Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why don't you apply some of your wonderful own 'springboard defence's' in order to nit pick on some of the below. I look forward to your logical and balanced critique. But I certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/17/scottish-labour-leader-deletes-youtube-video-nhs-stats-wrong

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-jim-murphys-been-fiddling-nhs-statsand-deleting-his-tweets.1424188161

Well caught out. And he's made himself a total laughing stock all over social media for this. His tweet and video can still be viewed elsewhere.

I don't do springboard defensive posts of political parties, because I'm not a fervent supporter of a particular party. Unlike you. Also not sure why you think I'd want to defend Jim Murphy.

Now I've cleared that up and seems you asked. Here's my personal opinion based on having read one link you gave.

1. Labour Politician in smear tactic campaign (which seems to be the norm these days much to electorates annoyance)on rival party issues info about NHS online which is misleading. His researcher hasn't understood the info gained from a FOI.

2. It is publicly pointed out how the report is wrong. Once it is pointed out, , he's forced to apologise and is left with a red face. And rightly so.

3. The public are reassured to read things aren't as bad as the report said.

Meanwhile NHS staff are rightly fed up again at the figures being wrong showing them in a bad light, and for being used as a political football yet again.

SNP party make a big deal out of it, as would the Labour Party if the positions were reversed.

Most people think, here we go again, and there's still weeks to go till May, then get on with their lives.

Fervent supporters get all steamed up about it in outrageous indignation, pile onto the internet and social media in droves, and revel in yet another mass outpouring of vitriolic drivel against everything that isn't SNP . Then having satiated their bitterness quota for the night , go to bed till the next time.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

I don't do springboard defensive posts of political parties, because I'm not a fervent supporter of a particular party. Unlike you. Also not sure why you think I'd want to defend Jim Murphy.

Now I've cleared that up and seems you asked. Here's my personal opinion based on having read one link you gave.

1. Labour Politician in smear tactic campaign (which seems to be the norm these days much to electorates annoyance)on rival party issues info about NHS online which is misleading. His researcher hasn't understood the info gained from a FOI.

2. It is publicly pointed out how the report is wrong. Once it is pointed out, , he's forced to apologise and is left with a red face. And rightly so.

3. The public are reassured to read things aren't as bad as the report said.

Meanwhile NHS staff are rightly fed up again at the figures being wrong showing them in a bad light, and for being used as a political football yet again.

SNP party make a big deal out of it, as would the Labour Party if the positions were reversed.

Most people think, here we go again, and there's still weeks to go till May, then get on with their lives.

Fervent supporters get all steamed up about it in outrageous indignation, pile onto the internet and social media in droves, and revel in yet another mass outpouring of vitriolic drivel against everything that isn't SNP . Then having satiated their bitterness quota for the night , go to bed till the next time.

Thank you ! So much better than concentrating on simply discussing me wasn't it. I imagine that you must think that in real life I walk about covered in saltires and Yes badges, frothing at the mouth about Labour and making 1000 tweets a day. ( Yes, I know, there will be a post below this stating this is exactly what I do ).

You couldn't be further from the truth. I'm an ordinary 5ft 0 self-employed mum, and a new grandmother .. I use Facebook for family and friend catchups only, and have never tweeted anything in my life. I just read them. I voted Lib-dem last time round. And would've been a Devo-Max voter had it been on the ballot paper. When it wasn't and I started researching further.. then I came down on the Yes side. I joined the SNP shortly after the referendum. I am not blinkered to their or any other parties faults. I do not own a saltire, and very few badges. I do think the media has come up short in many ways over the last few years in terms of balance.

However, I also enjoy the debates surrounding politics, and find the lead up to this election, with all it's craziness and speculations fascinating. I can only contribute to such debates from my own, pro-SNP standpoint politically.. Because that's how I view things at the moment. I do not think there will be a complete Labour wipe out by the SNP this May. Only a 5% clawback in vote share would see Labour retain a lot of seats still.
There is nothing sinister going on, I have no personal vendetta against anyone, and in terms of 'feverent' well, that's a matter of opinion. You don't know me. But when any debate starts moving from discussing political issues and points.. and starts moving towards more personal 'accusations' in terms of what someone is, or is not. Then it just gets boring for everyone. And it's a sign one has nothing else really meaningful to add to the actual discussion at hand.

After all, if there weren't any pro-SNP people about on threads like these, they'd get all get very one sided wouldn't they ?

Anyway, nice of Vince to stage an intervention last night don't you think ?

VINCE Cable has paved the way for the Liberal Democrats to form a 'rainbow coalition' Government with Labour and the SNP after admitting his party would be 'perfectly happy' to work with the Nationalists.

YouGov founder and polling expert Peter Kellner has predicted that a tripartite coalition of Labour, the SNP and Liberal Democrats would have the best chance of forming a working administration after May 7.
It lends weight to Mr Cable's claim that a three-party deal is possible.
"There is probably going to be an issue in the next parliament of minority Government," Mr Cable said. "When that happens there are all kinds of different possibilities from coalition, support outside coalition, and I think any sensible party has to be willing to look at all those possibilities in an open minded way because what the country will need is stability.

"We're perfectly happy to work with the SNP. There's no taboo on the SNP.

"Probably the party we had the greatest degree of difference from were the Tories but given the reality of the situation in 2010, the need for a stable Government, the extreme nature of the economic crisis, we worked together in a businesslike way. We would approach the SNP in exactly the same way."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/vince-cable-lib-dems-would-enter-rainbow-coalition-with-labour-and-the-sn.118662887

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Thank you ! So much better than concentrating on simply discussing me wasn't it. I imagine that you must think that in real life I walk about covered in saltires and Yes badges, frothing at the mouth about Labour and making 1000 tweets a day. ( Yes, I know, there will be a post below this stating this is exactly what I do ).

You couldn't be further from the truth. I'm an ordinary 5ft 0 self-employed mum, and a new grandmother .. I use Facebook for family and friend catchups only, and have never tweeted anything in my life. I just read them. I voted Lib-dem last time round. And would've been a Devo-Max voter had it been on the ballot paper. When it wasn't and I started researching further.. then I came down on the Yes side. I joined the SNP shortly after the referendum. I am not blinkered to their or any other parties faults. I do not own a saltire, and very few badges. I do think the media has come up short in many ways over the last few years in terms of balance.

However, I also enjoy the debates surrounding politics, and find the lead up to this election, with all it's craziness and speculations fascinating. I can only contribute to such debates from my own, pro-SNP standpoint politically.. Because that's how I view things at the moment. I do not think there will be a complete Labour wipe out by the SNP this May. Only a 5% clawback in vote share would see Labour retain a lot of seats still.
There is nothing sinister going on, I have no personal vendetta against anyone, and in terms of 'feverent' well, that's a matter of opinion. You don't know me. But when any debate starts moving from discussing political issues and points.. and starts moving towards more personal 'accusations' in terms of what someone is, or is not. Then it just gets boring for everyone. And it's a sign one has nothing else really meaningful to add to the actual discussion at hand.

After all, if there weren't any pro-SNP people about on threads like these, they'd get all get very one sided wouldn't they ?

Anyway, nice of Vince to stage an intervention last night don't you think ?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/vince-cable-lib-dems-would-enter-rainbow-coalition-with-labour-and-the-sn.118662887

Congratulations on being a new grandmother

We look forward to seeing the new addition is 20 years time when he/she flees south, after Scotland is independent and has tried a different way than austerity and so is collapsing under a huge debt burden while basking in a proud socialist nationalist utopia.
Best to advice them that Anyone But the English isn't very polite and Flower of Scotland is a bit inappropriate for the 21st century.

.string.

OK - well we'll see. Let's try this issuie and see where we go.

Sturgeon seeks electricity assurance over Longannet threat

I'll take a few quotes from that.

the huge coal-fired power station at Longannet in Fife is facing a renewed threat to its future.

Scottish Power, which operates the plant, warned last year that the cost of connecting to the grid meant the station may close earlier than planned.

Transferring power over a distance means loss of power and automatically makes the electricity more expensive. I presume that this is the root technical problem here.

A spokesman for National Grid said: "Transmission charges reflect the cost of building the network to transport electricity from power stations to major towns and cities where demand for power is greater.

"When power stations are further away from centres of demand, that means more miles of network need to be built and maintained. The additional network costs are included in the charges to both the power station and the energy suppliers.

"The aim is to encourage generators and suppliers to consider this when making decisions on where to locate, so it can reduce the need for extra network and keep costs down for customers."

It seems clear that this is not a temporary problem because if, as is implied, the renewable energy supplies looked forward to in Scotland are excess to actual need in Scotland and are thus in principle available for use in the rest of the UK, then the same economic factors regarding transmission losses will still apply.

It could be that Electricity generation in Scotland is aimed at too high a level and is not sustainable.

Following a meeting of the Scottish Energy Advisory Board, Scotland's First Minister Ms Sturgeon has written to Prime Minister David Cameron to call for an analysis of electricity capacity margins in Scotland.

"These issues need to be assessed and that is why I am calling on Prime Minister David Cameron to act."

She is also seeking reassurance that the UK government understands the "key role" which Scottish capacity plays in ensuring adequate levels of energy security across the UK.

Ms Sturgeon said it was clear that "industry experts are concerned about security of supply in Scotland and across the UK, and for the continued maintenance of electricity supplies in a robust manner."

I would assume that the experts are those at the commercial company who earn money from electricity consumers.

But there is another issue clouding the whole thing:

Crucially, the analysis also found that Scotland could continue to be an electricity exporting nation.

In other words, if the charges for using the electricity produced in England & Wales becomes high then "exporting it" is not economically viable.

We must also remember people:

Thomas Docherty, Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, said it was a "very worrying time" for the station's workforce and their families.

He added: "Longannet is the largest single employer at the western end of West Fife and the early cessation of generation would clearly have a huge impact on Kincardine and the surrounding villages.

I seem to have quoted most of it now!

So --- there are many facets to this.

It's clear that the availability of electricity to all in the UK, including Scotland, is a major duty of the UK Government.

It is also technically clear that it makes sense to locate power stations close to the population centres that it serves.

There is also a duty to make sure that electricity does not become unduly more expensive than it is now, especially considering the geographical spread of the Scottish population. But where that duty lies is not so clear (Scottish or UK Governments). Some welfare responsibilities are devolved and about to be developed further and then there is the delightful Barnet Formula that is intended to sort out the effects of Geography in Scotland by means of the funding it receives.

But in any case this is, I agree, a matter to be discussed between both levels of Government. Sturgeon presumably wants to do this quickly partly because of a wish to avoid paying so much out of the Scottish Government’s increasing budget and also as a means for point scoring against the dreaded Westminster.

Then there is the matter of (quoting again)
"Scotland could continue to be an electricity exporting nation"

However that has nothing to do with anybody in a Union, where trade within the parts of the Union are not exports but of rationally deciding where facilities are best placed to get the most out of them for the UK as a whole. Maybe there is a need for an enquiry, but I suspect not because it seems to be a matter of policy rather than technical substance.

Now it's clear to me, from my generally suspicious opinion of the SNP Government motivations, that the matter is being used, as will others I've no doubt, to build up the infrastructure in Scotland at the expense of the rest of us to further a future case for independence, whether such infrastructure is needed in Scotland or not from a UK perspective.

Any opinions?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

OK - well we'll see. Let's try this issuie and see where we go.

Sturgeon seeks electricity assurance over Longannet threat


Now it's clear to me, from my generally suspicious opinion of the SNP Government motivations, that the matter is being used, as will others I've no doubt, to build up the infrastructure in Scotland at the expense of the rest of us to further a future case for independence, whether such infrastructure is needed in Scotland or not from a UK perspective.

Any opinions?

No, I'm not sure this one is really something that can be placed at the SNP's door. Energy policy is a reserved matter to Westminster. Scottish govt only having influence on planning law. Scottish Power and lots of other thing's 'in play' here.

Reading this article from last year on the National Grid may shed more light on it.

7 October 2014

Paul Younger, professor of Energy Engineering at the University of Glasgow, explains. He told the BBC: "Ironically, getting planning permission for power generation close to densely-populated areas is very difficult, so National Grid is trying to force things one way, where planning policies are trying to force them the other."


Electricity is sent through the National Grid cables at very high voltages - between 132,000 and 400,000. It benefits National Grid to not have to keep investing in reinforcing the high-voltage grid necessary to transport the power long distances. That's why Southern English generators pay reduced charges - and sometimes they even receive payments.
This is unlike most of Europe, where generators pay a flat fee to connect to the rest of the grid.


Its owners Scottish Power says it is very important. They insist that Fife's Longannet power station, the second largest in the UK, might have to close because of the £40m annual fee it pays to connect to the National Grid.


This year, the UK government is running the first "capacity market auction", where suppliers bid to guarantee electricity generation for the winter of 2018/19. But Scottish Power has decided not to enter the Longannet plant, saying that financial changes need to be made or the plant will have to close.


In the short term, Scotland's energy minister Fergus Ewing wants more urgent action. He claims Longannet is being priced out of the market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29509021

But it does look like those £ 40 million in transmission charges are an issue for the owners in terms of profitability. Scotland is doing quite well so far on renewable targets. But won't catch up to this in time if Scottish Power want to close it sooner than was expected. It doesn't really have a long term future 'as is' however. Hunterson B and Torness ( nuclear plants ) are also due to close in 2023.

Renewable energy in Scotland from wind farms, hydro power plants and other clean technologies provided the single largest source of electricity to the country for the first time, in the first half of 2014, new industry figures will show on Thursday.
Analysis by the trade body Scottish Renewables shows that renewables produced nearly one third more power than nuclear, coal or gas in the first six months of the year, generating a record 10.4 terawatt hours (TWh) during the six-month period.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/27/renewable-energy-overtakes-nuclear-as-scotlands-top-power-source

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, I'm not sure this one is really something that can be placed at the SNP's door. Energy policy is a reserved matter to Westminster. Scottish govt only having influence on planning law. Scottish Power and lots of other thing's 'in play' here.

.............

But it does look like those £ 40 million in transmission charges are an issue for the owners in terms of profitability. Scotland is doing quite well so far on renewable targets. But won't catch up to this in time if Scottish Power want to close it sooner than was expected. It doesn't really have a long term future 'as is' however. Hunterson B and Torness ( nuclear plants ) are also due to close in 2023.

Yes no doubt there are many things "in play" here. 40£m does not seem to be an enormous amount of money so there is maybe potential to provide assistance from somewhere for something by someone but not, I would think, in subsidising one company over other electrical companies proving Electricity; that would probably be illegal. But as you infer there may be more to it.

Unless we really know that it is difficult to know what started this situation off. I suspect it is just economics rather than anything Machiavellian. Machiavelli will no doubt be along shortly.

The core of the issue I was going towards, however, is that the way in which this is solved depends crucially on the timing of any intervention and the agenda behind the policies which might be driving that intervention.

Clearly from an overall UK viewpoint, new power stations must be built.

Going back to Machiavelli, perhaps a subtle move would be for Cameron to agree to the idea of a review; a very, very thorough review taking all viewpoints into account and the alternative means of electricity generation and the size of the wheat harvest and everything. (i.e. into the long grass until it's clear who is going to pay for any new power generation capability in Scotland, if any).

PS - congrats on the Grandmother thing. I am five Grandfathers, three in Holland and two in Spain.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We know what preventative action works - making alcohol less affordable, less available, and less visible. ]

Or in other words, being an authoritarian regime that infantilises people.

"Nanny knows best" run amok.

Interestingly, England hasn't needed to ban any of these 'multi-buy' discounts.

I'd suggest it's more likely the continued increase in prosperity and educational levels of the Scottish middle classes, as a result of capitalist policies on a national level, that has far more to do with it than the sycophantic ramblings of an anti-alcohol campaigner in thrall to the SNP.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Yes no doubt there are many things "in play" here. 40£m does not seem to be an enormous amount of money so there is maybe potential to provide assistance from somewhere for something by someone but not, I would think, in subsidising one company over other electrical companies proving Electricity; that would probably be illegal. But as you infer there may be more to it.

Unless we really know that it is difficult to know what started this situation off. I suspect it is just economics rather than anything Machiavellian. Machiavelli will no doubt be along shortly.

The core of the issue I was going towards, however, is that the way in which this is solved depends crucially on the timing of any intervention and the agenda behind the policies which might be driving that intervention.

Clearly from an overall UK viewpoint, new power stations must be built.

Going back to Machiavelli, perhaps a subtle move would be for Cameron to agree to the idea of a review; a very, very thorough review taking all viewpoints into account and the alternative means of electricity generation and the size of the wheat harvest and everything. (i.e. into the long grass until it's clear who is going to pay for any new power generation capability in Scotland, if any).

I think it's the timing more than anything else. With Scottish Power saying that it 'may' be closing the plant down before expected. Vince Cable yesterday was a bit bemused by the whole thing.. said that Scotland would just have to become a net importer of electricity, until renewables caught up and came online.

Speaking on BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr Cable said: "This isn't an England versus Scotland issue."
He added: "Clearly there is an issue about the pricing and the connection into the grid, but that is determined by the regulator Ofgem, it is not determined politically.
"There is no issue about security of supply. I don't quite understand why this issue has flared up.
"For many years Scotland has exported energy to England on the national grid and that was a perfectly sensible arrangement.
"There is now the possibility that there will be a reverse flow for some years until the big renewable sources in Scotland come into play.That is not a problem. It is a secure national grid - there isn't a threat to security of supply."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-31502350


However, that might then cause issues to Scottish consumers in terms of pricing, rather than Scottish power with an unprofitable plant on their hands.
Also these 'transmission charges'. And I don't know if this is correct, I just skimmed something a while ago.. but I think they may apply in terms of just connecting and sending electricity to the National Grid, as well as receiving it back. But don't shoot me if I'm wrong.. I'd need to read further. But if it is the case, you can understand why the Scottish Govt aren't too chuffed about electricity companies being charged for it up here, while those nearer get money back ?

There are no plans as far as I know for renewing the two Scottish Nuclear plants as they are ( ie they may turn them into something else ). And the one we are discussing has also been named as one of the Top 30 polluters in the EU. So there is very little chance of it's long term survival as it is either.

The report shows the top 30 polluting power plants in the EU, ranked according to their total carbon dioxide emissions in 2013.
The UK and Germany came joint first, with nine of the dirtiest coal plants each.
Scotland's Longannet is ranked 21st on the list, with Poland's Belchatow plant coming top and the UK's largest coal plant, Drax, coming in at 6th.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28409996

The Scottish Govt has set itself some pretty ambitious targets for 2020 re renewable clean energy. And have made a lot of headway. I don't think at the moment there's really much chance of any new powerstations burning oddles of coal/gas etc on the horizon.

PS - congrats on the Grandmother thing. I am five Grandfathers, three in Holland and two in Spain.

Thank you ! And congrats to you. How wonderful for you to have five. I didn't think anything would match up to being a mum. But his arrival has.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or in other words, being an authoritarian regime that infantilises people.

"Nanny knows best" run amok.

Interestingly, England hasn't needed to ban any of these 'multi-buy' discounts.

I'd suggest it's more likely the continued increase in prosperity and educational levels of the Scottish middle classes, as a result of capitalist policies on a national level, that has far more to do with it than the sycophantic ramblings of an anti-alcohol campaigner in thrall to the SNP.

Taken in isolation, allowing football fans to drink at games again seems pretty innocent. But we all know it's not 'like that' in reality.

Even Jim Murphy has said that Scotland has always had a 'difficult relationship' with alcohol. The stereotypical 'drunk scotsman' still exists, and the number of deaths down to alcohol still exceeds elsewhere in the UK. But this is thankfully being slowly addressed, and the numbers are falling. This didn't happen out of thin air.

SCOTLAND is starting to make progress in the battle against booze after new figures showed a dramatic fall in alcohol-related deaths.

A report by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found Scotland still had the highest alcohol-related death rate in the UK in 2013, but was the only country with significantly lower rates than a decade ago.
The decline is believed to be down to the impact of the recession and a number of initiatives to reduce alcohol consumption including the scrapping of multi-buy deals.
Barbara O'Donnell, deputy chief executive of Alcohol Focus Scotland, welcomed the decline in deaths, but warned there was much work still to be done.
She said: "It is obviously good news that alcohol-related deaths in Scotland have fallen in recent years, but the rate is higher than in England and Wales and higher than twenty years ago.

This is from the same article you quoted, ( as I did earlier ) above. Imho, I think this is progress and to be welcomed. The re-introduction of it as the 'norm' back into now family friendly occasions such as football matches.. to me, seems like a step backwards. I understand grown adults don't want to be treated 'like children'.. but the reality of the past, and what happens at Scottish football matches ( particularly the Glasgow one's ) when alcohol is freely available ? Well, it's self-explanatory. And for Jim Murphy, is only ever a policy based on winning back 'Glasgow man'.. And as such, easy to see through.

Since his election to the Scottish Labour leadership last December, Jim Murphy has appealed directly to the 190,000, mostly male, mostly Glaswegian, Labour voters who supported independence and who he believes are key to his party’s victory in May.
“Murphy is right to talk about Glasgow Man,” says Steven Purcell, the Labour former leader of Glasgow city council. “By which he means traditional working-class supporters.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/09/has-labour-lost-glasgow-jim-murphy-snp-election

Gosh these polls are staying eerily static.. I thought we'd be starting to see a real closing of the gap by now ( and I mean that seriously). That 45% 'figure', much vaunted since the referendum of course, actually seems to have stuck there somehow... for now.

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Survation) :
SNP 45% (-1)
Labour 28% (+2)
Conservatives 15% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Taken in isolation, allowing football fans to drink at games again seems pretty innocent. But we all know it's not 'like that' in reality.

I don't frequent football matches, but I do think it is absurd that you can enjoy a drink at a Rugby match, largely without incident, but cannot at a football match.

Are you really trying to claim that Scots on the whole are so incapable of behaving responsibly that they cannot be trusted to have a drink at a sporting event?

Really?

And if so, then what on earth makes you think they'd be sober and responsible enough to run a country?

Even Jim Murphy has said that Scotland has always had a 'difficult relationship' with alcohol. The stereotypical 'drunk scotsman' still exists, and the number of deaths down to alcohol still exceeds elsewhere in the UK.

Largely because of the benefits culture that Labour and the SNP alike promote and encourage.

This didn't happen out of thin air.

Indeed.

But it has happened since a Conservative led government started cutting benefits payments and forcing a shedload of long term benefits claimants back into work.....

It's rather harder to consistently drink a lot when you have to be up for work the next day.

I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.....:cool: