Talking-up Scotland

(c) heraldscotland.com

As we move confidently toward 100% reliable renewable energy supply, another major step on the way has been announced by Scottish Water Horizons. They’ve just completed a £1.2 million, 5 000 panel solar farm at Badentinan near Lhanbryde. The electricity will be used to power two borehole water wells nearby. That means pumping water from the ground to a nearby water treatment works.

Even bigger are the planned 80 000-panel farm by Elgin Energy and the 200 000-panel farm on the abandoned Milltown airfield.

You’ll remember from previous reports here that Moray’s long summer days are a big attraction. Fuller explanation is here:

Install solar energy in Scotland? After the month we’ve just had?

https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/151029/scottish-water-install-1-2million-solar-farm-speyside/

Professor Thompson of Edinburgh University’s school of Geosciences said: ‘an analysis of production decline in offshore fields showed the industry is entering its final decade.’

Before going any further, I take it he’s not referring to or considering the massive discoveries already made west of Shetland? See:

Estimates of Scotland’s oil reserves West of Shetland now massively increased to around 8 billion barrels! ‘A super-resource now on the cards.’

Professor Thompson says also: ‘we need a bold transition to renewables, energy storage, improved insulation and energy efficiencies.’ I agree but aren’t we making good progress on this already? See:

Scotland’s energy 100% renewable by 2030?

Returning to the main point though, that we have only 10 years left. Already the Industry body, Oil and Gas UK (OGUK), has challenged the prediction that North Sea oil and gas reserves will run out in 10 years. Here’s an extract from their response in Energy Voice:

‘BP’s Quad 204 project started producing in May and is expected to deliver 450million barrels of oil equivalent through to 2035 and beyond. Statoil’s Mariner field, slated for first oil next year, could pump out 250million barrels over a 30-year period. BP’s Clair Ridge project is designed to continue producing until 2050.’

Add to the above evidence, the Wall Street Journal’s report yesterday headed:

‘The North Sea Is Suddenly, Surprisingly, an Oil Hot Spot’

See this extract from their report:

‘After almost a decade of decline, the North Sea energy industry is experiencing a flurry of deal activity. Major oil players say they are looking at growth in the area, and private-equity funds have built up war chests totalling $15 billion for North Sea acquisitions. Investors have sunk more than $16 billion so far this year into European deals for assets mostly located in the North Sea, a flurry that far outstrips energy deal activity in all but American shale country and Canada’s oil sands, according to Edinburgh-based energy-consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. The biggest deal came last month, with Total SA’s $5 billion purchase of A.P. Moeller-Maersk ’s North Sea-focused oil-and-gas business. Royal Dutch Shell PLC is planning to spend $600 million to $1 billion a year in the North Sea in the coming years, while BP PLC expects to double its production there by 2020.’

Is it possible that the Professor’s team’s enthusiasm for renewables, which I share, has made them a little unprofessional or careless in their assessment of oil reserves? They’re academics. They wouldn’t be selective with the evidence just to make a point, would they? Prof Thompson is English. He wouldn’t be strongly opposed to Scottish independence would he?

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-north-sea-is-suddenly-surprisingly-an-oil-hot-spot-1505826001

Yesterday, Hugh Cullen’s piece in Common Space was headed:

‘The movement needs clarity to reverse the indy retreat’

He went on to say:

‘Opinion Polls taken since the 2014 referendum paint a picture of support slowly trickling away from independence.’

This is just wrong. Support for independence according to the last three Panelbase and Survation polls is holding steady at 40-46% and well within striking distance of a win after campaigning, a hard Brexit and further gaffs by a frankly laughable opposition leadership. Only two days earlier, Sean Bell, also on Common Space was headlined:

‘Support for Scottish independence rebounds three years after referendum’

Sean was referring to the last Survation poll putting support for independence at 46%, one point above the 2014 result.

So, what is Common Space for? Well, it seems to be a kind of talking shop for ineffectual liberal intellectuals which crucially will not make much impact on votes. The steady flow of hard evidence for independence from Indyref2, Wings and, I hope, me, just might gain votes. Infighting, especially undermining the SNP, will damage the Yes campaign. Regardless of your position on socio-economic theory, only the SNP can win this. We need to get behind them, direct all our fire against the Union and wait patiently till the great day. Then we can return to our other politics and, if that’s what want to do, attack the SNP. Isn’t that clarity, Hugh?

After that we heard that the SNP have paid a ‘huge price’ for not making the case for independence at elections and notably:

‘I was an independence activist before I joined the SSP and I’m infuriated to see the movement that we built from 2012 so dominated by a single party. It makes us weaker.’

Why be infuriated? The SNP are just far more popular than the SSP or the Greens or any other pro-independence group. They lost seats at the last election I know and Corbyn along with the mainstream media push for Davidson played a big part in that but the effect is already wearing off. Support for the SNP remains solid above 40% and according to the last Panelbase poll has climbed 10% as the Labour and Tory support falls again. See:
Latest poll of Westminster voting intentions suggests SNP are recovering from temporary effects of Corbyn and Davidson with 10% increase

As for the advantages of diversity in the Yes movement, is there hard evidence that that was true? I’d have thought history tells us that that diversity in a movement can result in infighting, lack of direction, lack of impetus and lack of clarity for the voters. Perhaps it’s too extreme for analogy, but ‘diversity’ on the Republican side lost the Spanish Civil War.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/11748/hugh-cullen-movement-needs-clarity-reverse-indy-retreat

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/11739/support-scottish-independence-rebounds-three-years-after-referendum#

Footnote: After independence, I’d probably vote SSP.

(c) scottishhousingnews.com

I’ve just left the Insider magazine headline as it was. Can’t really improve on it. I know the Greens are not always as disciplined as I’d like re supporting the movement but they are in principle independence supporting so credit to them for this idea and I hope the SNP are ‘man enough’ to embrace it. According to their research published by the sturdy Andy Wightman:

• there are 12,763 hectares of vacant land north of the Border
• 69% could be developed
• Bottom of Form
• Top of Form
• Bottom of Form
• a tax on vacant land in Scotland could raise £200m a year for public services
• Glasgow has 782 derelict sites, North Lanarkshire 487, North Ayrshire 281 and Edinburgh, where house prices are the highest of any Scottish city, 76
• in 2016, 30% of Scotland’s population lived within 500 metres of a derelict site.
• that rose to 59 per cent for those in the most deprived areas
• bringing such sites into the non-domestic rates system could raise cash to build affordable homes and tackle the housing crisis

Wightman said:

‘The Scottish Government , in rejecting bolder land reform legislation last year, promised to consult on the taxation of derelict and vacant land and I hope this paper brings that forward.  Given the lack of affordable housing and continuing financial pressures on public services, it’s unacceptable that landowners can profit from withholding land suitable for housing. There is growing political consensus in Scotland that we need big changes to tackle the housing crisis, so let’s not be timid when it comes to giving local councils the power to tax vacant and derelict land.’

That looks like good constructive criticism the SNP should and can take heed of.

http://www.insider.co.uk/news/tax-derelict-land-could-raise-11196264

To see a comprehensive list, see:

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/04/3409/4#t1

 

(c) visitscotland.com

According to Informi, a website which gives advice on starting small businesses, Ipswich is the best place in the UK to start. Ipswich? Really? Don’t you need five-fingered hands to run a business? Just joking, any East Anglians reading my blog. Are there any? Anyhow, Dundee came second which is brilliant. Unlike Edinburgh, Dundee, UNESCO first UK ‘city of design’ in 2014,  has my full unconditional affections as Yes City 2014. It deserves all the good news it gets.

There have already been a few good news stories about Dundee reported here recently. See:

‘University of Dundee is UK’s highest ranked institution for influencing innovation’

Major deal for Dundee-based Artificial Intelligence Company

Teckle! Dundee Good News Special

Here’s a wee extract from the report explaining why Ipswich and Dundee topped the poll:

‘Ipswich came top of the list, due predominantly to low pollution levels, high levels of ultrafast broadband, and a low rate of business closures. Dundee’s second place was mainly due to a very low churn rate of businesses over the past three years, along with low property prices.’

I’d have thought Dundee’s universities (see the story above re innovation) might have put it above Ipswich. I never hear of the University of East Anglia doing much newsworthy. And is pollution bad in Dundee? Surely it’s too windy for it to linger long?

https://sbnn.co.uk/2017/09/19/dundee-takes-silver-medal-list-best-places-start-new-business-2017/

(c) http://edinburgh.org/

According to a report in the Scottish Business New Network, it’s all good news for Edinburgh (including Leith?) these days. Even sunshine levels were up 10% on last year. The main point of the article however was that Edinburgh is the most prosperous city in the UK after London. I suppose I should be cheering this but I’m a bit restrained by wishing other parts of the country were sharing more in Edinburgh’s good fortune especially when it is the least pro-Independence city in Scotland. However, it’s still in Scotland, so here’s the evidence

• most prosperous UK city outside London
• fastest growing population after Manchester
• the lowest unemployment of any major UK city in each of the last ten calendar years
• adds the greatest value to the economy
• highest average disposable income per resident
• created the highest number of jobs through foreign direct investment after London
• percentage of the workforce with a degree level qualification or equivalent higher than any other major UK city at 55%,
• highest satisfaction rates with public transport among other Scottish cities at 89%

There’s more self-congratulation in the full article but my heart’s not in Midlothian.

https://sbnn.co.uk/2017/09/19/edinburgh-prosperous-uk-city-outside-london/

I’ve reported numerous times on the increases in social house-building in Scotland, mostly subsidised by Scottish government grants. I know we need even more, but see:

Scottish Government increases supply of affordable housing and builds at more, perhaps much more, than twice the rate as in England

However, the situation in England is worsening dramatically according to the National Housing Federation. Despite one million on waiting lists, English government grants have fallen from £11.4 billion in 2009 to £5.3bn in 2015. The federation describes the situation as a crisis and points out that it makes little economic sense even from the government perspective with spending on housing benefit rising from £16.6bn to £25.1bn over the last twenty years. Housing benefit going to private landlords has doubled over the last ten years to £9.1 billion. This latter point might be where it does make sense to some Tories. See this from the Guardian in 2016:

‘According to Guardian research, almost a third of MPs are now letting out their houses or flats, with 196 declaring rental income on the official register of interests this year. The majority of those are earning more than £10,000 a year from the property, topping up their basic MP’s annual salary of £67,060. The Conservative party has the highest number of landlord MPs at 128, meaning 39% of Tory MPs are landlords, compared with 26% of Scottish National party MPs and 22% from Labour.’

At first sight, I don’t like the look of the SNP percentage but I suppose what we can’t see is whether an MP is renting out their only property or whether they have a portfolio. Also, the use of percentages for the SNP is misleading. The number will be around 12 or 13 compared to the 128 Tories.

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/14/mp-landlords-number-risen-quarter-last-parliament-housing-bill

http://www.scottishhousingnews.com/17325/england-social-housing-spending-at-record-low-due-to-government-cuts/

(c) powerengineeringint.com

Well, actually, I was surprised by the results.

A YouGov poll of 1660 adults with data collected between 12^th and 13^th September has found that most people would happily live within 5 miles of a wind farm or community wind turbine but that they would be unhappy to live within 5 miles of a fracking site or a nuclear plant. The survey was carried out for climate change organisation 10:10. Here are the figures

Unhappy to live within 5 miles of a nuclear plant                              62%

Unhappy to live within 5 miles of a fracking site                                61%

Happy to live within 5 miles of a wind farm                                       65%

Happy to live within 5 miles of a community wind turbine scheme   69%

I’m surprised that so many would be happy to live near a fracking or nuclear site and even a bit surprised they’d be happy to live near a wind farm. I’d have thought reports of clusters of cancer near nuclear plants would have scared more than 62%. See, for example:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/apr/29/nuclearpower.cancercare

In the Scottish context, there have been repeated reports of hazardous leaks at Torness and at Hunterston B. See, for example:

http://www.robedwards.com/2009/09/revealed-radioactive-waste-leak-from-hunterston.html

http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/13564351.Concern_after_radioactive__incident__at_Torness/

Are the reports coming from the USA about fracking health risks not making it onto mainstream media because, again, I’d have expected a much higher percentage to be worried about living near one. See, for example:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21120-how-fracking-caused-earthquakes-in-the-uk/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-alt/how-10-years-of-fracking_b_9806768.html

I’m even a bit surprised by the large number happy to live near wind farms given the many reports of noise problems and associated health complaints. See, for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/7377641/Noise-complaints-about-one-in-six-wind-farms.html

The survey also compared the responses of Conservative and Labour supporters. Perhaps predictably, the Conservatives said they were less worried about living near a nuclear plant (55% to 69%) or a fracking site (55% to 71%). Now I’m surprised by these data. I took for granted that Tory voters expect nuclear plants and fracking sites to be located near the poor and nowhere near their leafy suburbs. I remember the fuss in my local area when the local authority planned to locate cesspit tanks near a relatively affluent (not effluent) part of town and after local protest moved it to a more deprived area. I couldn’t find media reports on it but found this kind of comparable example from the USA:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/08/13/17759/they-figured-our-neighborhood-black-so-theyll-do-it

https://www.energyvoice.com/other-news/150902/new-poll-finds-public-wary-nuclear-fracking-sites/

In one of the biggest changes following devolution, the following benefits are being devolved to Scotland:

Ill Health and Disability Benefits:

Disability Living Allowance

Personal Independence Payment

Attendance Allowance

Severe Disablement Allowance

Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

Carers Allowance

Best Start Grant

Child Benefit

Funeral Expenses

Cold Weather and Winter Fuel Payments

Discretionary Housing Payments

Some powers in relation to Universal Credit

A new agency will be set-up in Scotland to manage these benefits and the Scottish Government has already promised to treat those in need with a bit more compassion than is often the case in England. I feel sure the good folk of Dundee and Glasgow can provide the kind of people, with a bit of empathy, required for the jobs. The First Minister said on this:

‘Having powers over newly devolved benefits presents an exciting opportunity to create a social security system for Scotland that is fairer and based on dignity and respect.’

Though the HQ will be in Dundee the 1 500 jobs will be split evenly between the two cities to ‘spread the economic benefit across the east and west of Scotland.’

It’s good to see a bit of much-needed de-centralisation away from Edinburgh to two cities that deserved to benefit more from devolution. Personally, I’d have put the parliament in Perth.

Last year, Labour-controlled, North Lanarkshire Council were exposed by their own auditors for massive waste of public funds amounting to £20 million. The offences included paying one contractor £9 million for £1.5 million-worth of work. One of the council officials involved got a free Irish golfing holiday from one of the contractors.

However, this goes back a long way. I remember my late Dad, furious at our local Labour councillor for going off on a ‘fact-finding mission’ to some sunny foreign place, at his expense, in the 1960s.

More recently, we had a Labour council (Falkirk?) using public money to pay for the policing costs at an Orange Walk.

I feel sure readers from all parts will have similar stories to tell so the independent review launched by the SNP administration in Glasgow into the activities of former Labour administrations is none too soon. Needless to say, the Labour opposition is pretending not to be worried and, instead, trying to delay things by objecting to procedural matters.

There will be a social media platform for the public to make suggestions. I’ll be reading that. It will be good and juicy, I feel sure.

For a bit of history, see this from 1997

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/a-very-nasty-smell-in-labours-backyard-1245183.html