Snp Caught Lying Yet Again....

[oaksoft]

I have also come to think that a football forum is not the place for such discussion and that in starting such a thread Mr Dickson has been a bit (accidentally I am sure) bellendy.

And I have come to think that whether Dickson or anyone else is a bellend or not, nobody should be telling anyone else what they can and can't discuss.

There seems to be a plague of people running around the various threads right now yelling "shut this thread", "get this pish closed", "this is meant to be a football forum" etc.

If people want to discuss anything whatsoever then they should be allowed to do so provided it falls within the rules of the forum and the law.

Deary me Tom, didn't you fight in the Crimean War to protect such liberties?

Edited August 20, 2013 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

Sorry Mr Dickson but you are making me quite angry. Nothing you have said is in any way true and all you are doing is running down my country without basis or justification. If that is your opinion then one must marvel at why you choose to live here? Or is it that you are just a blowhard who is guilty of typing without thinking?

In any case you should leave my country as you are clearly not happy here.

What do you mean "none of it is in anyway true"? Tell me Tom - Does Alex Salmond, or Brian Soutar or Tom Farmer pay for their prescriptions? For that matter do I? All of us can clearly afford £8 or £10 per prescription. In what was was that not in "anyway true"? Tell me all those little windmills that are being erected Tom - who profits? Scotland? Nope? The taxpayer? Nope - windmill generated electricity is more expensive electricity from a gas powered power station. So who's making all the money? Of course it's the landowners - raking in £hundreds of millions from the Scottish taxpayer while these inefficient turbines are erected damaging our lovely countryside. Wind and tidal is the most expensive method of electricity generation yet that's what the Scottish Parliament have saddled us with.

Look at the banking crisis. The losses at the Royal Bank Of Scotland in 2008 of £76Bn would have wiped out any notion Scotland would have had of being "independent". We'd have had all manner of hardships bestowed on us by the European Parliament in return for their bail outs. We'd have been in a worse state that Ireland, Greece and Spain put together and that's before we add in the losses from the other "bad" Scottish Bank which also went tits up! Scotland would have been f**ked in a major way. And don't try to claim that a Scottish Government would have had a firmer hand on the regulation of our banking industry. Alex Salmonds fawning over the RBS right through the financial crisis of 2008 and his letters of love and support of Freddy Goodwin during their disastrous takeover of ABN Amro tells the story very sharply indeed for all to see. This was that fannies Darien Scheme.

14 years ago I was a strong supporter of the SNP and of the cause for devolution. 14 years of waste and ineptitude at Holyrood put paid to my support. Scotland needs Independence like it needs a f**king bolt through the brain. There's no ability in the Scottish Parliament, just a bunch of work shy fannies lording it up at huge tax payers expense and the cringingly embarrassing thing is that still daft nationalists exist who are happy to buy into the notion that an Scotland standing on it's own will still be able to somehow fund free healthcare at the point of delivery, free prescriptions, free university tuition, state pensions and all the welfare benefits that most of the country seems to depend on without every questioning where the tax revenues to pay for all this are going to come from when Scotland depends so heavily on central UK government providing the workforce with their public sector jobs

Edited August 21, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[salmonbuddie]

 

 

Look at the banking crisis. The losses at the Royal Bank Of Scotland in 2008 of £76Bn would have wiped out any notion Scotland would have had of being "independent". We'd have had all manner of hardships bestowed on us by the European Parliament in return for their bail outs. We'd have been in a worse state that Ireland, Greece and Spain put together and that's before we add in the losses from the other "bad" Scottish Bank which also went tits up! Scotland would have been f**ked in a major way. And don't try to claim that a Scottish Government would have had a firmer hand on the regulation of our banking industry. Alex Salmonds fawning over the RBS right through the financial crisis of 2008 and his letters of love and support of Freddy Goodwin during their disastrous takeover of ABN Amro tells the story very sharply indeed for all to see. This was that fannies Darien Scheme. 

StuDy's favourite old chestnut, debunked very well in this article.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/why-did-the-banks-only-become-scottish-after-they-failed/

[salmonbuddie]

Wind and tidal is the most expensive method of electricity generation yet that's what the Scottish Parliament have saddled us with.

Really? How does it compare to, oh, I don't know, coal or gas generated energy, factoring in the development costs, of course, the stage we're at with renewables. Then do the same for nuclear, including the decommissioning costs. Then come back and make that statement. Edited August 21, 2013 by salmonbuddie

[Stuart Dickson]

StuDy's favourite old chestnut, debunked very well in this article.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/why-did-the-banks-only-become-scottish-after-they-failed/

Ah right that Nationalist tactic.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/global-economy-world-scotland

According to Alex Salmond RBS was totally Scottish in 2008. Indeed he boasted about the Scottish success story in his infamous Celtic Tiger speech which he now desperately tries to hide.

Anyway AIB was regulated by London, had most of its profits taxed in the UK and had most of its employees outside of Ireland. Tell me... What happened there when the shit hit the fan?

[Stuart Dickson]

Really? How does it compare to, oh, I don't know, coal or gas generated energy, factoring in the development costs, of course, the stage we're at with renewables. Then do the same for nuclear, including the decommissioning costs. Then come back and make that statement.

Gas power stations are considerably cheaper so long as you have your own gas. Hence the reason the US has managed to substantially reduce the cost of electricity to their users since they started extracting shail gas. Coal is also substantially cheaper if you have access to your own coal as we do.

[salmonbuddie]

Ah right that Nationalist tactic.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/global-economy-world-scotland

According to Alex Salmond RBS was totally Scottish in 2008. Indeed he boasted about the Scottish success story in his infamous Celtic Tiger speech which he now desperately tries to hide.

Anyway AIB was regulated by London, had most of its profits taxed in the UK and had most of its employees outside of Ireland. Tell me... What happened there when the shit hit the fan?

The nationalist tactic that deals with the subject instead of deflecting onto personal attacks on Alex Salmond? Yep, certainly is. He's a politician, haven't you sussed out yet that they all spout pish if it suits their argument?

The site I quoted gave a reasoned, structured argument as to what would have happened in the event of an independent Scotland being in place when the banking crisis happened with everything else being the same. It's based on what happened elsewhere under the same circumstances and it completely debunks your spurious assertions. Deal with it.

[thepaisleypanda]

Scotland standing on it's own will still be able to somehow fund free healthcare at the point of delivery, free prescriptions, free university tuition, state pensions and all the welfare benefits

Scotland depends so heavily on central UK government providing the workforce with their public sector jobs

Who pays for it at the moment?

[salmonbuddie]

Really? How does it compare to, oh, I don't know, coal or gas generated energy, factoring in the development costs, of course, the stage we're at with renewables. Then do the same for nuclear, including the decommissioning costs. Then come back and make that statement.

Really? How does it compare to, oh, I don't know, coal or gas generated energy, factoring in the development costs, of course, the stage we're at with renewables. Then do the same for nuclear, including the decommissioning costs. Then come back and make that statement.

Gas power stations are considerably cheaper so long as you have your own gas. Hence the reason the US has managed to substantially reduce the cost of electricity to their users since they started extracting shail gas. Coal is also substantially cheaper if you have access to your own coal as we do.

Another set of assertions with nothing to back them up. Give me the answers to the questions I asked or admit you have no idea.

For avoidance of doubt, the latter isn't necessary for anyone on BAWA or P&B

[Stuart Dickson]

Another set of assertions with nothing to back them up. Give me the answers to the questions I asked or admit you have no idea.

For avoidance of doubt, the latter isn't necessary for anyone on BAWA or P&B

http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/basic-costs-for-generating-electricity/

To quote that excellent articles conclusion When the construction costs of alternatives such as wind are compared with base load power plants, itâs clear that electricity from wind and solar will be much more expensive even though they have zero fuel costs

Edited August 21, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[salmonbuddie]

Sorry, StuD, doesn't answer the question, those, too are assertions, made without any foundation. And exclude nuclear decommissioning costs into the bargain.

[oaksoft]

http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/basic-costs-for-generating-electricity/

To quote that excellent articles conclusion When the construction costs of alternatives such as wind are compared with base load power plants, itâs clear that electricity from wind and solar will be much more expensive even though they have zero fuel costs

You are not comparing like for like.

At the moment a wind farm just produces electricity.

This is an inefficiency which comes from the fact that the technology is new.

The owner of the farm will be incentivised to maximise his profit.

The easiest way to do that is to make use of the excess energy they can't yet store to do things which are currently financially unaffordable.

An excellent example would be splitting CO2 to turn it back into oil, gas and other fuels.

What you are doing is unbusinesslike.

No new business sits there bleating about the lack of profit.

They take a longer term view.

For most businesses you aim to make profit after 3-5 years.

For wind farms it might be 10 years.

You are looking at the short term which is bizarre for a pro business chap.

You are also comparing wind farms NOW with mature fossil fuel setups.

If those mature setups only produced electricity then I'd agree it was a fair comparison.

However, 99% of a refinery is turning the "waste" products into something useful which allows costs to be kept lower than they would be.

That took them years to do. You are not affording wind farms the same timescale and therefore any comparison is bollox.

We all know this though. The question is why you can't see it?

Because of this unique problem of vast over production of energy, wind farms are uniquely poised to revolutionise the way we live by providing essentially free energy to power things which are currently thermodynamically unfavourable.

All it needs is vision.

Edited August 21, 2013 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

The nationalist tactic that deals with the subject instead of deflecting onto personal attacks on Alex Salmond? Yep, certainly is. He's a politician, haven't you sussed out yet that they all spout pish if it suits their argument?

The site I quoted gave a reasoned, structured argument as to what would have happened in the event of an independent Scotland being in place when the banking crisis happened with everything else being the same. It's based on what happened elsewhere under the same circumstances and it completely debunks your spurious assertions. Deal with it.

So what happened to AIB? Oh yeah when they needed their bail out they f**ked the Irish economy. Their head office was in Dublin. RBS and HBOS both had their Registered Head Offices in Edinburgh in 2008. They were very much Scottish companies and their failures would have fallen directly onto the Scottish economy. Scotland would have been royally humped had it not been for the fact that in our union with the rest of the UK we had money, and the ability to devalue our currency to cushion the blow. Scotland has been a drain on England for the last five years at least. Deal with it - cause it's fact, not propaganda.

[Guest somner9]

So what happened to AIB? Oh yeah when they needed their bail out they f**ked the Irish economy. Their head office was in Dublin. RBS and HBOS both had their Registered Head Offices in Edinburgh in 2008. They were very much Scottish companies and their failures would have fallen directly onto the Scottish economy. Scotland would have been royally humped had it not been for the fact that in our union with the rest of the UK we had money, and the ability to devalue our currency to cushion the blow. Scotland has been a drain on England for the last five years at least. Deal with it - cause it's fact, not propaganda.

Err all RBS big decisions and top players are london based (you know the CITY) and have been for a long time. the big office near edinburgh is a flashy call centre/admin site.

[Stuart Dickson]

You are not comparing like for like.

At the moment a wind farm just produces electricity.

This is an inefficiency which comes from the fact that the technology is new.

The owner of the farm will be incentivised to maximise his profit.

The easiest way to do that is to make use of the excess energy they can't yet store to do things which are currently financially unaffordable.

An excellent example would be splitting CO2 to turn it back into oil, gas and other fuels.

What you are doing is unbusinesslike.

No new business sits there bleating about the lack of profit.

They take a longer term view.

For most businesses you aim to make profit after 3-5 years.

For wind farms it might be 10 years.

You are looking at the short term which is bizarre for a pro business chap.

You are also comparing wind farms NOW with mature fossil fuel setups.

If those mature setups only produced electricity then I'd agree it was a fair comparison.

However, 99% of a refinery is turning the "waste" products into something useful which allows costs to be kept lower than they would be.

That took them years to do. You are not affording wind farms the same timescale and therefore any comparison is bollox.

We all know this though. The question is why you can't see it?

Because of this unique problem of vast over production of energy, wind farms are uniquely poised to revolutionise the way we live by providing essentially free energy to power things which are currently thermodynamically unfavourable.

All it needs is vision.

The best way to solve any energy shortage we have in the UK Oaksoft is to invest in energy usage reduction but your argument isn't very logical Oaksoft. You have just accepted that gas and coal power stations are the most efficient technology we have to date. Like you say it's a mature and proven method of production so investing in shale gas extraction should be the priority so we can continue to use existing and new gas powered plants to efficiently and cheaply provide the energy we need in Scotland. Instead though we see the daft Scottish Parliament investing £billions in the installation of expensive and inefficient wave and wind generators which you yourself have acknowledged is an immature business needed loads more development to become even remotely competitive with existing solutions.

Surely instead of wasting all our money on inefficient, under developed energy generation - we should be investing in proven, reliable, cheap and efficient methods of energy generation whilst keeping half an eye on the R&D for new technology which may become more viable at a much later date.

To come back to the first sentence in this post this week the company I work for reduced the energy usage of a new retail client - TK Maxx - by 10% simply by implementing one small HVAC strategy change. A far better use of Scottish taxpayers money would be to invest in developing the controls technology that could bring similar energy savings into each home, office, factory and retail outlet but politicians won't do that because it means they get less tax take on VAT receipts.

[Stuart Dickson]

Err all RBS big decisions and top players are london based (you know the CITY) and have been for a long time. the big office near edinburgh is a flashy call centre/admin site.

Doesn't matter. AIB were exactly the same. RBS and HBOS were registered as Scottish companies and they had their Head Offices in Scotland.

[Guest somner9]

It doesn't matter that all their stupid decisions and gambles that crashed the bank and lost billions were made in London, and carried out in the city???

I don't think Senga at Gogarburn would agree

[scottd]

RBS may have its head office in Edinburgh but most of the losses were incurred outside Scotland. The cases of Fortis and Dexia banks illustrated what happened when banks which operated in several countries went belly up. Both Fortis and Dexia were headquarted in Belgium but the much of their losses were incurred in France and the Netherlands and the liability for the losses was allocated according to where they had occured. Therefore despite both instituions being Belgian the Belgian taxpayer was not saddled with the entire cost of bailing them out. It is mendacity on a grand scale to claim the Scotland would have had to bear the entire cost of the RBS and H(Halifax)BOS bail outs.

[Guest somner9]

RBS may have its head office in Edinburgh but most of the losses were incurred outside Scotland. The cases of Fortis and Dexia banks illustrated what happened when banks which operated in several countries went belly up. Both Fortis and Dexia were headquarted in Belgium but the much of their losses were incurred in France and the Netherlands and the liability for the losses was allocated according to where they had occured. Therefore despite both instituions being Belgian the Belgian taxpayer was not saddled with the entire cost of bailing them out. It is mendacity on a grand scale to claim the Scotland would have had to bear the entire cost of the RBS and H(Halifax)BOS bail outs.

Yeah cause no one in englandshire ever used Nat West, Halifax, RBS, Direct Line etc, etc....

[Charlotte Saint]

Gas power stations are considerably cheaper so long as you have your own gas. Hence the reason the US has managed to substantially reduce the cost of electricity to their users since they started extracting shail gas. Coal is also substantially cheaper if you have access to your own coal as we do.

Don't know the technincal ins and outs but what i do know is that my electricty bills have gone up each year. There are agreed increases in place going forward of 4.5% for this year and next with 5.1% in 2015. Doesn't look like a substantial reduction to me.

[Stuart Dickson]

Don't know the technincal ins and outs but what i do know is that my electricty bills have gone up each year. There are agreed increases in place going forward of 4.5% for this year and next with 5.1% in 2015. Doesn't look like a substantial reduction to me.

Figures from the US Energy Information Administration say that average residential costs per unit across most of the US was reduced this summer and that average prices were the lowest in four years. I'm not sure if you come under the South Atlantic or East South Central region but the former had an average price decrease across the market by 3.4% and the later by 1.4%. The areas that had an average increase according to them was in the mountain region and in West South Central. Overall it claims that prices are down 2.5% for the period July 2012 to July 2013.

I appreciate we're talking averages, but in the UK we've seems some substantial increases - some price plans increased by 25% over the last year.

[oaksoft]

The best way to solve any energy shortage we have in the UK Oaksoft is to invest in energy usage reduction.

We don't have energy shortages in the UK. Starting up renewable energy is the best way to ensure that stays a sustainable position.

You have just accepted that gas and coal power stations are the most efficient technology we have to date.

I said you can't compare the two methods yet until BOTH have reached full maturity. Are you seriously trying to argue that just because new technology is more expensive than mature technology today that you shouldn't innovate? Deary me.

Like you say it's a mature and proven method of production so investing in shale gas extraction should be the priority so we can continue to use existing and new gas powered plants to efficiently and cheaply provide the energy we need in Scotland.

Shale gas is NOT a mature or proven method of production. What are you talking about man?

Instead though we see the daft Scottish Parliament investing £billions in the installation of expensive and inefficient wave and wind generators which you yourself have acknowledged is an immature business needed loads more development to become even remotely competitive with existing solutions.

Surely instead of wasting all our money on inefficient, under developed energy generation - we should be investing in proven, reliable, cheap and efficient methods of energy generation whilst keeping half an eye on the R&D for new technology which may become more viable at a much later date.

Do you even understand the phrase "fossils fuels are not a renewable source of fuel"? Seriously, were you asleep that day in school?

Estimates for fossil fuels running out are about 30-50 years. There is no such thing as a new technology which is cheaper than a mature technology. This is not a problem about cost. This is a problem about sustainability. Trust a Tory to see only pound signs without understanding anything else.

To come back to the first sentence in this post this week the company I work for reduced the energy usage of a new retail client - TK Maxx - by 10% simply by implementing one small HVAC strategy change. A far better use of Scottish taxpayers money would be to invest in developing the controls technology that could bring similar energy savings into each home, office, factory and retail outlet but politicians won't do that because it means they get less tax take on VAT receipts.

There's not a single sane and intelligent person in this world who genuinely believes we will reduce our energy consumption. It's not in human nature to do this unless you introduce hefty usage penalty taxes. A long term strategy based on this idea of lowering consumption is destined to fail. Only a brainless clown would suggest it. Hang on.....

Edited August 21, 2013 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

Doesn't matter. AIB were exactly the same. RBS and HBOS were registered as Scottish companies and they had their Head Offices in Scotland.

It's irrelevant where they are registered.

All of these companies are global companies and you understand that perfectly well so I really don't understand why you are arguing the other way.

If a company is trading globally then it doesn't really belong to any one country.

You really need to take some basic economics classes.

BTW I can guarantee you (although you know this full well) that RBS would have been allowed to fold.

Savings accounts of Scottish savers would have been insured and paid up to the amount required by the Scottish government.

Other countries would have been left to do their own thing. That is the nature of the beast.

I suspect that in view of this certainty, the UK government would have stepped in to bail that bank out.

Not to bail out Scotland. Not to prevent bankruptcy here. To bail out one company.

[oaksoft]

Figures from the US Energy Information Administration say that average residential costs per unit across most of the US was reduced this summer and that average prices were the lowest in four years. I'm not sure if you come under the South Atlantic or East South Central region but the former had an average price decrease across the market by 3.4% and the later by 1.4%. The areas that had an average increase according to them was in the mountain region and in West South Central. Overall it claims that prices are down 2.5% for the period July 2012 to July 2013.

I appreciate we're talking averages, but in the UK we've seems some substantial increases - some price plans increased by 25% over the last year.

Stuart FFS you are arguing against a forum user who is living in the US and actually experiencing the increases.

There are hundreds of ways that Administration could be abusing the statistics to make their case.

Just a single example - are there two tarrifs like we have here?

If so you could reduce both tarrifs and still end on an increase in your bill.

For example, imagine a usage of 80 units at 10p and another 45 units at 5p.

Total bill is now £10.25 for 125 units.

Now imagine the tarrifs drop to 9p (10% drop) and 4p (20% drop). Sounds like you're going to be looking at massively lower bills?

Well no because they also decided to increase the number of units charged at the higher tarrif.

So, perhaps now it's 120 units at the new lower rate of 9p and 5 units at the new lower 4p.

Now the tarrif prices have come down but your new bill is £11.00 - an increase of 7%.

The Administration can claim prices have come down by 10-20% but in actual fact you're paying 7% more.

I hope this trivial example will enlighten you as to how easy it is to manipulate and abuse statistics.

Edited August 21, 2013 by oaksoft

[saintnextlifetime]

Don't know the technincal ins and outs but what i do know is that my electricty bills have gone up each year. There are agreed increases in place going forward of 4.5% for this year and next with 5.1% in 2015. Doesn't look like a substantial reduction to me.

The government have slapped green energy targets on the big 6 energy suppliers , most of which are now foreign owned. They have to implement these measures at a huge cost to themselves and since the government wont pay for these measures we , the consumers will continue to experience continued rises in our fuel costs as we , the consumer pays for the implementation of green energy. Companies failing to meet deadlines and targets will be fined by the government . Any fines that have to be paid for will be passed onto the consumer by means of increases. .

The government have also asked the companies to simplify there bills for the consumer by reducing the number of tariffs available . Again , the companies are claiming that this will be a huge cost to them and once again , the companies have said they will pass this onto the consumer. .