Why are the Greens and LDs keen on burning biomass yet hate any waste to energy scheme?
It makes no scientific or logical sense. Is it because waste has chemicals in it and biomass is pure chemical-free?
The best waste for burning also tends to be the best waste for recycling. Recycling would in general be preferred because it will also reduce demand for primary resources.
Biomass schemes that run of waste by-products are great - eg there's a small 40MW plant that burns waste from sawmills - but huge biomass plants that burn imported timber are nonsensical.
As a Green, my position is not as simplistic as you have painted it, but is based on the nuance of implementation. There are similar problems with biogas - this is very sensible when you use cattle slurry or food waste to generate methane, but counter-productive when based on growing maize for the same purpose (rather than for food). The same with biofuels: re-using chip-pan oil is great, replacing rainforest with palm oil plantations is disastrous.
It's been a massive failure of governance that lobbyists for interested parties have managed to get at the rules for supporting these schemes so that the damaging implementations are supported.
No. Though I have proposed in the past that meat eaters should have to kill, gut and prepare their own meat every so often in order to gain a "meat eaters license"
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
That list isn't of our greatest trading partners, but where we get entrepreneurs from. Freedom of movement, residence and capital all play their part and it is clear that none of them would be as sacrosanct (vis-a-vis Ireland and Germany) as if we left the EU.
The underlying principle is that you can only vote once in each election.
For the EU election, due to the freedom of movement, it easy to registered in more than one member state. So if you want to vote in the UK you have to get an additional form from the local council effectively confirming that you are only going to vote in the UK and not, say, in Poland.
Of course these rules do not apply to Maltese or Cypriots as they are commonwealth citizens.
I'd agree with all that, As my Granny always said "Waste not, want not."
Importing biomass which has already taken up good growing land seems counter-productive. Recycle all the waste you can and burn the rest (with good burners) - it reduces landfill and produces energy.
UKIP parody poster unintentionally backs UKIP position on immigration
"Well, out of the 464,527 migrant entrepreneurs in the UK, the top 5 nationalities are, in descending order:
1. Irish
2. Indian
3. German
4. American
5. Chinese
But Britain doesn't need the European Union to trade with Ireland. India isn't in the EU. Germany is our largest trading partner. America... not in the EU, and nor is China.
Additionally, the report's own polling declares that 66 percent of Brits believe that there are "too many immigrants" in Britain, and 92 percent want immigration decreased or kept at its current level – both which would not be possible with the UK-EU status quo.
So while critics decry UKIP's immigration policy, they should try and remember exactly what the party stands for. It is not anti-immigration. It is for smart immigration. Immigration from the countries listed above, rather than pure open border with the EU"
That list isn't of our greatest trading partners, but where we get entrepreneurs from. Freedom of movement, residence and capital all play their part and it is clear that none of them would be as sacrosanct (vis-a-vis Ireland and Germany) as if we left the EU.
You do realise there has been free movement between the Republic of Ireland and the UK for the entirety of the Republic's history?
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics Apr 20 Scottish YES vote price hits new all time low with Ladbrokes. NO 1/3 YES 9/4 http://bit.ly/1oP4IKC
'As the Yes side rises in the polls, Scotland prepares for a Neverendum ..Sure, the balance of probabilities still favour a No vote but the days when Unionists dreamed of a 70-30 victory have long gone and will not return. 60-40 is the limit of their hopes these days and privately many concede they won’t reach that mark either. 55-45 will now be reckoned a decent result but it’s not an outcome that will settle the matter. Not even for a generation.'
I also note the biggest sector for these immigrant-founded businesses is "real estate and construction". i.e. freelance construction workers establishing themselves as businesses for liability purposes, and competing with British labourers for jobs...
Of course not, Lions and Tigers aren't edible. The Fauna can be divided into two sorts ...
Edible and non-edible.
Why aren't lions and tigers edible? Can't see why not.
Edible, I would think so. Tasty, probably not. (In general I seem to remember reading that the meat of Omnivores is more appealing to the human palate than the meat of Carnivores - so if you are in an 'Alive' situation - go for the Veggies first...)
You may remember the place crash in the Andes a few years ago. A rugby team were stranded in the mountains and survived by eating some of those killed in the crash.
Good on 'em, says I. although it must have been a downer for some of the relatives ...
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics Apr 20 Scottish YES vote price hits new all time low with Ladbrokes. NO 1/3 YES 9/4 http://bit.ly/1oP4IKC
'As the Yes side rises in the polls, Scotland prepares for a Neverendum ..Sure, the balance of probabilities still favour a No vote but the days when Unionists dreamed of a 70-30 victory have long gone and will not return. 60-40 is the limit of their hopes these days and privately many concede they won’t reach that mark either. 55-45 will now be reckoned a decent result but it’s not an outcome that will settle the matter. Not even for a generation.'
"The reality is that mainstream elites cannot control this form of migration to the extent that they claim to voters they can, while some are now branding those voters who do feel concerned about the issues featured in Ukip's billboards as crude racists.
The problem with this strategy is that the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain
Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
Dog is considered a delicacy in quite a few cultures, the problem is basically you need to feed lots of meat to carnivores to get less meat in return. There is a similar argument to be made against meat in general, as the land could feed more people if it were used for agriculture. Sirloin of turnip anyone?
You may remember the place crash in the Andes a few years ago. A rugby team were stranded in the mountains and survived by eating some of those killed in the crash.
Good on 'em, says I. although it must have been a downer for some of the relatives ...
"Where's my husband?"
"Well, there's bad news and good news."
"What's the bad news?"
"Sorry, Mrs Costa, we had to eat him."
"What's the good news?"
"He was delicious."
I always thought it was very ironic that if they had walked in the other direction at the beginning they were no more than half a day from safety
I wouldn't eat some of the street dogs round here in my (current) bit of Thailand. Horrible looking things! Only thing to their credit is that they ignore me when I cycle past, as opposed to UK dogs which have been known to chase cyclists.
Dog is considered a delicacy in quite a few cultures, the problem is basically you need to feed lots of meat to carnivores to get less meat in return. There is a similar argument to be made against meat in general, as the land could feed more people if it were used for agriculture. Sirloin of turnip anyone?
There is some land that is not suitable for growing crops, that can be productively used for keeping grazing animals - however, if you restricted animal husbandry to such margins then it would imply a large drop in the consumption of delicious meat.
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics Apr 20 Scottish YES vote price hits new all time low with Ladbrokes. NO 1/3 YES 9/4 http://bit.ly/1oP4IKC
'As the Yes side rises in the polls, Scotland prepares for a Neverendum ..Sure, the balance of probabilities still favour a No vote but the days when Unionists dreamed of a 70-30 victory have long gone and will not return. 60-40 is the limit of their hopes these days and privately many concede they won’t reach that mark either. 55-45 will now be reckoned a decent result but it’s not an outcome that will settle the matter. Not even for a generation.'
Dog is considered a delicacy in quite a few cultures, the problem is basically you need to feed lots of meat to carnivores to get less meat in return. There is a similar argument to be made against meat in general, as the land could feed more people if it were used for agriculture. Sirloin of turnip anyone?
Do you have stats to back that up?
It's been a while since I reviewed the FCR stats, but IIRC, aquaculture, poultry and swine are all significantly more efficient sources of protein that soya (the most efficient vegetable). Beef cattle, I grant you, is a waste of resource.
"The reality is that mainstream elites cannot control this form of migration to the extent that they claim to voters they can, while some are now branding those voters who do feel concerned about the issues featured in Ukip's billboards as crude racists.
The problem with this strategy is that the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain
Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
That's a good article, but it's ultimate conclusion doesn't stand scrutiny:
"Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
When the vast majority of the public have concerns about low skilled immigration, which approach is the "right one"? Reducing the number of low skilled migrants? Or not changing the barriers on low skilled migrants and saying "there, there" to the British workers they're competing with? Because until we leave the EU, the latter one is the only practical option available.
"The reality is that mainstream elites cannot control this form of migration to the extent that they claim to voters they can, while some are now branding those voters who do feel concerned about the issues featured in Ukip's billboards as crude racists.
The problem with this strategy is that the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain
Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
That's a good article, but it's ultimate conclusion doesn't stand scrutiny:
"Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
When the vast majority of the public have concerns about low skilled immigration, which approach is the "right one"? Reducing the number of low skilled migrants? Or not changing the barriers on low skilled migrants and saying "there, there" to the British workers they're competing with? Because until we leave the EU, the latter one is the only practical option available.
Yeah I disagree with their conclusion. Obviously I think UKIP's approach is the right one
Good news for both lefties and [selected] righties?
The publication of the final month of the fiscal year's Public Sector Finances bulletin and the accompanying OBR estimate of the previous year's Central Government Net Financing Requirement outcome, results in a revised financing remit being given by the Treasury to the Debt Management Office.
The revised remit has been published by the DMO this morning. I will comment later on the downward revisions to both the 2013-14 borrowing outcome and the 2014-15 financing plans, but in the meantime one or two PBers may be interested in a footnote to the document relating to the financing of Network Rail.
It was announced in December 2013 that the Government, the Office of the Rail Regulator and Network Rail would explore whether alternative approaches or refinements to Network Rail’s current borrowing model could deliver a more efficient approach, and if so from what point in time these might be introduced. The Government has now determined that, in future, value for money for the taxpayer will best be secured by Network Rail borrowing directly from the Government, rather than by Network Rail issuing debt in its own name. The Department for Transport and Network Rail are discussing details of a possible loan arrangement in advance of Network Rail’s formal reclassification to the public sector in September 2014. The Government’s current expectation is that it may lend up to £6.5 billion to Network Rail during the 2014-15 financial year. It is therefore factoring this into its financing plans.
The good news for the lefties is that this decision can be [mis-]interpreted as a step towards full nationalisation of the rail network, on the grounds that Network Rail's borrowing will from now be financed directly by the government rather than through the markets.
The good news for the righties is that it signals the coalition government's commitment to current and future investment in rail infrastructure and that it increases investment efficiency by lowering both Network Rail's cost of funds and the taxpayers' contribution to network development.
A chicken and egg question arises? Did the ONS announcement that it intends to reclassify Network Rail to the public sector in order to enable this switch in financing or did the switch result from the re-classification? Will we ever know?
"The reality is that mainstream elites cannot control this form of migration to the extent that they claim to voters they can, while some are now branding those voters who do feel concerned about the issues featured in Ukip's billboards as crude racists.
The problem with this strategy is that the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain
Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
That's a good article, but it's ultimate conclusion doesn't stand scrutiny:
"Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
When the vast majority of the public have concerns about low skilled immigration, which approach is the "right one"? Reducing the number of low skilled migrants? Or not changing the barriers on low skilled migrants and saying "there, there" to the British workers they're competing with? Because until we leave the EU, the latter one is the only practical option available.
If you remain within the EU,a nd there is no way to reform the complete free movement of labour, then you could take ameliorating action.
Again, a simple click through reveals the number is actually "immigrants or their American children".
Also, the US is the US and the UK is the UK. Clearly the immigration profile of the two countries is very different, as is the degree of integration. Hispanics in the US intermarry at 5 to 7 times the rate of South Asians to the UK, despite the latter being a smaller share of the population.
The number that has been attempted, and repeated ad nauseum by the pro-immigration lobby is "1 in 7 UK businesses was immigrant founded". We now find out that figure is arrived at by putting a business started by five Brits and an immigrant as "immigrant founded", that it includes single people registering as businesses despite being effectively sole trades, and that the largest group of these "businesses" is actually low skilled construction workers.
In other words, it's as bollocks a statistic as Clegg's "three million jobs" lie.
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street. Don't any Brits go to Europe, other than to retire to Spain or the Dordogne? I recognise that wages are lower in East Europe but surely there are jobs in other parts of the EU!
You can also use the premise to make a pretty bold prediction - in the absence of a disastrous Democratic presidency the Republicans face an almost impossible task to regain the White House as the Eisenhower generation begins to die off.
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street.
It clearly is, in 1950's UKIP world.
Farage will be demanding the reopening of the Morris Minor production lines shortly.
You can also use the premise to make a pretty bold prediction - in the absence of a disastrous Democratic presidency the Republicans face an almost impossible task to regain the White House as the Eisenhower generation begins to die off.
Indeed. As I've been arguing for a while. If the next president is Democratic and will get credit for the recovery, then it'll be even worse for them. It's hard to see Ryan, or Rubio, or Paul, or Walker, or Cruz beating Clinton. It's hard to see them beating someone like O'Malley or Cuomo for that matter...
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street. Don't any Brits go to Europe, other than to retire to Spain or the Dordogne? I recognise that wages are lower in East Europe but surely there are jobs in other parts of the EU!
Well, indeed. I thought it was notable at the time that Cameron's pledge was not to reduce immigration per se, but to reduce net migration - which mathematically could be achieved as easily by encouraging emigration of the locally-born as dissuading immigration of the foreign-born.
Both my cousins work abroad, but they had a rather unusual upbringing with several years in Taiwan. The chief stumbling block is language, and the global success of English.
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street. Don't any Brits go to Europe, other than to retire to Spain or the Dordogne? I recognise that wages are lower in East Europe but surely there are jobs in other parts of the EU!
Look at the gap between the UK and Germany in 1980. That's where we were after decades of socialism or socialism-lite. Now we have a much better functioning economy, even given banking crises, that our incomes are going to outstrip the rest of the EU for a long time.
The EU is a busted flush. It's time to cut our losses and open trade with the new players.
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street. Don't any Brits go to Europe, other than to retire to Spain or the Dordogne? I recognise that wages are lower in East Europe but surely there are jobs in other parts of the EU!
Maybe England/Germany/France have two way migration, and that's not a problem given their economies
The fact that they are successful countries means their wont be mass immigration from those countries... its nice there
I have no problem with one Brit out / one Non Brit in migration policy
What do you think the ratio for UK-Poland or UK-Lithuania is? 1-500?
Dog is considered a delicacy in quite a few cultures, the problem is basically you need to feed lots of meat to carnivores to get less meat in return. There is a similar argument to be made against meat in general, as the land could feed more people if it were used for agriculture. Sirloin of turnip anyone?
Do you have stats to back that up?
It's been a while since I reviewed the FCR stats, but IIRC, aquaculture, poultry and swine are all significantly more efficient sources of protein that soya (the most efficient vegetable). Beef cattle, I grant you, is a waste of resource.
I'd guess we can survive with less protein. The most efficient crop plants should perform C4 photosynthesis , like Maize. Soybean is C3, dont know off hand if there are any high protein yielding C4 plants
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan. Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street. Don't any Brits go to Europe, other than to retire to Spain or the Dordogne? I recognise that wages are lower in East Europe but surely there are jobs in other parts of the EU!
Look at the gap between the UK and Germany in 1980. That's where we were after decades of socialism or socialism-lite. Now we have a much better functioning economy, even given banking crises, that our incomes are going to outstrip the rest of the EU for a long time.
The EU is a busted flush. It's time to cut our losses and open trade with the new players.
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street. Don't any Brits go to Europe, other than to retire to Spain or the Dordogne? I recognise that wages are lower in East Europe but surely there are jobs in other parts of the EU!
Look at the gap between the UK and Germany in 1980. That's where we were after decades of socialism or socialism-lite. Now we have a much better functioning economy, even given banking crises, that our incomes are going to outstrip the rest of the EU for a long time.
The EU is a busted flush. It's time to cut our losses and open trade with the new players.
Surely in looking at Germany you have to take more account of re-unification.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan. Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.
Interesting graph, but it only covers incomes, as far as I can see, When you think that many middle class UK people own homes, I wonder if that tilts the thing more than somewhat towards us (and add currency differentials at 1.6).
Having looked at some US property sites, for 600,000 dollars you can be in your very own version of Gone With The Wind...
"One is a laughable fantasy creation cooked up by a superficially plausible bull5hitter whose outpourings nobody thoughtful takes seriously. The other is a fictional spy."
I wish we still had the 'Like' button.
Or preferably the big hook to get rubbish off the stage pronto
Thanks for that, Mr. J.. A single wind turbine generates very little as would a single water-powered turbine at say Teddington. Lots of wind turbines are useful when the wind blows, lots of Turbines on the river Thames would be useful 24 hours a day every day, because the water doesn't stop flowing.
As for the environmental effects; we had mill streams, mill ponds and mill races for centuries, even on slow moving rivers like the Cam, and there was no environmental disaster. On our big rivers, e.g. the Thames, there are weirs every few miles which have been there for well over a hundred years and again no environmental nastiness seems to have occurred.
So could not a lot of small water-powered turbines do a better job than a similar number of wind-powered turbines? Is this a matter of physics or is it a matter of politico-economics?
Sorry about my delay in replying, I was out having some engineering done to my car (insert grumbles about cost and rip-offs etc etc)
Very interesting questions, Mr Llama, and ones I do not have a comprehensive answer for off the top of my head. My initial answer is that the flow is nowhere near enough to generate enough electricity in most of our rivers. But it's not one I've really seen posed before, so haven't looked into it.
As for environmental effects: many river watermills were based off leats that could run for a long distance; as the leats were more or less level, there would be a head for an under- or over-shot wheel to give more power. This meant the main flow of the river was uninterrupted so the nice little fishes could get upstream.
It basically comes down to the head (stop sniggering at the back of the class): the bigger the head of water, the more power generated. For that you need a rapid drop in the river, and we have limited numbers of these. Inserting turbines into the river flow would not I guess, generate much power compared to the national need.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
we will build warships at Govan.
Oh, but Eck has Guaranteed you will build Royal Navy warships at Govan!
How does he propose to control the procurement of a foreign Navy?
Again, a simple click through reveals the number is actually "immigrants or their American children".
Also, the US is the US and the UK is the UK. Clearly the immigration profile of the two countries is very different, as is the degree of integration. Hispanics in the US intermarry at 5 to 7 times the rate of South Asians to the UK, despite the latter being a smaller share of the population.
The number that has been attempted, and repeated ad nauseum by the pro-immigration lobby is "1 in 7 UK businesses was immigrant founded". We now find out that figure is arrived at by putting a business started by five Brits and an immigrant as "immigrant founded", that it includes single people registering as businesses despite being effectively sole trades, and that the largest group of these "businesses" is actually low skilled construction workers.
In other words, it's as bollocks a statistic as Clegg's "three million jobs" lie.
Socrates, are those actual things you've found in the report, or possible things you've thought up?
Sure someone can find better figures, but fig 4 here indicates most people emigrating from the UK go to non EU countries
"The information reported in Figure 4 suggests that the most popular destinations of people leaving the UK in 2012 were non-EU countries (Commonwealth and others combined). Closer inspection of the data reveals that the most popular country for UK emigrants going to Commonwealth countries was Australia followed by countries in the Indian subcontinent. Because LTIM estimates do not make a distinction for naturalised British citizens, it is not possible to know how many of these emigrants were returning to a country of origin"
Good news for both lefties and [selected] righties?
The publication of the final month of the fiscal year's Public Sector Finances bulletin and the accompanying OBR estimate of the previous year's Central Government Net Financing Requirement outcome, results in a revised financing remit being given by the Treasury to the Debt Management Office.
The revised remit has been published by the DMO this morning. I will comment later on the downward revisions to both the 2013-14 borrowing outcome and the 2014-15 financing plans, but in the meantime one or two PBers may be interested in a footnote to the document relating to the financing of Network Rail.
It was announced in December 2013 that the Government, the Office of the Rail Regulator and Network Rail would explore whether alternative approaches or refinements to Network Rail’s current borrowing model could deliver a more efficient approach, and if so from what point in time these might be introduced. The Government has now determined that, in future, value for money for the taxpayer will best be secured by Network Rail borrowing directly from the Government, rather than by Network Rail issuing debt in its own name. The Department for Transport and Network Rail are discussing details of a possible loan arrangement in advance of Network Rail’s formal reclassification to the public sector in September 2014. The Government’s current expectation is that it may lend up to £6.5 billion to Network Rail during the 2014-15 financial year. It is therefore factoring this into its financing plans.
The good news for the lefties is that this decision can be [mis-]interpreted as a step towards full nationalisation of the rail network, on the grounds that Network Rail's borrowing will from now be financed directly by the government rather than through the markets.
The good news for the righties is that it signals the coalition government's commitment to current and future investment in rail infrastructure and that it increases investment efficiency by lowering both Network Rail's cost of funds and the taxpayers' contribution to network development.
A chicken and egg question arises? Did the ONS announcement that it intends to reclassify Network Rail to the public sector in order to enable this switch in financing or did the switch result from the re-classification? Will we ever know?
The point you missed off on that is that NR's debt was guaranteed by the government, even if the money was borrowed from the private sector. This was one of Brown's little tricks that he deserves to be cast into the hottest pits of Hades for.
The new system makes utter sense. If we are going to guarantee the debt, it should be on our books as a liability. And it is a liability.
Thinking of putting up a little piece at the weekend about how the Mercedes battle will go if the two drivers continue to match the 2013 performances (it's 7/7 so far).
"One is a laughable fantasy creation cooked up by a superficially plausible bull5hitter whose outpourings nobody thoughtful takes seriously. The other is a fictional spy."
I wish we still had the 'Like' button.
Or preferably the big hook to get rubbish off the stage pronto
Colloquially known as the ‘Vaudeville Hook’ – and would make a great addition to PMQs imho!
Re Messrs @JosiasJessop and @HurstLlama on the reasons for the apparent disinterest in water power in most rivers:
Is perhaps the issue one of scale? - it would have seemed much easier politically and much more glamorous to dam up one Scottish/Welsh/Lakeland/Peak/Rutland valley than build 500 or 5000 miniturbines maybe? Not to mention all the good things that go with big contracts, and the ease of dealing with only a few landowners.
However, I have noticed how friends in two community development trusts have been seriously eyeing up reviving the old waterpower systems in their respective towns (previously used for now long vanished mills and factories) for microhydro power. Not huge but useful.
"One is a laughable fantasy creation cooked up by a superficially plausible bull5hitter whose outpourings nobody thoughtful takes seriously. The other is a fictional spy."
I wish we still had the 'Like' button.
Or preferably the big hook to get rubbish off the stage pronto
Colloquially known as the ‘Vaudeville Hook’ – and would make a great addition to PMQs imho!
The principals wouldn't last the first five minutes!
Maybe I can shed some light. I have no idea what Nick Palmer is talking about.
Thus a EU national, who can vote in the Euros but not in a GE, will appear on the electoral register as a matter of right but his/her name will be marked as such and it is the poll clerks job on the day to make sure ballot papers are only issued to those who have a right to vote in that election on the day*. Where Nick gets this second application form business from I have no idea.
Well, I don't know either, that's why I asked! The Broxtowe register is just as you say. But here's what my (London) form says, word for word:
"If you are a European Union citizen you will receive a yellow Local Government ballot paper, however you will only receive a white European Parliamentary ballot paper if you have completed a separate application form to vote at that election."
Yeah, it's an ungrammatical run-on sentence, and it ignores the fact that Brits are EU citizens...but is it also fundamentally false, or is there such a requirement?
I note the point about people not voting twice in the same election (e.g. in Poland and here), but that applies in local elections too, where lots of people are registered in two places (students, for instance) and are trusted not to vote in both. Have we introduced a new rule for non-UK Europeans? Should the Commission send election observers to London to monitor these dodgy practices?
It is amazing how many US tech companies are founded by immigrants and other outsiders. Take Apple, for example, it was founded by Steve Jobs (who was adopted). Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison (who was adopted). And you can even - at a push - point out that Amazon's Jeff Bezos was adopted too. In the UK, ARM was founded by Sophie (nee Roger) Wilson (outsider), and was in turn spun out of Acorn which was founded by Hermann Hauser (immigrant).
Looking beyond the companies mentioned above, almost every other major US tech company of the last 40 years has been founded or co-founded by an immigrant: Google (Sergei Brin), eBay (Pierre Omidyar), Cisco (I think Sandy Lerner is British...), even Mark Zuckerburg's ex-partner Eduardo Savarin.
I think those people who are not fully bought into a system, who are outsiders, and who are really hungry to succeed are the ones are most likely to produce truly incredibly innovation. It's also interesting to note that those tech companies started by middle class Americans that were big successes (like Microsoft or Dell) were really business model successes, rather than technology innovation stories.
I note the point about people not voting twice in the same election (e.g. in Poland and here), but that applies in local elections too, where lots of people are registered in two places (students, for instance) and are trusted not to vote in both.
I thought one was allowed to vote in more than one set of local elections - it was simply in general elections when one is registered to vote at more than one address that we currently trust electors not to vote more than once?
Socrates, are those actual things you've found in the report, or possible things you've thought up?
Mainly what I've found in the report. Their definition was any company registered with Companies House that had one foreign director. So the first point is definitely true and the second one is definitely true. The third one refers to the fact that "real estate and construction" being the largest sector of these businesses, as mentioned in the report. My own personal knowledge of Companies House data is that the vast majority of REC companies are single director companies with no employees, no assets, and incomes too low to meet Companies House guidelines. Knowing people that work in construction, this is almost certainly workers doing freelance stuff protecting themselves from liability.
Maybe I can shed some light. I have no idea what Nick Palmer is talking about.
Thus a EU national, who can vote in the Euros but not in a GE, will appear on the electoral register as a matter of right but his/her name will be marked as such and it is the poll clerks job on the day to make sure ballot papers are only issued to those who have a right to vote in that election on the day*. Where Nick gets this second application form business from I have no idea.
Well, I don't know either, that's why I asked! The Broxtowe register is just as you say. But here's what my (London) form says, word for word:
"If you are a European Union citizen you will receive a yellow Local Government ballot paper, however you will only receive a white European Parliamentary ballot paper if you have completed a separate application form to vote at that election."
Yeah, it's an ungrammatical run-on sentence, and it ignores the fact that Brits are EU citizens...but is it also fundamentally false, or is there such a requirement?
I note the point about people not voting twice in the same election (e.g. in Poland and here), but that applies in local elections too, where lots of people are registered in two places (students, for instance) and are trusted not to vote in both. Have we introduced a new rule for non-UK Europeans? Should the Commission send election observers to London to monitor these dodgy practices?
That is incorrect , if you are legitimately registered to vote in 2 ( or more ) areas with local elections at the same time , you are entitled to vote in both ( or all ).
Re Messrs @JosiasJessop and @HurstLlama on the reasons for the apparent disinterest in water power in most rivers:
Is perhaps the issue one of scale? - it would have seemed much easier politically and much more glamorous to dam up one Scottish/Welsh/Lakeland/Peak/Rutland valley than build 500 or 5000 miniturbines maybe? Not to mention all the good things that go with big contracts, and the ease of dealing with only a few landowners.
However, I have noticed how friends in two community development trusts have been seriously eyeing up reviving the old waterpower systems in their respective towns (previously used for now long vanished mills and factories) for microhydro power. Not huge but useful.
The problem is physics. Simply put the amount of energy flowing down these rivers is quite small, and so the amount that is capturable is smaller yet.
Sure someone can find better figures, but fig 4 here indicates most people emigrating from the UK go to non EU countries
"The information reported in Figure 4 suggests that the most popular destinations of people leaving the UK in 2012 were non-EU countries (Commonwealth and others combined). Closer inspection of the data reveals that the most popular country for UK emigrants going to Commonwealth countries was Australia followed by countries in the Indian subcontinent. Because LTIM estimates do not make a distinction for naturalised British citizens, it is not possible to know how many of these emigrants were returning to a country of origin"
I would have thought it would be very hard to work out the number of UK citizens who emigrate to EU countries, simply because there is no need for any British citizen to fill out any form or do any paperwork.
So, if you want to go to - say - Spain, you can rent an appartment on-line, and simply turn up. You need not tell the British government you've met.
It is amazing how many US tech companies are founded by immigrants and other outsiders. Take Apple, for example, it was founded by Steve Jobs (who was adopted). Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison (who was adopted). And you can even - at a push - point out that Amazon's Jeff Bezos was adopted too. In the UK, ARM was founded by Sophie (nee Roger) Wilson (outsider), and was in turn spun out of Acorn which was founded by Hermann Hauser (immigrant).
Looking beyond the companies mentioned above, almost every other major US tech company of the last 40 years has been founded or co-founded by an immigrant: Google (Sergei Brin), eBay (Pierre Omidyar), Cisco (I think Sandy Lerner is British...), even Mark Zuckerburg's ex-partner Eduardo Savarin.
I think those people who are not fully bought into a system, who are outsiders, and who are really hungry to succeed are the ones are most likely to produce truly incredibly innovation. It's also interesting to note that those tech companies started by middle class Americans that were big successes (like Microsoft or Dell) were really business model successes, rather than technology innovation stories.
- Sergei Brin: child of a mathematics professor and an astronomy researcher - Pierre Omidyar: child of a surgeon and a linguistics professor - Eduardo Savarin: child of a wealthy industrialist
As I have said many times, we should welcome high income, high skilled people. On aggregate they will be net benefits to the economy and our society. The same can not be said of Kashmiri peasants, Somali clan members or Romanian gypsies. This is why a sensible policy is to have a filter. Not free movement.
It is amazing how many US tech companies are founded by immigrants and other outsiders. Take Apple, for example, it was founded by Steve Jobs (who was adopted). Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison (who was adopted). And you can even - at a push - point out that Amazon's Jeff Bezos was adopted too. In the UK, ARM was founded by Sophie (nee Roger) Wilson (outsider), and was in turn spun out of Acorn which was founded by Hermann Hauser (immigrant).
Looking beyond the companies mentioned above, almost every other major US tech company of the last 40 years has been founded or co-founded by an immigrant: Google (Sergei Brin), eBay (Pierre Omidyar), Cisco (I think Sandy Lerner is British...), even Mark Zuckerburg's ex-partner Eduardo Savarin.
I think those people who are not fully bought into a system, who are outsiders, and who are really hungry to succeed are the ones are most likely to produce truly incredibly innovation. It's also interesting to note that those tech companies started by middle class Americans that were big successes (like Microsoft or Dell) were really business model successes, rather than technology innovation stories.
- Sergei Brin: child of a mathematics professor and an astronomy researcher - Pierre Omidyar: child of a surgeon and a linguistics professor - Eduardo Savarin: child of a wealthy industrialist
As I have said many times, we should welcome high income, high skilled people. On aggregate they will be net benefits to the economy and our society. The same can not be said of Kashmiri peasants, Somali clan members or Romanian gypsies. This is why a sensible policy is to have a filter. Not free movement.
You wish to put up fences. I wish to pull them down.
I want government to be less powerful. You want it to be more.
That's OK, they're contrasting points of view. But I think the most talented people in the world would want to live in my country rather than yours.
It is amazing how many US tech companies are founded by immigrants and other outsiders. Take Apple, for example, it was founded by Steve Jobs (who was adopted). Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison (who was adopted). And you can even - at a push - point out that Amazon's Jeff Bezos was adopted too. In the UK, ARM was founded by Sophie (nee Roger) Wilson (outsider), and was in turn spun out of Acorn which was founded by Hermann Hauser (immigrant).
Looking beyond the companies mentioned above, almost every other major US tech company of the last 40 years has been founded or co-founded by an immigrant: Google (Sergei Brin), eBay (Pierre Omidyar), Cisco (I think Sandy Lerner is British...), even Mark Zuckerburg's ex-partner Eduardo Savarin.
I think those people who are not fully bought into a system, who are outsiders, and who are really hungry to succeed are the ones are most likely to produce truly incredibly innovation. It's also interesting to note that those tech companies started by middle class Americans that were big successes (like Microsoft or Dell) were really business model successes, rather than technology innovation stories.
- Sergei Brin: child of a mathematics professor and an astronomy researcher - Pierre Omidyar: child of a surgeon and a linguistics professor - Eduardo Savarin: child of a wealthy industrialist
As I have said many times, we should welcome high income, high skilled people. On aggregate they will be net benefits to the economy and our society. The same can not be said of Kashmiri peasants, Somali clan members or Romanian gypsies. This is why a sensible policy is to have a filter. Not free movement.
You wish to put up fences. I wish to pull them down.
I want government to be less powerful. You want it to be more.
That's OK, they're contrasting points of view. But I think the most talented people in the world would want to live in my country rather than yours.
Do you think Libertarianism is a free for all where everyone can do what they like and go where they like regardless of the effect it has on anyone else?
It is amazing how many US tech companies are founded by immigrants and other outsiders. Take Apple, for example, it was founded by Steve Jobs (who was adopted). Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison (who was adopted). And you can even - at a push - point out that Amazon's Jeff Bezos was adopted too. In the UK, ARM was founded by Sophie (nee Roger) Wilson (outsider), and was in turn spun out of Acorn which was founded by Hermann Hauser (immigrant).
Looking beyond the companies mentioned above, almost every other major US tech company of the last 40 years has been founded or co-founded by an immigrant: Google (Sergei Brin), eBay (Pierre Omidyar), Cisco (I think Sandy Lerner is British...), even Mark Zuckerburg's ex-partner Eduardo Savarin.
I think those people who are not fully bought into a system, who are outsiders, and who are really hungry to succeed are the ones are most likely to produce truly incredibly innovation. It's also interesting to note that those tech companies started by middle class Americans that were big successes (like Microsoft or Dell) were really business model successes, rather than technology innovation stories.
You can add Imagination to the list. If you'e an Apple portable product, you've probably got Imagination chip tech in it. IMG was grown by Sir Hossein Yassaie, who came from Iran in 1976. IMG is a FTSE 250 company. (*) No-one's ever heard of it.
(*) IMG employs one of the best coders I've ever known. He challenged us to find *any* bug in the low-level code he wrote, and we never did. An exceptional bloke.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan. Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.
The future will tell whether it is a fact or not , at present it is an educated opinion and may well become a fact or not as the case may be. Just because a loser like yourself does not like it does not make it an untruth.
Do you think Libertarianism is a free for all where everyone can do what they like and go where they like regardless of the effect it has on anyone else?
That's not how I understand it
I think the barrier for preventing individuals entering into voluntary agreements between themselves should be a high one.
So, if I want to rent my house to a Somali, or to employ a Swiss, I should be allowed to.
I don't think you have any more right to live in London than to own a Ferrari. Your right is determined by your ability to enter into a voluntary agreement with someone to supply your with housing. If you cannot afford to live in a place in London, then tough.
I think we've allowed ourselves to believe in a whole bunch of entitlements that don't exist. A right to force, yes force, someone to hire you over someone else, because of where you exited your mother's body. I think it's absolutely morally outrageous that people think they have a right to over-ride people's voluntary agreements with each other.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
we will build warships at Govan.
Oh, but Eck has Guaranteed you will build Royal Navy warships at Govan!
How does he propose to control the procurement of a foreign Navy?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan. Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.
The future will tell whether it is a fact or not , at present it is an educated opinion and may well become a fact or not as the case may be. Just because a loser like yourself does not like it does not make it an untruth.
Malcolm.
Firstly you seem to often have a very aggressive nature on here, usually including some insult or other that makes you look bad rather than the people you're insulting.
Secondly, unless I misunderstand you you're saying that where the rUK will build warships is not dependent on the rUK, which is a rather bizarre claim.
The Morris Minor! The perfect car to sit in while drinking a thermos of tea in a seaside carpark. Keeping watch on the coast for invading EU hordes (offer excludes the Polish Home Army, Polish Airborne brigade, Free Czech airforce, Free French and Belgian Navy with midshipman Ralph Miliband, and Hanoverian monarchy)
Having enjoyed Auf Weidersehn Pet all those years ago, about British workers relocating, at least temporarily to Germany, I am left bemused as to why movement of labour is, apparently now a one-way street.
It clearly is, in 1950's UKIP world.
Farage will be demanding the reopening of the Morris Minor production lines shortly.
I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:
(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects
(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics
(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary
You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)
My ideal view of how the UK would be in order:
1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.
2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.
3. The current situation.
4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
we will build warships at Govan.
Oh, but Eck has Guaranteed you will build Royal Navy warships at Govan!
How does he propose to control the procurement of a foreign Navy?
I doubt he used the word "Guarantee"
GMB Scotland delegate Alex Logan, a plater at Ferguson Shipbuilders in Port Glasgow, said: "Can I ask the First Minister to give us a guarantee that the shipbuilding industry will continue long-term in Scotland?"
Mr Salmond said: "Yes, we will. The Royal Navy will continue to order ships from Scottish yards, based on that these are the best places to produce these vessels.
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan. Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.
The future will tell whether it is a fact or not , at present it is an educated opinion and may well become a fact or not as the case may be. Just because a loser like yourself does not like it does not make it an untruth.
Malcolm.
Firstly you seem to often have a very aggressive nature on here, usually including some insult or other that makes you look bad rather than the people you're insulting.
Secondly, unless I misunderstand you you're saying that where the rUK will build warships is not dependent on the rUK, which is a rather bizarre claim.
Corporeal, Firstly , coming on here and insulting me when I have never said a word to you beggars belief. Secondly if I look bad to mealy mouthed insulting halfwits like you, then it is of no concern. Thirdly , where in your stupid deluded brain did you get that I said where the rumpUK will build ships is not dependent on the rUK. Learn to read before you start hurling insults you halfwitted big jessie.
I think we've allowed ourselves to believe in a whole bunch of entitlements that don't exist
This would be a good argument if the politicians that represented us explained that this was the case.
But they don't. They claim to represent our interests. I just don;t see how its in our interests to allow wealthy foreigners and their children to position huge numbers of our aspiring young people as rent vassals in perpetuity.
And I speak as the co-owner of a property close to London that's probably making more money per week than I do.
It's just wrong. It's just not conservative, and what's more it's not sustainable. All our aspiring and hard working young people should be given a crack of the whip , its the least we owe them.
AS our predecessors handed down freedom to us, we should hand down our children at the least the chance to own their own homes.
We should be charging wealthy foreigners through the nose.
The nationalists want the referendum debate to be Scotland v Britain.
Their subtext, the one they want us to buy into, is that one side is defending Scotland and the other is defending Britain.
But we must never fall into the trap of believing that the referendum is a choice between Scotland and Britain.
It is not a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for Britain?’
Nor indeed is it a choice between ‘Are you for Scotland or are you for the Union?’
The choice is between two Scottish visions of Scotland’s future – the nationalist vision of a Scottish Parliament that breaks all political links with Britain; and the patriotic vision I share of a Scottish Parliament that is part of a system of pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. And the question is which of these two visions best meets the needs and aspirations of us the Scottish people?
To be fair to Brown (oh how it hurts to say that), at least he is trying to give positive reasons for the Union along with the usual FUD.
Compliments for Brown (easily the worst PM of my lifetime) don't come easily here either - but I think he got the tone bang on, what ever the whataboutery of his five points - time someone took the fight to Project Fib.....
Yes telling an obvious pack of lies will really help the NO campaign
Hasn't done the Yes campaign any harm.....EU....currency.....warship 'guarantee'......shall I go on?
Please do and possibly you could explain the supposed lies , ie we will easily negotiate EU membership , we will use the pound , we will build warships at Govan. Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.
Re Messrs @JosiasJessop and @HurstLlama on the reasons for the apparent disinterest in water power in most rivers:
Is perhaps the issue one of scale? - it would have seemed much easier politically and much more glamorous to dam up one Scottish/Welsh/Lakeland/Peak/Rutland valley than build 500 or 5000 miniturbines maybe? Not to mention all the good things that go with big contracts, and the ease of dealing with only a few landowners.
However, I have noticed how friends in two community development trusts have been seriously eyeing up reviving the old waterpower systems in their respective towns (previously used for now long vanished mills and factories) for microhydro power. Not huge but useful.
The problem is physics. Simply put the amount of energy flowing down these rivers is quite small, and so the amount that is capturable is smaller yet.
Take the River Exe as an example. The flow rate at Thorverton is about 16 cubic metres per second. The source of the river is at an elevation of 440m. We can estimate the total amount of energy in the river by combining the Thorverton flow rate with an elevation of 220m.
Gravitational energy = mass * height * gravitational constant of acceleration River Exe energy = 16 * 1000 * 220 * 9.81 ~ 35MW This would provide enough electricity for about 70,000 homes, if you could extract 100% (!) of it.
I've no idea how much of the available energy you could extract from a river, but I would guess the percentage is relatively low. Regardless, the River Exe is a relatively large river in the county of Devon, a county of about 1.1 million people, so it is clear that even with an optimistically high efficiency it could only supply a small fraction of the electricity demands of its watershed.
If you assume a relatively pessimistic capacity factor of 20% for wind turbines then you would require 175MW of nameplate capacity to generate 100% of the energy available in the River Exe. With, say, 2.3MW per turbine that would equate to about 75 wind turbines.
As far as I can tell, there aren't many wind turbines in the River Exe watershed at the moment. A wind farm has planning permission at Batsworthy Cross for a total of 18MW, but that might be just to the west of the River Exe watershed - there are many more wind turbines in other parts of Devon, and the now cancelled Atlantic Array off the north Devon coast would have had a nameplate capacity of 1.2GW.
Roughly speaking I would say that we could harness about three or four orders of magnitude more energy from the wind than from rivers.
Take the River Exe as an example. The flow rate at Thorverton is about 16 cubic metres per second. The source of the river is at an elevation of 440m. We can estimate the total amount of energy in the river by combining the Thorverton flow rate with an elevation of 220m.
Gravitational energy = mass * height * gravitational constant of acceleration River Exe energy = 16 * 1000 * 220 * 9.81 ~ 35MW This would provide enough electricity for about 70,000 homes, if you could extract 100% (!) of it.
I've no idea how much of the available energy you could extract from a river, but I would guess the percentage is relatively low. Regardless, the River Exe is a relatively large river in the county of Devon, a county of about 1.1 million people, so it is clear that even with an optimistically high efficiency it could only supply a small fraction of the electricity demands of its watershed.
If you assume a relatively pessimistic capacity factor of 20% for wind turbines then you would require 175MW of nameplate capacity to generate 100% of the energy available in the River Exe. With, say, 2.3MW per turbine that would equate to about 75 wind turbines.
As far as I can tell, there aren't many wind turbines in the River Exe watershed at the moment. A wind farm has planning permission at Batsworthy Cross for a total of 18MW, but that might be just to the west of the River Exe watershed - there are many more wind turbines in other parts of Devon, and the now cancelled Atlantic Array off the north Devon coast would have had a nameplate capacity of 1.2GW.
Roughly speaking I would say that we could harness about three or four orders of magnitude more energy from the wind than from rivers.
** LIKE **
Your simple calculation was far better than my vague and waffling posts!
However, you confused me for a moment there. The MGH calculation actually produces Joules, rather than Watts. But as a Watt is one joule per second, and you took the flow rate as per second, it is equivalent. I'd prefer to see you write 'Joules' and then state that.
Mr. Me, and Mr. Jessop, there used to be a series on the Escapist website called Reel Physics, where two chaps analysed action scenes from films to see what would've really happened.
The most interesting snippet of info I learn was that a horse can actually accelerate faster than a motorbike, and in True Lies where Schwarznegger is chasing Art Malik and Malik makes a jump (with a bike) from a rooftop into an opposing rooftop swimming pool Malik would've crashed but Schwarznegger might actually have made it [if his horse hadn't refused the attempt, letting Malik escape].
Edited extra bit: just to clarify equine acceleration, it being faster than a motorbike is over an extremely short distance from a standing start, which was involved in the rooftop jump.
"I've no idea how much of the available energy you could extract from a river ..."
"... I would say that we could harness about three or four orders of magnitude more energy from the wind than from rivers"
Both quotes from the same from the same post. I think my incredulity meter has just maxed out and it is time go play with my cat.
I hate to disagree with you, Mr Llama, but the post makes sense to me. OblitusSumMe excellently calculated the maximum amount of energy the River Exe could hold, and the first quote refers to how much of that potential energy could be extracted - it's unlikely to be all of it, or even a large percentage. Therefore that 35MW figure is a maximum.
(S)he? then compared it to a wind farm in the area, to give an idea of the scale of accessible wind.
Basic calculations of hydro energy are one thing. A more important consideration is cost/feasibility. You need a suitable landscape (usually a valley with a narrow "pass" at the business end), otherwise you end up covering a greater area of land, and face increasing cost on the length of the dam wall. Micro generation might be a economic possibility in some places, but I am not sure there would be a viable place for much else in that area.
The future will tell whether it is a fact or not , at present it is an educated opinion and may well become a fact or not as the case may be. Just because a loser like yourself does not like it does not make it an untruth.
Glad to see you around. Is this educated opinion the same one that thinks the new Statesman is gospel when it comes to economics.... or is that just a similar case where the education is classics but the opinion subject is theoretical quantum mechanics...
I was taught in Astrophysics that we should aim to be able to estimate things to the nearest order of magnitude, so settling on three-four was a cop-out way of saying a lot more energy from wind than river flow.
For those interested there's a nice list of river hydro projects here. It's all pretty small beer, a few tens of kW here and there.
You can also see a report written for Exeter City Council that estimates total generation of about 400 kW if all the weirs on the River Exe were used for micro-hydropower.
Comments
@CD13
And rhinos,tigers,etc,,.....It's only capitalism at work.....exploit the market to it's fullest before someone else does.
"And rhinos,tigers,etc"
Of course not, Lions and Tigers aren't edible. The Fauna can be divided into two sorts ...
Edible and non-edible.
Edible and non edible?...
Or do you mean rhinos and tigers are not kosher/halal?
The blood's the best bit.
You're not ... dare I say it ... a veggie. are you?
Biomass schemes that run of waste by-products are great - eg there's a small 40MW plant that burns waste from sawmills - but huge biomass plants that burn imported timber are nonsensical.
As a Green, my position is not as simplistic as you have painted it, but is based on the nuance of implementation. There are similar problems with biogas - this is very sensible when you use cattle slurry or food waste to generate methane, but counter-productive when based on growing maize for the same purpose (rather than for food). The same with biofuels: re-using chip-pan oil is great, replacing rainforest with palm oil plantations is disastrous.
It's been a massive failure of governance that lobbyists for interested parties have managed to get at the rules for supporting these schemes so that the damaging implementations are supported.
No. Though I have proposed in the past that meat eaters should have to kill, gut and prepare their own meat every so often in order to gain a "meat eaters license"
The underlying principle is that you can only vote once in each election.
For the EU election, due to the freedom of movement, it easy to registered in more than one member state. So if you want to vote in the UK you have to get an additional form from the local council effectively confirming that you are only going to vote in the UK and not, say, in Poland.
Of course these rules do not apply to Maltese or Cypriots as they are commonwealth citizens.
I'd agree with all that, As my Granny always said "Waste not, want not."
Importing biomass which has already taken up good growing land seems counter-productive. Recycle all the waste you can and burn the rest (with good burners) - it reduces landfill and produces energy.
*Unless you're Diane Abbott, when you can be actually racist and not be racist.
Scottish YES vote price hits new all time low with Ladbrokes. NO 1/3 YES 9/4 http://bit.ly/1oP4IKC
'As the Yes side rises in the polls, Scotland prepares for a Neverendum
..Sure, the balance of probabilities still favour a No vote but the days when Unionists dreamed of a 70-30 victory have long gone and will not return. 60-40 is the limit of their hopes these days and privately many concede they won’t reach that mark either. 55-45 will now be reckoned a decent result but it’s not an outcome that will settle the matter. Not even for a generation.'
http://tinyurl.com/kjlfky2
"Why aren't lions and tigers edible?"
If I was hungry enough, they would be.
"those founded or co-founded by migrant entrepreneurs"
So if a business is founded by six people, one of which is Irish, that goes down as "a business started by a foreign entrepreneur".
And they accuse UKIP of misleading statistics...
Good on 'em, says I. although it must have been a downer for some of the relatives ...
"Where's my husband?"
"Well, there's bad news and good news."
"What's the bad news?"
"Sorry, Mrs Costa, we had to eat him."
"What's the good news?"
"He was delicious."
The problem with this strategy is that the concerns expressed in the posters are shared by a very large section of the electorate; in fact, when asked their views about immigration and the European Union, a staggering 70% of voters tell YouGov that people with low education and skills who are looking for low-paid work should not be allowed into Britain
Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/23/attacking-ukip-racist-campaign-counter-productive-immigration
Dog is considered a delicacy in quite a few cultures, the problem is basically you need to feed lots of meat to carnivores to get less meat in return.
There is a similar argument to be made against meat in general, as the land could feed more people if it were used for agriculture.
Sirloin of turnip anyone?
Seems to sum up UKIP's position quite well.
What was the thinking behind that 11/2?
Betfair exchange was 9/2 at the time
It's been a while since I reviewed the FCR stats, but IIRC, aquaculture, poultry and swine are all significantly more efficient sources of protein that soya (the most efficient vegetable). Beef cattle, I grant you, is a waste of resource.
http://tinyurl.com/lnffw6z
"Many of the more thoughtful commentators in British politics have been contemplating how to have a proper conversation with Ukip-leaning voters about their fears over immigration, Europe and national identity. Ukip's approach on these issues is not the right one, but calling a large section of the electorate closet bigots for harbouring anxieties that are absent from Hampstead dinner tables is not the right one either."
When the vast majority of the public have concerns about low skilled immigration, which approach is the "right one"? Reducing the number of low skilled migrants? Or not changing the barriers on low skilled migrants and saying "there, there" to the British workers they're competing with? Because until we leave the EU, the latter one is the only practical option available.
( dreaming ) over what spoils they can try to claim.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/partisan-loyalty-begins-at-age-18/
"it would imply a large drop in the consumption of delicious meat"
Yes, though arguably it would also lead to a better balanced diet.
(edit to reply to the correct quote)
The publication of the final month of the fiscal year's Public Sector Finances bulletin and the accompanying OBR estimate of the previous year's Central Government Net Financing Requirement outcome, results in a revised financing remit being given by the Treasury to the Debt Management Office.
The revised remit has been published by the DMO this morning. I will comment later on the downward revisions to both the 2013-14 borrowing outcome and the 2014-15 financing plans, but in the meantime one or two PBers may be interested in a footnote to the document relating to the financing of Network Rail.
It was announced in December 2013 that the Government, the Office of the Rail Regulator and Network Rail would explore whether alternative approaches or refinements to Network Rail’s current borrowing model could deliver a more efficient approach, and if so from what point in time these might be introduced. The Government has now determined that, in future, value for money for the taxpayer will best be secured by Network Rail borrowing directly from the Government, rather than by Network Rail issuing debt in its own name. The Department for Transport and Network Rail are discussing details of a possible loan arrangement in advance of Network Rail’s formal reclassification to the public sector in September 2014. The Government’s current expectation is that it may lend up to £6.5 billion to Network Rail during the 2014-15 financial year. It is therefore factoring this into its financing plans.
The good news for the lefties is that this decision can be [mis-]interpreted as a step towards full nationalisation of the rail network, on the grounds that Network Rail's borrowing will from now be financed directly by the government rather than through the markets.
The good news for the righties is that it signals the coalition government's commitment to current and future investment in rail infrastructure and that it increases investment efficiency by lowering both Network Rail's cost of funds and the taxpayers' contribution to network development.
A chicken and egg question arises? Did the ONS announcement that it intends to reclassify Network Rail to the public sector in order to enable this switch in financing or did the switch result from the re-classification? Will we ever know?
You are positing a false choice.
The 11/2 YES price was a brief PR effort.
On another topic, we will be pricing up a few of the more interesting Local Election contests. Here are the first ones,
Hammersmith & Fulham Council
4/6 Conservative Control
6/4 Labour Control
10 No Overall Control
Croydon Council
2/5 Labour Control
2 Conservative Control
16 No Overall Control
Barnet Council
1/5 Conservative Control
4 Labour Control
20 No Overall Control
Havering???
Also, the US is the US and the UK is the UK. Clearly the immigration profile of the two countries is very different, as is the degree of integration. Hispanics in the US intermarry at 5 to 7 times the rate of South Asians to the UK, despite the latter being a smaller share of the population.
The number that has been attempted, and repeated ad nauseum by the pro-immigration lobby is "1 in 7 UK businesses was immigrant founded". We now find out that figure is arrived at by putting a business started by five Brits and an immigrant as "immigrant founded", that it includes single people registering as businesses despite being effectively sole trades, and that the largest group of these "businesses" is actually low skilled construction workers.
In other words, it's as bollocks a statistic as Clegg's "three million jobs" lie.
Farage will be demanding the reopening of the Morris Minor production lines shortly.
Both my cousins work abroad, but they had a rather unusual upbringing with several years in Taiwan. The chief stumbling block is language, and the global success of English.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0
Look at the gap between the UK and Germany in 1980. That's where we were after decades of socialism or socialism-lite. Now we have a much better functioning economy, even given banking crises, that our incomes are going to outstrip the rest of the EU for a long time.
The EU is a busted flush. It's time to cut our losses and open trade with the new players.
The fact that they are successful countries means their wont be mass immigration from those countries... its nice there
I have no problem with one Brit out / one Non Brit in migration policy
What do you think the ratio for UK-Poland or UK-Lithuania is? 1-500?
Only one of these is dependent on rumpUK and they will never veto EU membership, even they are not that stupid.
For the Royal Navy?
That was Eck's fib.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-scotland-would-still-build-navy-ships-after-yes-vote.23976200
Interesting graph, but it only covers incomes, as far as I can see, When you think that many middle class UK people own homes, I wonder if that tilts the thing more than somewhat towards us (and add currency differentials at 1.6).
Having looked at some US property sites, for 600,000 dollars you can be in your very own version of Gone With The Wind...
Very interesting questions, Mr Llama, and ones I do not have a comprehensive answer for off the top of my head. My initial answer is that the flow is nowhere near enough to generate enough electricity in most of our rivers. But it's not one I've really seen posed before, so haven't looked into it.
As for environmental effects: many river watermills were based off leats that could run for a long distance; as the leats were more or less level, there would be a head for an under- or over-shot wheel to give more power. This meant the main flow of the river was uninterrupted so the nice little fishes could get upstream.
It basically comes down to the head (stop sniggering at the back of the class): the bigger the head of water, the more power generated. For that you need a rapid drop in the river, and we have limited numbers of these. Inserting turbines into the river flow would not I guess, generate much power compared to the national need.
So I've just looked on Wiki and found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity
There is also Micro-hydro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_hydro
And a Canadian Hydrokinetic turbine generate 25KW from river flow:
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/hydropower-without-dams-alaskan-village-powered-entirely-by-new-hydrokinetic-river-turbine.html
And a larger scheme for the mighty Mississippi:
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/tapping-the-power-of-the-mighty-mississippi-thousands-of-hydrokinetic-turbines-could-generate-1600-mw.html
Note these rivers are generally far bigger than ours. There is also tidal in-stream generation, but that's getting more into tidal power than fluvial. The last link is to one in the Thames:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator
http://www.tidalstream.co.uk/
How does he propose to control the procurement of a foreign Navy?
"The information reported in Figure 4 suggests that the most popular destinations of people leaving the UK in 2012 were non-EU countries (Commonwealth and others combined). Closer inspection of the data reveals that the most popular country for UK emigrants going to Commonwealth countries was Australia followed by countries in the Indian subcontinent. Because LTIM estimates do not make a distinction for naturalised British citizens, it is not possible to know how many of these emigrants were returning to a country of origin"
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk
The new system makes utter sense. If we are going to guarantee the debt, it should be on our books as a liability. And it is a liability.
Thinking of putting up a little piece at the weekend about how the Mercedes battle will go if the two drivers continue to match the 2013 performances (it's 7/7 so far).
Is perhaps the issue one of scale? - it would have seemed much easier politically and much more glamorous to dam up one Scottish/Welsh/Lakeland/Peak/Rutland valley than build 500 or 5000 miniturbines maybe? Not to mention all the good things that go with big contracts, and the ease of dealing with only a few landowners.
However, I have noticed how friends in two community development trusts have been seriously eyeing up reviving the old waterpower systems in their respective towns (previously used for now long vanished mills and factories) for microhydro power. Not huge but useful.
"If you are a European Union citizen you will receive a yellow Local Government ballot paper, however you will only receive a white European Parliamentary ballot paper if you have completed a separate application form to vote at that election."
Yeah, it's an ungrammatical run-on sentence, and it ignores the fact that Brits are EU citizens...but is it also fundamentally false, or is there such a requirement?
I note the point about people not voting twice in the same election (e.g. in Poland and here), but that applies in local elections too, where lots of people are registered in two places (students, for instance) and are trusted not to vote in both. Have we introduced a new rule for non-UK Europeans? Should the Commission send election observers to London to monitor these dodgy practices?
It is amazing how many US tech companies are founded by immigrants and other outsiders. Take Apple, for example, it was founded by Steve Jobs (who was adopted). Oracle was founded by Larry Ellison (who was adopted). And you can even - at a push - point out that Amazon's Jeff Bezos was adopted too. In the UK, ARM was founded by Sophie (nee Roger) Wilson (outsider), and was in turn spun out of Acorn which was founded by Hermann Hauser (immigrant).
Looking beyond the companies mentioned above, almost every other major US tech company of the last 40 years has been founded or co-founded by an immigrant: Google (Sergei Brin), eBay (Pierre Omidyar), Cisco (I think Sandy Lerner is British...), even Mark Zuckerburg's ex-partner Eduardo Savarin.
I think those people who are not fully bought into a system, who are outsiders, and who are really hungry to succeed are the ones are most likely to produce truly incredibly innovation. It's also interesting to note that those tech companies started by middle class Americans that were big successes (like Microsoft or Dell) were really business model successes, rather than technology innovation stories.
So, if you want to go to - say - Spain, you can rent an appartment on-line, and simply turn up. You need not tell the British government you've met.
- Pierre Omidyar: child of a surgeon and a linguistics professor
- Eduardo Savarin: child of a wealthy industrialist
As I have said many times, we should welcome high income, high skilled people. On aggregate they will be net benefits to the economy and our society. The same can not be said of Kashmiri peasants, Somali clan members or Romanian gypsies. This is why a sensible policy is to have a filter. Not free movement.
I wish to pull them down.
I want government to be less powerful.
You want it to be more.
That's OK, they're contrasting points of view. But I think the most talented people in the world would want to live in my country rather than yours.
That's not how I understand it
I've previously mentioned the three methods Europhiles use to argue:
(1) Speak in high level, positive but arbitrary terms that are far divorced from real world effects
(2) Give credit to the EU for things that would happen anyway via misleading statistics
(3) Smear your opponent as a racist and/or reactionary
You're a decent guy so avoid using (3), but you've just switched back to (1) when I've called you out on (2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination_Technologies
(*) IMG employs one of the best coders I've ever known. He challenged us to find *any* bug in the low-level code he wrote, and we never did. An exceptional bloke.
So, if I want to rent my house to a Somali, or to employ a Swiss, I should be allowed to.
I don't think you have any more right to live in London than to own a Ferrari. Your right is determined by your ability to enter into a voluntary agreement with someone to supply your with housing. If you cannot afford to live in a place in London, then tough.
I think we've allowed ourselves to believe in a whole bunch of entitlements that don't exist. A right to force, yes force, someone to hire you over someone else, because of where you exited your mother's body. I think it's absolutely morally outrageous that people think they have a right to over-ride people's voluntary agreements with each other.
Firstly you seem to often have a very aggressive nature on here, usually including some insult or other that makes you look bad rather than the people you're insulting.
Secondly, unless I misunderstand you you're saying that where the rUK will build warships is not dependent on the rUK, which is a rather bizarre claim.
1. The 1914 one described by AJP Taylor, and which I've posted many times before. This would involve us not being in the EU, but being open to anyone who wants to be here.
2. Us being inside the EEA, with the full Four Freedoms, of goods, services, capital and labour implemented.
3. The current situation.
4. An isolationist Britain, who turns people away who want to come here and better themselves.
I fear a vote for UKIP is a vote for 4.
Mr Salmond said: "Yes, we will. The Royal Navy will continue to order ships from Scottish yards, based on that these are the best places to produce these vessels.
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/271771-alex-salmond-royal-navy-will-still-buy-ships-from-independent-scotland/
PS: Hope that meets you caricature of me nicely.
This would be a good argument if the politicians that represented us explained that this was the case.
But they don't. They claim to represent our interests. I just don;t see how its in our interests to allow wealthy foreigners and their children to position huge numbers of our aspiring young people as rent vassals in perpetuity.
And I speak as the co-owner of a property close to London that's probably making more money per week than I do.
It's just wrong. It's just not conservative, and what's more it's not sustainable. All our aspiring and hard working young people should be given a crack of the whip , its the least we owe them.
AS our predecessors handed down freedom to us, we should hand down our children at the least the chance to own their own homes.
We should be charging wealthy foreigners through the nose.
Gravitational energy = mass * height * gravitational constant of acceleration
River Exe energy = 16 * 1000 * 220 * 9.81 ~ 35MW
This would provide enough electricity for about 70,000 homes, if you could extract 100% (!) of it.
I've no idea how much of the available energy you could extract from a river, but I would guess the percentage is relatively low. Regardless, the River Exe is a relatively large river in the county of Devon, a county of about 1.1 million people, so it is clear that even with an optimistically high efficiency it could only supply a small fraction of the electricity demands of its watershed.
If you assume a relatively pessimistic capacity factor of 20% for wind turbines then you would require 175MW of nameplate capacity to generate 100% of the energy available in the River Exe. With, say, 2.3MW per turbine that would equate to about 75 wind turbines.
As far as I can tell, there aren't many wind turbines in the River Exe watershed at the moment. A wind farm has planning permission at Batsworthy Cross for a total of 18MW, but that might be just to the west of the River Exe watershed - there are many more wind turbines in other parts of Devon, and the now cancelled Atlantic Array off the north Devon coast would have had a nameplate capacity of 1.2GW.
Roughly speaking I would say that we could harness about three or four orders of magnitude more energy from the wind than from rivers.
Your simple calculation was far better than my vague and waffling posts!
However, you confused me for a moment there. The MGH calculation actually produces Joules, rather than Watts. But as a Watt is one joule per second, and you took the flow rate as per second, it is equivalent. I'd prefer to see you write 'Joules' and then state that.
No short cuts allowed. ;-)
"... I would say that we could harness about three or four orders of magnitude more energy from the wind than from rivers"
Both quotes from the same from the same post. I think my incredulity meter has just maxed out and it is time go play with my cat.
The most interesting snippet of info I learn was that a horse can actually accelerate faster than a motorbike, and in True Lies where Schwarznegger is chasing Art Malik and Malik makes a jump (with a bike) from a rooftop into an opposing rooftop swimming pool Malik would've crashed but Schwarznegger might actually have made it [if his horse hadn't refused the attempt, letting Malik escape].
Edited extra bit: just to clarify equine acceleration, it being faster than a motorbike is over an extremely short distance from a standing start, which was involved in the rooftop jump.
(S)he? then compared it to a wind farm in the area, to give an idea of the scale of accessible wind.
Unless I've misread the post...
You need a suitable landscape (usually a valley with a narrow "pass" at the business end), otherwise you end up covering a greater area of land, and face increasing cost on the length of the dam wall.
Micro generation might be a economic possibility in some places, but I am not sure there would be a viable place for much else in that area.
I was taught in Astrophysics that we should aim to be able to estimate things to the nearest order of magnitude, so settling on three-four was a cop-out way of saying a lot more energy from wind than river flow.
For those interested there's a nice list of river hydro projects here. It's all pretty small beer, a few tens of kW here and there.
You can also see a report written for Exeter City Council that estimates total generation of about 400 kW if all the weirs on the River Exe were used for micro-hydropower.