Forum menu
...yep and dont worry TJ, if Fergus Ewing is to be believed (?) you will also be spending this money on your own independent nuclear option to ensure "security of supply" (now that the SNP have renaged on their 100% renewable promise) 😉
...CO2 enhanced oil recovery (still too expensive).
Firstly as oil becomes more expensive it will be worth recovering more of the hard to get stuff thats there.
So we agree then. But saying that this money will be put to good use is fine, but HOW is very important. I want to know, otherwise it's still going to be a "No" vote from me. So what are the SNP's plans for shaping our economy? Financial services? Tourism? Manufacturing? Mining? CCS?
Really THM - let see a quote / link for that
Kit
Been a bit of work done on this - renewables is one area, tourism and financial services as well.
its also that being able to set economic policy to suit Scotland will help generally
Been a bit of work done on this
Published?
TandemJeremy - Member
Really THM - let see a quote / link for that
"The Scottish government has shifted away from its hardline opposition to nuclear power after the energy minister said there was a "rational case" for extending the life of Scotland's two nuclear plants. Fergus Ewing, the energy minister, told MSPs on Thursday that the Scottish National party (SNP) government was "perfectly open" to the continued use of Hunterston and Torness power stations, to ensure there was security of supply." Guardian 1 July 2011 - for starters.
Kit - some data on this on here various links but all rather nebulous
Teamhurtmore - SNP policy remains the same - no new nuclear power stations.
I suspect mischief making / out of context. its clear policy remains the same as do the aims.
Its not a problem TJ, we're going to move to Scotland and vote for independence. And then we'll keep our monies in an offshore account 🙂
So - we are still "too wee, too stupid, too poor"?
So - we are still "too wee, too stupid, too poor"?
Well, mebbe one of them 😀
The amount of oil left in the North Sea is decreasing. As the price goes up, it may be economic to recover it. However as new fields are found (e.g. off Ireland) the the price may not rise enough to make it economic to recover it. There are too many unknowns to be able to make any reasonable guesses about how much tax any newly Independent Scotland would be able to raise via North Sea Oil & Gas.
The labour opposition is very good at the moment in working out how to spend a mythical bankers bonus tax. I reckon that they must have spent it a good 8 or 9 times. The same applies to the Scottish North Sea oil. It appears to being used by the SNP to cover all sorts of spending, from NHS to a Sovereign Wealth Fund, many times over. Added to the fact that the actual tax take varies hugely by year.
Add to the fact that Scotland has a high proportion of it's people in Government employment and I am still not sure that the figures work out.
However all this is meaningless in terms of Independence. Scots should vote for or against Independence not on if they are going to be better off, but on if they want or don't want it.
In any case the SNP has the problem that after the referendum they just become another left wing party. If Independence is granted then one of the main battle cries of Independence will have gone. Likewise if the lose the ballot, then perhaps the whole reason for their existence will vanish!
(As an Englishman, I can't believe that S&O will leave Scotland if it became Independent.)
So - we are still "too wee, too stupid, too poor"?
Too wee. Not too stupid, Scotland is a centre of innovation in many areas. Big health problems though, and a lot of unemployment problems. Question is as people are so accustomed to not working, if the jobs are there would people take them?
I do feel Alex Salmond is in this for his own self satisfaction, for Scotland being independent for the sake of it, rather than for the benefit of the people and the country.
However all this is meaningless in terms of Independence. Scots should vote for or against Independence not on if they are going to be better off, but on if they want or don't want it.
I disagree - the purpose of the state is to serve its people and do things that the market can't. Doing stuff because you just want it and can't justify why with rational reasons is just emotive romantic bollocks. It's a shame that bollocks isn't a renewable energ source because there's tons of it...
It's a shame that bollocks isn't a renewable energ source because there's tons of it...
You could power the whole of the UK just using the STW forum.
Had a chat on the phone with my second cousin last night, who still lives up on Shetland. His take on the recent furore is that Tavish Scott is sweating buckets because the SNP seem to be gaining ground up there, and this is largely mischief making on the part of the Lib Dems. There's been a strong historic sense of loyalty to the Lib Dems due to the settlement that Jo Grimmond won for them when Sullom Voe was built, but he reckons there's a fair number of people less than impressed with old Tavish, and he pointed out that when S&O voted in the 1997 Devolution referendum, there was a clear majority in favour. It might be interesting to wait and see what the backlash is to his comments in the not too distant future...
Basically echoes what my brother says. He's lived in the Shetlands for 20+ years and wouldn't consider himself anything other than Scottish.
sure i've done this before but orkney/shetland movement anyone? not what it was by any means but a period of central-centric government will soon sort that out. course in the meantime we could vote snp because if you vote snp you get a ferry subsidy, your roads redone and your schools rebuilt. isn't that how it works?