Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

.string. wrote: »

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 Cameron has any sense he will play the long game on this, until some things are ironed out.

Think these tariffs and discussions have been on the go for a while, and previously discussed, . But as you say seem to have been given a somewhat higher profile . There's 3 letters in the Scotsman about this, one of which says, carbon taxes over next year, make the tarriff figure pale into insignificance.

Sorry can't provide links as I don't know how to do them, and definitely not from an IPad. Lol.

And it surely couldn't just be the effect of loss of face at having to rely on the 'import' of electricity from England a bit earlier, because they haven't allowed for this possibility in their grand plan.

As an aside like me, more people are becoming more upset each day as more and more of these wind turbines are being plonked here there and everywhere in Scotland. And I originally thought they were not too bad an alternative.

skintmacflint

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

"Nanny knows best" run amok.

.

This bit I definitely agree with and it looks as if were going to see even more of it with Sturgeon and her new cabinet.

Things were bad enough with Labour nannying, but this government are in a class of their own in this regard.

.string.

skintmacflint wrote: »

This bit I definitely agree with and it looks as if were going to see even more of it with Sturgeon and her new cabinet.

Things were bad enough with Labour nannying, but this government are in a class of their own in this regard.

Hmmm --- Nanny Sturgeon. It has a certain ring!


I think it might stick.

.string.

There is an interestng comment here SNP fuelled the crisis facing Longannet relating to SNP Government policiy being a factor in the closure.


I've not managed to get to the bottom of the precise nature of the fees that are so high for Longannet; not a simple matter I suspect. I'll keep looking but am not too hopeful of finding anything.

As far as Cable's remarks are concerned I can go along with what he said; if Longannet does close then spare capacity in the South of the UK will support shortages in Scotland. But of course one should not be complacent and make sure that this is truly the case. I really don't see any justification in getting worked up on whether Scotland is importing or exporting electricity, As Cable says, when the renewable sources are up to full speed this will apparently redress the balance in a relatively short time anyway. There does not seem to be a crisis as such, just scare mongering on a false premise IMHO.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

There is an interestng comment here SNP fuelled the crisis facing Longannet relating to SNP Government policiy being a factor in the closure.


I've not managed to get to the bottom of the precise nature of the fees that are so high for Longannet; not a simple matter I suspect. I'll keep looking but am not too hopeful of finding anything.

As far as Cable's remarks are concerned I can go along with what he said; if Longannet does close then spare capacity in the South of the UK will support shortages in Scotland. But of course one should not be complacent and make sure that this is truly the case. I really don't see any justification in getting worked up on whether Scotland is importing or exporting electricity, As Cable says, when the renewable sources are up to full speed this will apparently redress the balance in a relatively short time anyway. There does not seem to be a crisis as such, just scare mongering on a false premise IMHO.

Perhaps the article in the Telegraph provides a clue.

But Professor Paul Younger, one of the country’s most eminent energy experts, warned Longannet’s closure would leave Scotland in “serious, serious trouble” because the National Grid may not have the capacity to import the required amounts of electricity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11418721/Scotland-could-rely-on-England-to-keep-the-lights-on.html

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

This bit I definitely agree with and it looks as if were going to see even more of it with Sturgeon and her new cabinet.

Things were bad enough with Labour nannying, but this government are in a class of their own in this regard.

Oh well, but whatever it is it seems to be working well for them at the moment. For the first time ever, support among women for the SNP is now higher than among men. I guess when Alex went.. the 'woman problem' the SNP had seems to have disappeared as well. Either that or Jim Murphy is too off putting with his Scotland tops and football obsessed 'policies'.

The poll published in the Daily Record shows that SNP support for the General Election stands at 46.1 per cent amongst women – compared to 44.6 per cent amongst men. For the Scottish Parliament, SNP support amongst women stands at 50.6 per cent – while support amongst men stands at 46 per cent.

Westminster election - Women: SNP 46.1%, Lab 27.4%. Men: SNP 44.6%, Lab 27.5%.
Holyrood election - Women: SNP 50.6%, Lab 25.1%. Men: SNP 46.0%, Lab 29.8%.

Changing times ideed.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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?

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

Indeed.

I was talking about football matches. So was Jim Murphy. I'm not quite sure why you veered off into the realms of benefits claimants. Iain McWhirter puts it well in in his column today.

Half-baked policy announcements tumble over each other day by day. There may well be a case for the restoration of alcohol sales at football matches, but it needs to be laid out in a way that doesn't antagonise women's groups and appear to be soft on domestic violence.
I agree with Jim Murphy that the Offensive Behaviour at Football Grounds Act is illiberal and unworkable, and should be repealed. But you can't just toss these pronouncements out willy nilly; the approach has to be more measured and considered so as not to make it look as if you are soft on sectarianism too.

There are 'cases to be made'. However, Mr Murphy hasn't made them very well though. And the alcohol one is just one of many he's come up with over the last wee while. It's very hard to keep up, even for his own party.

Fair enough, everyone makes mistakes, but Labour is making too many of them. And the reason is simply that their leader can't take his foot off the accelerator. Labour staffers and politicians don't know what to think or say next.

Last month Labour's education spokesman, Iain Gray, launched an attack on the Scottish Government's policy of free school meals - "they just benefit wealthy parents" - only to discover later in the day that his leader apparently now supports them.
Labour politicians have stopped saying anything about home rule because they simply don't know where they're going next. Mr Murphy used to opposed income tax devolution but became an enthusiastic supporter after the Smith Commission report.

But not content with that conversion, he now wants to give Holyrood powers to increase the state pension and most welfare benefits in a new Home Rule bill within 100 days of Labour winning the general election.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/murphy-gives-labour-too-much-hype-and-not-enough-hope.118847631

It's easy to focus on criticsing the SNP, but at least, 'nanny state' and all you'd like to pick at, they have some actual policies at the moment. Labour is all over the place in Scotland, never out of the papers or off tv. But nothing much of any substance. And certainly nothing much in terms of the May 15 election. Almost everything is based on issues that will only matter in 2016 ( ie devolved matters ). Murphy is still to tell his constituents if he's even standing again as an MP in May. Yet is acting like he's already an MSP and First Minister in 2016. Strange tactics. And not working well at all.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's easy to focus on criticsing the SNP, but at least, 'nanny state' and all you'd like to pick at, they have some actual policies at the moment. Labour is all over the place in Scotland,

Awesome.....

Then we get another 5 years of Conservative government where it counts, and Labour/Lib Dems get another year to rebuild before challenging the nats in the Scottish Executive elections.

skintmacflint

.string. wrote: »

There is an interestng comment here SNP fuelled the crisis facing Longannet relating to SNP Government policiy being a factor in the closure.


I've not managed to get to the bottom of the precise nature of the fees that are so high for Longannet; not a simple matter I suspect. I'll keep looking but am not too hopeful of finding anything.

As far as Cable's remarks are concerned I can go along with what he said; if Longannet does close then spare capacity in the South of the UK will support shortages in Scotland. But of course one should not be complacent and make sure that this is truly the case. I really don't see any justification in getting worked up on whether Scotland is importing or exporting electricity, As Cable says, when the renewable sources are up to full speed this will apparently redress the balance in a relatively short time anyway. There does not seem to be a crisis as such, just scare mongering on a false premise IMHO.

I put the problem squarely with SNPs short sighted policy on ruling out everything but renewable energy, another of Salmonds dreams.
And we know what happens with them. Many people in the business have been advising for years it is a flawed policy.

Even the expert professor article Shakey links to, suggests the same thing if you read it properly .

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Awesome.....

Then we get another 5 years of Conservative government where it counts, and Labour/Lib Dems get another year to rebuild before challenging the nats in the Scottish Executive elections.

I said Labour in Scotland were all over the place. I believe elsewhere the polls are showing Labour/Tory as neither winning a majority at the moment. I think your celebrations at another 5 years of Conservatives are a little premature. Especially as the Conservatives have less choices in terms of doing deals, than Labour does.

Harsh, but true I'm afraid.