View Full Version : Salmond's days are numbered
It seems the London politicians weren't the only ones cosying up to Murdoch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8682337/Revealed-Alex-Salmonds-seduction-of-Rupert-Murdoch.html
I had suspicions when wee fat eck had his nose in the Trump trough
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/265005-alex-salmond-publishes-details-of-meetings-with-rupert-murdoch-and-news-international/
I hope his days are not numbered.
I couldn't give a hoot about the company he keeps. When you move in high places you move in high circles.
Politicians get carried away with themselves. its part of the job otherwise the could never do it.
I hope his days are not numbered.
I couldn't give a hoot about the company he keeps. When you move in high places you move in high circles.
Politicians get carried away with themselves. its part of the job otherwise the could never do it.
Well Said !
peter macdonald
04-Aug-11, 21:54
Too right Greener ....
BTW Still waiting for certain ex PMs to come out with their dealings with News International.....and their decision to go war in Iraq ..and how they courted Gadaffi ...and the cash for honours fiasco....(especially the bit where the Daily Record tried to smear SNP MP Angus MacNeill)
Is Jim Devine out nick yet?? Or is Wendy Alexander getting her collar felt for keeping election donations despite the fact there was NO election??
PM
piratelassie
04-Aug-11, 22:34
Well said Peter MacDonald
I sincerely hope they are numbered before he ruins Scotland completely.
Very interesting. London politicos? Baying for blood
Scottish......ah well [lol]
So the common denominator between all these cosy politico meetings is Murdoch?
[QUOTE=golach;875442]I had suspicions when wee fat eck had his nose in the Trump trough
Cheeze Whizzzzzzzz...He is a Scot like us!
[QUOTE=golach;875442]I had suspicions when wee fat eck had his nose in the Trump trough
Cheeze Whizzzzzzzz...He is a Scot like us!
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
peter macdonald
05-Aug-11, 07:30
Alex Salmond was doing exactly what he is paid to do, by promoting Scotland.
First Minister. Additional functions of the First Minister include promoting and representing Scotland, in an official capacity, at home and abroad.
The Scottish Government (Riaghaltas na h-Alba) has published information we hold about meetings between Scottish Ministers with media proprietors, editors and media executives. This includes meetings and correspondence with representatives of News International and News Corporation.
These official records are on the Scottish Government website:
http://tinyurl.com/3s33b7u
We wait similar info from Westminster. And from the Labour party of their dealings with News International ...along with the Chilcott Report .....Along with Sue Akers report into the Mets role in the News international scandal...Oh yes and why was Tony Blair hugging Gadaffi in the desert?? I hear the Scottish Government is trying to change the law to allow the Lockerbie investigation to be made public .. That will be interesting !!!
Not a fan of Salmond, and certainly not an SNP supporter, disagre with many aspects of current SNP policy.......BUT I have to say that Alex Salmond is doing a very good job, and proving himself to be a consumate politician and more than adequate First Minister.
Not a fan of Salmond, and certainly not an SNP supporter, disagre with many aspects of current SNP policy.......BUT I have to say that Alex Salmond is doing a very good job, and proving himself to be a consumate politician and more than adequate First Minister.
Well said SB, I was a life long LibDem supporter until they got into bed with the Tory's. I changed to the SNP and have been slated a lot on here for doing that but I dont care. They are the best party for Scotland and the Leader is doing a sterling job, long may it last!!!
C3.....;)
Well said SB, I was a life long LibDem supporter until they got into bed with the Tory's. I changed to the SNP and have been slated a lot on here for doing that but I dont care. They are the best party for Scotland and the Leader is doing a sterling job, long may it last!!!
C3.....;)
Well said!
Just read in our papers that Alex S is going for 'full independence'.....altho' he is doing it 'slow and steady' which seems to annoy the other Scottish Parties and some of them...the leaders... have quit.....
Do you really think that the Scots will have their own Country? And will/can it be self sustaining?
And I see that you are going to one Policing Agency for Scotland and also the Fire Dept will be following..... We amalgamated...I dunno!..There are pros and cons to it.
It is perhaps being enacted to save money....If that occurs, you will be the First!
One should read Chief Graham's comments....a consummate Politician....We must accept the (political) decision, welcome the clarity and embracing the changes and opportunites....A Gov't statement. Oh well it could be worse I suppose!
Just read in our papers that Alex S is going for 'full independence'.....altho' he is doing it 'slow and steady' which seems to annoy the other Scottish Parties and some of them...the leaders... have quit.....
Do you really think that the Scots will have their own Country? And will/can it be self sustaining?
In energy terms I really do think that Scotland will be self-sufficient and sustainable after Independence which will be a good thing. What worries me will be if Scotland opts to be a full EU member and what happens in terms of EU carbon reduction penalties if England et al have been politically and commercially welded to Scotland. Will the rest of the UK claim credit for what is being produced in Scotland? Take for instance Scottish and Southern Energy, it is an English and Scottish utility amalgamated into one but most of its low carbon infrastructure is situated in Scotland. If the HQ of the company is registered in England then how will Scotland evade any penalties and England can claim any carbon credit? It is rather confusing and I'd like to see how it gets carved up before I put the X on the ballot paper.
Green_not_greed
09-Sep-11, 14:49
In energy terms I really do think that Scotland will be self-sufficient and sustainable after Independence which will be a good thing.
If Scotland gets true independence - i.e. without support from Westminster - then it would never make it in energy terms. I agree with Rheghead that we should be self-sufficient - and can certainly generate more than we need as a country. However, paying for it is something I don't believe we could afford. Whilst the Salmond government continues to give its blessing to every windfarm going, its the ROC subsidies - through Westminster - which make this possible.
If the Scottish government had to pay its own subsidies for renewable schemes within Scotland, we simply couldn't afford it. If you think energy bills are high now, then think what they'd be without tens of millions of million English and Welsh contributors! Companies are in these schemes for one thing only - profit - and without that profit, they would walk away or attempt to sell off the developments. The outcome would most likely be a bunch of poorly maintained turbines which won't be repaired when they fail. It would be rather interesting from a contractual point of view.
Interesting times ahead, methinks.....
I sincerely hope they are numbered before he ruins Scotland completely.
While it might be a slight exaggeration to say we never had it so good in Scotland it is true that we are doing quite well despite the economic situation in rest of UK and Nationally. My English friend are quite envious of the progress we have made under devolution and feel we have done much better than them. Keep up the good work Alex.
Independent Scotland? Highly unlikely. While I agree wee Eck and his chums are doing a no bad job I cannot see independence getting the backing of the electorate. There are too many questions unanswered and if you question any of their MSPs they're as slippery as the best of the others further south.
Westminster's just playing a waiting game, sitting in the undergrowth like Shere Khan examining his gleaming nails, while the Baboon from Brigadoon struts his stuff - "I wanna be like you", etc.. Soon Fair Alba will have spent up all its welfare spondoolicks in much appreciated subsidies, be in hock up to its oxters, and be looking South for some more "rightful" siller. It'll be about then that Bagheera in London will suggest that Scotland might like "tae think again" about independence. Has nobody spotted this yet?
The sooner Salmond's days are numbered the better and he should take the whole Scottish parliament with him. I was stupid enough to vote for it but I am now of the opinion it is the biggest waste of time, money and space ever.
The sooner Salmond's days are numbered the better and he should take the whole Scottish parliament with him. I was stupid enough to vote for it but I am now of the opinion it is the biggest waste of time, money and space ever.
You mean there is an alternative????? .....and Labour were not a waste of time, money and space????? IMO all the parties are as bad as each other; the trick is to vote for the one that's going to do the least damage to you and yours. Is there another way?
You mean there is an alternative????? .....and Labour were not a waste of time, money and space????? IMO all the parties are as bad as each other; the trick is to vote for the one that's going to do the least damage to you and yours. Is there another way?
Therein lies part of the problem.
The basis of the design of our democracy is that each area gets it's own representative in parliament. That man or woman should then fight for what's best for his or her area.
Party politics ruins that. The MP (or MSP) nowadays votes for whatever his party says. It's very rare that an MP votes 'against' the party line, regardless of whether or not it's good for, or wanted by, his electorate. In the rare situation where he does, he is labelled a "rebel" and loses any prospect of political promotion.
People shouldn't vote for parties, they should vote for individial MP's. And MP's shouldn't make votes on what a party says, they should vote on what they think is good for their electorate.
If we've got 100 Labour/Tory etc MP's in parliament, and every one is always going to vote the same way, why not sack 99 of them and let one make the votes?
You mean there is an alternative????? .....and Labour were not a waste of time, money and space????? IMO all the parties are as bad as each other; the trick is to vote for the one that's going to do the least damage to you and yours. Is there another way?
We all know Labour were a waste of time, money and space, and we all vote for the one we believe will do the least damage to us. I happen to believe Salmond and the Edinburgh parliament will do the maximum damage in Scotland.
piratelassie
13-Sep-11, 00:07
Westminster Governments for years have obviously not put Scotlands interests first, (especially that b***h Thatchers) we will always get the leftovers. England will put Englend first, and i cant blame them. Therefore Scotland should put Scotland first and only the S.N.P. can and will do that.
I think Salmond's days are numbered if his foot soldiers insult their constituents, despite the fact that I agree with Rob Gibson's comments, there are ways to get the message across politely.
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/MSP-R-Gibson-says-anti-wind-farm-campaigners-are-selfish-08092011.htm
Rabble, rabble, rabble. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fEjJ4Ecy9Q)
I think Salmond's days are numbered if his foot soldiers insult their constituents, despite the fact that I agree with Rob Gibson's comments, there are ways to get the message across politely.
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/MSP-R-Gibson-says-anti-wind-farm-campaigners-are-selfish-08092011.htm
Rob Gibson is using gutter tactics to smear his dissenters because he has no other argument. Wind farms are grossly inefficient, do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions and the subsidies paid to sponsor them come out of the pockets of ordinary people who are being pushed into fuel poverty. It’s time Mr Gibson got out and about and spoke with people on the ground, people who live in fear of the next electricity price increase.
Rob Gibson is using gutter tactics to smear his dissenters because he has no other argument. Wind farms are grossly inefficient, do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions and the subsidies paid to sponsor them come out of the pockets of ordinary people who are being pushed into fuel poverty. It’s time Mr Gibson got out and about and spoke with people on the ground, people who live in fear of the next electricity price increase.
Perhaps the people on the ground need to find out that wind farms do actually reduce carbon emissions? Perhaps he should have said they were ignorant as well as selfish?
I'd say that solar power and offshore/tidal turbines are far better than wind farms but this is also worth considering - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/09/brit_confidence_in_nuclear_power_increases_survey/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/09/brit_confidence_in_nuclear_power_increases_survey/)(British warming to Nukes after Fukushima meltdown). The gender gap is an odd variable also.
I'd say that solar power and offshore/tidal turbines are far better than wind farms but this is also worth considering - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/09/brit_confidence_in_nuclear_power_increases_survey/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/09/brit_confidence_in_nuclear_power_increases_survey/)(British warming to Nukes after Fukushima meltdown). The gender gap is an odd variable also.
Samond has described the Pentland Firth area as the Saudi Arabia of tidal energy. Just much energy can be reaped from it and can it be given such a name to aptly describe the potential? And is Salmond right to boldly pin his political aspirations on to such a venture?
Samond has described the Pentland Firth area as the Saudi Arabia of tidal energy. Just much energy can be reaped from it and can it be given such a name to aptly describe the potential? And is Salmond right to boldly pin his political aspirations on to such a venture?
Of course not.
But Salmond likes headlines like that, regardless of the facts.
I think Mr Salmond is well aware of the truth in my forum signature. And he works it well.
Perhaps the people on the ground need to find out that wind farms do actually reduce carbon emissions? Perhaps he should have said they were ignorant as well as selfish?
Educate me - how can wind farms reduce CO2 emissions if they have to have coal and gas fired power stations running alongside to maintain electricity supplies? Data and figures please. Or does something else happen to supply electiricity when the wind doesn't blow or blows too hard? How many wind turbines have directly contributed to the decommissioning of a coal or gas fired power station? Fify? One Hundred? One thousand?
You can throw insults around like confetti Rheghead, just like Ron Gibson. I am prepared to admit that I might well not be privy to the information you are about to impart to me, but I have an open mind and am ready to listen.
Educate me - how can wind farms reduce CO2 emissions if they have to have coal and gas fired power stations running alongside to maintain electricity supplies? Data and figures please. Or does something else happen to supply electiricity when the wind doesn't blow or blows too hard? How many wind turbines have directly contributed to the decommissioning of a coal or gas fired power station? Fify? One Hundred? One thousand?
You can throw insults around like confetti Rheghead, just like Ron Gibson. I am prepared to admit that I might well not be privy to the information you are about to impart to me, but I have an open mind and am ready to listen.
Well there isn't any capacity of any conventional power station running alongside to maintain electricity that isn't already producing useful electricity. If there were then it would be folly to have such a system so it wouldn't reduce carbon emissions and so I would be opposed to it too.
There are power stations running at a reduced power, say 50% capacity, this is called spinning reserve which springs into action in seconds when a large power station suffers an outage, which happens a few times a year I believe, but this doesn't happen to wind.
Then there are power stations on hot standby which start up in minutes so well within the forecasting timeframe of wind variabilty. The energy that it takes to keep them on hot standby is supplied by conventional sources but amounts to 0.1% of full output so is negligible.
Then there are power stations on cold standby, basically idle which take several hours to put into action but still responsive to timeframes of forecasting wind variability.
For figures and facts, do a bit of searching on the internet though some of it is commercially sensitive so not available.
orkneycadian
13-Sep-11, 20:17
Educate me - how can wind farms reduce CO2 emissions if they have to have coal and gas fired power stations running alongside to maintain electricity supplies?
Assuming you have a car, in which of the following 2 scenarios does said car consume most fuel;
Booting it up Berridale, 5 up, at 50 mph, with a trailer behind and your foot flat to the boards
Trickling along at a steady 50 mph along the Causewaymire, no passengers, no trailer, throttle barely touched.
If the 2 scenarios invoke different rates of fuel consumption, why?
Perhaps the people on the ground need to find out that wind farms do actually reduce carbon emissions? Perhaps he should have said they were ignorant as well as selfish?
Wel I never!
Germany's renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country's electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.
But there's a catch: The climate hasn't in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven't prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.
Even more surprising, the European Union's own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn't change -- no matter how many wind turbines are erected.
Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn't widely known to the public. Even Germany's government officials mention it only under their breath. No one wants to discuss the political ramifications.
It's a sensitive subject: Germany is recognized worldwide as a leader in all things related to renewable energy. The environmental energy sector doesn't want this image to be tarnished. Under no circumstances does Berlin want the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) -- which mandates the prices at which energy companies have to buy green power -- to fall into disrepute.
At the same time, big energy companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As a result, no one is pushing for change. Everyone involved is remaining silent
In truth, however, even the Green Party has recognized the problem, as evidenced by an e-mail exchange last year between party energy experts and obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE. One wrote the following message to a colleague: "Dear Daniel, sorry, but the EEG won't do anything for the climate anyway." Ever since the introduction of the emissions trading system, the Renewable Energy Law had become "an instrument of structural change, but not an instrument to combat climate change."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html
Spiegel tells lies.
A complete rebuttal from the German Green Party energy spokesman.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48071
Marginally: Developers and the British Wind Energy Association claim 0.86 tonnes of CO2 saved for every megawatt hour of electricity generated by wind. DEFRA, BERR (DTI), Ofgem, the Carbon Trust, and Government do not accept this and use a figure of 0.43 t/MWh. The Government press release on the recently approved Fullabrook Down wind farm used a figure of 0.36t/MWh – consistent with that employed by the Sustainable Development Commission (2005). The use of the figure 0.43t/MWh for calculating the lifetime savings of a wind farm is supported by the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA has upheld several complaints from the public against Renewable Energy Systems Ltd and nPower Renewables for providing misleading information to the public. These exaggerated claims represent serious mis-selling by the wind industry...
Westminster Governments for years have obviously not put Scotlands interests first, (especially that b***h Thatchers) we will always get the leftovers. England will put Englend first, and i cant blame them. Therefore Scotland should put Scotland first and only the S.N.P. can and will do that.
Left to the SNP we will have a country covered with ineffectual wind turbines and a lot that will do for the tourist industry. The defence will collapse as I doubt if we have enough forces of our own and we will be drawn into the Euro (Salmond has'nt ruled it out) and we all know the disaster that has been, to name only three things against them.
Marginally: Developers and the British Wind Energy Association claim 0.86 tonnes of CO2 saved for every megawatt hour of electricity generated by wind. DEFRA, BERR (DTI), Ofgem, the Carbon Trust, and Government do not accept this and use a figure of 0.43 t/MWh. The Government press release on the recently approved Fullabrook Down wind farm used a figure of 0.36t/MWh – consistent with that employed by the Sustainable Development Commission (2005). The use of the figure 0.43t/MWh for calculating the lifetime savings of a wind farm is supported by the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA has upheld several complaints from the public against Renewable Energy Systems Ltd and nPower Renewables for providing misleading information to the public. These exaggerated claims represent serious mis-selling by the wind industry...
Interesting stuff but very old hat, rather ironically I hope one day that those carbon savings are much lower than 0.43tonnes/MWh, hopefully zero one day and wind turbines never recoup their carbon cost.
But let us do a bit of arithmetic.
I made my 'back of a fag packet' calculation because I thought that CO2 savings could be higher than 430g/kWh based upon data from Energy in Brief 2010. Since it seems that nuclear does not vary or load follow then it follows that increasing renewables will only mitigate coal and gas. In 2009, proportions of generation in UK by fuel type were Gas 45%, Coal 28%, Nuke 17% Remainder oil 1%, imports 1% and renewables 8% So I thought that (0.45*405g+0.28*915g)=438g which would approximately explain where the 0.43tonnesCO2/MWh came from. However because nuclear may be retained then the true CO2 savings may be (0.45*405g+0.28*915)/(0.45+0.28)=0.6tonnes CO2/MWh which is significantly higher.
In reality, operationally there will be serious attempts to mitigate production by the heaviest polluters in order to fulfill our country's carbon reduction obligatons so carbon savings will be more like the carbon footprint of coal ~0.915 tonnes CO2/MWh
andrew.bowles30
13-Sep-11, 23:15
i hope he shrugs this off too hes not a london idiot but some one that is fighting for scotland murdoch and his papers made it clear it was going to get involved in every bit of polatics so they could blame others when it hit the fan they say the bigger you are the harder you fall we good its time the the murdochs of this worl was hit back with the biggest bat we can find so lets not knock him now he has just started we voted for the party lets get our backs behind then and kick ass
orkneycadian
14-Sep-11, 20:30
Left to the SNP we will have a country covered with ineffectual wind turbines ....
Tonight, Orkney demand = 22.83 MW, production from Orkney turbines = 20.66 MW
Percentage of Orkney demand fed from Orkney wind turbines = 90% - And its not even very windy out there. How is that ineffectual?
Tonight, Orkney demand = 22.83 MW, production from Orkney turbines = 20.66 MW
Percentage of Orkney demand fed from Orkney wind turbines = 90% - And its not even very windy out there. How is that ineffectual?
Does'nt happen everywhere.
orkneycadian
15-Sep-11, 09:35
More turbines needed for those places then! If places like Orkney can regularly punt out more than 50% of its requirements from wind turbines (by regularly, I estimate that the OREF site shows we are producing more than 50% of our needs more than 50% of the time, and more than 100% of our needs 20% of the time), then it shouldn't be any problem for Caithness and other parts of the Highlands to do the same.
A sticky on the front page of this forum proclaims "Wick Wants Work!" - Well, here you go, work opportunities handed to you on a plate!
Ochone Ochone, Eck has done this time
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/270460-trump-defends-windfarm-objection-i-am-fighting-for-the-benefit-of-scotland/
Why all the panic?
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.