Comment posted Major environmental groups seriously compromised by wind developers’ cash by Tim McIntyre.
“Are you disillusioned by rising electricity prices, over dependence on the “green” dream [especially uneconomical and inefficient wind farms] and the destruction of our countryside”?
After six months of relentlessly spamming every wind power story on FA and no doubt elsewhere with this e-petition, a grand total of, er, 5,300 people are indeed. That’s a whopping not-quite-one-hundredth of one percent of the population, which is perhaps why the wind power industry is in a blind panic rushing round funding all those ‘green’ lobby groups
Tim McIntyre also commented
- Malcolm – Doc may have a ballpark answer, but I think the truth is that we don’t know – CCS has not yet been proven on a commercial scale, so the costs are subject to huge uncertainty.
Unfortunately CCS does have one big downside which is that it substantially depresses the overall generation efficiency, due to the large energy cost of compressing and pumping the CO2 underground. It might have a part to play, but it will mean we need to burn a good deal more of the fossil fuel in order to get the same amount of electricity.
- One exception does not disprove the rule, Malcolm. This doesn’t even appear to be an exception – they had to provide anemometer data from another nearby site, which was presumably considered to be suitably representative.
Just more e-petition spamming, I’m afraid.
You might get an apology from Doc, but I wouldn’t hold your breath
- Karl – reading between the lines, I sense that the government are quite keen to prolong the life of the two existing nukes, so the question of how to replace them can be held off for another 5 years (at least).
That may seem a bit cynical; to be fair, there are, unavoidably, big and rapid changes to come on energy generation, CCS, storage, demand management etc. – much of it very uncertain still, so a few more years of development will allow a better picture to emerge on how to replace them – that includes possible future developments in nuclear technology of course.
- Hunterston B and Torness nuclear power stations are due to close in 2016 and 2023 respectively. However, they might well not. All the Scottish Government’s emphasis in its energy policy is on ‘no NEW nuclear’
The Government states in its draft Electricity Generation Policy Statement that it expects EDF (the, er, foreign owner of Scotland’s nuclear plants) to apply for a life-extension of a minimum of five years for each of these plants. It goes on to clearly state that it would have no opposition to this, provided that the independent nuclear regulator is satisfied that it can be done safely.
This would mean we maintain a sizeable nuclear generation capacity in Scotland well into the next decade, to allow time for the renewables ‘revolution’ to mature and prove itself able to take over in the longer term. As such, it would seem to be a sensible and prudent approach, and perhaps a Holyrood policy that even Malcolm could approve of?
The policy statement can be read at:-
Sorry – this was supposed to appear under comment 38 Dr Douglas below!
- Hmm, seems to be a number of ‘antis’ and climate deniers parachuting in today…
Recent comments by Tim McIntyre
- Porkie from Salmond on fiscal policy as Darling bests him again in Reporting Scotland interviews
I didn’t see either interview, so have no comment on newsie’s “Blow for Salmond as Darling Triumphant Again” analysis
Is is not the case that being part of a currency union primarily requires the participants to agree on limits to public borrowing, and particularly borrowing to finance revenue expenditure?
Fiscal policy covers the whole gamut of government revenue & expenditure, and so an independent government can surely still have effectively full control over public spending priorities, taxation and borrowing to invest in public infrastructure. These are surely the powers that matter most, particularly in terms of stimulating economic growth and achieving a fairer distribution of the nation’s wealth.
Personally I would be quite happy for an independent Scottish government to have some external discipline imposed over revenue borrowing – it would constrain them to funding public service expenditure increases through economic growth and/or tax. Whether you are part of of a currency union or not, the reality is that this discipline is imposed externally anyway, by the markets, so it’s not that big a deal. Plus we’re not exactly latched to a country with a record of tight fiscal control, as Mr Darling knows better than almost anyone else.
The comments which usually emerge about the supposed ‘dangers’ of currency union tend to refer to the absolute extremes of the Euro, i.e. Germany and Greece. This is a completely nonsensical comparison – Scotland & rUK have economies which are broadly similar, and Scotland, supposedly the ‘Greece’ in this analogy, has the natural resource clout to punch well above its weight in terms of economic potential. Where they differ significantly, e.g. in the import/export balance, a currency union would seem to offer at least as great an advantage to rUK as it does to Scotland.
I’m not any kind of expert on this, so I pose these points more as questions than assertions. Mr Salmond (and the Fiscal Commission) say a CU would be a good thing, for BOTH parties; Mr Darling (and Messrs Osborne, Balls & Alexander) say not. Who to believe? I haven’t seen any analysis of the benefits – specifically to rUK – of being in a CU with an independent Scotland, so would be interested to hear what Mr Strang (above) has to say on that.
- PHEW. Scotland can sleep easy. Alan Reid says we can keep the pound.
‘Of course an independent Scotland could use the pound if we wanted to’.
It’s a pretty uncontroversial and self-evidently truthful statement, so why the fuss?
Now if he’d said ‘Of course the UK will agree to a currency union with an independent Scotland’ that would be different…
- The food bank situation across the United Kingdom
Food banks are a symptom – not so much of a poor economy overall, but of one in which government policies have led to gross levels of social inequality, and no-one disputes that this has happened across the UK.
The SNP government has no constituency or mandate outwith Scotland, obviously, and I don’t recall the FM ever suggesting that Osborne’s policies were affecting Scotland any worse than the English regions. So that, and therefore this whole article, is a straw-man I’m afraid, newsroom.
Mr Salmond’s intention, I assume, is to point out that an independent Scottish government would be free to choose a different economic path, in which the wealth of the nation is shared more equitably.
- Andrew Argyle: Yes campaign impaled on currency
An interesting perspective from someone who sounds like he knows about these things – a UK union supporter too!
- Political whodunnit with reverberations
Sceptic 1 – “It has already been confirmed by the financial sector that any decision by the SNP not to pay their share of the UK debt would certainly be considered as a default…”
Can you provide a link to back this up please?
powered by SEO Super Comments