The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

It's not. The £15bn shortfall isn't allowed to be discussed, remember? It's "irrelevant".

15 now 

It was 10 only yesterday in the general thread 

We`ve lost 5billion in 24 hours............oh no hang on.... were not actually independent yet 

I`m starting to suspect that when you are struggling you just make stuff up  How you getting on with building your argument that Scotland doesn`t have more than it`s fair share of Europe`s natural resources ?

I`m genuinely interested in your views specifically to that. My stats were sourced from friends of the earth. Are they nasty snippers ? I honestly don`t know. 

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I wasn`t classing 15 years as " the near future ". A lot can and probably will change in the next 15 years across the globe. I accept that depending on what your comparing it to 15 years could be viewed as the near future of course but that wasn`t waht I was meaning.

I have never said, as in never ever, that an indy Scotland would be " gloriously rich ".  It`s YOU whe keeps using those words 

Taking into account the views of the younger voters up here and the continuing domination of the Tories in England plus the direction of travel in the indy polls over the last 20 years, my view is that Scotland could vote yes IF there was another referendum in 10 / 15 years. You disagree and I respect that....while disagreeing with you ( for the reasons stated above ). This is what I was meaning by it`s all about opinions.

You have Russy to agree with you all the time. Don`t take it personally if others don`t 

 

You supported an idea that Scotland would be rich just over a year ago. Still, I guess your god ceases to be your god after you deny your god.

Today, you won't accept the fact that a self-funding Scotland would be poorer as it starting position.
Today, you won't accept the fact that nothing has been identified which would alter things from that starting position in the years that follow.
Today. you won't accept the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to think that would ever change, based on the facts of other countries and history.

Scotland might vote yes, but your current idea of the better Scotland that would vote yes is a Scotland that has been lied to by its leaders and where the population suck up those lies.

I don't see that as impossible because there's political numpties in all corners of the world, and yet I still like to think that the Scottish people are not as dense to the consequences as you believe they are yourself.

Meanwhile, nothing to defend your latest dream of a Scotland rich on mythical natural electricity generation? For someone who claims to not go with riches you keep finding hoped-for riches to be iScotland's salvation. Any reason why?

Meanwhile, you still don't accept the facts of any iScotland's starting position and what it means.

Only when the argument for an iScotland is made on the facts of how an iScotland will start and the facts of where it goes afterwards (nowhere better economically) do the snippers have a chance to win the argument.

Until then you're supporting a much bigger lie than Cameron is using over Syria.

 

 

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

15 now 

It was 10 only yesterday in the general thread 

We`ve lost 5billion in 24 hours............oh no hang on.... were not actually independent yet 

I`m starting to suspect that when you are struggling you just make stuff up  How you getting on with building your argument that Scotland doesn`t have more than it`s fair share of Europe`s natural resources ?

I`m genuinely interested in your views specifically to that. My stats were sourced from friends of the earth. Are they nasty snippers ? I honestly don`t know. 

 

In 2014 the Scottish deficit was £13.8Bn according to Snow White and The Saint, and it's growing and not shrinking. Are you calling them liars?

However - and i know these things confuse you - there is the Scottish deficit, and then there is the Scottish deficit-gap. Either number can be quoted, and both numbers mean the same thing - that Scotland is in the financial shit.

And because these things confuse you, I need to say again that it's not in the shit because of neglect by that Nasty Westminster (© The Mindless), but because you're addicted to English money even to the point of giving yourself privileges at the expense of the poor elsewhere just like any tory.

But you're doing it all for the poor, yeah, and it's not about money. PMSL.

Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of productive arable land? Nope.
Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of rare earth minerals? Nope.
Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of tungsten? Nope.
Does Scotland have its fair share of the natural resource of sun? Nope.
Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of manganese? Nope.
Etc, etc, etc, etc.
(and yes, I did look these up)

Cherry picking particular resources where Scotland does have an advantage is only cherry-picking. It's a biased statement, better known as lies for the stupid.

And it's not about the money, but you'll cherry pick some meaningless stats about energy sources that don't even exist to make false claims in the hope of convincing people it won't be a financial disaster. PMSL

Edited December 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Neil, you didn`t need to explain that you were an expert in this particular area of our discussion. I would have assumed that already.

This bloke ( link attached ) doesn`t appear to be a dirty snipper, I asked you earlier if you thought friends of the earth were but you didn`t respond either way, I have no idea who he is but he appears to be an English environmentalist who champions green issues and the Green party. He raises some interesting points that oppose the tone of your post puting down Scotland`s potential.

I will remind you that no-one has ever ever said that Scotland could get rich on renewables. I have said that a Scottish Govt whether Labour or SNP led would take us down a different path than the Tories in many areas. 

I see renewables as one such " path ". Nothing more, nothing less. It`s not all about the money for some of us 

http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/renewable-energy-scotland

I offer his article " renewable energy in Scotland " as it may be of interest. I hadn`t seen it before today.

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil, you didn`t need to explain that you were an expert in this particular area of our discussion. I would have assumed that already.

This bloke ( link attached ) doesn`t appear to be a dirty snipper, I asked you earlier if you thought friends of the earth were but you didn`t respond either way, I have no idea who he is but he appears to be an English environmentalist who champions green issues and the Green party. He raises some interesting points that oppose the tone of your post puting down Scotland`s potential.

I will remind you that no-one has ever ever said that Scotland could get rich on renewables. I have said that a Scottish Govt whether Labour or SNP led would take us down a different path than the Tories in many areas. 

I see renewables as one such " path ". Nothing more, nothing less. It`s not all about the money for some of us 

http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/renewable-energy-scotland

I offer his article " renewable energy in Scotland " as it may be of interest. I hadn`t seen it before today.

It's not telling me anything I don't already know.

Scotland has a lot of wind power - but not funded by Scotland. The SNP themselves have made clear Scotland can't afford to fund its expansion. And if Scotland sails off in the sunset with rUK-paid-for-resources, they'll be a charge-back.

That article also makes clear that there is currently no wave or tidal power in Scotland (not to the extent that means anything, anyway) - when you claimed big numbers for it. The number is currently zero, and without the money to fund it (where's that coming from? No one knows, certainly not the SNP) it remains as zero. And without a market for it, there's no point going above zero.

All it really is saying at best is that Scotland will swap out some 'dirty' generation for something a bit cleaner over time - but that the new sources will cost more and not less.

Greener energy isn't something to be dismissed as worthless, but neither is it worth anything to Scotland as of greater financial benefit. It's actually the opposite.

Edited December 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

19 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil, you didn`t need to explain that you were an expert in this particular area of our discussion. I would have assumed that already.

This bloke ( link attached ) doesn`t appear to be a dirty snipper, I asked you earlier if you thought friends of the earth were but you didn`t respond either way, I have no idea who he is but he appears to be an English environmentalist who champions green issues and the Green party. He raises some interesting points that oppose the tone of your post puting down Scotland`s potential.

I will remind you that no-one has ever ever said that Scotland could get rich on renewables. I have said that a Scottish Govt whether Labour or SNP led would take us down a different path than the Tories in many areas. 

I see renewables as one such " path ". Nothing more, nothing less. It`s not all about the money for some of us 

http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/renewable-energy-scotland

I offer his article " renewable energy in Scotland " as it may be of interest. I hadn`t seen it before today.

It's all very nice, but how does renewable energy in scotland help with the massive deficit?

All it will do is increase people's bills. It is absolutely terrifying to imagine how huge those increases will be without english subsidy. Once again, the poor will be hit hardest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

In 2014 the Scottish deficit was £13.8Bn according to Snow White and The Saint, and it's growing and not shrinking. Are you calling them liars?

However - and i know these things confuse you - there is the Scottish deficit, and then there is the Scottish deficit-gap. Either number can be quoted, and both numbers mean the same thing - that Scotland is in the financial shit.

And because these things confuse you, I need to say again that it's not in the shit because of neglect by that Nasty Westminster (© The Mindless), but because you're addicted to English money even to the point of giving yourself privileges at the expense of the poor elsewhere just like any tory.

But you're doing it all for the poor, yeah, and it's not about money. PMSL.

Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of productive arable land? Nope.
Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of rare earth minerals? Nope.
Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of tungsten? Nope.
Does Scotland have its fair share of the natural resource of sun? Nope.
Does Scotland have it's fair share of the natural resource of manganese? Nope.
Etc, etc, etc, etc.
(and yes, I did look these up)

Cherry picking particular resources where Scotland does have an advantage is only cherry-picking. It's a biased statement, better known as lies for the stupid.

And it's not about the money, but you'll cherry pick some meaningless stats about energy sources that don't even exist to make false claims in the hope of convincing people it won't be a financial disaster. PMSL

Does Neil have more than his share of Bullshit?

 

 

Oh yes!

 

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Does Neil have more than his share of Bullshit?

 

 

Oh yes!

 

 

so the bullshit is provable facts, and the non-bullshit is you rejecting those provable facts with nothing at all?

All you've done there is further prove you're on a road to nowhere. You're on a road to nowhere until you're big enough and honest enough to accept the facts.

In the meantime indy will be rejected by the smart Scots who can see exactly what you're offering them - which is nothing at all except lies.

Do keep it up. You and those like you are the very reason why you won't get what you say you want.

Edited December 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

There are no "provable facts" about the economic viability of an independent Scotland because, if it happens, it will happen some time in the future. The "facts" you tirelessly repeat refer to the past. Unless I have missed something, the past does not contain an independent Scotland... Well not in the past 300 years or so...a bit before GERS.

 

As for Scotland's abundance of renewable energy sources, no one has ever said this would wipe out your alleged deficit. Nor have we claimed that we can defy the laws of physics & export electricity anywhere in the world. (i may not have worked in the electricity  industry but I did physics at school + university (briefly) & I am well aware that the longer the wire, the more electricity you lose.)

 

I think the point about Scotland's great potential for renewable energy, is that as we move to a post-carbon world , countries like Scotland will suddenly find themselves with relatively cheap & abundant energy, giving us a significant economic advantage. We would of course be happy to sell some of our abundant energy to you guys for a reasonable profit. 

[Comfy Bean]

10 hours ago, russycarps said:

It's all very nice, but how does renewable energy in scotland help with the massive deficit?

All it will do is increase people's bills.

 

An expanding sector will create jobs I would imagine. On the price / bills, going forward are you sure about this increase ?

[russycarps]

Now we're all agreed that renewable energy won't make a jot of difference to the vast deficit, on to more relevant matters.

Oil prices are at a 5 year low ahead of the opec meeting in Austria. $42 a barrel!

Holy shit, it still hasn't bottomed out yet!

I'm patiently waiting for march 2016 when the raving nationalists assured us prices would have recovered. Afterall, their guesses about a topic they know nothing about are better than our knowledgeable analysis.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

There are no "provable facts" about the economic viability of an independent Scotland because, if it happens, it will happen some time in the future. The "facts" you tirelessly repeat refer to the past. Unless I have missed something, the past does not contain an independent Scotland... Well not in the past 300 years or so...a bit before GERS.

There are provable facts about an iScotland's starting economic position.

There are provable facts about how quickly mature economies grow.,

And there are provable facts of no one having a plan to take Scotland out of the financial shit it would start from - and so would remain in.

But you just keep on pretending that fairy dust will fall over iScotland to magic its economy into something better, and I'll keep laughing at you.

 

Quote

As for Scotland's abundance of renewable energy sources, no one has ever said this would wipe out your alleged deficit. Nor have we claimed that we can defy the laws of physics & export electricity anywhere in the world. (i may not have worked in the electricity  industry but I did physics at school + university (briefly) & I am well aware that the longer the wire, the more electricity you lose.)

Great. So within this debate you accept it's a meaningless nothing-at-all, as it does nothing-at-all to change anything of Scotland's economic position.

And yet comfy appeared to be claiming an advantage from it. Perhaps you should join in with telling him to zip it?

 

Quote

I think the point about Scotland's great potential for renewable energy, is that as we move to a post-carbon world , countries like Scotland will suddenly find themselves with relatively cheap & abundant energy, giving us a significant economic advantage. We would of course be happy to sell some of our abundant energy to you guys for a reasonable profit. 

Once upon a time people used to claim that nuke power would result in almost free electricity. How did that work out again?

The problem is that renewable energy is not cheap, but expensive. Even when oil and gas and coal prices were high a year or so ago, renewables was still around double the cost to generate.

And your dream of selling extra to rUK is fucked for at least the next 50 years, as rUK has those covered.

Get back to me when you've stopped trying to sell empty guff.

But your dedication to high hopes for empty guff is to be admired. Never in the history of mankind has so much empty guff been spoken by so many in the hope of selling their dream on a lie.

PS: the most suitable site - giving the greatest cost benefit - for tidal generation in the world is where? Is it in Scotland? Or might it be in nasty nasty England?

For at least 40 years the arguments about it happening have gone round and round and on and on, with the environmentalists always winning out, but I guess that in the claimed more-green-minded Scotland environmentalists won't be an issue.

Meanwhile, smaller scale tidal generation projects are popping up all over the Bristol channel, generating more power (despite it being currently almost nothing) than exists by similar means around the claimed (is it even right?) 25% of Europe's coastline in Scotland.

Scotland is already lagging behind, and without a nearby market for what might be generated in Scotland - which doesn't exist and won't do - it will continue to lag behind because the costs end up as much greater for Scottish produced 'natural' energy.

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

An expanding sector will create jobs I would imagine. On the price / bills, going forward are you sure about this increase ?

Scotland already has full-capacity employment in its generation industry, which is generating 100% of Scotland's energy needs.

Care to tell me what benefit there is in expanding a sector beyond the market for its product?

If there is an increase in employment in the generation industry, guess what that means? It means that the cost of generation has increased by the cost of those extra-employed, which means that the bills will have to increase by the same amount (plus some extra for profit).

No salvation here.

You'll need to try again.

 

 

 

[Stash]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

...around the claimed (is it even right?) 25% of Europe's coastline in Scotland.

I don't think anyone could try to claim Scotland has 25% of Europe's coastline. A quick check of the World Factbook says that:

• Norway has the longest European coastline - 25,148km
• Greece isn't doing too bad with 13,676km
• The UK is quite some way behind Norway though - 12,429km - no indication what the Scottish coastline is, but it's smaller than this by some way I would estimate. 
• Italy is a bit behind the UK - 7,600

France & Spain both have around 5,000km and Ireland lags well behind at 1,500km. So Scotland has nowhere near 25% of the coastlineof Europe. 

I've seen quite a few snippers make the 25% claim recently. They claim that Scotland has an estimated 25% of Europe's tidal potential and 10% of its wave potential and that currently boasts 25% of Europe's offshore wind resources. As far as I can tell, this is based on the idea that the only coastline which can successfully be exploited, is where it is remote from human habitation. I did a little digging to find the source. As Comfy himself quoted the Friends of the Earth as his source, it seems a good starting point: 

Friends of the earth (Scotland), along with RSPB(S) & WWF(S) released a briefing paper in 2006 making the claim, which in turn pulled the info from a 2005 Framework Paper by the SNP, which in turn pulled the info from a 2001 submission by the Scottish Executive to the PIU energy review, which in turn pulled the info from a consultation by the DTI & DEFRA by a private Scottish based company named Ocean Power Delivery Ltd (later named Pelamis Wave Power)

The interesting thing about Pelamis is that in 2014 the went into administration after being unable to secure the level of additional funding required for the further development of their wave power technology. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30151276

So it seems that the recent cause-célèbre of the fanciful snippers is actually a doorway to be a cautionary tale on relying on unproven & expensive technology (and potential no matter how it is calculated). In fact, when KPMG found no one would buy Pelamis, the company was wound up, owing over £13m to the Scottish government, councils and universities, yet the technology developed by Pelamis could only be sold for several hundred-thousand pounds. 

So in short, it seems that the 25% claim is over 14 years old, unsubstantiated by outside study and was made by a company that folded because it couldn't find investment enough to exploit some of the 25% potential for itself. Who'd have thunk it?

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Stash said:

I don't think anyone could try to claim Scotland has 25% of Europe's coastline.

To be fair, I think that 25% is arrived at by ignoring the Med, where tidal and wave generation is just about a non-starter, because it has minimal tides and small waves in ocean terms.

There's certainly great theoretical potential to generate via these things around Scotland, but only in theory because of the geographics of there not being a nearby population that would be able to benefit from what Scotland might produce.

And it's all a very big 'might' anyway. There's no viable wave generation mechanism at this time, and tidal schemes have absolutely huge environmental costs that get rejected as too-high-a-price almost everywhere (yes, i know France has a big tidal implementation, but that was done in the days when environmental concerns mattered much less to the population, and from when what govts said people accepted).

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, Stash said:

I've seen quite a few snippers make the 25% claim recently. They claim that Scotland has an estimated 25% of Europe's tidal potential and 10% of its wave potential and that currently boasts 25% of Europe's offshore wind resources. As far as I can tell, this is based on the idea that the only coastline which can successfully be exploited, is where it is remote from human habitation. I did a little digging to find the source. As Comfy himself quoted the Friends of the Earth as his source, it seems a good starting point: 

Friends of the earth (Scotland), along with RSPB(S) & WWF(S) released a briefing paper in 2006 making the claim, which in turn pulled the info from a 2005 Framework Paper by the SNP, which in turn pulled the info from a 2001 submission by the Scottish Executive to the PIU energy review, which in turn pulled the info from a consultation by the DTI & DEFRA by a private Scottish based company named Ocean Power Delivery Ltd (later named Pelamis Wave Power)

The interesting thing about Pelamis is that in 2014 the went into administration after being unable to secure the level of additional funding required for the further development of their wave power technology. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30151276

So it seems that the recent cause-célèbre of the fanciful snippers is actually a doorway to be a cautionary tale on relying on unproven & expensive technology (and potential no matter how it is calculated). In fact, when KPMG found no one would buy Pelamis, the company was wound up, owing over £13m to the Scottish government, councils and universities, yet the technology developed by Pelamis could only be sold for several hundred-thousand pounds. 

So in short, it seems that the 25% claim is over 14 years old, unsubstantiated by outside study and was made by a company that folded because it couldn't find investment enough to exploit some of the 25% potential for itself. Who'd have thunk it?

Brilliantly done, Stash.

[Comfy Bean]

It's a well constructed post Stash and you deserve the plaudits from Neil and russ.

Good attention to detail but I'm a bit dubious and suspect a bit of efest smoke and mirrors.....

On phone so can't link but will come back on a couple of things to get your view. 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It's a well constructed post Stash and you deserve the plaudits from Neil and russ.

Good attention to detail but I'm a bit dubious and suspect a bit of efest smoke and mirrors.....

On phone so can't link but will come back on a couple of things to get your view. 

hey comfy, have you never stopped to think why it is you're forever having to move on to a new idea to present as iScotland's salvation because the previous one has been knocked down?

It's not because the next idea you're going to suggest (one that originates in the myth factory each and every time) is the idea that will work, it's because there is no idea which will work - at least, not in the sorts of timescales which would be acceptable to the Scottish public.

But anyway. I'm happy to trust Stash's research against a snipper's unless that snipper proves otherwise, and I suspect this is the last we'll here of this.

I look forwards to your next suggestion.

[micawber]

Does anyone know if the SNP is now undertaking any Ref2 preparatory work around currency and EU membership? These were clearly significant failings last time out so it would be wise for them to start developing more coherent plans now while they have space and time.

[LJS]

26 minutes ago, micawber said:

Does anyone know if the SNP is now undertaking any Ref2 preparatory work around currency and EU membership? These were clearly significant failings last time out so it would be wise for them to start developing more coherent plans now while they have space and time.

They would be crazy not to.

 

& they're not crazy.

 

Politically, they would also be crazy to announce they were doing so as it would just lead to "SNP admit to indyref lies" headlines.

Just to save Neil's dribbling exultation, this is not me conceding that the SNP Lied in the Indyref...at least not anymore than BT did.

[Comfy Bean]

35 minutes ago, micawber said:

Does anyone know if the SNP is now undertaking any Ref2 preparatory work around currency and EU membership? These were clearly significant failings last time out so it would be wise for them to start developing more coherent plans now while they have space and time.

Last I read there had been a " de-brief " type event and they were still not in agreement about currency and 1 or 2 other things. Nothing much of the dirty linen will get washed in public as NS runs a tight ship but Jim Sillars was quite vocal about a Scottish pound. My guess would be that as LJS ( who`s normally on the ball with this stuff ) has already said they are very unlikely to come out with too many dramatic changes any time soon as this would be jumped upon as admitting they were wrong first time round. I think the currency as you say needs to be thought through and they have time on their side - a rare luxury in politics. 

This works both ways of course as BT or project fear as they called themselves will also need some new material. We now know that a NO vote will not in fact lead to HMRC jobs being safe in Scotland etc and we know the ground YES made up last time. I would hope they would win by a comfortable margin but the swing now required looks to be relatively small when you look at the ground they made up last time.

I would include the popularity and effectiveness of NS as not everyone swooned at the lovely Eck like Neil does 

The result of the Council Tax review is due before Christmas and then we have the election so expect NO indy talk in the next 6 months or so. In the meantime the SNP will hopefully continue to take Scotland down a different path ( see austerity or even Syria ) than the UK Tory Govt. Labour are bound to get their act together eventually up here so NS will be taking nothing for granted.

[Comfy Bean]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

hey comfy, have you never stopped to think why it is you're forever having to move on to a new idea to present as iScotland's salvation because the previous one has been knocked down?

It's not because the next idea you're going to suggest (one that originates in the myth factory each and every time) is the idea that will work, it's because there is no idea which will work - at least, not in the sorts of timescales which would be acceptable to the Scottish public.

But anyway. I'm happy to trust Stash's research against a snipper's unless that snipper proves otherwise, and I suspect this is the last we'll here of this.

I look forwards to your next suggestion.

I never said renewable energy would be Scotland`s " salvation ". Why would I use a word like that. I don`t believe we need salvation.

It`s not my fault that you cannot remember the various times I have brought it or Patrick Harvie up over the months / years.

The suggestion I just make up " new ideas " that you knock down is as laughable as it is accurate. I do believe that you think that is exactly what`s happening here but it`s really not.

[Comfy Bean]

On 02/12/2015, 07:30:19, russycarps said:

Coal is your most abundant natural resource. What part of that are you not understanding?

 

Have you looked into this yet Russ ? There was a reason why I never mentioned coal ( you keep doing it ). Your the resident oil expert but your clearly not following what`s happening with the burning of coal up my way so closely.

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/11/2015, 22:17:54, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

I`m not sure I mentioned spending shortfalls but in the spirit of your question :

25% of Europe`s tidal power

10% of Europe`s wave power

25% of Europe`s off shore wind resource.

* Source Friends of the Earth.

For such a small Country these are huge numbers that open up opportunities / jobs / science / research plus the heavy work around taking down/ re-cycling the oil fields.

Not from friends of the earth : Since the 70`s over 40Billion barrells have been extracted. If we adjust for inflation that`s over £300Billion in UK Govt direct tax revenue. £300billion.

By 2020 the Scottish Govt has a target of generating 100% of our leccy consumption from renewable sources.

Add to that we would like to banish nuclear weapons from our shores and lets not forget the shit the casino banking has got us all into.

 

For anyone who can be bothered...... here`s an excellent efest slight of hand or a touch of smoke and mirrors as I said earlier.

Above is my post that introduced some of the research around Scotland`s renewable energy capacity. As I often try and do I provided a source for the info ( this doesn`t make it right of course ). The numbers, and the words that accompany them are the key here so now in red for ease of reference.

 

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile, smaller scale tidal generation projects are popping up all over the Bristol channel, generating more power (despite it being currently almost nothing) than exists by similar means around the claimed (is it even right?) 25% of Europe's coastline in Scotland.

 

Boom ! Neil responds to my figures and keeps the 25% but look what`s happened to the words after the numbers. It`s brilliant !

No-one would believe that Scotland has 25% of Europe`s coastline surely 

 

Stash has to check the internet but he`s got the numbers (see below). He then advises us that Scotland has    " nowhere near 25% of the coastline of Europe ".

Add a touch of French and a twist of " fanciful snippers " and jobs a good `un.

Well almost.

 

10 hours ago, Stash said:

I don't think anyone could try to claim Scotland has 25% of Europe's coastline. A quick check of the World Factbook says that:

• Norway has the longest European coastline - 25,148km
• Greece isn't doing too bad with 13,676km
• The UK is quite some way behind Norway though - 12,429km - no indication what the Scottish coastline is, but it's smaller than this by some way I would estimate. 
• Italy is a bit behind the UK - 7,600

France & Spain both have around 5,000km and Ireland lags well behind at 1,500km. So Scotland has nowhere near 25% of the coastline of Europe. 

I've seen quite a few snippers make the 25% claim recently. They claim that Scotland has an estimated 25% of Europe's tidal potential and 10% of its wave potential and that currently boasts 25% of Europe's offshore wind resources. As far as I can tell, this is based on the idea that the only coastline which can successfully be exploited, is where it is remote from human habitation. I did a little digging to find the source. As Comfy himself quoted the Friends of the Earth as his source, it seems a good starting point: 

Friends of the earth (Scotland), along with RSPB(S) & WWF(S) released a briefing paper in 2006 making the claim, which in turn pulled the info from a 2005 Framework Paper by the SNP, which in turn pulled the info from a 2001 submission by the Scottish Executive to the PIU energy review, which in turn pulled the info from a consultation by the DTI & DEFRA by a private Scottish based company named Ocean Power Delivery Ltd (later named Pelamis Wave Power)

The interesting thing about Pelamis is that in 2014 the went into administration after being unable to secure the level of additional funding required for the further development of their wave power technology. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30151276

So it seems that the recent cause-célèbre of the fanciful snippers is actually a doorway to be a cautionary tale on relying on unproven & expensive technology (and potential no matter how it is calculated). In fact, when KPMG found no one would buy Pelamis, the company was wound up, owing over £13m to the Scottish government, councils and universities, yet the technology developed by Pelamis could only be sold for several hundred-thousand pounds. 

So in short, it seems that the 25% claim is over 14 years old, unsubstantiated by outside study and was made by a company that folded because it couldn't find investment enough to exploit some of the 25% potential for itself. Who'd have thunk it?

 

Stash`s detailed analysis confirms that only an idiot would claim that Scotland had 25% of Europe`s coastline and he provides the actual length of Norway and Greece`s coastline plus Italy for good measure.

We are all impressed with the attention to detail required to point out the stupidity of Neil`s claim and Russy is moved to give Stash a well deserved up-vote thingy.

 The final card is played by Neil who, without a hint of irony, then posts " brilliantly done Stash " ending on a wee laugh out loud thing.

 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Brilliantly done, Stash.

 

Marvellous scenes 

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

For anyone who can be bothered...... here`s an excellent efest slight of hand or a touch of smoke and mirrors as I said earlier.

Above is my post that introduced some of the research around Scotland`s renewable energy capacity. As I often try and do I provided a source for the info ( this doesn`t make it right of course ). The numbers, and the words that accompany them are the key here so now in red for ease of reference.

 

Boom ! Neil responds to my figures and keeps the 25% but look what`s happened to the words after the numbers. It`s brilliant !

No-one would believe that Scotland has 25% of Europe`s coastline surely 

 

Stash has to check the internet but he`s got the numbers (see below). He then advises us that Scotland has    " nowhere near 25% of the coastline of Europe ".

Add a touch of French and a twist of " fanciful snippers " and jobs a good `un.

Well almost.

 

 

Stash`s detailed analysis confirms that only an idiot would claim that Scotland had 25% of Europe`s coastline and he provides the actual length of Norway and Greece`s coastline plus Italy for good measure.

We are all impressed with the attention to detail required to point out the stupidity of Neil`s claim and Russy is moved to give Stash a well deserved up-vote thingy.

 The final card is played by Neil who, without a hint of irony, then posts " brilliantly done Stash " ending on a wee laugh out loud thing.

 

 

Marvellous scenes 

and they almost got away with it...