Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Long term energy security *is* a vote winner.

Quality jobs and regeneration of regions *is* a vote winner.

Generating gas product to bolster our exports *is* a vote winner.

I think there are a lot of people who would prefer to concentrate far more on renewables for the above. Like Germany is doing. If it's good enough for Germany, why not here. It's not like we're short of wind or water, that's for sure.

An ideal combination of sunny and stormy weather in different parts of Germany on July 25th allowed the country to meet 78% of its energy needs from wind, solar, and other renewable sources, a new national record.
The previous national record for renewable energy generated in a single day was set in May 2014, when 74% of Germany’s domestic energy needs were met by solar, wind, biomass, and hydro power.

http://qz.com/469080/germany-met-78-of-its-daily-energy-needs-with-renewables/

Not doing anything, but blaming others in London for our ills might be a short term vote winner, but it does nothing long term.

If the argument you present Shakey had been around in the 60s and 70s then there would have been no development of the oil rigs in the North Sea; well...the environmental risks would have ruled against wouldn't they.

Fracking isn't a vote winner. I'm sorry, but it's not no matter how you try to 'soften' the language. People don't really like the idea. And again, I'm no green advocate so don't shoot the messenger. It's just how it is. But if we have to find new ways of generating energy.. I think given a choice, most overall would prefer renewable policies, like Germany is attempting, to fracking.

In the UK however, it's going to be a long hard road for either. And is nothing to do with 'blame'. Westminster favours the fracking/ nuclear route... the Scottish Government favours much more in the way of renewables. Fracking in a Scotland where it's devolved government doesn't want it, to hand profits to Westminster won't go down well as I've already pointed out. Again, that's just how it is.

I doubt you'd be particularly keen on a government in Scotland imposing windfarms etc up the ying yang in all corners of England, then trousering the profits in Holyrood ( SNP led ) to build ( for example ) a high speed rail network that starts in Glasgow either, if you're truly honest with yourself and reverse things round a bit. Would you ?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Since when was it 'racism' to not really want to see any hypothetical profits from fracking in Scotland, to be decided where 'best spent' by the Tories in Westminster ?

it is racism/nationalism to say the fracking revenues from say Glasgow should be shared with the people of Skye but not the people of Northumberland simply for nationalism/racial reasons.

Anyway more important is that Aunty Nicola is gearing up the heat on the next referendum.
What will the tactics be when the government of the UK rejects the demand.
Boycott of the hated English goods and services, refusal to accept tainted English money (only joking), a few bricks through a few English windows.........

fascinating to reflect on the possibilities......

.string.

........

And believe me, when the oil does run out, Scotland will get the boot from the UK so fast our eyes will be watering. We'll be shown the door.

.....

That silly remark is a good candidate for "Whinge of the Week" methinks.

But it certainly encapsulates SNP "thinking".

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

it is racism/nationalism to say the fracking revenues from say Glasgow should be shared with the people of Skye but not the people of Northumberland simply for nationalism/racial reasons.

No, if you note the posts... It was other posters ( Hamish etc ) who were proclaiming that fracking would be a wonderful and necessary boost to Scotland's finances. One that the SNP would be 'mad' to miss out on, and ideed that they 'lack integrity' by not giving fracking the go ahead. None of those posters mentioned the UK in relation to fracking revenues.

Pointing that the profit's aren't and wouldn't be Scotland's revenues. Isn't racist. It's fact.

Anyway more important is that Aunty Nicola is gearing up the heat on the next referendum.
What will the tactics be when the government of the UK rejects the demand.
Boycott of the hated English goods and services, refusal to accept tainted English money (only joking), a few bricks through a few English windows.........

fascinating to reflect on the possibilities......

Not really. She hasn't said anything she hasn't been saying since Sept last year. I think you're over-reacting just a little bit.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

That silly remark is a good candidate for "Whinge of the Week" methinks.

But it certainly encapsulates SNP "thinking".

Does it now. I learnt all I know about that from yourself string. You're quite the master at it.

Anyway... *stifles yawn* shall we get back to grown up discussion ? Or are you intent on continuing with the playground stuff.. because if it's the playground stuff I can't really be bothered.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, if you note the posts... It was other posters ( Hamish etc ) who were proclaiming that fracking would be a wonderful and necessary boost to Scotland's finances. One that the SNP would be 'mad' to miss out on, and ideed that they 'lack integrity' by not giving fracking the go ahead. None of those posters mentioned the UK in relation to fracking revenues.

Pointing that the profit's aren't and wouldn't be Scotland's revenues. Isn't racist. It's fact.



Not really. She hasn't said anything she hasn't been saying since Sept last year. I think you're over-reacting just a little bit.

yes or no

between now and Juy 2016, in your opinion, will aunty be calling for a new referendum?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes or no

between now and Juy 2016, in your opinion, will aunty be calling for a new referendum?

No. But they'll put the option to call one at any point between 2016 to 2020/1 in their manifesto... and wait for an opportune moment.

Cameron will never agree. He said the same the last time, but the SNP were all for going ahead anyway. So he caved. Next time he most certainly won't. But the SNP will still go ahead with it anyway, there's nothing to stop a consultative referendum taking place. Bets will be off once the vote is in if it's a Yes. Then there will be a legal battle royale ahead I suppose over how 'legal' the result is. Westminster's achillies heel there, is that the last one, was in fact legal. And they set a precedent if the next one is run along exactly the same lines. However, nothing to stop one being run. Is the result that would be the issue ( if Yes ).

But there's a lot of water to go under the bridge yet Clapton. Is too soon after the last one imo. So, No there won't be another referendum in 2016, yes there will be an option to have one 'at some point'.

skintmacflint

.string. wrote: »

with the intention to jump in whatever decision is best for the SNP, rather than best for the country is typical of the political cynicism that we have come to associate with the SNP and it's Collective.

Very true and typical of SNP which is merely a Populist party with a very effective brand marketing team. However it's also SNPs Achilles heel. It's slowly becoming noticeable in Scotland that SNP will always put the party and possibility of spin first and foremost.

They are also now being seen as putting their constitutional campaigning before governance on devolved aspects, which is damaging Scotland.

It's getting pretty obvious Sturgeon is between a rock and a hard place over a 2nd Referendum. Her new fanatic Independence voters are pushing hard and getting disgruntled about her uncertainty, and she along with the longer established SNP voters know only too well, if another is held even in 2020 she'll lose again.

Sturgeon and Salmond only keep mentioning it publicly , in order to bolster falling interest and keep the fanatics contained. They are worried. Even more normal SNP voters are sick and tired of repetitive Referendum talk, and feel SNP should be working on things within their control, which are failing. Instead of spending their time griping about what they don't have.

As for Shakes comment on precedent and they'll hold one regardless, blather, blather, just another indication of the desperation being felt by SNP hardliners.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. But they'll put the option to call one at any point between 2016 to 2020/1 in their manifesto... and wait for an opportune moment.

Cameron will never agree. He said the same the last time, but the SNP were all for going ahead anyway. So he caved. Next time he most certainly won't. But the SNP will still go ahead with it anyway, there's nothing to stop a consultative referendum taking place. Bets will be off once the vote is in if it's a Yes. Then there will be a legal battle royale ahead I suppose over how 'legal' the result is. Westminster's achillies heel there, is that the last one, was in fact legal. And they set a precedent if the next one is run along exactly the same lines. However, nothing to stop one being run. Is the result that would be the issue ( if Yes ).

But there's a lot of water to go under the bridge yet Clapton. Is too soon after the last one imo. So, No there won't be another referendum in 2016, yes there will be an option to have one 'at some point'.

Well of course the Scottish Parliament can't call a referendum which is binding on the UK Government so there's your difference.

Plus it was agreed that the last referendum would decide matters "for a generation". If I was Mr Cameron I simply wouldn't fight in another referendum and simply point out that the SNP was spending money that could be curing Granny's cancer on a referendum for political reasons that in the real world makes no difference to anything.

Mistermeaner

Agree with generali, any silly expenditure on pointless referendums should be viewed as snp marketing expenditure and paid for by the snp membership - a referendum without the blessing of the UK parliament in nothing more than a survey.

Perhaps they could have a just giving page and run an e-petition? Might the snp be able to apply for charitable status?