Seen elsewhere
The calendar

Click to buy!

Support

 

Twitter
Buy

Click images for more details

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Newsdrive | Main | Revkin on the publication process »
Tuesday
Jan292013

Less daft

The Scottish Conservatives have announced their new energy policy, which seems, on the face of it, to be not quite as foolish as what has gone before.

Wind farms should be substantially cut and fossil fuels such as shale gas should be exploited, according to a review of Scottish Conservative energy policy.

The shake-up calls for councils to be given the power to halt all wind farm applications for a year and suggests homeowners should be compensated for loss value because of turbines.

They are also advocating construction of new nuclear power stations. However, belying their reputation as a party of small government and free markets they still intend to pump money into renewables.

Could do better.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (21)

Sounds like a strong push back on the SNP policy. Good to calm down on windfarm applications and consider other sources of energy.

Jan 29, 2013 at 9:38 AM | Registered Commenterharoosh

At the end of the day it's still North Britain parish council isn't it?

Jan 29, 2013 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

Thank you Andrew. I will pass this message on to the people of Paisley. A peer reviewed psephological study showed that the next time we are due to elect a Conservative MP will be shortly before hell freezes over. The anti global warming message should be particularly welcome then.

As for the SNP, a party with only one plausible policy, North Sea oil, their Green agenda must come from the fact that their leader was previously an economist with RBS. Like his sponsor, Rupert Murdoch, a true man of the people.

Jan 29, 2013 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

The Scottish Conservatives are in opposition. With 16 out of 129 seats (of which 12 are "list" - they won a majority in only four constituencies), they are going to stay that way. A marginal force in Scottish politics for the last sixty years, they have no prospect of power except - an outside chance though, with Eckie's lot, one never knows - in coalition with the SNP. (That said, our central-belt local authority is currently run by an SNP-Tory coalition.)

OTOH, if they don't put some distance between themselves and Westminster's wind frenzy, their already modest share of the vote is likely to fall even further as they rely on the rural vote. The restrictions on wind power that they propose are (I'm told - I haven't studied them in detail myself) pretty worthless on close examination and can have no effect on the ~16GW of applications currently in the planning system.

I wonder if they're not flying a kite for many southern colleagues rightly concerned about energy policy.

Jan 29, 2013 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterDaveB

Very disappointing.

The left find it hard to take on the environmental movement since they share a big overlap of language and activists. The proletariat have been utterly abandoned in favour of 'the environment' as a means for the gentle ones to be well-intentioned busybodies and the hard ones to be ruthless warriors against humanity and what it has acheived to date. The SNP appear to be firmly in both camps.

Surely a non-left party can find the courage to be a little more radical these days? What have the Conservatives to lose in Scotland if they were to give that a go?

Jan 29, 2013 at 10:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Dave B - With regards wind power proposal I agree that its a token given the applications in process but at least it gets the discussion out to the general public so more communities may start to question applications more as they are reviewed instead of just bending over as seems to be the case just now??

Jan 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM | Registered Commenterharoosh

[O/T]

Jan 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

[Snip O/T]

Jan 29, 2013 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterDaveB

The green constituency is an orphan constituency in the asylum, periodically visited by all her elderly uncles.

Jan 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM | Registered Commentershub

[Snip - O/T]

Jan 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

It seems freezing to death, like hanging and the guillotine, focus the mind. Even in the UK. Well, parts anyway.

One thing, for sure, when that leaked IPCC reports comes out, if they print it, ship you copy to the UK. They'll need them to burn until they fix their malappropriation of their energy investments.

No idea if they'l just leave the windmills but maybe they'll just let them rust away. A modern Stonehenge.

Jan 29, 2013 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill

[Snip - calm down]

Jan 29, 2013 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

The wind farm juggernaut rolls ever onwards, here south of the border..
Near the village of Graveley in Cambridgeshire, the weasely developers have 'bought' the residents with a promise of £300000 'over the lifetime' of the wind farm (eight truly ENORMOUS turbines - oddly described in The Cambridge Evening News as 'new landmarks'..!).
Now, I make that just £12000 a year, assuming a 'lifetime' of 25 years - what does that buy..? A few trees..? Anyway, as I pointed out in a blog on said local newspaper, wind turbines last, on average, 7-12 years (Denmark's experience), so expect the funding to disappear as soon as the turbines get too costly to maintain...
A separate proposal turned down by the local planning committee near Huntingdon has been appealed by the developers, so has gone to the Planning Inspectorate. We all know what THAT means...

Jan 29, 2013 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

[Snip - Godwin]

Jan 29, 2013 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

The post is about Scottish energy policy.

Jan 29, 2013 at 7:38 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

An independent Scotland could have very significant effects on energy policy in England, not least because of the people it would remove from the Parliament at Westminster.

Has president Obama or the European Commission given much thought to the ramifications of this I wonder?

Jan 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Oh dear. A bit if fine-tuning here - some adjustments there. This is a Goldilocks policy - not too hot and not too cold. Ted Heath on stilts.

Jan 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

You describe what the Conservatives want for Scotland. This is what the Scots will probably get.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9825296/Most-wind-farms-in-Scotland-after-SNP-overrules-councils.html

Jan 30, 2013 at 12:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man

Justice 4Rinka

My son used to annoy his Scottish friends by calling it Scotlandshire.

Jan 30, 2013 at 2:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Apologies, Bishop, O/T

Jan 30, 2013 at 2:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

To the outnumbered Scottish conservatives I have a few words of encouragement to offer. The pace of political change can be very rapid, when people's lives are damaged by policies that simply can't work. Look at the Germans, now recommitting to coal-fired plants. Even 5 years ago, that would have been unthinkable. So, buck up, have courage, keep trying to inject a little truth and skepticism into the Green's pie-in-the-sky Utopian agenda.

Of course, a money-back guarantee from the windmill idiots would be much better than a pep-talk, but that money is gone, flushed away, gone to meet it's maker, away to money heaven. Sorry about your loss.

Jan 30, 2013 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMickey Reno

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>