大象传媒

Oh - Russia, Brazil, Egypt and Bulgaria! So, nothing in the North Sea, then?

Not bad for Scotland then. We have the oil, the hydro-electric capacity and the soon to be flood of electricity from the wind; so we should be sitting pretty seeing as we have a huge surplus of energy to sell on. So how come we have so much poverty and unemployment?

2. At 00:00am on 19 Dec 2010, gedguy2 wrote:
Not bad for Scotland then. We have the oil, the hydro-electric capacity and the soon to be flood of electricity from the wind; so we should be sitting pretty seeing as we have a huge surplus of energy to sell on. So how come we have so much poverty and unemployment?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's easy, its because the unionist parties and the "British establishment" want to keep us on a subsistence level to keep us from ever thinking that we can make it ourselves, because London will loose the billions in subsidies supplied by Scottish taxpayers and oil and whisky revenues pumped out of Scotland each year.

These high oil prices are created by the "families" a group of super rich around the world who buy up all the supplies on the run up to winter then SLLLLOWLY release them at high prices to ensure they make billions over the winter to fund their multi million pound yauts in the summer!!!

Wish I had the you know what's to do what that guy did when being interviewed by a 大象传媒 journalist, he literally poured 2 litres of Crisp'n Dry cooking oil into his Landrover Discovery diesel fuel tank, he says he does roughly a 50/50 mix? Even with legitimate bio-diesel we're still paying to much tax, hey-ho if the money get tighter & tighter I might be tempted, my old 6 year old Rover won't bring me much in the form of a trade-in, I'll do the maths first! Forget about jobs bonanza in alternative energy etc, the big oil companies have that little corner covered just in case of lost revenue in the black stuff! Besides there's no-one in the private sector offering to invest on the same scale as a BP.....

So why is it that Scotland has some of the highest petrol and diesel prices in the world? Why is it that Scotland has some of the worst child poverty in the EU? Why is it that Scotland is struggling under the severest cuts in services "since Margaret Thatcher?
There can only be one answer. Westminster. Independence is the only way forward for this country. Scotland could be one of the most advanced, richest countries in the EU if it was not for the great westminster rip-off. This country is being sucked dry by the great westminster parasite and its time we got rid of it.

The proposed new nuclear plants is for the benefit of certain members of the labour party and their cronies who have a vested interest in the nuclear companies.
The nuclear companies are foreign owned and there would be very little jobs benefit for Scotland as the reactors are made in France and being foreign owned the profits they make would end up firth of these shores.
They tell us that nuclear is cheap but that is only when the plant is running. They ignore the huge building costs and the enormous price of decomissioning. How many billions is it costing to decomission Dounreay?
The supply of uranium ore is set to run out in a few years and we will be left with very expensive paperweights unless they can implement new technology. They talk about using thorium as fuel but what I can gather it would be hugely expensive and highly inefficient and that resource is also finite.
Scotland is sitting on the largest seam of low sulphur coal in Europe and it with that that we should be looking for our long term energy needs.
Clean coal can provide large numbers of jobs in Scotland in the construction of plant and profits can be kept within Scotland.

A no brainer IMHO.

oh dear oh dear are you embedded or just in bed???
Scotland has plenty of fuel sources fossil and renewable, in fact quite a good mix.the fact that you choose to ignore or have a laugh at Scotland's situation says it all.
Sid.

Chris Huhne's so-called energy policy makes no sense in England or Wales either.

It might be helpful if the 大象传媒 Scottish, English and Welsh journalists collaborated on behalf of everyone - you, know - those who pay your salary?

Devolved politicians in Scotland and Wales are obviously untouchable.

However, this question is about energy security. As we have a UK by name, but not in reality - are ALL politicians in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland failing to secure energy security and therefore social cohesion?

Politicians may be telling lies, but I can't possibly say that. So, perhaps ALL politicians are not facing up to, and fixing Britain's energy security for the electorate and the people as a whole that politicians purport to serve?

With reference to electricity generation, can everyone please have a look at the website which will clearly show how this country is miles away from being energy self sufficient with wind power when today wind energy gave us the grand total output of around 0.2% of the required output to keep the lights on. Where is the other 99.8% coming from?
Base load power stations are a must to keep up with demand backed up when available by renewables.
We need a broad base of supply, and cannot put all our eggs in one renewable basket.

Why no topic for comment *anywhere* on 大象传媒 blogs about the UK energy policies? ........ ever??? ..........At last, Douglas, somebody with interest in the 大象传媒 re keeping the lights on.

80% emission reduction ...... how???

Cancelled the Severn Barrage Scheme with plans fully developed over the last 30 years, ....the Morcambe Bay Barrage(?), the Wash Barrage (?) .......... why???

No movement on nuclear power station re-build ....... why???

Creation of **secure** energy sources from overseas (uranium, fossil) ...... why not???

Alternative energy technologies & export sales structures ....... why not???

There is a totally unhealthy desire to vacillate and leave contracts and opportunities to other nations and foreign companies ...... why???

Switch to Russian gas & coal ......... why???

[Comments which will be re-posted and developed if the 大象传媒, at some time in the future, decide to invite comment on UK Energy Policy].........At last - thanks, Douglas.

Chris Huhne says these changes to energy provision are 'once in a generation' changes.

Balls! Provision of updates and replacement of plant and distribution systems, and introduction of new technologies, is a continuous process - it must be so, otherwise you get Energy Gaps.

If any energy gaps occur it is because governments over the last few generations (since 1946) have signally failed in their duty of planning and implementation.

This, of course, is inexcusable.

How refreshing to see a 大象传媒 blog with no censoring, (yet) as we get on Brians blog. Most of the above comments would have gone. It is very obvious that some kind of paranoia has taken hold there.

My user name was changed to a number because it spelt New$netscotl@nd backwards. Why the fear, what is wrong?

鈥淢r Huhne said the Government's proposals were:
鈥� 鈥榯o increase the long-term certainty about investment in power generation by providing greater support to the price of carbon to encourage new entrants into the market鈥�
Comment: Industrial profits are maximized by the fluctuating price of fuel, and by causing it to fluctuate. It is true, however, that a guaranteed minimum return on investment will encourage 鈥榩rivate鈥� industrial money to commit to build new energy plant 鈥� because we cannot build the backlog of plant needed on taxes alone.
鈥� 鈥榯o introduce long-term contracts for low carbon generation to make clean energy more attractive, including top up payments to low carbon generators if the wholesale price of electricity is low鈥�
Comment: 鈥楥lean鈥� energy is hydroelectric, wave, tidal barrage, wind and solar. Thus 鈥榣ow carbon鈥� (gas) generation will be price & profit鈥損egged to make investment in alternatives economically profitable. This will need long-term pegging and/or taxpayers compensations for foregone gas profits.
鈥� 鈥榯o make additional payments to develop reserve plants to ensure "the lights stay on" during periods of high demand鈥�
Comment: This means that the governments will keep old and out-of-date 鈥榟igh-carbon鈥� coal-fired power stations on tick-over or mothballed, so that peak-load doesn鈥檛 trip out to regional blackouts. The one thing it does not mean is that new power stations will be built as 鈥榬eserve鈥� provision.
鈥� 鈥榯o limit the amount of carbon emissions from "dirty" power stations, including reinforcing current requirements that new coal power stations must incorporate carbon capture and storage.鈥欌��
Comment: This means that gas will replace coal progressively 鈥� so it will be important to keep friendly to our Russian energy providers and to the Nigerians wrt our LNG deliveries. Interestingly, new coal stations MUST have CCS. This technology does NOT exist (definitive govt. doc: seq), so there can be no new coal fired power stations until new science and technology produce full-scale CCCS systems.
THE DOG THAT DIDN鈥橳 BARK:
Nowhere in the Huhne report does it develop the Government鈥檚 nuclear replacement proposals 鈥� no timings, no tender dates, no partnership proposals, etc, etc.
Nowhere does it develop a working strategy for alternative energy supplement for base-load support.
We need to see plans, planning, schedules, and build projections set alongside the known energy gap. Only then can we have any faith at all that we might just keep the lights on and our homes, hospitals, schools, and industrial plant functioning.
I have no faith that the decades of vacillation can be bridged by a much-too-late barn-storming (if that鈥檚 what it proves to be) of our HUGE transnational energy supply problem.

1. At 10:18pm on 18 Dec 2010, patrickspens wrote:
Oh - Russia, Brazil, Egypt and Bulgaria! So, nothing in the North Sea, then?
..................
No, not too much left in the UK sector 3.4tn bbl(28th), but I understand that Norway 6.7tn bbl(21st) has husbanded her reserves.
[Russia 79tn bbl(8th), Brazil 12.6tn bbl(18th), Egypt 4.4tn bbl(25th), Bulgaria 15mn bbl(82nd)] ???

12. At 9:10pm on 20 Dec 2010, U14647008 wrote:

'what is wrong?'

What is wrong is you told the truth and rattled the establishment.

You are a very naughty boy.

the uk and england in particular has historically solved it's problems and it's needs by waging wars,plundering other nations and out in out piracy. with the empire history and serious signs of uk as a failing state,
their is a world out there just lining-up for pay back. it seems the snp are the only party taking this on seriously seeing the new clean energy as a present and urgent issue rather than a far off concern i think they should be commended for their efforts. the talk regarding the costs seem pointless, when considered against the cost of trying to compete on open world markets with a ever growing number economically more successful nations for dwindling resources

16. tamO wrote:
"the uk and england in particular has historically solved it's problems and it's needs by waging wars,plundering other nations and out in out piracy. with the empire history and serious signs of uk as a failing state"
Now they just plunder Scotland.

Why the dearth of Scottish persons willing and able to discuss seriously about UK energy policy & practice?

Apart from the usual paranoids doing their usual anti-English thing, the whole of Scotland is spookily quiet.....

I guess that if our Governments declare there is no problem, there must be no problem...... and all you snowed-in Scots sheepley believe it!

Come on, you guys! Do you like the idea of no heating, no lighting, no industrial production.

18.GeoffWard wrote:
"Apart from the usual paranoids doing their usual anti-English thing, the whole of Scotland is spookily quiet....."
It's not an anti-English thing Geoff, it's an anti-westminster thing.
If it wasn't for westminster, Scotland could be leading the world in carbon capture energy production, wind and wave power and hydro electric. The Norwegians are streaking ahead of us in all these areas, because they have invested their oil & gas proceeds into these areas (amongst others).

"discuss seriously about UK energy policy & practice" "A part from the usual paranoids doing their usual anti-English thing". well one i am interested in Scotland's energy policy like opposition to nuclear power, like it's commitments to advance renewables at a faster pace not seen until the snp government was elected.

coal power station must incorporate carbon capture and storage. well as i understand it the Scottish Government have just recently given planing permission or are about to give to one such plant. the Scottish Government has agreed to the upgrade to the power infrastructure with the Beauly to Denny line will run for 220km (137 miles) through Scotland, taking renewable energy.

I guess that if our Governments declare there is no problem, there must be no problem...... and all you snowed-in Scots sheepley believe it!. apart from your use of insults your just as wrong, my Government is the Scottish Government and they have issues with your government the uk on this matter.

22. At 4:27pm on 21 Dec 2010, tamO wrote:
I guess that if our Governments declare there is no problem, there must be no problem...... and all you snowed-in Scots sheepley believe it!. apart from your use of insults your just as wrong, my Government is the Scottish Government and they have issues with your government the uk on this matter.

........................
and my government would be???

"It's not an anti-English thing Geoff, it's an anti-westminster thing.
If it wasn't for westminster, Scotland could be leading the world in carbon capture energy production, wind and wave power and hydro electric. The Norwegians are streaking ahead of us in all these areas, because they have invested their oil & gas proceeds into these areas (amongst others)." (X_Sticks 19)
..................
Though it's some years since I lived in the UK, I remember the bulk of the UK oil receipts being spent on Social Services support for those made unemployed as manufacture fled to the East, heavy industry went into terminal decline, and the fishing industry wiped out its resource-base. The Norwegians, with their tiny population and a conservative 'husbanding' philosophy, put minimal demand on their social resources and were able to invest oil & gas profits into energy infrastructures and much else.

If you check out my early postings you will see that I too am totally critical of UK governments going back to WWII. The one part of a national structure that needs constant tending and forward planning is Energy (see GW @ 10). I am particularly critical of the last three Westminster administrations - they have seen the writing on the wall writ 30 metres high, and they have done so very, very little. These people, English, Scots Welsh, Irish, are all culpable and have created this demise for these our countries.

GeoffWard, i read your posts and yes i see that they are critical of the uk Governments. but i repeat my Government is the Government of Scotland. despite your stay in the uk you clearly did not understand the politics of these islands, one the irish in northern Ireland don't even have the Government of uk political parties stand for election there. in Scotland we have them stand but its england that determines who is in power in westminster. it's only our own parliament here in Scotland that we can effect change. and you seem determined not to get this despite me pointing out some of the differences out. the Government of Scotland is the SNP and they have never supported the outlook and inaction of the uk Governments.

GeoffWard,
This is all part of the problem of larger industries being allowed to outsource work to other countries without investing in infrastructure in their home country. Of course, if you are rich and powerful it is easy to shrug your shoulders and say, 'not my problem.' After all the rich and powerful can easily relocate themselves to more hospitable environments if they so wish.
The poor cannot relocate easily and have to suffer the consequences of successive government long term planning of infrastructure. If new energy industries are developed, are these industries prepared to relocate poor workers and their families to live near their new employment? This is not just a problem of the UK as it appears to be a worldwide issue.
There appears to be a new era of conspicuous wealth and those who have got it, flaunt it! When I see massive yachts cruise by I wonder who is paying for the luxury and I wonder if the company who owns the yacht has invested in infrastructure. I assumed that the various conferences that have been taking place around the world were also trying to address this problem. How does a government deal with individual companies who have become more powerful than governments and are not prepared to focus investment where it is critically needed.

"GeoffWard, i read your posts and yes i see that they are critical of the uk Governments. but i repeat my Government is the Government of Scotland. despite your stay in the uk you clearly did not understand the politics of these islands, one the irish in northern Ireland don't even have the Government of uk political parties stand for election there. in Scotland we have them stand but its england that determines who is in power in westminster. it's only our own parliament here in Scotland that we can effect change. and you seem determined not to get this despite me pointing out some of the differences out. the Government of Scotland is the SNP and they have never supported the outlook and inaction of the uk Governments." (tamO 25)
...................
No, my friend,
you have a partial understanding of governance within the lands of the UK.
Much has been devolved but much remains as central.
Your Scots representatives have dominated UK politics for the last 14 years, and 'Scottish influence' (in England they call it the Scottish Mafia) has dominated policy decisions for the UK for the same length of time.
Our Northern Irish colleagues choose or choose not to attend Westminster, and Stormont is a snake pit of factional Irishmen.
The Welsh have a devolution of sorts and the principality manages its (eg) Education affairs somewhat professionally.
The Lothian Question remains a bone of contention.

I have not taken up discussion with you before now because of your desire to fight me wrt trans-national 'politics'. My interest is with Energy Policy and the deficiencies across the piece.

Tell us Geoff, did you make any complaints when Thatcher was destroying Scotland despite Scotland rejecting he and her Party?
Are you up in arms that a ConDem coalition are running Scotland into the dirt despite Scotland not voting Con or Dem?

As for your 'Scottish mafia' bile, please take off your racial blinkers for a while and try and think rationally for a while.
How many English MP's are there at Wasteminster?
Did the SNP vote on any English only issue?

The MP's at wasteminster are and were overwhelmingly English.

Perhaps it's time you took to task your English MP's for Englands woes instead of coming away with this mind boggling crud.

Wrt # 26 (and hoping you and the old man have a good Christmas & New Year)
Hi Grannie,
It鈥檚 not just the rich and powerful that have re-located overseas. Once *one* of their UK competitors did it, the competitive advantage gained was such that the other competitors followed suit, amalgamated/were taken over, or went bankrupt. [A ex-girlfriend of mine kept the manufacturing of silk scarves, silk clothing and silk accessories alive in the English northwest for longer than it was sensible economically to do so. The rationale was job preservation of a tightly knit workforce and maintenance of the British brand-value. Without shareholders, she could do this 鈥� but only at a significant personal and real cost.]
Wrt the relocation of 鈥榳orkforces of the poor鈥� (sic) to the new locations of Energy transformation, distribution and supply, some can happen but the skills-sets differ and plant build is a different set of skills to plant operation. Yes, electricity grid extension to new plants can re-locate pylon teams, but coal miners would struggle to manage a nuclear power station. And, with respect, new energy jobs created elsewhere in the UK are not 鈥榯heir鈥� jobs. Another factor is conservatism 鈥� I well remember the unwillingness of Mansfield ex-miners to leave the old community to find work elsewhere.
The question of conspicuous display of wealth is difficult. We can鈥檛 say that those with privately owned big houses and yachts have not invested in the UK and its infrastructure but, almost by definition, those in the energy/utility businesses will have done so because, without infrastructure there is no energy industry. Private partner companies within Public-Private Partnerships had less of a responsibility because the tax-payer was part of the package; but now the Energy industry is to evolve with ONLY private money, apparently.
Some developments such as the Rio Tinto take-over of Ravensdale will benefit the UK indirectly, but the workforce for the primary work will be in Mozambique etc, wherever the raw materials are found. Head office and back-office jobs in the UK and Australia will benefit.
It is largely the responsibility of the regions/communities themselves to go out and WIN inward investment. Swindon is a better model than Teesside. UK Governments cannot TELL foreign companies where to locate on our shores; the most they can legally do is to make more advantageous their preferred locations through the planning laws etc.
In conclusion, I am severely upset by the failure of recent UK governments to maintain, by investment and encouragement, a foot in the contemporary energy technologies 鈥� nuclear, coal Carbon Capture & Storage, wind, solar, hydro-electric, wave, and tidal. Upland reservoirs as water supply and energy storage systems and the grids for distribution are also woefully disregarded and under-invested. Cogeneration (CHP) is conspicuous by its absence.
*Assuming there is scope at all to afford these things*, resources and effort diverted from a London-Birmingham High Speed Link and towards the energy technologies (above) would repay in spades.
*Why have we had decades without joined-up thinking?*

Hi Harry again.
Re:#28: Sigh..... ok, let's talk a bit of invective, sorry, politics.
Since losing my gall bladder to the knife I am devoid of bile - though I can deploy a bit of spleen on occasions! ;)

Surely you have heard the expression 'The Scottish Mafia'? It was in common use during the many years of Labour dominance - and with good reason. Tony Blair and the Effetes Edinburgh Old Boys set the stall, and Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Robin Cook, John Reid and Lord Irvine ran the entire country for many years. Martin the Glaswegian and his Scottish Labour contemporaries earned their position through patronage, loyalty, time-serving and, in a few cases, ability, but most of all through the slavish support of the Scottish electorate, for whom there was and could be only one political party - the New Labour Party.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland were only placed in our present slough of despond because of the slavish voting of the Scots. You get what you vote for - and sometimes you don't.

"Thatcher was destroying Scotland despite Scotland rejecting he and her Party?" Were you not afforded devolved goverment and a Scottish Parliament?
".. ConDem coalition running Scotland into the dirt despite Scotland not voting Con or Dem?" I would be more than happy for you to take over the English 'multiculture' - take it all! I really think you have no idea what real running a country into the ground looks like - have a look at the likes of Bradford, Oldham and Luton, and see what you have missed out on.

You will note that I am taking all MPs to task (as in this blog-topic) - English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. My spleen is not yours alone!

And when all is said, done and dusted, the Lothian Question still sits there on the front benches, like a gravid Cheshire Cat. I think we can both agree though, this is no grinning matter.

#30

'this is no grinning matter'

Indeed not.
Living in the most deprived country in the northern hemisphere as a result of being bled dry by a foreign colonial power is no laughing matter especially when, according to the UN, we would be in the top ten richest countries in the world if only we had the will to break the shackles.

No suree. Not a grinning matter at all.

Geoff.

I was going to wish you a merry Xmas.

But I'm not now.

So there.

Hi Harry,
thanks for the sentiment. I remember us fencing last year over fishing quotas. That was a good one!
Don't get too upset about being the most deprived country in the northern hemisphere - North Korea is WAY ahead of you.
See you sometime in the new year when the right topic comes along.
Geoff.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

With the Acts of Union 1707 the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England formed the Kingdom of Great Britain. The three hundred years, of *combined governance*, managed from Westminster, were always accompanied by calls for a devolved Scottish parliament.

In modern times, the Kilbrandon Report of 1973 recommended a directly-elected Scottish Assembly to cover most domestic Scottish matters, and the Scotland Act of 1978, provided for an elected assembly in Edinburgh following a referendum. Strangely, in the 1979 Scotland Referendum , the Scots voted for the status quo (even though the discovery of North Sea oil ("It's Scotland's oil") and the rise of the SNP showed a desire for separateness).

However, twenty years on, Blair allowed a referendum re-run in 1997 which, this time, voted for devolution and a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh *with delimited powers of additional taxation*. Transfer to the Scottish Parliament was completed in 1999, along with the powers to legislate on and manage much domestic policy.

(i) The Scottish Parliament were to manage within Scotland: Education, Health, Agriculture, Justice, Fisheries, Forestry, Economic Development, Environment, Food Standards, Home Affairs, Scottish Courts of Law, Police, Fire Services, Local Government, Sport, the Arts, Transport, Training, Tourism, Research & Statistics and Social Work. The Parliament was able to debate any issue (including those 鈥榬eserved鈥� to the UK Parliament) but was unable to make laws for Scotland on these issues.

(ii) Certain trans-nationally important domestic matters 鈥� 鈥榬eserved matters鈥� remained managed at the UK level, eg: abortion; broadcasting policy; civil service; common markets for UK goods and services; constitution; electricity, coal, oil, gas & nuclear energy, and the grids; defence and national security; drug policy; employment; relations with the EU; most aspects of transport safety & regulation; the National Lottery; protection of borders; social security; and the stability of UK's fiscal, economic & monetary system. All foreign policy, remained managed by the UK per se.

There is an asymmetry of governance, and the Lothian Question has been part of this angst. I鈥檓 sure that if the UK Parliament were located in Edinburgh the angst would remain. English MPs are debarred from Scottish domestic affairs (i) except 鈥榠n extremis鈥� where Westminster is the higher authority, but Scottish MPs sitting at Westminster can and do influence English domestic matters. Additionally higher Education policy differences have produced significant trans-national problems.

Would Scotland 鈥榮urvive鈥� if it totally devolved to become a Sovereign State of the EU?

It depends on the partitioning of oil reserves/receipts in the short term. A strictly Law of the Sea geographical division might allow the tiny Scottish population to survive and thrive like Norway鈥�.. but, like with fishing quotas, 鈥楬istoric Presence鈥� (pre-partition) would probably afford England/Wales/Northern Ireland a larger-than-geographic share. Additionally, EU financial instabilities amongst smaller member-states would probably send Scotland the same way as Ireland (remember RBS).

On balance, and in spite of the spleen/bile spilt between me and my north-south protagonists, I believe Scotland is better served within the Union rather than outside it.

The problem in Scotland is planning councils and NIMBYs who want a new form of Highland clearances and just keep the land for Sheep and Tourists; Forget the development opportunities, job and wealth creation. Scotland needs to make renewable energy a national imperative to bypass these NIMBYs and encourage all the investment and development we could get. Long term Scotland's exports can be energy and water the two basic commodities that everyone needs.

Lixxie,
these are UK assets and don't belong to Scotland per se. To trade these assets as a full-cost Scottish export (like Russia does), Scotland first needs to be a completely free-standing nation with no ties to the rest of the UK.
I feel sure sovereign isolation could come if you really want it and fight hard for it, but it comes with a nett cost, not a nett gain (see 35).
Remember the Act Of Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was starving and could not survive following the collapse of the Panama project and insufficient food reserves. Scotland requested union, though the English Tories were very much against it.