Compromise would be a prudent move

Published on Thursday 24 April 2008 21:04

THE Scots are not by nature folk who panic, so they will take the two-day closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery in their stride.

Supplies of fuel are adequate; unless there is panic buying there will be no shortage of petrol or diesel over the coming weeks as the Grangemouth refinery is shut down and then gradually started up again after the two-day strike.

So far, there is scant evidence that filling stations are in any danger of running out of supplies, though queues are a bit longer than before and some garages have taken to limiting sales. We have it in our own hands to keep matters under control.

Since the great petrol revolt of 2000, when an effective blockade of Britain's oil refineries did result in shortages, the government has taken significant steps to ensure the provision of adequate fuel reserves. These total about 70 days of normal use in the whole UK – more than enough to cover Scotland and the north of England if Grangemouth is closed for two days.

In addition, a sophisticated supply system has been created that is perfectly capable of redirecting petrol from the UK's eight other refineries. In the south and Midlands of England petrol can be delivered unimpeded via overland pipes. In Scotland and the north of England, deliveries are still made by road. But since 2000, the government has powers to direct such deliveries on a priority basis. A mix-up in such directions on Thursday seemed to imply that Lothian Transport would not get its regular diesel supplies, but that has been sorted out and the buses will go on running.

Where there does seem to be a question mark is over the operation of the separate BP facility at Grangemouth, which gets its electrical power from the refinery. If this power is interrupted it could interfere with gas supplies from the North Sea. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to ensure that stand-by power is provided. That must be a priority for Holyrood and Westminster.

Meanwhile, the one factor in all these events that is not subject to rational calculation is the breakdown of the negotiations between Ineos, the private company which now owns Grangemouth, and Unite, the union which represents the 1,200 workers due to strike on Sunday. Ineos wishes to close its final-salary pension scheme to new workers – a normal policy in the private sector since Gordon Brown abolished tax relief in 1997. In 1997, 11 million people were members of these schemes. Today the figure is nearer four million.

Relations between Ineos and Unite are glacial. That is hardly sensible for either party, as the only way out of their current impasse is through negotiation. The British public are patient, but there is a limit to how far they are prepared to be inconvenienced while both company and union avoid the inevitable compromise.

A lot of people could be affected by this strike, and at the moment there is a feeling that brinksmanship is being played. But this is the time for maturity.

Will exam revamp pass the test?

THE decision to scrap the unloved Standard Grade qualification is not unexpected. For many years, this has been the Cinderella of the exam system in Scotland. On the one hand, it is too basic a qualification for most pupils, and schools have increasingly started to bypass the Standard Grade altogether in order to concentrate scarce resources and pupil time on Highers. At the same time, the Standard Grade has been an inadequate tool for dealing with the appalling literacy and maths skills of pupils entering secondary.

With the Standard Grade redundant, the real question is what should take its place? The Scottish Government proposes to replace both the Standard Grade and Intermediate exam system with a new general qualification, tested in fourth year. The aim is clearly to provide an educational route for the many pupils who currently leave school with no recognised qualification. There is also to be a new general literacy and numeracy qualification to improve overall standards.

These reforms are not unwelcome. But there must be a worry regarding yet another massive restructuring of the exam system less than a decade after the last one. And there is the perennial question: are there just too many exams and not enough teaching? There are good ideas in this package, but there must be adequate consultation before implementing them.

Don't laugh at our feathered fiends

THE British scientist Richard Owen invented the word "dinosaur" in 1842. Owen studied large fossils that looked to him like lizard bones, but were actually the size of elephant bones. He called these extinct reptiles "dinosaurs" from two Greek words, deinos meaning "terrible" and sauros meaning "lizard". But as the decades went by, some scientists began to wonder if the dinosaurs were related more to warm-bloodied birds, rather than cold-bloodied reptiles. Evidence for the bird link has strengthened with the discovery of feathered dinosaurs. And now comes news that protein samples extracted from Tyrannosaurus rex bones have provided direct proof of a link with modern birds.

This revolutionary discovery will obviously change the whole meaning of chicken jokes. As in … what goes peck, peck, peck, BANG, peck, peck, peck BANG? Answer: Chickens in a minefield. Or … why did the chicken run across the road? Answer: There was a car coming. Now we know that chickens, far from being creatures to make fun of, are actually the direct descendants of the most feared creature to have walked the Earth.

Does this mean we are going to get a rash of dinosaur jokes? As in … why did the Archaeopteryx catch the worm? Answer: Because it was an early bird. Or … what do you get when dinosaurs crash their cars? Answer: Tyrannosaurus Wrecks.