Burma Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 No, it's a quote from Andrew Neil. Correct. The Unionist broadcaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 As Andrew Neil said: " Devolution, the Calman Commission, the Scotland Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement, all of this and more you have, is because Westminster parties are scared of the SNP. If you vote No you massively change the balance of power and they will not only give you nothing, but will probably take powers away from the Scottish Parliament." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 I'm hearing the orange lodge are planning a mass march against independence. Another gift for Yes then. And they're also planning to bus in English and Irish bigots to get their numbers up. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-sectarianism-fears-as-orange-order-to-march-in-edinburgh-against-yes-vote-9352562.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 When the f**k did Davidson say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 I do look forward to a Mrs Bairn comment. It adds soooo much to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Darling being as positive as ever http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-more-dangerous-than-bank-collapse-1-3410927 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invasion Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Darling being as positive as ever http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-more-dangerous-than-bank-collapse-1-3410927 you know what annoys me the most is this muppet still thinks he saved us from the banking crisis when him and his buddy brown caused it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Ove ron the Guardian liveblog you can read through Westminster talking to itself in the Commons Scottish affairs committee.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Has the action resulted in the Scottish Government having a) More power b) Less power c) The same amount of power as before Sigh all you like. Actually, you know what? I went back and looked at Amendment 54 to the Energy Bill. It's a little bit more complicated than I first explained. The old scheme of renewables subsidy operated under what were called "renewables obligation orders". This was in essence a piece of secondary legislation which would set the rules and procedure for the issuing of renewable obligation certificates. Those proved that a licenced supplier had generated certain amounts of renewable energy. For the energy you generated from renewable sources, you would be given renewable obligation certificates, which you could then present to OFGEM as proof of meeting your target. If you failed to meet your target, you would have to pay into a central fund, the proceeds of which were distributed in proportion to how much renewable energy participants had generated. It was, put simply, a trading scheme to incentivise renewable energy production. For various reasons, mostly administrative the UK Government, about a decade ago, delegated responsibility for the making of orders in respect of Scottish-based suppliers to the Scottish Government. It wasn't "devolved" but delegated. Energy is a reserved matter and remains so. This scheme is being changed under what is now the Energy Act. They are shifting the subsidy element of the renewables obligation towards a new scheme which changes the feed-in-tarriff system using what is known as a contract for difference. They are gradually phasing out the scheme for renewables obligation certificates, which is now closed to new providers, and allowing for a 3 year transitional phase, after which the renewables obligation certificates will no longer be used at all. What the amendment does, therefore, is give the power to the Secretary of State for Environment, to issue what is called a "renewables obligation closure order". This, as section 32L of the Energy Act 1989 (which it amends) explains quite clearly what such an order does: "A renewables obligation closure order is an order which provides that no renewables obligation certificates are to be issued under a renewables obligation order in respect of electricity generated after a specified date." It does not stop the Scottish Government from making a renewables obligation order to regulate accreditation in Scotland, the power they were originally given. It doesn't even stop them from issuing RO certificates. It simply provides that Ed Davey or his successors can place a time limit on those orders so that providers, whether in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, cannot be credited (thus entitled to financial reward) for energy supplied after the UK Government has sought to finish the phasing out of the scheme. Complaining, therefore, that this somehow represents the Scottish Government having powers taken away from it is absurd. It is simply a provision to phase out entirely a UK-wide scheme in respect of a reserved matter. It is even more absurd to say that the Scottish Parliament is having powers taken away from it, because the powers accrue to the Scottish Ministers, not Parliament. At what point did they tell the goverment that they where going to do this? If by just removing a scheme they can abolish a devolved matter, is there any other schemes that they could abolish that would affect Scottish matters? And will they care to run it past them before doing it? Energy is a reserved matter, not a Scottish matter. They don't have to get the consent of the Scottish Government. They advised them of the intention to phase out the use of renewables obligation orders and to replaced it with something else. They published a really comprehensive White Paper on it in 2011 and the Lords put in this procedural amendment to make sure the renewables obligation scheme didn't accidentally continue to run in Scotland after its intended abolition date. Energy aside, I'm struggling to think of any policy area where the Scottish Government has some form of executive responsibility for a reserved matter. The only other one I can think of is election arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, where suffrage limits and the like are reserved but the administration of polling day is done by the Scottish Government in consultation with the Electoral Commission. On things like education, health, policing, justice, crime, social care, culture, sport, agriculture, fisheries, housing, tourism and transport, I can't think of anything that isn't devolved with respect both to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, which could be legislated away without a Sewel Motion explicitly approving it. They aren't like energy in that they aren't reserved matters, and in most cases they have been administratively independent north of the border since before devolution under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Energy by contrast has remained very much functionally and administratively interconnected because, you know, National Grid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Actually, you know what? I went back and looked at Amendment 54 to the Energy Bill. It's a little bit more complicated than I first explained. The old scheme of renewables subsidy operated under what were called "renewables obligation orders". This was in essence a piece of secondary legislation which would set the rules and procedure for the issuing of renewable obligation certificates. Those proved that a licenced supplier had generated certain amounts of renewable energy. For the energy you generated from renewable sources, you would be given renewable obligation certificates, which you could then present to OFGEM as proof of meeting your target. If you failed to meet your target, you would have to pay into a central fund, the proceeds of which were distributed in proportion to how much renewable energy participants had generated. It was, put simply, a trading scheme to incentivise renewable energy production. For various reasons, mostly administrative the UK Government, about a decade ago, delegated responsibility for the making of orders in respect of Scottish-based suppliers to the Scottish Government. It wasn't "devolved" but delegated. Energy is a reserved matter and remains so. This scheme is being changed under what is now the Energy Act. They are shifting the subsidy element of the renewables obligation towards a new scheme which changes the feed-in-tarriff system using what is known as a contract for difference. They are gradually phasing out the scheme for renewables obligation certificates, which is now closed to new providers, and allowing for a 3 year transitional phase, after which the renewables obligation certificates will no longer be used at all. What the amendment does, therefore, is give the power to the Secretary of State for Environment, to issue what is called a "renewables obligation closure order". This, as section 32L of the Energy Act 1989 (which it amends) explains quite clearly what such an order does: "A renewables obligation closure order is an order which provides that no renewables obligation certificates are to be issued under a renewables obligation order in respect of electricity generated after a specified date." It does not stop the Scottish Government from making a renewables obligation order to regulate accreditation in Scotland, the power they were originally given. It doesn't even stop them from issuing RO certificates. It simply provides that Ed Davey or his successors can place a time limit on those orders so that providers, whether in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, cannot be credited (thus entitled to financial reward) for energy supplied after the UK Government has sought to finish the phasing out of the scheme. Complaining, therefore, that this somehow represents the Scottish Government having powers taken away from it is absurd. It is simply a provision to phase out entirely a UK-wide scheme in respect of a reserved matter. It is even more absurd to say that the Scottish Parliament is having powers taken away from it, because the powers accrue to the Scottish Ministers, not Parliament. Energy is a reserved matter, not a Scottish matter. They don't have to get the consent of the Scottish Government. They advised them of the intention to phase out the use of renewables obligation orders and to replaced it with something else. They published a really comprehensive White Paper on it in 2011 and the Lords put in this procedural amendment to make sure the renewables obligation scheme didn't accidentally continue to run in Scotland after its intended abolition date. Energy aside, I'm struggling to think of any policy area where the Scottish Government has some form of executive responsibility for a reserved matter. The only other one I can think of is election arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, where suffrage limits and the like are reserved but the administration of polling day is done by the Scottish Government in consultation with the Electoral Commission. On things like education, health, policing, justice, crime, social care, culture, sport, agriculture, fisheries, housing, tourism and transport, I can't think of anything that isn't devolved with respect both to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, which could be legislated away without a Sewel Motion explicitly approving it. They aren't like energy in that they aren't reserved matters, and in most cases they have been administratively independent north of the border since before devolution under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Energy by contrast has remained very much functionally and administratively interconnected because, you know, National Grid. I have to doff my bunnet to you Libby, you have more confidence in the safety of these powers staying than I. You as you say deal in facts. I in distrust. You have said that you dont believe that the SG will get anymore meaningfull powers. What is that based on? ( just wonder what your take on it is). Do you think that westminster could reduce the number of Scottish Mps at westminster in the event of a No vote ? Can you give us a factsheet on the proper reasons to vote Yes? We shall call it our Ad Lib white paper. It could be a better way to spend your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 I have to doff my bunnet to you Libby, you have more confidence in the safety of these powers staying than I. You as you say deal in facts. I in distrust. You have said that you dont believe that the SG will get anymore meaningfull powers. What is that based on? ( just wonder what your take on it is). Inertia. This is why I don't believe powers will be stripped from the Scottish Parliament in the event of a No vote. The obstacle isn't that the Westminster Parties want to disempower or undermine the Scottish Parliament; it's that they can't agree where it should go next and not enough of them care to come up with a coherent plan for further expansive powers. Apathy, not antipathy. Do you think that westminster could reduce the number of Scottish Mps at westminster in the event of a No vote ? They would face considerable difficulty reducing the proportion of Scottish MPs at Westminster to any materially significant extent without it being part of a quid-pro-quo deal on significant further autonomy. I don't believe they plan to do this or that if they did they would encounter anything other than stiff opposition not worth their while. Can you give us a factsheet on the proper reasons to vote Yes? We shall call it our Ad Lib white paper. It could be a better way to spend your time. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Just been having a look back through some posts. Rather dissapointed that there are so few folk bothering to engage in this forum. I had wonderd if there were more viewing and not getting involved, but going by the ammount of viewings in a newly opend topic, it would seem not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Just been having a look back through some posts. Rather dissapointed that there are so few folk bothering to engage in this forum. I had wonderd if there were more viewing and not getting involved, but going by the ammount of viewings in a newly opend topic, it would seem not. Probably because it's about an even split between zealouts, pedants and trolls and most folk on all sides can barely be arsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Just been having a look back through some posts. Rather dissapointed that there are so few folk bothering to engage in this forum. I had wonderd if there were more viewing and not getting involved, but going by the ammount of viewings in a newly opend topic, it would seem not. Probably because it's about an even split between zealouts, pedants and trolls and most folk on all sides can barely be arsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Nah, some are just having a wee rest from it, there's not much being discussed in this forum that we haven't already covered in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Has anyone heard anything about a game changing bombshell that YES are waiting to hand to the BBC when the time is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Has anyone heard anything about a game changing bombshell that YES are waiting to hand to the BBC when the time is right? go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Has anyone heard anything about a game changing bombshell that YES are waiting to hand to the BBC when the time is right? Is David Cameron a shape-shifting lizard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 go on... Is David Cameron a shape-shifting lizard? I was hoping someone had more info than myself, it could just be someone falsely inflating their own self esteem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I was hoping someone had more info than myself, it could just be someone falsely inflating their own self esteem. ok. do not breech until it can be evidenced. best advice!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.