The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

34 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I'll save you the trouble. Zinc, iron ore and....coal.

100% electricity from renewables will see bills increase. So the poor will be even poorer.

Great.

It's a fair point. Fortunately the Scottish govt are investing in home insulation measures.  Especially in areas where fuel poverty is rife. No doubt they will mitigate against the tory tax credit cuts which will also help those most in need. Unfortunately,  like when they did the same for the bedroom tax, money will be lost to other areas but you can only play the cards the tories deal you :-(

[Comfy Bean]

I'm assuming you now accept that Scotland sits on more than its fair share of natural resources? 

I'm also assuming we agree on no renewal of trident.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Laugh away sir but at no point did I suggest SNP = Scotland. I take great care not to say that.

56 out of 59 seats they may have but they do not represent everyone in Scotland......as you know.

You said "Any views on the Scottish slant ?

Which is you saying that the Scottish slant is the SNP policy - when polls show that's not the case. But you take great care not to suggest that the SNP = Scotland, yeah?

And ... Do keep up. It's down to just 54 now. Losing one is unlucky, but losing two to allegations of fraud seems a little careless.

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In a word NO. If I thought voting in a certain way would result in the good folks of Scotland living in caves then I would not vote for it. I`m brushing over your use of the word serious anywhere near this latest cave business of yours.

Meanwhile back in the real world, some of my countrymen live on the street with no money, home or cave. They are not better together - clearly.

It was a serious question, even if you're too dim to grasp what it means.

Anyway, you say your view is reasoned and certain circumstances would have you be against indy. That's all good, and nioce and clear.

So might you do us the courtesy of saying what conditions an iScotland might cause that you wouldn't support? Where are your limits, where indy becomes too unpalatable because of the impact back on the Scottish population?

It would be interesting to see whether the facts suggest your view is out of step with those facts.

It's also worth mentioning that the glory of Norway has food banks and people living on the streets too, and that the SNP (and every other Scottish politician) have presented not a single policy that would stop such things happening in a Scotland that is part of the UK or indy. ... so indy doesn't make those go away, and if indy was to make those things go away it needs the money to do so. There can be no ends without the means.

Edited November 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I'm assuming you now accept that Scotland sits on more than its fair share of natural resources? 

I'm also assuming we agree on no renewal of trident.

I accept that Scotland's share of natural resources is nothing like enough to save it from its vast financial black hole

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

My point is that why would we compare Scotland ( rural small population ) with England when it included London.

because  the current Scotland has a standard of living that's comparable with the English average, and that things might be different - in either direction - under indy?

The value of your dogma may go down as well as up.

FFS.

 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

By 2020 the Scottish Govt has a target of generating 100% of our leccy consumption from renewable sources.

Something they simply won't achieve.

30% of Scottish power currently comes from nukes.

And the renewable sector isn't funded by Scotland, but by *VERY* generous donations from ...? England. Less generous now of course, meaning that the sector is dying and the SNP won't meet that promise.

I guess that's something else to add to the 100 broken SNP promises that is doing the rounds.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It's a fair point. Fortunately the Scottish govt are investing in home insulation measures.

What you mean is that they're using the money Westminster sent them for that purpose on that purpose. The same is available in England (as anyone with a landline getting the endless cold calls can testify).

But if it's like much else of the SNP, they won't be spending all that money on home insulation measures and will instead be robbing  some of that money to give to those rolling in money. (I've no idea either way about this, but I'd put money on it and I only do safe bets :)).

 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I'm assuming you now accept that Scotland sits on more than its fair share of natural resources? 

I'm also assuming we agree on no renewal of trident.

Yep, Scotland sits on its fair share of natural resources.

That gets to mean it can't claim a natural resources bonus that can be used to elevate itself above other countries - as that would require more-than-it's-fair-share.

Next?

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/11/2015, 22:17:54, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

I`m not sure I mentioned spending shortfalls but in the spirit of your question :

25% of Europe`s tidal power

10% of Europe`s wave power

25% of Europe`s off shore wind resource.

* Source Friends of the Earth.

For such a small Country these are huge numbers that open up opportunities / jobs / science / research plus the heavy work around taking down/ re-cycling the oil fields.

Not from friends of the earth : Since the 70`s over 40Billion barrells have been extracted. If we adjust for inflation that`s over £300Billion in UK Govt direct tax revenue. £300billion.

 

 

On 25/11/2015, 07:54:33, eFestivals said:

Yep, Scotland sits on its fair share of natural resources.

That gets to mean it can't claim a natural resources bonus that can be used to elevate itself above other countries - as that would require more-than-it's-fair-share.

Next?

 

Can you define " fair share " in relation to the figures I quoted from Friends of the Earth e.g. " 25% of Europe`s "

What %, in your opinion, would you regard as being " more than it`s fair share " when we are looking at a Country of Scotland`s size compared to the area covered by Europe ?

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can you define " fair share " in relation to the figures I quoted from Friends of the Earth e.g. " 25% of Europe`s "

What %, in your opinion, would you regard as being " more than it`s fair share " when we are looking at a Country of Scotland`s size compared to the area covered by Europe ?

That's the untamed seas off Scotland, not 25% of tidal power or 10% wave power. Wave power and tidal power is meaningless in energy terms today.. Get back to me when it's worth something meaningful.

And as for the wind farms, care to tell me how you'd have them without English money?

Meanwhile there's other natural resources that Scotland will have 0% of Europe's resources of (but I'm not going to bluff it and guess at them). Probably some mineral or other, whatever.

I'm making the point that natural resources is about more than just the few things you've chosen to cherry pick where Scotland does have an advantage - but only a potential advantage, until there's something harvested.

If you do the evaluation properly Scotland is 'overflowing' with pretty average resources, which is why it performs at a pretty average level of economic output.

Meanwhile, Scotland is overflowing with money that it doesn't produce itself - a REAL problem for it, rather than the imagined glorious future as your "25% of natural resources" bollocks is.

[Comfy Bean]

My point was that these renewable energy sources are far from " meaningless " as you put it. 

I see nothing from you or Russy to change my view that Scotland sits on more than it`s fair share of Europe`s natural resources. I think there is some merit in investing in these areas.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

My point was that these renewable energy sources are far from " meaningless " as you put it. 

I see nothing from you or Russy to change my view that Scotland sits on more than it`s fair share of Europe`s natural resources. I think there is some merit in investing in these areas.

This time last year you believed that oil was Scotland's economic salvation. That did, at least, actually exist as an industry and not just pie in the sky.

Would there even be a viable market for that extra electricity? rUK is making its own plans.

Meanwhile there's a massive deficit to plug. I've yet to here one word of how that will be done. How come you know different to what your glorious leaders know is impossible?

[russycarps]

So let me get this right, Scotland is going to make up it's £15bn shortfall with renewable energy? How exactly does that work then? Are they going to pack the electricity into containers and export it round the world?

[Comfy Bean]

No that is not the case at all and there is no 15billion shortfall. How can there be?  There is not even independence in the near future. 

In short, your post is a little silly. Joke all you like about our future energy needs.  Hopefully you now understand that we are not talking about coal here ;-)

I think there is lots to work with here going forward.  Others think it's meaningless and disagree that Scotland has more than its fair share. It's all about opinions :-)

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

So let me get this right, Scotland is going to make up it's £15bn shortfall with renewable energy? How exactly does that work then? Are they going to pack the electricity into containers and export it round the world?

Congratulations Russy, you have achieved what was hitherto believed to be impossible. 

 

You have outdone Neil at putting words in other folk's mouths.

 

You must be so proud.

 

 

[russycarps]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

No that is not the case at all and there is no 15billion shortfall. How can there be?  There is not even independence in the near future. 

In short, your post is a little silly. Joke all you like about our future energy needs.  Hopefully you now understand that we are not talking about coal here ;-)

I think there is lots to work with here going forward.  Others think it's meaningless and disagree that Scotland has more than its fair share. It's all about opinions :-)

 

Coal is your most abundant natural resource. What part of that are you not understanding?

 

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Coal is your most abundant natural resource. What part of that are you not understanding?

 

He's not talking about coal. Only you are. What part of that are you (deliberately?) misunderstanding?

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

You have outdone Neil at putting words in other folk's mouths.

In that case comfy must be saying that it's not Scotland's salvation, and he's blowing meaningless hot air.

So, do please tell us, what was the point of comfy flagging up that Scotland has one of Europe's nations (of it were a nation, of course) bigger coastlines?

Actually, that's not what he even said. He claimed 25% of Europe`s tidal power and 10% of Europe`s wave power as tho it meant something substantial, when some private houses have greater generation capacity with panels or windmills.

Let's stop the piss taking and actually examine the facts here, shall we? I'll remind you that my background is the electrical industry, and it's a subject area I pay attention to.....

- Scotland has a big coastline, that has theoretical 'natural' generation capacity, if someone comes up with a worthwhile way of tidal or wave generation - which no one really has as yet.

- if it's tidal generation, that destroys a chunk of Scotland's coast (people around Bristol have actually looked at what happens, as the Bristol Channel is the most suitable tidal generation site in the world), and the same org that comfy quoted for highlighting the potential in Scotland will be actively trying to stop it happening.

- both of you often claim your own 'green' credentials, and for the rest of Scotland (where the greens poll lower than UK wide, btw!), and if really true they'd stop the coastline decimation that tidal would cause.

- the costs of 'natural' generation are currently around the same level as nukes, making it expensive electricity and not cheap electricity, and cost reductions have long been mooted but they never come along.

- and if there was this electricity generated, who'd buy it? Scotland already has its own needs covered, and rUK already has its own needs covered by what it takes from Scotland at the mo, so not needing more capacity from Scotland.

- if there is a non-Scottish buyer, there's absolutely massive (I don't think you realise just how massive, instead you prefer to bitcha about Scottish windfarms being charged huge amounts to connect to the grid!) infrastructure costs to transport that energy to where it's wanted, increasing the price much more than the already-expensive generation costs.

- and via that energy transportation the energy dissipates, meaning that much less arrives at the destination than leaves the source, increasing costs per unit by another big chunk.

So all in all, at best it's a very financially-risky project to start, that may drag Scotland down further, and is a very long way from being the easy win that comfy laughingly suggested.

But hey, never let the facts get in the way of the latest snippers myth.

And definitely never stop and ask yourself how come new myths have to keep being invented to present as Scotland's latest salvation after the last one has been exposed as the bollocks it is.

 

 

 

 

[russycarps]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

He's not talking about coal. Only you are. What part of that are you (deliberately?) misunderstanding?

So how is renewable energy going to eliminate the £15bn shortfall? I'm confused. 

I can understand how digging up your coal and selling it might help a bit, especially considering it's the most abundant natural resource in the Scottish region.

But I can't see how producing electricity via the most expensive process of all will raise billions. 

Please advise.

Edit ok Neil's answer was better than mine..

Edited December 2, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, russycarps said:

So how is renewable energy going to eliminate the £15bn shortfall? I'm confused.

It's not. The £15bn shortfall isn't allowed to be discussed, remember? It's "irrelevant".

Electrical generation without a market - which would be the fact of what comfy laughably suggested - cannot be Scotland's salvation. It would instead be greater ruination.

But really, what comfy's words are about is just another snippers red herring, the latest myth, to try and patch over the now-clearly-exposed flaws in the last plan for a self-funding Scotland's salvation.

People like him come out with guff like that because they don't have anything of substance as an alternative.

A successful independent Scotland at current living standards just isn't possible, but snippers cannot ever admit to that truth because they understand that people in Scotland are unlikely to choose to be poorer.

There is no moving forwards to an iScotland unless the 'Scottish nation' are an unusually dense group of people. Face up to the truth of Scotland's position, and if you still wish to make a case for indy do so on that truth and not laughable lies.

 

Edited December 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

No that is not the case at all and there is no 15billion shortfall. How can there be?  There is not even independence in the near future. 

In short, your post is a little silly. Joke all you like about our future energy needs.  Hopefully you now understand that we are not talking about coal here ;-)

I think there is lots to work with here going forward.  Others think it's meaningless and disagree that Scotland has more than its fair share. It's all about opinions :-)

 

According to you on most other recent occasions, Scotland will be indy within 10 or 15 years, but now you say it won't be?

And no, it's not about opinions. Opinions said 15 months ago that an indy Scotland would be gloriously rich, but now even its greatest supporters know what guff that was,

It's about facts.

The facts you never face, preferring empty-headed opinions.

 

 

[russycarps]

cue silence from the snippers for the next 12-24 hours now....it happens every time they are confronted by an uncomfortable truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, russycarps said:

cue silence from the snippers for the next 12-24 hours now....it happens every time they are confronted by an uncomfortable truth.

Yep.

Scotland is a country on the edge of Europe, and has all the natural disadvantages that a country on the edge of Europe has.

If there is going to be a 'natural energy' boom where a few countries are able to large-scale generate for other European countries, Scotland will be the last go-to place for that, because of its geographical position. That fact has been playing for 20+ years already, with southern England taking energy from France at times because its cheaper to do so than to take it from Scotland. Distance matters in this game.

The market (if there is one) will be Germany ... and the SNP's latest friend Norway not only has generation potential at least as good as Scotland's (tho probably much better), it's also far FAR better positioned to supply into that market ... AND is has the financial resources with which able to do it, if it wants - which Scotland does not. an iScotland will be far too busy taking emergency measures (massive cuts in public spending) trying to deal with it's deficit instead.

Scotland is well-set to provide its own needs, of course - but it's not cheap electricity, which is why the SNP screamed loudly at the tories cutting the large subsidies that are needed to make it happen.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

According to you on most other recent occasions, Scotland will be indy within 10 or 15 years, but now you say it won't be?

And no, it's not about opinions. Opinions said 15 months ago that an indy Scotland would be gloriously rich, but now even its greatest supporters know what guff that was,

It's about facts.

The facts you never face, preferring empty-headed opinions.

 

 

I wasn`t classing 15 years as " the near future ". A lot can and probably will change in the next 15 years across the globe. I accept that depending on what your comparing it to 15 years could be viewed as the near future of course but that wasn`t waht I was meaning.

I have never said, as in never ever, that an indy Scotland would be " gloriously rich ".  It`s YOU whe keeps using those words 

Taking into account the views of the younger voters up here and the continuing domination of the Tories in England plus the direction of travel in the indy polls over the last 20 years, my view is that Scotland could vote yes IF there was another referendum in 10 / 15 years. You disagree and I respect that....while disagreeing with you ( for the reasons stated above ). This is what I was meaning by it`s all about opinions.

You have Russy to agree with you all the time. Don`t take it personally if others don`t