Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: Fuel Prices

I take it all back! Those Labour MPs are really on the ball Laughing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7420409.stm

Poorer drivers 'hit hard' by tax

The government is coming under mounting pressure from hauliers and its own MPs to change its mind on measures that threaten to raise the cost of driving.

The Labour MPs say poorer motorists will suffer most from plans to increase road taxes on more polluting cars.

Road hauliers are also angry that fuel duty is set to rise by 2p this autumn.

But environment minister Joan Ruddock said that while she sympathised with motorists, the government "could not lose sight of the environment agenda".

What we can't do is lose sight of the environment agenda because this is everybody's future, the future of the planet

Joan Ruddock, Environment Minister

The MPs say they are concerned about the potential impact of a planned change in vehicle excise duty (road tax) which will see drivers paying more for more polluting cars registered since the end of 2001.

So far 35 Labour MPs have signed a motion calling on the Treasury to think again about the retrospective aspects of the policy.

They plan to warn the chancellor, when Parliament returns next week, that the government could lose votes over the issue.

One Labour MP warned that the party also risked alienating "Mondeo man" - the name given in the past to middle-income voters Labour needs to woo if it wants to defeat the Conservatives.

Rob Marris, MP for Wolverhampton South West, said: "Millions of people will be affected. Medium-sized family cars, depending on what sort of engine they have and what sort of emissions they have, could be hit very hard."

Increase 'unfair'

Labour MP Ronnie Campbell, who framed the MPs' motion, told the BBC: "The increase is unfair to people who bought their cars a year ago, not knowing that the government was going to put that road tax on."

He said the government was in danger of making the same sort of mistake as when it abolished the 10p income tax rate, and was accused of penalising poorer families.

Mr Campbell, MP for Blyth Valley, also called on the government to think again over plans to raise the cost of fuel duty by 2p per litre from the autumn.

He said: "Fuel is already £5 a gallon in some places...the chancellor needs to cancel the 2p rise.

"It's a tough one for the environmentalists, but unfortunately people at this time can't afford it."

UK road haulier companies are also warning of dire consequences if the planned 2p rise goes ahead.

Special exception

Haulage company boss Peter Carroll told the BBC that fuel prices were increasing "almost daily" and that British companies could be driven out of business.

Mr Carroll is helping to organise a lorry drivers protest on Tuesday, when hundred of hauliers are expected to converge on central London.

The drivers plan to hand in a letter to Downing Street, calling on the government to make a special exception and grant a fuel duty rebate to operators of "essential vehicles".

Ms Ruddock said the government had already shown sympathy for motorists by delaying the 2p increase in fuel duty until the autumn.

She said the environment would benefit from the plan to increase road taxes on more polluting cars.

The changes, due to come into effect next year, will mean cars will be put in one of 13 bands from A to M, based on their carbon emissions.

Owners of the most polluting cars in band M will pay £440 in tax. And from April 2010, people buying the most polluting cars would pay a one-off "showroom tax" of up to £950.

Ms Ruddock added: "What we can't do is lose sight of the environment agenda because this is everybody's future, the future of the planet."

She denied the retrospective aspect of the policy was unfair.

"Over a 10 year period...I think the direction we have been going in has been clear to people at the time," she said.

_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:47 am Post subject:

Hauliers are protesting again. I wondered how long it would take them. Don't think it's the 2p that is the issue, because let's face it, by the time we get to the Autumn, prices will have gone up by more than 2p anyway. I think it is the principle that the govt are voluntarily rising prices when prices are already astronomical.

I drive 75 miles each day (used to car share until the guy left Rolling Eyes

) and I have been feeling it recently. Tried moderating my driving style to maximise fuel efficiency.

Might have to think about getting a job closer to home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7420792.stm
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

William_Cleland · Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:12 am Post subject:

It is time for western societies to move over to hybrids in technological terms so the transportation system can be run off the electrical grid to a much more significant extent than has been the case in recent decades as that would help to reduce the effectiveness of OPEC's cartel but given Maggie T has long since put paid to what was left of Britain's nationalised car manufacturing sector that is going to be a decision for American, French, German, Japanese, Swedish etc car manufacturers rather than for British politicians at Westminster. Hopefully none of the mainstream parties are irresponsible or opportunistic enough to try to ride a wave of populism over fuel prices to power as there are no easy instant answers on that.

Holebender · Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:49 am Post subject:

Bringing fuel prices into line with those in other European countries would be a good start. I accept that we have to reduce carbon emissions, but we have to shoulder our fair share of the burden, not expect Britain's transport system to provide the solution in isolation.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject:

BBC Report saying that rural transport services are under threat due to the escalating fuel prices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7421417.stm
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject:

Salmond has waded into the debate as well

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7425722.stm

'Scotland's fury' over fuel costs

It is a "national outrage" that Scotland is not benefiting from extra North Sea oil revenues, First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed.

He said there was a mood of fury because Scots were paying "sky-high" prices at the petrol pumps.

Speaking during question time at Holyrood, Mr Salmond also said increasing fuel costs were threatening industry in Scotland.

The UK Government said it was taking action to tackle the problem.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has unveiled plans to increase North Sea oil production but, meeting industry bosses in Aberdeenshire on Wednesday, warned that high oil prices could be here to stay.

However, Mr Salmond raised concern that an extra £4bn was going to the Treasury from the North Sea, while consumers struggled.

I think the mood actually is becoming one of fury in Scotland

Alex Salmond
First Minister

When asked by SNP backbencher Jamie Hepburn if he agreed Scotland's problems were a "bittersweet irony", given its status as an oil-producing nation, the first minister replied: "A bittersweet irony? A massive, national outrage and it's time we did something about it."

The first minister went on to say ferry operators such as Superfast, which has chosen to abandon its service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge, and other businesses were facing problems because of the rising cost of fuel.

"At some point," he told parliament, "all of this chamber is going to have to recognise, as we see industries and key services come under pressure, that decisive action is needed to address this question because it threatens the very industrial and infrastructure fabric of Scotland."

The first minister said he would continue to press the UK Government to help mitigate rising fuel costs.

But he stated: "I think the mood actually is becoming one of fury in Scotland that we and we alone among the oil-producers of the world, producing 10 times our consumption of hydrocarbons at the present moment, should be faced with an extraordinary position that while every other oil producer, through sovereign funds and the build-up of huge sums of capital, has the resources available to power their economy into the future, what's left for the people of Scotland is paying sky-high prices at the pumps and the industries of Scotland facing escalating costs."
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

Aventinian · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:58 am Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:53 am Post subject:

I must have imagined all those rigs I visited over the years.

When you pump crude oil out of the ground you are producing it. I know you want to pretend that it has nothing to do with Scotland and that all this happens in the ex-regio part of the UK but... the oilfields which fall under Scotland's legal jurisdiction produce 10 times more oil than is consumed within Scotland's legal jurisdiction. To deny it is the logical fallacy.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Aventinian · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject:

Red Justice · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject:

I think it is a massive PR disaster for Labour and Gordon Brown. He apparently follows up some letters of complaint with a phone call. He did that phoning someone at 6am in the morning.

I think the Tax levy on fuel is far too high in the UK from a Labour government that is hell bent on high taxation particularly affecting the ordinary man or woman in society.
_________________
“For socialists, independence is not about the colour or type of flag flying on our public buildings. It is about creating a better society. It is about putting people before profit"
Tommy Sheridan
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com

Holebender · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject:

Aventinian, you seem to have little understanding of the federal structure of the United States, not that that surprises me.

Alaska very likely is described as a sovereign state within the federation, and Alaska derives major benefits, including taxation revenue, from it's oilfields. Alaska is a particularly bad example for your purposes.

Alaska even has a fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund which is used to invest a portion of their oil revenues for future generations.

Now, why don't you find us an example of a region of a country which has jurisdiction over oilfields but which derives no revenue benefit from those resources.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Holebender · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject:

The State of Alaska received $4 Billion in oil & gas taxation revenue in 2006. Of this, $600 Million was invested into their Alaska Permanent Fund.

Figures obtained from the State of Alaska official website.

Would you really like to compare Alaska to Scotland?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Aventinian · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject:

How about actually answering the points raised instead of blustering?

Alaska, like every State in the United States, is sovereign. The way a federal structure works is that the individual States are sovereign in all matters except for those reserved to the federal government by the constitution. Likewise, the federal government is only sovereign in those areas specifically allocated to it by the constitution. Federations, by definition, share sovereignty.

The word federal derives from the Latin foedus, meaning a league or treaty. Only sovereign states enter into treaties.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Aventinian · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject:

Why should I address them? They are largely irrelevant distractions.

I have previously stated that I don't believe sovereignty as a concept is particularly useful in understanding modern political structures, as such I'm hardly going to delve into a weighted discussion of how the concept relates to US states. However 'sovereign state' is a term with a clear meaning and that was the context in which I used it: Alaska need not apply.

Even if it was the case, again I ask - so what? Alaska was only used as a result of my quite understandable lack of familiarity with the political subdivisions of nations in the Middle East. I'm sure you can transpose the necessary concept to suit your own examples if you feel mine are insufficient.
_________________
‘They are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and make no great mischief if they fall.’ - Compliment paid to Highland soldiers by Gen. James Wolfe

Holebender · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject:

Translation: no, I can't find another example of a region with jurisdiction over oilfields which has derived no revenue benefit whatsoever from those oilfields.

Scotland is unique in this respect. Doesn't it give you a warm fuzzy feeling?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Holebender · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject:

Worth a read: Iain Macwhirter
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

doodells · Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject:

I would be completely overwhelmed if Darling was to give in to SNP demands over oil but I think the only way to save or at least prolong the union is to do something of the sort. Set up a fund. A savings account. A piggy bank. An insurance policy. Money for a rainy day. Whatever you want to call it, areas with such a great income from a single source should use that opportunity invest in order to safe guard against other future risks.
IMO, money from oil should be saved by either the UK Govt or the Scottish Govt until a serious action plan on how to take advantage of Scotland's other key natural resources (wind, wave) is drawn up. If in the last 3 decades the oil was even half as important to the UK treasury as McCrone said it was, a replacement is badly needed for when it runs out and also just for the sake of replacing a fossil fuel.
_________________
"Scotland alone remains the ragged trousered philanthropist of petroleum economies."

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject:

Oil prices rose by more than $10 today to $138.54.

Won't be long until we are feeling even more pain at the pumps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7440536.stm
_________________
Visit the Our Scotland Blog at http://our-scotland.blogspot.com/

Lord Pitsligo · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:29 am Post subject:

Does anyone else thinks this is another speculation bubble, like the ridiculous housing bubble we've just had in the UK?

I know demand is increasing relative to production, but this is just ridiculous.

_________________
Caledonia's been everything I've ever had...

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mail' - http://www.dailymail.co.uk

If it wasn't for my avatar, you wouldn't be reading this...