Well having taken a look over a quiet Grangemouth on Sunday from the Bathgate Hills it appears that the day after the dispute ended may have been productive. The company that owns the plant had planned to close the final pension scheme to new employees and phase in a contribution scheme instead.
The talks that were called off well before the eleventh hour last week had a good resumption when they resumed on Tuesday after the 48 hour strike which not only shut down the Grangemouth petrochemical plant but also shut down the Forties pipeline as a consequence. Both Ineos and the union Unite have said they had reached a proposal which they will consider over the next couple of days.
It has been good to see Unite reduce the level of spite in their statement's about Ineos which may well have paved way for this negotiation to get to where it has. However, over the weekend local MP Michael Connarty sadly proved to be anything but a calming influence when he accused Ineos of "telling lies" and "macho management".
Showing posts with label petrol crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label petrol crisis. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Friday, 25 April 2008
First Minister's Answers
Last night I promised another blogger a considered response on Nicol Stephen's performance at Stephen's performance in First Minister's Questions yesterday.
So I watched the full replay on BBC Parliament last night to see what all the brouhaha was about.
Before Nicol even got to ask his question is most be noted that like a true economist Alex Salmond laid out a few assumptions.
I have to mention these quotes from the First Minister's response to Annabel Goldie as background to what was to follow.
Nicol rose for his first question and asked about profiteering and rationing on petrol station forecourts. Raising the issue of capping these prices.
To give him his dues Alex did in his first response calmly say that "Everyone in this chamber would attack and deprecate profiteering." and stated that the remit for capping was in the remit of the Secretary of State on the Energy Act (1976).
The Herald this morning ostrich-like attacked these claims of profiteering by casting aspirations on if they are true. Don't know about any one else but I have seen petrol prices rise by 3p at the pumps where I most regularly buy petrol since Monday in two jumps 2p during the day on Monday and a further penny yesterday. While this increase is only to 106.9p unleaded there are rural areas of Scotland where that is far higher, having a higher starting base generally to start.
Now if as Alex Salmond says there is adequate supply of fuel, easy economic supply and demand theory would dictate that these prices in Edinburgh wouldn't need to raise. Of course the second assumption that the public would behave sensibly would affect the demand curve sadly forcing prices up.
It is the second question that I guess has got other bloggers so up in arms. Nicol asked had the First Minister pressed up the case for capping these prices. The wording was actually careful following the first answer. It didn't say have you done anything to cap the prices but had he pressed it home to the SoS.
The problem arises in how Alex Salmond starts almost every answer, that is with a gibe and put down. He started by saying the Nicol Stephen clearly hadn't listened to the previous answer, as pointed out I think IMHO the wording indicated that he had, had Mr Salmond listened to the question fully or was he too busy working out and going over his weekly insult for the Lib Dem leader. No wonder the cameras at that point panned to a shocked look on Nicol's face.
So Malc I'll agree it wasn't the greatest performance by Nicol, but sadly while we have a First Minster who chucks out gibes and cheap put downs at every single serious questioning of his administration or himself instead of giving answers to the tough questions it will look like that.
So I watched the full replay on BBC Parliament last night to see what all the brouhaha was about.
Before Nicol even got to ask his question is most be noted that like a true economist Alex Salmond laid out a few assumptions.
"Assuming consumer behaviour is responsible, then there should be limited difficulties, both in terms of inconvenience and disruption."
"we need everyone, and the public's co-operation, to behave sensibly and responsibly, to cut out non-essential trips, to use public transport"
I have to mention these quotes from the First Minister's response to Annabel Goldie as background to what was to follow.
Nicol rose for his first question and asked about profiteering and rationing on petrol station forecourts. Raising the issue of capping these prices.
To give him his dues Alex did in his first response calmly say that "Everyone in this chamber would attack and deprecate profiteering." and stated that the remit for capping was in the remit of the Secretary of State on the Energy Act (1976).
The Herald this morning ostrich-like attacked these claims of profiteering by casting aspirations on if they are true. Don't know about any one else but I have seen petrol prices rise by 3p at the pumps where I most regularly buy petrol since Monday in two jumps 2p during the day on Monday and a further penny yesterday. While this increase is only to 106.9p unleaded there are rural areas of Scotland where that is far higher, having a higher starting base generally to start.
Now if as Alex Salmond says there is adequate supply of fuel, easy economic supply and demand theory would dictate that these prices in Edinburgh wouldn't need to raise. Of course the second assumption that the public would behave sensibly would affect the demand curve sadly forcing prices up.
It is the second question that I guess has got other bloggers so up in arms. Nicol asked had the First Minister pressed up the case for capping these prices. The wording was actually careful following the first answer. It didn't say have you done anything to cap the prices but had he pressed it home to the SoS.
The problem arises in how Alex Salmond starts almost every answer, that is with a gibe and put down. He started by saying the Nicol Stephen clearly hadn't listened to the previous answer, as pointed out I think IMHO the wording indicated that he had, had Mr Salmond listened to the question fully or was he too busy working out and going over his weekly insult for the Lib Dem leader. No wonder the cameras at that point panned to a shocked look on Nicol's face.
So Malc I'll agree it wasn't the greatest performance by Nicol, but sadly while we have a First Minster who chucks out gibes and cheap put downs at every single serious questioning of his administration or himself instead of giving answers to the tough questions it will look like that.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
SNP Prioritise Private Over Public Transport in Crisis
It would seem that Edinburgh's public transport could almost grind to a halt on Sunday after the Scottish Government has prioritsed the supply at Grangemouth for petrol station forecourts rather than public transport. Lothian Buses
Today as Alex Salmond pormised the people of Scotland at First Minister's questions that there was "ample and substantial" fuel to cope with the shut down of the Grangemouth petrochemical plant, as a result of strike action, he was away of the problems Lothian Buses was facing. During his answer Mr Salmond actually said:
Going to a bit hard for the good, sensible and responsible Burghers of the capital to do that Alex especially to get to work on Monday when there are no buses available to take many of them anywhere. Guess we know how green the Nats are with this prioritisation of resources at a time of crisis.
Update: just love when something like this happens. You click publish post and then find this from Lothian Buses which wasn't there when you started. Make you wonder though has Alex done a Gordon Brownesque U-Turn.
Further Update: The Scottish Government are now claiming there was a misunderstanding by BP regarding where the fuel should be prioritised. Lothian Buses clearly did not have a misunderstanding, they had said the supplier had been told not to supply them.
So the misunderstanding has to come from some communication between the Scottish Government and BP or how BP interpreted that to tell this major wholesale customer that they would not get a delivery which would appear to be enough to see them through about half a week, gauging time scales. Just what did the SNP Government tell BP regarding supply at this time? How could this be misunderstood? Why did this misunderstanding lead to such an escalation in panic? And why was this not sorted out at FMQs? Something is not quite adding up as to this 'misunderstanding'.
Even Further Update: It appears the amount of fuel that Lothian Bueses and many wholesale purchasers of fuel will be recieving is to be only 70% of their long scheduled orders. Now one assumes that 30% has not been stockpiled away in case of shortages and that the 100% is required to operate the full service bus, emergency and transportation services require. Therefore we must hope that the rationing to these wholesale customers can be speedily restored following this weekend's industrial action.
However, if there is "ample fuel" until the middle of May, again the question must be why the 30% reduction in supply Mr Salmond?
Today as Alex Salmond pormised the people of Scotland at First Minister's questions that there was "ample and substantial" fuel to cope with the shut down of the Grangemouth petrochemical plant, as a result of strike action, he was away of the problems Lothian Buses was facing. During his answer Mr Salmond actually said:
"Assuming consumer behaviour is responsible, then there should be limited difficulties, both in terms of inconvenience and disruption.
"Clearly, it's a time when we need everyone, and the public's cooperation, to behave sensibly and responsibly, to cut out non-essential trips, to use public transport."
Going to a bit hard for the good, sensible and responsible Burghers of the capital to do that Alex especially to get to work on Monday when there are no buses available to take many of them anywhere. Guess we know how green the Nats are with this prioritisation of resources at a time of crisis.
Update: just love when something like this happens. You click publish post and then find this from Lothian Buses which wasn't there when you started. Make you wonder though has Alex done a Gordon Brownesque U-Turn.
Further Update: The Scottish Government are now claiming there was a misunderstanding by BP regarding where the fuel should be prioritised. Lothian Buses clearly did not have a misunderstanding, they had said the supplier had been told not to supply them.
So the misunderstanding has to come from some communication between the Scottish Government and BP or how BP interpreted that to tell this major wholesale customer that they would not get a delivery which would appear to be enough to see them through about half a week, gauging time scales. Just what did the SNP Government tell BP regarding supply at this time? How could this be misunderstood? Why did this misunderstanding lead to such an escalation in panic? And why was this not sorted out at FMQs? Something is not quite adding up as to this 'misunderstanding'.
Even Further Update: It appears the amount of fuel that Lothian Bueses and many wholesale purchasers of fuel will be recieving is to be only 70% of their long scheduled orders. Now one assumes that 30% has not been stockpiled away in case of shortages and that the 100% is required to operate the full service bus, emergency and transportation services require. Therefore we must hope that the rationing to these wholesale customers can be speedily restored following this weekend's industrial action.
However, if there is "ample fuel" until the middle of May, again the question must be why the 30% reduction in supply Mr Salmond?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)