Monday
Aug032015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Media balance
Aug 3, 2015 Energy: gas Media Talking of crazy, the new SNP newspaper The National has an article about the proposed coal gasification project mooted for the Firth of Forth.
It features quotes from two green anti-capitalist groups who are opposed to the project, a local councillor who is very much against it and an MSP who hates it with a vengeance.
And they wonder why nobody reads newspapers any more.
Reader Comments (66)
sam
Are you such an optimist about the behaviour of government (any government) that you believe that a situation will not arise where a named person demands access to a child just because he/she feels like it and then decides that the child is not being treated in the way that person thinks it should?
And what qualifications are these million (because that is the number you need) people going to have that makes them better able to decide on a child's upbringing than its parents, grandparents, god-parents, aunts, uncles, cousins .....?
Only a fascist state interferes in family life unless there is a very, very good specific reason to do so. The very fact of providing a "named person" for every child in Scotland is itself an interference in family life
In 1974 the economist, Gavin McCrone, wrote a paper for the then Conservative government on the potential effect of oil revenues on the Scottish economy. McCrone concluded: " An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surpluses both on its budget and its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time in the future."
McCrone's paper was seen by few and hidden from view {much like the allegations of paedophilia committed by Brittan, Morrison and others) without limit of time. It would never have come to light without a great deal of digging and use of the Freedom of Information Act.
In 1976, McCrone reported to the Labour government. He proposed the setting up of a "North Sea Oil Investment Fund, for investment in manufacturing which should "give especial priority to Scotland." He wrote that a Scottish Assembly might have its block grant increased by oil revenues for "recovery from the worst problems of dereliction and urban deprivation in West Central Scotland."
Though Bruce Millan (Scottish Secretary) and Tony Benn (Energy Secretary) were in favour of an oil fund there was not to be one. West Central Scotland's manufacturing base continued to decline. De-industrialisation is everywhere associated with health inequalities -early deaths. The situation in West central Scotland was made worse by Thatcherism.
The oil money was not spent on roads or hospitals. It was pissed away on tax cuts for the rich. The top rate was reduced from 60% to 40%. Lawson also reduced the basic rate of income tax but the poor saw little more money because VAT went up. One effect of this giving money to the rich while excluding the poor was to drive up house prices.
An estimate of what the UK has lost had an oil fund been set up has been made. It is a conservative estimate: £450 billion (Hawksworth - Price Waterhouse Cooper). At the upper level an estimate (Sukhdev Johal Queen Mary University of London) puts the figure at £850 billion.
These McCrone papers were hidden because both governments did not trust the Scottish electorate and for party political advantage. The same position is found today. Last year a poll found 66% of Scots in favour of "devo max" since that appeared to be on offer just before the referendum. We are not to have that. The Smith Commission proposals fall far short of "devo max".
The SNP government, with the help of the UK Labour party has had some success in reducing the numbers of Scots in poverty. That success will disappear under this Conservative government which, while increasing poverty in Scotland declines to provide a Scottish government with the most effective means of dealing with poverty: control of economic and welfare policies.
Mike Jackson,
Unlike you I was willing to do my own research into the Named Person. I'll put up what I found below. When you have read it I invite you to re-read your post in the context of what I write here. Your use of the words, "fascist state" is justified do you think? I ask this because you clearly intend that description to apply to the SNP government and,
implicitly, to the majority of Scots who voted for the SNP at the General Election.
The "Named Person is not a social worker for every child" nor is the intention to usurp the role of parents but should be a staff member who already has a duty of care towards a child through universal services (i.e. a midwife, health visitor or headteacher), acting as a single point of contact for information and to provide appropriate support inj navigating services that some parents sometimes want or need.
In effect for most children this would be a midwife for the first 10 days, a health visitor until school age and a head or deputy head teacher for school-aged children, although responsibilities rest with the relevant NHS board or local authority respectively. The system ensures a better picture of how a child and family can best be supported and any action agreed is coordinated.
I have taken this from a statement signed by many of Scotland's children charities. They include Children in Scotland; Children 1st; Royal College of Nursing and the NSPCC.
It seems to me that this shitty site is inhabited by a number of SNP haters (nothing wrong with that) who rely on assertion and have little or no knowledge of the SNP and Scotland. Their virulence tends to close down debate. I have noticed no responses at all to what I wrote about the submissions of Messrs Miller and Gibson. DECC cocked up again. Don't trouble to respond.
The idea of some busy body, dumbed down, robo heed teacher going into human beings' homes to give their wholly unwanted advice is completely horrifying. If the government wants to help children, the social work department can nominate (parent) victims who are having trouble maintaining minimum standards.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13439771.Named_person_scheme_under_attack_at_ministerial_event/
I worked beside the wife of the principal of Reid Kerr College (Paisley) , Joe Mooney. They were diehard Celtic supporters. The principal of Clydebank College was an even more diehard Rangers support who got his job through various protestant organisations / connection. The current principal, daft Gordon Patterson was in the BB (same game).
There is no way I would allow people like that into my house never mind talk to my children.
You can't read smiff can you. You view the opinions of charities that exist to serve the needs of children and parents as less significant than your own miserable experiences. What a fool. I wouldn't let you into my house
Children in Scotland; Children 1st; Royal College of Nursing and the NSPCC are run by a class of people I wouldn't trust or engage with nowadays.
It comes down to whether you believe the likes of Tony Blair and Alex Salmond have the best interests of working people at heart.I don't..
I was involved with VERY radical working class politics in the 1980s in Ferguslie Park, Paisley . Part of that was triggering an 8 month lock out of all authority,including the police from the community education offices. The simple truth about these sink estates and all the myriad of problems they cause is that they were deliberately created by the Labour council.
**********************
FORMER First Minister Alex Salmond has called for social media trolls to be forced to identify themselves and say where they live online.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-calls-for-online-trolls-to-be-identified-1-3833780
Alex Salmond ties to Murdoch revealed
The burgeoning friendship between Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch has been likened to a bromance. The men have exchanged admiring letters, held private dinner dates and received offers to sporting events.
Murdoch, normally known for his dry cynicism, has released tweets lauding Salmond's radicalism and his political skills. He was, said the News Corporation chairman in one tweet in February, "clearly most brilliant politician in U.K. "
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/25/alex-salmond-rupert-murdoch-ties
The reason for the sink estates is/was the finely tuned, virulent class system operating within the working classes themselves. Something I am very aware of, living as I do in a detached, former council house I originally bought to make music in .
The named Person is part of an overall strategy to try to reduce health inequalities in Scotland.
I know what it purports to be but a great many people who have nothing to do with this "shitty little site" and a deal more pertinent expertise than I, think it's a particularly bad aspect of a strategy whose core proposals remain elusive, to put it mildly.
Put it alongside SNP proposals to abolish corroboration (postponed but not scrapped) and to weaken such meagre protection of local amenity as planning law currently allows. Remind yourself that the SNP authorised selected police officers to carry guns whenever the fancy grabs them (notoriously, Inverness on Saturday nights) while reducing police accountability to elected authority and that it made a life-threatening mess of centralising police and emergency services while relaxing public supervision. And so on.
Recall that the SNP's main financial backer is a notorious religious bigot, arch-homophobe and almost obsessively anti-union employer (Brian Soutar) then note the SNP's "shitty little" no strike deal with the FBU signed over the heads of the membership by that "shitty little" FBU leader, SNP stalwart and MSP wannabee, Jim Duffy (whose members, rightly, turfed him out on his ear ASAP).
Recall - as I see esmiff has - Salmond's boasts about his links with and lobbying for Murdoch at the height of Wappingate and NI's support for the SNP in the election. I take it you've spotted the sly "wisnae me" preparations to devolve abortion law to the delight of "pro-life" groups and, who'd have thought it, Wee Brian. Whatever you do, don't mention privatisation and ferries in the same breath or ask local authorities about funding cuts.
If you think this is all hyperbole, take a peek at Nippy's recent speeches to Washington's great and good (amusingly, the White House staffer who met her was reportedly the deputy under-gardener's assistant's locum) in which she pledged full support (!) to US foreign policy esp re bombing ISIS (a predicatable corollary of her party's NATO volte face) and contrast them with local "anti-Trident" rhetoric and childish Ecky-stunts in Westminster.
That'll do for now but it suggests why some up here take ScotGov waffle about any "overall strategy to try to reduce health inequalities" with a pinch of salt. The Named Persons scheme seems bizarre until one grasps that the SNP's social agenda is not conservative, which is one thing, but downright reactionary. Then but only then does it start to make sense.
Murmurings about fascism and the like (even when disingenuously worded) are, of course, absurd but folk on this "shitty little site" are right to smell a rat or two whatever disagreements I may have with them.
Also for those who cannot somehow manage to find the preferred and proffered SNP energy plan despite dozens of reports being downloadable from gov.scot with more stats than you can shake a stick at; eg.
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-sources/traditional-fuels
"Scotland's electricity is currently produced by a small number of large coal, gas and nuclear generating stations, together with a larger number of smaller renewable plants (mainly established hydro and onshore wind). We wish to move to a much greater proportion of renewable energy together with clean energy from coal and gas.
In meeting the demand for electricity, nuclear energy will continue to play a part for the life of the current power stations. But the Scottish Government is clear that new nuclear power is not wanted or needed in Scotland. There is no clear or reliable proposition on storage of nuclear waste and we are not willing to countenance such very substantial and also open-ended costs for this and future generations.
Coal and gas will continue to play an important part in electricity generation, providing baseload, but there is a clear need for a reduction in associated emissions. We want to see Scotland playing a leading role in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to allow us to continue to utilise fossil fuels while reducing the level of
harmful emissions being released into the atmosphere. As elsewhere in Europe, the Emissions Trading Scheme will provide a commercial incentive for investment. With existing skills and know-how from involvement in the North Sea, Scotland is well placed to take a lead and generate wider economic benefit. The Scottish Government has assisted research on CO2 storage locations around Scotland which concluded that Scotland has an extremely large CO2 storage resource which can easily accommodate the industrial CO2 emissions from Scotland for the next 200 years. The Scottish Government are also pressing the UK Government for quick action; and seeking to be fully involved in European action to support CCS."
DaveB
Excellent summary.
Brian Soutar is a great big can of worms I had forgotten about. For me, the problem is that Murdoch's support has pushed inadequate people and a rickety organisation into positions of responsibility they are not capable of dealing with. Paisley MP Mhairi Black is only one ridiculous example. I'm sure there are many more at Holyrood.
CCS, a joke a minute.
More of the submission by Sir Donald Miller.
"In our view Government is not equipped to fulfill the role of detailed planning of the electricity system and it seems clear that when inviting bids for new plant, they are in a weak negotiating position. This became apparent in the contract negotiations for new nuclear capacity at at Hinckley. While the price agreed was similar to the published expected out-turn cost for the first plant being built by EDF in France at Flamanville, we would have expected a significant reduction for a second plant of virtually the same from essentially the same supply chain. Certainly these costs are a third higher than those published by the USA Energy Administration for equivalent nuclear capacity now under construction there. Furthermore, there is no possibility that SSEB or NOSHEB would have let contracts for new nuclear plants with a Company which is ten years and five years late on their two existing contracts for new nuclear plants with a main contractor who is reported to be under severe financial pressure."
This is a shitty site because of Montford's repeated sloppiness in reporting. He failed to check who owned the National. In his piece lower down Scottish Wind there is a link to the Daily Telegraph. This is a newspaper not renowned in Scotland, after Frenchgate, for its editorial ethics. The piece is headed "Nicola Sturgeon demands veto over wind farm subsidies." In fact, as the piece eventually conveys Ms Sturgeon's stance is different: "Scotland is an energy powerhouse but we have very limited powers on energy policy. That is why today I am calling on the UK to take a much more collegiate approach to policymaking on energy and ensure proper consultation with the Scottish Government on major areas of energy policy.
There are many shitty sites that have embraced the negative effects of online journalism: "journalism of assertion"; unsubstantiated opinion harms journalistic credibility - you can find that on this site quite easily. If you are interested and I feel better I'll post something about poverty on this site, if permitted.
There are no standards of behaviour set out for posters to follow. Take the post by Mike Jackson which, to some readers, sought to link the SNP to Nazism. Later on, Jackson sought to assert that the Named Person scheme had links to fascism. This unsubstantiated opinion went this way: "Only a fascist state interferes in family life unless there is a very, very good specific reason". By the way, has anyone bothered to read that document produced by all those charities?
Jackson's post which some saw as linking the SNP to the Nazies was removed by Montford without explanation. It is very difficult to set and achieve standards of behaviour when Montford fails to set them out.Is it appropriate and acceptable to link the Named Person scheme with a fascist state? If it is why is this?
"Hate crime" can be a criminal activity. Montford refuses to set standards. I don't know whether any of the remarks attached to this post constitute "hate crime". I suppose Montford does not know either. I cannot see any reason for not disclosing what might constitute "hate crime",
Montford puts "stuff" on your PC. Currently, I am blocking Facebook Social Plugins, Google Analytics and SmartAd Server. With two of these we ought to be told the purpose of this "stuff", what information is gathered about us, how this might intrude into our privacy.
esmiff: Paisley MP Mhairi Black
In her defence, she's not in a position where she can do much harm to anyone with the possible exception of her constituents. Hopefully, more senior (aka adult) MPs will show her the ropes on that one. She will however have signed that notorious "loyalty oath" that all but contractually forbids Nat MPs or MSPs from publicly opposing party policy. Also in her defence (am I really saying this?), I don't suppose that in their wildest dreams she or those who campagned for her expected to oust Danny Alexander.
An old-school Labour MP I got to know quite well after he quit parliament pointed out after Blair's 1995 landslide that an unexpectedly large majority brings a lot of people into politics who didn't really expect or even want to be in it. They'd stood in seats that they "knew" to be safe for their opponents. As a result, they form an abnormally inexperienced and pliable body which, coupled with their party's large majority, allows its leadership to get away with things it would not normally be able to. Think Blair Babes, Iraq and all the biz.
sam: More of the submission by Sir Donald Miller
What is your objection to the points Donald Miller makes? Unlike most in the "renewables" sector, he is technically informed on the power supply industry. You?
The rest of your post is striking in that you make no attempt to answer some (any) of the points I made, which have been widely discussed in the press and elsewhere in recent months. As it is, you come across as a more or less stereotypical Natty Bully of the sort even 'Er Nips has distanced herself from.
Golf Charlie:
I have no way of judging whether or not NZ has a 'superior culture' as I have no idea what to measure that culture against.
I was merely making the point that, for me as an individual with a reasonably common Scots/English cultural heritage, I was at risk of being found deficient by either group while in the UK if I chose the 'wrong' cultural identifier for myself.
And yes, we have similar people here in NZ, who will attempt to make utterly irrational judgements based on whether the individual they find wanting has the 'wrong' skin tone or regional accent.
DaveB
I have no objections at all to the Miller and Gibson submission to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. The extracts I quoted from the submission did not require technical competence, merely the ability to read and comprehend. I do not claim to have succeeded. I am interested why, given the extracts from the submission I posted, you ask about my technical qualifications. I thought what Miller and Gibson were saying was essentially that the UK government was not competent. The report is online I am sure if you want to look at it for yourself. Miller and Gibson do conclude that if the UK government does not appoint a competent body to examine the structure and obligations of the UK electricity industry then the Scottish government should press to secure more powers to vary the modus operandi of the industry in Scotland.
Now, it is up to the Committee (cross-party, SNP majority) to decide what weight to attach to Miller and Gibson, but some of their recommendations chime with those made by others.
I recommend you have a look at the tv version of the hearing (google economy energy tourism committee security supply). I found it enormously interesting. I am staggered that this has not been reported upon by Montford rather than his tedious Bash the Nats.
So, like me, you have descended to name-calling - I'm a Natty Bully. Well, I am not a member of the SNP or of any political party and I do not support uncritically the SNP government. My political stance is simple enough. I think UK government has some benefits to Scotland but not sufficient to outweigh its incompetence and the general desire of the great majority of Scots not to be governed by the Conservative party. I support either "devo max" or independence. If Scots achieve one of those constitutional positions I am fairly indifferent to which party governs, though an electable Conservative government in Scotland may be - well - never.
As to whether I am a bully that is for other people to judge. I doubt that you are well placed to do that.
I am sure you know that I am under no obligation to respond to your questions. I see little point to it - I am not here to defend the SNP. I am tired, unwell, but I'll try a few off the top of my head.
Anent corroboration. The reason for this change is to try to increase the number of convictions of those suspected of rape. Given the nature of the crime there are usually just the rapist and victim present. If there is no corroborating forensic evidence a person who, on the facts, is likely to be a rapist, goes free. I am sure it was the judiciary that was an important part of not proceeding with the corroboration proposal but I cannot remember the substance of it.
Anent armed police. The numbers are relatively few about 2% of the force. The man/body which polices the police said he thought, given the terrorist threat level it was appropriate but the police had not adequately prepared the public. Are you concerned about it? why?
Anent Salmond and Murdoch. From memory there was a judgement on this which did not find Salmond guilty of wrongdoing. is there more to it?
I' ll perhaps continue with this later.
I said that I would post something about the effects of poverty but I won't. You may google: 10th Kilbrandon Lecture Harry Burns. You can watch online at Glasgow Uni or read a transcript of the lecture. I recommend this most strongly because it explores the effects of poverty at the molecular level, more or less from birth to the end of life. Apolitical.
I looked up the remarks made by Lord Pentland at the Court of Session hearing into whether the SNP government had exceeded its powers in legislating Named Person. Deciding it had not done so, Lord Pentland observed: "The advantages of the new services are not difficult to discern: increased scope for early intervention; improved integration and coordination across the public services landscape;reduction in the risks that the needs of vulnerable children will be inadvertently overlooked due to communication difficulties between service providers; and the introduction of a single focal point to ensure that children and their families receive the support and services they need."
esmiff
I am sorry I was rude to you yesterday and offer my apologies. You are a better man for not sinking to the level of insults.