Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Labour MPs plot to strip Salmond of nuclear veto powers

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: 27 May 2007
ALEX Salmond should be stripped of his powers to block nuclear power stations north of the Border, according to Labour MPs who want Scotland's veto over atomic energy handed back to Westminster.
Leading members of the Scottish party are urging Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling to overrule Salmond, who last week said he would prevent the construction of new nuclear stations north of the Border.

They claim the nation's energy supply and thousands of jobs should not be left at the mercy of an "irresponsible and prejudiced" Scottish National Party administration in Holyrood, which took power with a pledge to make Scotland nuclear-free.

The SNP last night described the bid as a "desperate last throw of the dice" and vowed to prevent any attempt to snatch powers away from them. The Scottish Executive has powers to decide over major planning decisions, but Westminster can opt to take them back if it decides the need is there.

The calls are being led by Scots Labour MPs with close links to Scotland's two nuclear stations at Hunterston and Torness.

Michael Connarty, deputy chairman of the MPs' nuclear energy group, said: "If we have a nuclear power station at the moment and people say they want to keep it, there's no way the prejudice of an SNP administration should prevent it being replaced after it is decommissioned. We should not

allow the planning rules to make us hidebound by the prejudice of the SNP."

He added: "It is not a matter of taking anything away. There should be the same rules for everyone - those rules should be sensible."

Labour MP Anne Moffat, whose East Lothian constituency includes Torness, added: "I don't think it [taking back the powers] should be ruled out and I am convinced it is on Darling's mind. The energy supply and the security of the supply are so fundamental that I don't think we can risk it in the hands of an irresponsible Executive in Scotland under any circumstances."

John Robertson, chairman of the all-party MPs' nuclear energy group,

added: "We have to have a national strategy and Scotland should be part of this. We need to try to get rules that are the same all over the country."

The backlash against the SNP follows the publication of Britain's energy white paper last week which paved the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations across the UK.

Salmond claims that Scotland can keep the lights burning - and export electricity - by promoting renewable energy and expanding new technologies in clean coal.

But industry experts fear that without nuclear, Scotland could end up importing energy. Bill Coley, chief executive of British Energy - Britain's main producer of nuclear energy - said : "I believe that with the aggressive targets that we have established for [being] carbon neutral in the UK, there's no other way [than nuclear]."

An SNP spokesman attacked the move by Labour MPs. "This sounds like a desperate last throw of the dice by Labour's pro-nuclear lobby at Westminster."

A Department of Trade & Industry Spokesman said last night: "We are not planning to reopen this issue."

Page 1 of 1

 
1

www.scottwebb.co.uk..,

26/05/2007 23:54:05

Quote: Labour MPs plot to strip Salmond of nuclear veto powers..........Translation......Puppet Politicians do their big business masters bidding :)

2

James Johnston,

27/05/2007 00:05:35

Big Bad Labour at it again!

3

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 00:06:51

Not only do Labour not want more power for Holyrood - unlike all the other parties and the opinion of the scottish people - they now want to hand powers BACK to Westminster?

Sour grapes and toys being thrown out of prams.

4

,

27/05/2007 00:09:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 657134, Article id was mapped to record!
5

ColinEdin,

27/05/2007 00:12:48

"Michael Connarty, deputy chairman of the MPs' nuclear energy group, said: "If we have a nuclear power station at the moment and people say they want to keep it, there's no way the prejudice of an SNP administration should prevent it being replaced after it is decommissioned. We should not

allow the planning rules to make us hidebound by the prejudice of the SNP." "

How dare he! So is it perfectly alright for Labour to implement its policies, yet when the SNP wish to implement theirs it becomes 'prejudice'.

Michael Connarty, you disgust me.

6

Bill, Dunblane,

27/05/2007 00:13:12

Let them try.

With the majority of MSP's against, any attempt by Britannia to 'waive the rules' will cause an almighty backlash.

We only need a majority of Scottish seats in the UK General Election for independence.

(Their rules, not ours)

7

Bill, Dunblane,

27/05/2007 00:14:49

3 - Gordon

You're slipping. Would have expected more of you.

8

walter,

27/05/2007 00:17:05

I am torn on this one, I am in agreement with the majority of MSPs on nuclear power stations and weapons being in Scotland.
I am also all for preventing Salmond and his lot forging ahead with their aim of leading Scotland to separation from the UK no matter how detrimental that will be for Scots.
At the same time Labour held this this veto when they were in office and could have handed it back to Westminster at any time.
It is only now that they are no longer in power that they want to do so and strip Salmond of it.

9

Auckland Arab,

27/05/2007 00:27:10

Another piece of Schoolboy journalism....

Quote "The backlash against the SNP follows the publication of Britain's energy white paper last week which paved the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations across the UK"

Sorry, what backlash? By the Nu(clear) Labour / New Stalinists? Just keep it coming, you are harding opinion against you and in favour of the SNP day by day. How many people in Scotland are actually in favour of retaining and building new Nuclear Power stations? We certainly don't want them foisted on us against our will.

BTW, Scotsman, please don't quote that half wit Anne Moffat. She has zero credibility after her Hitler jibe last week.

10

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 27/05/2007 00:38:12

The labour party really are a frightening group. They show no regard for democracy

Who in their right mind would back power to a bully that craves power so. Unless of course that individual has a vested interst.

Scotland, you just awakened in time. Our nation will slowly become ours again.

11

Gregor Addison,

Scotland 27/05/2007 00:38:31

Surely the effect of this is to pit MSPs authority against MPs authority? It is an attempt to undermine the authority of Holyrood and turn it into a toy parliament. Obviously, Labour feel that the mandate given them two years ago for Westminster is more important than the mandate given to the SNP two weeks ago.

12

chasb72,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 00:39:25

I think most Labour MPs know better than to try to foist nuclear on Scotland: they know the majority of Scots don't want it, the majority of our MSPs don't want it, and to try to impose it would be seen as enormously anti-democratic and would just create the most almighty anti-Labour backlash. They really would be incredibly stupid to try.

Scotland has a massive untapped renewable resource, and we waste around a third of our energy so a decent energy efficiency strategy must be the first priority. Nuclear power's nothing more than a white elephant, and most politicians know it.

13

,

27/05/2007 00:40:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Douglas Eckhart,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 00:55:17

er..... its already certain that no new nuclear power stations will be built in scotland as they are privately built affairs and will need to be built close to large areas of supply ie SE of England.

Labour are clearly talking out of their erse!

15

Edward,

27/05/2007 01:14:01

Scotland produces around 10 GW electric generation, which doesnt include 2.4 GW nuclear
Isnt this enough?

16

Edward,

27/05/2007 01:18:05

Scotland was to have the first Hydrogen Pwer generation scheme involving carbon capture. But Alistair Darling made sure it didnt happen, say a lot about Labour and there green credentials

17

Ronnie W,

The Far Blue Yonder 27/05/2007 01:31:21

What was it that was going to happen if the Scots had the audacity to vote for the SNP at the last election? You know, just after the plagues of Egypt and just before the arrivel of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse........Oh, yes. It was the spectre of the Scottish Governmnet creating chaos by "picking a fight" with the government in London (as if).

And now we have the unpleasant sight of the Labour pit-bulls baying for blood at the very thought of the Scottish Government not instantly bowing to the wishes of their Darling! Complete with Ann "Hitler" Moffat, that paragon of balanced debating technique. No show without Punch, I suppose. At least we can be thankful that she isn't rabbiting on about Big Pink Caterpillers as some folk do!

For those of us who wish to see an end to nuclear power and the unsafe byproducts we are bequeathing to our grandchildren to the 100th generation, not to mention the problems with leakage of radioactive material into the environment - and I believe that that is the majority of the population of Scotland - there must be no bowing to the bully boy tactics.

Labour's Stalinist tendencies must be nipped in the bud, and they have to realise that having a policy which is different from theirs is neither "prejudice" nor "irresponsible". I think that for a lot of people Westminster "taking powers back" would be the last straw.

18

Haggis The Great,

England, The Nurturing Nation 27/05/2007 01:31:41

Quite right, Its imperative that these powers be relinquished without further delay. National energy policy cannot be dictated too by a tin pot state, puppet governer under the auspice of "First Minister" of Scotland. Honestly give some people a title and they think they have a right to dictate to the people of England what will happen in our backyard. Its about time you heathen were brought back into line.

19

Auckland Arab,

27/05/2007 01:38:04

#23

You mean Haggis the Troll, surely. Rumbled!

20

Porty Nat,

27/05/2007 01:39:11

Leaving the planning issue aside, there's two very good reasons why no electricity generator wants to build new nuclear stations in Scotland:

Firstly, Scotland is capable of meeting all its future energy needs and more without nuclear power. Secondly, since the demand for the energy produced by any new stations will primarily be in the densely populated south of England, it makes more commercial sense to build closer to the market so that less of what is generated gets lost in transmission.

If Scottish Labour MPs are masochistic enough to want to take this power back from Holyrood then let them. As things stand, the laws of physics and the inflated grid connection charges faced by generators in Scotland mean that no new nuclear stations are going to be built here any time soon anyway.

21

Haggis The Great,

England, The Nurturing Nation 27/05/2007 01:40:55

#24
You speak in some kind of code. Pease explain!

22

Calum Crubag,

27/05/2007 01:58:29

Hey, Mr Bush says Scatland must remain nuclear... and Labour complies..

23

Colin P,

27/05/2007 02:12:19

If I understand this correctly, the veto powers were fine in Scottish Executive hands when Labour ran the show, but now.....they want them back? Sounds like the brat in the schoolyard to me.
These Labour numpties mentioning 'prejudice' should be very careful, as they do have the power to put an end to the SNP run parliament. If this is such a serious issue for them, they should bring the government down NOW with a vote of non-confidence and let's go to another election....hehe
Their continued support of the veto in the last parliament as well as their complicity in this one shows us they can teeter on the fence very nicely.

24

Sean K,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 02:12:49

Agree with Bill, Dunblane.

Just let New Labour (old Tories) try this. They will shoot themselves in the foot, showing their right wing allegiances, and suffer a bigger defeat at the next election.
Come on, all you long term Labour supporters, - are you really going to continue to vote for this bunch of charlatans ?

25

Sean K,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 02:16:07

Further comment :

Interesting they pillory and demonise Iran for builing nuclear power stations, and at the same time pillory and demonise Scotland for wanting to stop building them !

If that's not a hypocritical double standard, - what is ?

26

Katty,

Bannockburn 27/05/2007 02:38:12

Hitler Moffet and the ex Causewayhead Connerty can only talk what they are full of
**IT

It is really odd. These people are not going to be
in Westminster after the next election and yet they talk as if they will be re-elected, Why dont they know they are next, going going GONE.

IT IS GOING TO BE A (WIPE OUT) get it! WIPE OUT

27

Name,

27/05/2007 03:03:57

Yeehaaaaaa! Annoy the Nat Rats. :)

28

Ubi,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 03:22:07

Would even Labour really be so stupid as to pick a fight with the SNP on an issue of Scottish autonomy ? Thus providing Salmond with the ammunition for a snap election on a 'who governs Scotland?' ticket. The Scots would get their dander up about it and return the Nats with a whopping mandate.

I don't think so.

29

Brian Hill,

Brian Hill 27/05/2007 03:45:31

Another major tactical error by the Labour Party. Just talking about is losing them votes....actually implementing it would produce an uproar in Scotland leading to a slump in popularity for Labour, at which point Alex will respond with a:

Let's take it to the people.

....and so a strange silence fell upon the Parliament, as if the opposition were struck dumb, and it came to pass that Westminster quietly released the rope around the Planning Powers it was trying to wrest back from Scotland to London. Amen.

30

John S,

27/05/2007 04:02:17

House of Commons debates - Tuesday, 13 December 2005

Anne Moffat (East Lothian, Labour) -Whether he plans to amend the Scotland Act 1998.

Alistair Darling Alistair Darling (Secretary of State, Department for Transport) - There are no plans to revisit the Scotland Act through primary legislation.

Anne Moffat (East Lothian, Labour) - I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I am glad that there are no immediate plans to look at the Scotland Act. However, will he consider revisiting the Scotland Act when we have the genuine and mature energy review, debate and consultation? If the Scottish Parliament tries to hold up the prospect of having nuclear energy as part of future energy provision, would we perhaps need to examine the Act to take the planning laws away from the Scottish Parliament?

Alistair Darling (Secretary of State, Department for Transport).- No, I do not think that that would be necessary or desirable. I repeat that there are no plans to revisit the Scotland Act through primary legislation.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-12-13b.121...

31

Greenheatman,

27/05/2007 04:21:06

Nuclear fission has got to be the most dangerous and stupid way ever devised by Man to heat water to make superheated steam (to run steam turbines)

Why not use renewable energy to heat water instead?

32

Scotsmanic,

27/05/2007 04:43:13

'Irresponsible Executive'?

Scum. Want to kill Salmond's power by the death of a thousand (nuclear power) cuts.

33

Mcsnagpile,

S.E.A 27/05/2007 04:59:03

The problem of Nuclear Power seems to me a lot more complicated than everybody makes out. Would it be possible for an independent Scotland to maintain the high levels of security required protecting such facilities and the supply of fuel rods and waste, or would we be at the mercy of Westminster based RAF strike command and services etc? As a minimum we would require a special highly trained Scottish quick reaction force. All the bickering about who tells whom is just another illusion of power. At this stage Westminster has complete control and will implement what it consider is the UK interest. The concerns of the SNP on this issue are obvious.

34

Brisbane Scot,

27/05/2007 05:06:25

Did anyone notice that wee Jokeee was not quoted in the article and that the Scotsman were not trying to sensationalise this whole story (my arse).

By the way were are AM and his crew of wreckers. Maybe they are busy on other countries forums telling them that they should reapply to join the British Empire. Interesting thing about Alex pondering a release of documents that would embarass the Labour Numpties.

As for miss Moffat sitting on her Tuffet or something else. Wasnt it nice to read her question to her Darling. Did any of you lot think she may have got a big bit of brown on her nose. She is doing a wonderful job down there representing her constituency and country, sure. Oh My Darling Oh My Darling la la la la la.

35

Pilrig,

Livingston 27/05/2007 05:29:02

Interesting to see Keir Hardie House democracy in action.

Next plan will be to get G. Broon to abolish proportional voting and return to first past the post, as the former is detrimental to the health of the Labour Party.

36

Carlo,

Fort William 27/05/2007 06:12:04

Roll on the Westminister election

Its Time.............

37

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 06:15:20

I've never seen Anne Moffat and Dr. Stangelove at the same time. Are they perhaps related? I think we should be told!

The strange thing is many Labour MSPs secretly back the SNPs stance. This is one issue that could rip the former Peoples Party asunder.

This is the REAL story.

38

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 06:19:08

#45 'Strangelove' sorry..

39

Dave M,

27/05/2007 06:28:43

Bwahahaha!

We bombed Iraq and are threatening Iran because they woudn't get rid of their nuclear capabilities.

Now they want to destroy democracy because Scotland doesn't want nuclear power.

Its a funny old game.

Wake up AM2 & David Ex-Pat, we need you.

40

Citylocal Fife,

Citylocal Fife News Room 27/05/2007 07:04:05

I don't know why people are so surprised, we have had this underhand behaviour from 'New Blabber' ever since they came to power.

Let's just hope that in the next UK election, voters continue the trend set by Scotland, and remove them from power.

Yours etc

Angus Whitton

41

Goel,

Scotland 27/05/2007 07:21:42

This is gearing up to be quite a revealing little debate.

It is interesting that - as soon as the elected Scottish government try and do something meaningful that disagrees with the Westminster script, there are calls from Labour MPs to remove that power.

Labour aren't fit to govern anything in Scotland.

G.

42

SEUMAS,

Tain 27/05/2007 07:29:09

Is it any wonder that there are piles of returnable Hootsmons in the newspaper shops, I think they are telling the same tales when, on T.V. they claim four million Scots read the tales every day--Idon't think we have four million numpties in Scotland.

43

Eagle,

Drymen 27/05/2007 07:33:51

The rationale behind the setting up of the Scottish 'Parliament' (it's actually a devolved assembly) was to find a way to destroy the SNP and make it irrelevant.

Labour's policy has been an own goal. Look out for more attempts to regain some of the powers that were 'devolved'...

44

The Maltese Falcon,

Malta 27/05/2007 07:34:06

I quite agree with the Labour MP's about the North Briton executive having powers to veto anything let alone nuclear power, that has been sanctioned by the legitimate government at Westminister. Good God, if they are allowed to have veto powers other counties in the Kingdom like Lancashire and Yorkshire will be wanting the same powers.

45

Kenny A,

27/05/2007 07:36:29

#49 Goel

Summed it up.

Things not going their way and as it is not what they want give everything back to Westminister. Very weak tactic, demonstrating a lack of conviction in the present system which they enjoyed when they were in control.

46

Labour voter,

27/05/2007 07:39:10

(Now SNP voter)
I like when we get an english ignoramus like "Haggis the Great" showing his lack of education (bad grammar) and breeding, and think how lucky we are to have a wonderful education system in Scotland. Alex will not be dicatating to you sonny, it will be the people of Scotland, the creme de la creme.

47

williamx,

Delta, Canada 27/05/2007 07:43:37

I doubt Westminster will revoke the power of the Scottish Prime minister to halt the development of Nuclear Reactors. They will be overjoyed to see an independent Scotland with a staggering trade deficit when it has to pay for imported energy. Wind Power only blows 25% of the time. The rest of the time a conventional power generator using home based coal or nuclear reactor has to make up the slack. If you add the cost of having to provide capital for construction of these standby units to the cost of wind power I would suspect that wind power is basically uneconomic far into the future. Salmond should be concentrating on taking over the power grid just as the Canadian provinces have always done. The next step is to commission coal fired power stations to bridge the gap while the nuclear stations are constructed. The Scottish state should own these stations so that the profits can be used to finance social services. If you think you will get control of oil revenues from the North Sea-dream on. Obstruction by Westminster will ensure that by the time you establish control the oil will be gone. I suspect that will also be the time when you will be "permitted" independence. I am sure Salmond can get financing for the coal stations by conventional means but unless he controls the power grid he may be stymied by foreign private companies bowing to Westminster's will and refusing access to the power grid. So the first step is to acquire a controlling interest in the power grid. Remember Putin has "nationalised" the Russian power system so that the enormous profits on selling Russian energy resources to non Russians can be used to raise the standard of living for the Russian citizens. You will have to do the same to maintain your standard of living if you are independent. Of course you could use peat fires at home but I can assure you from personal experience that a peat fire takes heat from you to keep itself going.

48

donald,

weegieland 27/05/2007 07:43:53

There's nae shame ...

49

doris d,

27/05/2007 07:59:13

Labour is really floundering in Opposition. They have lost power and therefore control and are unable to bully their way along as they have done for the past thirty years in Scotland. Their threats have a hollow ring to them now and they have to revert to Westminster to bale them out.
Anne Moffat? A joke. Prior to her Hitler reference last week her only claim to fame was to be one of the highest expense claiming MPs in Westminster. She has done absolutley NOTHING for her East Lothian constituents and her coat must be on a decidedly shaky nail for the next General Election. She is merely jumping on the bandwagon of others' comments; "Torness-oh that's in my constituency-I'd better be seen to do something about it".

50

Labour voter,

27/05/2007 07:59:46

(Now SNP voter) I do beg your pardon Haggis, my letter should have read "Alex will not be dictating to you sonny, it will be the people of Scotland, the creme de la creme"

51

Conan,

Here 27/05/2007 08:00:46

Clean, safe, efficient nuclear power - the only sensible way ahead.

52

Andra, Dundee,

27/05/2007 08:06:25

So what exactly is this clean coal? We have a problem with too much CO2 going into the atmosphere and Salmond's answer is "clean coal". I think he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Maximum renewables is fine although I don't fancy the effect of the hike in electricity prices. I'd rather have clean nuclear than "clean coal".

53

Chris W,

Argyll 27/05/2007 08:07:34

So tell me, these nuclear power stations that have been operating in Scotland for decades, how many people have they actually killed?
Would that be none?
So this anti-nuclear hysteria is just more anti-technology eco claptrap isn't it? I find it hilarious that greens, long time opponents of, well everything really, now think it is a good idea to destroy Scotlands wilderness areas with bloody wind farms. Better a couple of new nuclear power stations than thrashing the highlands.

54

Derick fae Yell,

Scotland Now do what you're Told you sweaties 27/05/2007 08:08:38

I just LOVE Connarty and Moffat!

According to my electronic SNPometer every word either of them utters increases SNP support by exactly N%. Excellent! Put them on the payroll.

Connarty is a member of the 'All Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy' A pro-nuclear lot to put it mildly. Administration and support to APPGoNE is provided by the Nuclear Industry Association. NIE is funded by British Nuclear Fuels.

"Documents released under Freedom of Information, show that BNFL's Annual subscription to the NIA for the period of 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006, was £200,000. Including VAT the total was £235,000"

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Nuclear_Industry_Ass...


10 Walter - Interesting post. I hope you will reconsider your unionism eventually. Those of us who support Scottish Independence weren't born thinking this way, but eventually came to the conclusion that we need self-government to deal with these issues - nuclear weapons, energy policy , fisheries, housing, etc - properly.

Purely personal note - I was in the Labour Party - bit halfheartely right enough - for 5 years. Have even voted Liberal in the past (oh, the SHAME, THE SHAME!).

Should you choose to move to the outskirts of SNP City, or even go as far as to purchase a shiny new high-tech but non nuclear membership card, there will no longer any need to be 'torn' on issues like Nuclear Power.
And it feels good.

55

Guga II,

Rockall 27/05/2007 08:10:58

Typical of the totalitarian attitudes of the New labour numpties. They want to totally ignore the wishes of the Scottish people in order to keep their masters in Westminster happy.

England has an energy deficit, not Scotland. If they need nuclear power in England, fine, let them build their nuclear power stations in England, preferably all around London; it being the major user of power in England. They should also store all their nuclear waste in England. We do not want it in Scotland.

While they are at it, they can take their nuclear subs, and the associated detritus, and park them in the Thames.

The numpties do not seem to realise that they are in a hole, but they keep digging. They lost the election in Scotland, and they are going to lose the general election too. Their answer seems to be to chuck their dummies in the dirt.

56

Dave M,

27/05/2007 08:18:00

57 williamx

They will be overjoyed to see an independent Scotland with a staggering trade deficit when it has to pay for imported energy.

------------------

I'm sure they will Williamx, I'm sure they will.

Remind me who is paying for imported energy at the moment - Scotland or England?

57

Mikey,

27/05/2007 08:22:24

Hmm, clean, safe nuclear energy, eh? So I suppose you'll be quite happy to take the waste home with you?

It's clean and safe, isn't it? You could store it under the kids' beds.

Eejit!

58

Dave M,

27/05/2007 08:22:33

63 Chris W

To list the number of people killed by nuclear power you first have to admit that you killed them.

The UKAEA blame all cancer deaths on outside factors like radio masts, and groupings of migrant workers; anything but nuclear reactors.

Combined with the mismanagement of nuclear waste over the years and the lies and half truths told in the cover ups (where discovered), nuclear power is a big worry.

59

independance man,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 08:27:25

Labour just cannae get over the fact that they lost and snp won.as for the nuclear plants:GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!!!!:)

60

Cadgers,

Perth 27/05/2007 08:32:33

I wonder if that trio of labour numpties were on the list that exempted themselves from the FIA? And that prat Moffat should really keep her mouth shut, the people of East Lothian must be cringing.

61

Cynicus,

N. Fife 27/05/2007 08:33:07

The outflow of nuclear pollution into the sea comes back to land and is a major cause of the industrial cancer plague, which the cancer establishment pretend doesn't exist.
See -
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id...

62

Derick fae Yell,

Scotland Now do what you're Told you sweaties 27/05/2007 08:35:40

69 Chicken Curry for breakfast, as it happens.

63

W Smith,

Middle East 27/05/2007 08:35:43

Quotes from an excellent article by the Left wing newsaper - The Guardian

"What Sinn Fein and other small parties also failed to grasp in this election was that the key issue remained Ireland's economic performance."

"Since Ahern came to power a decade ago, the republic has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity and unparalleled economic growth".

"Although Ahern has also palyed a key role in bedding down the peace process in Northern Ireland, he and his party understand that it is their stewardship of the economy that counted."

If Alex thinks he can party with the CND marxists and foul up the economy then he had better think again.

Mr Salmond had better read the article.

Shutting-down-the-nuclear-plants-will-make-the wind-turbines-turn-round-faster theory just doesn't wash.

If Alex is prepared to become Scotland's own Bertie Ahern then he may have a big future.

If he screws up the economy or scares away foreign investment I doubt if spending his time prattling on about muslim rights and supporting CND communists will save him.

Politicians can be here to day and gone tomorrow regardless of their beliefs.

Screw up the economy and he'll get a pasting from the public.

I like the last bit of that quote about Fianna Fail's Bertie Ahern "...he and his party understand it is their stewardship of the economy that counted"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2089198,00....

64

Florence,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 08:48:36

Re Bill Coley of British Energy - no vested interest there, then.

65

Rob me blind,

27/05/2007 08:51:53

TOLD YOU SO first its the power industry then its the defence jobs but I am sure Alex will be able to attract even more call centres to Scotland

66

Anne, Glasgow,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 08:54:14

Ann Moffat truly is an inept politician. Can't she see that her remarks are increasing support for the SNP and independence. What she does confirm in my mind is that you don't have to be intelligent, astute or reflective to be elected as an MP - though qualities which Alex Salmond has in abundance. What were the good people of East Lothian thinking of in electing her?

67

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 08:56:48

Anne Moffat is talking sense once again. In all honesty how can we let a bunch of ex-councilors at Holyrood be involved in serious politics? A quarter of Scots it seems want to be governed by a single party dictatorship, where the rest of the World want to be part of Unions, and all its benifits.

68

Jeeemy,

27/05/2007 09:02:01

As it is already policy to put new generation plants closer to the area of need then there is no need for these planning powers to be retained by Westminster.
So we now have the Spectre rising of a Nuclear Power Station being built at the Dome Site.
Therefore it follows that there is no need to up-grade the Beauly to Denny Pylons either then

69

Phil C,

27/05/2007 09:05:13

Get the useless, lying, immoral, incompetent prats out down south too!

70

Dode,

Shetland 27/05/2007 09:05:24

Labour don't like the fact that they got kicked out, do they?

71

morris,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:06:19

78
Its because of people like you that half of Scotlands manufacturing base has gone and half the oil revenues with it.
You seem completely unable to grasp the principle that those parties which were in power must be to blame since it cannot possibly be those which were not.
Im tempted to say Its obvious even to the village idiot, but clearly you are living proof that I am wrong .

72

Brisbane Scot,

27/05/2007 09:07:19

The Premier of Queensland has just returned from California where he was there on a fact finding mission to look at Big Arnies Green Policies. The biggest reason he went there is in California they trat coal to make Clean Coal. Anyway one of the Biproducts of their Coal treatment is it produces lots of Hydrogen Gas. The thing is Arnie (I'll be Back) is using the by product to run his Humvee which has a big engine. What they intend to do is process the gas and start using it at service stations throughout California and then expand the market slowly. Yes this Premier works his knackers of for Queensland.

Now If I am not mistaken Scotland has three to four hundred years worth the coal. So maybe the old Alex has been doing his homework. Whether he has or hasnt the main thing is he is quite willing to share the technology. The hydrogen gas produces water nothing else. Clean Coal is seen as cleaner than gas and one of the most realistic options for the world enviroment.

And guess what it doesnt make you sterile, give kids luekemia, have a life of thousands of years.
The main thing is there are options NOW. You can bet the halfwits in Westminster havent even checked what else is available now.

73

Allen,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 09:08:33

This is Hiltler et al (labour) at it again. Alex Salmond is right here,we should be pushing renew-ables as we have technology and natural resources to bring to fruit to bear, indeed, selling our surplus south of the border.

Miners, think about the possibility of opening old mines and digging for coal again,this becomes reality with new carbon technologies for fossil fuels.

Alex Salmond has made some thorny and pragmatic decisions since he has been in power, especially calling in leading economist to push forwards Scotland economy, instead of being a cog in the wheel of London.

Well done Alex,keep up the good work.

74

oder,

Scotland 27/05/2007 09:10:32

Scotland does not need any new nuclear power stations and the reason for that is quite simply!
we do not have the industry or the economic growth that would justify it, England does however,
there is no reason why you cannot built a nuclear power plant in every town in England, has the Snp opposed building them in English towns?

75

Brisbane Scot,

27/05/2007 09:12:44

Something of interest.

I put a post up here a couple of hours ago with a range of questions for AM2 and his cronies. It was erased just like our mate from Auckland was.

Could it be possible that the old AM2 is actually an employee of the Hootsman. He does come up with a lot of pastes and seems to have a mine of info.

76

oder,

Scotland 27/05/2007 09:14:07

sorry for the typo should be build

77

megz,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 09:18:33

The problem is that scotland exports around 20% of it's energy to england an ireland, and if we stop nuclear and stop exporting to them, then they have a problem hence the reason for foisting it onto us.
I think this is a big mistake by the so called scottish mps proposing this. I think they will feel the 'backlash' at the next polls.

78

Rab McClair,

Top Of The World 27/05/2007 09:21:12

Losing the argument? That's OK.
Just CHANGE the RULES

"Rule Brittania......Britannia waives the Rules"

79

,

27/05/2007 09:25:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

morris,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:30:47

80

Scotland as an independent nation will probably be part of a much bigger Union than the United Kingdom ie The European Union.
You will be voting SNP then I take it.
No? OH dear ,you dont agree with yourself after all.

81

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 09:31:24

Peter, at last you agree with something I say. Labour had, and still has its fair share of councilors posing as MSPs. My point exactly. It`s time to get rid of the Scottish Parliament altogether and return to real politics, run from Westminster.
Who needs a Haggis Republic? Long live East Lothian and Anne.

82

boudica,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 09:35:16

Talking of Wind Power....If we could harness all the Wind from ...the Anti Labour +Anti Nuclear in here we could light up Inverness ......Why is that all the Greenies and SNP supporters in here dont talk abvout shutting down all the Oil Wells ??? Hasnt it been proved that it is Oil that Causes most of the Greenhouses gases ??? Opps but that means they couldnt drive about in their Climate Destroying cars or Fly off on their Hols .....And not too forget the Cash ....Sort of shoots down the Arguement or are they Just Part-time Greenies ........

83

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 09:35:35

#93 What are you on about? If Scotland voted to be Independant tomorrow you would be kicked out of the European Union. Brussels only recognises Westminster, and no doubt , half the EU Ministers haven`t heard of Holyrood, the SNP, or Scotland.

84

morris,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:36:27

80
Oh I nearly forgot Anne Moffat was a Cohse/UNison steward and an ex councillor in Ashford Kent,although she does originally belong to Dunfermline.
What were you saying about" ex cooncillors"?

85

John S,

ex - Prestonpans 27/05/2007 09:37:28

#80 (Watcher) - Anne Moffat was a local Labour Councillor in Ashford, Kent from 1996 to 2000.

Nuff Said !!!

86

Kitty,

Lothian 27/05/2007 09:39:58

This 'carbon neutral' nonsense was created by Margaret Thatcher in her battle to break the power of coal workers unions and to distract us from the proven dangers of the nuclear industry. Her government gave masses of funding to any research that showed that burning coal was bad for the environment and thus a bit of bad science became the modern faith so that the most misguided among us are now positively bleating for nuclear energy. Don't be suckered by the nuclear fall-out of Thatcherite politics. Make Scotland nuclear free.

87

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 09:41:03

#95 If you look at last years MSPs expenses you will find that a certain little Greeny, Eleanor Scott from the Highlands, spent more than double of our taxes than any other MSP. Travel was up there with the best.

88

BigRed,

easter 27/05/2007 09:41:58

Th two mentioned are no mark backbenchers.

Let's see if the UK Govt actually does what the story suggests. My guess is they will do no such thing. Which will make this an irrelevant scaremongering story.

89

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 09:45:05

#98 John, I`m not ex Prestonpans, I`m still here. yes I knew Anne was a councilor, you have to do your homework before the election process. Loads of experience you see.

90

Andra, Dundee,

27/05/2007 09:46:44

#85 Brisbane Scot
Can you explain to me how you get energy out of coal without producing CO2.
Are you trying to sweep the facts under the carpet?
I don't know the figures but does dirty coal produce 200 times more CO2 compared with Nuclear while clean coal produced only x100 compared with Nuclear?

91

morris,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:47:25

93
Im on about fact!

The European ambassador to the United Nations confirmed that all 4 UK nations would retain membership, irrespective of the internal politics of or the retention of the United Kingdom.He reffered of course in response to Scotland becoming independent.
If you think that the SNP has advocated a policy of independence in Europe without first verifying its legitimacy then you really are thick!
This was also known in SNP ranks when Winnie Ewing asked the outgoing president of the EU when she was first elected,and David Martin had made the same claim as you now make. His response was total nonsense!
There is already a precedent involving Denmark and Greenland over membership retained of a trading organisation I believe ,which no doubt others will explain far more accurately than I can. Maybe you should find out the facts before you presume anything because Labour said it was so. They told you that Scotland would be a bankrupt nation and conned you out of billions in oil revenues,or has that not registered in your head yet either?

92

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 09:49:58

#87 Re-AM2 we've always suspected this - the ease at which he can dredge up comments made by posters months ago almost instanantaneously.

#80 Such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

It's wonderful seeing Labour in East Lothian dissolve like a dispirin.

Renewables, and Hydrogen Car engines - you can hear the Nuclear Lobby whining almost as loudly as PRO NUKE Labour!

93

IWright,

27/05/2007 09:57:12

Good old British democracy, you can have your autonomy just as long as you make decisions we approve of. This is Stalinism, literally, in the USSR the constituent republics had their own autonomy but only if they made the right decisions

94

Francis Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 09:59:25

No worries at the next election Labour will get the same fate that the Tories did, pack your bags. Bye Bye

95

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 10:01:14

104. What some Ambassador says, and what is actually written law differs slightly. Have you read the EU constitution by ant chance or do you want me to send you a copy?

96

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 10:03:28

This is nothing to do with nuclear power in Scotland, this is more of Alex Salmond's posturing. He can say that he will not approve any new nuclear power plants as long as there are no planning applications lodged. If and when there is an application Salmond will do as the chairman of The Royal Bank of Scotland tells him. In any case Salmond does not have a mandate in Scotland for anything and he certainly has no mandate to change the power generation policies of the UK.
Until Salmond can get his referendum on Scottish independence, as he promised he would, everything he does and says is a distraction.
Smarmy Alec, what is your next distraction going to be?

97

JimC,

27/05/2007 10:06:32

Another case of the Scotsman stirring it again. Why do you rise to the bait, a few unhappy Labour MP's, a few comments and its a major story, well no it is not, never was, no plans to revisit the Scotland Act. FACT

98

John S,

27/05/2007 10:07:07

#102 (Watcher) I lived in the "Top Pans" for 50 years.

99

boudica,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 10:10:35

So we should go back mining , should we ...my , my short memories.....

In my opinion, while compensation will certainly benefit the miners and their families, it will in no way pay for the suffering and death of these men. Many died at a relatively young age, and others have great problems with breathing and pain, which in retirement spend their time a prisoner in their own homes relying on medication and oxygen therapy.
Some of the industrial diseases have been eradicated with better working conditions, others have occurred, but with new methods of extracting coal becoming available, these in turn have been the cause of more industrial diseases. The use of asbestos has led to fatalities, with many more predicted.

100

Maisie,

27/05/2007 10:11:14

Have a look at this positive article on Scotland http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007...

101

Le Drapeau Noir,

Gorgie Road 27/05/2007 10:13:37

Watcher....Yer talkin p*sh again son.Throw AM2 the spade FFS.

102

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 10:14:21

Stand your ground Mr. Salmond.Don't move or negociate on the Scots Parliament's right's on decision making.....don't stand cap in hand before Westminster.The Power of Decision Making rests with the Scots.It is not GIVEN to us by Westminster,Brussels or anywhere else.....Labour has shown it's true colours....if you retreat on this you'll be tactically withdrawing for the rest of your administration.If you TRULY have the interests of the Scots in your heart then forget about party and politics and stand firm....I am not one of your admirers but I will support you on the right to make decisions affecting Scotland.....decision making power making MUST remain in Scotland....

103

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 10:15:16

Alex Salmond is very irresponsible to completely rule out Nuclear.

Nuclear is safe, clean and very efficient. We've been producing Nuclear energy for generations in Scotland and it has served us very well... we have a brilliant safety record and our Nuclear Waste is stored securely and safely.

"Clean Coal" is a joke, it still emits high amounts of CO2!!! If anything Alex Salmond just opposes everything labour, not the other way around.

What an idiot. Lets hope the SNP loses the next election before they do too much damage.

104

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 10:22:05

MJD # 116

The SNP has clearly peaked electorally. If they cannot win a resounding mandate in Scotland while the incumbent government is so unpopular as a result of Iraq, then they never will.
Smarmy Salmond promised a referendum on Scottish independence, when Alec, when?
Put up or go back south!

105

cabrach loon,

inverness 27/05/2007 10:23:32

Much as I consider nuclear as the way to go and that technology will in time bring the changes needed I think Labour will do a great job antagononising the Scots by their arrogance, roll on independence but think sensibly and open mindedly about technology advances Alex, we need nuclear.

106

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 10:25:19

109.....I reluctantly agree with you...Mr.Salmond will probably do what the chairman of RBS tells him to....

107

,

27/05/2007 10:26:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 658066, Article id was mapped to record!
108

daveserviceman,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 10:27:40

Firstly we should disconnect the inter connectors between england and Ireland and keep that exported power ourselves. coal will never be clean no matter which technology you apply to it also the oil and gas in the north sea is at a low ebb and will be gone in 20 or so years. get rid of the nulear power stations yes lets go back to candles and oil lamps. next foriegn investment in scotland is already planning to pull out ie meryll lynch I know as I am a lynch. others will follow so will the british armed forces thats already in the planning stage so for us left in scotland I suppose its back to fishing and farming

109

Boggle fey the Bog,

27/05/2007 10:31:37

#69 what has blackpudding, a Lancashire invention (invented in Bury, Lancs), got to do with the SNP?

When B Liar was asked about the possible problems that may surface with a non Labour Controlled Scottish Parliament, his answer was, that it was no problem as it (the Scottish Parliament) was only a 'Parrish Council'.

Under the Scotland Act, Scotland has very little in the way of devolved powers.

The flagship power, of the ability to vary the standard rate of income tax by + or - 3% exists only in the minds of the gulliable, as anyone who has read the act will testify, that the final authority is in Westminster viz-a-viz if the English Chancellor says no, then the Scottish Parliament cannot Implement a tax reduction or a tax increase.

On the issue of power nuclear or otherwise, why has the elected representatives of the Scottish people, who supposeddly serve them, at Westminster, not forced the New Labour/Old Tory government to 'equalise' energy costs throughout thier 'Beloved United Kingdom'?

Consumers in England pay about 1/3 less for thier electricty from Scottish Power than people living in Scotland, and this price differential is reflected across all energy suppliers.

Just another example of the Scots subsidising England, yet again.

As for Scottish produced energy, Scotland is a 'net exporter' of energy, and has between 4 and 500 years reserve of the 'Black Stuff' that was for years mined at great cost to the Scottish workers.

Wind Power, I tend to agree is, under the present collection system, a none starter, but if proper turbines, as opposed to 'propellors' are used then this may change. IMHO I feel that the so called 'ecologists' rule out anything that doesn't fit with thier myopic beliefs. Heaven forbid that we use carbon fuels to 'kick start' proper wind turbines as oppossed to the 'big Propellors' that they use at the moment.

Nuclear energy will feature in the energy review, and B Liar has already

110

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 10:31:38

111 Where you now John? 114 You know it makes sense! Shut down Bolyrood and get rid of all them ham Councilors. One party states are for Banana Republics. The last thing this World needs is a Haggis republic with Sir Alex Salmond at its head. I wouldn`t be surprised if Gordon doesn`t dissolve all this Scottish Parliament stuff and get on with real Politics.

111

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 10:33:25

76. W Smith. The article you quote states AS might screw up foreign investment.

I think AS is struggling to keep existing investlent by several companies, local and foreign at Peterhead from backing out due to Westminster and darling.

Does anyone still think NU-clear Labours Darlings delayto Novemebr was just incompetence. No chance. AS is still at least trying to get Darling to chance his stance, castrated as AS is by lack of real power.

Now Labour want to take more power back and/or create road blocks to a democratically elected government. (Which is not allowed be called government: Labours previous FM tried to allow Government instead of 'Executive' but his Labour masters in Westminster wouldnt allow it).

"They claim the nation's energy supply". This is talking about UK as a nation or maybr even England on its own. They are extremely uncomfortable about the SNP plans to upset control over our own resources and Energy.

Personally I hope Labour does try to revoke this power, what a disaster that would be for them and it takes years to site and build a new Nuclear plant, plenty of time to get it stopped. I say this as a supported of limited 4th Generation Nuclear. Not the crap american PWRs they also plan to foist on everyone in the UK.

Finally - building a new nuclear plant at an existing site (Nuclear or Conventional) allows them to sell into the grid at standard rates. Rules are inplace to impose charges to NEW sites if they are remote to the customer.
Since Scotland has one Nuclear plant due to close soon, it has all the existing skills and transmission infrastucture and no selling charges.

112

morris,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 10:34:45

116

A country which already has a generating surplus without her renewables, would be absolutely crazy to entertain nuclear generation, thereby neccesitating burying the waste somewhere for thousands of years, and guaranteeing there will be no movements in the earth .The possibility of no seismic activity is in your head ,but doesnt exist otherwise. What was reckoned to be the UK's saftest sight in the Malwhachar Hills a few years ago,had to be abandoned because even a minor tremor at Carlisle was enough to convince Scientists that to proceed was straight out the loony bin !
On average there is one incident which registers over 3.7 ML per year in the UK.

113

montefiore,

Switzerland 27/05/2007 10:35:19

The sheer incompetence of Labour is quite incomprehensible. As many posts here have pointed out, Labour could (and of course should) have taken the power to prevent new Nuke power stations away while they were in government! Typical of them only to think of it now!

Personally I have nothing against the Scots freezing themselves to death -and destroying their jobs and industries- by refusing nuke power! But it seems almost unbelievably stupid of them. And if they think that England will accept nuke energy and give it to feckless Scots, they must be dreaming. The price will be high! And not merely in money. Maybe the EU will be more generous, but there too there will be a price to pay! Independence ? Will you poor provincials find the price worth paying when the chips are down ?

114

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 10:36:55

#120

Got your crystal ball out have you? Didn't think so. If the SNP cock this up they will never be voted back in. With their stance on Nuclear power, they could be brewing up a lot of problems in the future.

Their alternative to Nuclear as our "base supply" is clean coal. This technology, not 100% proven, and still a CO2 offender, is outrageously expensive, even in comparison to Nuclear.

Why should Alex Salmond rule it out, when the greatest economies in the world i.e. Australia, US, France, Germany, Japan etc etc use Nuclear?

And eh, only about a third of those who actually voted, voted SNP. Are the rest of us stupid? Do we see the SNP as the alternative? The results of the election are clear, the SNP might have won, but they are most definitely not representing the mass majority of the country.

I would also like to point out that George Matheson is the ex-chairman of RBS and actually the ex-vice chairman of RBS is a union supporter.I'm no expert but, if you are suggesting that RBS is a supporter of the SNP I doubt you are correct, with most of their business being generated south of the border.

115

Colin, Glasgow,

27/05/2007 10:38:04

#103 Andra, heaven forbid we quantify any figures on this, otherwise people might become informed.

Ok, here we go. This is the amount of CO2 produced per unit of electricity for different types of production:
Dirty cal: 900g/kWh
"Clean" coal IGCC: 700g/kWh
Clean coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS): 150g/kWh
Wind (Vattenfall Sweden): 10g/kwh
Nuclear (Torness): 5g/kwh
Nuclear (Vattenfall Sweden): 3g/kWh

So clean coal with CCS produces about 30-50 times as much CO2 as nuclear. Note, the nuclear figures include the whole lifecyle including mining etc, whereas the coal emissions as only those emitted at the power station, so they should really be higher.


CCS: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1942709,00.html
Torness (see p7): http://www.british-energy.com/documents/EPD_Exec_Summary.pdf
Vattenfall (see p22): http://www.vattenfall.de/www/vf_com/vf_com/Gemeinsame_Inh...

116

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 10:44:08

#127

Our Nuclear stations produce about 40% of our energy. What happens when they can no longer be used. We cannot rely on the current renewables technology to provide our base supply.

UK Nuclear energy is amongst the safest in the world. And we are always ensuring that the waste is being stored safely. There have been no major incidents in this country involving waste because we are 100% responsible with it.

117

Scots Wha Hae,

Arran 27/05/2007 10:46:04

No. 11-Wisdom, Edinburgh--My sentiments entirely.
Mr Salmond's SNP was the nation'[SCOTLAND's] choice and the party policies were no secret so surely we must allow them to do their best for Scotland now that they have the opportunity.
Too long have we bowed the knee to Westminster and allowed ourselves to be their doormats and dumping grounds. Now we may be able to become 'A Nation Once Again" and take our rightful place in the world.

118

2dogs in D.C.,

under the rainbow 27/05/2007 10:49:27

#113-Maisie-Saw it, and said to myself about damned time someone noticed over here. I even wrote a letter to the editors of the post (which i have had delivered for more years that i care to remember,) way back in April, asking why there was no coverage of the May elections.Was not printed. Off topic, I know, but wanted to comment.

119

W Smith,

Middle East 27/05/2007 10:54:30

#113 Maisie

1) "Scots voted for optimism. They voted for change. They voted for progress."

2) "Polls show that the SNP is the most trusted Party in Scotland".

3) "By a margin of 5 to 1".....

- Sir Sean Connery

"SNP is the most trusted Party in Scotland".

Yeah - with a massive majority of one!

Utter drivel!

He makes it sound like the Tory, Labour and Lib Dems didn't win a seat!

Is this accurate? Or is it just an actors fictional account of the recent elections?

120

cataibh,

Ach yur seern it 27/05/2007 10:54:51

one question and one only against nuclear power is
where and how do is nuclear waste to be stored to ensure no incidents.

121

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 10:55:41

Scots Wha Hae # 132

You talk a lot of sentimental drivel "Mr Salmond's SNP was the nation'[SCOTLAND's] choice" and "Too long have we bowed the knee to Westminster."

Salmond is not the nations choice, he has no mandate, he will not even be able to deliver on his flagship policy of an independence referendum.

122

W Smith,

Middle East 27/05/2007 11:03:58

#126 Dave Mac Vicar
The Guardian article didn't say Alex Salmond would screw up foreign investment. The article was about Bernie Ahern who, in my opinion, has a pretty good legacy as far a politicians go.

My point is that if industry isn't guaranteed reliable power source then, coupled with high taxation that already makes Scotland uncompetitive, you will just get more companies migrating out of Scotland.

Scottish and Southern, based in Perth, may invest in nuclear energy. If this is opposed then they could just move south taking some jobs with them.

This has to be sorted out one way or the other and scrapping nuclear plants BEFORE you have a proper alternative up and running is, in my opinion, just plain daft.

123

Home again,

Fraserurgh 27/05/2007 11:07:13

Regarding nuclear power stations: okay, but what about the waste. If Scotland wants no nuclear stations, this is our choice not to permit them. However, if any other country near us does want nuclear energy, then by all means - BUT DO NOT LOOK NORTH OF THE BORDER TO BURY THE KILLER WASTE. This is what I am most afraid of; we do not want to leave future generations with terrible problems regarding nuclear waste. Some say - 'Oh by that time, there will be new technology invented to deal safely with the waste.' Really? You can guarantee that, can you???

124

Colin, Glasgow,

27/05/2007 11:15:46

#135 cataibh, the favoured solution for long-term disposal of the waste is to use deep geological repositories. This has been known for quite a long time, and the technical consensus on the science is fairly convincing.

The repository is designed so that the maximum risk of individual harm is never higher than 1 in a million per year, for all time. Most of the time the risk is considerably less - below 1 in a trillion in the early centuries. It is designed so that the waste will have decayed long before it can possibly reach the biosphere.

Given that the risk from natural background radiation is about 1 in 10,000 per year (1 in 4000 for hotspots like aberdeen) the 1-in-a-million or less risk from the repository is small enough to be considered safe.

http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/1529%20-%20Long-term%20safety...

125

Andra, Dundee,

27/05/2007 11:15:57

So what is causing most problems:
1) Nuclear Waste
2) Global warming caused by burning coal and oil?

Nuclear seems the best option to me.
We need renewables to replace our polluting coal and oil stations not to replace nuclear.

126

Home again,

Fraserurgh 27/05/2007 11:18:35

To No. 123, Boggle fae the Bog:
I would be very interested in where you get your figures regarding your stated fact that English cnsumers pay about onethird less for their eneergy from Scottish Power than we in Scotland do.
Can you please direct me to the source of your research? Thanks very much, Home Again No.138.

127

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 27/05/2007 11:30:31

It's just not gonna happen. Scots already look at the Scottish parliament as the proper government. any interference like this from the american sorry english government would cause uproar of the first order...

128

Iain Ban,

Berlin 27/05/2007 11:37:00

As Scotland is a supposedly equal member of the United Kingdom, the government should tell the English to stuff their nuclear power stations up Tony Bliar´s bahookie. Labour, the biggest cabal of sick hypocrites ever to have been spawned by this country. I am disgusted by the whole bunch of them. Scots unite and get rid of them an the next - and hopefully last - UK election!

129

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 11:37:53

The proposed nuclear plants in Scotland are we are told to supply power to England, AND just days ago Scots were being told that these plants would be a sourse of "FORIEGN" REVENUE. Now anne moffets party are trying to force Scots to produce power they dont want or need, by telling lies that the lights are going out. The next election is the westminster one, it has to be SNP set Scotland free of these double talking scum

130

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 11:43:02

130. Colin, Glasgow

How long does the H2O coming out of the chimneys of a CCS hydrogen burning coal or natural gas powered station remain dangerously radioactive and have to be prevented from coming into contact with local groundwater?

Hydrogen Energy's Peterhead power station will initially sequester the amount of carbon dioxide produced annually by 400,000 cars and can be up and generating 500MegaWatts, or enough to power the homes of three cities the size of Glasgow, by 2011.
http://www.peterheadhydrogenpower.com/go/doc/1141/119911/

It also posseses the potential to take carbon dioxide from offsite sources to store productively thousands of feet below the seabed of the North Sea.

At the end of its working life the site could be restored to 'nature' within months.

When will the new Torness or Hunterston'C' be ready to generate its first watt of energy?

btw When will eg Hunterston 'A' be finally cleaned up?

How long is that now since 1990?
Completed decommissioning, all being well, expected in 2125 or 135 years, Jeez!!

Mind, that's for only one wee 125Mw Magnox plant!!

In the Forth Basin alone there are 200-300years of coal reserves left abandoned underground.
http://business.scotsman.com/markets.cfm?id=120772006

In the North Sea the Norwegians have identified coal fields under the oil three times greater than the entire recoverable coal reserves previously identified on the planet! which should last quite a wee while longer than 300years.

Call me simple, call me naive, but shouldn't we at least be looking at ways of using this early Christmas present at our door?

Here's an idea, why not use renewable sources of energy(say wave/tide/wind energy out on the North Sea around present oil installations) an

131

Derick fae Yell,

Scotland Now do what you're Told you sweaties 27/05/2007 11:44:56

How long will finite uranium supplies last?
Where are those uranium supplies located?

How long will the wind blow?
How long will the tides flow?
How long will the waves roll?

How many nuclear bombs can be made using the byproducts of renewable energy?
[Clue, it's not an integer].

132

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 11:48:43

Down here the tories are doing a lot of shouting about Scottish MP's voting on English issue's, will the tories in w/minster back this or will they abstain, Scots already know the answer.

133

Miles,

Better away from Glasgow 27/05/2007 11:52:01

Nuclear power is here to stay and Harpers Bazaar and co will just have to live with the reality. I, and I suspect many others, would prefer a 'Torness' close to those who make the most demands for power rather that a Scottish landscape increasingly blighted by subsidized windmills and close to shore tidal alternatives.

134

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 11:56:00

145. David el escocés
Gaelic Studies text book as recommended by Matt McGinn in 'The Two Heided Man Strikes Again' 1974?
'Polish up your Pokema and Brush up your Erse'

135

Neil,

9% Growth 27/05/2007 12:01:40

The answer to Rules question, as he knows perfectly well because he has been told & shown the links repeatedly is 1.3p a unit for nuclear, half the cost of conventional power & 1/4 that of onshore wind.

If the SNP are going to prevent the replacement of the 50% of our electricity we are about to lose are they prepared to accept personal responsibility for the massive blackouts & deaths this will produce?

136

boudica,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 12:02:52

10 Jeff

So anyone that didnt vote SNP are all dafties ??
47 seats SNP ..Independence
79 seats ....Union

And they all live in the Central Belt do they ...It seems Dundee doesnt only export Fruitcake they also have Fruticakes of the Human variety too ...

137

boudica,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 12:04:09

10 Jeff

I think The Queen is still miffed at Tony for telling her to come to London and show her face over Diana`s death .....

138

JR Ewing,

Aberdeen 27/05/2007 12:04:56

#121
Only 20 or so years left of NS oil and gas. Information supplied by Brown and lifted from New Labour party handbook.

If we could use the methane from the utter **** they produce and others swallow alternative fuel would not be a problem. Pity about the greenhouse effect their hot air has similar emissions to NS gas

139

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 12:07:48

It's in the interest of the Power Generators of whatever source for us to consume UNLIMITED power as it will keep the stockholders happy.
Such is the downside of unfettered capitalism where it clashes in this instance with the environment.
It's not the same as selling bread or beer.
A big government would be asking nay DEMANDING that they diversify into safer and more efficient systems.
Its not just the pollution, it's the waste.
We consume much much more than is actually needed. Grants to companies who do, and penalties to those who dont.

140

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 12:09:26

136.....you are right !...Mr. Salmond was not the choice of those members of the Scottish Nation who are ' bought and sold for English gold' or Yankee,Swiss,or anybody else's gold either

141

The Honest Lad,

27/05/2007 12:14:49

Any Planning Law gurues out there?

I heard Torness original planning permission was for two reactors. Obviously the second reactor was never built however as both were covered under the same permission does this mean that as the first reactor was built the second can be constructed under the old planning permission.

This would obviously take it out of the goverments hands?

142

Sedov,

Scotland 27/05/2007 12:22:35

God, if only it weren't for Labour the SNP would be able to do what it wants. Per wee things.

143

NittonLover,

27/05/2007 12:27:23

Labour Arrogance: Part 1298

From Today's Sunday Herald - "Labour MP's argue they dropped only a handful of sets and are still the party with the largest percentage of constituency MP's"

ONLY the Labour party could use the FPTP system to prove they still "won" the election. Never mind that the SNP won all three of the votes that day.

144

Alba gu brath,

Forties Alpha Oil platform 27/05/2007 12:28:00

I see the english still take themselves seriously while the rest of the world know that they are, in the words of Private Frazer, Brave but stupid! The opinion of a shower of idiot's counts for nothin!

145

jennie,

inverness 27/05/2007 12:36:38

if I had ever had the slightest intention of voting for my local Labour MSP, it has now flown out of the window

they, and the party in Westminster, are behaving more and more like a dictatorship. I notice the Scotsman has not led on the "stop and question" powers now being considered in Westminster. Democracy? what democracy?

146

NittonLover,

27/05/2007 12:36:47

#160 Panning does expire at some point. Anything granted for Torness in the 1980 will have run out by now.

There will be NO Nuclear Power plants built in Scotland (no will and no-one willing to put up the cash). It is all a smoke screen for London Labour to try and flex is ever weakening muscles.

147

Colin, Glasgow,

27/05/2007 12:37:58

#160 I believe Torness already has two reactors @ 625MWe each. It's normal for nuclear power stations to have pairs of reactors.

148

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 12:38:10

137. W Smith. You are twisting my words, I dais that the article suggets AS 'might' screw up foreign investment. However it is a FACT that Darling and co have already damaged existing investment plans, so lets focus our attention on those who ARE damaging this country please?

140. Andra, Dundee.
You have a point but this is not an either / or question. We need a varied approach. However the Governments attitude that they can just impose any old nuclear technoloy they want on Scotland, anywhere they want and without support of its electorate is sheer impudence.

Comments saying we should choose Nuclear because Japan does is laughable, they dont have any resources of any kind, they have no choice. France is trying to reduce its dependence on Nuclear Fission. Norway is 99% Hydro because they have a choice NOT to use Nuclear.
Nuclear Fission should be a last resort with a plan to slowly phase them out. read the recommendations in the Endinburgh Scoietys report and you will see that balance is key.

Scotland has by far the largest capacity for renewable energy in Europe. Why arent we European leader here amleady? Mismanagement and lack of investment is the only resonable conclusion.

Showing how low CO2 output of thermal plants compared to Nuclear is also crazy. Its like showing how low radioactive waste is from coal compared to Nuclear! Get a grip people.

Lets say we do build another Nuclear plant in Scotland. Why do these old PWRs appear to be chosen over the newest types and little public info on the pros and cons of the different types? Where are waste storage locations for all of the UKs nuclear plants? I do think some limited Nuclear base load should remain, but if we do build a new plant at the very minimum it should:
Be the latest , safest designs available. Anything else is simply not acceptable and these PWRs do not meet these criteria.

Full costings including decommisioning and lifetime of waste s

149

Brisbane Scot,

27/05/2007 12:42:02

AM2

Now you have me worried. I suppose I should expect a visit from MI5/MI6 now. Wait a minute I could end up with a tag on my ankle and under house arrest like many innocent Muslims who's only crime was to be of middle east origin. They could approach employers and ruin my chance to ever get a job or even a visa to go to the states where they might whisk me of to guantamano bay where I will be held withoyt charge for 5 years.

Now seriously AM2 of the hootsman. Is that another thing you condone. Why would any Scottish person ever want to persecute a race or religion if they were law abiding citizens. The Westminster Government is controlled by the US and Tony Bliars/Gordon Broons neo fascist labour party. Liberty and a sense of fairness left that country years ago.

As for the first statement that was drivel responding to drivel. The second statement would need to be considered when the English get fed up with Right Wing Governments and erosion of their right to free speech. It would be very simple for English people to come here for freedom but any country has a qualifying period for citizenship. You know that now so behave.

150

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 12:46:28

163. NittonLover

Exactly. If you look at the votes cast (that were actually countable) then the SNP had a small majority over Labour at the end. Based on that the balance of Seats between SNP and labout seems fair. Neither the SNP nor Labour merited either lower or higher seats. Labours unwillingness to accept the result will cost them more in the long run if they dont change their attitude.

151

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 12:52:25

Scots need a parliament that is answerable to them alone.....not to Westminster,the City,Brussels,the IMF,the World Bank,the UN,shareholders across the worldor any other power hungry organisation.We need mps who put our needs and our wishes first.Who don't have cosy private deals or arrangements hidden from the Scots electorate and who are not answerable to any other organisation,overt or covert.We will then know that we are getting the best deal possible for us.Party politics and parliamentary procedure are theatre and a red herring.....let's clear the decks and get on with running the country in a proper open manner that the man and woman in the street can understand and relate to

152

Brisbane Scot,

27/05/2007 12:53:21

Couple of Questions for AM2 which if it goes on history he will not respond to.

Do you think the invasion of Iraq was morally correct and was it in the name of helping the poor Iraqis or was it to asset strip the country and control the oil.

Do you think Moffat was correct to compare Alex Salmond with hitler in the Westminster Parliament.

Do you think J Maconnel was a good First Minister who stood up for Scotland as much as he could.

Do you think Darling conived with BP to cancel the new power plant at Peterhead.

Do you believe Cameron will be a better leader than Broon.

Do you think Broon will get back in at the next general election without Scotlands Labour Vote.

Do us a favour AM2 give us your honest answer not the hootsmans or Broons.

153

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 12:56:14

wisdom # 158

Those voting SNP then, are presumably "bought and sold for Salmond's gold."
How long before they realise that they have been paid by Salmond in fools gold.

154

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 12:56:37

169.....I am sure special branch take a keen interest in all of us...and special branch is NOT accountable to Holyrood for it's activities in Scotland......Mr.Salmond please take note

155

Andra, Dundee,

27/05/2007 12:56:40

#168 David MacVicar,
I don't think the Government is trying to impose Nuclear on anybody - they are just saying it should be discussed. By contrast the SNP are saying it should not even be discussed.
In looking at the reasons why we don't have more renewables you forgot to mention that they are more expensive, they require pylons since production is not beside consumptions, and they are not reliable.
Re CO2 output - my concern is that CO2 from fossil fuels is causing much more damage to our planet than the small radioactive waste from Nuclear - tell me how many inches the seas will rise due to Nuclear??
Sorry I don't know enough to discuss types of Nuclear - but I will research when I get time - we do need to be informed.

156

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 12:58:50

#129

It does not take a crystal ball to realise that folk like yourself are stupid enough to vote for a party that is corrupt and has low aspirations for Scotland - that could be primarily the Labour (the liars party), the Libs (the UN democratic party that will not ALLOW Scots to have a referendum on independence) - or the Tories (who have no chance of forming goverment in Scotland ever).

The majority of people in Scotland do not want nuclear power - end of debate.

In a democracy - the party that had as one of it's key election promises - NO NEW NUCLEAR STATIONS in Scotland - then Why should Alex Salmond not rule it out? He is keeping to his party's promise and carrying out the wishes of the majority.

Much in the same way as Labour ruled - without anything like a majority - the SNP will show they can do a much better job than Jack the Joke did - did he actually do anything good apart from follow London's orders?

The Labour party are finished in the whole of the UK - nobody trusts Blair and Brown will suffer the shortest honeymoon in political history. The real winners will be the Tories in England.

Time tired non-thinking/blind voting Labour supporters accepted they are no longer in power and a new leader is in Bute House :-)

p.s. I think you are confused about RBS etc - nae mention of that in my post.

157

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 13:01:29

#162

What happened to you man John who was the supposed socialist saviour gainst Gordon Brown (ha-ha-ha)????

he couldnae even get enough support to stand as a challenger proper ...

in a word - pathetic.

158

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 13:04:00

154

What do people who vote Labour think they are voting for?

Do they still have a strange notion it is socialism and fairness and opportunity?

I'm afraid that died when John Smith did - the lst decent/honest Labour leader.

Vote Labour - get lies/corruption/spin/taxes, etc.etc.

So again I ask ..

What do people who vote Labour think they are voting for?

159

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 13:04:43

Think i'm gonna upset all you nats again, but hey ho. On january 16th 1707 scotland voted itself out of existanceby accepting-1.The english ultimatum,2.Queen Anne herself,3.The money. By the terms of the act of union,england and scotland became ONE country.

160

howyoudoingboy,

we can all read the washington post 27/05/2007 13:04:53

#113

here is a reply from same paper

If the Scots were to decide to secede from the Union, they should quickly pick a new celebrity spokesperson. They should start by picking someone who hasn't abandoned his supposed precious homeland.

Sir Sean Connery, for the record, does not live in Scotland and has not for over fifty years. I doubt he contributes anything to the tax base in Scotland--certainly not as much as he does to the Bahamas. Also, Sir Sean is an actor with no academic merit whatsoever with a history not only of spousal abuse but also one of advocating spousal abuse. Remember, he told Barbara Walters that it was alright to smack a woman "to keep her in line." Finally, if Sir Sean is such a Scottish independent, why did he accept a knighthood from the Queen? Nice spokesman --a wife-beating non-resident hypocrite. The only thing Scottish about Sir Sean is his accent.

I think I'll pick the Windsors instead. At least they reside in Scotland for a few months every year.
5/26/2007 10:40:31 AM

161

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 13:05:29

174...it's unwise to PRESUME anything...no doubt some are bought and sold for Salmond's gold...or the gold promised to him if he gets it right for RBS,HSBC,and all the other multinationals.....he will strive to make Scotland a comfortable and safe place where Capital lords it over Labour as it does now.....in Salmond the Scots are swopping the capitalist Brown and his team for the capitalist Salmond and his team.....but it is a step in the right direction as long as we proceed to finish the job

162

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 13:09:18

#181

Look at your history books and get your facts right

It was not in fact the people of Scotland who did this - it was a collective of self-interested officials in Edinburgh who were bought and sold for English gold that signed this paper and they were stoned and spat at by the people in Edinburgh for doing so.

Labour MPs and MSPs are much the same now as their creepy sell-out so-called Scots were back then!

So your not upsetting any nationalists - in fact you are probably amusing them by clearly showing how little you know about what actually happened! :-)

163

Andra, Dundee,

27/05/2007 13:09:55

#168 David MacVicar.
You agree on a "varied approach". I agree. My order of preference would be:
(1) Renewables (preferable close to area of demand; preferably reasonably priced; preferable reliable i.e. Hydro; tide and wave - with less emphasis on wind).
(2) Nuclear (again near to area of demand, safe, and with lowest possible waste byproduct).
(3) Gas and Clean Coal.
We should set targets - say 33% from each of above. Therefore we need to increase (1); no need to increase (2) but it will need replaced; and gradually decrease (3) since it is causing most pollution.

Some people comment that wind is unreliable - I suppose it is complementary to Hydro - i.e. use the wind when it blows while storing the water until the wind is not blowing.

164

NittonLover,

27/05/2007 13:13:50

#182 -
"Also, Sir Sean is an actor with no academic merit whatsoever with a history not only of spousal abuse but also one of advocating spousal abuse. "

Not true, check your facts you fud.

And for the record you don't have to republican to be a Nationalist, so why shouldn't he get a knighthood.

He donated his entire fee for "Diamonds are Forever" to set up a educational charity.

The current Labour government support tax evaders all the time, they sold government building to a company based in tax havens. the Tories gave to knighthood to a guy who promised to become resident in the UK, but didn't. Labour sold honours.

165

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 13:15:35

181...but not one nation.....Britain is a political state...not a national one....the biggest problem that the Scottish Nation has to deal with is those of us who are more than happy to get down on their knees and sell themselves and their country for a few bob...Westmister is full of them,my own city is full of them....these Scots are not to be trusted by anyone ,Scots or English....there is no reason why Scots and English should be at each other's throats as long as we respect our differences....and deal with the few among us who are always ready to line their own pockets at the expense of the majority

166

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 13:17:08

To all you, who "MAKE LIKE AN OSTRICH" It's fact, scotland and england ARE one nation, can't see the problem mysef.

167

Sedov,

Scotland 27/05/2007 13:17:56

#180 Jeff - you are right to be nervous and defensive ( as your posts usually are. ) The Labour Party is far from dead and buried and in fact has suffered much worse defeats than the latest election one and came back even stronger. The SNP have to show their mettle and so far, although this is early days, they have been as predictable as I warned - and apart from the doing away with bridge tolls ( which I support) - compromise and back tracking on seperatism and probably much more to come in the way of ditching their manifesto. The SNP are as good as dead in the water and once the Labour Party return to its principles, devised over 100 years of struggle which will not be given up lightly by the many Labour supporters in Scotland we will sweep away the NATS. Keep on looking behind you, Jeff we are coming for the SNP.

168

NittonLover,

27/05/2007 13:20:53

#176 - Do your research - you will NEVER recommend Nuclear once you are aware of the facts and the record of the industry. (It will turn your hair white - especially what happened at Dounreay and the infamous waste shaft)

169

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 13:21:04

191. totally agree, live and let live, all for one and all that!

170

Alan Reid,

Nuclear free, New Zealand. 27/05/2007 13:21:17

howyoudoingboy, Sean pays tax to the UK.
And, to decommission the power stations coming to the end of their life span is going to cost the UK tax payer 80 Billion, so much for cheap energy.

171

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 13:24:53

176. Andra, Dundee.

You have a point and I think the SNP have put themselves into a corner with the No to Nuclear as a point blank policy. So you are preaching to the converted on that point.

However dont think that the UK government is any better, they have their own nuclear agenda and most elements appear to have been decided behind closed doors and can push through policy regardless.
If we look at UK labour as an unstoppabe force and the SNP as un immovable object then the results wont be good. The UK government is nevertheless trying to change the rules depending on which the wind is blowing and it simply is not on.

I say let the UK gobernment present their plans. Put this to a debate in the Scottish parliament where all the arguments and more importntly all the details can be seen openly and where the SNP do not have a majority so cannot force the issue. This would be the best for Scottish interest imo with the SNP having a good chance of winning based on a free vote.

Labour dont want debate they want control.
This article is not about Nuclear verses X. Its about Labour control and what they will do to keep it.

172

Alan Reid,

Nuclear free, New Zealand. 27/05/2007 13:26:54

Sedov,'once the Labour Party return to its principles' Did they ever have them in the first place?
I voted for Labour in 97, what they gave me was a war (and when will that end) and more Trident. Sorry mate, they had their chance, and I now want to see Scotland govern it'self and there's nothing wrong with that.

173

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 13:28:50

AM2 it looks like our superior political knowledge has got the SNP backs up. They will thank us one day for saving Scotland from Dictatorship and single party rules. We will fight to save our future from a Haggis state and restore complete power to Westminster.

174

ex-labour,

27/05/2007 13:30:04

Anne Hitler Moffat's comment on energy 'I don't think we can risk it in the hands of an irresponsible Executive in Scotland under any circumstances."

Yes Annie, that's why we voted SNP - you numpty.

175

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 13:36:01

Jeff,

Your at it with you Crystal Ball again, how do you know Labour will never govern again?? Please, divulge the knowledge you have of the future, i eagerly await it.

Also, are you suggesting that 2/3 of the Scottish electorate who did vote are stupid? What a childish comment to make. You are the minority! The SNP can't even push their flagship policy through!!!

And my RBS comment was referring to someone else.

In my opinion the SNP seems to want to promise the Earth but has no way of delivering it. It may have aspirations but it has a deluded sense of reality.

I voted for the party which I thought would suit me best, and the SNP didn't even come close. And who said it was Labour?

Would you not agree that it is irresponsible for AS to conclusively decide that no more Nuclear poer can have the go-ahead in Scotland without actually having an alternative replacement for the 40% base supply which is generated by our current Nuclear Power Stations?

If he really was a good leader, he would do what was best for Scotland, and without an alternative that has the same or less CO2 outputs how can we be sure that he is making the right decision, or is he just being difficult because it is the wishes of the UK govt? If you have a wee loom on the BBC Have Your Say website, I think you'll find that the majority of the top recommended comments are in favour of Nuclear Power, because it is safe, clean and efficient.

176

ex-labour,

27/05/2007 13:36:22

193.Sedov - new labour has no principles. They are a self-seeking bunch of inadequates. They will be condemned to the tory graveyard where they belong. Principled politicians would have seen through and rid themselves of the Bliar years ago, but he did keep them all in well paid jobs for a good many years. Roll on the dole queue for the lot of them.

177

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 13:40:39

stop it david, that's not the same at all,and you know it!

178

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 13:42:57

199.....single party state?...we have a SINGLE SYSTEM STATE...we can have as many parties as we like,all operating and running the same system

179

Royster,

27/05/2007 13:46:54

Come in Mr Salmond, your time is up. Hopefully this will be the first of many powers stripped from Holyrood.

180

Andra, Dundee,

27/05/2007 13:49:54

#197 David MacVicar.
You are right - we have hijacked this article on Labour control to discuss Nuclear power. The subject of the article will attract a lot of discussion - but it is really just smoke an mirrors. There have been some excellent posts here about the underlying issue - Nuclear vs Fossil vs Renewables. Politicians all seem to think we are too thick to study the details i.e. the costs of building, running and decommissioning various types of plant. Instead they want to stick to emotional aspects like the association of Nuclear with weapons on the Clyde; while offering coal as a home grown resource when it is really imported; while ignoring the climate change consequences of fossil fuels; and the current lack of technology for renewables. Again ignoring the massive subsidy that renewables receive via our electricity bills. Sure a big chunk of the cost of Nuclear is the clean-up - but my understanding is that the theory is that Nuclear is so cheap to produce that there is a constant flow of surplus cash during the generation phase that should be saved for decommissioning.

181

Royster,

27/05/2007 13:50:28

This is the best piece of news in ages. I'm going out to celebrate. Soon Holyrood's responsibilities will be whittled down to parking meters and Salmond will be going around in a flourescent jacket and a peaked cap.

182

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 13:54:36

204.....the Irish Republic is not a suitable role model

183

Sanny,

Portugal & Glasgow 27/05/2007 13:54:50

62. Andra, Dundee:
Will people commenting on O2 please do a little research.

The current Atmospheric CO2 levels are close the minimum value they achieved towards the end of the Carboniferous period, the lowest value in earths history – just before we entered the ice age that followed this period.

Simple facts: - CO2 is essential to plant growth, without it, there is no life:

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

If we stopped all man generated CO2, at approximately 0.25 % of the total, it would have negligible effect on the alleged green house effect.

We’re looking in the wrong direction.

184

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 13:55:29

209. whatever!! if you're going to talk to me please speak english or german if you prefer.

185

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 13:57:57

208. lol, here comes a wonderful summer!

186

Sedov,

Scotland 27/05/2007 13:58:20

#198 the leadership of the Labour Party are not the Labour Party and Blair is on his way out and Brown will have to change or he too will be out. the LP belongs to the people who built it -the working person and his trade unions not the blair or Brownites. I live in Scotland and there have been excellent reforms from devolotion Free care (despite the problems) Free bus passes and an excellent bus service in Edinburgh which could be better with trams, a lot more houses built in the last few years, tax credits which have raised incomes for families. I would not choose to live anywhere else , even New Zealand. Of course I do not want reformism I want socialism which is why New Labour failed and why the SNP will also fail. Unlike yourself I choose to stay in Scotland and fight for socialism through the mass party called Labour - any other way is futile and sectarian.

187

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 14:03:31

#199 What ever you are claiming it is on a basis of superiority without proof or foundation.

AM Tway always says he is not EMPLOYED by the Scotsman. Is he a self-employed consultant then?

188

,

27/05/2007 14:05:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 658541, Article id was mapped to record!
189

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:05:13

198....I share your aim of a Socialist Scotland...but I doubt we'll get it from Labour or the SNP....an independent Scotland is a starting point,so more power to your elbow Mr.Salmond...once that is achieved we part company....don't underestimate the opposition to a Socialist Scotland....disinformation,character assasination,agent provocateurs ...and worse

190

riojohnny,

stirling 27/05/2007 14:06:59

Has Eddie Barnes read the article in todays Times,on clean coal? He fails yet again to point out Salmonds knowledge of this industry,or he plainly does not do any decent researh, or he is so biasedc against anything Scottish,that he deliberately suppresses revealing the truth on these important issues.
To have the !st Minister depicted as a caricature of Ebenezer Scrooge is despicable.

Have decided to stop buying this paper any more and i have taken delivery of S.S.S since the 1st edition.

This journalist hasnt lost the plot ,i doubt if he has ever had it!

191

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:10:03

216...tut tut...language old boy ! take your blinkers off...or if your happy with the system leave them on

192

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 14:12:06

215 James, I can tell you for certain that AM2 is not employed with the Scotsman. As a fellow political genious we have a bit of banter over the phone when he calls me at the Scot Exec. I pass on messages to Alex from Gordon on his weekly agenda, that is why I know so much about politics.

193

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:19:34

219...richard...independence is the starting point,however moves to build a Socialist Scotland will stir the wrath of the whole Capitalist World...every means availailable will be used to crush it....look at Cuba....

194

Dave M,

27/05/2007 14:19:42

221 watcher the genious

Any info on Royster today?

He seems to be firing blanks.

195

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:22:25

221...you mean you're a sort of gofer?...a sad one at that

196

Dave M,

27/05/2007 14:23:40

It can't be long now until the Labour party implodes.

Can you imagine how sad everyone will be when that happens?

197

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 14:25:35

Well Davie M, I`ve got a sneaky feeling that most of my Labour associates are out and about and taking advantage of the Edinburgh marathon. A good opportunity to sell the Sunday Post to the SNP supporters outside Bolyrood.

198

Gregorf,

27/05/2007 14:27:36

Presumably all those who agree with this would also approve of Scotland reprocessing the world's nuclear waste. Correct me if I am wrong, but were Scottish destinations not identified 17 out of 20 times as possible locations for this. If you leave this to Westminister we will become the dumping ground of Europe. How many jobs?

If you solely supply the second largest consumer of oil on the planet and still end up with a social recession and are stupid enough to accept it, then we will reprocess the world's waste as the Labour party in Westminster suggested. Stop us making decisions and we will get nearer taking control for ourselves. Let's hope some nutters put the wind up Westminster.

199

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 14:27:43

Yep a sad gofer, but I can`t have wind up you Nationalist morons.

200

Dave M,

27/05/2007 14:32:20

227 Watcher the genious

Is that what the Labour party get up to at weekends?

I suppose times are hard.

I once saw someone buying a Sunday Post.

201

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:33:15

227...just wondered..do Labour run the marathon the same way the normally conduct themselves,on their knees?

202

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 14:34:28

oh hen, you are one sick puppy, how the hell do you look yourself in the mirror, I for one have a better life than you'll ever know, 'cause i'm not a total hied the ball!!!!!!!!!!

203

Wee Babs,

Edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:34:28

What petulant behaviour on the part of Labour. You would not put up with the like in the classroom.

But they will get more of the same when there a UK General Election and they are pushed out into the wilderness again. This behaviour will only act in the SNP's favour in the long run and in the interest of independence. Just wait and see.

204

Dave M,

27/05/2007 14:35:22

231 wisdom

I'm surprised that Gordon Brown allows us to call it the Edinburgh Marathon.

It can't be long before its called the London qualifying marathon.

205

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:35:23

229...sure,you can wind some of them...but not all of us

206

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 14:37:46

Sanny 211 Port Glasgow,
we could have a good debate going on, so wildly inaccurate info is not helpful. I have no idea if CO2 levels dropped during the Carboniferous period, but I can say for absolute certainty that there was no ice age after it. The Carboniferous was followed by the Triassic, which was characterised by millions of years of dry desert conditions [Scotland, England was under the sea] This was followed by the Permian period =more dry desert

207

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:37:57

234...it has been rumoured

208

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 14:39:13

226, oh, for the look on your face when they don't

209

Sedov,

Scotland 27/05/2007 14:39:46

#219 Richard - go and read the communist manifesto, as fresh today as when it was written. - socialism is international or it is nothing, which is why the sectarians of the SSP and Solidarity have been wiped out.- the workers of the world have no state - only themselves - try www.marxist.com. # 226 Dave m - wishful thinking and said many times over the past 100 years by better people than you. Of course the SNP would love to have the field all to themselves but because they have nought but empty promises, they will implode long before the LP. Watch this space.

210

Dave M,

27/05/2007 14:41:56

239 Sedov

Tick tock tick tock

211

bully wee alba,

27/05/2007 14:42:20

214 sedov
Drivel.
Your concept of the Labour Party appears to be rooted in some form of eye watering romanticism. Perhaps based upon 19th Century egalitarianism?

Equating that party with the current incarnation of the neo con labourites is not only intellectually dishonest, it is downright stupid..

The true inheritors of this philosophy are the SNP, following on from
In April 1888, Hardie stood as an independent labour candidate in Mid Lanark. He finished last but he was not deterred and believed he would enjoy more success in the future. At a public meeting in Glasgow on 25 August 1888 the Scottish Labour Party (1888-1893) (not the same party as the modern Scottish Labour Party) was formed, with Hardie becoming the party's first secretary. The party's president was Robert Cunninghame-Graham, the first socialist MP, and later founder of the National Party of Scotland, forerunner to the Scottish National Party.

212

ex-labour,

27/05/2007 14:43:38

Anne Moffat's comment on energy 'I don't think we can risk it in the hands of an irresponsible Executive in Scotland under any circumstances." - That's why we voted SNP, you numpty.

213

Dave M,

27/05/2007 14:47:08

239 Sedov

I'm just away to make a jug of coffee.

Would you care for one?

214

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 14:50:08

the labour party was set up by the working class, for the working class,so get over yourselves.

215

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:50:40

239 socialism is international or it is nothing....very high minded....the SSP and Solidarity were wiped out because they lost the plot....to succeed they must first and foremost address the problems uppermost in SCOTTISH minds...housing,education,pensions,healthcare etc....the majority of the population don't have the time,or the energy to worry about the rights of asylum seekers,illegal immigrants,or the war in Iraq or Afghanistan...putting these in front of the needs of Scots makes these parties irrelevant to most Scots

216

NERIED,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 14:54:13

Who needs nuclear anyway?
Salmond produces enough populist wind to powre an entire continent.
So far, so good, First Minister. But the days of being all things to all Scots are nearly over.
Sooner or later, the SNP will have to upset someone. Perhaps over the Edinburgh tram. Why are they against such an eco-friendly scheme. Has paymaster Souter objected that they might get in the way of his buses?
Opposition to windfarms has got SNP members elected. Just what is he going to replace the nuclear output with?

217

wisdom,

edinburgh 27/05/2007 14:55:12

Labour also lost the plot....by agreeing to work within a system designed by it's opponents and gradually becoming like those it had opposed in the first place

218

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 14:56:15

Welcome back Hen Broon!

As laughable as ever!
Didn't expect anything constructive from you to add to the forum about the topic in hand.

Ah well. You continue to EAT SNP, DRINK SNP, DREAM SNP and we'll have a jolly wee laugh.

219

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 15:01:50

#221 Knowing ABOUT politics, is hardly in the same league as KNOWING Politics and being able to implement policy.

Labours divine right to govern, is at last being challenged.

AM2 is a research genious granted, but at least he has that, you have yet to prove that.

So far, that has yet to emerge from your postings.

Picked any winners at Musselburgh recently?
How is John Lindsay these days?

220

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:04:28

245 NERIED

Trams would be on the same road network as cars wouldn't they?

Surely they need a separate track to be successful?

Coffee anyone? Last chance, Sedov.

221

jayne ross,

midlothian 27/05/2007 15:06:45

do we need any more convincing that we need to be in charge of our own affairs. scottish nuclear provides englands energy requirements. we have no industry to speak of thanks to the labour party.

222

Alex, Young Laird de Drumchapel,

Madrid 27/05/2007 15:06:56

During the election when Labour was throwing promises around, Gordon Brown talked about how the transfer of more powers to the Scottish parliament had become inevitable. Here they are now talking about taking powers away. Does this mean they have changed their mind? Are they going to go into the next Holyrood election promising less powers? Are they going to go into that election campaign promising no change? What is the position? They know that they are on the ropes now and need policies to win back Holyrood, especially given that Downing Street will be Tory. So, are they going to develop a policy of increased powers for Holyrood? They'll have to really. However, is anyone going to believe that they are acting in the interests of Scolland when during this SNP government they threatened to withdraw powers.

Labour and their unionist pals in the media are all over the place. They don't have a clue how to cope with the situation they find themselves in. Should the Scotsman fabricate a pro-nuclear story? Instinct says yes but will that help the SNP in the long run?

Lying is so endemic in the unionist establishment that they don't know what reality is. Their best shot wasn't good enough at this election and things are about to get a whole lot worse for them. What you going to do when the government advertising spend dries up? You going to court the readers? Bit late, you've alienated too many.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

223

The Man Who Knows,

Perth 27/05/2007 15:13:58

Have you noticed how fat Alex Salmond's face has become in the space of 3 weeks? Pigs, trough, snout.

224

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 15:14:28

251. keep on the tablets, they might work some day,scotland can't power itself let alone england!

225

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:15:04

252 Alex

You have summed it up pretty well.

Over the years 'journalists' have been as culpable as anyone for covering up stories like the Howat or McCrone reports.

Now its coming out into the open and the electorate are seeing are seeing how they have been shafted, these self same journalists don't know if its New Year or New Deer.

They just can't decide whether to praise the SNP or slate them.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Luckily for them they have people like AM2 and Watcher who will support them no matter what but I think that once the tide starts lapping at their ankles then it might be a different story and we'll hear some yelping.

226

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:16:14

254 maxi

Scotland exports its surplus to England, luckily for you.

227

The Man Who Knows,

Perth 27/05/2007 15:16:25

Tell me - why are all you SNP "supporters" rooting for a Tory victory at the next General Election (June 2008)? I thought that you would have learned your lesson in 1979. You gave us Thatcher.

228

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 15:26:57

Right I'm getting bored.

AM2 and Watcher - please stop proclaiming you're saving Scotland from themselves. It's condescending.

Watcher and AM2 please stop going on about your "genious" [sic]. If you can't spell genius then what kind of genius are you?

Royster - your opinion that powers should be taken OFF Holyrood fly in the face of public opinion. Granted, you're entitled to your opinion but if Labour try this then not only will they not win the next Holyrood election, then they'll face a meltdown at the next General Election as they'll require the help of Labour voters in Scotland to sneak back in again.

Even the Tories are now coming round to the idea that Holyrood can be more successful with more power. Admire your persistance and all that, and you don't change your tune when you lose - but your idea has little support with the Scottish public at large.

229

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 15:27:27

Dave M & 254 Maxie,
and N / Ireland

230

The Man Who Knows,

Perth 27/05/2007 15:27:52

255

Dave, you are confused. McCrone wasn't covered up, it was always in the open. Big increases for teachers before they delivered. The money should have been paid on results, not false promises.

231

Neil,

9% Growth 27/05/2007 15:29:45

256 Ireland has no nuclear reactors. They import 1/3rd of the 17% of scotland's power that we export. They have also invested heavily in windmills which, to the amazement of some, aren't working as well as advertised. Like virtually all Europe except Russia, Finland & Sweden they face problems.

232

The Man Who Knows,

Perth 27/05/2007 15:30:31

259

JT, if you can correct people's spelling, so can I. It's "persistence" not "persistance".

233

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 15:31:24

258 Man who knows [nothing],
true after the winter of discontent, the SNP and 12,000,000 trade unionists did not vote for ann moffets party

234

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 15:32:16

258

Why would it make any difference these days? NuLab and the Tories are both centre-right parties now.

The only difference being the Tories are warming to the idea of more power to Holyrood and trying to answer the West Lothian question, while NuLab are having a hissy fit becasue the SNP have formed the Executive and want to remove powers. Also, the Labour Party have no intention of answering the West Lothian question at all and want to leave things in the mess they are.

Having said that, I'm not rooting for a Tory victory and more than a NuLab victory - I'm not a big fan of either.

235

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 15:34:05

264

Have I ever claimed to be a "Genious"?

No. I know my spelling's poor and hence I don't talk up my intellectual credentials while making elementary mistakes.

I'm just discrediting Watcher's idea that he is, in fact, a genius.

236

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 15:34:49

257. Dave M .

Dont waste your 'energy' replying to Maxi or Lia or whatever she calls herself. She says Lia is her mum but has exactly the same mannerisms when posting. I am not the only one to notice this.

Lia/Maxi is the one who stated that most Scots are racists and didnt withdraw it. Lia also stated Scotland has no right to become independent but keep the queen as Monarch. I pointed out that Canada etc has exactly that structure and Lia responded that Canada is not physically attahed to England as if that makes a difference.

There is no point in arguing with somone who is anti Scottish on a Scottish web forum it just keeps them coming back. Best ignored.

237

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:34:53

261 TMWK

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3319...

Not as confused as you might like to think.

Have a read.

238

Engels74,

27/05/2007 15:37:31

I wonder if all these Labour MP ever remember being members of CND or even a member of a socialist party!! Disgrace to their Roots!

239

Davie from Irvine,

27/05/2007 15:40:45

258 The winter of discontent brought down Jim Callaghan and the labour government which led to the victory of the dreaded Thatcher.

240

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:42:37

260 Pehman

I'd forgotten that. I've actually inspected the Moyle power cables between Scotland and Northern Ireland!

241

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:43:49

272 AM2

Left of centre, my arse!

242

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 15:45:12

272 am,
If the ann moffet party are left of centre? why are the members trying to get the leadership back from their present position to be a left of centre party "again"

243

First Minister,

Bute House 27/05/2007 15:47:05

AM2 "I admire your indefatigability to your beliefs, however misguided i think you are. I am actually Ex-English, now supporting fully the SNP, not because i am a rabid Nat, i believe, as do the U.N, that for every country to have good relations with it's neighbours, that Scotland should be allowed Self - Determination. It has been officially recognised that Scotland would be the 7th richest country in the world. Offering the hand of friendship rather than the FIST of war, Britain is the 2nd most hated country in the world.
Scottish Not British.

244

Colin, Glasgow,

27/05/2007 15:48:17

#256, as Neil said, Ireland doesn't have any nuclear power stations, though they do import nuclear electricity. They produce a lot of their electricity from peat which is even worse than coal for CO2 emissions, if you care about such things. Eire has amongst the highest CO2 emissions per capita in Europe.

245

Davie from Irvine,

27/05/2007 15:48:38

272 AM2 I have a pal who is a Tory activist and self confessed exreme right wing, and in his view New labour policies are not socialist. My own view is much of the Tory and new labour policies are very similar.

246

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 15:54:02

#282 and Jimmy Choo Too!

ESB GENERATION STATIONS LISTED WITH CAPACITY (IN MEGAWATTS) AND FUEL TYPE

Station Capacity
(in Megawatts) Fuel Type
West Offaly Power 150 Peat
Lough Ree Power 100 Peat
Turlough Hill 292 Hydro (Pump Storage)
Liffey 38 Hydro
Ardnacrusha 86 Hydro
Erne 65 Hydro
Clady 4 hydro
Lee 27 Hydro
Moneypoint 915 Coal
Tarbert 620 Oil
Great Island 240 Oil
Aghada 525 Gas
Poolbeg 1,020 Oil and Gas
North Wall 266 Oil and Gas
Marina 115 Gas

As energy 'experts' like Brian Wilson know they have a much more nimble and flexible government in Ireland as well as a more favourable approach to planing permission for renewables. Hence they are stealing a march on Scotland yet again.

There is also the N/S Interconnector - which is hot air generated from AM2's gub! :)

247

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:55:37

284 AM2

Social democrats?

You MUST be joking.

It certainly doesn't matter what they call themselves, they are right wing, capitalist and certainly not democratic.

248

Dave M,

27/05/2007 15:58:48

261 TMWK

Have you read the link yet?

249

Fenland Farmer,

East Anglia 27/05/2007 15:59:45

looks like the Scots who run the Union are having a in house tribe punch up with the Scots who run Scotland.
Parts of England have been infested with wind farms as has Wales. Horrid things but earn about 10k per year each for the landowner!
England should house the NP stations and let the wind blow elsewhere.
As for the sub base, in the 60 & 70s we had the V Bomber force one side of us and our American allies bombers on the other! So let the subs go South.
Wonder if Mr Brown will allow us to have England back?

250

watcher,

East Lothian 27/05/2007 15:59:51

The issue is that two jobs Salmond and his love child will do what Westminster tell them. SNP are a party more worthy of Disney Land. Gordon will not let Bolyrood turn this Country into a economic desert. Nuclear has been the safest most invironmental fuel known to man. It has been said that Gordon is going to give Alex an office next to his in Westminster, to so that he can give his orders direct.

251

Tax haven,

27/05/2007 16:01:46

First Minister #280

Have you got a link to the report that states Scotland should be the 7th richest country in the world? Would be very interested to read it.

252

,

27/05/2007 16:01:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 658775, Article id was mapped to record!
253

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

ALBA WITH FRIGHTENED UNIONISTS 27/05/2007 16:02:59

The Lodge has been busy and had Hen Broons moniker moderated. Don't like the message shoot the messenger. Well done AM2 you certainly are a good little soldier of the state. Proves what everyone knows, your little unit working overtime in the Scotsman dungeon.

Your efforts are all in vain, and just make us even stronger.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Huge Support for Independence (Herald)
In the context of the recently oft-repeated assertion that a majority of the people of Scotland voted for Unionist parties on May 3, the letter from Danus Skene (May 14) is highly significant.

To be a LibDem supporter, a Tory or a Labour supporter and to support Scottish independence is perfectly compatible and, as we were told often enough, the election we just experienced was not about independence but mainly about a wide range of issues, many of them to do with the day-to-day governance of Scotland within the limitations of our parliament's devolved status.

In common with thousands of political activists across Scotland, I was recently involved in a huge canvassing effort and I have the details of the about 2000 returns on a survey of about 22,000 voters across Argyll and Bute.

Of those returning the survey who identified themselves as intending to vote LibDem around 60% ticked "yes" for independence, were we to have such a referendum; for Labour supporters it was over 75% and even 28% of Tories expressed support for Scotland going it alone.

The other highly significant feature of the returns was that the SNP amassed more second preferences than the others put together - an indication of intent that was fully realised when one looks at the list voting patterns across the country at the election. To a considerable extent the survey return was a self-selecting one and it is likely that those more inclined to independence were more inclined to return it; nevertheless, it clearly demonstrated the possibility of a huge independence

254

Derick fae Yell,

Scotland full of nuclear bombs 27/05/2007 16:03:38

204. Jimmy Choo / 2:42pm 27 May 2007 76 W.Smith

Does the Republic of Ireland have any nuclear power stations?

NO they don't. This is one reason why they are almost two times richer than we are

255

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 16:03:42

Interesting Sunday Times artice:
"Nuclear clean-up fund planned"

Excerpts:
"set up in 2005 to deal with the legacy of Britain’s civil nuclear power programme, is expected to spend as much as £65 billion over several decades."

"DTI officials plan to protect taxpayers from having to pay for the clean-up of new plants by creating an industry-funded scheme to pay for future liabilities."
"OPERATORS of Britain’s proposed new nuclear power plants will be required to make regular payments into a fund that will meet FUTURE waste-treatment and decommissioning costs."

Meaning tax payers foot current bills.
Also showing this cost is probably not in current pricing.
Also shows the Scottish taxpayer pays a disproportionally higher amount, however this is balanced by English taxpayers paying more for the transmission lines.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_s...

256

Dave M,

27/05/2007 16:06:28

290 AM2

ALEX Salmond should be stripped of his powers to block nuclear power stations north of the Border, according to Labour MPs who want Scotland's veto over atomic energy handed back to Westminster.

-----

Democratic you say?

How about imposing 'democracy' on Iraq by means of 'Shock and Awe?'

How about the highly developed lobbying system?

Cash for honours anyone?

Block voting?

I don't suppose I'm surprised that you think privatising hospitals, schools, prisons, armies, coastguards and air traffic control is socialist.

I'm not sure where to stop except to say that nothing the New Labour party does upsets you.

They do things the Tories were frightened to do.

257

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 16:07:16

274 am, your good at quoting out of context, and cutting quote's to suit your needs, but as a resident in south east England, and bearing in mind it's only 3 weeks after the local elections down here, the tories are already trying to stir up English nationism with cries of NO SCOTS having anything to do with Englands affairs. as a thinking person yourself, one who obviously reads the party manifesto's and then decides how to vote, how will you vote? for the party that best supports your viewpoint or the one that least suits it. I may vote tory, [though my family will disown me], but I certianly will be campaigning for them.
England imports water-gas-oil-food- it is selfsufficent in nothing, so when the oppertunity is there I WILL TAKE IT -YES.

258

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

ALBA WITH FRIGHTENED UNIONISTS 27/05/2007 16:10:15

Be warned Independence supporters the long withered arm of Unionist censorship is alive and well on the Scotsman forums. The fascist state is not yet dead but dying. So if you tell the truth you are liable to be moderated like Hen Broon and several others. Speaks volumes for the strength of the Unionist case, and drives even more votes to the SNP.
Of course this lovely lady of the Union bosts the numbers of the SNP every time she speaks, keep it coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGdybkDZNH8

259

maxi,

tees valley 27/05/2007 16:12:01

293, pull the other one, oh,hen go lay down,I fear a unionist attack coming on!!!!!!!!!

260

Dave M,

27/05/2007 16:15:07
261

Robert Burns,

Ocean Beach, San Diego, California, U.S.A. 27/05/2007 16:16:53

Now, children.............. What's all this left-right rubbage? Is it anymore "left" than "right" to preserve life as we know it from nuclear contamination? Is it any more "right" than "left" to push the old nuclear industry at the expense of alternative energy entrepreneurship? Are the political shennanigans at issue here "left", "right", or simply antidemocratic gamesmanship? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island show that antiquated (i.e., all of the current ilk) technology is an equal-opportunity abuser with no preference for the "right" or "left"...just the wrong. Nuclear technology needs to evolve into responsible technology. Scotland needs to kick its addiction to old nukes, being a "kingdom", and being an inferior partner in an abusive relationship. What power you'd have to see yourselves as others (like us) see you.

262

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 16:18:35

284 AM ,
you just can't stop yourself can you, twisting and turning, ann moffets party may have more of that faction but the leadership is tory and its not going to change under g brown.

263

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 16:20:47

Ah yes, that Left Wing/Centre Left Party.

The party of PFI and Privatisation - the very policies at the heart of the Centre-Left movement. Not.

Labour have long since forgotten they're the party of the people and decided to side with middle England and Big Business. They dropped a Social Democratic ideology in the pursuit of power. For them power is now a means to an end - it's thier purpose.

I won't discredit everything they've done, however. The smoking ban, tax credits etc are all things I applaud - but in the grand scheme of things they're not on the left.

264

Dave M,

27/05/2007 16:23:06

289 Joe Broon

Excellent!

She certainly seems very pleased with herself.

265

Dave M,

27/05/2007 16:25:46

304 JT

The smoking ban was an SNP bill.

http://www.snp.org/press-releases/2004/news.2308/

266

James,

Dundee 27/05/2007 16:26:49

#297 Pehman Eh almost choked on meh peh there!
Surely not voting Tory?
As a means to an end as a one off tactical?
After all if AM2 can do it in Scotland, then why not do this yourself in England and return the favour!
You are forgiven...sort of...

That rather nice David Cameron has a family home on Jura after all, what!

267

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 16:28:46

307

Which is great to hear - and I applaud Labour for taking it on and implementing it regardless of who proposed it. The kind of consensual and constructive politics I like to see.

I only hope Westminster Labour are also capable.

268

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 16:29:07

63. Chris W, Argyll

You obviously think nothing or are ignorant of Windscale.
Plutonium, ingested by workers at Dounrae, today it is still being washed up on Scottish beaches, and that imfamous nuclear waste pit explosion there.

Three Mile Island, Brownsville and the daddy of them all Chernobyl.

Chernobly in case you had forgotten is the reason no nuclear power stations have been built since.
http://www.infoukes.com/history/chornobyl/gregorovich/

That came within minutes of rendering not just Ukraine and Belarus uninhabitable, but the whole of mainland Europe in a thermo-nuclear explosion covering hundreds of Km2.

It was only just averted by the heroic suicide of Soviet frogmen who dived into the radioactive cooling water under the reactor core to open drain valves preventing the core meltdown reaching the pool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Immediate...

Naturally Chernobyl could never happen again as the odds against it happening the first time were quoted as one in 10,000 years.

I dare say in another 50 to 100 years we will get to know the actual mortality from nuclear related cancers.

I will simply suggest that research be carried out into the one I know, the number of cancer deaths surrounding the National Engineering Laboratory experimental nuclear reactor in East Kilbride.

In one street in the Murray across the Murray road from the NEL my ex pointed out that three members of her next door neighbour's family had suddenly died within a year from cancer.

First the father suddenly, the mother from breast cancer, the first daugter had a mastectomy and then her sister died suddenly between six monthly checks.

Enough to perhaps be statistically significant?

She pointed out

269

,

27/05/2007 16:43:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 658861, Article id was mapped to record!
270

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

ALBA WITH FRIGHTENED UNIONISTS 27/05/2007 16:44:40

#309. danielrobber. Did you have a question, you are not making much sense.

271

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 16:46:13

#193

Sedov - as someone who spends all his time in South Africa and Hampshire and in fact anywhere but Scotland you seem to be a NON authority on Scottish matters.

Also you seem to be projecting your own state of being on others - i.e. nervous and defensive ( as your posts usually are. )

What must be really difficult for you is that you spent so much time in the past 6 months talking about Left-winger John McDonnell and how he would save Labour from the evil clutches of Blair/Brown legacy - but now that Mr McDonnell and his supporters have been humiliated you are now it seems backing the current Labour leader and soon to be incumbent Labour leader and new failure Gordon (I'm not Scottish - I'm English/British) Brown.

The SNP are doing what millions of Scots want and have craved for so long - they know that Unionist drones like you will bleat on and on about how awful the consequences will be with an SNP government - but in the end it will be a vast improvement and come the next election people's lives will have improved and far from a disaster for all they will welcome another SNP government and the chance to vote for Independence.

I can't imagine YOU personally will be coming for anyone - being a few thousand miles away in South Africa. Perhaps you should stick to the Hampshire Chronicle and local politics rather than commenting on Scotland's affairs?!!

272

Dave M,

27/05/2007 16:47:35

Success!

AM2 disappears up his own Ronson!

273

Sedov,

scotland 27/05/2007 16:51:55

#315 Jeff - what are you prattling on about? Have you been on the Dundee jam? I've never been to South Africa or Hampshire in my life. You really have lost it now. No wonder I normally dont bother answering your dull and boring spin on life from a nationalists point of view when you cant even get your facts right. For the last time - I live in Scotland.

274

Tax haven,

27/05/2007 16:56:13

Dave M #300

Thanks for the link it was interesting. In the article it states that "there are a huge number of assumptions" Without actually saying what they were. So does anyone know if they are realistic assumptions or are they far fetched?

I cannot see how to read an article like that as if you read an article titled "England could win next world cup" which used the lines assuming the Brazilians and Argentinians don't turn up and all the other European teams caught food poisoning.

I've searched around to see if I can find the actual report as oppose to a brief synopsis and can't find it which is unfortunate as the bbc article doesn't really go into any detail.

275

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 17:01:54

#317

Oh have I confused you with some other Unionist fud?

Ill check back on your previous posts re: SA and Stockbridge - so you never lived/live in Stockbridge then??

See your keeping quiet on Mr McDonnell - and I think someone else summed your dreamy vision of a Labour utopia up quite well in a previous post.

Fact is that in England especially the electorate are gagging to kick out Labour for their continual lying/taxing/immigration/pensions/lack job security - list goes on and on.

Labour have not a chance of winning the next election and Gordon Brown knows it - tht is why he will have to pander to the more right wing elements of the media re: immigration policies (housing for Brits seems to be a start eh!!) - revamped stop and search.??? Wonder what desperate measures he will think of next.

You dont like the SNP big deal. At least the leader and it's MPs / MSPs are not conditioned to lie and spin 24/7.

276

Dominic,

Scottish Borders 27/05/2007 17:06:09

In Scotland there is not a viable reason to renew Nuclear Power Stations. Labour lost the Scottish Elections & people voted for the parties that were against such plants so MPs who feel this way should remember that the next General Election they could be out for not listening to the Scottish People's wishes whom they are supposed to represent.

277

J.D.Wilson,

Glenrothes 27/05/2007 17:06:38

If the Scottish Parliament says 'no' to nuclear, then wet Westminster ministers won't dare superceed the decision.

Gordon will want to avoid conflict between Westminster and Holyrood at all costs.

The Scottish Parliament is, after all, Scotland's parliament.

Scottish Labour lost this year's Scottish elections, and it is my opinion that "British" Labour will lose the next "British" election.

David Cameron's Conservatives will rule England, regardless of the Scottish vote, and that is seriously bad news for Scotland.

As to the Scottish vote in the "British" election, I think that the SNP representation will at least double.

I bet John MacDougall loses the Glenrothes constituency!

Frankly, when Scotland, with selfdetermination, says 'no' to nuclear, then English ministers aren't forcing us to conceed otherwise.

278

Dave M,

27/05/2007 17:09:09

319 Tax Haven

http://www.davidhumeinstitute.com/DHI%20Website/publicati...

This is all that I can find at the moment but it is really only a pointer, nothing else.

279

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 17:09:33

323

It seems to be Gordon Brown and Labours big idea to stir up trouble. They have nothing to gain from it, however, so they're playing a risky game.

280

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 17:17:46

Labour have done their best to prevent the SNP from rightfully taking power in Scotland.

They will probably use every strategic dirty underhanded tactic between now and 2011.

But I agree with 325 - the electorate will turn on Labour even more than in 2007 if Labour are seen to still be as deceitful and underhanded as they have been for the past decade.

It will be a very interesting next 4 yrs!

281

,

27/05/2007 17:24:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 658919, Article id was mapped to record!
282

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

27/05/2007 17:31:50

#316. dave. Typical of the breed rather than face up to questions or the truth, being in denial is very painfull I am told. Well if you look at Andy Kerrs face behind Wee Wendy as she did her wee hairy caterpillar Scottish Cringe, it's on You Tube what a gem that woman is. My sides are still sore. Kerr looked like he had just done a follow through in his strides.
#318 Danierobber. As an amateur mechanical engineer, I completly agree. My project right now is a Type 2 Devon.

283

megz,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 17:33:16

Got to ask but is the numerous references to holyrood being bolyrood a racist remark about the newly elected Asian MSP?

284

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

27/05/2007 17:33:48

Could we be looking at an election re run for Scotland very soon?
Bring it on.
IT IS TIME.

285

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 17:37:03

326. JEFF, DUNDEE.

I am sure Labour are just waiting for the correct time to call for a vote of no confidence. Just wait until SNP gets defaeated over a major issue eg. LIT.

I give it about a year or just after the General election if SNP were to do worse than expected.

286

Tax haven,

27/05/2007 17:38:57

Dave M #324

Thanks again I did find that bit on the David Hume institute website but couldn't find the full article either.

287

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 17:48:08

#331

AND HOW WILL THEY WIN THAT?

if it happens!!

288

Dave M,

27/05/2007 17:51:25

332 AM2

Speak up AM2, there's a bit of an echo! :P)

289

Pilrig,

Livingston 27/05/2007 17:57:17

"Labour is left of centre" - oh ma sides !!!!

290

WL,

livingston 27/05/2007 17:58:14

Let Scotland sort its power requirements (nuclear or other - rather other) and England sort its power requirements. The problem is of course that England still does not have its own devolved government - and the English seem to get more and more frustrated about this!

291

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 18:27:00

335. JEFF.

You may be right and I hope you are but they only need all of Labour, plus the majority of LD and Tory votes to get it passed afaik.

292

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 18:37:36

#343

Well in the event of that I would welcome another election :-)

293

Kenny A,

27/05/2007 18:42:17

AM2
How many sandwitches does it take to change a lightbulb. At it again, try a new tack.

I beg of you seeing you are taking so nuch space on this forum to come out with something of even vague interest.

294

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 18:42:56

AM2 - who has openly stated they can't work together if there's a Labour led SNP executive?

Oh that's right, great Gordon. Not spin - straight from the horses mouth.

Now Scottish MPs - including that well known talker of common sense Anne Moffat - would like power taken from the Executive because it's not in line with Whitehall policy. I'm sorry - but it's not spin, it's fact. NuLab are trying to provoke trouble.

AM2, why should you be upset by this? You're a self confessed Tory voter, and the Tories have already stated they would work with whoever was leading the Executive.

Is your hatred of the SNP so strong that you blindly side with NuLab and attack them against the policy of your own party?

295

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 18:46:43

AM2 #342

So Labour lose the election.
SNP win the election.

Labour from the word go accuse the SNP of conflict (Foukes the raving alcoholic wouldnae shut up on TV on the Friday aboot 'constant conflict caused by Alex Salmond).

It is Labour who have talked up conflict from the start of the election with every government minister choosing to use it as part of the frightner campaign tactics.

It stark contrast the SNP have talked about agreement and dialogue with Gordon Brown.

Brown has not even had the courtesy to contact Salmond.

If that isnae a childish and completely to form thing for Brown and Labour to do then Wendy Alexander isnae an alien!!

Labour are all about distortion - spin and lies. Thing is the Scottish public in many areas had the good sense to see right through it all :-)

296

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 18:51:51

I suggest that SNP supporters do not get their hopes up, but the SNP peaked in the May 3rd elections. If they cannot score in front of an open goal, forget it. The majority of the Scottish electorate are not as gullible as some posting here would like to think.
If you don't vote SNP they say you are a Quisling, crypto fascist, maybe a nazi; well they would know about nazis. I remember the 1960s when a a non SNP candidate in Govan constituency (Glasgow) was described by SNP activists as a "German Jew from Govan." Some posting here might remember that candidate?
That's Scottish nationalism, red in tooth and claw; support them at your peril.

297

Dave M,

27/05/2007 18:54:01

340 AM2

How long have you lived in Glasgow?

You have never heard 'Up your Ronson lighter?'

Cheers AM2, you have kept us all entertained today.

298

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 18:58:11

348

Cannot score in front of an open goal?

Sorry, so gaining 20 seats isn't a successful election result? Could you sound anymore bitter if you tried? Go on. Try it.

Before shouting your gob off about SNP supporters name-calling and flaming all those who don't agree with them, I think you'd better put your own house in order. You can start by forcing Anne Moffat to resign.

299

Dave M,

27/05/2007 18:58:43

348 Pete

You are not only scraping the bottom of the barrel but a very old barrel at that.

Its twisting it a bit to suggest that the SNP win was easy. It has caused enormous shockwaves in the political establishment and was despite an enormously hostile political and media campaign.

Labour would have been delighted with a one seat win.

Just remember, Pete, the mould has been broken.

The bogeyman is dead.

Some day your life will improve markedly under an Independent government and you will wonder why you fought to keep the old twisted ways of Labour.

Cheers.

300

Alistair Stewart,

DUNDEE 27/05/2007 18:59:27

#348

Their speaks a true scare mongering dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter who would rather Scotland was on it's knees with Tony Blair or his right-hand man for the past decade Gordon 'Unionist' Broon at the helm: taking us into illegal wars, taxing us far too much, telling the Scots they will be poor if they elect to be in charge of their own country.

Who exactly are 'they' that call everyone who does not support the SNP 'facists' etc? Seems you are making a fool of yourself with such ridiculous statements.

Their are plently examples of Labour candidates using every dirty trick in the book to frighten voters in their area - it is not exclusive to any single party!

Being proud to be Scottish and beleiving in your country and it's right to govern itself as opposed to being governed by England is nothing to be ashamed of - quite the reverse in fact :-)

301

Caora Dubh,

Dhachaigh 27/05/2007 18:59:51

Energy conservation must come first, but beyond that consider this. I quote Paul Spare, Fellow of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers: UK annual energy consumption = 240 million tons of oil equivalent. Current contribution of wind and wave power: 0.25 million tons of oil equivalent, i.e. about 0.1% of the UK's needs. If you try to meet even Scotland's needs from renewables ALONE you will DESTROY ITS ECOLOGY. Waves, wind, sea currents and tides are essential. It makes sense to use them to a limited extent only. Similarly the UK can only meet a tiny fraction of its bio-ethanol and biodiesel needs from its own farms. Do we really want to kill Scotland's insects, plants, and birds? Almost all wind turbines only operate in wind speeds of 3-25m/s, and shut down in winter storms when they are most needed. It is much easier to fix generation equipment inside a warm, well-lit nuclear power station than on top of a steel column in a winter gale. But then again a country that loves pet dog, cat & bird breeds with hideous deformities, that imports masses of uncontrolled plant genetic material & experiments in the form of hybrids and alien species, & then complains bitterly about the introduction of single genes to food crops under tight laws, (changes that will allow cultivated areas to be reduced in favour of set-aside): such a country is living in the Dark Ages & should be allowed to commit suicide, as a form of Darwinian evolution. Alex can please the hare-brained bunny-huggers & we professional engineers and scientists will gladly quit Scotland/Alba in droves.

302

Polmonto,

27/05/2007 19:06:19

Maxi, or Lia, as she was known until recently, is just a bitter, angry troll. She is full of anti scottish bile/border line racism and simply tries to bait a reaction...to this end she makes the most absurd comments and claims constantly. Best to ignore it.

303

Dave M,

27/05/2007 19:07:42

353 Caora Dubh

Paul Spare says:

My allegiances are:
Fellow if Institute of Energy and Secretary of the Institute of Energy, Special Interest Group, Nuclear Power
Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Eur Ing, MTMechE
Member of British Nuclear Energy Society

So he's hardly biased at all then?

304

Pro Libertate,

Stirling 27/05/2007 19:07:50

Here is a party politial broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Labour party:

Hate, bile, scare mongering, it should have been us who won, if Salmond sails Scotland too near the edge we'll fall off the earth, etc, etc, etc.

Sound familiar? Big weans, all of them.

Gie the man a chance - you lost the election and you are pi**ing the electorate off with your 'spoiled wean' antics.

305

Jim P,

Netherlands 27/05/2007 19:09:19

#303 David el escocés / 5:20pm

"Hello" or "OK"? Naw, I think ye mean VIZ. Is there no twa burds fae the north-east features in there? WTF are they called again?

306

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 19:10:59

#353

As an engineer and a member of IMechE, I agree 100%. Without a suitable alternative that produces the same or less than Nuclear, then we have to use Nuclear!

How irresponsible of Alex Salmond.

307

Alistair Stewart,

LABOUR LOST THE ELECTION 27/05/2007 19:11:39

#356

Why wonderfully, very concise and accurate summary of all the Labour loving posters on here today :-)

308

Alistair Stewart,

LABOUR LOST THE ELECTION 27/05/2007 19:12:38

#353

So where are you going to move to then?

309

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 19:12:57

*that produces the same or less CO2 than Nuclear

310

Dave M,

27/05/2007 19:15:33

353 Caora Dubh
358 MJD

Scaremongers the pair of you.

You could maybe share a taxi to the airport and don't forget to pack your prejudices.

Just remember, its not only the SNP that are against NEW nuclear power stations.

311

Eve,

Scotland 27/05/2007 19:22:19

The Labour Party seem to have went in to distructive mood. I read in the Sunday Hearld today that there make right eejets out of them selfs, espesally that Wendy Alxsander, who never read a report about who they wasted money in the last term. So It would appear that both their MP's and MSP are loesing it a bit and are so so in denaial.

#362. AM2: Great too see your in the mood for answering Questions, does your good mood extend to this task?
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=821052007

312

Alistair Stewart,

LABOUR LOST THE ELECTION 27/05/2007 19:30:24

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6696557.stm

JACK MCCONNELL IS IN TROUBLE THEN!!!

313

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 19:33:55

#363

Hardly scare-mongering. That would imply I am spreading rumour or an ominous fact designed to frighten or scare people.

I would call it a brush with reality. Can you tell me what the alternative is? How will we ensure we have a base supply like Nuclear provides us with now, in the future? A supple which is clean, safe and efficient.

Politics aside on your answer please.

314

Colin, Glasgow,

27/05/2007 19:36:04

#311 livilion
I think Chris's point is that although there have been many headline stories about nuclear power incidents in the UK (let's face it, they make good copy) there have been no deaths as a result. Dounreay is a good example. The radioactive particles found on the beaches around Dounreay have been assessed by SEPA and they found the risk of them killing somebody is in the region of 1 in 30 quadrillion! (Incidentally, these are particles of caesium and strontium, not plutonium. Plutonium would emit less radiation.) Likewise the infamous shaft at Dounreay has harmed nobody and is being dealt with.

Regarding Chernobyl, I think you have your facts wrong - there was no possibility of a "thermo-nuclear explosion" at any point. In recent years there has a tendency for anti-nuclear groups to play up "what might have been" because it is increasingly apparent from the work of the World Health Organisation that the actual radiation effects of Chernobyl, while significant, were nowhere near the hype that circulated in the early years. The disaster at Chernobyl is notable because it remains the only nuclear power station accident to ever cause a radiation death or harm the public. Three Mile Island was the second worst civil nuclear power station accident and it killed nobody.

The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has done many extensive studies into possible links between the everyday operation of nuclear establishments and cancer, and has found none.

315

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 19:38:05

Jeff # 352

You clearly have not read some of the posts here, or over the previous few days on similar topics. SNP supporters are quite happy to brand anyone who does not support the SNP as fascist or use ciphers to do so. Nationalism, often ends in fascism, you are falling into that trap. To be Scottish and proud is one thing, you don't need the SNP for that.

Walter Wober was the candidate I referred to in my post # 348, he was a conservative. I notice you don't attempt to refute the sentiments of the SNP activists of the day. Maybe you believe that to describe him as a "German Jew from Govan" was fair game? If that is so then the future is more bleak in Scotland under Smarmy Salmond than it ever was under the previous administration.

316

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 19:38:55

348. Pete, Paisley
Sorry pal, Paisley might still be taken in by keech like this, not many anywhere else are.
Live with it.

317

democracy,

Selkirkshire 27/05/2007 19:41:39

In the measures to avoid accidents during the operation of nuclear reactors and in the production and disposal of weapons and waste,there are NO guarantees of safety in ANY of the various methods of disposal. We just need the hindsight of the past 50 short years to tell us of the dangers and the variables as to what can go wrong worldwide.

1957 Windscale (now Sellafield);
1965 Ticonderoga (nr.Japan)not revealed until 1989;
1979 Three Mile Island,Pennsylvania ;
1979 Church Rock, New Mexico;
1986 Chernobyl,Ukraine; over 6,000 deaths during accident, eventually reaching 40,000 in the Ukraine alone.
1993 Tomsk,Siberia.
The list can go on with smaller leaks worldwide,and still causing deaths or illness, one of which you could say was Dounreay plant in the north of Scotland, now with a radioactive beach.

Reactor waste has three types, high-level, intermediate and low-level. The high-level is obviously the biggest concern and is "spent fuel", about one-third of the fuel from nuclear reactors becomes "spent" each year. It is removed to a reprocessing plant where radioactive waste products are chemically separated from remaining uranium and plutonium, in an expensive and dangerous process. This increases the volume of radioactive waste to more than a hundred times.

So,when New labour are trying to do new builds in Scotland, we say NO THANKS, goodbye!

318

Alistair Stewart,

27/05/2007 19:45:27

#368 Paisley Pete

You CLEARLY are using flimsy material to try to paint the most popular single party in Scotland and all of it's supporters as facists ... and making yourself look foolish into the bargain.

I suppose every country that has gained it's independence in the past 100 years or so is now under facist military rule!!!

In other words - stop talking such nonsense man and get used to the fact the oor Alex Salmond is FIRST MINISTER.

Such a better choice than Jack the 'yes man' of London :-)

You do not seem to have a problem with having liars and cowards for leaders (Blair and McConnell in that order) - so why should anyone believe what you say??

319

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 19:49:51

368. Pete, Paisley
>>>
I notice you don't attempt to refute the sentiments of the SNP activists of the day. Maybe you believe that to describe him as a "German Jew from Govan" was fair game
<<<
You are talking $hite, you brought up fascism, you prove it!

There how's that?

320

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 19:53:27

#370

These accidents were caused by human error and improper management. Next generation reactors and high technology are helping to make Nuclear Power stations very very safe.

We have learned from our mistakes and Nuclear Power is incredible safe. Newer technologies are helping to make the storage of waste very safe. Nuclear waste actually accounts for less than 1% of all hazardous waste that is produced in countries with Nuclear power (sourced from wikipedia). Nuclear waste has the tightest and most stringent regulations placed on it of all hazardous waste. We are responsible and correctly so in ensuring that our Nuclear power systems remain safe.

321

Jim P,

Netherlands 27/05/2007 19:54:07

Labour's interference from Westminster is keeping Independence at the top of the political agenda.

..leading us slowly towards this type of situation?

http://www.norway.org/1905-2005/separation/separation.htm

It's time.

322

Tax haven,

27/05/2007 19:54:12

For those so concerned about nuclear power why not buy a geiger counter take some background readings in your local area then go to the area around Torness and take some further readings from the surrounding water and beaches. If there is a difference in radiation levels you will have proved conclusively that nuclear power is unsafe.

323

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 19:55:16

Livilion # 369

Live with what? You insult the people of Paisley, from where, the ivory tower of Livingston.
You believe your own publicity, I refer you to your smug post of 23rd December 2006;
"Hi Bill,
I choose to talk only on things I know about, and check my facts.
It's easy really.

That, and being incredibly brainy helps! ;-D."

Did you learn to be smug from Salmond or is it the reverse. One fact, Salmond doesn't have a mandate in Scotland and never will. Suck on that sweetheart!

324

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 19:55:59

#368:

Livilion has a fair point. Whats your source, please? Do you have a link or something else we can refer to?

If it's true, then I'm apalled and hope the SNP distanced themselves from the remarks. On the other hand, this was back in the 60's and I very much doubt todays activists would ever come up with that. But having said that, just becuase you said it to be true does not make it true.

325

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 19:59:50

375

What dross. Nobody is saying ANYTHING about the risk of an increase in background radiation. The concerns are mainly preventing accidents, the logisitcs of guarding the damn things, the processing and storage of waste which won't just degrade after a couple of years, and the time taken to decomission old reactors.

Granted accidents are rare, but when they DO happen - well, they're not minor incidents.

326

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 20:01:11

#375

What utter nonsense, yes the radiation levels will be higher but they will most definitely be within absolutely safe levels. You don't see any three-eyed fish or glow in the dark sheep because of unsafe radiation levels... talk about unionists scare-mongering!

"Most of the human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.
However, in Britain there are elevated childhood leukemia levels near some industrial facilities, particularly near Sellafield, where children living locally are ten times more likely to contract the cancer. The reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear, but one study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers.[42][43] Likewise, small studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants has also been found in Germany [16] and France [17]. Nonetheless, the

327

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 20:06:05

370. democracy, Selkirkshire

I thought you might have mentioned the 135 years they've given Hunterston A to clean up the old magnox reactors there.


If that is how long it takes to get rid of them considering the short lifespan these installation have how long before the landscap is completely dotted with teams trying to scrap ever more of these installations?

Just who can afford to undertake such projects purely on environmental or economic considerations?

Again it comes back to where do we source the fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Is it just my imagination or did the nuclear energy discussion only warm up after we 'agreed' to build the next generation of nuclear weapons?

That power station near Dumfries whose cooling towers were demolished last week used to be one of the principle sources for British weapons grade plutonium.

Get the idea?

328

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 20:09:44

JT fae Cardiff # 377

It was said to me by several activists at the time. Just because you choose to disbelieve it doesn't make it untrue either. In this PC world I doubt if SNP activists today would publicly express those or similar sentimentiments; though, leopards and spots comes to mind...
Let an accredited SNP spokesman from the time refute those sentimentiments.

329

Eve,

Scotland 27/05/2007 20:10:00

#373. MJD: Ah wikipedia, the exsclapedia, which has a disclaimer saying that the information given on the site might be inacurate. Therefore gives proff and evedence to just about anything!!!!!

Have you got another source of information? Any that are realible!!!!!

P.S. No such thing as 100% safe, or being 100% free form a disastor such as Chernobyl happening again. Though may be you like the possiblity of goll in the dark sheep, That would save some electristy instead of having street Lamps we could radio active sheep on the street at night. Nuclears way of saving the plant. I gess.

330

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 20:15:57

#382

I checked the sources on wikipedia and they appear to be legitimate. But it was more to prove my point that you are at no risk of radioactivity by leaving near a Nuclear Power Plant, the radiation levels are within absolutely safe levels.

Also, I never said that nothing is 100% safe, but its the chances, and the improvements in technology and methodology that continually decrease the error probabilities.

331

Eve,

Scotland 27/05/2007 20:16:16

#374. Jim P: Their doing a braw job, long may they continue.

Pist I heard that some MP's want to force an independence referndom on us the now, before the SNP have a chance to prove them self in goverment, as they some how belive that the good people of Scotland will vote against it and the question will disappear for a generation.

Thought when you add all the current peise of information together, it paints a diffrent story in fact if they carry on the way there acting and where to go through with the early vote.

I think most people would vote YES cause they would feel tramatised or see the Westminster goverment perventing the governing rights of the Scottish parlement.

332

Tax haven,

27/05/2007 20:16:50

JT fae Cardiff

Do you work or have a job in regard to recording or preventing accidents at nuclear powerplants? Do you do costings in regard to guarding the damn things? Are you an engineer who is involved in storage of waste or decommissioning the old reactors?

So what evidence can you provide that nuclear plants are unsafe? At least geting out there with geiger counter in hand might be a start to collecting "un biased" data to back up the claims of those that think they are unsafe. I mean why should we listen to those pesky scientists and their evidence when they say that these things are safe?

333

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 20:20:40

Livilion # 380

It is just your imagination.
Aren't conspiracy theories supposed to be the preserve of the left?
Are your true colors showing, or are you just a Google astute dilettante?

334

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 20:22:04

381

Yet you can't provide sources or quotes. I could say that you told me once you hated German Jews. I can't back that up, and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me.

Again, IF it is true then again I confirm my digust at it. But to say the foolish words of a COUPLE of activists FORTY YEARS AGO represents the WHOLE PRESENT party is foolish.

Hows about the Labour members who believed 9/11 was a great day to "bury bad news"? Disgusting.

I'm not trying to discredit Labour with that quote by the way - I'm just saying the words and actions of the few DO NOT reflect the whole.

335

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 20:24:44

376. Pete, Paisley
Your fame precedes you as residing in one of the places where a baboon wearing a red rosette will get elected, no offence to the local MSP for Paisley north.

Having attended an event in the Govan LOL hall I know what a haven of free thinking and toleration that place is, the SNP and the Labour party being particularly welcome, aye right.

You are still talking $hite, you decline to back up your allegations with proof.

As a Paisley 'Buddy' having your team get humped cannot be unknown territory for you.

Live with that.

336

Colin, Glasgow,

27/05/2007 20:26:12

#370 Democracy
I think the fact that the best you could do was scrape together a list of vaguely nuclear-related incidents speaks volumes. Only two of these relate to nuclear power stations. Only one of these was fatal. Hinting that there must be other deaths from "minor leaks" does not make it so.

Your hype about Dounreay's "radioactive beach" betrays your desperation to find victims where there are none. As I said above, SEPA had assessed the risks and they are minimal. To wit: even if the entire population of the earth all spent the next 50 years digging on that beach the chances of one person being killed by a particle would be 1 in 100,000.

Your appeals for "guarantees of safety" are nonsensical if you consider this level of risk to be unacceptable.

337

Eve,

Scotland 27/05/2007 20:30:18

#383. MJD: Technology isn't all ways for the best, we are gettin in to situations, were technollogy is hindering our health.

Lets look at the food technology for example which, has done wonders for cutting the time it takes to prepare a meal. With ready perpared veg etc. and ready made meal and parts of meals. Though this seems wonderfull that a busy sosiety has access to food which can ready 10x quicker than the 1950's (for example, when slow food was still fasnable),

There has been a greater cost too soisiety as no dought you've possilble notcied that people are getting fatter (insadently this is seems to happen along with the futher adavnces in food Technology)

Heavily processed foods contain either exess Fat or Sugar high consuption of both have been liked to people putting on weight.

And as for the all ready prepared veg, Veggies beging too loes vitamins and minerals after being washed choped, and cooked if their canned.

So don't go telling us that ALL technology processes are a good thing and will help improve the life quality. There is an equal chance that they've made new and possibly more danguosus mistakes which could have dire effect in these new generation neclear plants.

338

,

27/05/2007 20:31:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 659182, Article id was mapped to record!
339

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 20:33:24

385

No, I'm not an expert. Nor shall I pretend to be.

From what i know, however, I do know there is NO permanent solution to the problem of the disposal and storage of nuclear waste.

So why build something, knowing we will have a problem with waste, knowing we don't have an answer to it before coming up with a solution?

Reactors also take a considerable amount of time to decommision - much longer than it takes to build them and thier life spans put together. Seems inefficient.

Given that you appear to be an expert, and given that your view is the only downside is a slight increase of background radiation in the area of a reactor please tell me why they are such great things, and if the risk is worth it?

Go gentle on me. I'm not an expert.

340

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 20:36:28

386. Pete, Paisley
Jack McConnell former CND member, activist, and season ticket holder to paradise.
Cathie Jamieson founder member of the cross party CND committe in Holyrood.

There that's just two, when were they converted to the cause of renewing Trident?
Secondly when did they convert to the idea of building new nuclear power stations?
Before or after and why?

As just a Google astute dilettante (I actually use AOL Search) I'd encourage you to pick it up too, it can't be fun sitting in the dark with skint knuckles.

341

Eve,

Scotland 27/05/2007 20:36:31

#389. Colin, Glasgow: What about the people who ate it? Snifed it? And bodies or parts of bodies were keep to do experments on to see how the human body recats too Nuclear waste.

Or did those people die of natural causes & weren't effected by the experments?

Can the public really trust the people who run these things?

342

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 20:37:21

livilion # 388

Dilettante, ersatz intellectual, just as I thought. Any more nice, homely granny quotes incidentally?
Livilion on line http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=571&id=188456....

JT fae Cardiff # 387

Who are you, revisionist historian for the SNP? Don't you have enough problems with aliens in Caerdydd?

343

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

27/05/2007 20:38:28

#389 COLIN.

What measurement would you say is dangerous or safe for a radiation hot spot?
In other words if you had a child what level of intensity from a radiation hot spot would you feel your child was in danger from on Sandside beach?

344

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 20:46:53

#395

I honestly don't think you're reading ANYTHING I am saying.

I'll recap, in point form

1 - I haven't seen ANY proof from you or otherwise to back up your claim

2 - If IT IS true then I, along with the vast majority of SNP supporters, distance myself from the comments and hope that the SNP distanced itself from them 40 years ago, when you claim they were made.

3 - I'm not being a revisionist at all. I asked for a source so I could check it out for myself. Far from ignoring your claims and dismissing them I wanted to see for myself. So far nothing has been forthcoming so I can't just assume it's true.

4 - There are no aliens in Caerdydd tonight. Just rain: lots and lots of rain.

345

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 20:51:27

389. Colin, Glasgow
Yes of course plutonium is good for you and all this radiation malarky is just media scaremongering, although by all acounts those nuclear bombs can give you an awful dunt, maybe even have someone's eye out if you're not carefull.

You know when I sometimes have to go to Hunterston A and when I visited the laundry at Torness you'd get the idea that radiation was even dangerous.
These nuclear people what are they like; yes it's dangerous, no it isn't?

What are the odds on a jackpot on the lottery?
If it was 1 in 100,000 they would go broke.

I heard that if the UK population was laid out head to toe from the beach at Rae towards the USA, most would drown, that's how dangerous it is.

346

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 20:59:56

395. Pete, Paisley
Here's my own favourite, found for me recently by AM2 of all people.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=185176...

My granda was found of saying 'you're a big man but a wee coat fits ye'.
Would that do?

btw you still talk $hite and you've still not come up with your proof so what does that make you?

347

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 21:00:12

400 up?

348

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 21:00:33

Back of the net!

349

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 21:04:30

JT fae Cardiff # 397

I'm happy to see that you speak for "the vast majority of SNP supporters."
I told you that those sentiments were expressed to me in words of few syllables, at that time, by SNP activists. There are no blogs, emails or other evidential trails that remain that I know, however, if you are prepared to fund it I will undergo hypnotic regression and prove the point to your satisfaction.
I notice you cannot objectively refute my assertion, but still you want to deny it. In my book that is an attempt at revisionism.

In my experience it was always raining in Caerdydd, or the Brecon Beacons anyway, serves you right for living there!!!

350

Tax haven,

27/05/2007 21:07:21

JT Fae Cardiff #392

I'm no expert either but my point is you have some people like post 370 (democracy) saying that Douneray has radioactive beaches and some, such as post #389 (Colin, Glasgow), stating that this is complete rubbish. So who is right? I'm sure for every scientist the government produce to say that it is safe Greenpeace will produce one saying its not.

So if you believe something so passionately why not go out and try and prove what you believe?

351

MJD,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 21:08:28

#390 Eve

Once again you have exagerated my comments. I never said all technology was always for the best, but comparing those food technologies to nuclear technology is like comparing a Fiat Panda to a Ferrari Enzo, there is just no comparison! The technology used in Nuclear reactors will be continually measuring and noting, measuring a noting and as soon as something goes just slightly wrong, even by a miniscule amount, alarm bells will ring before anything can happen.

Technology is brilliant. As an aerospace engineer I can tell you that modern aircraft wouldn't be flying without the electronics and high technology in them... some technologies are useless, the majority are necessary and are keeping the world spinning.

352

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

27/05/2007 21:11:56

The April 2006 IPPNW report
According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl", more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead.[20]

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

353

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 21:13:11

402 Granted that there were no blogs in the 60's and the internet was in it's infancy back then, and as such information would not have spread the same way.

I am neither denying nor acknowledging at this point, yet I do accept the possibility it may have been said.

I would prefer not to believe anyone representing the SNP would say such a thing, but then I have to accept the SNP - like every political party or movement - probably contains its fair share of idiots and people whos views we do not all agree with.

I'll bet the Labour Party, Libs Dems and Tories have thier fare share as well.

I will continue to point out, however, this utterance of harsh words did take place 40 years ago and hopefully these people are no longer associated with the party.

354

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 21:14:35

PS - it IS my own fault I live in Cardiff, but I'll be back in Edinburgh in the near future. Phew!

355

HEN BROONS BROTHER,

27/05/2007 21:15:54

Illegal radioactive dumping at Dounreay
In February 2007, a Scottish court fined UKAEA £140,000 for illegally dumping radioactive waste and polluting the sea and beaches around Dounreay, a UKAEA facility. Sheriff Andrew Berry, at Wick sheriff court, ruled that the agency was guilty of "very grave errors" at the plant, after it dumped radioactive waste in a landfill site from 1963 to 1975, and until 1984 also allowed tiny but "very dangerous" radioactive particles to be washed out to sea. The UKAEA admitted illegally releasing radioactive waste, pleading guilty to four breaches of the Radioactive Substances Act (1960) between 1963 and 1984. [3] (http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/United_Kingdom_Atomi...)

[edit]A Cover-up
In 2005, a cementation plant at Dounreay was closed after the spillage of hazardous, dissolved spent fuel and an investigation started. According to the Times, "the discovery of nuclear particles on neighbouring beaches has led to calls for a full public inquiry into the scale of pollution at the site, while the UKAEA has been accused of a cover-up". The prototype fast reactor at Dounreay was already shut down in 1994.[4] (http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/United_Kingdom_Atomi...)

This was the second scare in less than a year to hit the plant. According to the Daily Mail, a Dounreay spokesman "confirmed that eight workers were being tested for suspected plutonium intake". The lab was already shut down the previous year "following a similar alarm involving 15 workers...In August, UKAEA started refresher courses following a number of radiation scares, during which contamination was detected on five workers in a week." [5] (Report Unsuitable

356

Pete,

Paisley 27/05/2007 21:16:05

livilion # 399

I refer you to my latest post at 402. Only someone, like you, who was truly vain would quote their own historical posts.

I hope your grandparents are all well.
I think you should attempt something in line with your undoubted talents as a historian and compile a book of inter-generational pithy sayings.

357

JT fae Cardiff,

27/05/2007 21:19:07

404

Appreciate your balanced view that for every scientist pro nuclear you'll find one against, shows what a decisive subject this is.

I wish I did have time to investigate and research more thouroughly, however I don't have the time (although I do seem to have the time to argue on these forums quite often!) so I'll decline the invitation to be a wee bit more active for now.

I suppose my major bone of contention really is Westminster removing a power from Holyrood because the Executive has a different opinion to Whitehall but that's another argument altogether.

358

Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics,

27/05/2007 21:20:13

Alex Salmond is once again showing sound judgement in sticking to his principles in opposing nuclear power stations. They are fundamentally uneconomic as well as being unsafe and a risk to human health. I would refer any readers to the work of Dr Chris Busby LLRC low level radiation camapaign for further discussion of these matters and to Dr Rosalie Bertell author of PLANET Earth published by womens press. order this book for your library it tells many interesting facts about radiation pollution and can be read by a layperson fairly easily. Two myths that are repeated by govt and nuclear hacks need challenging.Myth1 No co2 ie greenhouse gas is used in nuclear power plants.
Not true,how does the uranium get here ?on sailing ships,?a huge amount of energy is required to build the power plants,apparently up to ten years worth of energy production,so they only become net energy producers after 10 years of production of electricity.Also reprocessing at sellafield runs on you guessed it a gas fired powerplant, also what do the workers get to work on? all on bicycles? What about using machinary to store the waste in steel drums, get real nuclear power is not in any way carbon neutral.
Myth 2 background radiation: because only a small rise in background radiation is created nuclear power is safe.
As a PhD in physics I appreciate that on the face of it this seems convincing, but it fails to take account of one important consideration. The difference between natural radioactive materials which will spread ie mix the radioactive atoms with none radiactive atoms and manmade radiactivity which will concentrate the radioactivity in small but dense particles. As an analogy,pour a bottle of bleach into a swimming pool, the bleach is mixed in and i would be prepared to drink from that swimming pool in an emergency, however if you asked me to drink a cup full of pure bleach i would refuse, it would be too dangerous. Man made radiation is like the the cup full of b

359

Catharine,

Winnipeg, Canada 27/05/2007 21:28:10

clean Coal - an oxymoron if ever there was one! Burning a fossil fuel, a non-renewable resource - ummmmm.... did you not actually get the whole WE ARE RUNNING OUT, AND RUINING OUR PLANET thing? Safe nuclear - oh, look - another oxymoron - go ask the people of Chernobyl how safe nuclear power is, ask the people of Three Mile Island... ask the people in northern Canada who mined the uranium for decades and now suffer from horrendous cancer rates, and cannot live in their communities anymore. And the waste product... you know, the stuff that is still deadly in 50 generations... what - you'll be dead so who gives a sh*t as long as you were able to run your high powered electronic gear and drive your penile-extending Chelsea tractor??? Time to get your head out of your arse and look at the real picture. We not only need to look at renewables, we also need to look at cutting consumption, by legislation if necessary.

360

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 21:29:35

410. Pete, Paisley
Was it me that said 'oh lord it's hard to be humble but I'm doing the best that I can'?

Maybe I get this idea of superiority because some folks like you just make me look good, as my dear auld maw says 'son, how is it you can be so clever at some things?'
Maws, eh?

My grandparents are fine thankyou, apart from all being dead.

You know perhaps I could write a book about inter-generational pithy sayings starting with:
you're still talking $hite.

361

pehman,

sussex 27/05/2007 21:34:08

373 MJD,

These accidents were caused by human error and improper management. Next generation reactors and high technology are helping to make Nuclear Power stations very very safe.

And are you telling us these places were not state of the art technology

362

Dave M,

27/05/2007 21:42:54

389 Colin, Glasgow

I find your postings about radioactive discharges from Dounreay a bit glib.

Growing up in the north, I regularily used to visit Thurso, Murkle, Dunnet and Dwarick beaches to the east of Dounreay and Sandside, Bighouse and Strathy beaches to the west of Dounreay with my parents.

Of course, we were never told there were radioactive discharges and that there were particles to be found on the beach.

It is only now that the truth (or some of it) is coming out and no one (least of all you) knows exactly what the dangers are.

Many of my parents' friends have died from assorted cancers in numbers that I would suggest are higher than normal.

Of course, as no one can prove these deaths are 100% attributable to Dounreay, people like you can say we are talking emotional crap.

I certainly won't be having sandcastle competitions with my children when I go north.

363

Dave M,

27/05/2007 21:52:09

While travelling in America a few years ago, I stumbled across the following book in a National Park's bookshop in Nevada.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Ground-Zero-Secret-Nuclear...

Bizarrely, the women in the shop didn't want to sell the book to a 'foreigner' but eventually relented.

It is an immensely powerful book and lets the people of America tell their own stories, accompanied by beautifully stark photography, the chapters in America's nuclear testing period.

Of course, this is nuclear weapons, not power but the moral is that these people, many of them staunch government supporters, especially in Utah, were told that the fallout was safe.

It was a regular occurrence for people to go out into the desert to watch the explosions and the children used to play in the fallout dust.

The following is a publisher's description:

From 1951 to 1963, the U.S. government conducted atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in Nevada without regard to the effect of radioactive fallout on humans, livestock and the environment. In the late 1950s, birth defects and deaths from cancer began to soar among civilian and military test-site workers and their newborn children, and among "downwinders" living in Nevada, Utah and other western states. Gallagher, a professional photographer, spent several years interviewing and photographing these nuclear-test victims and gathering evidence of official indifference, callousness and outright cover-ups. The sheer density of suffering depicted here is awesome; in certain Utah towns, for instance, Gallagher found cases of cancer in every house. The bitter, stoic testimony of the victims (many of whom have since died), accompanied by Gallagher's photographic portraits of them, is deeply disturbing and exposes a major national scandal.


Well worth reading if you ever get the chance

364

livilion,

livingston 27/05/2007 21:54:35

413. Catharine, Winnipeg, Canada
Clean coal really is no longer an oxymoron.

For some of the emerging industrial nations such as India and China I reckon it is the best hope to convince them to curb their carbon emmissions.

Gasification of hydrocarbons such as coal, natural gas and crude oils can be done with only water being vented to the atmosphere from burning hydrogen.

Non renewable sources are there and eg give us the potential of utilising centuries of global coal reserves.

No-one is going to permit their 'lights to go out' while this resource is available to them.

These reserves could be stretched to last even longer by eg the combination of renewables and clean hydrogen in fuelcells for transport or for burning in power stations.

Carbon dioxide produced can be pumped way underground back where it came from in the first place.

Check these links from Scotland and the US.
http://business.scotsman.com/markets.cfm?id=120772006

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasifi...

365

Dave M,

27/05/2007 21:57:51

417 Me

The readers' comments on the Amazon site are worth a look as well.

I know I am cycnical but when I hear some of the pro nuclear posters on here I know that I have every reason to be.

Peace.

366

Derick fae Yell,

Scotland full of nuclear bombs 27/05/2007 21:57:59

329. megz, Glasgow / 6:33pm 27 May 2007 Got to ask but is the numerous references to holyrood being bolyrood a racist remark about the newly elected Asian MSP?

Yes it is. The Grate Brits are racist to the core. eh, Jocks?

where will the plutonium for the Trident replacement come from?? mmm - I know TESCOs!

367

megz,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 21:58:29

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1429...

Perhaps if the statistics were released on this then it could be added reasons why there should be no more new stations built here. If there is nothing to hide then why hide it?

368

Eve,

Scotland 27/05/2007 22:00:10

#405. MJD: Technology makes advance because it can NOT because there a demand for it. Know one really knew that they wanted a PC or to be indeed the internet untill it was avaible. These adavance have been helpfull.

Though we do live in a time and place where there is a chance where we could create to much technology. It's time people thought about the Need of a product and not the potenial Want.

It's them same in most types of Technology.

Technology is slowly killing sositey in my opinion. I some days talk too more people online than I do in person. AND some of those days I miss the fact I can't see or been in the same room to the people I talk too.

369

Colin, Glasgow,

27/05/2007 22:02:01

#412 Dr Sutcliffe
Regarding Myth 1, obviously a certain amount of CO2 is released during the lifecycle of producing nuclear electricity. Fossil fuel from transport contributes to this; fossil fuel used in mining the fuel contributes more; electricity used for enriching the fuel might contribute more. However, even if all these contributions are taken into account, the total lifecycle emission is still very low. See my post #130 above. Nuclear power has low emissions even compared to renewables like wind. Clearly, the less dependent we are on fossil fuel, the lower the CO2 emissions for nuclear will be.

Regarding Myth 2. Nobody who is assessing radiation risks relies on measuring the change in background radiation alone. Look at SEPA's website under "radiation" to see how the risk is analysed. They look at the pathways that radioactive material might take to enter the body. They work out where it will travel in the body, and how long it will stay there. They assess the dose that would be received from the material inside the body, and from there they use the total dose to estimate the cancer risk.

Small particles of solid radioactive material are indeed hazardous for the reasons that you describe. That is why nuclear stations are not permitted to release this material, and why Dounreay was fined for its illegal releases. However, taking the example of Dounreay particles as an example, SEPA estimates the risk of somebody accidentally ingesting a particle as being 1 in a million million per year (for somebody in a high risk group, such as a fisherman digging on the beach). This is based on the relatively huge size of the beach and the relative scarcity of significant particles. Having ingested a particle, the dose received as it passes through the body presents a risk of fatal cancer of 1 in 30,000 or so. Hence the combined risk is 1 in 30 quadrillion.

In comparison, the unavoidable risk from average natural background radiation (2mS

370

megz,

Glasgow 27/05/2007 22:05:50

cheers derick, i think these people should hang their heads in shame, one scotland many cultures indeed!

371

Eve,

Scotland 27/05/2007 22:05:55

P.S. #405. MJD: "some technologies are useless, the majority are necessary and are keeping the world spinning"

Really the world is spining, is that why feel a wee bit dizzy the night :L. Is that caused by the big Mangnets that are ran by flowing electristy throw them. Sounds like fun unless you have a passe maker.

372

David MacVicar,

web. 27/05/2007 22:10:25

412. Dr Malcolm H Sutcliffe PhD Physics.

Informative post, at least for me it was. I didnt know that this waste concentrated in small dense particles not open to easy dispersal.

In terms of CO2, I suppose you could say most energy plants require transport of fuel and personnel etc but I suppose coal needs much more transporting end energy to transport than Uranium given the quantities involved?

373

Dave M,

27/05/2007 22:11:56

I notice that Colin doesn't even respond to my posting.

Anyway, with reference to the US nuclear testing, USAF pilots were made to fly through the fallout cloud, workers were made to tunnel under the detonation area in the days following the explosion to recover vitrified rock, and prisoners were put in cages close to the blast.

Flocks of sheep and herds of cattle died overnight and the blame was put on them eating poisonous weeds.

It is believed that John Wayne and several co actors MAY have died from radiation received from some of the bomb testing which was being carried out near to their film set.

To quote, "There were repeated efforts by authorities to downplay, or ignore, radioactive releases and associated health effects from both above- and below-ground nuclear tests".

It seems like nothing changes.

374

Tax haven,

27/05/2007 22:16:48

megz #424

I thin