TOO WEE, POOR POOR, TOO STUPID?

The Vow

We have wondered a lot about this promise of Gordon Brown's and the Vow, proposing the next best thing to a federal system and the greatest devolution known to man.

Just by chance we were engaged in some study on Greenland this evening, and this is what we read.

Downtown Nuuk

As a consequence of political complications in relation to Denmark's entry into the European Common Market in 1972, a further desire to establish the legality of Greenland's status formed in Denmark, resulting in the Home Rule Act of 1979, which gave Greenland limited autonomy with its own legislature taking control of some internal policies, while the Parliament of Denmark maintained full control of external policies, security, and natural resources.

The law came into effect on 1 May 1979.

The Queen of Denmark, Margrethe II, remained Greenland's Head of state.

In 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community (EEC) upon achieving self-rule, in view of the EEC's commercial fishing regulations and an EEC ban on seal skin products.[47] 

A referendum on greater autonomy was approved on 25 November 2008.[48][49]

  

On 21 June 2009, Greenland gained self-rule with provisions for assuming responsibility for self-government of judicial affairs, policing, and natural resources. Also, Greenlanders were recognized as a separate people under international law.[50] 

Denmark maintains control of foreign affairs and defence matters. Denmark upholds the annual block grant of 3.2 billion Danish kroner, but as Greenland begins to collect revenues of its natural resources, the grant will gradually be diminished. It is considered by some to be a step toward eventual full independence from Denmark.[51] Greenlandic became the sole official language of Greenland at the historic ceremony.

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland>

So devo max, by anyone's standards?

It might be worth noting that Greenland is the largest island in the world. It has a total population of around 65,000 people. Its capital city, Nuuk, has about 16,500 people. Scotland's population is 5.3 million and its capital city, Edinburgh, has a population of around half a million.

Why is Scotland lumbered with a lesser deal? Too wee, too poor or too thick? 

IF YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED TRAFFIC DISRUPTION IN EDINBURGH...

...APOLOGIES. THE CROWDS WERE UNCONTROLLABLE 

So, Andy Burnham brought his tour to our capital city today. As you can see

they didn't expect a huge crowd, so they only set out enough seats for about 50 people. In the end, it looks like around 100 people turned out to see him.

He was introduced by Old George Foulkes who apparently announced him as Jeremy. 

Bless him, even away from the subsidised whisky of the House of Aristocratic Noblemen, George can be a befuddled old buffer. It wouldn't have been so bad, but about 10 minutes into the do, he called him Jeremy again. You can't help thinking that he was at the wrong gig! 

The real Jeremy had in fact been in Edinburgh a few weeks ago and he managed to draw a few people along too.

Burnham has a good sense of humour though, so he just laughed at old George... Well, it's what most other people do! 

After all Andy's getting rather forgetful himself. 

Wasn't it only a few weeks ago that he was telling us that he was proud of the Labour manifesto he was standing on at the UK's General Election? It was, he said then, the best he had ever stood on, and he paid tribute to Ed Miliband. 

Today though, he said that he thought that that manifesto didn't give you the belief that there was something worth campaigning for. (He was right today.)

And even more recently didn't he say that he was too loyal to Labour to vote against the Tory Welfare Bill in defiance of the whip ... and therefore be obliged to resign from shadow cabinet. 

Yet, today he stated that he would resign from the shadow cabinet if Jeremy Corbyn promised to take the UK out of Nato.

Ah fickle old loyalty. What can you say?

Fortunately he's certainly loyal, not to mention humble and obedient, to the Saxe Coburgs though. So at least that's something.

I just wonder how he's going to explain to people on tax credits that loyalty to Labour was more important than their welfare, but less important than bagging a seat at the top table when the big guys meet with the boss in the White House.

OO JIM, IT SEEMS THE ORDER DOES HAVE FRIENDS IN BETTER TOGETHER

Only a few weeks ago Jim Murphy said that Better Together or No Thanks was an amalgam of Tory, Labour and Liberals.

He refuted any connections with Ukip and BNP Fascists or the extreme Protestant group, The Orange Order. That they are campaigning on the same side in the matter of the referendum doesn’t imply that they share the same policies on everything. Fair enough. I doubt that the Greens and the Scottish Socialists agree on everything or that Labour for Independence and the SNP can always see eye to eye.

But Murphy made it pretty plain that these organisations could not campaign under the Better Together umbrella. 

Mr Cockburn

Unfortunately of course, as we know, Ukip in the form of MEP David Cockburn was spotted at a BT stall chewing the fat with one Danny Alexander. And of course the very fact that Mr Cockburn is in Scotland instead of his home in London, suggests that he’s on the job of keeping Scottish oil British.

Of course Mr Cockburn’s party is entitled to its unionist views, along with its other right wing opinions, but just because I find them repulsive doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to them, and to canvas for them. But isn't this a bit embarrassing for at least Labour and the Liberals?

 

Orange march in Glasgow

Now the Herald has revealed that there are people in the Labour movement who are supporters of the Orange Order, which is staging a march in Edinburgh this Saturday in support of the union.

Murphy has said that the march should not go ahead, although, surely, in a democracy, people have the right to express their views, political and religious, even if they are not to our taste so trying to ban the march is a little anti-democratic.

It is true, of course, that in the past the OO marches have attracted violence and that on the last rally for the union, a 12 year old girl was glassed in the face. But one violent incident cannot be allowed to stop people expressing their opinion so, just like any other political group, the OO can march for their cause.

As it will be an embarrassment for Better Together, it seems unlikely that the unionist press, including the BBC, will cover the rally. However I am sure that there will be plenty of coverage on the net. 

Violence is a hallmark of OO marches

Interestingly,  the Herald carries the story that despite Murphy’s dislike of the OO (he is after all, a Catholic), there are others within the Labour movement who welcome the Order’s involvement. Of course no Labour names are mentioned, but we might draw from this that there is some support in the Labour movement in Scotland for the Orangemen.

Here's an excerpt form the Herald's piece:

Mr [Sammy] Wilson, [of the DUP] said: "In Scotland your biggest pro-Union party is Labour, some of whom are very socialistic indeed. You could say there's no affiliation politically with our brand of unionism. But the lowest common denominator is we appreciate we're better off in the Union. 

One Labour MP told me 'Sammy, I've never been so glad to see the (Orange) Lodge on the street'."

A Labour source said some within Better Together could seethe parade as valuable in mobilising No - those in areas where the organisation is strong and who do not routinely vote.

I hope that Yes people will avoid the march on Saturday; that the whole thing will pass off peacefully, with no violence, and that the only publicity will be reported on the net of a group of elderly "apprentices" dressed strangely singing their sectarian songs, waving their union flags and making a bit of an ass of themselves, while the grown ups get on with political canvassing on whatever side.

THE JOB CENTRE HAS GOT TARGETS FOR SANCTIONS

Action this day Mr Duncan Snuff.

A bloke on my Facebook feed has just got a job. it's only a part time one. it was all that there was, but he is absolutely over the moon.

He won't get his pay for another 3.5 weeks, and today he got a payment of £110 from DWP to last him till pay day.

Is this what you call HELPING PEOPLE INTO WORK, Smith? because if it is, you have a bloody funny idea about what the word "HELP" means. Maybe a course in English is in order...one that you finish this time, perhaps?

Someone else has commented on my friend's post as follows. I've obscured his name because I'm sure that if the DWP finds out who he is, he will be left to starve to death. Such is the job of life at the bottom in modern Britain.

XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX: I signed on today and over heard two staff saying to each other 'we have not met our sanctions for this week, just had an email about it'. Sorry i did not get their names but it was in the job centre in High Riggs in Edinburgh AT XXXX hrs.

Comments, you ******* ****-***** *******?

DIDN'T BLUNDER PATERSON DO WELL?

We all know how intensely satisfying it is when yet another English Tory blunders into Edinburgh to tell us how completely useless we are and how we couldn't give away our products never mind sell them, without Great Britain doing it all for us....silly children that we are.

Mind, I have to say that it wasn't clear to me what Owen Paterson, the not immediately appealing secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs (wink wink, nod nod, plenty of them in Toryland) was doing in Scotland. I would have thought that most of his brief was covered by our own government in the form of Richard Lockhead, however, come he did and insult us he did in spades.

We shouldn't be too upset though. Mr Paterson is a man who cares not what

he insults. Apparently those of us who have reservations about the benevolent intentions of Monsanto and its likes are "wicked". That, I assume, includes Charlie Windsor, so I assume that Paterson isn't hoping to become Sir Lord Paterson anytime soon.

In any case, I was interested, given the disaster that he thinks Scots would make of running their own (rural) affairs, to read this morning that his campaign of murdering badgers in two English counties has gone horribly wrong. 

In typical Tory style, however, this is not the fault of the government, or the privatised agency responsible, but of, would you credit it, the badgers, who, according to Paterson, moved the goalposts. Clever badgers! I think that if Paterson himself were about to be shot by men from the ministry, he'd probably move the bloody goalposts too...

Apparently the target set for the "cull", although I'd say "kill" was a perfectly reasonable word, was 70% of the (badger) population. They have managed only 30%. Clearly Paterson and his crew of sharpshooters were outwitted by the badgers.  The words "booze up" and "brewery" spring to mind. 

I look forward to the time when the right honourable gentleman! has absolutely nothing to do with our food exports. 

However, on a brighter note, the poor, unemployed, underemployed, sick and elderly can take comfort form the fact that the government's record for  killing off unwanted burdens is pretty poor, and all you have to do out outwit them is move a goalpost or two.

CAN YOU PICK THE ODD PHOTOGRAPH IN THE FOLLOWING ALBUM?

LET'S NOT WASTE THE ONE CHANCE WE WILL GET

Once again I am indebted to "Arbroath" for pointing me in the direction of a Scotsman article which is worthy of a read. Not often I can say that!

Of course we are all aware of the difference between the standard of living in Norway and that in Scotland, but somehow when it is laid out in print (particularly in a newspaper with an editorial policy that would have us believe that membership of the UK holds the best future for Scotland), it knocks it home.

For me it is a feeling of frustration and anger at the opportunities we have missed to be like our Nordic neighbours, to whom, it seem, I feel more closely related, than I do to London, which I have always felt was pleasantly "abroad". London has much more in common with Paris than it does with Edinburgh... the temperature, kind of natural vegetation, insect life and the lifestyle of the population seems quite alien to one who lives in a cool sub-Nordic climate zone. In contrast Edinburgh and Oslo have much more in common than Edinburgh and London.

We had the same possibilities as Norway, but instead of following the sensible government style of a small and relatively unimportant (in world terms) northern state, which both Scotland and Norway are, the UK used the oil bonanza to deal with massive problems built up because of poor government in the 70s, and to pay for Thatcher's devastation of industry in the 80s. 

The UK simply will not lie down and accept that it is not, and can no longer afford to be, a world power. Its power came from how widespread its empire was (and from the vast monies accrued from the exploitation of that empire's resources). That empire now consists of a few scattered islands, which cost the UK more money than they bring in ...but of course are handy for hiding vast wealth from the taxman, and must be kept at all costs!

Oil wealth has also been squandered on the nuclear race. Since the late forties when Britain was snubbed by America because it did not have its own nuclear programme, vast amounts of our taxes have been diverted to ensure that we obtain weapons of mass destruction, which we cannot ever use (not least because the Americans do not trust us with the firing codes).

Successive prime minsters from Winston Churchill and Harold McMillan to Tony Blair and David Cameron have spent money that might have been saved, or at least spent on our crumbled infrastructure, on this vanity project, because it was more important to them that the UK remain a permanent member of the Security Council, than that old people have heat and kids have schools... or even worse in some ways, that soldiers they send to war on behalf of this quest to remain important, have equipment that works.

One of Cameron's reasons for Scotland stay in the union, as articulated in his Edinburgh speech, was that we "punch above our weight in military terms"... Wow, I'm impressed, but the roads are full of potholes. A recent "No" campaign leaflet pointed out that the UK has well over 200 embassies abroad. Wow again. I'm overwhelmed, but, just what does having an embassy in Côte D'Ivoire do for me? Wouldn't it be better if aged relative (and one day me) didn't have to stay in bed in the winter to stay warm?

The UK's mad privatisations policy meant that, when we finally did set up a state oil company (following the Norwegian example) it lasted a few years in public ownership, was sold off into private ownership, as was Mrs Thatcher's wont, and shortly afterwards bought by BP... Big business wins again. 'Twas ever thus!

Norway now has an oil fund of £330 billion. Scotland on the other hand, has an oil fund of £0.

With 59 MPs at Westminster out of a total of 650, even supposing we could get them to talk for Scotland instead of for their various bosses in London, we wouldn't get anywhere with the notion of an oil fund, despite us being the only oil rich country, or region of a country, in the West that doesn't have one.

Well, it's never too late. In 2014 we can, for the first time, make sure that our politicians speak for us. 

Let's not waste it.

WE TRUST EDINBURGH FOUR TIMES AS MUCH AS WE TRUST LONDON...QED

Four times as many people in Scotland trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s best interests than trust the UK Government to do so, new research shows.  

Trust in the Scottish Government has climbed from 61% to 71% over the past year, according to the latest annual Scottish Social Attitudes survey. 

Trust in the UK Government, on the other hand, is at just 18%. 

To engender trust in one's ability to govern and do the best for the country is surely the quintessence of what governance is about. The team in Edinburgh has clearly achieved this.

So... when we can just persuade Scots how much better life would be if that level of trust could be justified in ALL governmental functions...in matters, for example, of, foreign affairs, taxation, military and social security... we shall have our country back... 

That should be in 2 years' time...give or take...

LEGACY? WHAT LEGACY?

Laugh...? It's difficult not to.


The London Olympics, which have cost, and will continue to cost, the whole of the UK many billions, which have rendered almost nothing to any part of the UK except England, which have rendered precious little to anywhere in England outside of London, had one target which might have been of some use to the rest of us.


As a part of the original bid there was a pledge to increase participation in sport, not just in London, not just in England, but around the UK.


Guess what? The pledge has been abandoned... because the number of people participating in sport has actually declined in the run up to the games.


It's hard to see why the committee thought that the fact that the Olympics were to be held in London would increase sporting activity anywhere, even in London, unless vast sums of money were pumped into sport at a grass-roots level.


Outside of England that is the remit of other governments which have different priorities and strained budgets to deal with them.


But even inside England, I have read of little to suggest that sporting facilities have improved or that massive coaching plans are under way.


Indeed the Olympics has been, or will only be felt most places, including in Scotland, because a few low level events will be held outside the English capital, that somewhere within a hundred or so miles of you there will be chance to see the Olympic torch. (It will be in the park at the bottom of my road, and I won't so much as move a muscle to look out of the window to see it. It's hard to imagine folk driving miles to enjoy it).


Of course one thing that everywhere has experienced is a considerable reduction in charity income from the Lottery, as this money has been redirected to London. That has endeared the games and their purpose no end, to many of us .


Given that in a city where sporting facilities are desperately needed (Edinburgh), the Olympics committee were prepared to spend £200,000 on  inappropriate advertising, rather than a running track or a boxing ring or a few part time coaches, it's not hard to see why this condition of winning the games has been swept under the carpet.


Still, it's safe now. The International Olympics Committee can hardly take them back and give them to Paris (which wouldn't want them anyway!)

SAY NO TO COE

The question was:
Having been refused permission to put their rings on the castle, should the London Olympics Committee be allowed to waste £200,000 putting them elsewhere in the capital?

The answer was:

Yes:  0

No:  58 

I couldn't care less: 3

I don't  think that requires much in the way of comment.

Munguin's Republic says NO to Coe

Grateful thanks to all who took part.

An sent Coe hamewart, tae think again

P

So the good news is that Historic Scotland has said "no" to the preposterous idea of massive Olympic rings being placed on our castle.


Olympic chiefs, the Evening News reports (I suppose they mean the Noble Coe and his sidekick Jowley Tess) are baffled by the change of heart of Historic Scotland, which was said to be enthusiastic about the project when it was discussed during the summer. 


As Munguin pointed out, unlike the Quango, English Heritage, Historic Scotland is a executive agency of the government. It is possible that Culture and External Affairs Cabinet Secretary, Fiona Hyslop, had a word.


To be fair it may be that Historic Scotland worked out for themselves that the people of Edinburgh and farther afield were not pleased about plan. The Edinburgh Evening News has run a campaign "Say No to Coe", and Edinburgers have been voluble in their condemnation, calling the sign gaudy and tasteless.


It seems that Coe wanted the sign to be in place for Hogmanay, when the eyes of the world are on Scotland and the castle in particular. But what for? Surely all the tickets for the games have either been sold or (the majority) allocated. So why would anyone want to advertise London's games. It would be like saying "Buy Grants whisky... but we don't actually have any". Additionally, London and Edinburgh vie for visitors and an enormous number of Edinburgh jobs are tied up in the tourist trade. Why would Edinburgh want to advertise one of its rivals? It would be like a big sign in Dundee saying "Go to Ashby-de-la-Zouch".


I suspect it might be that The Rt Hon Seb just wanted to show that the REAL capital's games were being supported by the pretendy capital of Scotlandshire.


If so, he failed.


But the Olympic "chiefs" aren't about to give up. They are looking for another building in Edinburgh from which they can hang their gaudy advertisement and Historic Scotland is hoping that this time there will be less antipathy from the residents. (You have to give it to Lord Nobleness Coe...he don't give up easily.) 


But Historic Scotland has to remember that one of the objections to the sign was the cost of £200,000. People in Scotland are aware that much needed sporting funds from, for example, the Lottery, have been reallocated from Scotland to London's Olympics, and we are aware here that while much of the Olympics is being paid for from general taxation, the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014 is being funded by Scottish taxpayers only. 


£200,000, many feel, would be better spent on promoting sport in the capital, rather than displaying an advertisement for someone else's events.


Historic Scotland may find that another venue may attract the same reaction!


Pics: Hi de Hi and Welcome to Maplins. The tacky looking coloured sign as it might have looked. Ms Hyslop, Culture Secretary. Seb Coe whose in charge of the Olympics on a salary of twice the PM. Tessa Jowel, the ex-Olympics minister whom Cameron retained so that he can blame someone from Labour when it all goes horribly wrong.


I've put a little poll in the side bar on the right. I'll leave it open till Monday afternoon. I thought it would be interesting to get your point of view even if you don't want to write anything.

GET COMPLETELY WELL SOON, SOPHIA

I guess most of you will remember that up to about 8 months ago Sophia Pangloss was a regular contributor to this blog. Her posts were always a mix of humour, fun and good solid Scottish common  sense. 

Sophia also started her own blog and announced it here first on Munguin's Republic. The blog was different from others that I read because it wasn't about politics. Well not directly anyway. It was a series of beautifully crafted, and expertly told, tales of the Edinburgh of days gone by, into which Sophia always wrote a part for herself, in a lowly roll.


http://shootinfaetheshin.blogspot.com/


Now, I don't know who Sophia is; I don't think any of us does, but I'm guessing that she is, or has, at some time been a professional writer. The style of the writing is captivating and the clever way that the tale is told means that once you've started reading, you can't stop till the dénouement is reached. Either a professional, or a very gifted amateur.


But around Christmas last year the writing stopped and there was only an occasional comment.


Of course the blog was too good to lose and so John Brownlie and I kept at her to take up pen (as it were) again.


It turns out that Sophia was sick and indeed hospitalised. But John mentioned a couple of Munguin posts ago, that he'd been in touch with her on Twitter, and that she was happy to be home again and back on her feet.


So we are relieved to hear that, happy too, and we wish her a speedy and full recovery.


Sophia, your writing and your contributions on this, and other blogs, have been sorely missed. Get completely well and as soon as you feel up to it get back to telling us your tales of Old Edinburgh and how you kept their stairs clean.


..................................

WILL MR GRAYLING SHOW AN EXAMPLE AND WORK FOR DOLE MONEY?

Chris Grayling, a minister with the London coalition, is going to “rescue” the “lost generation” by taking them off the dole figures and putting them into work, so says the Telegraph.

I am delighted, of course, that the government is to focus on the 16-25 year olds in the jobs market. I have advocated that several times on this blog. Years of experience in the employment business has reinforced in my reckoning that there is little point in perusing the Thatcher lost generation for work. They have been unemployed too long, settled into their world of poverty, mostly with an acceptance that that is how it will be till they die, probably long before their time. On the other hand, unless we want to ruin the lives of yet another generation of Scots we have to do something to provide work for the under 25s. Even if this costs money, it will be an investment worth making.

The numbers of this age group who are without employment, further or higher education has risen dramatically. It is not just in Scotland where this is a problem. All over the world the issue is the burning one for governments and for young people alike. It is disingenuous therefore of the coalition to try to blame this all on the Labour Party (although their input was substantial).

The figures in Spain are far worse than in Scotland, and even in Germany, there is a 10% youth unemployment rate. In Tunisia youth unemployment was one of the causes of the riots which overthrew the government. This is now spreading to other countries. Although Scottish Youth is unlikely to be so vociferous in expressing its displeasure at idleness being thrust upon it, London is right to be afraid of this possibility.

Mr Grayling’s solution is to offer work in private companies to young people most likely to end up joining the ranks of the long term unemployed (LTUs). Unfortunately Mr Grayling’s plans come unstuck at the first obstacle because neither he, nor the private companies can actually afford to pay for this work, so this new workforce will rely on benefits.

The laudable aim is, of course, to give young people the experience of work, the absence of which is so often a barrier to their being employed. Unfortunately some rather hapless coalition spokesman said that they would be focussing on the needs of employers...which would appear to be for free labour!

I’d be the first to agree that the needs of business must be one of the primary concerns in the rebuilding of the economy, wrecked by bankers and the incompetence of the bank of England, the regulatory bodies, the last government and the last opposition. But free labour is taking this a bit too far.
For employment to work, it must be a partnership between employers and employees. And whilst job experience can have a role to play, it is usual in this relationship for money to change hands.

The full plans are to be announced in the next few days. I look forward with interest to reading them. I hope that the issues of payment will be dealt with, and that the massive problem of drink and drugs addiction will which is one of the barriers to work and the treatment of which is so sadly underfunded will not be neglected.

The problem of unemployment is one which has dogged the London governments for a long time. It has always been handled ineptly. Perhaps London would consider devolving the issue to Edinburgh where it might be dealt with effectively.

Pics: (1) Chris Grayling, a controversial Tory who was destined to be Home Secretary until he made a series of embarrassing statements about youth, Liverpool and gays, whereupon he was demoted to minister of state under the safer IDS and his job given to Kinky Boots May (or ''Matron', as she is known in certain parts!!) (2) Tunisian youth demonstrating that a mixture of unemployment and rising prices don’t make the best cake. Take note David Cameron. (3) Still, look on the bright side, there’s a job for a plasterer there. (4) Chris looks at a wall of achievement and wonders where he went wrong. Want a wee hint, Chris? Two extremities, “feet” and “mouth”.

Good news on the oil front

Only three months after the find of an approximate 300 million barrels of oil in Scottish waters, a further 100 million barrels has been discovered by German firm Wintershall.

At today’s prices the latest find would equate to something in the region of $7billion of a boost to the Scottish economy. Added to the $21 billion in May, that makes a tidy wee sum which could easily be salted away as an oil fund...

Prof. Josef Stiglitz has called for an Oil Fund. The Nobel Prize winner and former Chief Economist of the World Bank, said on BBC Scotland’s Newsnight programme last Tuesday that the UK had “squandered" its oil wealth and that it is now "imperative" an oil fund be established to secure the wealth that remains under the North Sea for future generations.

Fat chance! When oil was first discovered in the North Sea in the late 1970s, the details of how much there was, and how much money was involved were deliberately hidden from the British and especially the Scottish people by the Labour government. It was feared that knowledge of the potential wealth in Scottish waters would encourage the Scots to ditch the union in favour of the life style now enjoyed by Norwegians, a lifestyle which might be described as being from an altogether different planet.

Mrs Thatcher failed to correct Labour’s criminality. Instead of investing in the run down industry that was rife in the north of England and the central belt of Scotland, as for example the Germans have done with their eastern länders (without the benefit of oil), Mrs Thatcher used the oil money to support a vast unemployment programme whilst converting Britain to a service economy which made nothing but money. Insurance and banking, tourism and popular culture. In the mean time vast numbers of people in Scotland were dumped on the dole.

And as the unemployment figures rose, she ordered that people be transferred to the more secretive Sickness and Invalidity Benefits which were supposed to be for people incapable of work (as opposed to those who had become an embarrassment to the government).

Messrs Blair and Brown used the oil money to help fund war wherever they could find it. So the money from our oil wealth was used for anything but making our country comfortable.

I am forever hearing of an oil fund in this or that country. Vast amounts of money put away in the good times to help support the country in the future. It’s happened in Norway where there is over $500 billion of wealth in a country of 4 million people, making them the richest folks in the world at $117,000+ per person in a bank account... and they are only just over the water from us. Amazingly Scotland produces almost the same amount of oil as Norway, and yet not a penny piece has been put into a fund.

Funds exist in feudal states. Sensible and prudent government from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf Emirates, countries in which there is little if any democracy. And even when a state is not totally independent, like Alaska and in Canada, the federal government has still seen to it that oil funds are set up for these states.

Scotland must the only country (or if you want it province) which found oil and got poorer.

We really have to insist that with these finds the Scottish government be allowed to set up a fund for the future of the Scottish economy when oil has dried up. To do anything else is criminal lunacy... and we have already had 30 years of that.

ITS NICE TO SEE A LITTLE RESPECT COMING NORTH OF THE BORDER

Thank goodness that at least the Liberal-Tory Government in London is going to be more co-operative with the SNP government in Edinburgh over attendance at meetings. A clear signal of this is that Stewart Stevenson, the Scottish environment minister, will be part of a UK delegation to climate change talks in Luxembourg. Now whether or not you believe that climate change is happening you have to accept that the world, including Mr Obama and Mr Hu, is talking about it. So it’s important in that it is being discussed at top level.

It is less the subject for discussion, and much more that any discussion takes account of the Edinburgh government.

The Scottish Government has made repeated attempts to get ministers on British delegations but when Labour was in charge at Westminster it was met with a big fat NO, based I’m sure on the last prime minister’s passionate and paranoid hatred of the SNP and indeed of Scotland as a country. He preferred to refer to the area north of England as North Britain.

Madman!

According to the Caledonian Mercury, Labour even turned down requests for Scottish ministers to represent British interests during the election campaign, when the relevant UK minister was busy campaigning at home and had no time to travel abroad. On each occasion Labour refused the Scottish Government’s requests, almost certainly because it did not want to give the SNP extra kudos and status internationally.

Pathetic!

Possibly to make Labour ministers appear churlish and mean-spirited (not hard to do) the Liberal-Tory coalition has invited Mr Stevenson to Luxembourg as part of the British delegation.

Mr Stevenson asked to be part of the British team because of the Scottish Government’s commitment to tough new climate change targets and its experience in reducing carbon emissions. There’s going to be a lot of work in the green economy, and whether we believe in it or not, it can bring Scotland a lot of jobs, and manufacturing ones, which we all agree we need desperately.

Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has agreed to Mr Stevenson’s request whilst pointing out, reasonably, that the UK was the sovereign member state in the EU and would maintain a single negotiating line.

Michael Moore (SoS) said: “The First Minister has said his government will measure our agenda in deeds rather than words and the inclusion of the Scottish Environment Minister is just the latest practical sign we take a constructive relationship with the Scottish Government seriously.

“There is no doubt we have a common agenda when it comes to tackling climate change and there is much we can do together to work towards reducing the UK’s emissions.”

It’s a start. Scottish ministers regularly took part in these events when Labour was in power in both London and Edinburgh, but when the SNP took over, Scotland was seen as the enemy and had to be put down. The Tories respect agenda including Scotland in EU talks is a start.

Now we need some power to deal with the Fisheries problem. The one that Scotland is best placed to do something about... and the one that Labour was determined to keep us away from.

TAX AND MARRIAGE, GO TOGETHER LIKE A HORSE AND CARRIAGE

The Tories have unveiled a tax break for married couples which will be funded by a levy on banks.

They hope that this will “seal the deal” with the electorate.

Oh dear. How I laughed! They really are out of touch aren’t they?

George Osborne called the tax break “modern and progressive”, although I’m not sure why, except that they are probably meaningless buzz words that his spin people have told him will impress us ordinary folk.

Osborne insisted that promoting marriage in the tax system is not preachy but says “a society where more people are married is a stronger society”. Actually, I’m not sure that it is, but it makes good money for solicitors when the divorces come along so, at least someone profits.

So, anyway, actually it is preachy, but preachy for a reason in that it pleases the old dears who read the Daily Mail, who maybe haven’t given much thought about how much difference a wee piece of paper actually means and who maybe hope that everything will be fine again if only people get married. To be gay friendly (this may be the modern and progressive bit? and the bit the blue rinses will have palpitations over), the package will apply to Civil Partnerships as well!

It will only benefit a third of married/civilly partnered couples and, wait for it, the maximum benefit of £150 a year would be enjoyed by those couples where the main earner takes home between £7,300 and £42,500. OK. So the tax bribe for getting married will only affect 1/3 of married couples and will be worth at the most £2.88 a week.

Brilliant idea Mr Osborne. You really are a star. I can see people rushing out to get married. The Registry and Registrars’ Offices, churches, mosques and temples, chapels and synagogues will be doing a roaring trade if you get in next month.

You preachy old thing you.

Osborne is taking a huge risk of course with the City of London, and for that matter Edinburgh’s financial district. His proposals will tax banks to pay for this without waiting for international agreement. He is staking his credibility on other countries following his lead. I’m not entirely sure that following George Osborne is something I’d be rushing to do.

According to the Times the tax allowance is planned for next April, although there is no formal commitment from the party to bring it in then.

The marriage tax break was first mooted by David Cameron in 2005 and was intended to be for couples with young children. I imagined at that time that it would be something financially worthwhile, a bribe, if you like, to get couples to marry. But at under £3 per person, per week, the whole thing is surely designed only to create a headline in the Daily Mail that will please the blue rinses.

Nick Clegg has described the proposals as patronizing drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age and I’m inclined to agree. Even people at the bottom end of the tax bracket aren’t going to go to all the expense of getting married so that can buy 1 ½ extra loaves of bread a week.

To each individual the money means nothing but it will cost half a billion a year. I’m not sure what that would build in today’s world, but it might pay off some of our gigantic debt.

Maybe this wasn’t the brightest move.....Time for Ken Clarke at Number 11?


Pic: A typical wedding affordable for everyone with the new Tory tax breaks; and George Osborne, author of this great fortune.