saintnextlifetime Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 My problem with all of that is that an irrelevant vote will change nothing in the landscape to improve that situation. It's the same landscape we've had for decades. Nationalists are hoping to use the British pound but would be now completely bereft of any means of controlling that use of a currency being deployed by the same people who are currently in power. There is no desire by Nationalists to remove the figurehead/the lynchpin of that same forelock-tugging system - the monarchy. Again let's not rock the boat chaps, we'll let the Jocks, the mad ones anyway, canter their country down the road of divide and conquer. Vote for so-called separation, Jock. The Capitalist system will still prevail, unless Scotland becomes the first place on earth to invent a new way of living outside that system. But it isn't going to be outside. The Nationalists are too scared to rock the boat, too scared to suggest real change cos it will not be easy, pretty or... come cheaply. I've always hoped it could be so, but current Scottish politicians of all stamps give me no belief in that. It will take more than a single September vote to bring about transformation. Capitalism' s not going away without revolution. The offer on the table steers far too clear of that. London and its economic power, England and its economic choices are all still going to be there, on this same island. Better to be inside the big tent trying to change things than outside being pished upon. You are probably right , in that , in the short term , the Yes vote will change nothing . It will set up a transitionary period where changes will take place based on further referendums about issues like the monarchy. . The landscape will gradually change to one moulded by the will of Scots people , through the ballot box. . In the short term the pound would be retained to make the transition as smooth as possible with a view to changing to the benefit of us in Scotland. Despite the rhetoric , it will be a benefit to the rUk to have it thus in the interim/transitory period as Scotland moves toward greater independence per that enjoyed by other relatively small European countries of a similar stature. . Again , you are right about retaining the constitutional monarchy that we currently have but moving forward that may change per the wishes of the Scottish people. Most of the countries in the Commonwealth have retained the British Monarchy as the head of state whilst it is purely as a figurehead type role. Personally , l don't have a problem with it but obviously it is something that would be put to a vote . Currently , Eire is a republic in that they are not in the Commonwelath of states but they still have strong ties to the UK. . The capitalist system would still be in place , you are right . However , it would be a capitalist system that would be under better control by the people who live here . Thatcher ripped the heart out of Scotland during her years in government and we haven't really recovered from that . I'm not saying that other areas of the UK did not also suffer during that period but Scotland is being given an opportunity to do something about it , now. Spot on again , it will take more than a September vote to bring about the transformation many of us would like but we have to take it in steps . We , as Scots , have been part of the UK for over 300yrs and it will take time to move to the kind of conditions that Scots would prefer . Perhaps the quickest change we would see is a foreign policy that would exclude Scotland from being embroiled in foreign wars that we can't really afford to be embroiled in. . England will still be there and we will continue to be a close trading partners ,we need each other as far as trade is concerned but we have been inside the tent , getting pissed on for a wee while now and the stench is such that a wee breath of fresh Scottish air outside , may now be beneficial. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabella Duke Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Thatcher ripped the heart out of Scotland. no she didnt thatcher revitalised the Scottish economy loss making industries were replaced with north sea oil, financial services & high tech industry labour (complete with Scottish prime ministers, chancellors and cabinet ministers) and the snp subsequently did their best to ruin the Scottish economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Thaaaatchaaaaa!!!! FFS it was over thirty years ago. Quarter of a century since she left office and the old lefty tragedies are still bleating about her. Its no wonder that particular grudge isnt flying well for the nationalists, particularly among the young folk who simply couldnt give a shit about forty years ago and who firmly reject this unnecessary shrinkage. Interestingly, the one party doing best out of this referendum drivel is actually the scottish tories who have overtaken the SNP in voting intentions for the GE next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 no she didnt thatcher revitalised the Scottish economy loss making industries were replaced with north sea oil, financial services & high tech industry labour (complete with Scottish prime ministers, chancellors and cabinet ministers) and the snp subsequently did their best to ruin the Scottish economy She found the oil? i never saw that in the movie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 The capitalist system would still be in place , you are right . However , it would be a capitalist system that would be under better control by the people who live here . You've got far more faith in Scottish politicians than I have. Who'd have thought that a Nationalist would be telling us that Iain Gray, Johann Lamont, and Jackie Baillie were capable politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) no she didnt thatcher revitalised the Scottish economy loss making industries were replaced with north sea oil, financial services & high tech industry labour (complete with Scottish prime ministers, chancellors and cabinet ministers) and the snp subsequently did their best to ruin the Scottish economy I love it when the Nationalists claim Thatcher had no support in Scotland - especially when they have NEVER managed to get the kind of support in Scotland that Thatcher had in any General Election either before or since. Edited July 25, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 1). Yes I do. Contrary to yes scaremongering, these facilities are extremely safe and the economic benefits to Scotland and the area which they are based are huge. Was speaking to a family in Clynder yesterday, it's quite literally on their doorstep, you over look the base from their front window. You won't be surprised to learn that they are passionate no voters who are terrified of a yes vote and the prospect of the base shutting. Places like their town and Garelochead would suffer huge job losses directly and in directly as a result of that closure. I would wager that the towns around the base will return some of the largest percentage no votes in the country in a few weeks. If they're happy with it, so am I. 2). Well if we join NATO ( as Salmond wants to do ) we will continue to be involved in wars with nothing to do with us. That's what being in a military alliance entails. I do think the Wests appetite for foreign wars has been chastened hugely by what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can see this now with the reluctance to get involved in Sudan and Syria etc. Any military operations on the scale of another Iraq/Afghan is pretty unlikely in the next generation or so IMO, if it did happen, we'd be involved regardless of the result of the referendum. 3). You been to Aberdeen recently? House prices are booming up there, it's an economy unto it's own, it's one of the richest cities in the UK. Scotland is already benefitting from the oil we have, thankfully we aren't dependent on it as we would be if we are independent. The way the price of the stuff and the production of it varies from year to year is really scary stuff. I read a stat a few weeks ago that taxation gained from oil varied by the equivalent of the annual Scottish education budget year on year. You want to be so exposed and dependent on such a volatile commodity? I don't, especially when we won't even control our own currency. 4). We have our own parliament, we control education, health, transport, all major domestic issues. All this whilst retaining the security and representation of the wider UK. The UK hasn't voted for a conservative government since 1992 and is unlikely to do so again for the foreseeable future. Even if it did, that's the price you pay for being part of a large and prosperous union. Texas never voted for a Democratic president, they've had one for eight years. They might not like it, but they see the bigger picture of what being in the USA means for them and get on with it. We should too. Why is change badly needed? I think Scotland is fantastic and we are doing brilliantly. Our economy is recovering at a quicker rate than the rest of Europe, we have our own parliament yet retain representation in Westminster and we are one of the cultural capitals of the world. What a success story we are, long may it continue. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Point 3, you are talking out of your arse. thousands of north sea oil jobs (and renewable energy jobs) with companies like Cameron, SubSea 7 and many more that i dealt with during my time in the industries are located in England purely for the convenience of executives who would rather live in the south-east on the company tab and so that they can easily access political contacts in London. Planeloads of people from scotland, holland and beyond fly in to the south east every monday to take up offices in the city, surrey, bedfordshire and even yorkshire, Many of those jobs would have to come to Scotland if the decision making came here, we don't have enough skilled workers to service north sea oil but this gives us a golden opportunity to re-invest in our own people to take advantage of the shift, notwithstanding ownership of the oil tax revenues (which R-UK Gov have royally messed up) the scottish economy would gain a massive boost from the re-location to Scotland of extremely well paid persons moving here. Once this massive shot in the arm is delivered to the skills base we would be motoring along. In the UK, the North sea oil industry is seen as an unstable investment area due to UK taxation policy (and greed). we could certainly stop this situation from being bungled ever more badly by the whitehall and westminster gravy trains How the rest of the place will cope with the loss of these pesky oil jobs and too volatile to be reliable tax revenues is anybody's guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 My problem with all of that is that an irrelevant vote will change nothing in the landscape to improve that situation. It's the same landscape we've had for decades. Nationalists are hoping to use the British pound but would be now completely bereft of any means of controlling that use of a currency being deployed by the same people who are currently in power. There is no desire by Nationalists to remove the figurehead/the lynchpin of that same forelock-tugging system - the monarchy. Again let's not rock the boat chaps, we'll let the Jocks, the mad ones anyway, canter their country down the road of divide and conquer. Vote for so-called separation, Jock. The Capitalist system will still prevail, unless Scotland becomes the first place on earth to invent a new way of living outside that system. But it isn't going to be outside. The Nationalists are too scared to rock the boat, too scared to suggest real change cos it will not be easy, pretty or... come cheaply. I've always hoped it could be so, but current Scottish politicians of all stamps give me no belief in that. It will take more than a single September vote to bring about transformation. Capitalism' s not going away without revolution. The offer on the table steers far too clear of that. London and its economic power, England and its economic choices are all still going to be there, on this same island. Better to be inside the big tent trying to change things than outside being pished upon. Re the bit in bold, you are quite right, we don't want to end up like such places as Gibraltar, the Isle of man and the Channel islands. Or even like Bermuda who have pegged their currency to the US Dollar. The economies of these places are in such a shambolic mess, aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 You've got far more faith in Scottish politicians than I have. Who'd have thought that a Nationalist would be telling us that Iain Gray, Johann Lamont, and Jackie Baillie were capable politicians. Firstly, I absolutely deplore this attitude that us Scots are too stupid to govern ourselves. A sort of inverse snobbery. It is pathetic and frankly it is the product of being the weaker partner in a union for so long. We need to stand on our own two feet, start taking responsibility for our own actions, stop blaming Westminster for things we don't like and gain in self-confidence, in entrepreneurial attitude, in belief. Secondly, there is obviously a brain drain in Scottish politics (and many other fields) because politicians in a UK party will always seek to go where the power is: Westminster. In an independent Scotland, the best politicians would not need to leave, just as the best lawyers, civil servants and engineers would not need to leave. This can only be a good thing for Scotland because I don't think anyone could seriously deny that we have always punched well above our weight in our contribution to the law, to politics, to economics, to science and medicine, to invention and to just about everything else we have ever turned our hand to (perhaps not healthy eating). I love it when the Nationalists claim Thatcher had no support in Scotland - especially when they have NEVER managed to get the kind of support in Scotland that Thatcher had in any General Election either before or since. You keep harping on about this as if it somehow wins the debate. Firstly, Thatcher's highest share of the vote was 31.4% in 1979. The SNP's best performance is 30.4% in 1974. Let's not get carried away here. Secondly, it obviously ignores the fact that an SNP vote in a general election is seen by many as a protest vote because they evidently cannot ever gain a sufficient number of seats to make a real difference in Westminster. Why don't we look at shares of the vote in Scottish Parliament elections, surely a fairer barometer of support within Scotland? Thirdly, you are missing the point by saying that Thatcher had no support in Scotland. The situation obviously changed greatly. A large part of the people of Scotland agreed with her liberal economic policies. In the beginning, this was enough to lead them to vote for her in sizeable numbers. However, the people of Scotland as a whole disagreed wholeheartedly with her very illiberal social policies. That is what led to her downfall: encapsulated, but not limited to, the poll tax of course. In fact, more Scots voted for John Major in 1992 than had voted for Thatcher in the previous election. An independent Scotland would see the Scottish wings of the Labour and Conservative parties breakaway from the constraints of their Westminster-led parties and that can only be a good thing for Scottish politics. It is important that we have a range of views represented in the Scottish parliament, and I'm sure a right of centre party which was no longer linked to the social policies of the Westminster Tories would garner more support than its sorry Scottish wing does at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Re the bit in bold, you are quite right, we don't want to end up like such places as Gibraltar, the Isle of man and the Channel islands. Or even like Bermuda who have pegged their currency to the US Dollar. The economies of these places are in such a shambolic mess, aren't they? You are quite right, of course. The original point makes no sense because Scotland currently has no control over the pound, so the situation would not change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Point 3, you are talking out of your arse. thousands of north sea oil jobs (and renewable energy jobs) with companies like Cameron, SubSea 7 and many more that i dealt with during my time in the industries are located in England purely for the convenience of executives who would rather live in the south-east on the company tab and so that they can easily access political contacts in London. Planeloads of people from scotland, holland and beyond fly in to the south east every monday to take up offices in the city, surrey, bedfordshire and even yorkshire, Many of those jobs would have to come to Scotland if the decision making came here, we don't have enough skilled workers to service north sea oil but this gives us a golden opportunity to re-invest in our own people to take advantage of the shift, notwithstanding ownership of the oil tax revenues (which R-UK Gov have royally messed up) the scottish economy would gain a massive boost from the re-location to Scotland of extremely well paid persons moving here. Once this massive shot in the arm is delivered to the skills base we would be motoring along. In the UK, the North sea oil industry is seen as an unstable investment area due to UK taxation policy (and greed). we could certainly stop this situation from being bungled ever more badly by the whitehall and westminster gravy trains How the rest of the place will cope with the loss of these pesky oil jobs and too volatile to be reliable tax revenues is anybody's guess Why would independence mean English based oil companies moving to Scotland? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) You are quite right, of course. The original point makes no sense because Scotland currently has no control over the pound, so the situation would not change.2 of the last 3 chancellors have been Scotsman elected by Scottish people. No control over the pound indeed Also, comparing the relatively large, complex Scottish economy to places like Gibraltar and Bermuda? Both those territories have populations lower than Paisley FFS Edited July 25, 2014 by TopCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 You are quite right, of course. The original point makes no sense because Scotland currently has no control over the pound, so the situation would not change. Yet it gives us a lender of last resort which guarantees certain liabilities as well as peoples savings. This will be removed which will mean the collosal Scottish financial sector will be lost to us. A sector that brings in more wedge than any other industry . It will be forced to relocate which means the removal of a whole load of highly paid jobs as well as the knock on problems when these people are no longer spending money in our economy. But never mind, freeedommm 'n that. Its understandable that the SNP simply refuse to believe (publically) that they cant force the UK into a currency union. Theyve come up with a couple of incredibly lame reasons why its in, what would then be a foreign countrys taxpayers standing behind the entire Scottish economys, interests to have currency union to try and convince a few dafties that its just a bluff. It isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Apparently, according to that clown Ewing, the Ruk bill payers will continue to subsidise the renwables sector up here after secession "because they need to buy energy from Scotland". What utter bullshit. The renewables secot will die overnight up here without the huge UK subsidy. Have a look at Australia for an example of how the industry goes tits up as soon as subsidy is withdrawn. Worth pointing out that the UK buys far more energy as and when it needs it from the interconnector joining us to the French national grid. A grid which is over 80% run on nuclear energy therefore helping meet our ridiculous carbon targets. Spare nuclear is always sold off dirt cheap and as we dont subsidise the French you can guess the UK will have plenty of options until their new nuclear plants are up and running. In the meantime Scotlands nuclear stations will have gone offline, Longannets coal burning will have ended and there will be no subsidy coming for the ridiculous windmill array up here. Again, you can understand why morons like Ewing continue to bullshit about the UK taxpayer/billpayer carrying on funding certain industries up here. They wont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Yet it gives us a lender of last resort which guarantees certain liabilities as well as peoples savings. This will be removed which will mean the collosal Scottish financial sector will be lost to us. A sector that brings in more wedge than any other industry . It will be forced to relocate which means the removal of a whole load of highly paid jobs as well as the knock on problems when these people are no longer spending money in our economy. But never mind, freeedommm 'n that. Its understandable that the SNP simply refuse to believe (publically) that they cant force the UK into a currency union. Theyve come up with a couple of incredibly lame reasons why its in, what would then be a foreign countrys taxpayers standing behind the entire Scottish economys, interests to have currency union to try and convince a few dafties that its just a bluff. It isn't. The other day Chris was on about criteria and I posted about the criteria for entering the euro, which was what i thought he meant and he replied that Scotland has no intention of joining the euro. I decided not to ask the obvious question ( WTF currency will you use?) but thought, what's the point? They all think £ sterling is a gimmee. It's not. In any event , I don't believe Yes will win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 The other day Chris was on about criteria and I posted about the criteria for entering the euro, which was what i thought he meant and he replied that Scotland has no intention of joining the euro. I decided not to ask the obvious question ( WTF currency will you use?) but thought, what's the point? They all think £ sterling is a gimmee. It's not. In any event , I don't believe Yes will win. On the 6th of January 2009 Alex Salmond said that the pound was sinking like a stone and that it would boost Scottish Independence as we would adopt the Euro. You've got to admire the foresight of the man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Firstly, I absolutely deplore this attitude that us Scots are too stupid to govern ourselves. A sort of inverse snobbery. It is pathetic and frankly it is the product of being the weaker partner in a union for so long. We need to stand on our own two feet, start taking responsibility for our own actions, stop blaming Westminster for things we don't like and gain in self-confidence, in entrepreneurial attitude, in belief. Secondly, there is obviously a brain drain in Scottish politics (and many other fields) because politicians in a UK party will always seek to go where the power is: Westminster. In an independent Scotland, the best politicians would not need to leave, just as the best lawyers, civil servants and engineers would not need to leave. This can only be a good thing for Scotland because I don't think anyone could seriously deny that we have always punched well above our weight in our contribution to the law, to politics, to economics, to science and medicine, to invention and to just about everything else we have ever turned our hand to (perhaps not healthy eating). You keep harping on about this as if it somehow wins the debate. Firstly, Thatcher's highest share of the vote was 31.4% in 1979. The SNP's best performance is 30.4% in 1974. Let's not get carried away here. Secondly, it obviously ignores the fact that an SNP vote in a general election is seen by many as a protest vote because they evidently cannot ever gain a sufficient number of seats to make a real difference in Westminster. Why don't we look at shares of the vote in Scottish Parliament elections, surely a fairer barometer of support within Scotland? Thirdly, you are missing the point by saying that Thatcher had no support in Scotland. The situation obviously changed greatly. A large part of the people of Scotland agreed with her liberal economic policies. In the beginning, this was enough to lead them to vote for her in sizeable numbers. However, the people of Scotland as a whole disagreed wholeheartedly with her very illiberal social policies. That is what led to her downfall: encapsulated, but not limited to, the poll tax of course. In fact, more Scots voted for John Major in 1992 than had voted for Thatcher in the previous election. An independent Scotland would see the Scottish wings of the Labour and Conservative parties breakaway from the constraints of their Westminster-led parties and that can only be a good thing for Scottish politics. It is important that we have a range of views represented in the Scottish parliament, and I'm sure a right of centre party which was no longer linked to the social policies of the Westminster Tories would garner more support than its sorry Scottish wing does at the moment. To answer you point by point Firstly - rot. Politicians like anyone else in life go where the money is. If their political parties can find them seats in England, Wales or Northern Ireland you can bet your life they'll be down there attempting to hold onto their higher wage packet. Teddy Taylor did it for years as has Tony Blair and many other Scottish politicians. There is absolutely no guarantee that they would move to Holyrood for around £25k per year less. Secondly - Do you think the "brain drain" would stop with Independence? Scots would still be able to move the world over and if Scots really do move to where the power is they'll be in London, Brussels, Frankfurt, and New York. It's incredibly niave to think that because Scotland has a parliament in Edinburgh that they'll all move back home, especially when the Yes movement appear so desperate to follow Norway into becoming a high tax society. Thirdly - I have never claimed Thatcher had no support in Scotland - I'll leave that kind of nonsense to fannies like Alex Salmond. The fact is that in 1979, 1983, 1987 her Conservative Party beat the SNP all ends up. Indeed in 1987 when Scotland was supposedly most angry at Thatcher the SNP were in fourth place with less than half the votes of the Conservative Party and you are right in 1992 John Major's Conservative Party still beat the SNP by some distance. Fact is that even in the Scottish Election in 2011 - SNP's best result ever - they still couldn't match the support Thatcher received from the Scots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Why would independence mean English based oil companies moving to Scotland? : Lex there is no such thing as English oil companies most are international Ken is saying in an independent Scotland we would be making the decisions on what happens in the northsea. In turn oil companies such as Subsea 7 who I work for would have to shut up shop in London and move north so that they can be near the politicians making decisions that affect them. Oil and Gas in the west coast of Scotland should not be over looked as it will being another boom to the industry. However staying part of the UK these fields will not be touched because the UK government will not allow production there due to nuclear submarines using these waters. A nuclear sub hit the Isle Of Sky totally played down by the UK government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Isabella Duke - Self confessed Tory Stuart Dickson - Self Confessed Tory Reynard - Self Confessed Tory Say it all with the above posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Why would independence mean English based oil companies moving to Scotland? : Jeez, are you really trying to make it all this hard? Where would you base a country office? in the country you work in or in the country next door? You would be dealing with tax, govenrmental officers, politicians, customs and security in the jurisdiction where you actually produce your commodity. Edited July 25, 2014 by beyond our ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Apparently, according to that clown Ewing, the Ruk bill payers will continue to subsidise the renwables sector up here after secession "because they need to buy energy from Scotland". What utter bullshit. The renewables secot will die overnight up here without the huge UK subsidy. Have a look at Australia for an example of how the industry goes tits up as soon as subsidy is withdrawn. Worth pointing out that the UK buys far more energy as and when it needs it from the interconnector joining us to the French national grid. A grid which is over 80% run on nuclear energy therefore helping meet our ridiculous carbon targets. Spare nuclear is always sold off dirt cheap and as we dont subsidise the French you can guess the UK will have plenty of options until their new nuclear plants are up and running. In the meantime Scotlands nuclear stations will have gone offline, Longannets coal burning will have ended and there will be no subsidy coming for the ridiculous windmill array up here. Again, you can understand why morons like Ewing continue to bullshit about the UK taxpayer/billpayer carrying on funding certain industries up here. They wont. Have you not read the latest news? the UK government has all but slit the throat of renewables in the whole UK this week by grossly under funding the CfD system before it is even up and running? And i think you will find the price we pay to anyone for anything subsidises the cost of development and production. Ewing is quite right-england needs low-carbon energy and will pay for it it might interest you to know that the USA partly meets it's renewables targets by susbsidising onshore and offshore wind in the UK ETA-Australia is a shockingly bad example, they are milking their coal reserves for all they are worth just now, of course they will sacrifice renewables on their short-term altar in order to appease the chinese who are buying up huge amounts of their fossil fuel and other reserves Liek it or not, renewables are needed as competition for dwindling fossil fuels increases over the next 20 years Edited July 25, 2014 by beyond our ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Lets take a typical Whas like us English couple. They live in a nice house in London. They are possibly the most famous known British couple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Elizabeth_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh As for the typical Whas no like us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people Now i don't normally use wikipedia as fact, but most of the information that was required to be able to point and laugh at the compulsive liar was easily found there. I don't see what you are trying to do here unless it was to prove my point. In your own link it says Elizabeth is directly descended from many British royals: from the House of Stuart, from Mary, Queen of Scots; Robert the Bruce, and earlier Scottish royal houses; from the House of Tudor, and earlier Irish and English royal houses stretching back as far as the 7th century House of Wessex: one member of Wessex being Aethelflaed of Wessex's younger sister, Elfthryth. A direct descendant of Robert the Bruce and Mary Queen of Scots. Not that I needed Wikipedia to tell me that. The Union of the Crowns was about sending a Scottish King to England to rule both countries Edited July 25, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 thanks for that very balanced non-source related post of even more guilt filled word-bombing towards people who remain open minded! Balanced? Of course it's not and I never claimed it was. Who cares what the source of the piece is? It's what it states that is important. Anyone who feels guilt about what the piece says, probably are guilty - at least in part. Tough... BTW my post's source... is the English language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Have you not read the latest news? the UK government has all but slit the throat of renewables in the whole UK this week by grossly under funding the CfD system before it is even up and running? And i think you will find the price we pay to anyone for anything subsidises the cost of development and production. Ewing is quite right-england needs low-carbon energy and will pay for it it might interest you to know that the USA partly meets it's renewables targets by susbsidising onshore and offshore wind in the UK ETA-Australia is a shockingly bad example, they are milking their coal reserves for all they are worth just now, of course they will sacrifice renewables on their short-term altar in order to appease the chinese who are buying up huge amounts of their fossil fuel and other reserves Liek it or not, renewables are needed as competition for dwindling fossil fuels increases over the next 20 years There are new efficient nuclear reactors ordered which will entirely reduce the need for any windmills. Fossil fuels are not "dwindling" either. Maybe in the north sea but England in particular sits on enough gas to keep the entire UK supplied for hundreds of years at present use. I've stated on here before that the NGS have known what is under our feet and has been releasing that information in bite sized chunks. We have more shale gas that the entire US. At the moment we are importing that gas to keep a part of Grangemouth operational. Stupid? Yep. The problem with renewables is that they don't work nd they dont produce energy as and when required. I could bore you to death with some actual output figures for the entire wind array in the UK if you like and every other method of producing energy. In spite of the claims made by the green lobby, renewables just arent hacking it at all. They are costing us money and they are harming our economy. We need cheap, plentiful energy. Renewable dont supply that right now. In duie course it MAY do, but it doesnt right now and its stupidity to continue to throw money away at them until they prove themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Isabella Duke - Self confessed Tory Stuart Dickson - Self Confessed Tory Reynard - Self Confessed Tory Say it all with the above posts Fighting and beating the loony left yet again. Its just a re run of the 80s when you clowns lost that one too. There isn't going to be independence this time until the SNP come up with sensible and fully costed fully workable proposals. At best, the new powers to the parliament will make the nezt shot at a referendum (if that ever comes) a short step rather than a leap into the dark like it is now. Theres only a few more weeks of this utter drivel to go before the no vote and then we can all get on with real issues that actually matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.