the saviour of our oil economy - yet it barely produces 10% of total current production. Read up on it.
You also seem to forget the fast depleting oil production levels too. What's the point of having high oil prices if you have very little to sell?
And then you get silly with the inevitable 'Brit imperialist' nonsense.
Complain about this comment
#103 reluctant-expat, never right and wrong again.
You are quite incorrect, the usual depletion of STOOIP is 33% due to the nature of the bedrock in most oil producing areas. We are quite lucky in Scotland that the reservoir engineers predict 66% depletion before the end of most north-sea reservoirsa. There were some mistakes made with fields in the 90s which were closed in at 33% and some have actually been re-opened with new infrastructure!
A good example of this is the Argyll field which is churning away quite happily today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1763008.stm
Thus we are half way with most fields, obviously production rates have decreased due the age of the reservoirs but the number of fields coming on line in the next four years is fairly promising in terms of production rates.
I think a little retrospection on your part is required before lecturing others about confirming what you are told by others before you accept it as fact.
Complain about this comment
#101. U9461192
"Funny though. You were running from the Tories and I'm running from the socialists. Maybe that's why the SNP are the only ones left."
I remember the straw that broke the camel's back for me was ending up in Glasgow on bus deregulation day. No problem getting to the train station in that surreal farce in order to escape for what I thought was forever.
You raise a very valid point regarding the oil money, and agreed that Scotland has an essentially socialist public, but regarding the 'non-jobs' question - geographically and demographically Scotland will always need a more expensive per-capita public-sector infrastructure than England. As long as this doesn't get out of hand, it wouldn't necessarily affect the viability of a Scottish state. I live and work in a Scandinavian country with no oil reserves and vast tracts of sparsely-populated land, and it suits me just fine, thanks.
The SNP are using very powerful tools by focusing their rhetoric on comparisons with Scandinavia - it plays very well with the "socialist" public. Many or most people in Scotland would likely be under the impression that Scandinavians have an overall better quality of life, and they would be absolutely right. That coupled with the natural pull of self-determination being a Good Thing(tm), and a reasonable SNP performance as a devolved administration means that the union is under serious threat. Personally I have no problem with that - I think the costs to Scotland of the union have been to high.
Hope your new life South of the Border in Mexico is good to you ;-)
Complain about this comment
Hope your new life South of the Border in Mexico is good to you ;-)
It's nachos and Coronas every night amigo. Mexico is great if you've got money.
Best of luck north of the border in Siberia ;-).
Complain about this comment
104. Enough.
From a reputable website (although I fully expect nats to denounce this as 'fraud' or part of that apparent 'international conspiracy to destroy Scotland'):
https://www.og.berr.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/Table4_3.htm
As of end of 2006: Maximum oil reserves (remaining), combining proven plus probable plus possible reserves figures...is 1,254 million tonnes.
Cumulative oil production to the end of 2006 stood at 3,167 million tonnes.
Therefore 60% of all possible oil has been extracted. What's left includes "probable" and "possible" reserves (the latter based on high-end forecasts of reserves in still-undiscovered oilfields).
Do you see any guaranteed revenue streams there? No, of course not.
As for those fields coming online, 'Buzzard' was, by far, the largest of them all - yet produces only 180,000 barrels a day.
And if you are genuinely inside the oil industry, then you should be fully aware of the sheer folly on relying so heavily on oil income when it is totally outside govt control.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
"You are back to that ridiculous nonsense, believed only by a minority of young nats, that Scotland is not in deficit."
Now, where exactly did I state that Scotland is not in a deficit? Do you not find it rather pathetic that you insist on creating stories based on lies?
Complain about this comment
105. More yet from the same source:
"Annual oil production was 77 million tonnes in 2006.
Proven oil reserves at the end of 2006 stand at 479 million tonnes."
This is the closest thing to any guarantee we have of future oil production.
Even taking the most optimistic scenario available of 1,254 million tonnes in reserves and 77 million tonnes produced (thereby producing the highest tax revenue) = the taps run dry in 16 years time.
And this is clearly good enough for the SNP to detach us from the existing secure income stream and instead bank on oil for a quarter of our tax revenue.
Complain about this comment
Even taking the most optimistic scenario available of 1,254 million tonnes in reserves and 77 million tonnes produced (thereby producing the highest tax revenue) = the taps run dry in 16 years time.
And this is clearly good enough for the SNP to detach us from the existing secure income stream and instead bank on oil for a quarter of our tax revenue.
Run! Run like the wind. Except it's too late to get out. House prices are falling. Yes, even in Scotland. There is no money left to lend. You can't even sell. The banks are in the toilet. The national debt is about to go hyperbolic.
Save yourselves!
And some say they want the economic brain trust that did this to the entire UK crystallized and let loose on an independent Scotland? Okaaaay. If you're sure that's what you want..
Gosh, but that was good timing on our part.
Complain about this comment
#109 Correct, there have been 25 years of oil, there will be 25 years of oil in the future at decreased production rates as peak oil has been reached.
However your use of statistics is selective and/or wrong. Check your sources, I like to go to the people who claim to know these things, BERR.
https://www.og.berr.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/appendices/Appendix9.htm
In 2006 the production rate of oil in the UKCS/onshore+offshore was 71.4 Million tonnes.
This already pushes your simple sum to 17.6 years instead of 16.
Now with production decreasing linearly by 2 million tonnes per year (the decrease in production likely higher) the oil lasts for just over 28 years.
In addition you are clearly a pessimist, Scotland has a wealth of additional resources and economic activities over and about the oil and gas industry. You simply chose to ignore them when considering the economics of independence.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
Slight problem. Let us assume that the taps will run dry in 16 years time. Tens of thousands of people rely on the oil industry for employment and at least 25% of all companies/industries in Aberdeen alone relies on the oil industry for their business. With Britain encouraging no alternative business to be set up, we are pretty much screwed, yeah?
I don't see Britain rushing in encouraging investment to create alternative employment for the future...
Complain about this comment
#112
"Aberdeen alone relies on the oil industry for their business. With Britain encouraging no alternative business to be set up, we are pretty much screwed, yeah?"
Even worse, we could have some vile Thatcher-spawn closing down economically-viable wells to line the pockets of foreign cronies in other energy industries.
Complain about this comment
112 et all
Do unionists ever offer any argument for the union which does not involve scaremongering and blatant lies? Is their glass always half empty?
If you guys rely on telling the Scots that they cannot afford the independence every other country enjoys then it's no wonder that every unionist party is flushing down the plughole.
Ambition for Scotland is in the SNP's DNA. Unionists on the other hand have to defend a union where we are constantly outvoted 10-1 on every major issue.
The lies (helped by the press) didn't work at the last election so why on earth do you think they will work now?
Complain about this comment
joe #114
Joe, no one is saying they feel less Scottish because they are apart of the UK.
The arch-nats have got to be consistent and offer a viable coherent economic plan.
If nationalism, means cuts in services, high unemployment and low taxation for the rich based on the assumption of oil revenues, then surely the people have a right to question that false allegation.....
Complain about this comment
#107 and #109 Reluctant-Expat:
"What's left includes "probable" and "possible" reserves (the latter based on high-end forecasts of reserves in still-undiscovered oilfields)."
Erm, pardon my ignorance, but how does one forecast reserves from "still-undiscovered oilfields"? (How many fields? How big are they? etc., etc.) A touch of the "unknown unknowns" to it. So I took a look at that website of yours. Interesting reading...
Definition of "Reserves" - Discovered, remaining reserves which are recoverable and commercial.
Reserves are categorised as being "proven", "probable" or "possible" based on confidence levels, as follows:
Proven - Reserves which on the available evidence are virtually certain to be technically and commercially producible, i.e. have a better than 90% chance of being produced.
Probable - Reserves which are not yet proven, but which are estimated to have a better than 50% chance of being technically and commercially producible.
Possible - Reserves which at present cannot be regarded as probable, but which are estimated to have a significant but less than 50% chance of being technically and commercially producible.
Reluctant-Expat, I can't quite square this definition of possible reserves with the one you chose to provide to us ("...based on high-end forecasts of reserves in still-undiscovered oilfields"). Perhaps you can explain the discrepancy and tell us where you got your definition from?
One line from the webpage that you chose not to share with us is as follows:
Note that there are also "Potential additional resources" in fields and drilled prospects for which there are no current plans for development. These are listed in a separate section on the website.
(For any conspiracy theorists among us - I know you need feeding from time to time ;o) - note that the link provided in this sentence is broken!)
I also note that the data on the page is due to be updated in September 2008 - watch that space!
Finally, let me second #111 BrianSH's final paragraph. Oil is just one of Scotland's advantages, but you seem to regard it as worthless for some reason.
Complain about this comment
#116
So far loon, you only reitarate your partner in delusion.................
Complain about this comment
#89 How would you know if Scotland was in deficit or not. It is nigh on impossible to extract all the data and allocate properly to the individual countries.
There is every bit as much chance of there being a surplus as a deficit and the important point is that after independence we would not have the bills for the UK Colonial Empire or trident and many other things which would make a big difference to any post independence numbers.
Complain about this comment
I'm going to have to post this reply bit by bit because I'm getting a 'profanity blocked' error. I can't see one.
I don't see Britain rushing in encouraging investment to create alternative employment for the future...
Britain is doing quite the opposite. Britain (Socialist Britain that is) is flooding the economy with borrowed money to pay the million or so additional make-weights hired at vast expense in 2001. In a country like the UK that leads to problems in what would naturally be cheaper areas to live. The areas with declining populations. The areas like Scotland.
Ordinarily a person living in such an area would have much lower living costs. Because their cost of housing would be much lower. Because not so many people want to live there. And I do mean significantly lower. They would therefore be quite happy to work for less than somebody living (say) in London because by the time they'd paid accomodation and travel they'd have just as much, if not more, left.
The problem arises when the government takes it upon itself to be the majority supplier of huge amounts of jobs. Nurses. Teachers. Council workers. Train drivers even.
Suddenly, if the nurses feel like they want more money and the government capitulates then everybody has to have the same increase on the same pay scales. After all, the argument goes, why should a nurse in Kelty get paid less than a nurse in Guildford.
......
Complain about this comment
....
Hmmmm. So there you are. Why would an employer re-locate to Scotland if he's going to have to compete with wages that are set to allow government workers in the South of England (where the average property is twice or three times the price) to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. Why move 400 miles away from his main market when he won't actually save any money on wages. He wont. He doesn't.
...
Complain about this comment
....
And what do the government do to try and fix that? Sit down with the unions and come to an agreement that recognises the massive differences in living costs. Split up the UK into a bunch of different regions with different payscales? Of course not.
...
Complain about this comment
#110 what are you wittering on about. Big deal you have moved out of Scotland. Many countries with no oil and little natural resources survive well and are not clamouring to become part of larger countries. Scotland could manage well on its own and if it meant a little less money but much better life handling our own affairs then no problem. Try to name one benefit we get being part of the UK.
Complain about this comment
#110 U-boat captain
Run! Run like the wind...
Save yourselves!..
Gosh, but that was good timing on our part.
Missing you already! ;)
Complain about this comment
#115 You have not one decent thing to say about Scotland. Where do you get the idea that SNP are promising cuts in services and high unemployment. What a sick and twisted
mind you have.
Scotland is well able to stand on its own two feet , and hopefully without cringing apologists like yourself.
Complain about this comment
.....
The whole system is bust. There are huge areas of the UK where industry will not tread because it cannot compete with the artificially high wages of the millions of government employees so liberally sprinkled about. The problem is not that the government is not encouraging investment. By its pay policies it is actively discouraging investment. And by targetting 'undesirable' (in the sense that not so many people are competing to live there) areas with even more make-weight 'jobs' they actually make the area even less desirable for real, unsubsidised, jobs.
Harsh as it may seem, Scotland has been a massive recipient of such 'jobs' compared to the UK in general. A lot of folk have got used to the kind of lifestyle doctors enjoy in Guildford on council secretaries salaries in Glenrothes. So they're not about to take a pay cut for the good of the country. And I don't believe the nats or Labour would have the guts to impose one post-independence either. So you're stuck with them and their expectations. And you'll have to pay for them plus hope that, for some reason, businesses now decide Scotland is a good place to invest, even if the cost of labour is still twice what it should be.
Can't see that getting changed in a socialist country. All that oil money will be spent matching the salaries of your massively over-staffed public service with those of their counter-parts in Tunbridge Wells. And if you attempt to entice in overseas businesses like Lexmark they'll just pull out as soon as the subsidies dry up.
And that is one of the reasons I left.
Complain about this comment
There's still a bit to my opus that I can't get through. I just cannot see anything at all profane in it. It's as innocuous as you like. It's driving me nuts.
Missing you already! ;)
You can come too. Plenty of space despite what you've read.
Complain about this comment
Try to name one benefit we get being part of the UK.
You get to blame somebody else for all your problems.
Next question.
Complain about this comment
#124
If you are going to support the nats, then understand that they have imposed an efficiency target on all council regions,now, if your asking local government to cut back on spending, then you are clearly asking local government to streamline their services, in other words cut the services and numbers they employ......
What type of taxation are the nats proposing? I think you will find they support cuts in tax.
I've never said one bad thing about Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#128.
Councils have been given more money under the SNP. The councils have also been given greater flexibility on how they wish to spend that money.
Complain about this comment
#127 Thats no answer, just shows you do not have anything to add.
Complain about this comment
#128 And why is that a bad thing , you think it is OK to tax people just to hire people in public service who are not required. The targets are too low , its time these public sector areas were made to work as efficiently as private companies, as if it was their money and not just freebies. It would leave people more money to spend which would create real jobs. They are way overmanned and under utilised.
Complain about this comment
72. At 00:21am on 02 Sep 2008, oldnat wrote:
#70 Neil
As usual you are confused.
You talk about Cameron adjusting the Barnett formula "to England's advantage". That can only happen within the UK, so your talk of cutting Armed Forces pensions is the irrelevant scare-mongering garbage that you lot have been spitting out for years.
If Cameron makes England independent from Scotland by revoking the Treaty of Union, then Scotland has full access to all of it's resources plus 10% of all UK assets.
Fortunately for Labour, Brown and Roy have considerably more political sense than you, and won't doom Labour to such ludicrous posturing.
Oldnat - don't start making personal comments. It is the first sign of desperation.
And what do you mean by "you lot"?
I do not have any particular allegiance to a political party, but I do vote depending on what appears to be the best option.
Neither am I a die-hard unionist. But all I can see is Alex Salmond constantly demanding a "Scottish this" and a "Scottish that". He is deliberately causing division in the UK in order to further his own political aims.
As for "10% of all UK assets". Where is that written down in law?
Cameron would never revoke the Treaty. The legal arguments against such an action would last for years, if not decades. And to be honest I don't think any sitting Government has the legal right to do so.
The SNP in my mind are looking to the short term. What about ten years down the line? Twenty years?
Complain about this comment
#131
Do you think its a good thing to cut the tax rate so the top 20% of earners become more wealthier.
You dont have a clue as to what the term streamlining would incorporate.
Do you believe that thacher economics were good or bad for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#131
Check out what efficiency savings means to teachers in the borders.
http://news bbc.co.uk 1/hi /scotland
Complain about this comment
#91 Simon_Brooke
"The UK is not a founder member of the EU."
Untrue. Unwisely, the UK was neither a founder member of the ECSC nor the EEC. As a member of the EEC it was a founder member of the EC and later of the EU.
"I did not say that Brown was not mendacious."
Fair enough, but if he's a clever liar, as you seem to contend and "some of his earlier turkeys have come home to roost" as you concede (in your #17), then surely he could have come up with a less barmy set of reasons for retaining the union than pretending he knew nothing of current EU law or UK polity. As it was, it invited the derision he received at his love-in with Rankin.
"I suggest you buy a dictionary."
I have a good one already, thank you. You clearly understand the terms in question, also. Where we differ is that you plainly do not regard mendacity as a political fault.
Complain about this comment
#91 Simon_Brooke & PS to my #135
If he's a clever liar, broadcasting clearly on national TV and radio that the new "free" insulation scheme will apply to all pensioners and over-60s when Defra and Benn Junior deny it doesn't strike me as particularly bright.
Does he really have the "enormous grasp of detail" you claim on his behalf in your #17 or did he just believe the public are too stupid to notice? Either way, he seems to have lost the vote of all of us baby-boomers at a stroke. Clever, eh?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS