Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


SNP's anti-nuclear stance 'will hit job hopes'

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: 10 November 2009
THE Scottish Government was accused yesterday of blocking the creation of thousands of jobs by opposing new nuclear power stations north of the Border.
Scotland has two operational nuclear sites – Hunterston and Torness – but the SNP government is refusing to sanction new reactors.

Hunterston employs about 670 staff, while Torness has just under 600 full-time workers. But UK ministers claim th
at new roles will be created by the next generation of reactors.

Environment Secretary Ed Miliband yesterday unveiled plans to commission ten new reactors, nine in England and one in Wales.

He said: "New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change – and will be good for jobs too, creating up to 9,000 jobs (per station] to build and operate power stations."

The SNP government has said there is "no chance" of a new generation of nuclear power plants in Scotland.

Mike Weir, the SNP's energy spokesman at Westminster, said:

"Scotland is capitalising on our vast clean, green energy potential instead of following London Labour's blind faith in costly, dirty, dangerous and unreliable nuclear power. Labour must recognise that there is no appetite and absolutely no need for new nuclear power stations north of the Border."

But Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said new nuclear power plants would create thousands of jobs. "None will be situated in Scotland because of the SNP's incompetence and dogma," he said.

David Mundell, the shadow Scottish secretary, said the SNP's policy amounted to a "lost opportunity". He continued:

"Alex Salmond's position means that Scotland will end up being importers of nuclear energy from England."













Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 November 2009 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

The Real Rufus T Firefly,

09/11/2009 23:46:04
Buy shares in candle companies.

If Salmond continues on this suicidal path, candles will be the only means of lighting up our homes.

The SNP's vision of the future is coal fired power stations. What a progressive policy that is.

What a mess they are making of this country.
2

Handsome Scotsman,

10/11/2009 00:08:24
Some people are easily brainwashed by Labour.
Not me though.
3

The Real Rufus T Firefly,

10/11/2009 00:13:20
2 Handsome Scotsman,10/11/2009 00:08:24
Some people are easily brainwashed by Labour.
Not me though.
-------------------------------------------------

Me neither.
4

AJM,

10/11/2009 00:13:23
#2 So you have a clear view of the energy path that Scotland needs to take, not of course blinded and brainwashed by the SNP, pray tell.
5

AJM,

10/11/2009 00:19:47
Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that when Mike Weir, the SNP's energy spokesman at Westminster, said:

"Scotland is capitalising on our vast clean, green energy potential instead of following London Labour's blind faith in costly, dirty, dangerous and unreliable nuclear power."

He was forgeting that nearly all of the engineers are from outwith Scotland and the UK. Plus I think that it was AS himself championing dirty coal last year.
6

Hobbe,

10/11/2009 00:21:14
You daftie unionists are the brainwashed ones, and a sizeable amount of Labour supporters, and an even bigger proportion of the Scottish population support non nuclear energy.

The same with the dodgy nuclear weapon stance of Labour, something that is also not supported by many Scots, so you dodos only kid yourselves on here, thinking being first to comment replaces having a brain is your problem, one that I will hope continues as a priority as we all witness the political car wreck that is labour within these Isles, but particularly in Scotland.
7

TheUnionisBritish,

10/11/2009 00:22:35
'Scotland is capitalising on our vast clean, green energy potential instead of following London Labour's blind faith in costly, dirty, dangerous and unreliable nuclear power. Labour must recognise that there is no appetite and absolutely no need for new nuclear power stations north of the Border."

Could be less than the final cost of setting up and the then dealing with waste etc. It would also create jobs.

I see that the man not fit for the Tory Cabinet has his tuppence worth. Scotland export electricity.

8

Eduardinho,

10/11/2009 00:26:57
Im not surprised that the Unionist media are conveniently ignoring the fact that Scotland is in a great position regarding renewable energy sources and really does not need Nuclear Power.
Nuclear energy is required in England as renewables is a problem, due to problems in England in sourcing.
Scotland on the other hand has and is developing Windpower, Wavepower and Hydro. The developments in Wavepower alone will produce the equivelant of 25% of all european energy needs.
So why do people like Grey come out with the 'UK Party' line? Is it ignorance or is it that its just another anti SNP rant that blinds him an others into ignoring what Scotland does and can produce.
Nuclearpower IS not need, required or desired in Scotland
9

Hobbe,

10/11/2009 00:29:37
The nuclear needs of England are indeed not shared at all by Scotland for reasons obvious to all of the world except the westminster mob and their tawdry sad media support.
10

Handsome Scotsman,

10/11/2009 00:38:05
I think the Rufus fellow has been taking too many walks along Douneray beach.

Stay away from those bright yellow barrels Mr. They do strange things with your DNA.

Genetically supporting all London Labour policies is a known symptom of radioactive loony syndrome.
11

Eduardinho,

10/11/2009 00:40:02
I was disgusted watching BBC, ITV, Channel4 News that
they kept refering to 'UK Energy Needs' and 'UK Planning' and placing Nuclear power stations in the UK
When in fact the renewables sources in Scotland were completely ignored and the fact that Scotland doesnt need Nuclear energy!
12

JaF,

10/11/2009 00:42:42
#1:Firecry = Clown = A person who amuses others by ridiculous behavior
13

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 00:43:44
Oh well, with Hunterston, and Cockenzie due to shut-down in 2016, and no new coal-fired plant at Hunterston any more, and no plans for new base-load generation, the Scottish government's 'energy policy planning permission policy' is worthy of the tadpoles who infest the bottom of the High Street in Edinburgh. Miliband makes them look like newts.

In 7 years time, light winds = importing electricity, unless the scot gov actually believe in the UK thing.

#7 The Scottish local authorities are implementing the UK's wind-farm policy. Holyrood does very little on this front, despite much hot-air and resultant CO2. We all subsidise the turbines through our electricity bills. You have Westminster to thank for "Scotland capitalising on our vast clean, green energy potential".
14

Eduardinho,

10/11/2009 00:46:20
#13 Tin Man
Are you really that blinkered?
Scottish reneable energy is not just about wind power
it also encompasses Wave and Hydro
With Wave power, Scotland will be more than self sufficient, or do you some how doubt that?
15

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 00:53:07
#8 Eduardinho, 10/11/2009 00:26:57

In case you really don't know, Scotland's wave and tidal power stations supply enough electricity to power a hamlet on Mull. All the wind turbines in the land produce zero electricity on a calm day, and new hydro projects are few and far between. That is precisely why the entire thermal generating capacity needs to be maintained, as per all scientific advice.
16

Alice Cooper,

10/11/2009 00:55:32
oh excuse us like,heres what lie-bour were saying not so long ago
Written Answers Friday 24 February 2006

Scottish Executive

Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive whether, under the terms of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill, proposals for nuclear power stations could be included in a future national planning framework.

Holding answer issued: 7 February 2006
(S2W-22610)


Malcolm Chisholm: The Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill does not prescribe the type of development which may be included in a future national planning framework. Any application by a power generation company for a nuclear power station would be determined by ministers under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989. The Executive’s position on the development of new nuclear power stations is stated in the Partnership Agreement – we will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive whether, under the terms of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill, proposals for nuclear waste disposal facilities could be included in a future national planning framework.

Holding answer issued: 7 February 2006
(S2W-22611)


Malcolm Chisholm: The Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill does not prescribe the type of development which may be included in a future national planning framework. Any application for a new radioactive waste disposal facility would be determined under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) 1997, as amended. Such determination would be in accordance with the procedures appropriate for the category of development into which the proposed facility fell, as assessed against any criteria set out in secondary legislation to define the thresholds for the hierarchy of developments.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive which category of the hierarchy of develo
17

Alice Cooper,

10/11/2009 00:56:56
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive which category of the hierarchy of developments set out in the Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill would be used to deal with applications for a (a) nuclear power station and (b) nuclear waste disposal facility.

Holding answer issued: 7 February 2006
(S2W-22612)


Malcolm Chisholm: The Partnership Agreement makes the position on the development of new nuclear power stations clear – it states that we will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved. Any application by a power generation company for a nuclear power station would be determined by ministers under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989, rather than Town and Country Planning legislation. Any application for a new radioactive waste disposal facility would be assessed against any criteria set out in secondary legislation to define the thresholds for the hierarchy of developments.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive what opportunities would exist under the terms of the Planning etc. (Scotland) Bill for individuals to object to specific proposals contained in a future national planning framework.

Holding answer issued: 7 February 2006
(S2W-22613)


Malcolm Chisholm: National Developments set out in the National Planning Framework will be subject to public consultation at four stages. First, there will be extensive consultation around the drafting of the National Planning Framework, involving seminars across Scotland and a full public consultation on a draft document. Second, there will be extensive scrutiny by Parliament, including a new procedure to allow Parliament to express its views at the end of the process, with MSPs accountable to the electorate in the normal ways. Third, national developments which need to go through the planning system will need to be included in development plans, with all the existing and proposed new opportunit
18

Alice Cooper,

10/11/2009 00:58:21
so good enough to knock back nuke power stations when in power ,but tell porkies when the snp are in power
just another typical labour day
19

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 00:59:15
#14 Eduardinho, 10/11/2009 00:46:20

"With Wave power, Scotland will be more than self sufficient, or do you some how doubt that?"

That is a very stupid comment. The ability to create energy from waves and tides has been well documented for 2000 years. The French even actually built a fairly large tidal power station once.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten everyone as to why the world is not actually covered in wave-generation installations, as you are obviously knowledgeable of the subject?
20

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 01:11:24
#18 Alice Cooper, 10/11/2009 00:58:21

The atricale stems from Ed Miliband - who actually has to do something real about coping with future electricity demand.

Grey is the usual two-face Holyrood non-entity, basically squabbling about the finer points of Scottish planning permission to score political points, despite heading a 'nae nukes' party.

The scot gov are doing exactly the same thing with westminster, whilst pretending that the UK green energy policy was formulated by the scotty govy. Christ.

They are both absolutely pathetic.
21

Eduardinho,

10/11/2009 01:19:52
#15 Tin Man
Just shows how ignorant you really are then
Wave technology is still in the developments stage
So how you can start waffling about supplying Mull, is a sign that you just dont know!

#19 Tin Man
'ability to create energy from waves and tides has been well documented for 2000 years'
Just another sign of your stupidity!
THe developments in the Pentland Firth and the Atlantic are a recent developing tehnology.
The current assessment based on current technology puts the energy potential at 25% of all european needs!
The French have tinkered in the past with tidal power and the English have thought about it, but the problem in both England and France is that they dont have the wave surges that occur around Scotland
22

Fitba Krazy,

10/11/2009 01:38:27
England and Wales has 12 X the population of Scotland so require a vastly greater amount of generating power than Scotland which has more scope for creating and using renewables than England & Wales. The strategy for transition to renewables in Scotland is therefore not the same as for England and Wales.

It is disingenuous to say Scotland with it's potential for renewable power resource exploitation should be treated as an extension of England and therefore conform to what suits England from a Westminster perspective as regards nuclear power generation.

The damage already done by illegal and accidental radioactive emissions and the ongoing problems with waste must also be a prior consideration as regards the future, therefore renewables should be fully exploited as nuclear is phased out in Scotland, imo.

This issue is quite typically being used to undermine Scotland, it's Government and the ingenuity of it's people as regards doing what is right for Scotland. Certain sections of the media by decrying the aspirations to produce power in Scotland that is safe, clean and renewable do so as propagandists to undermine the Scottish Government and not to be constructive for the benefit of Scotland.
23

Simon Domingue,

Québec 10/11/2009 01:56:33
Two articles against SNP in the same "politics" web page. What kind of newspaper is that??
24

Cynicus Unbound,

10/11/2009 01:59:47
"Some people are easily brainwashed by Labour.
Not me though.
-------------------------------------------------

Me neither."-#3 The Real Rufus T Firefly

That's the stuff, Rufus. Preparing to join Smee and out yourself as a Tory? I admire a man with the courage of his convictions. Provided they're not in Saughton, the Bar-L or Peterheid.
25

Ewan Randall,

10/11/2009 02:06:02
(#11) – (Eduardinho) –Did the present Scottish government not extend the life of Scotland’s nuclear power plants?

Does that make it look as if Scotland does not need nuclear energy?
26

Ewan Randall,

10/11/2009 02:27:03
(#22) – (Fitba Krazy) –Do you think that when leading lights in the environmental movement make a U-turn on nuclear power that this could possible undermine the position taken by the Scottish government?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-power-yes-please-1629327.html
27

JeannieMac,

10/11/2009 02:52:10
Consider this. In 2005, the SNP constituency vote was 32%. In 2009, the most recent poll (in a rival newspaper) shows the constituency vote as 48%. So every year of attacks by The Scotsman and Maddox has RAISED the SNP popularity by 2%!

If the Holyrood elections were held today, the SNP would gain seven MSPs.

Oh dearie me, perhaps they need to hire a NEW propagandist.
28

JeannieMac,

10/11/2009 02:53:10
Sorry for the typo. The poll gives the constituency as 40%. In a newspaper as of today.
29

Castaway™ ,

10/11/2009 04:07:31
#22 Fitba Krazy, you are correct when you wrote England and Wales has 12 X the population of Scotland so require a vastly greater amount of generating power than Scotland.

Why build a nuclear power station when Scotland already exports:-
Scotland-England Grid-System Transfers
2699MW - 25/02/2009 12:51:00 GMT
2807MW - 15/03/2009 08:39:00 GMT
14MW - 28/04/2009 22:31:00 GMT

The fluctuation in exports to England from 2807MW down to 14MW means that Scotland has at least 2800MW plus of excess capacity.
30

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 05:43:30
#23 Simon Domingue

"Two articles against SNP in the same "politics" web page. What kind of newspaper is that??"

Believe it or not all the articles in this newspaper are Anti SNP.

This in a paper that tries to claim it does serious "Journalism".

It really is just a Tabloid without the page 3 girl.
31

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 05:46:47
#23 Simon Domingue

You even have it arguing that even though we are a net electricity exporter and will be building clean coal plants for our base line that we should to be building Nuclear Plants so our neighbour down south doesn't have to locate them in their backyard.
32

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 10/11/2009 05:58:46
As an Acoustic Engineer, I am available if required for the RAN's "Collins Class" submarines. Got what it takes? Then apply here: www.defencejobs.gov.au/navy/?RequiresSecure=1

These are NOT NUCLEAR POWERED . Therefore entirely suited for goodwill missions to Japan, Tahiti, Long Beach etc when not on defence duties.

I am, or was, also on the roster for a Kirkcubrigh Clam Dredging Co. This has caused the SNH to girn that we are wiping out algae on the North Sea bottom.

So they can go and **** themselves.
33

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 10/11/2009 05:59:19
We need to take the politics out of this deadly serious issue.
If ever there was a need for a distinguished scientific advisory panel it is on the issue of diversity in power generation. The politicians damn them may already have left it too late.
34

John Cameron,

St Andrews 10/11/2009 06:25:15
Nuclear power has found support even from such iconic Warmists as Al Gore, Hugh Montefiore(Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth), and James Lovelock. Recent surveys found that the vast majority of members of the U.S. and European scientific communities considered the benefits of nuclear power far outweighed the risks. Substituting coal for wood helped launch the Industrial Revolution. Substituting petroleum for whale oil launched the automotive and plastics revolutions. The substitution of nuclear power for fossil fuel was delayed by the fact that both the US and UK had plenty of cheap coal, oil, and gas. Otherwise we would doubtless have gone fully nuclear decades ago, as has France, which currently utilizes over 80% nuclear-powered electricity.
35

Dùn Èideann Bully Wee,

10/11/2009 06:53:34
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale, leukaemia clusters, radioactive hotspots, waste disposal...............................

How many people have been killed or injured by wind, wave, hydro or tidal power?
36

Walter Ego,

Durness 10/11/2009 06:58:18
The game is up for the SNP in Glasgow North East. Even their canvassers have given up. Labour hold - easily.
37

New Danielrober,

10/11/2009 07:21:25
Yes, yes ye to nuclear with a veto or two in your pocket to ignore local planning concerns, is as bad as a straight forward no, no, no ‘I don’t want it’. An energy / power station construction process based on anger and politics, instead of energy and economics is not a good thing. The worse situation is that we add so many conditions to the process, like the operation of the NATO in Afghanistan, that our engineers just like the NATO have their arms tied behind their backs.

The Punch and Judy show between the Labour party and SNP will just see a sensible engineering program surrounded by politics and then outsourced. No other nation in the world has sold off its nuclear business just before it builds a series of new nuclear plants. This has happened because of generations of abuse towards nuclear engineers in Scotland/UK. I have no idea why this abuse started or when, long before I was born of that I am certain.

We need sensible policies and sensible prices. If nuclear charges too much or the companies ask for safety bypasses which they do not operate their own countries then the answer should be to send people back to the drawing board or counting table.
38

TWC,

exLabour 10/11/2009 07:47:25
No Nuclear here, we don't need any more nuclear power in Scotland.

Let England have the Nuclear stations we'll have all the renewables.

Only problem is 5 of their proposals are in the North of England
39

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 10/11/2009 07:47:26
36 Walter

I agree. The SNP have lost it. Bad choice of candidate.
40

Unimpressed one,

10/11/2009 07:48:25
Looks like the greenies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They vehemently oppose nuclear (and coal, oil and gas) power generation, but because of their incessant bleating about 'carbon neutral' this and that, the UK government has snookered them by going for the sensible option of nuclear. Let's see the idiots get out of that one.

As for Scotland, we are fast becoming a basket case....
41

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 07:54:46
We had the first nuclear site at Douneraey, electricity was to be so cheap that it would not be metered !
When they finish decommissioning this site we will have some idea of the real cost of nuclear power.
42

brownlie,

10/11/2009 08:01:08
36 Walter

"Even their canvassers have given up". You've made that up in typical Labour fashion, have you not?
43

TWC,

exLabour 10/11/2009 08:03:48
39
Robert Mason

Actually the Tory is the best candidate by a mile, Willie Bain looks like wee crawler .. kinda nu Labour type not very inspiring .
David Kerr was a bit nondescript but to be honest I think the Nats were smoking something if they thought this one was theirs.
I hope the Glasgow NE voters give Labour a warning just the same.
it is a triumph of hope over experience and when the GE comes we'll see how many jobs Bain has brought.
I don't think the Nats will give up though.
44

Dùn Èideann Bully Wee,

10/11/2009 08:07:06
The traffic lights are out on Springburn Road this morning.

No green lights showing for Mr Bain.
45

James the Pie,

10/11/2009 08:09:13
#40, Unimpressed one,

You are the basket case!!


46

John S,

10/11/2009 08:19:49
“Torness plant was "a £2.5 billion mistake’”
Q:Why was Torness built ?
A:In the 1970s the South of Scotland Electricity Board had forecast that there would be a need for extra capacity.
Wrong, try again?

Q: Why was Torness built ?
A: "The decision to build Torness was not based on a need for generating capacity. .. The decision to build Torness - and its sister station Heysham II in England - was taken in order to support the UK engineering industry through what was obviously going to be a lean period" admitted in 1995 by Irene Currie, Corporate Communications Manager of Scottish Nuclear.
Correct.

“Torness plant was “£2.5 billion mistake”.Attributed to ‘sources in the Scottish Civil Service’, the views were widely believed to be those of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind. The station was originally projected to cost £742 million.Glasgow Herald, 10th Nov 1989
47

Patrick O'Reilly,

Coatbridge 10/11/2009 08:25:21
Even the SNP canvass returns suggest that the Labour majority in Glasgow North East will be substantial.
48

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 08:26:01
Since The 1930's the Labour party has always held on to Glasgow NE by getting at least 50% of the votes cast.

While they may hang on to what is considered their second safest seat by rolling out cabinet ministers and football managers this will be the first time they have got less than 50% of the vote.

Even more interestingly for the coming General Election we may well see the Tories and Lib Dems get pipped by the BNP.

It will show just how completely irrelevant both parties have become.
49

Mèths,

10/11/2009 08:26:17
Have the postal votes been counted yet?
50

Mc Max ,

10/11/2009 08:34:03
But Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said new nuclear power plants would create thousands of jobs. "None will be situated in Scotland because of the SNP's incompetence and dogma," he said.

Is this idiot for real?
Knumbsull.
51

Mc Max ,

10/11/2009 08:34:42
Numbskull,of cource.
52

Ugly George,

10/11/2009 08:38:47
37 new Danielrober
"An energy / power station construction process based on anger and politics, instead of energy and economics is not a good thing."

Absolutely correct. I do not have the expertise to determine the feasibility of renewable energy, clean coal, nuclear etc. and I suspect neither does the vast majority (if not all) of the contributors here.

What worries me though is a fundamentalist approach adopted through a political stance in saying a blanket no to nuclear.

People may talk of more renewables and clean coal but have proper feasibility studies of the effectiveness and cost of these been done?
53

Charles MN,

10/11/2009 08:42:58
#35 Dùn Èideann Bully Wee
"How many people have been killed or injured by wind, wave, hydro or tidal power?"

Banqiao Dam collapse in 1975 estimated 170,000 dead
Vajont Dam collapse in 1959 approx 2000 dead
St. Francis Dam 1928 600 dead
Morvi dam burst in 1979 between 1500 to 15000 dead
Val di Stava Dam collapse in 1985 causing 268 deaths
Gusau dam collapse in 2006 causing 40 deaths
Great Sheffield Flood in 1864 causing 270 deaths

and others.

Whereas the Windscale Piles had nothing to do with Nuclear power as they were being used to produce Plutonium for nuclear weapons and TMI caused no known deaths.




54

Martinh,

10/11/2009 09:01:09
Although I know that I am usually associated with the 'Unionist' point of view, as a lifelong opponent of both nuclear weopons and nuclear power, I have sympathy for the SNP Government on this one, and see no need for new nuclear build. Such a view does come at a price however. We do need to much further develop renewables, onshore and offshore windfarms, microrenewables for domestic use of all types, and more hydro schemes as at above Fort Augustus, where sites can be identified. So we do need the Beauly to Denny upgrade too.

You can't be against everything, so for base load guarrantee, carbon capture technology for new coal fired power stations is now a critical urgency. Otherwise new nuclear power in Scotland too will become inevitable. Hard choices admittedly, but not insurmountable if the SNP approach is fully implemented and committed to. Its difficult as always to extract the short termism politics from genuine committment.
55

LEAL,

10/11/2009 09:03:31
Nuclear power is not the best way forward for Scotland.We have vast renewable resources and these should be harnessed to provide our energy needs.Its going to be very difficult for Mr Gray to persuade his own party otherwise,never mind the Scottish people.
56

Eduardinho,

10/11/2009 09:07:22
Loved BBC Scotland's slant on this story by talking up Dounreay Nuclear power station as 'the Scots leading the way in Nuclear technology' In other wors it was built there because we Scots wanted it and were developing it.
How crass is that!
The real reason it was built there was that it was the furthest possible point from London that something untried could be built in case something went wrong!
It was nothing to to do with Scots wanting it or Scottish science.This was a time that London saw Scotland assome kind of prooving ground.
57

LEAL,

10/11/2009 09:09:19
54 Martinh
I think the abundance of renewables in Scotland means we will someday relatively soon be able to supply base load from renewables,and have an even greater exportable surplus.The energy is there.Theres no doubting that.And the technology to harness it is developing rapidly.
58

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 10/11/2009 09:09:32
I wonder if Mike Weir was born stupid or did he only get that way when he got the energy job.
No nuclear + no coal without CCS = Blackouts
59

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 09:17:40
#21 Eduardinho, 10/11/2009 09:07:22

Apart from calling people stupid, how do you realistically see the base generating capacity of Hunterston and Cockenzie being replaced by 2016?

I have nothing against wave and tidal power, but there is no evidence to show that these technologies would be capable of meeting the demands of concentrated urban populations in 7 years time. Nor is there any evidence that people are willing to pay for the required distribution networks, via their bills.
60

Marian,

10/11/2009 09:20:26
The "one size fits all" mentality of the unionists comes across very clearly and loudly in these threads.

Because they can only think from a UK perspective they cannot cope with the indisputable fact that Scotland does not need nuclear energy because it can generate more than enough of its energy needs from non-nuclear sources.

61

Linda,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 09:24:12
A major report has confirmed that renewable energy can power Scotland’s energy revolution.
It confirms that Scotland can meet domestic energy needs from renewable sources and has the potential to produce surplus green energy for export.
“The Power of Scotland Renewed” says Scotland could meet nearly 70% of domestic electricity use by 2030 from renewables and has the potential to meet over 140% of domestic demand, allowing export of surplus resources.

£150 million of potential investment in Scotland’s renewables and energy industry is currently sat in a UK Government bank account through a quirk of Treasury accounting. It is time that money was released and invested in Scotland’s energy future.

And the UK goevernment is discriminating against investment in renewables in Northern Scotland through
OFGEM, the UK organisation which runs the UK electricity grid, operating a pricing structure that ensures electricity generators seeking to connect
to the grid pay increased charges the further away from "the market" they
are.

62

Ewan Randall,

10/11/2009 09:24:26
(#29) – (Castaway) –What percentage of electricity produced in Scotland comes from a nuclear source?

How much of that power in the Scotland-England grid-system transfer would have been transferred had there not been nuclear power stations in Scotland?

Will Scotland be still transferring power in Scotland-England Grid-System Transfers after Scotland’s remaining nuclear power stations shut down?
63

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 09:29:54
#60 Marian, 10/11/2009 09:20:26

Well, realistically, Holyrood's stance on energy (this goes for Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, and Greens), is very 'unionist'.

David Mundell summed it up correctly when he said "Alex Salmond's position (in fact the majority of MSPs) means that Scotland will end up being importers of nuclear energy from England." Also importers of other thermally-generated power from England and Wales.

Scotland becomes an energy importer in the next few years. There are no plans to do anything about it, so it will happen, in a very real way. And that is it. The headline is perfectly correct.
64

Ewan Randall,

10/11/2009 09:31:05
(#60) – (Marian) –Can you explain why the present Scottish government extended the life of Scotland’s nuclear power stations if you were right and Scotland does not need nuclear energy because it can generate more than enough of its energy needs from non-nuclear sources?
65

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 09:31:14
From the Telegraph

"Mr Miliband unveiled the 10 sites that will be available to house the new generation of nuclear power stations. They are at Braystones, Sellafield and Kirksanton, all in Cumbria, Heysham in Lancashire, Hartlepool, Co Durham, Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex, Hinkley Point in Somerset, Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Wylfa in Anglesey."

"The new nuclear plants, each of which would churn out enough electricity to power a city the size of Manchester for 60 years, will cost at least £5 billion each to build. Mr Miliband insisted there will be "no subsidy" from taxpayers. However energy companies are already putting pressure on the Government to find some kind of subsidy and have proposed a carbon tax that could cost the average household £227 extra on their energy bills."

Another Tax we can avoid by becoming Independent.
66

mr broon,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 09:36:44
According to the National Grid website: "Scotland generates more electricity than it's population can use." The large surplus is exported to England and Wales, and by way of an sub-sea link, to Northern Ireland."

According to the National Grid: "Since 1967, Scotland has always generated more electricity than it's population can consume."

(Source: National Grid website)
67

New Danielrober,

10/11/2009 09:41:49
# 52 Ugly George

The problem which the Scotland/UK has is a real one but yet still one most countries even in Europe would kill for. All the plans will work, in terms of engineering.

We have now reached a level of performance where the technology, more or less works. It’s the profits/incomes which don’t work. The expectations raised by both sales people, political planners and well meaning dreamers, are suffering from rose tinted glasses. Yes we can have nuclear, coal, gas, wind, tidal, wave, geo and even solar power in these islands. Yet the introduction of all these technologies will have one excellent result – cheaper power, not more expensive power. Cheaper power is great for customers but a problem for companies, hence why it’s always money, subsidy, special circumstances and veto.

Cheaper power though will not raise billions to balance countries bills, or pay for pensions, or hospitals or a new generation of shinny new offices. Cheaper power means warmer homes, better street lighting, public building in which we can take off our coats in the winter – including schools, which is just excellent.

The benefits to these islands of cheaper fuel, when the balanced is right is excellent and worth waiting. What is not good is a fight between the anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear professionals. Everyone should also be aware that this is high politics, not in Scotland/UK but is on the continent. That means presidents; prime ministers and the odd chancellor will be bending the ears of our leaders – because everyone wants to be in at the winning energy race.

If the planning process takes an extra five years and we have to import gas to cover the gap, then so be it. Its worth the wait. Its called cheap energy and we have already waited 50 years, so whats 5 more?
68

New Danielrober,

10/11/2009 09:44:01
# 65 KampungHighlander,Jakarta

By the way - £5 billion is a joke price, just one that has no one laughing. Its a bit like the bridge problem.
69

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 09:44:30
#66 mr broon, Edinburgh 10/11/2009 09:36:44

"Scotland generates more electricity than it's population can use."

That's because we used to build power stations. In a few years time it becomes 'Scotland generates less electricity than it's population use.'

Holyrood can't even get a new coal-fired station built at Hunterston to go anywhere near replacing the stations that are due to close - they lost the main investor a few months ago - the unfortunately named 'Dong'.
70

Ewan Randall,

10/11/2009 09:46:34
(#61) – (Linda) –How long do you think it will take before Scotland can meet domestic energy needs from renewable sources?

Will this be before or after Scotland’s nuclear power stations close?

If there turns out to be a short fall in power between the nuclear power stations closing and the renewable sources meeting Scotland’s domestic energy needs is it likely that any power imported might have been produced in nuclear power stations?

If that is the case then how ethical is it that people refusing their own nuclear power stations due to them believing that it would be wrong to have them then accepts power from other people’s nuclear power stations?
71

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 09:47:37
#65 KampungHighlander, Jakarta 10/11/2009 09:31:14

Wait until you see the size of electricity bill charges for wave-station subsidies! Best to stay in Jakarta. Does Indonesia have 'Tsunami power stations' yet, by the way?
72

noswod,

honestas 10/11/2009 09:52:39
Mair energy strategy devised by a 12 year old being put forward by the SNP. Become a Scottish nationalist go back tae 1707 get the candles oot because theres naye lichts. Even if there wiz lichts under the Nats your no gang tae be able tae pay frae them as yer willney hae a job. Scotlands energy bonanza a blown. You canni hae free prescriptions withoot the means tae pay frae them the eara O free muney frae WhiteHa is gang.
73

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 09:53:37
#66 mr broon, Edinburgh 10/11/2009 09:36:44

'Scotland will soon generate less electricity than it's population use.'

Of more concern is the strong possibility that the new stations to be built everywhere but Scotland will come on-line too late to satisfy future demand, and electricity has to be imported from continental Europe for many years, at premium cost.
74

Frank Spencer and Betty,

10/11/2009 09:59:20
#71 The Tin Man

Funny that, the French company that owns the British nuclear power company says that there will be no new nuclear power stations built unless the British government gives them a more level playing field by raisng the prices for gas and coal power generation.

Funny how the government could not get any company to take on our nuclear generation unless it was the tax-payer who took on the cost of getting rid of the waste and for the decommissioning.

So the British people have to pay through the nose three times for the privilage of nuclear energy!
75

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 10:16:19
#74 Frank Spencer and Betty, 10/11/2009 09:59:20

UK electricity users pay through the nose to subsidise wind farms. In Scotland, lots of them are owned by a Spanish company. Likewise we subsidise nuclear, and we would also have to pay remarkably huge subsidies to enable carbon-capture, and wave-power (that is the main reason why companies don't really build commercial wave-power, and carbon-capture plants - people aren't willing to pay for it).

What is your point? If you want cheaper electricity, we have to burn more Polish rocks.
76

Moravian,

10/11/2009 10:16:54
#61

Temperature yesterday between Aberdeen and Inverness ranged from -5 to 3.5 and every windmill on the route lay still. Renewable is unusable.
77

Andrah,

Embrugh 10/11/2009 10:24:18
In England, areas including Cumbria, Lincolnshire and North Somerset will welcome the opportunity of new nuclear investment and the boost it provides to the local economy.

Nuclear is high tech, employing well-paid scientists and skilled engineers. It is "safe" within the definition of the word as representing an extremely low risk of harm.

In fact the vast majority of the developed and developing world either has nuclear power stations already or is planning to build some.

France has rightly been providing over 80% of its electricity via nuclear generation for years and continues to plan appropriately.

Never mind, as compensation, we will be able to proudly wear our badges, signifying that we live in a “Nuclear Free Zone”, a term created by left-wing loonie Councils in the eighties.
78

The Tin Man,

10/11/2009 10:26:42
#76 Moravian, 10/11/2009 10:16:54

Wind farms are usable, but they have to be fully backed-up by other, more reliable methods of generation (like a diesel genny in your garden shed, or, as per the Holyrood 'plan', electricity generated 'elseplaces unknown').
79

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 10:46:51
It really is about time we got rid of this incompetent government. And they want independence????? Pull the other one. At least whilst we are in the UK we are protected from some of the more extreme, stupididity perpetrated by these morons.

Scotland should be grasping the opportunity to jump on board with Westminster in the creation of a modern nuclear infrastructure. Instead, they are wasting the opportunity.
80

Angus of the Isles,

10/11/2009 10:50:58
The green energy revolution that Scotland will become world leaders in is already employing many thousands of people in Scotland. Some very clever graduates are now in very well paid jobs. The spin of is creating jobs in the engineering and associated trades. The potential is there to create tens of thousands of jobs as this revolution takes hold. A revolution that will be even more significant to Scotland than the industrial revolution that we were at the forefront of.

Four parties in the Glasgow NE by election have Scottish independence in their manifesto. At the moment the SNP are in pole position to deliver this revolution for Scotland and the world. The final key stone of independence has to be in place to break the strangle hold of Westminster over or country. Because under Westminster we will never ever be allowed to realise our potential.

Westminster and her lackeys know this, hence the propaganda being pumped out like sewage into the Clyde on an hourly basis now.
81

Angus of the Isles,

10/11/2009 10:53:14
#78 Is it your argument that no technology exists to provide this back up?

A few minutes searching the internet will show the paucity of your argument, as usual.
82

Ferris Bueller,

10/11/2009 10:55:22
23 Simon Domingue,Québec 10/11/2009 01:56:33
Two articles against SNP in the same "politics" web page. What kind of newspaper is that??
*****************************************

Clearly, a great one.
83

Ferris Bueller,

10/11/2009 10:57:41
76 Moravian,10/11/2009 10:16:54
#61

Temperature yesterday between Aberdeen and Inverness ranged from -5 to 3.5 and every windmill on the route lay still. Renewable is unusable.
*******************************************************

A great illustration.

It shows the ridiculous position that the SNP have put themselves in.
84

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 11:00:10
Interesting poll in The Herald yesterday, surprised the Scotsman didn't run it too.

Apparently latest Westminster voting intentions are:

SNP 25% (down 7% since April)
Labour 39% (up 3%)
Tories 18% (down 1%)
Lib Dem 12% (up 3%)
Others 6% (up 2%)

It seems the SNP are struggling to convince voters that it is worthwhile voting for them in Westminster elections as opposed to Holyrood ones.
85

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 11:01:19
#23 Simon Domingue,Québec

Do you support independence for Quebec?
86

Labour Lies,

10/11/2009 11:05:55

#36 Walter Ego

"The game is up for the SNP in Glasgow North East. Even their canvassers have given up. Labour hold - easily"

I hope you are wrong. What kind of message would it send out if another useless Labour MP was elected from Scotland?

That people are happy with a bumbling and incompetent Prime Minister?

That people are content with the conditions they are living in after 74 years of being represented by the Labour Party?

That we think it’s fine that the previous shamed Labour incumbent was booted out of his job for trying to hide the greed, deceit and lies of his fellow Labour MP’s? …yes, we don’t have a problem with that, here’s another one in the mould of Ingram, Devine, Flipper Darling, Lazarowicz, Martin, Dalyell, Alexander, Murphy, etc, etc, etc.

That even though Bain is one of the weakest candidates we’re happy to elect him anyway just because he’s got a Labour rosette stuck on him?

Come on Glasgow, enough is enough, let’s put a stop to the shame and don't elect another Labour donkey.
87

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 11:05:59
#54 You should be aware that the Glen Doe scheme is out of action for a year (just after it opened too) because the tunnel collapsed.
#57 You should be aware that the most advanced wave power machine (the Pelamus) built in Scotland and sold to Portugal fell to bits soon after installation and the parts are lying rusting on a Portuguese beach.
#76 It is not only in the northeast wind mills aren't turning. All over Scotland in today's weather wind farms are producing zero electricity.

Renewables are pie in the sky. Always have been and always will be.

88

John S,

10/11/2009 11:08:10
Why mention only nuclear power station(s) for Scotland ? Why not a gas fired power station ?
England and Wales they are building 12 gas fired power stations with a total capacity of approx 15,000MW including:-
5 February 2009 - The UK government has granted consent for three new gas fired power stations with a combined capacity of 3,920MW to be constructed at Pembroke, King's Lynn and Hatfield.
A gas power station located in Scotland would make for sense than another NPS because the Scottish Government is going down the road of renewables.
Nuclear is baseload and not flexible enough to adjust to the varying Scottish energy demand whereas fossil fuel generation is flexible.
For England with its much larger baseload nuclear is feasible.
89

Angus of the Isles,

10/11/2009 11:23:45
#87


How many times has nuclear plant had to shut down?

Once, twice, never?

http://tinyurl.com/yfzlfsz

http://tinyurl.com/yl2ztcy

Foot in mouth, the disease of the unionist spinner.



90

Dr Cloth,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 11:26:07
The SNP seem to be missing a trick here with nuclear power stations. If they let the UK Government set up new nuclear stations here and then Scotland were to become independent (God help us!), we would at least have some decent infrastructure in place to power us when the British Taxpayers money ceases to be sent up here.

Instead we will reject these plants and cover our beautiful countryside with massive great wind turbines which use more energy to install than they actually generate. And all because of the word 'nuclear'...
91

Angus of the Isles,

10/11/2009 11:28:10
#87


Hey look! A working Pelamis generating into the grid in Portugal.

http://tinyurl.com/mmhyuf


Never mind matron will be round soon and give you some nice tablets to take away all your paranoia.
92

Angus of the Isles,

10/11/2009 11:30:45
#90

Not true wind power is moving off shore.

Carbon capture has been working at Longannet.

Scotland exports 40% of generation at the moment every day to the south.

You need to get rid of the tin foil hat and walk in the sunshine.
93

John S,

10/11/2009 11:37:20
Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) - The company is looking to build a pumped storage scheme capable of producing up to 600 megawatts of electricity (Balmacaan - Loch Ness).
As well as consultation on the Balmacaan scheme, SSE is proposing another 300 to 600 megawatt pumped storage plant at Coire Glas to the south-west of Laggan.06 November, 2009
Total capacity 900MW to 1200MW and a new NPS capacity is ?
94

Lianachan,

Highlands 10/11/2009 11:40:59
England imports power, so it clearly doesn't produce enough. If nuclear is the answer, then yes, they need new nuclear plants. Scotland exports power, and produces far more than it needs. Therefore, Scotland does not need new nuclear build. Pretty simple, really.
95

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 11:42:49
#71 Tin man

"Wait until you see the size of electricity bill charges for wave-station subsidies! Best to stay in Jakarta. Does Indonesia have 'Tsunami power stations' yet, by the way?"

No, we get our power from Oil, Coal and increasingly Geo Thermal.

Countries should use what resources are available to them, in Scotland you have a lot of wind and waves (and hot air from Unionist politicians), here we get a lot of sunshine and volcanoes.

The Tsunami crack is pretty tasteless, kind of like saying the Japanese should harness the power of Nuclear Explosions or the people of Aberfan should harness the power of collapsing slag heaps.

But then again, good taste has never been your forte.
96

Labour Lies,

10/11/2009 11:45:33

#84 Yeah 1

The latest Guardian\ICM poll (October 09) showed:

Tory 44 (+1)
Lab 27 (+1)
LibDem 18 (-1)
Others 11 (-1)

This gives the Tories a majority of 100 seats.

I appreciate that some Labour supporters are happy with that but I’m old enough to remember the feeble 50 Labour MP’s under Thatcher and they did absolutely nothing to protect Scotland from her policies. Don’t really fancy going through that again do you?

It seems therefore that the only way to protect Scotland from Cameron’s Westminster Tories is to return enough SNP MP’s to protect Scotland's interests, who knows, we might even get a hung Parliament.

Don’t you agree?
97

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/11/2009 11:51:29
Why the lockdown on comments on the other stories?

A bit pathetic that isn't it?
98

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 12:01:44
#91 your mysoginy is typical of nats.

Your link is to the company's marketing site. Try this link http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/17/portugals-pelamis-wave-power-project-killed/


#94 - you are talking about now - everybody else is talking about 10 years from now. Simple really.
99

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 12:03:20
#97 Observer

"Why the lockdown on comments on the other stories?

A bit pathetic that isn't it?"

It so that Maddox can use outright lies in his stories without being challenged.

There is an election on, watch at the coming general election you won't be allowed to comment on any stories.
100

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 12:09:16
One Hundre
101

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/11/2009 12:09:19
One Hundred
102

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 12:11:09
#96

"It seems therefore that the only way to protect Scotland from Cameron’s Westminster Tories is to return enough SNP MP’s to protect Scotland's interests, who knows, we might even get a hung Parliament. Don’t you agree?"

No there isn't going to be a hung Parliament, I would think that possibility very unlikely, however much Salmond is clinging to it so he can have an opportunity to show his 'power' and 'influence' on a UK-wide stage.
103

Arfur,

10/11/2009 12:13:46
This garbage has been shot down in flames many many many times before.

I think the unionist tactic is throw as much poo at a wall and hope some sticks but in the end of the day - its still poo.

Also had to laugh at the key services would pay for the referendum story (which you cant comment on)

ehhh - hootsman what about

key services will pay for id cards
key services will pay for trident
key services will pay for nuclear power
key services will pay for war on terror
key services will pay for bank bail outs
key services will pay for lining politicians pockets

hootsman - you are the embarrassment of Scotland.

104

Angus of the Isles,

10/11/2009 12:16:03
#98 And had you bothered to research you would have found on the site:
http://www.pelamiswave.com/news.php?id=37


To quick to lunge slavering at the keyboard. Sometimes it pays to stay quite and be thought of as rather dim than to post guff and confirm it.


The potential in Scotland is what has frozen the unionist cabal in fear, the gravy train has been derailed. Nothing can prevent Scottish independence, even another invasion by England would not stop us, get over yourselves and get of your knees.

http://tinyurl.com/yhewb27
105

Frank Spencer and Betty,

10/11/2009 12:17:53
#75 The Tin Man

The point is that nuclear power is already miles dearer to produce at the moment, the nuclear companies want the government to increase the prices for the gas and coal etc generators so that they can compete and thus make more profts for themselves, nothing to do with the price paid by us.

No private company will touch nuclear because of the decommissioning and waste costs, these again are miles dearer than any subsidy costs for alternative electricity generation.

There is also the prospect of free power using Cold Fusion or the Tesla energy that was used to bring down the Twin Towers. Then again our governments and energy companies do not want to go down that road because all they are interested in is tax and profits.
www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com
106

Arfur,

10/11/2009 12:20:15
63 The Tin Man - i have never heard so much garbage in my life - please pick up your dunce hat and go sit in the corner - you should know by now that you are too stupid to leave the corner.
107

Arfur,

10/11/2009 12:23:08
79 Alternative (High-Octane) -
"It really is about time we got rid of this incompetent government" - Why? cos you say so? Get a life you prat. They had the largest vote and if you bothered to look at the poles still have that majority. Or are you saying that Scotland should not listen to the people but brain dead thickos like yourself?
108

Ferris Bueller,

10/11/2009 12:28:13
84 Yeah1,10/11/2009 11:00:10

No surprises in that opinion poll as the SNP lurch from one disaster to another.
109

Grahamski,

Falkirk 10/11/2009 12:36:44
97

Observer,

"Why the lockdown on comments on the other stories?

A bit pathetic that isn't it?"

Not really. The Scotsman has a duty of care to its employees. The articles by Mr Maddox do not have the comments function because the cybernats have repeatedly posted vile attacks on Mr Maddox.

The only people who find this behaviour acceptable appears to be the swivel-yed cybernats themselves and their fellow-travellers. Prepare to watch the Scotsman withdraw the comments facility entirely if this level of abuse is sustained.
110

Frank Spencer and Betty,

10/11/2009 12:38:55
#103 Arfur

The English-funded unionist parties and their apologists also conveniently forget to mention the £30 million being wasted every year to send Scottish MPs to Westminster to do absolutely nothing for Scotland and its people but interfere in English matters.

The Herald also came out with another drivel story about the Clyde shipyards yesterday needing the handouts of Westminster to survive, forgetting that the UK is bankrupt and can't afford the ships anyway, forgetting that the navy can't afford to run the ships they have at the moment and have to mothball many of them to save money. They and Jim Murphy also claim that the yards would lose the orders they have at the moment with independence but fail to say that the yards are going to lose he orders after the Westminster elections when they are going to be cancelled as part of the severe cuts and tax rises that will be enacted by whoever wins.

They also failed to mention how the Finnish have just built the biggest liner in the world for a US customer and how their yards are successfully competing in the world, a country with the same population as Scotland as well. I wonder how they forgot to mention that?
www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com
111

Labour Lies,

10/11/2009 12:42:32

#102 Yeah 1

You’re a bit selective with your response, the main question was:

“…the only way to protect Scotland from Cameron’s Westminster Tories is to return enough SNP MP’s to protect Scotland's interests…”

Do you agree?

If not, what’s your suggestion?
112

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 12:50:28
#111

"“…the only way to protect Scotland from Cameron’s Westminster Tories is to return enough SNP MP’s to protect Scotland's interests…” Do you agree?"

16 to 20 SNP MPs aren't going to be able to do anything to 'protect Scotland's interests' against a Tory party with a majority of 100 or so.

If the Tory party pass legislation on the banks or financial services for example, which is detrimental to Scotland, 20 SNP MPs aren't going to be able to do anything about it.
113

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 12:58:31
#104 All you have doen is provide another link to the company's markeing site. They are hardly going to admit that their pride and joy is lying in a rusting heap.

Try this link http://www.salon.com/mc/giga_om/print.mc?URL=/tech/giga_om/clean_tech/2009/03/18/can_ocean_power_keep_its_head_above_water
114

Grahamski,

Falkirk 10/11/2009 12:59:29
112

Mr 1,

"20 SNP MPs aren't going to be able to do anything about it."

Of course they are: they can girn and greet, blame the English and salute each other in pidgin gaelic. While they're mumping about cricket on the telly and Norwegian chessmen their pathetic attempts to speak like real Scots (you know what I mean, describing things as a 'brammer' for example) just makes them sound like those two guys in 'Chewin The Fat' who are 'only here for the benter....'

All things considered 20 SNP MPs will hiv us a' black affronted, so they will......Oh my god it's catching!
115

Labour Lies,

10/11/2009 13:04:12

#112 Yeah 1

Ok, so at the second time of asking, what, in your view, is the solution\suggestion to protect Scotland from Cameron's Westminster Tories?

Straight question, would appreciate a straight answer.
116

Grahamski,

Falkirk 10/11/2009 13:04:56
115

Mr Lies,

Voting Labour?
117

JCA REID,

Annan 10/11/2009 13:09:12
It seems odd Labour knocking the SNP's anti-Nuclear stance when they have done the same for decades. I can recall the riots & demonstrations led by Mr. R. Brown, who was our constituency's first Labour MP, now MP for Galloway next door, confronting the Police lines, demanding the closure of the Chapelcross Nuclear Plant.

Nuclear stations are inefficient as 50% of electricity generated is used to run the place & research figures into the nuclear waste/debris ternding to show a 'favourable' slant on the predicament are dubious to say the least.
118

Dùn Èideann Bully Wee,

10/11/2009 13:34:22
114 Grahamski

Do you mean unlike the “feeble fifty “Labourite MPs who were renowned for fighting for Scotland’s interests during the Thatcher era?

Now, they were heroes were they not?

Such a legacy must make you proud!
119

Frank Spencer and Betty,

10/11/2009 13:37:22
#116 Grahamski

Why would having English-funded and controlled unionist party MPs be good for Scotland?

They have not done anything but enrich themselves at the Scottish publics expense so far. They must be feeling as smug as the quislings in Norway and the Vichy in France were when they were doing the same for their countries.
120

brownlie,

10/11/2009 13:45:27
109 Grahamski,

"The article by Maddox do not have the comments function because the cyber-nats repeatedly posted vile attacks on Mr Maddox". Is that a fact, has Mr Maddox told you that, or are you making it up?

For your information Mr Maddox printed, in the Steamie blog, an unjustified and nasty attack on me. He subsequently apologised but these things work both ways.

Can I just repeat again that there is no way of knowing what particularly point of view is held by persons posting vile comments. "Creepy Scot", for instance, pretends to be a nationalist when he is clearly no such thing.

Incidentally there is no such thing as pidgin Gaelic - note the capital "G".
121

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/11/2009 13:45:35
116 so I take it the period 1979 to 1997 passed you by then?
122

Moravian,

10/11/2009 13:47:28
They say you can't fool all of the people all of the time but the SNP support(do they breed within the family)just cannot help but hate everything that does not emanate from the Big Balloon's derriere.
With wind and issp from that "Angus of the pile" and hot air from Salmond, Scotland must be almost self sufficient.
Get off the hate bandwagon and debate the subject.
123

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/11/2009 13:48:56
109 Poppycock.

The Scotsman's duty of care does not extend to preventing people from questioning Maddox' professional competence.

Any more than my employer has a duty of care to prevent anyone criticising me.

What kind of country do you think we are living in when political coverage is beyond criticism?

Get real.

124

brownlie,

10/11/2009 13:54:20
122 Moravian,

Excellent post and sound advice to get off the "hate bandwagon" from someone who accuses SNP supporters of being inbred.
125

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

10/11/2009 13:56:24
120 brownlie,10/11/2009 13:45:27
""Creepy Scot", for instance, pretends to be a nationalist when he is clearly no such thing."

It is Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot to you or even Ayrshire Creepy Scot if you so wish.

More recently however I have become Samuel Nathanial.
126

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/11/2009 14:00:58
125 Hello Rufus.

Anyway David Maddox isn't so bad, he has popped a wee post onto the Steamie about a press release Labour have *just issued* on the election of Willie Bain.

Nothing like taking things for granted eh.

BTW Rufus when you posted at 108 under one of your many other sign ins you got it wrong. The poll shows a solid lead for the SNP both in the constituency and the regional votes for Holyrood. Rock solid.
127

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

10/11/2009 14:01:22
Global warming is all a myth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm
128

Moravian,

10/11/2009 14:02:18
#124

GEE THANKS

The only sensible route to keeping the soul clean is to treat all politicians with equal contempt, whatever the party. Some enter for the correct reasons but sooner or later they are all in it for themselves.
.
129

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

10/11/2009 14:03:04
From the BBC..........

What happened to global warming?

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

130

brownlie,

10/11/2009 14:03:29
127 ABS

Don't be sexist! Did the Prime Minister teach you how to spell?
131

Grahamski,

Falkirk 10/11/2009 14:04:13
123

Observer,

"Any more than my employer has a duty of care to prevent anyone criticising me."

We've been here before. I'm sure your union would have something to say about your employer introducing a website which allowed anonymous attacks on your integrity and competence.

Why should any employee have to endure nasty vindictive personal attacks on their company's website?

132

Alice Cooper,

10/11/2009 14:04:56
#123
maybe we should all fire off a complaint to the press complaints,im sure they dont allow journos to lie to joe public?,or is it only for the red flag wavers to be immune
when the by election results come in ,watch labour crow about beating the snp,but in reality they should be hanging their heads in shame
for what they did or didnt do for glasgow,is just unforgivable
highest alcoholic rates
highest heart attack
low life expectancy
just a measly giro to look forward to,how the hell can any sane person defend such a bunch of nasty polititions,they are so downtrodden and brow beaten they would vote for a donkey with a red rossette tied to its rear end
to treat and leave the citizens in glasgow,to be worse of than some 3rd woprld dictatorship is sickening
now we see the bigots join the labour party to stop the snp getting in,same would apply be it tory or lib dems
they have much to answer for,no matter what you think of the people of glasgow,they are human beings and should be treated as one,note some quick step up to the house or is it troughs of lords
mr martin should help in their canvasing,as his red face will match his parties colours
133

brownlie,

10/11/2009 14:05:47
Grahamski,

Meant to say you missed a good game on Sunday. As I said before, onward and upward. Did I see you in Milton earlier today with arrows in your Union Jack hat?
134

Alan B,

10/11/2009 14:06:21
#Ugly George

If it was down to pure economics nuclear would not get off the ground. The economist ran an article a while ago about the uk approach and said that new nuclear plants had never been completely commercially driven and unsubsidised not under written by the tax payer.

Not long ago the uk government had to bail out uk nuclear.

If the company was run as any other company and went bust would would happen to the waste. You cannot just throw it out.

As such nuclear needs to be costed with decommissioning costs build in with a levy to pay for it.

The uk has also had a silly energy policy with the dash for gas. It may have been the cheapest but after only a short time the uk has now become an importer and is now dependent on Russian gas.

So it is not just economics of the short term but energy security that is important.

Scotland has to decide if it wants to go for the renewables and develop an industry here. Unfortunately we are having to play catch up as the tories rejected renewables and went for subsidised nuclear (in order to break the coal miners and the unions that controlled the country).

Labour in scotland did seem genuinely interested in renewables but have been undermined by the lack of direction from the uk party.

135

mr broon,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 14:07:18
"The Danish State energy company DONG has pulled out of the planned, new 1600 megawatt coal-fired power station at Hunterston but its partner Peel Energy, part of the Clydeport Group, is still going ahead with the venture."
(Source: Daily Record)

"British Energy, owned by the French State-owned EDF energy company, is funding most of the project."
(Source: The Herald)

"The Danish State energy company DONG is involved in a large number of joint ventures throughout Europe to build new gas and coal-fired power stations.
However, the Danish Government, which is committed to generating 70 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025, has no plans to build any more
hydro-carbon power stations."
(Source: The Scotsman)
136

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

10/11/2009 14:10:51
"130 brownlie,10/11/2009 14:03:29
127 ABS
Don't be sexist! Did the Prime Minister teach you how to spell?"

What was wrong with the spelling and who is ABS?
137

Grahamski,

Falkirk 10/11/2009 14:12:37
133

Mr Brownlie,

"Meant to say you missed a good game on Sunday."

Aye, I know - pig sick doesn't begin to describe it, I was disappointed by you guys on Saturday, just didn't get going...

"arrows in your Union Jack hat"
arf arf arf...Not me, I'm going up to Sprinburn later on though....what on earth were you doing in Milton?
138

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

10/11/2009 14:13:04
The Walker index is saying that people are far less stressed this year than they were at this time last year.

That at least is positive news.
139

Alan B,

10/11/2009 14:13:35
#Yeah1

The best way to protect Scotlands interests (although that is obviously subjective) is to have the decision made in scotland by scotland via our democraticly elected government.

The more decision making that is devolved the more the decisions taken will reflect the will of the people as expressed by the parties they elect.

The biggest failing of the union is the massive over centralisation and the prioritisation of london over all else.

It is a real pity labour made such a mess of devolution.
140

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 14:20:46
#132

"no matter what you think of the people of glasgow,they are human beings and should be treated as one"

Quite correct, which is why it is very strange that you criticise them for being 'downtrodden' and 'brow beaten' and apparently think they are so stupid they would vote for a 'donkey with a red rossette tied to its rear end'.

Strange that you are sticking up for the people of Glasgow but at the same time you condescend and patronise them, criticise them, and suggest that they are so stupid that they vote like sheep and cannot make up their own minds who to vote for.
141

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 14:27:19
#126

"The poll shows a solid lead for the SNP both in the constituency and the regional votes for Holyrood."

The poll he was referring to was for Westminster, not Holyrood.

That poll, published yesterday in the Herald, has these predictions:

SNP 25% (down 7% since April)
Labour 39% (up 3%)
Tories 18% (down 1%)
Lib Dem 12% (up 3%)
Others 6% (up 2%)
142

Moravian,

10/11/2009 14:32:46
#139

Good point.

Muppets are muppets be they in London or Edinburgh. Let's have Independence fron say Aviemore North. With most of the oil,gas and whisky (all the decent stuff at any rate) we'll muddle through without the Jimmies and the Jessies. The Central belt can burn their coal in their tenements and argue about religion and how much the teuchters have betrayed them.
.
143

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 14:36:33
#141 - Herald published figures for both Westminster and Holyrood, and didn't put a caption on a poll for Glasgow by-election which I think were the figures you posted. Poll sample of < 1000 which means the margin of error is larger.
144

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 14:37:58
#142 - "argue about religion " - No arguments in the north about religion, in the land of the wee free???

145

brownlie,

10/11/2009 14:38:55
136 rufus,

If I've got to explain there's no point - you know what we unionists are like. ABS is assisted braking system - hoped you might take the hint.
146

Moravian,

10/11/2009 14:41:44
#144

Wee Frees, surely, are Atheists. Are they not?
.
147

brownlie,

10/11/2009 14:42:13
137 Grahamski,

Milton is in Glasgow North East as well. Turn right at the Colston Roads lights in Bishopbriggs and there you are. Must warn you that there's lots of Nats there so FBA on.
148

Ugly George,

10/11/2009 14:42:32
134 Alan B
I appreciate what you are saying about the govt having to prop up the nuclear power industry but is the same not true for renewables? Are the windfarms being built viable in their own right as sources of energy ar are they helped by a govt subsidy?
149

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 14:46:58
#146 - Oh woooo, dicing with a hell fire tirade there....
150

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 10/11/2009 14:49:03
Angus of the Isles,
Can you let me know who your drug supplier is,I would really like to have a go at living in the fantasy world that you inhabit.
151

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 14:55:40
#148 - Wind farms don't leave a nasty legacy of highly radioactive waste for 1000's of years...
152

Moravian,

10/11/2009 14:55:44
#150

This is what happens with free prescriptions and too much leisure time
153

Alan B,

10/11/2009 14:56:03
#Ugly George

"I appreciate what you are saying about the govt having to prop up the nuclear power industry but is the same not true for renewables?"

Yes off course.

But as I have pointed out cheapest and hence what is generally portrayed as most economic (short term), is not always the best approach ie the dash for gas. We would have been better preserving gas for central heating etc rather than using it for producing electricity.

Now that we import gas if we want energy security then the main options are:

1)coal
2)nuclear
3)renewables

Of these 3 coal is the only one that does/did not need subsidies but again it was cheaper to have open cast coal rather than deep mined coal but that had other environmental issues.

How much cheaper is coal if it is only done to higher standards say like carbon capture etc.

I am not again nuclear ideologically but think if scotland is going down the route of renewable which needs subsidies then it is abit silly to go down the route of nuclear which also needs subsidies.

There is also the economic argument about wether scotland can create a renewables industry. Where we can use the natural resources to create wealth.

I would rather they ditched the silly tax increase from the tories when they levied vat on energy. (For the same price we could have a more expensively produced electricity.)

While I support the capitalist economy it makes sense to me also not to use up finite resources in the way the economies in the west have been doing.

Renewables is a young technology to a large degree (yes we had windmill in the past), and as such costs will come down and reliability improve. I think there is great potential for offshore wave, tidal and wind as technology allows.

The economics always mean that you need economies of scale and the investment that brings to fuel further investment and bring costs down and improve technology.
154

watcher,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 15:00:00
Wind farms could work on the wind coming out of the Nats mouths. A disaster for Scotland and they are slowly bringing the country to its knees.
155

Alan B,

10/11/2009 15:01:16
#Ugly George

I think we need to seriously look at how to reduce our electricity consumption.

To me it makes sense to have minimum environmental requirements on electrical consumer goods eg tvs and light bulbs etc.



156

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 15:01:21
#154 - Maybe they coudl site them next to your @rse, the potential generating capacity there is astounding...
157

Moravian,

10/11/2009 15:03:00
#156
That's no way to address the First Minister
158

brownlie,

10/11/2009 15:07:38
152 Moravian

Is that a confession?
159

Alan B,

10/11/2009 15:08:06
#watcher

As if the country is not already on its knees due to the economic neglect and disaster of labour and tory rule.

The last decade of labour economic incompetence. 17 yrs of tory scrotched earth policy and before that back to labour incompetence.

A unionist cycle of failure.
160

brownlie,

10/11/2009 15:08:10
154 Which country would that be?
161

Vista,

10/11/2009 15:12:25
"Luddutes" springs to mind!
162

Vista,

10/11/2009 15:12:54
Make that "Luddites"
163

Gorgie Anthony,

10/11/2009 15:17:29
Never mind, the Tories will be here soon enough. They will sort everything out. They might even speak to the SNP, which would be a genuine improvement over New (moribund) Labour.
164

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 15:17:33
#162 - In reference to what, the old nuclear technology or the new and potentially planet saving renewables?

165

Dr Cloth,

Edinburgh 10/11/2009 15:28:17
Of course, this sort of action is what we have come to expect from the SNP - following an idealist agenda with no consideration given to the costs or practical realities
166

New Danielrober,

10/11/2009 15:33:13
# 153 Alan B,

That is a good argument in its aims and reason. Yet it has one flaw which I think hits the First Minister a lot - we are not Germany or France.

This money, time and effort will not be rewarded with export orders, or build jobs. Instead this effort will reinvigorate German and French industries, which are near to breaking point – without thanks. I have heard no French or German politicians on the TV or in the papers thanking the UK for these orders in the middle of a huge recession. It may be an oversight but still there is silence.

You could clearly say the SNP are buying German, while the Labour party buy French, but what about Scotland/UK? We need an energy policy for us, to keep industry and commerce going and old people warm at night. Building world smashing systems will mean little as we will not be invited to the party. We will work and then all the jobs will be transferred or sold again, with a fob story.

The Prime Minister and First Minister, both have a lot of good ideas, ideas which will benefit Scotland and the rest of the UK. I would rather these energies be used there than to refloat a 20th century 'idea' that has had its time.

Its just electricity, that’s all.
167

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 15:34:41
#143

"Herald published figures for both Westminster and Holyrood, and didn't put a caption on a poll for Glasgow by-election which I think were the figures you posted"

The poll, on the front page of the Herald, was captioned 'Westminster voting intentions'.

It was a poll for the Westminster general election, not for Glasgow NE.
168

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 10/11/2009 15:39:02
Like many things long term infrastructure especially, the make do and mend approach of the UK will only last for so long.

169

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 15:45:29
#167 - I don't have it with me but I will take is as you say even though I thought it unusual that the table I saw wasn't captioned..we might get a different edition over in the east...

However, the article does not try to draw too many conculsions from the poll, this was extracted from the article:

There are reasons why this pair of polls six months apart by TNS-BMRB might be questioned, not least the very high levels of those undecided or not intending to vote, possibly as part of the disaffection with politics following the Westminster expenses scandals.

Perhaps a greater cause for caution is that unlike in the days when the same pollsters, then as System Three, conducted the sample on a monthly basis, we cannot observe the trend, only two snapshots. April or November or both might to some degree be blips, although with a standard method employed there is no reason to suspect these are rogue polls.



170

Lianachan,

Highlands 10/11/2009 16:52:48
#142 One step at a time. We'll get our independent Scotland first, then we'll re-establish the old Roman line at Gask!
171

LEAL,

10/11/2009 16:53:25
So,anyway,Scotland neither needs nor wants nuclear power plants or weapons.
172

Yeah1,

10/11/2009 16:56:14
#169

"I don't have it with me but I will take is as you say even though I thought it unusual that the table I saw wasn't captioned..we might get a different edition over in the east..."

My edition is from the east too (Edinburgh). Perhaps yours was an early edition on which they forgot to put the caption.

My edition definitely has captions for both the Westminster poll on page 1, and the Holyrood polls on page 6.
173

Labour Lies,

10/11/2009 17:14:51

#172 Yeah 1

Any chance to a response to my post at 115?

"Ok, so at the second time of asking, what, in your view, is the solution\suggestion to protect Scotland from Cameron's Westminster Tories?

Straight question, would appreciate a straight answer"
174

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/11/2009 17:39:24
131 you are just being plain daft. He is a journalist, he works on a newspaper with an interactive website. He posts a blog for goodness sake. If he doesn't expect people to react to his stories he shouldn't make them so controversial.

The duty of care an employer has does not extend to employees being shielded from criticism.

What is does extend to is shielding them from risk. Is Mr Maddox put at risk by comments questioning his impartiality?
175

Miss H,

10/11/2009 17:41:25
This is all a load of mince. Even if the SNP supported new nuclear none would be built in Scotland because it would not be economic. The whole UK policy - reflected in the charging system to connect to the grid - is to generate electricity as close as possible to the centres of population. That's why production in the SE of England is subsidised while renewable generators in the north of Scotland have to pay an arm and a leg to connect to the grid.

176

Vista,

10/11/2009 17:42:46
164. NittonLover,

"#162 - In reference to what, the old nuclear technology or the new and potentially planet saving renewables?"

The problem is, that in Scotland, there isn't an over abundance of either deployed at the moment, consequently electricity is expensive with the usual associated knock on effects. It's a time to be doing either/or not engaging in endless debate while future costs rise!
177

Unimpressed one,

10/11/2009 17:44:19
Arfur

You are the weakest link - fukc off.
178

Frank Spencer and Betty,

10/11/2009 17:45:02
#173 Labour Lies

His answer would be to have lots of English-funded unionist MPs at Westminster so that when the Tories cancel the ship orders for the shipyards, and they shut down, they can all say that is terrible, why are we not getting the allowances the previous MPs got.

As long as it is English-funded parties at Westminster then these numpties like Yeah 1 couldn't care what they do. That is what quislings do!
179

Observer,,

Glasgow 10/11/2009 17:45:26
172 Stop being so pedantic.

Although I don't place much reliance on polls this one seems to show that the SNP are losing ground on Westminster, but gaining ground on Holyrood voting intentions.

Unsurprising really given the context.
180

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

10/11/2009 17:46:38
Scotland as a natural resource base for renewables is extraordinary by European and global standards.
- installed capacityof 1.3 Gigawatts (GW) of hydro-electric schemes,
- estimated potential of 36.5 GW of wind
- 7.5 GW of tidal power in the Pentland firth alone.
- up to 14 GW of wave power potential (10% of EU capacity)
WIth the right investment, our renewable electricity generating capacity could be around 60 GW.
Right now, including nuclear, our current capacity from is 10.3 GW. We export the surplus.

So, does Scotland need nuclear? We know the moon's orbit and can work out exactly how much tidal power we'll have at any given point in time. We can work out how much hydro potential we have at any given point in time. The less reliably estimated variables are wind and wave (although if you study thge western isles wind tubines, they are are exceeding their up time estimates by over 50%).

When we implement a system of storing surplus energy in times of plenty (e.g. batteries, raising large weights, storing energy in springs or compressed air etc) then we should have no problem at all in sustaining a mangeable base load of renewable energy.

This is Scotland. It is windy more often that it is not. Rains fills our mountain lochs and reservoirs. We are battered on one coast by the atlantic ocean throwing the gulf stream at us. On the north and east we have the north sea. The layout of our many islands concentrates tidal flow...we are blessed with natural potentail everywhere. So, please, get with the program people.
181

Miss H,

10/11/2009 17:49:10
Re: maddox. He is garbage and so are all the other political journalists covering the by-election.

Glasgow City Council announces they are cutting FOUR THOUSAND JOBS and not a cheep.

But how much coverage have they given to the number of "potential" jobs lost by not proceeding with GARL.

Loss of made-up number of non-existent potential jobs building one mile of railtrack versus loss of FOUR THOUSAND real frontline public service jobs in Glasgow.

182

New Town Resident,

10/11/2009 18:01:28
#153 Alan B. Subsidies

Think its unreasonable to compare renewable subsidies with nuclear subsidies. Renewables need a much bigger subsidy.

In terms of cost, with coal as 1.0, then gas is about 1.25, nuclear 3.0, wind onshore 7.5, and offshore wind, tidal, wave around 15.0. See DECC website, redpoint consultants.

Agree your point about consevation. however there is a pretty clear correlation between energy consumption and population, so not exactly consistent with the SNP desire to encourage more immigrants to Scotland is it?

#175 Mis H Connection Charges

Think you are the one who is talking mince.

Connection charges per unit for NEW REMOTE SMALL SCALE generation are high all over the UK - the same is true for Devon and Cornwall or Norfolk.

Connection charges for LARGE SCALE generation at EXISTING SITES is much lower. Thus a new nuclear power station at Torness would pay much less per unit than a small remote new wind farm in Orkney, or a new wind farm in England as well for that matter.

You are seeking to deliberately mislead by mixing apples and pears I think.


183

New Town Resident,

10/11/2009 18:08:44
#180 Displaced Glaswegian advocating building 60GW of renewables in Scotland.

Have you any idea who many GW of installed power capacity Scotland roughly needs for domestic consumption right now?

And just who do you expect to pay for building another 60GW?

Also please explain why they should, and how you expect to force them to do so?

Why don't you simply claim that with independence we can have perpetual motion machines, and cut out these more complicated fantasies?

184

Alan B,

10/11/2009 18:22:23
#New Town Resident

Thought your post regarding EEA previously was interesting in another thread. By the time I read it was too late to respond (did not completely agree with some of the assumptions), but interesing none the less.


"however there is a pretty clear correlation between energy consumption and population"

2 points
1)the world is overpopulated
2)what we need to ensure our (materialist) capitalist economy works in a sustainable way. Particularly as the standard of living of the india and chinas try to catch up with western standards.

As such it makes sense to try to not be so depend on oil which is limited in supply and a finite resource etc.

Also while I have no real opinion on the snp immigration position, I thought I should clarify, I support independence and the snp is a vehicle to that end. I will support some of their policies and not others. It is having the powers reside within the scottish parliament to make decisions to improve scotland and particularly our economy that is more important to me.
185

Alan B,

10/11/2009 18:28:56
#New Town Resident

"Connection charges per unit for NEW REMOTE SMALL SCALE generation are high all over the UK - the same is true for Devon and Cornwall or Norfolk."

Is the point not that the uk government via its regulator have changed the transmission arrangements to encourage generation nearer the populations they serve.

So that policy will hurt investment and electricity production from areas further afield. If scotland wants to generate a renewables industry the policy from the uk government (whether you argee with it or not) actually undermines that policy.

While the same may be said of Devon that does not mitigate the argument. Remember it is not just the snp that wanted a high proportion of renewables but labour and the libs set a target of 40% by 2020 (the snp raised that to 50% by the same yr).

As such we have a situation where the uk government want to have one energy strategy and the scottish government and previous ones wanted an entirely different one for scotland. The uk government by controlling the transmisssion arrangment can therefore undermine the scottish policy.
186

Number 6,

Germany. 10/11/2009 18:42:47
Scotland does not need nuclear power, Our future needs will be met by renewable energy sources.

Incidentally, yet more Gas and Oil has been found in the North Sea.

It's the rest of the UK that will need nuclear power to keep the lights on as they will never get their act together on alternative energy sources.

Funding for developing these Energies will come from Europe. We don't need to bankrupt Scotland to do it, and we certainly cant afford to rely on Westminster.

They will be too busy printing money to pay for the projected, further 5 year stay in Afghanistan.
187

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 18:48:46
#172 - Was talking p!sh, my paper has both polls captioned, I think the large swing got to me and I thought is was a poll in the consituency.

#176 - There is an over abundance of nuclear in Scotland - in theory enough generating capacity to power the whole country. Pity it is knacked 30% of the time which just proves how unreliable nuclear plants are.



188

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 10/11/2009 18:51:14
#186 - The Guardian reported today the US has been over-stating how much oil reserves there are in the world. It is going to run out quicker than everyone thought. Article is worth a read.

189

Mssy G,

10/11/2009 19:48:41
141 Yeah1

Your figures are correct (for a change) but you forgot to mention a very important fact, 43% of Scots voters are undecided!

My conclusion to that is that Scotland is so disgusted with Westminster,they don't care so they probably will not vote.


You also didn't mention the Holyrood results!

so, just for you!

Constituency:

SNP 40%
Labour 32%
Tories 13%
Lib Dems 11%

Regional:

SNP 37%
Labour29%

Looks like they care about Scotland thought!


Glasgow North East save Scotland, vote SNP!
190

New Danielrober,

10/11/2009 20:00:35
# 186 Number 6,Germany.

Yes Scotland needs Nuclear and so does Germany. Which is why corporate Germany is desperate to build a nuclear power station, in the UK so our funding and knowledge to solve a few problems. What’s the problem, team up and lets play?

What I do not understand is why the Angela Merkell does not get involved. It’s important to the UK and Germany so why is she sitting on the fence?
191

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 10/11/2009 20:01:20
#180 - Get with the programme, you are talking nonsense.
It is very clear that your electrical knowledge is severely lacking.
"Store energy in batteries! lift heavy weights! compressed air"
You sir are living in cloud cuckoo land.
192

Number 6,

Germany 10/11/2009 21:21:52
190 New Danielrober...

Public opposition to Nuclear power in Germany is huge, and takes the form of mass public protests.

Having said that, Merkel has just won the election, so she may push ahead.
193

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 10/11/2009 21:32:06
Funny thing about this story is that right at this moment Ayrshire b&b's are crammed full of yorkshiremen for the next two years for the Hunterston Shutdown. Tell me if i'm wrong but Yorkshire is outside Scotland isn't it? So surely if there were job hopes for Scot's this influx wouldn't be happening. Or would it???
194

,

10/11/2009 22:32:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
195

Simon Domingue,

Québec 11/11/2009 00:49:10
@ Yeah1

Sure.
196

New Danielrober,

11/11/2009 07:31:12
# 192 Number 6,Germany

With an election victory now, lets see Angela Merkell get off the fence. Opposition in the UK and France is massive too, but leadership by Prime Ministers and Presidents turns protests into debates. If Germany wants to gain any thing more than ‘just’ components then its time to get off the fence and stop letting the British and French do the fighting for German industry – where are the German politicians?

Its 20 years now since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and I think the excuse of reunification is getting rather thin.

If no action is taken I’d give it only ten more years and there will be Russia Nuclear Power plants built in the UK. When that happens who do you think will win the competition to replace nuclear power in Eastern Europe – Russia or Germany? To help Germany keep jobs, it really is time to turn up and help, buy the rounds.
197

Spannerstherevengein3D,

11/11/2009 08:15:26
I doubt anything could cause job losses more effectively than a nuclear accident not even a windless day.
198

Spannerstherevengein3D,

11/11/2009 08:19:06
190

So having to buy our expensive Uranium from abroad is much more beneficial than manipulating a local unending sourse of natural power and energy is that the argument we are having today??????
199

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 11/11/2009 09:54:36
#191 Nabodican - "It is very clear that your electrical knowledge is severely lacking". LOL, that's right my BEng(Hons) must have been a dream. You'd never make it as an engineer.
Batteries:-
Storing the Breeze: New Battery Might Make Wind Power More Reliable - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=storing-the-breeze-new-battery-might-make-wind-power-reliable
...the wind doesn't always blow and, even worse, it often blows strongest when people aren't using much electricity, like late at night.. blah blah...the overall cost of electricity might be lower by using energy storage."

The energy storage in question—a series of sodium–sulfur batteries from Japan's NGK Insulators, Ltd.—can store roughly seven megawatt-hours of power, meaning the 20 batteries are capable of delivering roughly one megawatt of electricity almost instantaneously, enough to power 500 average American homes for seven hours. "Over 100 megawatts of this technology [is] deployed throughout the world," Novachek says. The batteries "store wind at night and they contract with their utility to put out a straight line output from that wind farm every day."

Compressed air:-
Saving wind power for later - http://news.cnet.com/Saving-wind-power-for-later/2100-11392_3-6170659.html
"General Compression, based in Attleboro, Mass., last week said it received a $5 million round of seed funding to commercialize a wind-power storage system that uses compressed air.
Wind turbines typically have an onboard power generator that sends electricity down the tower and onto the grid. General Compression plans to break with that basic design and place an air compressor in the nacelle, the housing on a turbine where the generator usually sits.
Its plan calls for sending highly compressed air down the tower and into underground storage, such as caves or depleted gas wells, or through pipelines. The pressurized air can be released when needed to power an electricity generator, even if wind is not spi
200

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 11/11/2009 09:55:18
... continued ...

The pressurized air can be released when needed to power an electricity generator, even if wind is not spinning the turbine's blades"

"Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and it annoys the pig"
201

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 11/11/2009 14:26:17
199 Displaced Glaswegian - For your information I am an electrical engineer with over 45 years experience, 28 of them in the offshore business.
You are talking hypothetical nonsense, compressed air in caves and old gas wells !!!!!!!! Funniest thing I have heard in years. I do hope you are not looking for a job in the power industry, oh wait- perhaps you will get one with the wind industry, they love loonies like you.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.