VATICAN CITY, APRIL 27, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Scientists might not have human behavior to blame for global warming, according to the president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Antonio Zichichi, who is also a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna, made this assertion today in an address delivered to an international congress sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment.
He also cited that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view. The U.N. commission was founded in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.
Zichichi, who is also member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, showed that the mathematical models used by the IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.
He said that the IPCC used "the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations."
The physicist affirmed that on the basis of actual scientific fact "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes," and that it is plausible that "man is not to blame."
He also reminded those present that 500,000 years ago the Earth lost the North and South Poles four times. The poles disappeared and reformed four times, he said.
Zichichi said that in the end he is not convinced that global warming is caused by the increase of emissions of "greenhouse gases" produced through human activity.
Climate changes, he said, depend in a significant way on the fluctuation of cosmic rays.
Monday, April 30, 2007
WHAT "CONSENSUS" ON WARMING
The media have been pushing the claim that there is a "consensus" among scientists, not merely among politicians & journalists on the warming swindle. What sort of consensus excludes the President of their organisation?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
A member of the Anti-smoking Publican Party posted in the Scotsman on Sunday:
"The current smoking ban was initiated by pressure groups such as ASH Scotland who incidentally received £1.7 of taxpayers money from the Scottish Executive between 1999 and 2005.
I have met many non-smokers who have said they support our view as they see the ban as a freedom of choice issue."
I replied
"Thanks Eddie I hadn't realised they had been given £1.7 (million) of our money to browbeat us.
Rather like Scottish Renewables boss getting money to lobby (& write letters to the Scotsman) for more money for windmills.
I am also a non-smoker who shares the view that the smoking ban is an "illiberal attack on individual freedom".
Our political class is a very incestuous bunch who seem to be cross subsidising each other at every opportunity.
If this money had gone to a political party (either yours or ours) to lobby against spending more taxpayer money there would, correctly, be an outcry."
"The current smoking ban was initiated by pressure groups such as ASH Scotland who incidentally received £1.7 of taxpayers money from the Scottish Executive between 1999 and 2005.
I have met many non-smokers who have said they support our view as they see the ban as a freedom of choice issue."
I replied
"Thanks Eddie I hadn't realised they had been given £1.7 (million) of our money to browbeat us.
Rather like Scottish Renewables boss getting money to lobby (& write letters to the Scotsman) for more money for windmills.
I am also a non-smoker who shares the view that the smoking ban is an "illiberal attack on individual freedom".
Our political class is a very incestuous bunch who seem to be cross subsidising each other at every opportunity.
If this money had gone to a political party (either yours or ours) to lobby against spending more taxpayer money there would, correctly, be an outcry."
WHY ARE OUR POLITICIANS SO BAD?
Tom Brown in the Scotland on Sunday:
I put my job on the line twice with editors who were uncertain about backing the Scottish Parliament. Now, I look at the mediocrities on all sides of the chamber - a motley collection who, from the very first session, were described as "duds", "sweetie-wives", "skivers" and, of course, "numpties" - and I ask: "My God! Did I do it for this?"
...We envisaged teachers and educationalists bringing their classroom experience to schools policy-making, doctors and health professionals fixing the NHS, lawyers immersed in the rights and wrongs of the law-and-order system, instead of a social worker who is out of her depth and a laughing stock as Justice Minister.
Scotland is a first-rate country capable of producing first-rate politicians at UK and international level. So why have we settled for second and third-raters in our Parliament?
From the start, it was deliberate policy by the party hierarchies to choose candidates who would toe the leadership line. Rather than the brightest and best, they opted for the dullest and safest.....
I commented:
Only thing I disagree with is his list of professions which should be represented in parliament. To my mind we have more than enough lawyers & teachers & a grave shortage of engineers, accountants & scientists.
I put my job on the line twice with editors who were uncertain about backing the Scottish Parliament. Now, I look at the mediocrities on all sides of the chamber - a motley collection who, from the very first session, were described as "duds", "sweetie-wives", "skivers" and, of course, "numpties" - and I ask: "My God! Did I do it for this?"
...We envisaged teachers and educationalists bringing their classroom experience to schools policy-making, doctors and health professionals fixing the NHS, lawyers immersed in the rights and wrongs of the law-and-order system, instead of a social worker who is out of her depth and a laughing stock as Justice Minister.
Scotland is a first-rate country capable of producing first-rate politicians at UK and international level. So why have we settled for second and third-raters in our Parliament?
From the start, it was deliberate policy by the party hierarchies to choose candidates who would toe the leadership line. Rather than the brightest and best, they opted for the dullest and safest.....
I commented:
Only thing I disagree with is his list of professions which should be represented in parliament. To my mind we have more than enough lawyers & teachers & a grave shortage of engineers, accountants & scientists.
SoS has an article on business reaction to an SNP win. I commented :
The SNP have promised to improve growth to beyond the UK average, IE above 2.5% & to 4% on independence. If they get the power to change corporation tax that is fiscally at least as good as independence.
A 4% growth rate is easily achievable if the will is there & in my opinion this pledge is more important to the average person than independence.
This promise must not be ignored & it is up to the media & business leaders (& the 9% Growth party if elected in Glasgow) to keep reminding them.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Discussing a stripogram ban.
The same vindictive politically correct puritanism which brought in the smoking ban. Doubtless we will be told that passive enjoyment at looking at sexy women can harm you.It should be remembered that the smoking ban was supported by all parties - Scotland's political class, not merely one party, is the problem. Among the 26 things we support & the other parties almost unanimously oppose was not merely ending the smoking ban but: 16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.I must admit I had thought they would get the election over before announcing more such things
Stephen Hawking in weightless training.
"I want to encourage public interest in space flight and I hope many people will follow in my path.
"Life on Earth is at ever- increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically-engineered virus or other dangers. "
"I think the human race has no future unless it goes into space."
This is, of course completly incompatible with the Greens who say that humanity's future is retreating back into our past. Another point is that the disabled might find space a particularly congenial place to live. Even the Moon, at 1/6th our gravity, could mean many years of extended life to those with heart problems.
It is shameful that having got there in 1969 we gave up. We could have had 10s of thousands of people living there now.
A debate on policy
The same vindictive politically correct puritanism which brought in the smoking ban. Doubtless we will be told that passive enjoyment at looking at sexy women can harm you.It should be remembered that the smoking ban was supported by all parties - Scotland's political class, not merely one party, is the problem. Among the 26 things we support & the other parties almost unanimously oppose was not merely ending the smoking ban but: 16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.I must admit I had thought they would get the election over before announcing more such things
Stephen Hawking in weightless training.
"I want to encourage public interest in space flight and I hope many people will follow in my path.
"Life on Earth is at ever- increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically-engineered virus or other dangers. "
"I think the human race has no future unless it goes into space."
This is, of course completly incompatible with the Greens who say that humanity's future is retreating back into our past. Another point is that the disabled might find space a particularly congenial place to live. Even the Moon, at 1/6th our gravity, could mean many years of extended life to those with heart problems.
It is shameful that having got there in 1969 we gave up. We could have had 10s of thousands of people living there now.
A debate on policy
ADAM SMITH INSTITUE
Instead of current growth rates that trail the rest of the country, Scotland ten years into independence could out-perform the UK, the report claimed.If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.
The paper, Independent Scotland: The Road to Riches by international economist Gabriel Stein of Lombard Street Research, found that from 1992 to 2004, Scotland's gross value added growth was only 87 per cent of that of the UK.
If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 1.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.----------------------------------------
This is almost exactly what the 9% Growth party have been saying (though we say that building enough inexpensive new nuclear can push it up to 9%) & indeed what I was expelled from the LibDems for saying. However if we get the setting of corporation tax rates devloved to us & I see no reason why we can't, then we can do all this with or without separation.
Equally we might get separation & a government supported by the Greens & S&SSP - a scenario for which the word "desperate" would be inadequate.
If the 9% Growth Party do not do well in Glasgow it is that much more likely that the SNP activists will be able to pull them in a leftward direction.
Friday, April 27, 2007
GLASGOW HUSTINGS
I went to the Stop the War Coalition Hustings last week. Though I hadn't been invited I was, after a bit of a push, given a place because the Tories & Labour had both decided not to come.
They didn't really know what to make of me since on the one hand I spoke strongly against both the Iraq & Yugoslav wars & got a rousing cheer for saying that, under the precedent of Nuremberg, Blair was guilty of war crimes & it was in the interests not merely of justice but international legality, that he be brought to trial.
On the other hand, being basically a coalition of socialists my freemarketsim didn't go down well & saying that we are going to have massive blackouts if we don't build new nuclear went unanswered. Finally my answer to question on whether the BNP should be allowed to stand my liberal commitment to free speech, even for people we disagree with went down like a lead balloon. Nonetheless I believe it.
At the end a nice young lady took my photo & said that while she was a left wing socialist her husband was a classic liberal & would almost certainly vote for me. I assume in that house they throw copies of Marx & Adam Smith rather than crockery.
---------------------------------------------
Unfortunately I have not been invited to any other hustings, mostly organised by the churches. I assume, apart from being more convenient, this is a handy way of de facto banning the BNP without discriminating against them. If so it is an example of how censorship, once started, tends to spread.
It is said that the public meeting is dead & I am certain I reach for more people on the net here & on newspaper online sections than I could at meetings. Nonetheless it is a bad thing for democracy that the choice of what people willing to make the effort of coming to hustings are allowed to hear is being censored. I am also convinced that I could speak as effectively on my policies as any of the others with the possible exception of Tommy, who does have an extremely effective form of bluster.
They didn't really know what to make of me since on the one hand I spoke strongly against both the Iraq & Yugoslav wars & got a rousing cheer for saying that, under the precedent of Nuremberg, Blair was guilty of war crimes & it was in the interests not merely of justice but international legality, that he be brought to trial.
On the other hand, being basically a coalition of socialists my freemarketsim didn't go down well & saying that we are going to have massive blackouts if we don't build new nuclear went unanswered. Finally my answer to question on whether the BNP should be allowed to stand my liberal commitment to free speech, even for people we disagree with went down like a lead balloon. Nonetheless I believe it.
At the end a nice young lady took my photo & said that while she was a left wing socialist her husband was a classic liberal & would almost certainly vote for me. I assume in that house they throw copies of Marx & Adam Smith rather than crockery.
---------------------------------------------
Unfortunately I have not been invited to any other hustings, mostly organised by the churches. I assume, apart from being more convenient, this is a handy way of de facto banning the BNP without discriminating against them. If so it is an example of how censorship, once started, tends to spread.
It is said that the public meeting is dead & I am certain I reach for more people on the net here & on newspaper online sections than I could at meetings. Nonetheless it is a bad thing for democracy that the choice of what people willing to make the effort of coming to hustings are allowed to hear is being censored. I am also convinced that I could speak as effectively on my policies as any of the others with the possible exception of Tommy, who does have an extremely effective form of bluster.
NUCLEAR COSTS
Another assertion of nuclear being more expensive on the Daily Record blog http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/messageboards/page.cfm?objectid=15649356&method=m2_msg_full&siteid=66633 which I corrected & brought no further dispute.
Duncan McFarlane from CARLUKE said...
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe nor CO2 free. .In order: British nuclear, currently owned by the government has provided the Treasury with £2.5 billion profit in recent years. This is not a government subsidy. France is 80% nuclear is producing it at .1.3p (2.6cents) a unit selling it to all its neighbours including the south of England - http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htmTotal deaths in nuclear since Chernobyl are 2 worldwide, in Japan. By comparison coal kills 150,000 annually worldwide 20 people in Britain have died on windmills.Nuclear produces no CO2 by burning. It is a nuclear not chemical reaction. The CO2 opponents talk about come from employees breathing, concrete setting industrial processes. Since each windmill requires a base of up to 1000 tons of poured concrete windmills, by that definition, produce vastly more CO2 than nuclear. Sincere opponents must also oppose windmills.
Duncan McFarlane from CARLUKE said...
Nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe nor CO2 free. .In order: British nuclear, currently owned by the government has provided the Treasury with £2.5 billion profit in recent years. This is not a government subsidy. France is 80% nuclear is producing it at .1.3p (2.6cents) a unit selling it to all its neighbours including the south of England - http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htmTotal deaths in nuclear since Chernobyl are 2 worldwide, in Japan. By comparison coal kills 150,000 annually worldwide 20 people in Britain have died on windmills.Nuclear produces no CO2 by burning. It is a nuclear not chemical reaction. The CO2 opponents talk about come from employees breathing, concrete setting industrial processes. Since each windmill requires a base of up to 1000 tons of poured concrete windmills, by that definition, produce vastly more CO2 than nuclear. Sincere opponents must also oppose windmills.
BBC INTERVIEW
Here is an interview I did for the BBC but purely to be delivered online.
It is the sole mention they have made of 9% Growth.
Considering that the BBC can be relied on to produce at least 2 items a day talking to the Green Party/Greenpeace/FoI spokespeople I think it is another example, like their continual news items about global warming being "worse than previously thought", where their political allegence lies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6567017.stm
Still I think it is an OK interview.
It is the sole mention they have made of 9% Growth.
Considering that the BBC can be relied on to produce at least 2 items a day talking to the Green Party/Greenpeace/FoI spokespeople I think it is another example, like their continual news items about global warming being "worse than previously thought", where their political allegence lies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6567017.stm
Still I think it is an OK interview.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE ON THEPC VIEW - WHEN THEY HAVE NO ARGUMENTS
I have been outed on the Herald forum [ http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1347061.0.0.php } so guess you had better know
Posted by: John McIntosh, Barrhead on 2:08pm Mon 23 Apr 07
================================================= 9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred. But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour. Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler. He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory. It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement. =============================================== All aboard the loony train.....
=================================================9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred.But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour.Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler.He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory.It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement.===============================================All aboard the loony train.....
I replied
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth party, Glasgow on 2:45pm Mon 23 Apr 07
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off. And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts. And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness . And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie. And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels. And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth. So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested. http://9percentgrowth.blogspot.com/
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off.And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts.And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness .And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie.And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels.And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth.So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested.
He didn't.
Posted by: John McIntosh, Barrhead on 2:08pm Mon 23 Apr 07
================================================= 9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred. But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour. Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler. He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory. It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement. =============================================== All aboard the loony train.....
=================================================9% Growth Party member (only one?) Neil Craig, whose science fiction book and comic shop Futureshock is nearby, was handing out leaflets. "No blackouts. No vindictive bans", the leaflet said. I assumed he was talking about the pub: Don't drink so much you have a blackout, but even if you do, you should not necessarily be barred.But no, it transpired the "blackouts" is a reference to nuclear power, of which the Glasgow regional list candidate is in favour.Our Mr Craig is not very green. He thinks climate change is a myth; he tilts firmly against windmills; he thinks the Green movement has killed more people than Hitler.He proposes building a tunnel from Oban to Mull to make the island more accessible to fans of Balamory.It says on Craig's CV that he was chucked out of the Lib Dems for illiberality which, in itself, is quite an achievement.===============================================All aboard the loony train.....
I replied
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth party, Glasgow on 2:45pm Mon 23 Apr 07
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off. And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts. And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness . And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie. And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels. And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth. So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested. http://9percentgrowth.blogspot.com/
Not only one & not handing out leaflets in Barrhead today but otherwise not far off.And yes I do think that when we lose 50% of our electricity we are bound to have blackouts.And yes i do think the smoking ban is a vindictive medically unjustified piece of political correctness .And yes catastrophic global warming (now being relabeled as climate change because the warming stopped in 1998) is a lie.And yes if Norway can build 740 km of tunnels in the last 2 decades then we could revolutionise the western highlands & islands by building tunnels.And yes the Liberal Democrats did expel me for opposing blackouts & supporting growth.So John if you would care to point out in which of these makes me a loony & the LDs sane I would be interested.
He didn't.
EATING UP THE GREENS
I have had several discussions with a group of Green party activists on the Herald comments section, one at least of whom is either employed as a Grenn organisation advertising flack or has a boss who has no objection to him spending his woking hours being one.
You can read our discussion on carbon footprints http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1342474.0.0.php
After a considerable amount of rudeness on their part & more measured rudenss on mine I said
Yet again - I repeat "And you still haven't come up with a single eco-scare story which, over time, turned out to be truthful." Come on - 1 single catastrophe scare story out of hundreds which turned out to be fully & entirely truthful isn't a lot to ask.
It isn't but they couldn't
But the next day on a different thread [ http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1347061.0.0.php ] about nuclear power we got on of the same Green Party trio saying
Are you sitting comfortably as this might come as something as a shock to you:No one is interested in anything you have to say! There, I think that needed to be said. Every day you come on here and get shot down in flames. Even when people answer your questions you either choose to ignore them or deflect the question on to some other topic.I look forward to May 4th so we don't have to put up with any more of your annoying drivel and your demented belief that the answer to all of the worlds ills in economic growth.
I do not get bullied by the likes of that & replied
Again Susan i would say that getting richer is an answer to quite a few ills. As a Green with whom I have clashed before perhaps you would care to dispute your point with fellow Green Michael Stewart who attacked me for saying that you Greens were, at least in practice & often in theory as well, anti-growth.Or perhaps, having been shot down in flames you will decline to answer - again.
The Green Party activists on these threads have claimed not to be anti-growth, to be anti-growth & to believe that windmills are cheap & nuclear power is expensive. I have repeatedly challengedc them on the latter asking them to explain how France couls possible be solvent not only running 80% on nuclear power but selling it at competitive rates to all their neighbours. Not Once have any of them tried to answer yet time after time they come back on subsequent threads with the same statement which they clearly know to be lies. Clearly many, possibly not all, Green activists have absolutely no compuntion about telling any entirely blatant lie if it helps their cause.
You can read our discussion on carbon footprints http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1342474.0.0.php
After a considerable amount of rudeness on their part & more measured rudenss on mine I said
Yet again - I repeat "And you still haven't come up with a single eco-scare story which, over time, turned out to be truthful." Come on - 1 single catastrophe scare story out of hundreds which turned out to be fully & entirely truthful isn't a lot to ask.
It isn't but they couldn't
But the next day on a different thread [ http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1347061.0.0.php ] about nuclear power we got on of the same Green Party trio saying
Are you sitting comfortably as this might come as something as a shock to you:No one is interested in anything you have to say! There, I think that needed to be said. Every day you come on here and get shot down in flames. Even when people answer your questions you either choose to ignore them or deflect the question on to some other topic.I look forward to May 4th so we don't have to put up with any more of your annoying drivel and your demented belief that the answer to all of the worlds ills in economic growth.
I do not get bullied by the likes of that & replied
Again Susan i would say that getting richer is an answer to quite a few ills. As a Green with whom I have clashed before perhaps you would care to dispute your point with fellow Green Michael Stewart who attacked me for saying that you Greens were, at least in practice & often in theory as well, anti-growth.Or perhaps, having been shot down in flames you will decline to answer - again.
The Green Party activists on these threads have claimed not to be anti-growth, to be anti-growth & to believe that windmills are cheap & nuclear power is expensive. I have repeatedly challengedc them on the latter asking them to explain how France couls possible be solvent not only running 80% on nuclear power but selling it at competitive rates to all their neighbours. Not Once have any of them tried to answer yet time after time they come back on subsequent threads with the same statement which they clearly know to be lies. Clearly many, possibly not all, Green activists have absolutely no compuntion about telling any entirely blatant lie if it helps their cause.
PROPOSAL FOR A MAG-LEV TRAIN TO EDINBURGH
Our former Executive have been floating the idea of a bullet train or more fun yet a magnetis levitation (Mag-Lev) train between Glasgow & Edinburgh. Interest in this stirred when Nicol Stephen visited China & saw their train set & wanted to play too. Now normally I am entirely in favour of high technology projects but was put off by the price. I have commented on this previously [ http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/07/bullet-train-from-glasgow-to-edinburgh.html }.
The idea was floated in the Herald { http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1345823.0.0.php ] & shot out of the water by all & sundry including myself.
Particularly interesting was this from an accountant Robert Fotheringay
The overall structured costs of this project are indeed in the region of £7.5 billion,startup costs to and including completion are estimated at between £1.7 billion and£4.8 billion depending on what figures and criteria you believe,what is not in dispute is that the overall all in total will be around £7.5 billion.As an accountant with knowledge of this proposal all I can say is that it is totally not feasable,the figures outlays and returns,are wishful thinking.
UK Ultraspeed posted a long justification which you can see on the link, if you have nothing better to do. It shows how much palpably untrue things a flack can believe. My reply 7 another commet are here
To reach £150 million from tickets at £8.95 single would (assuming there are no return tickets) require 16,759,776 travellers - about 10 times the current rate. Taking about half the traffic as going on weekday rushours (104 hours a year) we get about 80,000 an hour. Assuming a train each way every quarter hour each train would have to carry about 10,000 passengers. If this number was achieved it still wouldn't cover the subsidy to run the thing, let alone start to pay the cost of building it.These people expect the electorate to swallow this nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 1:29am Sun 22 Apr 07
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further: With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue @ £8.95 Per Ticket = 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a. With 500.00 Passengers/train = 33,519.55 Trains/annum There are 365.00 Days Which = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way) Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each direction The big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey. With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further:With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue@ £8.95 Per Ticket= 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a.With 500.00 Passengers/train= 33,519.55 Trains/annumThere are 365.00 DaysWhich = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way)Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each directionThe big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey.With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
On my previous discussion of this I thought this far more expensive than our automated rail proposal - I did not imagine that anybody would have the arrogance & idiocy to try to land us with this at a cost of £7.5 billion. I clearly overestimated our leaders.
The idea was floated in the Herald { http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1345823.0.0.php ] & shot out of the water by all & sundry including myself.
Particularly interesting was this from an accountant Robert Fotheringay
The overall structured costs of this project are indeed in the region of £7.5 billion,startup costs to and including completion are estimated at between £1.7 billion and£4.8 billion depending on what figures and criteria you believe,what is not in dispute is that the overall all in total will be around £7.5 billion.As an accountant with knowledge of this proposal all I can say is that it is totally not feasable,the figures outlays and returns,are wishful thinking.
UK Ultraspeed posted a long justification which you can see on the link, if you have nothing better to do. It shows how much palpably untrue things a flack can believe. My reply 7 another commet are here
To reach £150 million from tickets at £8.95 single would (assuming there are no return tickets) require 16,759,776 travellers - about 10 times the current rate. Taking about half the traffic as going on weekday rushours (104 hours a year) we get about 80,000 an hour. Assuming a train each way every quarter hour each train would have to carry about 10,000 passengers. If this number was achieved it still wouldn't cover the subsidy to run the thing, let alone start to pay the cost of building it.These people expect the electorate to swallow this nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Forbes, Cambuslang on 1:29am Sun 22 Apr 07
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further: With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue @ £8.95 Per Ticket = 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a. With 500.00 Passengers/train = 33,519.55 Trains/annum There are 365.00 Days Which = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way) Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each direction The big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey. With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
Can’t disagree with your arithmetic Neil; but you should have taken it further:With £150,000,000.00 Annual Revenue@ £8.95 Per Ticket= 16,759,776.54 travellers p.a.With 500.00 Passengers/train= 33,519.55 Trains/annumThere are 365.00 DaysWhich = 91.83 trains per day And a service of 8.00 trains per hour (four each way)Equates to 11.48 Hours of jam packed Maglevs travelling in each directionThe big assumption (if those were not big enough already) is that there would be no competition to the Maglev, i.e. the existing train services and M8 bus services would simply disappear without as much as a whimper. The other big assumption is the time quoted of 15 mins for the journey. With a minute to accelerate to top speed and a minute to slow down this leaves 13 mins for the approx 73.5km journey or an average speed of about 340 km/hr. The Shanghai Maglev has an average speed of 250 km/hr and if this service is used as a comparison the likely journey would take closer to 20 mins. With a service frequency of 15 mins this means that bigger stations will be needed and more train sets as trains arrive at the station before the previous one has started the return journey.With that sort of arithmetic it is clear that someone should lend the SPT a calculator. But there is an easier way to assess it. The man from Ultraspeed admits that this will cost the taxpayer a subsidy of between £100m - £150m every year. That would buy a good sized hospital every year.
On my previous discussion of this I thought this far more expensive than our automated rail proposal - I did not imagine that anybody would have the arrogance & idiocy to try to land us with this at a cost of £7.5 billion. I clearly overestimated our leaders.
RED ROAD FLATS
One of the 9% Growth parties policies is not to knock down once politically correct but now incorrect blocks of flats & that if that is the only option the GHA have then it would be better to give them away to their occupants. I discussed this elsewhere & have received an email in support of my position
The idea of knocking down what should be decent homes just because high rise living, except for the rich when they are called luxury apartments, is now unfashionable is offensive.
"I was brought up in the Red Road. I started my first Company (Clydeside Television Productions) from my flat in Red Road court. I had a warm, secure, well appointed home. I loved the place, but was forced to move in 1990 because the council were letting it slide just too far.The place is in the state it's in because of WILFUL neglect on the part of the City Fathers; no other reason. They let the buildings rot, effectively condoned the violence and drugs and deliberately used the place as a dumping ground. The original posters proposals won't see the light of day for one reason and one reason only; Those holding the controls want their skin; their wedge off the top. Nose-in-the trough time for the City's fatcats and to hell with the ordinary weegie!
# posted by Matt Quinn : April 25"
The idea of knocking down what should be decent homes just because high rise living, except for the rich when they are called luxury apartments, is now unfashionable is offensive.
ALL JOCK TAMSON'S BAIRNS
Last night we were out putting up posters in central Glasgow. I was up a lamppost (near the Maltman in Union St) & there was a beggar on the pavement asking for money whom we were studiously ignoring.
When our eyes met he said "Its OK mate, I don't mean you. You're working same as me"
When our eyes met he said "Its OK mate, I don't mean you. You're working same as me"
Saturday, April 14, 2007
TRIDENT
Trident, fortunately for us, isn't a Scottish parliament issue. SNP claims that they could introduce a special punitive tax on nuclear weapons & thus get rid of our bases is without either legal or practical merit.
The unfortunate thing about the "debate on replacing Trident" is that there hasn't been one. The government keep insisting we must have the most expensive weapon possible against an unknown enemy who might appear some time in the next 20 years. CND keep insisting that immediately getting rid of all our Bombs is the only option.
The technical answer is that the Bomb cannot be uninvented, that the time to decide on a new weapon system is when we know what capabilities this enemy will have, which rather requires us to know who they are. There is also the certainty that Trident depends on US spare parts & may very well have a backdoor in its computer programming which the US could, if they wished, use to switch it off - Our "independent deterrent" makes us dependent not independent. Finally I would support a no first use policy which in turn means no use against a non-nuclear power, & enshrine this is UK law. If we cannot uninvent the Bomb we can, hopefully, at least step back a pace or 2 from the brink.
The unfortunate thing about the "debate on replacing Trident" is that there hasn't been one. The government keep insisting we must have the most expensive weapon possible against an unknown enemy who might appear some time in the next 20 years. CND keep insisting that immediately getting rid of all our Bombs is the only option.
The technical answer is that the Bomb cannot be uninvented, that the time to decide on a new weapon system is when we know what capabilities this enemy will have, which rather requires us to know who they are. There is also the certainty that Trident depends on US spare parts & may very well have a backdoor in its computer programming which the US could, if they wished, use to switch it off - Our "independent deterrent" makes us dependent not independent. Finally I would support a no first use policy which in turn means no use against a non-nuclear power, & enshrine this is UK law. If we cannot uninvent the Bomb we can, hopefully, at least step back a pace or 2 from the brink.
SAT 14th
The Scotsman has asked for questions for Jack McConnell & Alex Salmond. Here are mine:
To Jack McConnell
Bearing in mind that we still have have a poorly growing economy, indeed with 2 quarters of recession under your rule & that you said just before the last election & again on 30th March, that growing the economy was your "number one priority" why does your manifesto concentrate on spending more on education? Why do you not think that putting the same money into cutting business taxes would not encourage business?
http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=496622007 for his "number one priority remark
To Alex Salmond
In your recent conference speech you appeared to say you intended to pick a fight with Westminster over gun control laws. If you wish to pick a fight why did you not choose to make it over negotiating a cut in Scottish corporation tax, which would have a massive effect on the standard of living of us all?
To both
In 2011 Hunterson is to close & we will lose 1/6th of our power, in 2015 new EU regulations will close much coal fired power & we will be down to 2/3rds & by 2023 Torness will close & we will have lost half Scotland's electricity. If you achieve any economic growth demand will, of course, increase. Wind, currently 3%, is intermitten & thus even its supporters say it cannot provide baseload. Where will we get the missing power, in such a short timeframe, if we are to avoid massive midwinter blackouts & deaths?
To Jack McConnell
Bearing in mind that we still have have a poorly growing economy, indeed with 2 quarters of recession under your rule & that you said just before the last election & again on 30th March, that growing the economy was your "number one priority" why does your manifesto concentrate on spending more on education? Why do you not think that putting the same money into cutting business taxes would not encourage business?
http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=496622007 for his "number one priority remark
To Alex Salmond
In your recent conference speech you appeared to say you intended to pick a fight with Westminster over gun control laws. If you wish to pick a fight why did you not choose to make it over negotiating a cut in Scottish corporation tax, which would have a massive effect on the standard of living of us all?
To both
In 2011 Hunterson is to close & we will lose 1/6th of our power, in 2015 new EU regulations will close much coal fired power & we will be down to 2/3rds & by 2023 Torness will close & we will have lost half Scotland's electricity. If you achieve any economic growth demand will, of course, increase. Wind, currently 3%, is intermitten & thus even its supporters say it cannot provide baseload. Where will we get the missing power, in such a short timeframe, if we are to avoid massive midwinter blackouts & deaths?
Friday, April 13, 2007
TODAY'S NEWS
News item about a company which is planning to fly passengers to the USA for £6 plus £124 airport taxes. My comment
&
The reason Ryanair don't do the Highlands & Islands airports is because of relatively high landing charges. We subsidise these airports by 2/3rds of their cost but, having the same security rules as Heathrow, but far fewer passengers makes up about 1/3rd of running costs. Some years ago I spoke in support of a motion at the SLD conference calling for either an increase in the subsidy (cost about £8 million) or reduction in security rules to make landing charges zero which would have had an enormously beneficial effect on the local economy.
Despite the motion passing Transport Minister Nicol Stephen chose to introduce a far more expensive & bureaucratic system of limited ticket subsidies for locals.
Quite a high tax ratio if the product costs £6 & the tax £124. Still it provides more money for train subsidies.
&
China's economy is growing at 10%, Scotland's at 1.5%. If we don't do something in a generation we will be, per capita, poorer than China. Nobody seriously disputes that we can do 9% if we try it is merely that our politicians are more interested in windmillery & invading places than allowing us to become wealthy.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
ONLINE COMMENTS TODAY
Automated cars & trains http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=559992007
The number of decisions in running a train is vasdtly simpler since the tracks already choose the direction. If driverless cars are on the horizon then driverless trains have been possible for years. Driverless trains would allow single carriage units thereby providing far more flexility, allowing departures every few minutes, 24/7 working, lower running costs & increased capacity. This could make trains truly competitive but has been held back because government control does not inspire innovation.
Housing http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559892007
having accepted that the things the LD's call free aren't free you are now advising all unwilling taxpayers to vote elsewhere (as you point out the Tories don't intend to cut taxes though 9% Growth have promised to take the money you waste on windmills & fund a 3p tax cut - which actually wouldn't cost the unfortunate anything unless Mr al Fayed counts).
Lib Dems to spend another £1 billion http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559582007
The cause of house prices is not a mixture of over deman & under supply but -
Under supply purely. What you call over demand is people speculating that house prices are going to go up continuously. If we allowed builders to build houses the supply would increase & speculation would be pointless. There is no technical reason why houses toady should cost more multiples of peoples incomes than in Queen Victoria's time - it is entirely government regulation
The number of decisions in running a train is vasdtly simpler since the tracks already choose the direction. If driverless cars are on the horizon then driverless trains have been possible for years. Driverless trains would allow single carriage units thereby providing far more flexility, allowing departures every few minutes, 24/7 working, lower running costs & increased capacity. This could make trains truly competitive but has been held back because government control does not inspire innovation.
Housing http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559892007
having accepted that the things the LD's call free aren't free you are now advising all unwilling taxpayers to vote elsewhere (as you point out the Tories don't intend to cut taxes though 9% Growth have promised to take the money you waste on windmills & fund a 3p tax cut - which actually wouldn't cost the unfortunate anything unless Mr al Fayed counts).
Lib Dems to spend another £1 billion http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=559582007
The cause of house prices is not a mixture of over deman & under supply but -
Under supply purely. What you call over demand is people speculating that house prices are going to go up continuously. If we allowed builders to build houses the supply would increase & speculation would be pointless. There is no technical reason why houses toady should cost more multiples of peoples incomes than in Queen Victoria's time - it is entirely government regulation
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
26 THINGS WE SUPPORT & WHICH OUR OPPONENTS ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSE
1) Stop blackouts. Act before we lose 50% of our electricity.
2) 9% growth using the methods that gave Ireland 7% on average & 10.5% in a good year.
3) Reform planning regulations. In 1907 a house & car cost the same - the difference is that planning regulators restrict housebuilding.
4) Stop subsidising windmills. Save £1 billion.
5) The smoking ban is an illiberal restriction on individual freedom. End it.
6) End fuel poverty. France produces 80% nuclear at 1.3p a unit. We can do the same.
7) A needs based transport policy. The previous Executive were committed to spending 70% of their transport budget on public transport (code for railways) though it makes up only 3% of traffic.
8) Tunnels project. Norway built 740km of tunnels at £7 million per km. We should do the same making it a short drive from Glasgow to Dunoon, Rothesay, Kintyre, Jura, Islay & Mull etc.
9) Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
10) Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train with the same effect.
11) Ultimate aim of a fully automated Scots rail transport system.
12) 2% cut in civil servants annually.
13) 2% government efficiency savings. Almost any private business trys to increase efficiency at least that much & there is more scope in Holyrood.
14) Don't spend £610 million digging a tunnel under Edinburgh Airport. Make sure other government projects at least come close to making economic sense.
15) 3p cut in Scots income tax after funding of business tax cuts to provide growth.
16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.
17) A Holyrood committee to find & abolish counterproductive laws & regulations.
18) A schools vouchers system.
19) Allow schools to impose discipline.
20) Make a DVD of Scotland's history & post it to Scots, or those with Scots names, over the world. Include links encouraging Scottish tourism.
21) Establish a £20 million X-Prize to encourage space satelite industry to locate in scotland.
22) Establish an X-Prize foundation funded from the Scots contribution to the lottery to encourage high technology in Scotland.
23) Widen & improve the M8.
24) If Gore's silly film must be shown to Scots schoolchildren let them see the alternate view, AS THE LAW SPECIFICLY REQUIRES.
25) 54% of all money spent in Scotland is government money. Cut this.
26) Instead of knocking down Glasgow's high rise flats they should be given, free of charge, to those occupants who don't prefer to be rehoused.
2) 9% growth using the methods that gave Ireland 7% on average & 10.5% in a good year.
3) Reform planning regulations. In 1907 a house & car cost the same - the difference is that planning regulators restrict housebuilding.
4) Stop subsidising windmills. Save £1 billion.
5) The smoking ban is an illiberal restriction on individual freedom. End it.
6) End fuel poverty. France produces 80% nuclear at 1.3p a unit. We can do the same.
7) A needs based transport policy. The previous Executive were committed to spending 70% of their transport budget on public transport (code for railways) though it makes up only 3% of traffic.
8) Tunnels project. Norway built 740km of tunnels at £7 million per km. We should do the same making it a short drive from Glasgow to Dunoon, Rothesay, Kintyre, Jura, Islay & Mull etc.
9) Fully automate Glasgow's subway allowing it to run at lower costs, greater capacity & 24/7.
10) Fully automate the Glasgow-Edinburgh train with the same effect.
11) Ultimate aim of a fully automated Scots rail transport system.
12) 2% cut in civil servants annually.
13) 2% government efficiency savings. Almost any private business trys to increase efficiency at least that much & there is more scope in Holyrood.
14) Don't spend £610 million digging a tunnel under Edinburgh Airport. Make sure other government projects at least come close to making economic sense.
15) 3p cut in Scots income tax after funding of business tax cuts to provide growth.
16) No new politically correct vindictive bans. The smoking ban was NOT in manifestos at the last election.
17) A Holyrood committee to find & abolish counterproductive laws & regulations.
18) A schools vouchers system.
19) Allow schools to impose discipline.
20) Make a DVD of Scotland's history & post it to Scots, or those with Scots names, over the world. Include links encouraging Scottish tourism.
21) Establish a £20 million X-Prize to encourage space satelite industry to locate in scotland.
22) Establish an X-Prize foundation funded from the Scots contribution to the lottery to encourage high technology in Scotland.
23) Widen & improve the M8.
24) If Gore's silly film must be shown to Scots schoolchildren let them see the alternate view, AS THE LAW SPECIFICLY REQUIRES.
25) 54% of all money spent in Scotland is government money. Cut this.
26) Instead of knocking down Glasgow's high rise flats they should be given, free of charge, to those occupants who don't prefer to be rehoused.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
CANDIDATES PERSONAL STATEMENT - NEIL CRAIG
I am 54, divorced & own Glasgow's West End Science Fiction, Graphic Novel & Comic shop Futureshock & live nearby. I am also the publisher of the iconoclastic political blog A Place to Stand
I was a Liberal & Liberal Democrat since helping my father WGA Craig as a candidate in 1970. From him I learned that individuals are more creative than states, armies or classes & that it is better to stand for what you believe in than to win for what you don't. I also learned the importance of clear & logical thought rather than sloganising - he was as argumentative as I am & was alleged to be able not only to talk the hind legs off a donkey but also to be able to persuade it to walk.
I also grew to love not merely science fiction & the future it promised but also the scientific method as the best, perhaps only, tool to understand the world. Unlike the "Green" movement which says we should try to get through our lives without changing anything I believe that if the universe has a purpose it is that humans learn to understand & control it.
In 2001 as a Lib Dem I pushed through a motion, unanimously adopted, calling not only for Yugoslav war crimes trials to be prosecuted on a non-racial basis but for "leaders of the countries which, in clear violation of international law, supplied the KLA with vast quantities of weapons whilst they were an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation" which certainly included Helmut Kohl & Bill Clinton. Though this remains officially the Scottish party position it has never, for some reasin, been mentioned but I am proud of it because I was opposed to illegal wars when many of those now loudest in opposition were enthusiastic supporters.
Later in 2001 I spoke at conference against the leadership's motion to absolutely reject nuclear power. At that time Mr Blair was also opposed to nuclear electricity but has since followed my lead. In 2003 I first tried to get conference to discuss trying to achieve Ireland's growth rate by cutting corporation tax & regulations. Despite years of resubmitting the motion it was never debated though the SNP have subsequently adopted a similar policy.
In 2004 I was the only person at conference to speak directly against bringing in the smoking ban on the grounds that the alleged medical evidence that it was a serious health hazard was not scientifically supportable. That in such circumstances a ban was merely nanny statism & not in the tradition of liberalism.
In December 2005 I received a letter from the party executive, chaired at the time by Robert Brown MSP, saying that they had unanimously voted that I be expelled because letters I had had published in Scottish newspapers, supporting economic growth, lower housebuilding costs & the need for nuclear power were "too right wing to be discussed","illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership". Despite (or to be fair possibly partly because of) my robust defence in which I proved that everything I had said was indeed Liberal as understood by the founders of Liberalism, who had followed Adam Smith among others & been opposed to overbearing government & Ludditism, my expulsion was confirmed.
I was dissatisfied with all parties. All of them are ignoring the very real threat that if we do not replace the 50% of Scotland's electricity due to close we will face a catastrophe. This will not go away if they ignore it & it is grossly irresponsible of them to do so. Ireland makes it quite clear that we can achieve economic success & though the SNP have made limited moves in this direction their primary interest in "independence in Europe" which I believe provides no answers.
I thought it sufficiently important for democracy that you have the choice of voting for somebody who does not stand for the Holyrood consensus that I decided to form the 9% Growth Party. We can achieve everything I am promising but only if you are willing to support it. I believe this country can achieve our potential but the choice is now yours not mine.
I was a Liberal & Liberal Democrat since helping my father WGA Craig as a candidate in 1970. From him I learned that individuals are more creative than states, armies or classes & that it is better to stand for what you believe in than to win for what you don't. I also learned the importance of clear & logical thought rather than sloganising - he was as argumentative as I am & was alleged to be able not only to talk the hind legs off a donkey but also to be able to persuade it to walk.
I also grew to love not merely science fiction & the future it promised but also the scientific method as the best, perhaps only, tool to understand the world. Unlike the "Green" movement which says we should try to get through our lives without changing anything I believe that if the universe has a purpose it is that humans learn to understand & control it.
In 2001 as a Lib Dem I pushed through a motion, unanimously adopted, calling not only for Yugoslav war crimes trials to be prosecuted on a non-racial basis but for "leaders of the countries which, in clear violation of international law, supplied the KLA with vast quantities of weapons whilst they were an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation" which certainly included Helmut Kohl & Bill Clinton. Though this remains officially the Scottish party position it has never, for some reasin, been mentioned but I am proud of it because I was opposed to illegal wars when many of those now loudest in opposition were enthusiastic supporters.
Later in 2001 I spoke at conference against the leadership's motion to absolutely reject nuclear power. At that time Mr Blair was also opposed to nuclear electricity but has since followed my lead. In 2003 I first tried to get conference to discuss trying to achieve Ireland's growth rate by cutting corporation tax & regulations. Despite years of resubmitting the motion it was never debated though the SNP have subsequently adopted a similar policy.
In 2004 I was the only person at conference to speak directly against bringing in the smoking ban on the grounds that the alleged medical evidence that it was a serious health hazard was not scientifically supportable. That in such circumstances a ban was merely nanny statism & not in the tradition of liberalism.
In December 2005 I received a letter from the party executive, chaired at the time by Robert Brown MSP, saying that they had unanimously voted that I be expelled because letters I had had published in Scottish newspapers, supporting economic growth, lower housebuilding costs & the need for nuclear power were "too right wing to be discussed","illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership". Despite (or to be fair possibly partly because of) my robust defence in which I proved that everything I had said was indeed Liberal as understood by the founders of Liberalism, who had followed Adam Smith among others & been opposed to overbearing government & Ludditism, my expulsion was confirmed.
I was dissatisfied with all parties. All of them are ignoring the very real threat that if we do not replace the 50% of Scotland's electricity due to close we will face a catastrophe. This will not go away if they ignore it & it is grossly irresponsible of them to do so. Ireland makes it quite clear that we can achieve economic success & though the SNP have made limited moves in this direction their primary interest in "independence in Europe" which I believe provides no answers.
I thought it sufficiently important for democracy that you have the choice of voting for somebody who does not stand for the Holyrood consensus that I decided to form the 9% Growth Party. We can achieve everything I am promising but only if you are willing to support it. I believe this country can achieve our potential but the choice is now yours not mine.
A CALL TO DEBATE THE NUCLEAR ISSUE
A local Glasgow candidate (Katy Gordon for the LibDems) has distributed a leaflet giving her & her party's priorities. They call for a more complicated & more expensive (but some may suspect not more speedy & thorough) refuse collection system, more subsidies for windmills & stopping shops using as much packaging. These The sole other thing mentioned is to say that Labour supports nuclear power & that it cannot "provide all the answers"
As a LibDem until I was expelled from the party for supporting nuclear power & Irish style business tax cuts for growth on the grounds that they were "illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership of the party" I, as leader of the 9% Growth Party, wish to challenge Ms Gordon & any other LibDem candidate, or indeed any candidate from any party opposed to nuclear power, to debate the issue.
I would be happy to debate either in the media (newspaper, radio, TV) or in a public meeting. I would point that her reason for dismissal of nuclear is completely different from that of her leader who said that "nuclear is the easy answer" & must thus be opposed resolutely because if it was seen to work the electorate would never accept paying massive subsidies for windmills & other politically correct methods of engineering. She is also, unfortunately, wrong in accusing Labour of supporting nuclear. While the rank & file did vote heavily for it at Conference leaders such as Jack McConnell & Wendy Alexander are opposed, in an indecisive way.
I believe that in an election the candidates have a duty to discuss the issues & I would at least be relieved to see if they have any idea how the 1/6th of our power due to close in 2011, 1/3rd by 2015 & 50% by 2023 are to be replaced without blackouts.
I hope Glasgow's newspapers will wish to support such a debate.
Neil Craig
As a LibDem until I was expelled from the party for supporting nuclear power & Irish style business tax cuts for growth on the grounds that they were "illiberal" & "irreconcilable with membership of the party" I, as leader of the 9% Growth Party, wish to challenge Ms Gordon & any other LibDem candidate, or indeed any candidate from any party opposed to nuclear power, to debate the issue.
I would be happy to debate either in the media (newspaper, radio, TV) or in a public meeting. I would point that her reason for dismissal of nuclear is completely different from that of her leader who said that "nuclear is the easy answer" & must thus be opposed resolutely because if it was seen to work the electorate would never accept paying massive subsidies for windmills & other politically correct methods of engineering. She is also, unfortunately, wrong in accusing Labour of supporting nuclear. While the rank & file did vote heavily for it at Conference leaders such as Jack McConnell & Wendy Alexander are opposed, in an indecisive way.
I believe that in an election the candidates have a duty to discuss the issues & I would at least be relieved to see if they have any idea how the 1/6th of our power due to close in 2011, 1/3rd by 2015 & 50% by 2023 are to be replaced without blackouts.
I hope Glasgow's newspapers will wish to support such a debate.
Neil Craig
PROMISES & COSTS
This is probably the only party you are going to see telling you where they are going to cut public spending but we are committed to treating the public like adults & you all know that spending promises cannot be made without getting the money from somewhere.
Freezing each ministry's budget, allowing natural wastage to cut staff by 2% annually & making wage rises fully funded by efficiency savings (does anybody doubt there great inefficiency in government:
£1.5 billion annually (5% ot Hoyrood's budget)
Stopping the £1 billion annual subsidy promised to windmills
£1 billion
Cut Scottish Enterprise's budget from £500 million to not more than £100 million
£400 million
Using Scotland's underspend
£600 million
Selling off Scottish Water saves £260 million running costs & could bring in £2 billion.
General cutting ofoutrageousutrageaous examples of waste (SNH spending over £1000 a head to get rid of hedgehogs, civil servants spending £12 million to give advice on not getting into debt, where the client's debt totalled £3 million)
£500 million (low estimate)
Total saving £3760 million in the first year & another £1,500 billion next year.
One off savings:
Forth tunnel rather than bridge - £500 million
Not putting tunnel under the Edinburgh airport runway - £610 million (& rising)
Scrap borders railway - £200 million (?)
Selling Scottish water £2 billion
Total £3310 million
Possible spending
Cut corporatin tax to 12.5% - £2.14 billion
Abolish business rates - £1.7 billion
Cut Income Tax by 3p - £870 million (figure previously agreed with Treasury)
Scottiah Tunnels Project (over 10 years) - £100 million
Nuclear Power (only if we decide it is to good an investment to put in the private sector) - £100 million
Housing - providing bridging loans to stimulate mass production - 0 to £36 million.
Scottish Technology Projects (per year) - £200 million
Scottish X-Prizes - £20 million
Total £5,166 million
Clearly with the one off saving this programme would, on paper, be fully affordable immediately since it would take just over 2 years for the savings to match the new projects & the one off savings would not be depleted by then. It might be prudent to
take a little longer & some of the spending will require agreement with Westminster. Since this is all fully funded it would not prevent carrying out any other party's promises as well - as long as they have already identified where thefunding should come from.
If the science of economics or the experience of Ireland means anything then the only way putting over £5 billion into directly encouraging growth would not allow Scotland to hit a 9% growth rate was if we went over.
Freezing each ministry's budget, allowing natural wastage to cut staff by 2% annually & making wage rises fully funded by efficiency savings (does anybody doubt there great inefficiency in government:
£1.5 billion annually (5% ot Hoyrood's budget)
Stopping the £1 billion annual subsidy promised to windmills
£1 billion
Cut Scottish Enterprise's budget from £500 million to not more than £100 million
£400 million
Using Scotland's underspend
£600 million
Selling off Scottish Water saves £260 million running costs & could bring in £2 billion.
General cutting ofoutrageousutrageaous examples of waste (SNH spending over £1000 a head to get rid of hedgehogs, civil servants spending £12 million to give advice on not getting into debt, where the client's debt totalled £3 million)
£500 million (low estimate)
Total saving £3760 million in the first year & another £1,500 billion next year.
One off savings:
Forth tunnel rather than bridge - £500 million
Not putting tunnel under the Edinburgh airport runway - £610 million (& rising)
Scrap borders railway - £200 million (?)
Selling Scottish water £2 billion
Total £3310 million
Possible spending
Cut corporatin tax to 12.5% - £2.14 billion
Abolish business rates - £1.7 billion
Cut Income Tax by 3p - £870 million (figure previously agreed with Treasury)
Scottiah Tunnels Project (over 10 years) - £100 million
Nuclear Power (only if we decide it is to good an investment to put in the private sector) - £100 million
Housing - providing bridging loans to stimulate mass production - 0 to £36 million.
Scottish Technology Projects (per year) - £200 million
Scottish X-Prizes - £20 million
Total £5,166 million
Clearly with the one off saving this programme would, on paper, be fully affordable immediately since it would take just over 2 years for the savings to match the new projects & the one off savings would not be depleted by then. It might be prudent to
take a little longer & some of the spending will require agreement with Westminster. Since this is all fully funded it would not prevent carrying out any other party's promises as well - as long as they have already identified where thefunding should come from.
If the science of economics or the experience of Ireland means anything then the only way putting over £5 billion into directly encouraging growth would not allow Scotland to hit a 9% growth rate was if we went over.
A NEAT WAY TO GO NUCLEAR
Politically there is virtually zero chance that this would be accepted but in financial & engineering terms this is how Scotland should replace the 50% of our electricity we are shortly going to lose.
1) Get our nuclear stations, possibly excluding Dounraey which is basically an experimental facility, formed as a separate company. This is similar to the way that Scotland's Railtrack, which was also renationalised in same dubious way, was separately put under our authority.
2) Get Westminster to allow immediate type approval of French, US & Canadian reactor designs. While Westminster Labour are committed to more nuclear they are also currently supporting the Atomic Energy Authority's desire to spend 5 years deciding the foreign reactors work (they obviously do & have for years) & that Hunterston & Torness are suitable places to put reactors (they obviously are & have done for years). Hunterston is going to close in 4 years & it takes 4 years to actually build a reactor so if we don't want blackouts we can't afford spending an extra 5 years moving paper around. Since Labour are desperate that the lights not go out I think they would go for this.
3) There are many billions in a fund already put aside for decommissioning reactors. The inexpensive way to decommission is to lock up the reactor for 50 years until the radioactivity is down to safe levels (all the stuff bout reactor waste being dangerous for millions of years is propaganda - highly radioactive waste is highly radioactive purely because it has a short half life). We undertake to move back the boundary fences at Hunterston & Torness & decommission the current reactors by locking them up, not letting in the public, & leaving them till they are safe - for this we get paid at least several hundred million £s.
4) We set Scottish Nuclear up as a public company which builds as many new reactors as there is demand for at Hunterston & Torness. Since 1MW reactors have been bought off the shelf for $1 billion ((£550 million) this company could afford to do so with the fund money & only a little extra by borrowing & selling 10% of the shares publicly, though it might be better actually invest a tokeamountnt ourselves..
5) Government leaves the company management to the 10% shareholders, who understand such things & merely accepts the profits.
Scotland would thereby get as much electricity as we can use, at a substantially lowered price & would have a national, dividend paying, asset worth many many billions of £s for virtually nothing.
Also this is virtually CO2 free so that, if the Greens etc genuinely believe we face catastrophic global warming (I personally think they know they are making it up) they would be enthusiastic about the only practical method of making large amounts of electricity without CO2. To be fair a few environmentalists such as Professor james Lovelock & Bishop Hugh Montefiore have gone on record to support more nuclear for this reaspn.
1) Get our nuclear stations, possibly excluding Dounraey which is basically an experimental facility, formed as a separate company. This is similar to the way that Scotland's Railtrack, which was also renationalised in same dubious way, was separately put under our authority.
2) Get Westminster to allow immediate type approval of French, US & Canadian reactor designs. While Westminster Labour are committed to more nuclear they are also currently supporting the Atomic Energy Authority's desire to spend 5 years deciding the foreign reactors work (they obviously do & have for years) & that Hunterston & Torness are suitable places to put reactors (they obviously are & have done for years). Hunterston is going to close in 4 years & it takes 4 years to actually build a reactor so if we don't want blackouts we can't afford spending an extra 5 years moving paper around. Since Labour are desperate that the lights not go out I think they would go for this.
3) There are many billions in a fund already put aside for decommissioning reactors. The inexpensive way to decommission is to lock up the reactor for 50 years until the radioactivity is down to safe levels (all the stuff bout reactor waste being dangerous for millions of years is propaganda - highly radioactive waste is highly radioactive purely because it has a short half life). We undertake to move back the boundary fences at Hunterston & Torness & decommission the current reactors by locking them up, not letting in the public, & leaving them till they are safe - for this we get paid at least several hundred million £s.
4) We set Scottish Nuclear up as a public company which builds as many new reactors as there is demand for at Hunterston & Torness. Since 1MW reactors have been bought off the shelf for $1 billion ((£550 million) this company could afford to do so with the fund money & only a little extra by borrowing & selling 10% of the shares publicly, though it might be better actually invest a tokeamountnt ourselves..
5) Government leaves the company management to the 10% shareholders, who understand such things & merely accepts the profits.
Scotland would thereby get as much electricity as we can use, at a substantially lowered price & would have a national, dividend paying, asset worth many many billions of £s for virtually nothing.
Also this is virtually CO2 free so that, if the Greens etc genuinely believe we face catastrophic global warming (I personally think they know they are making it up) they would be enthusiastic about the only practical method of making large amounts of electricity without CO2. To be fair a few environmentalists such as Professor james Lovelock & Bishop Hugh Montefiore have gone on record to support more nuclear for this reaspn.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
DAVID STEEL CALLS FOR CORPORATION TAX CUTS
This morning Andrew Marr interviewed Malcolm Rifkind & David Steel. Rifkind criticised the idea of us going for Fiscal Autonomy on the grounds that full fiscal autonomy would mean us giving up several billion £s more than we currently raise.
David Steel, former Lib Dem leader replied with the inanity that we could just lower corporation tax!
OK so this doesn't exactly address Rifkind's point of where the money comes from but on a purely personal basis it hit home. My expulsion from the LibDems was for supporting nuclear power & CALLING FOR US TO ACHIEVE IRISH STYLE GROWTH BY CUTTING CORPORATION TAX. This crime was unanimously judged by the Scottish Party executive to be "illiberal & irreconcilablee with membership of the party" & "too right wing" to even be discussed.
It seems like barely a year since then - in fact it is. Clearly if that was the case then Mr Steel, by going on TV to say this, rather than blogging or putting a letter in the papers, has transgressed to a far greater extent. The position of Robert Brown MSP & other members of the executive would not seem to be morally tenable if they do not choose to immediately write to Mr Steel to advise him of his proposed expulsion.
Perhaps they may wish to apolgise & admit my prior use of this idea in the party. Had they, rather than the SNP been willing to adopt it who knows how they would now stand in the polls?
David Steel, former Lib Dem leader replied with the inanity that we could just lower corporation tax!
OK so this doesn't exactly address Rifkind's point of where the money comes from but on a purely personal basis it hit home. My expulsion from the LibDems was for supporting nuclear power & CALLING FOR US TO ACHIEVE IRISH STYLE GROWTH BY CUTTING CORPORATION TAX. This crime was unanimously judged by the Scottish Party executive to be "illiberal & irreconcilablee with membership of the party" & "too right wing" to even be discussed.
It seems like barely a year since then - in fact it is. Clearly if that was the case then Mr Steel, by going on TV to say this, rather than blogging or putting a letter in the papers, has transgressed to a far greater extent. The position of Robert Brown MSP & other members of the executive would not seem to be morally tenable if they do not choose to immediately write to Mr Steel to advise him of his proposed expulsion.
Perhaps they may wish to apolgise & admit my prior use of this idea in the party. Had they, rather than the SNP been willing to adopt it who knows how they would now stand in the polls?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
