Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Margo holds key to vote on climate

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 June 2009
MARGO MacDonald, Scotland's only independent MSP, is set to decide the country's response to climate change – but has no idea which way she is going to vote.
MSPs vote on crucial emissions targets for the next decade tomorrow but, at the moment at least, the chamber is split down the middle, with Ms MacDonald the only undecided MSP.

The SNP wants Scotland to set a target of cutting emissions of greenho
use gases by 34 per cent by 2020 but with the option of increasing this target to 42 per cent if the rest of Europe moves to that higher target.

The Nationalists argue that any more than 34 per cent would be almost impossible without the means to cut emissions in cars, aviation and shipping, much of which is reserved. The Nationalists are likely to be supported by the Tories, giving them 63 votes.

Labour leaders have tabled an amendment calling for a target of a 40 per cent cut in emissions, moving to 42 per cent if the UK's climate change committee says that is achievable. They are likely to be supported by the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, giving them 64 votes.

If Ms MacDonald votes for the Labour amendment or abstains, it will be carried. If, however, she votes against it, both sides will be tied on 64 votes leaving the casting vote to the Presiding Officer, who is duty bound to come down against the amendment and back the original bill.

That will cause the amendment to fail, giving Ms MacDonald the power to pass or defeat the crucial Labour amendment on her own.

The Lothians MSP admitted yesterday she had been lobbied hard by both sides, with representatives from several parties handing over tracts of evidence.

"I am stuck in the middle, the vultures are circling," she said yesterday.

"I am absolutely, genuinely, trying to decide but I still haven't done so, its not an area of expertise of mine."

One slight complication is that her husband , former SNP MP Jim Sillars, is a definite climate change sceptic who worries about the cost of stringent new emissions targets.

Ms MacDonald did say that she had thought about trading her vote for concessions from the government, particularly if she could secure something valuable for Edinburgh in return for backing the government.

But she concluded that this was not a vote she could barter.

Richard Dixon, Director of environmental lobby group WWF Scotland, said it was "unfortunate" that Ms MacDonald should be left with so much responsibility and blamed the Tories for following the SNP line.

"We are in this position because the Tories have not shown any leadership on this issue, despite the early statements made by David Cameron when he became leader," he said.

He added: "The parliamentary arithmetic is very close indeed and we think Margo's vote will be crucial. We have talked to her and it is a big responsibility on her shoulders. This is the most important part of the bill."





The full article contains 506 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 June 2009 10:27 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Barney Thomson,

Reading 23/06/2009 00:30:56
????

From the Herald -
"The Scottish Government last night bowed to pressure from political opponents and the Green lobby and increased their target to cut carbon emissions by 42% by 2020.
But ministers made clear that the new target, which will be enshrined in tomorrow's Climate Change Bill, will have conditions set on it regarding EU and UK measures which could impinge on Scotland's ability to lead the way in terms of climate change.
Ministers last night introduced a manuscript amendment, to raise the ante on a Labour amendment specifying 40% as a target.
The effect will be that a 34% cut with the option to boost that to 42% under certain conditions will be reversed - to a 42% target on the face of the bill subject to expert advice that external factors make that possible.
Labour had backed the 34% target in committee but then in recent days had switched to calling for a 40% figure, with the backing of the Greens, LibDems and climate change campaigners."

http://tinyurl.com/kwzh4v


2

Jo Flo,

warm still damp 23/06/2009 01:59:22
I would like to make a complaint about the late offers on breast reduction and diet in a week flash ads here

Dodgy and invasive
3

Fletty73,

Stirling 23/06/2009 01:59:40
As I understand it, all Labour MSPs inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
So may I forward an alternative proposal?
4

W Smith,

Middle East 23/06/2009 03:49:55
Salmond should take note.

The more he eats the more methane he produces.

The more methane he produces the bigger his carbon footprint.

CONCLUSION:
1) There is no way the taxpayers should be paying him expensese for food.

2) He should scoff less food thereby helping to save the planet.
5

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 23/06/2009 05:42:15

There you are - "W Smith,Middle East"

The "Useful Idiot"

The more you post, the more you prove it.

6

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 23/06/2009 06:46:44
What a waste of time, all the Holyrood numpties voting on something that is impossible to achieve and of top which has diddly squat to do with the climate.
7

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 23/06/2009 06:49:27
"Margo holds key to vote on climate"

God help the world!!

Remember, this is a person who thought that Trams were efficient, environmentally friendly, were vital for Edinburgh's economy, and a better option than fuel efficient buses that could benefit the WHOLE of Edinburgh.
8

Unimpressed one,

23/06/2009 07:54:11
"One slight complication is that her husband , former SNP MP Jim Sillars, is a definite climate change sceptic who worries about the cost of stringent new emissions targets."

Seems like Jim Sillars is the only realist who sensibly asks the ars*es at Holyrood to cost their suicidal decisions before committing the country to this economic madness. They should either put up, or shut up.
9

Tynietiger,

23/06/2009 08:20:28
I am suffering from a hangover this morning and boaked into my muesli all from listening to the unctuous Jim Murphy who kept saying the SNP should stop playing politics while was he allowed to make umpteen anti SNP and pro Unionist political points unchallenged by the BBC
10

brianmca3,

auld reekie 23/06/2009 09:34:08
This made me laugh I hope it brightens everyone's day

Five surgeons are discussing who were the best patients to operate on.

The first surgeon says, 'I like to see Accountants on my operating table because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'

The second responds, 'Yeah, but you should try Electricians! Everything inside them is colour-coded.'

The third surgeon says, 'No, I really think Librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'

The fourth surgeon chimes in, 'You know I like Construction Workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end, and when the job takes longer than you said it would.'

But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed, 'You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains, and no spine, and there are only two moving parts - the mouth and the ars-ehole - and they are interchangeable'
11

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 23/06/2009 09:47:00
The presumption of course is that reducing carbon emissions will affect the climate. Simply no chance. So just vote "no" Margo - just do it because you don't understand it, so why pretend you have a choice?
12

Geomac 1,

Scotland 23/06/2009 11:01:09
It seems that there is still no cost benefit assessment as part of this bill - what a shambles and totally irresponsible!!!
These clowns still seem to believe that we in Scotland can change the climate by reducing our already miniscule carbon emissions - from 0.2% of world emissions to 0.12% (40% reduction). Laughable!!
This chest beating charade is utter nonsense and the sooner politicians admit it the better!!
They are also ignoring the concept of carbon emission consumption as opposed to actual carbon emissions - that is, ignoring the carbon emissions associated with imports from China, India etc. to where our manufacturing base has been exported!!
13

Rational cynic,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 11:13:01
Geomac 1,

Well commented. However, I believe Scotland should at least show willingness to help address the climate change problem. What that gesture should be I leave to others to discuss.

For those who still deny there is a problem, below is a link to and some excerpts from an informative article. Of course some will scoff because it's based on the work of climate scientists, but who is better placed to talk on the subject?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/

"Temperature rises above 2ºC will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond."

"The conclusion from both the IPCC and later analyses is simple - immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse gases are needed if the 2ºC guardrail is to be respected."

"From a natural science perspective, nothing stops us from limiting warming to 2ºC. Even from an economic and technological point of view this is entirely feasible, as the report clearly shows. The ball is squarely in the field of politics, where in December in Copenhagen the crucial decisions must be taken. The synthesis report puts it like this: Inaction is inexcusable."
14

person who's right,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 11:22:48
Actually Geomac 1, #15, you're wrong.

You're right about Scotland's contribution of about 0.2% of global emissions. But as it happens, Scotland is passing this legislation JUST before the UN decides the global response to climate change (in December this year). Scotland’s bill looks like being the most ambitious in the world – a great antidote to the negativity and excuses being made by other nations. Scotland can punch WAY above its weight on this issue. Something to be very proud of, not to gripe about.

And, for your info, you’re entirely wrong about Scotland ignoring the consumption basis (ie those emissions that we have essentially exported to e.g. China by getting them to make all our stuff). Scotland is (again) leading the world on this – by reporting on consumption-based emissions as well.

Oh and #1 is right - the Herald has the story ahead of the Scotsman... the SNP have come up with an ambitious amendment, and Margo is no longer the key.

Let’s be positive and proud for once – well done the Scottish Government and Parliament.
15

Geomac 1,

Scotland 23/06/2009 11:34:53
#16 There are 2 ways of dealing with climate change - try to change the climate based on a theory that greenhouse gases are the sole cause or prepare for the consequences of climate change (Blomquist). Having witnessed the antics of politicians around the world, I believe that the latter is more plausible.
#17 Words and legislation are cheap and easy - the implementation is far harder - based on the implementation steps taken by Holywood to date, I seriously doubt if they will be able to implement their "world leading" ambitions. They haven't exactly been inspiring so far - even with thir current manifesto committments, have they?
How exactly can Scotland "punch WAY above its weight" when it only has 0.2% of the world's emissions to play with? Even if they removed ALL our emssions, we would see no change in climate - remember that China are building new coal fired power stations at a phenomenal rate!
16

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 11:37:28
Vote against it Margo. Lets finally put a lid on all this King Canute madness.

You won't be popular though. If this bill gets defeated then think of all the tax revenue they won't be able to raise as a result.

Kick it out and lets hear no more about it.
17

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 11:39:20
#10:

"Moral: only fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

So how do you explain the fact that politicians, who know nothing about most subjects, are allowed to preach to us about these King Canute politics?
18

New Town Resident,

23/06/2009 11:49:37
Another story further down the page on this site says the SNP has climbed down on this, which is a great pity.

You may say it's pure guesture politics to no point. However, unfortunately that's not entirely the case because the "target" will be used by wind farm developers in their planning applications to futher despoil our precious landscape, wildlife and tourism industry to no point.

Also why does the Scotsman continually give space to professional lobbyist World Wildlife Fund Dixon to air his views? Who elected him to anything? Why doesn't WWF Scotland stand up for Scottish wildlife rather than the windfarm industry? (clue - who funds them)

I know the Greens are losing electoral support, but at least they are elected. Harvie is entitled to space in the Scotsman, but I don't see why Dixon is continually quoted. Like the bloggers on this site (incl. me) he's only representative of himself.
19

New Town Resident,

23/06/2009 11:52:06
#1. BT - see you have spotted that too!
20

Rational cynic,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 11:59:41
18 Geomac 1

I agree with your low opinion of politicians and their inability to take decisive action. However I believe there are more than 2 options for what to do to deal with climate change.

1. Stop "digging the hole deeper" by cutting down on consumption of energy e.g. by insulating and ventilating buildings to Scandinavian standards.

2. Generate electricity using methods that don't emit CO2 e.g. nuclear, tidal, solar. I'm not keen on windmills - they can't deliver enough for the population of the UK.

3. Cut down on transport by producing more food locally and not flying exotic out-of-season produce round the world.

4. Address the scourge of mass commuting - why do so many people live in Edinburgh and drive to work in Glasgow, and vice versa? What is the impact of so many people travelling so far to commute into London?

and so on.
21

John Cameron,

St Andrews 23/06/2009 12:01:36
Al Gore famously depicted a sea-level rise of 20ft which would almost completely flood Florida, New York, Holland, Bangladesh, and Shanghai. Even the UN admits that is complete baloney. Such exaggeration wears out the willingness of the public to tackle pressing problems. Far from convincing the ordinary man in the street, Looney Greens such as Gore, Prince Charles, Stern and the like make people believe that those in positions of authority are simply self-serving con artists.
22

Geomac 1,

Scotland 23/06/2009 12:17:27
#23
I am in total agreement with you on all 4 points you make. Earth resources are finite and we should be using them as efficiently as possible. I just wish that politicians were more aware of their capabilities and recognise that their rhetoric and the rubbish they spout does not help at all.
23

ddmc,

23/06/2009 13:16:32
#13 good one you made me laugh
24

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 13:18:02
The SNP know fine well that the plan to close and not replace our nuclear power stations will push Scottish CO2 emissions throughthe roof - they are rising right now yet still they go on with the baloney that they can be reduced by 32% merely by wind farms and wave contraptions that fall to bits after a few weeks in the water.
And anyway all our wind farms are there because of subsidies from England which means after independence they will all have to be taken down as being uneconomic.

25

person who's right,

Edinburgh 23/06/2009 13:20:22
Geomac 1

Re your post 18, which asks how Scotland can punch WAY above its weight – just look at what happened in 2007. The SNP got elected and promised to cut emissions by 80% by 2050. At that point the UK was languishing at 60% by 2050. Faced by the political embarrassment of being upstaged by the SNP, the UK govt raised its target to 80%.

That’s an example of how Scotland can punch WAY above its weight.

If we can do this on an international scale at the Copenhagen talks, Scotland will have (near single-handedly) saved the world from dangerous climate change….!?
26

New Town Resident,

23/06/2009 13:32:06
~26 Year Zero.

My understanding is the bulk of funding for WWF comes from the taxpayer. It's simply laundered through UK government payments to organisations such as the UN and the EU. In return for this money WWF promotes a political agenda in support of the policies of its political funders. In US marketing terms this is called "astro-turfing" - i.e. political front organisations masquerading as something that has genuine grass routes mass support.

I'm sorry if I've upset you and accept that WWF has a few genuine members (why not join the Green Party - what is distinctive about the WWF if its not astroturfing?).

Indeed I used once to contribute financially to the old WWF myself, before it was hijacked by politicians.

That's because I care about the environment as much as you do and I'm pleased to see that you at least recognise wind farms are environmentally damaging.

Please bear in mind it suits some people's agenda very well to blame "climate change" for wildlife under stress, as opposed to chemicals, farming practises, urbanisation etc etc.

~29. Margaret. Needless to say its SNP policy that this subsidy should continue post independence. They aren't explicit of course - rather that the GB power system and commercial structure stays as is!



27

Geomac 1,

Scotland 23/06/2009 13:36:23
#30
That is scraping the barrel!! For a start, by 2050, none of the current crop of politicians will be around and secondly, I have yet to see any real progress which will get anywhere close to this asinine target.
Remember these are onlyu targets!! Nothing about how, cost, benefit etc.
At Copenhagen, they could all set a target of 80% reduction by 2050 and then walk away feeling good and virtuous!! So what?? HOW HOW HOW and WHAT COST, WHAT COST, WHAT COST???
By the way, I very much doubt if a claim by the SNP to reduce emissions by 80% would have had any impact on elections - remember at that time ALL parties were competing to claim targets ranging from 65% to 100% (Greens).
28

Geomac 1,

Continued 23/06/2009 13:38:25
#30 you say laughably:
"If we can do this on an international scale at the Copenhagen talks, Scotland will have (near single-handedly) saved the world from dangerous climate change….!?" You sound more and more like Al Gore
29

El Franko,

23/06/2009 13:47:51
Margo, whom I have long admired despite her leftie leanings, is wanting to think about it. That's a great sign. I am convinced that anyone who does think about it, and in particular looks at the absence of evidence for AGW and the role of CO2, coupled with the presence of a wealthy and sinister lobbying effort that would make Machiavelli blush, has to come down against fatuous climate bills and targets. Emperor Gore has neither clothes, not wit, not scruples, nor common humanity.
30

New Town Resident,

23/06/2009 13:49:55
#26 Year Zero- By the way what's the position of WWF Scotland on the Beauly power line?

17,000 genuine grass roots objectors on environmental grounds at the last count wasn't it? Surely you have got to ask yourself what WWF Scotland is for if it is unable to campaign against this project?

~33. Geomac 1. Must say I'd taken post #30 to be tounge in cheek!
31

Barney Thomson,

Reading 23/06/2009 15:54:54
#22 - NTR

You will see that I noticed at 12.30 last night. This story has ceased to be, it's expired, it's a stiff, it is an ex-story!

A bit like this once reputable newspaper.
32

Alan B,

23/06/2009 16:21:31
Setting targets is the wrong approach. But the scottish government have their hands tied as the uk government hold the powers to make a difference and labour are not interested in the environment but only for using it as an excuse for more and more taxes.

Things we should do:
1)implement a min 50 mpg for new cars. if the avg at the moment is say 30mpg and a min target of 50mpg moves us to an avg of 60mpg then we will have halved our use of petrol etc. (problem is the uk government uses petrol as a cash cow taking 50billion in revenues). This will encourage car companies to introduce hybrid models to get more power. It will also force the high end cars to either take the electric route like tesla which is faster exceleration than a ferrari or to go the hydrogen route. Widespread hybrid use will improve battery technology and make plug in and electric cars more viable smoothing the transition.
2)continue with the snp 50% target for renewables. looking at areas we can reduce the costs of them and diversify from wind to tidal and wave.
3)have legislation to enforce consumer goods are low energy from light bulbs to moving away from stand by tv etc.
4)improve public transport and encourage working from home.
33

El Franko,

23/06/2009 16:43:58
#37, no thank you. When you say 'we' you seem to be thinking of the government. You want more state control. You should study the history of, for example, the Soviet Union and Germany from the 1930s onwards to get some insight into how good 'we' are at that.
34

Geomac 1,

Scotland 23/06/2009 17:27:37
Spot on #38 El Franko.
35

Andy Mac,

in the sun 23/06/2009 19:41:04
#24 John Cameron

"Al Gore famously depicted a sea-level rise of 20ft which would almost completely flood Florida, New York, Holland, Bangladesh, and Shanghai. Even the UN admits that is complete baloney."

The small but independent Dutch have already began to raise their dikes by 5 metres.

Meanwhile the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish and English taxpayers have paid for a dud Thames barrier.


Smart amendment by the SNP
36

Alan B,

23/06/2009 21:21:22
#El Franko

Daft arguement. There is nothing that i have said that is anything like soviet communist policy nor nazi germany. It shows the weakness in your argument.

It is pretty basic. We either do something about co2 emmissions or not. Assuming we do want to do something what would your approach be if you were to advocate a way of dealing with the issue.

Your response is probably just confusion between you not wanting to deal with the issue and hence that is your problem rather than anything constructive assuming you do want to deal with it.

Take the first issue i have raised and that is moving away from oil dependency for cars. That is not just environmentally driven but also to deal with the fact oil will not last for ever and we should not wait until it runs out or become prohibitively expensive with wars to try to take control of it.

It would also stop the funding of mad regimes in the middle east by throwing money at them to get their oil.

As for reducing consumer goods energy needs. What is the problem with that? Surely no matter how you want to produce electricity that is sensible.

Improving public transport and encouraging people to work from home will also try to help free up the road so that when we do use them we are not sitting in traffic jams. Working from home can give massive flexibility and some of the biggest companies allow some of that already. Say 3 days a week etc. It saves the couple hrs many spend travelling etc.
37

El Franko,

23/06/2009 22:03:34
#41, just in from the garden, where drink was taken so I `type with some trep.

I would do nothing at all re CO2 emissions. They do not seem to matter a jot for anything, except a slight increase in agricultural productivity.

Yhe oil dependency is more important, but we are rich enough to handle a big price increase by reducing non-business usage of cars etc. I agree that some regimes in the ME are essentially mad - they have a massive burden of a hideous religion to deal with, and I would prefer they dealt with that on their own without sharing their violence and barbarity with the rest of humanity.

Energy usage reduction could be attractive, but not if if cripples our productive potential.

As for working at home, I would happily let the market place take care of that. I would certainly appreciate a reduction in noise, congestion, and air pollution (that's real pollutants, not the leftie CO2), but not at the expense of our productivity and most certainly not as the result of some government initiative.

As you may jalouse, I see government as the problem rather than the solution in most things.

38

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/06/2009 22:38:49
When will people realise that climate change is climate change and will change when it feels like it?

Political climate is man made on the other hand.

Dear Lord, please deliver unto us a political leader who has the testes or flaps to tell it as it should be told.

The climate change is being caused by the change in the earth's magnetic field.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.