The SNP conference takes place in Inverness this week and Alex Salmond is looking rather pleased with himself. No wonder. He had a very good week last week with the main unionist parties tripping over themselves in their futile attempts to gain some recognition with the Scottish electorate. Unfortunately, the more they try the more the voters see through their dismal tactics and realise the SNP government is doing a reasonable job.
Whilst I disagree with the proposals to increase the unit cost of alcohol, the excessive amount of windfarms which are being built and destroying some of our most spectacular scenery and the knee-jerk reaction of unnecessary legislation against sectarianism, I consider that the SNP government is working for Scotland and its future.
The Herald carried a rather amusing article in which it stated that coalition ministers are planning a series of high-profile visits to Scotland to campaign against independence with the message that Alex Salmond risks 'trashing' the Scottish economy by delaying a vote on separation from the UK. Westminster politicians never learn do they? The majority of Scots are not interested in token visits and we've heard the negativity for years so they're threats will fall on deaf ears.
Alex Salmond is sure to dismiss calls for an early referendum on independence and will stick to his plan of asking the people during the second half of this parliamentary cycle, as set out in the SNP's manifesto for last May's election. If the ComRes pollfor the Independent on Sunday is an accurate reflection of support for independence, Mr Salmond's 'nice and easy does it' method is proving to be a winner.
The use of perjorative language by the unionist parties does little for their cause - or should I say their lost cause - because Scotland's membership of the Union is no longer appropriate for the 21st century.
We need to be able to make our own decisions and make our own mistakes, protect our own culture and ensure our children are educated to the highest quality possible so as they can confidently take their place in adult society.
It may take a few decades for us to shape a country which can combine ambition with fairness, but it will happen as long as our politicians do it the Alex Salmond way - 'nice and easy'.
Update: There has been some discussion in the comments about whether the proposal for an independence referendum was in the SNP's election manifesto. It was and it's here, but I apologise for misleading readers by also stating the manifesto declared the referendum would be in the second half of the Parliament. That was not contained within the document. My information was taken from the MSM who are not always accurate. However, it is well documented that the SNP campaigned on a referendum being held in the second half of the Parliament. Before the 5th of May even the unionist papers carried it as a leader and the Labour party became quite upset about it.
Time to stop nitpicking and start discussing the detail of what is needed and what is wanted for an independent Scotland.
Posts
61 comments:
"Alex Salmond is sure to dismiss calls for an early referendum on independence and will stick to his plan of asking the people during the second half of this parliamentary cycle, as set out in the SNP's manifesto for last May's election."
Can you point at the page in the manifesto where this was set out? Thanks.
Just when did Alex Salmond ever not look pleased with himself?
The SNP plan for 100% renewable energy will bankrupt us long before we get independence. It will mean having two power generating systems running in parallel for when the wind doesn't blow. No country could ever afford this extravagance.
"We need to be able to make our own decisions and make our own mistakes, protect our own culture"
What culture? Thingummyjig?
Salmond doesn't want independence. He wants to be part of the European Union and for Scots to enter the Euro bailout zone.
So, see that all mince you posted about cultcha and educayshun? You can put it in the bin.
I always thank that Alex Salmond has a smirk like a schoolboy who's been up to mischief; thank goodness he's all yours up in Scotland!
LOL, from the Spectator -
'Letds look at the history of Scots and money
The Darien scheme-bankrupted Scotland
John Law-bankrupted France
City of Glasgow Bank-bankrupted much of the West of Scotand
RBS and Bank of Scotland-bankrupted England.'
Would it be Alex or Nicola who would get on the plane to the IMF?
It must be difficult for the other areas of the UK to fully appreciate the real significance of the SNP victory. The voters in Scotland voted to move away from the Westminster Labour/Tory/LibDem same old, same old.
These parties have no answer to the SNP and the mandate they have which in no small part is far superior to the UK parties mandate.
SR – can only agree with your comments and observations, and I too am happy to wait for an independence referendum.
However the one nagging worry I now have is that Mr Salmond and the SNP are having things all too easy at Holyrood, and as a consequence may become somewhat complacent.
In the last parliament, there was, to a degree, a working opposition which kept Mr Salmond’s feet on the ground and ensured the he and his party had to work at being an effective government.
Such hard work and diligence by the SNP earned the respect and support of the people and was reflected in the last election results.
Now, with a considerable majority and absolutely no political opposition worthy of consideration Mr Salmond and the SNP are at risk of introducing inappropriate legislation simply because they can. Without having given it sufficient forethought, and done merely to appease vocal parliamentarians and a few party activists.
Such actions could just alienate a large proportion of the people of Scotland.
He would do well to learn from the history of the other Scottish parties, the Tories, the Liberals and Labour, who hoisted by their own petard and feelings of self importance, felt they were above the common man - they all learnt a very painful lesson at the hands of the Scottish people.
William..
"RBS and Bank of Scotland-bankrupted England.'"
There's no independent company called 'Bank of Scotland'. Maybe you mean the Halifax company that bought out BofS then bankrupted themselves and the UK ?
Ok,
1) why is 'membership of the Union no longer appropriate in the 21st century?
2) I understand the argument that the anti independence argument is negative, dismal or uses perjorative language. This argument seems to me to be in danger of being used every time someone speaks a pro union message whatever they say. It is becoming the standard way to try and swat it away. How would you like them to discuss the constitutional issue?
3) Why are we being told the SNP admin is doing such a good job? They may be, but
a) it is not v exciting
b) they have nothing that hard to do as they are not a fully fledged national government and do not have to deal with the terribly difficult economic situation
c) they are v focused on the constitutional question
Yes, I too would like to see where this time frame was listed in the manifesto; I don't think it was, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
Entirely pragmatically, this little Englander is very pro Scottish independence, as it will finally remove the baleful hold of Scottish Labour over England, thereby ensuring we never have another Labour government in England. Whilst they are all rogues and middling to useless, Labour have again and again proved that all they know how to do is to make a horrible mess of the country - most of all, with their full-on assault on Civil Liberty. My God you have to be beyond repair if you vote Labour.
Vote Labour - lose your freedom.
Duncan, I don't have time to go through it at present, but surely you realise the man reiterated that very point publicly for months before the May election.
I will look for it later because at present I'm having a little difficulty with my vision and trying to reduce computer reading.
Ha ha Richard. I've actually seen him look pensive and concerned myself so it does happen.
That, as you know, is one of my concerns too RM and it needs addressed. Once this winter is passed and people realise the cost of keeping warm, they will no doubt start to question this - including the green taxes.
William, shame on you for not knowing the slightest content of Scottish culture. :)
So Germany, France etc aren't independent?
Our current education system should be binned and also the idea of university places for all and sundry. I have no problem with anyone adding to their formal education but I do have a problem paying for courses of poor quality and little use towards employment.
I'm pleased he's all ours EP. A big improvement on CallMeDave and his sidekick Nick. :)
William, I could bore the pants off you listing the history of the English and money, but I'm too kind hearted.
I'd agree with you there petem. My English friends expressive slight envy at us having a leader who actually spoke - or appeared to - for the Scots. They have nobody down there to defend their corner.
I support your concerns JRB, hence my 'nice and easy' title. It's most important the SNP take the people with them and some of the proposals in the pipeline require a great deal more discussion than presently timetabled.
A strong opposition would put brakes on these and allow time for a little common sense to prevail maybe?
GHmitn, no nation in the 21st century should be beholden to another for their financial existence. I'm sure you have a good knowledge of why the union was formed in the first place (and it wasn't just because Scotland was more or less broke) so I won't insult you with a history lesson. Suffice to say the reasons are no longer applicable today.
I would like the unionists to put forward their reasons for the need for Scotland to stay in the Union. Not the usual drivel, but sensible points. Problem is there doesn't seem to be any.
How exciting do you want government to be GH? I agree they do not have to cope with a national government, but that's because the UK government refuse to let them try. I disagree that the SNP government is too focused on the constitutional question. It's the unionists and the MSM who seem obsessed with that.
I will look Michele but it was also repeated endlessly by Salmond prior to the election. And it's oft quoted in the MSM.
Elby, always pleased to help. :)
GHmlt
OK
1)Control of our own finances. Improve our heath service, welfare, pensions job creation etc just like any other normal country.
No more Trident or sending our servicemen to illegal wars.
No more two faced Westminster MPs signing pledges re tuition fees one day, voting for them when elected.
So ok why is union membership appropriate in the 21st century?
2) It would be great if someone could give the anti independence argument.
3) Thats why we want independence to control our own finances and deal with our own economic situations.
OK why are all unionist parties happy that torys in Westminster run the UK economy to suit the South East of England, no matter how detrimental that is to Scotland? Do you think the former governor of the Bank of England was correct when he said Scottish unemployment was a price worth paying to stop the UK (i.e. the south east) economy overheating?
Again I don't think that's quote true. It was mentioned in one of the leader's debates just before the election, and in an unsourced Daily Telegraph piece. It definitely was not put out for months before the election by my recollection. This is a careful rewriting of history by the SNP spin doctors, I think. Truth is they were careful to keep their options open until the election result was clear.
A referendum in the second half of the parliament was not included as part of the SNP Manifesto. This is fact!
However,the promise and the timing of the referendum was repeatedly made by Alec Salmond on numerous occasions in the lead up to the election.And there is more than plenty evidence for this!
Therefore It is just as important that this promise is kept to the electorate! To do otherwise would be a breach of promise,and make the SNP Government just as guilty as all the other parties..The Lib Dems spring to mind....Of saying one thing then doing the entire opposite as soon as they were in Government.
It is a matter of Trust!!
I also suspect that part of the reason this promise was made at the time, was to answer the Unionist parties assertions that should the SNP form the Government, their whole focus would be fixated on the constitution for the whole term of the parliament!
Strange then is it not, that from the night of the night of the election....The Unionists have never shut up about a referendum, and have been clamouring for one!!
They desperately wish for Alec Salmond and the SNP to break their faith with the country!!
Should the SNP now do so, the Unionist parties will cast this broken promise at the SNP's feet!!
But why have the Unionist parties suddenly become so desperate to call an early referendum, when they spent the whole of the last parliament determined to deny a referendum??
Quite simply, they opposed a referendum thinking that they may lose it, in the last parliament.
But now..They think that if they can force an early referendum, they may still have a chance of winning...whilst to leave it till the real impact of the Westminsters austerity measures kicks in, and people in scotland are hurting more..That not only would they lose it, they would lose it absolutely conclusively!!
I have a fear which has become apparent in the last few days. BP are developing an oil field which will have a life span of some 50 years (peak oil claims complete tosh as always).
David Cameron is beside himself. Oil revenues flowing into his Treasury. The lie that has been Scotland "relying" on England has been exposed for some time. It is irrefutable.
The fear is that Call me Dave will not let go of Scotland because England has too much to loose. Why would England give Scotland so much money for so many years if there was no gain for England in it?
RBS and to a lesser extent were sold out by Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling. May they hang their heads in shame.
Instead of bemoaning the faults of Scitland why don';t the English proclaim their undoubted strengths and embrace their Englishness. England does not need Scotland. England needs to be England.
Dubbieside,
Thanks for the reply
a) I was particularly interested in the 'it isn't right in the 21st century point'.
Independence may or may not improve all the things you say - or may be broadly similar to what we have now.
That argument needs fleshed out and isn't the 'its wrong in the 21st century point'.
b) Ok - slightly predictable if I may say so :)
my point is about whether the SNP are doing such a good job or not. I am asking for this to be put in some sort of perspective.
There is nothing to suggest that it would be good at national government or their vision would work. And to be fair nothing to suggest it wouldn't work either.
I'm just asking for a little measure in the Westminster are crap, Holyrood is brill argument.
c) Actually i think we have become very focussed on the constitutional issue and are not fully focussed on some of the big issues of our times like the dangers of stagnation and a changing world economy - and no nationalism is not the answer per se.
Supreme court, arguing Westminster is presenting alien and ineffectual policies for Scotland, arguing the SNP admin is confident by comparison. I think there is a v strong focus on unpicking the union. And yes I think the SNP admin a little unexciting - except for independence is the only show in town - who is anyone kiddinbg that it isn't.
And on pro and anti union arguments - all I'm hearing is emotion and assumptive arguments on both sides.
This is something most folks seem to feel instinctively right or wrong either way.
If you are not a secessionist you feel that British is what we are and that kinda works and is right.
If you are a nat you kinda think of Scotland as a fully self contained nation that doesn't want to be beholden to anyone else. You just don't see Scotland as more than Scotland and in some way part and parcel of Britain.
So I'm not hearing fleshed out arguments for independence.
And asking gentle questions of detail on how it will all work are fair enough as is serious examination of the too small, too wee argument.
I'm just asking for more than just trying to swat these points away saying too negative.
Similarly we could do with hearing exactly how an independent Scotland could do pensions, welfare, jobs and health better - with serious consideration of potential pitfalls in the policy lines suggested.
Page 28
Trusting the People to Decide.
Para 2
"We think the people of Scotland should decide out nation's future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest most Scots agree. We will, therefore bring forward our Referendum Bill in the next parliament."
Is what it says on the manifesto.
Tha fact that people are quibbling over there not being an exact date (even although even I who seldom watches TV heard Salmond and others state it would be in the second half of the parliament) just highlights the paucity of effective argument for the Union.
I thought we'd gotten over the 'Scottish' Bank chat, it seems some (not all I should say) were happy to reap the benefits when they flowed but whe things went tits up they squeel like toddlers.
The rest isn't worth refuting.
I'm a Scot living in England and I back Scotland in its aim to be independent.
And as an individual who I believe hasn't a xenophobic corpuscle in my blood back independence because the model of democracy as practised by Westminster is corrupt, incompetent and socially xenophobic.
As to the argument on renewable energy - the world has no choice on that matter. It's is only the model of financing used to adopt, adapt and introduce it that is open to abuse.
In that respect the model of privatisation has shown its feral vulnerability to corporate greed.
GHmlt
1) Ok so I gave you my reasons, I then asked, "So ok why is union membership appropriate in the 21st century?"
Why is appropriate?
2) Ok - slightly predictable if I may say so :) of course you can, however it would carry more weight if you gave the anti independence argument.
If not sending our troops to be cannon fodder in illegal wars, or Trident on our doorstep when the vast majority of Scottish people do not want them, are enough for me to be going on with.
Do you agree with the past governor of The Bank of England about Scottish unemployment?
Why do you think that not one country that gained independence from the UK has asked to become dependant again?
Duncan, weren't the leaders' debates broadcast before election day? Jings!
Thank you Cewe Jimmy, I'll take your word for that. I was going to trawl through the thing one my vision improved but now I won't bother.
It's no secret that Alex Salmond said the referendum would be in the later part of the parliament.
I entirely agree he must not rescind upon his promise but I have every faith in him. Let's face it - he likes the short term advantages of sticking windmills all over Scotland just to achieve a stupid target. Not something we should be proud of.
Thanks pa-broon. You've saved me endless hours. But the MSM do insist it was in the manifesto. I'll find the link eventually.
GHmltn
I want a proper democracy not the sham that emanates from Westminster as they will never change under the present circumstances.
"'Letds look at the history of Scots and money
The Darien scheme-bankrupted Scotland"
Lie, pure and simple.
Scotland was in good shape financially and so were most burghers. It was NOBLES who bankrupted themselves with the Darien scheme and most (not all) promptly sold out their nation to bail themselves out with English gold.
I don't think the "last half of the term" was in the manifesto, but it was something he said repeatedly so I think it is safe to say it was a promise. He would be lynched if he reneged on it.
Subrosa
All the SNP manifesto says is "there will be a referendum on independence during the lifetime of the parliament.
Alex Salmond and his ministers stated on TV and in newspaper interviews on numerous occasions that the referendum would be held in the second half of the parliament. It is fanciful for anyone to suggest that people did not know when the referendum would take place before they voted.
The reason that a specific date was never written into the manifesto, was I think due to the three unionist parties insisting that a referendum was not need in times of economic crisis, even though they created the crisis, and they would vote against it.
This was the unionist position up until May 4th, did something happen on May 5th that made them change their mind so quickly? I must have missed that. What was it?
I'm glad we've established that this so-called promise was not in fact made in the manifesto, though I agree that the idea of holding it in the second half of the parliament was floated before the election. But it wasn't a promise.
The reason this distinction is relevant is the number of people holding up this so-called promise as being the *reason*, now, why the referendum date cannot be brought forward. This is what needs to be put to bed. As another commenter rightly says, the SNP left their options open so that they could respond to whatever the election result was.
So please, let's stop this nonsense about it being a promise, and accept that delaying the referendum is a *choice* being made by the SNP now. And in my view they are doing it because they think it gives them a better chance of a yes vote on independence.
Let me make one other thing clear too. I'm entirely happy with a referendum in the second half of the parliament. But we need to set out the timetable *now* so that *all* sides can plan for it. And in my view, if it is going to be a 3-way question, then a cross-party constitutional convention needs to be set up as soon as possible to agree the definition of so-called "indy lite".
A brand new constitution for a brand new country - which is what is under discussion - should not be drawn up by a single political party. And the Scottish people need to know in advance what they are voting for before they can decide how to vote.
So let's drop the nonsense about promises that weren't, and focus instead on setting out a timetable and an approach that can allow this referendum to be effective in empowering Scots to decide their constitutional future.
Why did Labour change its position on a referendum between 4th May and 6th May?
It does not matter, choice or promise.
The SNP promised it would be in the second half of this parliament.
The SNP can choose to make it in the second half of this parliament. Winners choose, loosers winge from the sidelines.
"And in my view they are doing it because they think it gives them a better chance of a yes vote on independence" I bet Brown or Blair wish they had thought of that when they changed the dates of UK general elections. They could have changed them to when they thought they would win. Remind me when the last UK government ran for the full five years.
Whether or not the reason for calling the referendum was or was not in the manifesto is only of consequence to those of a unionist mind who are simply running scared.
Before the election Iain Grays mantra was for the SNP not to be bothering with this referendum nonsense, as "we know the result," and there are much more important things to do like dealing with the financial crisis and solving youth unemployment. Something London Labour never managed in their long term in Government when inequality got worse in the UK. So Gray was quite definite on that as was his team nodding wisely behind him. Then we had the election. Grays minster of sums PFI Kerr, was booted out and the shrieks began for "bring it on" again.
Alex Salmond stated over and over again and again at every opportunity that the referendum was to be held in the second half of the parliament and on that basis the voters of Scotland gave him the thumbs up and a landslide victory.
The SNP have the mandate it is their ball, the Scottish voters are increasingly happy with that fact, the desire for independence is increasing, and all the hysteria and shrieking from those asking the daft question. "Why not have the referendum now," and "well if you don't we will," from the Ukanians is just foaming and bluster from people driven by spite malice and sour grapes. However what is excellent is Alex Salmond and the SNP are getting the kind of publicity you could not afford to buy.
Scotland is indicating, and moving in to the fast lane, leaving the dinosaurs and juggernauts to crawl and growl away in the slow lane.
SAOR ALBA GU BRATH.
"Scotland is indicating, and moving in to the fast lane, leaving the dinosaurs and juggernauts to crawl and growl away in the slow lane"
I'm not so sure keyboard. Relying on creaky windmills for our energy and hanging on to the EU aprons is taking us back 50 years. Don't you think ? Plus putting off the referendum until the other parties get out of their quagmires is weak and shows lack of confidence. I doubt if William Wallace would have waited for his enemy to re group and re arm itself.
Yeah and William Wallace lost at Falkirk, too.
The one who actually won Scottish freedom, Robert the Bruce, never hesitated to back off from a fight in order to time it to his best advantage.
That is what smart leaders do.
Dubbie, thanks for that. I got my information from a MSM newspaper but can't find the link. I therefore have to make an apology for the incorrect statement so I'l put that on the post.
You're right about it being common knowledge though because even those who are not politically minded know when it will be.
The unionists still don't know what happened on 5th May. That's their problem.
Erm Duncan, have you read Dubbie's comment? It was in the manifesto saying a referendum would be held during the lifetime of the parliament.
It's here:
http://manifesto.votesnp.com/progress_has_been_made
And in case you can't read it :
'And we will bring forward our proposals to give Scots a vote on full economic powers through an independence referendum'.
As it is contained within the manifesto I believe that to be a promise.
The second half of the parliament will last 2 and a half years. Surely the opposition are aware that's anytime from November 2013 until May 2016.
Owing to Westminster not wanting their toes stepped upon they granted a 5 year term for this parliament.
The problem as I see it is that the unionists don't want to take part in discussions. They thought Calman would be the answer but of course that's now backfired.
Of course a new constitution shouldn't be drawn up by only one party, but if the others don't want to participate, I consider the SNP have the right to go ahead.
Do you now see my point about it being in the manifesto and therefore it's a promise?
Well said KBW. It's the MSM who are leading the independence question and saving the SNP the effort. They do deserve the publicity as they've been shunned for years.
Good one Jeanne. :)
You're right Jeanne, it wasn't but the referendum was. I'll put an update on the blog post.
Sorry Crinkly, I missed your comment. Yes you're right but that doesn't mean to say we all have to agree with every policy does it.
JR..
"Robert the Bruce, never hesitated to back off from a fight in order to time it to his best advantage"
I doubt if Robert the Bruce would have waited for his enemy to re group and re arm itself. Especially after Sir William Wallace softened the enemy up for him and got the people behind him.
RMcGeddon said..It is just such comments about "creaky windmills" that leave me in despair about the mental well being of some bloggers. To state that "Relying on creaky windmills for our energy and hanging on to the EU aprons is taking us back 50 years." is just plain wrong, and so typical of the disinformation used to try and undermine Scotland.
I remember as a lad visiting Holland and being full of admiration for the Dutch that they chose to live in a country protected by a wall to keep the sea out and used windmills to help them. If you suggested doing such a thing these days you would be laughed and mocked of the face of the blogosphere. The Dutch are great engineers and innovators. You only have to visit Rotterdam and witness the sheer volume of merchant marine traffic they handle, and the interrelation of their amazing canal systems, Scotland can learn plenty from them. Pre union they were one of our greatest trading partners, along with most of the Baltic states. The Netherlands and Scandinavia are light years ahead of us technologically and socially.
Denmarks Samso island,
http://tiny.cc/32o4u
shows us that there is a better way to live with regards to energy use and production. Scotland is following that model slowly but surely given the constraints forced on us, not least the illegal retention of funds due to us from the UK treasury
http://tiny.cc/0tgh1
and the disgraceful discrimination on grid connections that sees producers in the south given subsidies when producers in the north have to pay millions.
Unlike you I have every confidence in the SNPs ambitions for Scotland. Compare that to the madness of Thatcher, who in an act of malicious idealogical spite, killed stone dead one of the greatest industries Scotland ever had, the NOSHEB. It had to be killed as it had all the trademarks of a socialist industry designed to benefit the people who lived with it. "Hydro Electricity was a crusade, with a marvellous goal:the prize of affordable power power for all from Scottish rainfall." Just think what these Dutch engineers would have done with the natural resources we are blessed with here. But no it had to go, Nuclear was the game in town and Hydro was in the way.
Read The Hydro Boys by Emma Wood, it will open your eyes a bit.
You say Salmond will "bankrupt us."
He is to late for that as Gordon Brown beat him to it, staying in the UK now means years of penury and more inequality as we are force fed the London diet. I would much rather suffer that penury in a free independent country. How the unionists crowed and sneered when Ireland and Iceland hit the skids, they are not sneering now as both these independent countries are higher rated on the social indicators than the UK, who are sinking deeper each month.
The when of the referendum arguments from either side cancel each other out. SNP says it wants it in the second half because they're not positive they'd get a yes now and the Unionists want it now for much the same reason.
Salmond has said repeatedly in the media when it would be, there needs to be a lot more education and honesty between now and then and I don't think I'm being cynical when I say unionist flavoured types are keen to have the ref now purely because they know the truth will do no good to their cause.
There is no mention in the manifesto about the ref being in the second half of the parliament (I did a thorough word search on the pdf manifesto) but all you need to do is google 'salmond, second half of the parliament' and hundreds of news results are returned confirming the notion. The most recent mention was in response to Cameron after his visit to Aberdeen saying Salmond should hold the referendum as soon as possible, (reported by STV news and the Herald.)
Again arguing the toss about whether something isn't in the manifesto but is uttered (repeatedly) by the leader of a party highlights the drought of coherent effective argument from the dependency parties.
I would apply that idea to all political parties, it would be churlish to excuse your own party of doing something then bray loudly when one you don't like does it.
Subrosa
Your comment about Calman was interesting. All the unionist panic just now is because 5th May (Im sure something happened that day) made Calman totally redundant.
The unionist plan was their London masters (Scottish Unionists know their place) would vote Calman through Westminster, then the Scottish poodles would use their majority to force it through Holyrood.
We now know for fact, from Calman himself, that there was no economic reason for the 3p tax rate that was never used being raised to 10p to be never used. One can only assume it was to make a good newspaper headline.
We also know for fact, from the secretary of state against Scotland, that the treasury does not know what the financial impact the 10p tax rate would have on Scotland if used. They never thought it would need explaining, it would just be forced through.
We can only hope that the SNP will vote against this dogs breakfast of a bill, but be prepared for the full MSM backlash. SNP turn down more powers etc.
keyboard..
I'm as keen as you for independence but can't see how we can be independent in the EU.
You seem to be getting Holland and The Netherlands mixed up. Holland is a part of The Netherlands. A bit like Moray being a part of Scotland.
Windmills aren't the answer to our energy needs because they require 100% back up from conventional power. With nuclear power and coal powered stations being rejected by the SNP then we will be reliant on imported energy during cold spells. Last winter the UK's 3,600 windmills provided us with 0.1% of our energy over long spells. Imported (nuclear) energy from France kept the lights on.
The cost of connecting up the windmills and wave generators to the grid will be astronomical and the pylons destroying our landscape will be cursed for generations. The SNP said yesterday on tv that the new 'super pylons' will have no effect on the landscape. They were removing the smaller pylons from Denny to Beauly in preparation for the big pylons to connect to the mythical 'renewable revolution' in The Highlands. They're living in another universe if they think that the new pylons will have no effect on the landscape. The Minister ( Fergus Ewing ?) said there would be a 25% reduction in pylons - gee wizz cool, that'll help.
Dubbie, surely the SG will vote down the Scotland Bill now. It's control freakery and nothing more.
KBW, while I understand your passion for independence, we really have to start being realistic about this target the Scottish government has set itself for renewable energy.
I've just published a wee post. The evidence world-wide is that sticking up these turbines will not solve the issue. If it did then I wouldn't be complaining.
Rosie, there is plenty evidence world wide that Nuclear is dangerous and poisonous. For the SNP to do nothing is not acceptable. They are not just sticking up turbines but trying to kick start a whole range of generation systems and technologies. For far to long we have been a convenient place for England to exploit. Eg, Torness was built to supply England.
Lets think about a scenario that is right now technologically possible. I can see Whitlee from my house. Let us imagine that when I can see a wind turbine going round in the wind as they do most days and nights, that the electricity is making hydrogen, and that hydrogen will be stored /harvested to fill fuel tanks of cars and household fuel cells. Or indeed to fuel community CHP scehemes. Would that not be a wonderful thing.
The national grid would become redundant, so no pylons, and we would have secure energy supplies, created right on our doorsteps.
The only thing that is stopping that now is infrastructure and political will. The technology is with us now it exists. Fuel cells work. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Alex Salmond recently opened the Hydrogen centre in Fife. it is happenig, and wind turbines are a part of that mix. OK in a few years other generation methods may be found, but right now the basics for a hydrogen network are in place.
Wind turbines in Scotland can pump Hydro storage in Norway given the right inter connectors and vice versa, that can be used for peak demands.
I have put up a link to Samso island that demonstrates how a community can make the wind work for them, however no one wants to see that evidence, it does work.
There are as I have said very powerful vested interests spreading lies and propaganda about wind generation, not the least of them being the nuclear lobby, who have friends in very high places.
I reccomend: http://www.bwea.com/you/cgcase.html
RMcGeddon said...keyboard..
"I'm as keen as you for independence but can't see how we can be independent in the EU.
You seem to be getting Holland and The Netherlands mixed up. Holland is a part of The Netherlands."
Scotlands voice will grow much stronger in the EU should we choose to be in it, than it is right now. Then we may protect ourselves better against such corrupt legislation as The Common Fisheries Policy where we were sold down the river, by UK ministers. SNP ministers were made to sit out side in the corridor as the meetings took place. It is the small independent nations of the EU, that do the best in it. Scotland will be no different. You only have to listen to the pejorative now coming from the likes of Curran, Moore, and "who cares" Davidson who thinks the SNP are neo fascist, to see why we need rid of Westminster.
There is no confusion in my mind between Holland and the Netherlands, is that really the best you can do. I said I visited Holland, which is the westerly province of the Netherlands, and has the most of the sea defences. What is your problems?
KBW, I know about nuclear and it's dangers. In fact I did a thesis on it many years ago, but it was declared the safest and cheapest way to produce power. Windmills were around then as they have been for centuries yet nobody mentioned them until the 'global warming' propaganda started and the likes of Gore and his pals saw a way to make a fast few billion.
Wind to hydrogen technology is in its infancy and could well take another 20-30 years to develop for the commercial and domestic markets. Wave power is struggling to develop yet we've been hearing how wonderful it will be for the past decade and more.
Windfarms mainly exist because of their subsidies. There has been one near here (a small one) for a few years now. Quite a few of the small community, who were wooed by the subsidies, have changed their minds about them because of the constant low hum, the number of people's properties which have reduced in value being so close to it and the intermittent output.
All you speak of is a Utopia KBW and perhaps a welcome one, but the cost is too high right now and it's the people who are paying the cost. My concerns are more immediate. How many elderly will die this winter because they can't afford the current fuel prices? I know of a few who already spend hours in a supermarket wandering about because it's been warmer there in the past few days. How sad.
Have you given any thought to what happens once the lifetime of a wind turbine is over? An expensive and certainly not 'green' processes.
Scotland excelled at hydro power which was strongly resented in the 50s, yet with very careful planning and exceptional engineering, it succeeded and some of its associated buildings are works of architectural delight.
I have no difficulty supply England with power as long as an independent Scotland is paid for it. We've been giving away our power for years now and actually paying to do so because no political party is prepared to take on the Grid.
Oh KBW, as for us having a stronger voice in the EU, I think we would have just as strong a voice outwith the EU with regard to our fishing industry. Mind you, the EU and its legislation has more or less destroyed it so I could be wrong.
SR..
The most recent studies show that we've lost about £100Bn in fish catches to other EU countries that would have been in UK waters pre the EU Fishery Policy. Mostly to the Spanish.
An independent Scotland outwith the EU would have it's own fishing grounds and towns like Arbroath might start to re establish themselves as fishing ports. The local drink and drug fuelled kids would once again get gainful employment and some pride back into their life.
kbw. sorry no offence over the Holland / Netherlands thing.
Scotland would have a stronger voice on it's own. Eire and Greece are now just empty vassals reliant on the ECB for sustenance. Lured into the trap of easy money and a 'strong' voice in Europe.
Rosie we will agree to differ.
All industrial construction has finite life and all of it has to be decommissioned. Decommissioning nuclear as we see at Dounreay is horrendously expensive, and they have admitted that the sea bed and beaches may never be cleaned. Wind turbines are no different. They had to extend the car park at Whitlee as what was previously bog and scrub, has been turned in to a massive recreation area with walkers and cyclists enjoying access to an area they never had before. The wild life is thriving as is the plant life as many pond areas were created to control run of water. Every week end summer and winter sees the car park full to overflowing with families enjoying the experience. It has a visitor information centre and excellent coffee bar. You can see all the way down the Clyde to Ailsa Craig. I hated the idea of Whitlee when it first was proposed, I would not be without it now.
I do not accept that the Hydrogen economy is utopia. It is real and with us. Honda has just launched the first production fuel cell car. Hydrogen stations are slowly appearing. The Arabs hate it, the nukes hate it, the coal industry hates it, hydrogen has many enemies, but it is an industry whose time has come.
Please read this story and comments:
http://kevinwilliamson.blogspot.com/2007/10/oct-1st-shetland-mystery-story-of-sandy.html
We will KBW. As to Whitlee I can't really comment as I've only observed it from some distance. However, wasn't it there before windmills? I'm sure now deceased neighbours of mine used to walk in that area regularly.
I have been watching the very slow development of hydrogen and it's taken over a decade to produce a fuel cell car. As I said it will take a few more decades before the technology is affordable enough to extend and then of course the likes of China will pinch it and sell it back much cheaper.
Post a Comment