Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Onshore fracking is what we've been discussing. That's where the new licences are being granted. There can be no onshore jobs lost re fracking, when there aren't actually any yet. .

There are approximately 200 onshore oil and gas wells in the UK that have been using hydraulic fracturing since the 1980's.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There are approximately 200 onshore oil and gas wells in the UK that have been using hydraulic fracturing since the 1980's.

So what's your problem then ? Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm someone who's all out 'Green' as well as an SNP member.

However, the facts are that fracking, is an incredibly controversial subject matter. And deeply unpopular with lots of voters who don't like the idea of it. Nor the negative sides of it reported ( contaminating waters supplies etc ).

Mistermeaner

elantan wrote: »

your no looking hard enough ... dig deeper

still can't find it - can you help me out?

PS it's 'not'

.string.

Mistermeaner wrote: »

still can't find it - can you help me out?

PS it's 'not'

It's because she likes posting patois.

A few posts ago Shakey suggested using Google on this and so, being a cooperative type, I tried SNP fracking; the result gives a series of accounts of confused/misleading SNP messages on the subject.

Not that I expect anything of acknowledgement from the SNP Collective here that it is (another) tricky issue for the SNP.

The enforced SNP maximum appears to be:

See no evil (of the SNP), hear no evil (of the SNP) and speak no evil (of the SNP).

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So what's your problem then ? Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm someone who's all out 'Green' as well as an SNP member.

However, the facts are that fracking, is an incredibly controversial subject matter. And deeply unpopular with lots of voters who don't like the idea of it. Nor the negative sides of it reported ( contaminating waters supplies etc ).

There have been one or two stories of contaminated water, even stories of gas coming out of water taps, but my understanding of what I've read is that these stories, if true, are symptomatic of unregulated fracking in unsuitable areas of America and are not to be taken as representative.

It seems to me that such scare stories are the life blood of anti fracking people whose opposition to fracking is based on emotional, rather than factual, arguments.

ruggedtoast

elantan wrote: »

your getting confused again ( which often happens) when we get independence we wont have your taxes ... thats kinda part of the deal ... you keep yours we will keep ours ... unless ofcourse you live in Scotland ... then you have to pay into our pot

Okay. I'll check in again in forty years, when you get your next referendum. Which 'll be No again.

Mistermeaner

.string. wrote: »

There have been one or two stories of contaminated water, even stories of gas coming out of water taps, but my understanding of what I've read is that these stories, if true, are symptomatic of unregulated fracking in unsuitable areas of America and are not to be taken as representative.

It seems to me that such scare stories are the life blood of anti fracking people whose opposition to fracking is based on emotional, rather than factual, arguments.

The famous fire from the taps thing was debunked - that had been going on for years before fracking due naturally occurring methane from swamp water. But let's not let science get in the way.

What's the other common ones? Earth quakes - again happen naturally all the time most unnoticeable, even those that are don't cause any damage.

Other water contamination? What do people think happens with all the !!!! sh it , condoms, bleach etc that go down our drains every day into the water table. We have technology that allows to treat water (incidentally all of the uks chlorine , used for water treatment, is produced from salt that is solution mined in huge cavities under the leafy farms of cheshire - nobody even notices. This same cavities are now being used to store russian gas to help protect against our chronic vulnerability to the russians turning the pipes off. To convert these cavities to gas you have to go through the nsips process, just as any fracking sites will, which involve various surveys nd impact assessment including counting badgers and newts etc. As well as seismic and geological surveys, traffic assessments, public impact etc. There is a rigorous framework of science applied to any decisions along these lines - the 'public' are generally ignorant to this and wouldn't understand the science anyway so along with local councils are in the worst possible position to have an opinion on fracking.


But of course what is science and fact vs popular opinion. No is easy.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It's because she likes posting patois.

A few posts ago Shakey suggested using Google on this and so, being a cooperative type, I tried SNP fracking; the result gives a series of accounts of confused/misleading SNP messages on the subject.

Not that I expect anything of acknowledgement from the SNP Collective here that it is (another) tricky issue for the SNP.

The enforced SNP maximum appears to be:

See no evil (of the SNP), hear no evil (of the SNP) and speak no evil (of the SNP).

What on earth are you wittering on about string ? Google and SNP only ever throw up stories from the 99% of newspapers and media that want to 'get something on them'. Fracking hasn't been banned, nor given the go-ahead as I've stated. The UK government is issuing licences ( reserved), but the Scottish Govt is withholding planning permission ( devolved) currently.

Of course it's confusing. You've got posters above incensed by the idea that 'Sturgeon' will lose 1000's of Scottish oil jobs if the SNP don't give the go ahead. And others stating that the SNP will rue the day if they give the go-ahead. And that's confusing too.

What do YOU think the SNP should do re fracking ? Yay or Nae ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

There have been one or two stories of contaminated water, even stories of gas coming out of water taps, but my understanding of what I've read is that these stories, if true, are symptomatic of unregulated fracking in unsuitable areas of America and are not to be taken as representative.

It seems to me that such scare stories are the life blood of anti fracking people whose opposition to fracking is based on emotional, rather than factual, arguments.

Like it or not. I'm afraid those are the stories that are cutting through with the UK public.

elantan

Mistermeaner wrote: »

still can't find it - can you help me out?

PS it's 'not'

What an spoil yer chance for learning? I widnae deprive ye....

P's its no if ye come fae where ah dae