Wednesday, 24 July 2013
SNP - changing direction with the wind?
Well that was quick. No sooner has the First Minister told us that oil and gas are important to the Scottish economy when a leaked Scottish Government document says that we need to move away from "price volatile fossil fuels". Calton tends to think that the leak is more trustworthy, since it is more in line with the SNP's policy of covering the countryside and coastline with windfarms, subsidised by the Scottish consumer. If the SNP are serious about tackling fuel poverty in an independent Scotland they can start by removing this subsidy, which hits the poorest hardest, and telling windfarm developers to stand on their own two feet financially. That's exactly what English consumers will be telling us to do if we vote for independence but expect them to continue subsidising our renewables industry! And just where is the evidence that Scots are more pro-windfarms than the English? Is this just another 'wishful assertion' by the SNP? Or, to put it another way, yet more hot air from a government which does not listen to the electorate? (And, while we are on the subject of renewables, the link Calton put for the tidal project at Kylerhea in an earlier post ceased to function shortly after he linked to it but it seems to be back up again and can be viewed here.)
Labels:
Alex Salmond,
energy,
fuel,
poverty,
Scottish Government,
SNP,
windfarms
1 comment:
Thankyou for commenting. Please be aware that Calton does not have a lot of time to spend either moderating or responding to comments so it may take a day or two for your comment to appear and you won't necessarily get a reply. Disagree by all means but keep it civil - abusive or unpleasant comments will be deleted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't Mr Salmond's idea that, when the wind blows, he will sell all the surplus "renewable" electricity down the road to us in England at silly prices. When the wind does not blow, he will buy cheap, ordinary electricity from us, having achieved his "renewable" obligation at our expense. Something like that.
ReplyDelete