Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Murphy to slate Holyrood plan to axe nuclear power

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 February 2009
THE UK government is set to continue its attack on Alex Salmond's decision to axe nuclear power next week.
Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, is expected to criticise the Scottish Government's nuclear energy policy at a conference on Monday.

He will give the keynote speech at the Public Information Materials Exchange 2009 conference in Edinburgh, organised by the European Nuclear Association.

He is expected to say a ban on nuclear power is contrary to the best interests of Scottish consumers and at odds with increasing political consensus across Europe that nuclear energy lies at the heart of a future low-carbon energy policy.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

webwise,

Scotland 13/02/2009 23:23:11
Let him;

I've no doubt that the Scottish electorate will let him know their feelings.
2

Rufus-T-Firefly,

13/02/2009 23:27:29
1 webwise,Scotland 13/02/2009 23:23:11
Let him;
I've no doubt that the Scottish electorate will let him know their feelings.
=====================================================

They sure will.

We are right behind you Mr Murphy.
3

Sanny,

14/02/2009 00:32:10
Once again RFT by committing yourself to print you confirm yet again that you have no understanding of the problem or indeed any sensible contribution to make to this or any other debate.

The Scottish Public have made it very clear they want nothing to do with nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons.

As I recall many of today’s Labour MP’s took part in marches to protest against the nuclear lobby and prominent among them was the current Westminster PM. Are you too young to remember this? Certainly to judge by your comments and there structure you appear as an inexperienced adolescent.

May I also remind you that Murphy is simply a political hack with no work experience in the real world.
4

,

14/02/2009 00:36:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

14/02/2009 00:37:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Wardog™,

14/02/2009 00:53:22
"...He is expected to say a ban on nuclear power is contrary to the best interests of Scottish consumers and at odds with increasing political consensus across Europe that nuclear energy lies at the heart of a future low-carbon energy policy......"

Denmark - 100% Renewables Target
Germany - 100% Renewables Target, Phase out Nuclear by 2020
Sweden - 100% Renewables Target, Phase out Nuclear by 2020
Italy - Closed all reactors after Chernobyl
Spain - Called a moratorium on new nuclear, 100% Renewables Target



Jim's Arc of Radioacity
UK
France
Lithuania
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Finland
Romania
Czech Republic


It is worth noting that many of the eastern european countries have real safety problems with old reactors.


Sources: International Atomic Energy Agency, World Nuclear Association, International Nuclear Safety Center, European Nuclear Society


7

Rufus-T-Firefly,

14/02/2009 00:55:13
4 Sanny,14/02/2009 00:32:10
The Scottish Public have made it very clear they want nothing to do with nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons.
=====================================================

Have they?

Where?

When?
8

Rufus-T-Firefly,

14/02/2009 01:01:06
Wardog™,14/02/2009 00:53:22

Sweden - 100% Renewables Target, Phase out Nuclear by 2020
======================================================

Wardog talking dross again.

Sweden aims to lift nuclear ban (from the BBC_

Sweden's 10 nuclear power station produce half the country's electricity
The Swedish government plans to overturn a nearly 30-year-old decision to phase out nuclear power and lift a ban on building new reactors.

The centre-right government says it wants to allow for new reactors to replace 10 still in operation....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7871824.stm

9

Wardog™,

14/02/2009 01:02:20


9. "...The CENTRE-RIGHT government says it wants to allow for new reactors to replace 10 still in operation....."

Thanks for confirming what I suspected
10

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

14/02/2009 01:02:50
What happens with nuclear power has nothing to do with the ridiculous jim Murphy, or the rest of Europe for that matters.The decision will be made by Holyrood.
11

Rufus-T-Firefly,

14/02/2009 01:04:56
11 Newton_Invented_Gravity,14/02/2009 01:02:50
What happens with nuclear power has nothing to do with the ridiculous jim Murphy, or the rest of Europe for that matters.The decision will be made by Holyrood.
======================================================

Yes but only in your dreams.
12

Wardog™,

14/02/2009 01:06:05


12. More contempt for democracy, why am I not surprised?


13

Wardog™,

14/02/2009 01:12:00


“progress toward devolution should be delayed for as long as possible consistently with honouring the government commitment to move down the devolution road and containing the SNP lobby in Parliament.”


Contempt for Democracy seems to be a Labour theme.

42 Days
ID Cards
Asylum Detention Centres
No Iraq Investigation
.....
....

..
14

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

14/02/2009 01:19:39
#13 yeah,the true colors of the self-hating unionists are really emerging.
15

UK007,

14/02/2009 01:20:40
#2/#8/#9/#12:RFT-Why a nuclear power station for Scotland ?
16

Brian Hill,

14/02/2009 01:43:45
Surprise, surprise. Jim Murphy is against an SNP Government initiative.

Once again Westminster tries to muscle in on Scottish Government policy when it doesn't suit it.

No doubt they will try to blame the SNP for picking 'yet another' fight.

But as #5 jwil says, Labour may well be too preoccupied with other things to worry about Scotland and nuclear power.

For example, the continuing meltdown of the banking system you mean jwil?

17

Edward,

14/02/2009 01:46:42
Sorry, but what right has Murphy orany other Labour politician got the right to dictate to the people of Scotland!
Considering how corrupt Labour actually is when they consider energy. They are just a bunch of sleaze!
Fact - Gordon Brown's brother Andrew is a director of EDF Energy,who arekeen to develop Nuclear energy in Britain as a whole.
Fact - The Parliamentary committee on Energy has not only been on all expenses junkets paidby Westinghouse to the US and by Eon last year to 'see' nuclear power plants,paid for by eon.The committe is predominently filled with Scottish Labour MP's
Which is also perhaps the reason the same MP's want Holyrood powers reduced concerning energy
This is information that is readily available in members interests (those that actually submit declarations!)
So frankly Labour can get stuffed
18

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

14/02/2009 01:47:56
This is a matter for Holyrood. What does Iain 'worse than Wendy' Gray think about Jim Murphy muscling in on his territory, I wonder?
19

Edward,

14/02/2009 02:01:42
Interesting article in the Times, which is typical of Labour sleaze even in the 1970's.The Times has reveals that there was a secret plan to deprive Scotland of its claim to Oil in its terratories
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5728477.ece
20

Charles MN,

14/02/2009 02:05:18
#16
Because electricity has to come from somewhere. If the governments CO2 targets are to be met that kind of rules out coal,oil and gas (unless you believe the carbon capture myth) so that leaves what?

At the moment, UK wide, wind power is producing 37Mw, hydro is producing 154Mw and the rest of the required 38793Mw is coming from gas , coal and nuclear.

Salmond can't have his cake and eat it, he either decides that CO2 isn't a problem or he goes nuclear.
21

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

14/02/2009 02:22:27
#21 Well if it's as obvious that the MSPs will vote accordingly. It is supposed to be a democracy after all.
22

Edward,

14/02/2009 02:24:40
#21 Charles MN
Are you up to speed on what is happening in Scotland?
I ask this as you seem to be very unware of all the other methods being used and being developed in generating electricity in Scotland.
Apart from having the largest wind power in europe, Scotland has been increasing Hydro power with recent developments and now has a large number of companies rushing to get in on the under sea wave power in the north of Scotland. In addition to that, there is developments going on to make coal fired power stations cleaner with carbon capture and carbon scrubbing technology. So Scotland is and will be quite suffcient in energy generation.
23

Edward,

14/02/2009 02:31:44
#21 Charles MN
You need correcting by the way
Hydro power in Scotland currently generates 1379MW, not 154 MW as you stated!
According to a BBC reports that a study carried out for the Forum for Renewable Energy Development said an extra 650MW of hydro power could be produced which would result in a quarter ofall Scottish homes being supplied by Hydro
24

Charles MN,

14/02/2009 02:47:33
#23
Yes I am well aware what is happening not only in Scotland but elsewhere.

Lets take your points one by one:

Hydro; This is fundamental to any green energy policy because it actually works and fills in the gaps for when all the other green energy sources aren't working. But at the moment is is supplying 0.4% of the grids power. Why don't we produce more? Why don't we produce more? Well there are limited sits available. I don't see this increasing by more than 10-20%.

Windpower: If the wind doesn't blow no power.Currently producing 41Mw or about 0.001%. If you want to base Scotlands electrical supply on that you are a braver man than I.

Carbon capture: doesn't exist at the moment. Has three main problems A) it has never been tried on a large scale b) it adds 25-50% to the cost of electricity c) what do you do with the CO2, if you pump it underground how can you guarantee that it won't leak out?
25

Charles MN,

14/02/2009 02:53:37
#24
Sorry Edward but you have confused capacity with output. As I said above if there is no wind there is no windpower. At the moment for the 1288MW of capacity that the national grid meters in real time the output is 38MW.
26

Edward,

14/02/2009 02:56:48
Currently Scotland produces 1379 Mw of Hydro Electricity, which is set to increase
this year with the commissioning of the Glendoe Hydro, this will add another 100 Mw
Current wind generation provides 1550 Mw. There are plans to utilise a potential
Onshore wind generation of 11.5 Gw.
The new kid on the block is Wind and Tidal power, with Scotland sitting on 25%
of Europe's wave energy. Work has already started on the Siadar Bay project, which will provide a modest 4 Mw. But it is estimated that potentional Wave generation will be 14 Gw and Tidal generation will be 7.5 Gw
27

Edward,

14/02/2009 03:03:01
#25 & #26 Charles MN
Its you thats incorrect, Im reading actual output of Hydro power which is widely available. Or are you saying the people that areproducing these figures are not telling the truth, or its been miss reported in the media.
Current Hydro is providing 6 % of Scotlands energy needs,NOT 0.4%, you really need to get your facts right
28

Edward,

14/02/2009 03:10:47
#25 Charles MN
By the way The Canadians dont seem to be that bothered as regards Carbon Capture as thereis a joint Saskatchewan-Montana project for the firts large scalecarbon captureproject in North America
Also Statoilin Norway has submitted plansfor a large Carbon capture project in Norway
29

Castaway™ ,

14/02/2009 03:21:27
#27 Edward
Scotland has a baseload capacity of 7600MW, from nuclear,gas and coal PS's plus a possible increase of o/p from Peterhead which can produce 2400MW but is limited to 1,550MW due to the tranmission line.

This winter we have been exporting almost 2900MW more or less at any time during the winter as these numbers show:-
23 Jan 2009 2859MW 07:03:00 GMT
1 Feb 2009 777MW 23:00:00 GMT
3 Feb 2009 2735MW 09:22:00 GMT
3 Feb 2009 636MW 22:49:00 GMT

Which shows we have spare capacity to provide for the increase in demand from England. We have exported for years.

Carbon capture: National Grid is drawing up plans for a new business unit that will pipe carbon dioxide emissions from UK power stations for storage in geological formations beneath the North Sea
.......could be replicated at other locations around the UK where clusters of coal-fired power stations exist, including Scotland and East Anglia. Times Feb 11, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/b6yyo9
30

Charles MN,

14/02/2009 03:50:05
#27 Edward,
I don't know where you are copying and pasting that from but you fail to understand the basics. No matter how many wind turbines you have if there is no wind there is no power.

The national grid gives a total metered capacity of 1288MW. I have seen significantly different figures given even from the same source (BERR) so I can understand that you have seen different numbers. But at this precise moment wind power is supplying 37MW. If you don't believe me look at:

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

There is nothing new about renewable energy, indeed it has been on the go for thousands of years. So why are we not using it it? It just doesn't work. Wind power depends on wind, Wave power depends on waves and guess what produces waves? But why after thousands of years are we still talking about trialling wave power? Because it only needs one big storm and it breaks.

Tidal power works fine in the few places in the world where there is sufficient tidal range to justify it. But the French have had a system for 30 years and haven't built another.
31

Longdirk Maceth,

NZ 14/02/2009 05:34:16
Sh!t for brains Rufus, below is one of the reasons that we don't want Nuke power in Scotland. If you want it in your England thats up to you, but it's not Scotlands remit to provide England with power.
Also to let you know, since you clearly known nothing.

The cost to decommission the UK's nuke power stations is £75 billion, and it's the UK tax payer thats going to have to shell out for this.
Also to decommission a nuke power station takes 20 years plus, so take that cost and well times by 4, 5.....!!!
Again you fail to convince me NOT to vote for a party that fights for a Scotland, free of the assett stripping Westminster.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-faulty-nuclear-reactor-was-allowed-to-operate-without-safety-alarm-453504.html
32

Castaway™ ,

14/02/2009 06:08:01
Jim Murphy says it is in the the best interests of Scottish consumers that Scotland builds a NPS but why build gas fired power stations in England and Wales and not one in Scotland ?

Gas fired power stations for England and Wales-which are proposed or are under construction having a total capacity of approx 15770MW.

33

donald,

glasgow 14/02/2009 06:16:48
Britannia nukes the waves.

Ben Dover Hoose poodle to do his master's bidding.
34

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 14/02/2009 06:37:44
I have never been asked if I support nuclear power generation so how anyone can claim Scotland does not want nuclear power beats me.
Edward - you are talking nonsense and clearly have no understanding of electricity generation.!!
Charles MN is absolutely correct you don't generate MW, you generate MWh. When referring to power stations MW is the installed capacity.
Are you also aware that over 50 MW of hydro installed capacity has been taken out of line in order to qualify for ROCS.!!!!
Open your eyes man!
35

Castaway™ ,

14/02/2009 06:39:36
#33 - 13 Gas fired power stations for England and Wales proposed or under construction plus one being expanded from 330MW to 800MW.
Total capacity proposed or under construction will be approx 15770MW.
36

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 14/02/2009 06:40:15
#33 - The problem with gas is where it comes from, this was demonstrated recently when Russia cut off supplies.
37

The Tin Man,

14/02/2009 06:49:49
By voting against building any replacement nuclear reactors, and by setting 'world class' greenhouse gas reduction targets, effectively destroying the possibility of replacement of coal and gas-fired stations, Holyrood has sent out a clear message that in the future, Scotland will build some more windmills and import electricity.

We, the consumers, will have to pay Danish-style electricity bills, with increased fuel poverty, and a negative impact on industry.
38

The Tin Man,

14/02/2009 07:00:32
Please, can we drop the 'new-technology' misnomer?

People had been generating power from wind, and water for quite a while now. It is not 'new-technology', it is akin to reducing your greenhouse gas emmisions by scrapping your car and getting a horse & cart.
39

The Tin Man,

14/02/2009 07:43:05
#41

You do.
40

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/02/2009 08:38:08
35 Nabo

"you don't generate MW, you generate MWh"

Nabo, the above statement is plain wrong. A generator does generate MW (MW being the amount of energy generated per second ie MJ/s). MWh is simply a unit of energy.

You appear to have got confused between installed capacity and power output.
41

Astonished,

Inverclyde 14/02/2009 08:43:58
Energy -Rich Scotland does not need nuclear power - nor Mr Murphy. Murphy should resign.


I see a number of folk are concerned regarding labour's form as the "brown envelope" party. I assume this to be the case here - As the police aren't investigating!




I am indebted to Newton_Invented_Gravity @19 for the "Worse than Wendy" moniker for the useless Gray.

42

The Tin Man,

14/02/2009 09:10:23
#43 Rules

What's to reasearch, exactly? Putting a generator on a propellor shaft, and raising it in the air on the end of a stick is not really that complicated.
43

Upbeat,

14/02/2009 09:10:40
There is a legendary cartoon that has a building worker sitting on a plank on a high building slowly sawing through the plank between himself and the building. The worker is Alex Salmond, the plank is the provision of adequate electrical capacity, and the high building is Scotlands requirement for electrical energy.

No many will rush to catch this man as he falls. !
44

alanh,

ek 14/02/2009 09:21:07
does Murphy do anything else except criticise our govt?

Maybe he can let us into know about some/any of the nu liebore , north britain dept, policies?
45

Marian,

14/02/2009 09:25:11
New Labour want to build more nuclear fuelled generation capacity in Scotland, when Scotland already has electricity generation over-capacity and bountiful reserves of sources of alternative energy
.
New Labour want to build more nuclear fuelled electricity generation capacity in Scotland, when Countries which are very similar to Scotland, i.e. Denmark, Eire, and Norway, who are facing the same energy demands, do not deem it necessary or desirable to invest in nuclear power.

It must be obvious by now that New Labour never intended for devolution to work as it was presented to the people of Scotland when they voted overwhelmingly for it in a referendum.

New Labour have lied to us, not once, but repeatedly for more than a decade and now all the lies are being exposed.

The most generous conclusion that can be drawn is that devolution was just a sop to try and defuse Scots aspirations for home rule.

Devolution as it is practised is never going to satisfy Scots as there is too much interference with it by New Labour at Westminster.

Once the implications of this action by New Labour sinks in, Scots will realise that there is only one solution to their aspirations and that is to go for full independence.

The Scots aspiration for a truly independent Scotland will never go away despite New Labour.

It has lasted for a hundred years or more and will continue until independence is granted.
46

Brian M,

Edinburgh 14/02/2009 09:42:25
Jim Murphy - Westminster labour puppet and Anti Scottish Secretary of State
47

Upbeat,

14/02/2009 09:42:45
Marian # 49 in her idealistic anti- Westminster post should know that Norway is a high mountainous country with a relatively low population density...ideally suited to hydro electrical schemes. Scotlands ability to enlarge current hydro capacity is much reduced.

Denmark uses its central position between Germany and Scandinavia to balance power from Wind against conventional capacity imported from both Norway and Germany. Part of the power imported by Denmark is generated by nuclear plants in Sweden which has just announced a plan to build 10 fresh nuclear plants. (5th february).

Ireland currently imports around 90% of its energy demands. Urgent steps must be taken to address this. Nuclear power may yet be recognised as the best solution.
48

The Tin Man,

14/02/2009 09:42:50
#49 Marian

Holyrood also don't want to build any new coal or gas-fired stations. When the existing nuclear, and fossil-feul power stations come to the end of their service-life, we import electricity, as the hydro power generating capacity is insufficient to compensate for windmills doing nothing on a calm day.

That is the will of Holyrood. It also means that our electricity bills will increase, significantly.
49

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 14/02/2009 09:42:56
Canadian uranium miner Cameco (part owned by French nuclear builder Areva) just released its results for 2008. Its uranium production was down 11% over that in 2007. Jim Murphy would do well to accept the progressive decline in uranium supply and realise that nuclear power has no sustainable future.

The industry is in denial of its demise; it should be given a decent burial (with its radioactive waste)!
50

,

14/02/2009 09:53:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

Bridged and tunnelled,

14/02/2009 09:55:00
Wardog - The Swedes have just reversed their policy.

There is a real issue here.I doubt anyone (sane) actually wants nuclear as a preferred option. But we have a big energy gap coming up, and if we invest all our efforts on untested renewable technologies, we had better hope they all work perfectly. Because we're shafted if they don't, or they take longer to delver than we're currently promised.

It's against that background that we need to look at nuclear again, alongside major investment in carbon capture and marine technologies.
52

drunken proffet,

Tassy 14/02/2009 10:09:28
I have a solar panel array made up of vacuum tubes heating my hot water. Not too sure how much electricity it saves, I suppose about three or four kilowatts a day during the summer months. I could put solar panels on the roof to generate 2kw an hour, working with the main supply, no batteries. Total cost, approx $20,000, government subsidy about $8,000.
Time to recoup installation costs, approximately seven to eight years. Australia so far does not believe in nuclear power stations either, thank God.
53

Darien,

Panama 14/02/2009 10:23:23
Like most other New Labour politicians Murphy has never had a real job and knows diddley squat about anything other than trying to be a New Labour career politician, his personal progress dependent on telling porkies to the people as well as cosying up to favoured business sectors (rail infras, defence, energy etc). As a British Nation-First advocate he despises the very idea of a Scottish nation and opposes any moves towards Scots running more of their own affairs. Same position as Brown & Darling and their 'Scottish' New Labour MP/MSP lobby fodder brain-dead 'comrades'. The sooner Scotland gets rid of these pests the better.
54

A Scott,

Newton Mearns 14/02/2009 10:29:19
Murphy and Macintosh MSP are joined at the hip.....The fact that Nuke Energy is a devolved matter means nothing to the Skull... He is never out of the local papers commenting on education( he dropped out of Uni),crime planning etc which of course he has no remit over..He has never had a job outside politics so far I say so far because his Eastwood seat is in the process of being carved up between NM and Borrheid/Paisley. Still theres always the Lords plenty of filthy lucre to be got there !!!!!
55

brownlie,

14/02/2009 10:44:51
Whatever the pros and cons of the views expressed above I seem to recall that the Scottish Parliament, presumably with their constituents views in mind, voted against any further nuclear reactors in Scotland.

That being the case it would be rather foolish of Jim Murphy and the UK Government to over-rule that decision.

I wonder, for instance, if Murphy's constituents would be in favour of a nuclear reactor in their back-yard.

I, also, wonder how many of the pro-nuclear brigade on here would wish to have a nuclear reactor in close proximity to their homes.
56

Wardog™,

14/02/2009 10:58:20

56. Bridged

Who has a big energy gap, Scotland or the UK?

The Swedish centre right government has managed to get a reversal in the 12 year Swedish opposition to nuclear by brining onboard their centrist coalition partners.

It's hardly stable however and does not have the public consent that their ban had with a referendum.





57

TWC,

14/02/2009 12:01:50
Who in Scotland listens to Spun Murphy ??

Nobody he should be 2nd to go right after Gordo
58

ochone,

Sauchie, Clacks 14/02/2009 12:02:56
Just a thought, apart from spouting the government line
now and again, what does Jim Murphy actually do as Sect of State for Scotland, anyone know.

Especially as not so long ago this job was considered so difficult that the last incumbant had another job at the same time.

What is really weird is that the budget for Mr Murphy's dept was increased, so what is it being spent on?
59

,

14/02/2009 12:05:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

,

14/02/2009 12:15:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

Edward,

14/02/2009 12:48:39
Maybe Murphy is hoping for a job at EDF Energy, the people that own British Energy and the same people pushing like crazy for new nuclear generation in Scotland.Obviously nothing to do with Brown despite his brother being a director of EDF!
62

Edward,

14/02/2009 13:02:24
#31Charles MN
'No matter how many wind turbines you have if there is no wind there is no power'
Well it doesn’t take a genius to work that one out, but Im sure you will appreciate, if the turbines are positioned in areas that have proven continual wind,it follows thattheu will be generating without problem. Or are you basing your information on English wind farms?
I also notice that your keep referring to the UK national grid for your information, especially when it comes to percentages. Forget the 'National Grid' and concentrate on what is being produced in Scotland!
Yes I did look at the link you posted and it’s a very good source of information, except that its flawed when discussing Scottish Energy generation as it does not show this as a separate entity, again we are talking about energy generation in Scotland NOT the UK as a whole.
As for Tidal generation, you really need to start reading upon what is being developed in the north of Scotland, which has the biggest wave and tidal potential in the whole of Europe! The French or English for that matter cannot come close to what Scotland has.
63

Edward,

14/02/2009 13:04:01
New Labour = Same old corruption
64

Edward,

14/02/2009 13:05:55
The problem with Nuclear fueled power stations is,where to dump the used fuel rods?
I suppose in the New Labour ethos, that will be left to generations to come to sort out, just like the debt that Brown is running up!
65

Eve,

Scotland 14/02/2009 13:15:46
"Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, is expected to criticise the Scottish Government's nuclear energy policy at a conference on Monday."

Should maybe really read as Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, is expected to criticise the Scottish Government's for listening to what the people of Scotland want and don't want at a conference on Monday.

What Conference is this may I ask?
66

LEAL,

14/02/2009 13:28:18
I will resist attempts by the British to put anymore nuclear power stations into Scotland.
67

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 14/02/2009 13:52:32
It seems at best disrespectful for a representative of a different Government to come to our country and brief against the policies of our Government.

If there is any valid role for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland in Westminster, this role should be carried out by a member, and nominee of the ruling party in Holyrood.

Who better to represent Scotland’s interests in Westminster, than a Scottish Ambassador appointed from within the numbers of the elected Scottish Parliament?

Are you listening Mr Calman?
68

The Tin Man,

14/02/2009 14:03:21
#72 bully

"Are you listening Mr Calman?"

If don't play the game, you don't get to score any goals. So, no, Mr Calman is not listening to you.
69

Charles MN,

14/02/2009 14:06:34
#67
"Proven continual wind" that's a new one.

Yesterday afternoon the output from all the windfarms in Britain was essentially zero ( ~10MW). This was a scenario that the windarm proponents have been telling us for years would not happen. Indeed they produced a report from Oxford University ( the Sinden report) proving it wouldn't happen.

For you to put forward the same nonsense the day after a period when it happened staggers belief.

The reason I use British figures rather than Scottish ones is that the British ones exist and are easy to get but if all of Britain isn't producing any windpower all of Scotland isn't.

I have been reading about wave and tidal power for decades now. What I have not read is examples of working, economic solutions to wave power and I know of one major tidal power(Rance).

As you know (I hope) tidal power produces no power for a few hours either side of high and low tide. If Scotland was dependant on wind , wave and tidal power we would have had period yesterday when we would have had no wind power, no wave power ( wind makes waves) and no tidal power.

Energy is too important to Scotlands health and economy to mess around with pie-in-the-sky solutions.
We need solutions that are economic not twice the price as wind and hydro currently are and reliable.
70

ochone,

14/02/2009 14:16:41
*20, just got around to reading this article and I would suggest that everybody should do so.

If they are honest then they will be appalled and say so although only the bitterest of unionists could be surprised, although I don't expect them to admit it.

Makes you wonder just what else, apart from the McCrone report, was going on and still is.
71

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 14/02/2009 14:21:21
#73 Tin Man

If Calman chooses not to listen to the views of the Scottish electorate, then the electorate require to use their ballot box options to make their views heard.

Our options are in our own hands.
72

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 14/02/2009 14:53:12
Allez en Ecosse!
73

Westfield Bairns,

Vote SNP for a better future 14/02/2009 15:18:08
Murphy trying to tell Scots whats better for London again.
Anyone read the TIMES today regarding more LIES AND ANTI-SCOTTISH policies from the 70s regarding Scotlands oil.
Just proves what we already know LABOUR are ANTI-SCOTTISH LYING SCUM
74

Questions,

Glasgow 14/02/2009 15:43:03
It seems that Murphy has nothing better to do with his time but complain about the SNP Government.

What is the story here, whinging MP continues dead sheep attack in hope of getting noticed?

A decision is has been made by the SNP live with Murphy.

Lets build the nuclear stations in England and ship the power to Scotland if needed.

After all Labour keep peddling the lie that Britain is all one country.
75

Colin, Glasgow,

14/02/2009 16:39:22
Wardog #7, as has already been pointed out Sweden is reversing its nuclear phase-out. Last year Italy also announced that it is reversing its nuclear ban and plan to build new nuclear powerstations within 5 years. It is likely that Germany will halt its phase-out after this years election – there is growing concern that they will be unable to fill the gap left by nuclear.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aobvt0IUsReo&refer=germany

More to the point, the reason for using nuclear is to cut CO2. Denmark, Eire, Norway don’t have nuclear, but they consequently have high CO2 emissions per capita comparable to the UK. Demark and Germany have high electricity prices because of their renewables development; and high CO2 emissions because they burn coal. This is madness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Sweden gets about half of its electricity from hydro and the other half from nuclear. Hence their CO2 emissions are 40% lower than any of the countries listed above, and they also have cheap electricity.

It is not difficult to see the relevance of nuclear power given that fossil fuel is dirtier and far more dangerous to public health; and renewables (and carbon capture) are more expensive.


The SNP has consistently misled the electorate regarding nuclear power, purely to secure the support of misinformed voters. It is about time they were called out on it.
76

,

14/02/2009 18:22:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
77

Westfield Bairns,

Vote SNP - SCOTLANDS PARTY 14/02/2009 19:26:22
Unionists don't quite get this issue at all. Whether your for or against Nuclear EDINBURGH will decide as the Scottish people will not stand for anything less
78

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 14/02/2009 22:32:05
Jim Murphy is the epitomy of the Scottish Secretary for Scotland actually being a colonial post.

The only likely loser in this little scenario is England - lest Scotland stops becoming over productive in electricity.

Geez, colonial or what?

Time for some colonial irrigation. The clean out has been required for some time.
79

David MacVicar,

Web 15/02/2009 09:45:07
Scotland in the UK is just a resource pool to be used and abused accordingly. Scotland is there to generate electricity Oil and gas and revenue for the South and votes for British Labour to continue the process. As w reward we are a convenient dump for anything the South doesn't want or unsafe, well away from the main population centres in England.

Another leaked paper show again clearly the motiviations of the UK state to remap Scotland and to prevent Scotland getting the benefit of its own resources.

See the exposé in the Sunday Herald (aka a Newspaper something this rag is not).


TINY http://tinyurl.com/dgfha5

Full http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2489288.0.snp_anger_at_conspiracy_to_keep_oil_wealth_from_an_independent_scotland.php
80

The west awake,

Agyll 15/02/2009 16:12:31
Colin - "The SNP has consistently misled the electorate regarding nuclear power"

- And the UK Govt. has not consistently misled us on the true cost of decommissioning waste?

See SUnday Herald article on increased support for Independence, I agree with previous commenter, whether you are for or against Nukes, it is for us Scots to choose.
And we have made our choice, Unionists must accept that and get on with it.
81

Longdirk Maceth,

NZ 16/02/2009 04:22:30
80 Colin, Glasgow, Pure and utter s h ! t e, can't be bothered to argue, so there!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Nuclear energy

More Nuclear energy >>

More Scottish National Party

More Scottish National Party >>

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.