Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jambomo

Fracking

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

What, the reduction in devolutionary powers or the protest against it?  Because you won't have heard of much of either.  They even covered the bloody ball-tampering story on Reporting Scotland with more prominence.

Btw did you hear torcuil chricton say a couple of days ago the daily record isn't covering the brexit power grab cause it's'boribg' lol?  That's the level of dishonesty we're up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, welshbairn said:

There's been loads of coverage of the SNP's position on the power grab.

Define "loads" and show your workings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peppino Impastato said:
Quote

THOUSANDS of people took part in a "Hands Off Our Parliament" (HOOP) protest outside Holyrood, in a show of solidarity for devolution and Scottish democracy.

Hoop.

Image result for beavis and butthead laugh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Define "loads" and show your workings.

No, you must have been in a coma not to notice it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

I know you're right but I want to spend three pages arguing you're not by ignoring the facts and deflecting.

Bye.

Edited by welshbairn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, welshbairn said:

A load of pish.

You know the rules, you can make any statement you want but if you can't back it up, it can be ignored and treated like pish.  You say "loads" I say "pish".  I'm being perfectly fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said:

You're always quick to ask other people to show their working so it's only fair

However many links to news stories about the power grab I post, Parp will spend 3 pages of posts arguing it's not loads. I really can't be arsed. In your case I have every reason to ask for workings.

Quote

Cause it wasn't reported on the BBC at all

 

Edited by welshbairn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, welshbairn said:

The anti-fracking people are just as biased, their natural hostility to carbon emissions leads them to twist all the other data against it. I'd like to see some unemotional and non-greedy assessments.

I'm not sure that's possible. 

Best case scenario: Some rich men get richer

Worst case: The environment gets fucked up

So unless you think the middle ground is the environment is ok, and no **** makes any cash then unemotional and non-greedy isn't going to work. (And of course I need not point out that middle ground scenario is where we are with zero fracking...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JamieThomas said:

I'm not sure that's possible. 

Best case scenario: Some rich men get richer

Worst case: The environment gets fucked up

So unless you think the middle ground is the environment is ok, and no **** makes any cash then unemotional and non-greedy isn't going to work. (And of course I need not point out that middle ground scenario is where we are with zero fracking...)

I'd just like to see some scientific evidence from someone without an agenda comparing risk factors and environmental damage from emissions and the extraction process with other forms of energy production. I understand it's preferable to coal regarding climate changing pollution for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to commence fracking tomorrow before Putin exacts his terrible revenge on Scotland by (a) suspending all Russian gas exports at the start of next winter and (b) by hacking into our smart power distribution  network  and (c) by sending another Beast from the East next November/December.  Even the Ice Maiden will fall victim  to hypothermia along with all the rest of us poor sods. At the very least she should come up with an immediate new energy strategy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, strichener said:

So is it banned or not?

Sturgeon says Yes to Parliament and Conference, Lawyer says it isn't banned and that a ban is the government's "preferred position" in court. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44072425

Someone is telling lies.

It's legalese pedantry. The Scottish Government doesn't have the power to issue an outright ban but they can declare that they will refuse planning permission if it is sought. So it's an effective ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, strichener said:

So is it banned or not?

Sturgeon says Yes to Parliament and Conference,

As far as I recall the reality is that the moratorium will continue indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It's legalese pedantry. The Scottish Government doesn't have the power to issue an outright ban but they can declare that they will refuse planning permission if it is sought. So it's an effective ban.

You know that pedantry and myself are like hand and glove. ;)  However, the lawyer was quite specific in what he stated - that the use of the phrase "effective ban" was PR gloss.  Basically the governments case with Ineos is that you cannot have the ban reviewed as there is no ban.  That isn't legalese pedantry, that is acting with deception in Parliament or in court.

Edited by strichener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, strichener said:

You know that pedantry and myself are like hand and glove. ;)  However, the lawyer was quite specific in what he stated - that the use of the phrase "effective ban" was PR gloss.  Basically the governments case with Ineos is that you cannot have the ban reviewed as there is no ban.  That isn't legalese pedantry, that is acting with deception in Parliament or in court.

It's still a moratorium, as far as I'm aware no law has been instituted or amended.  This was discussed in parliament at the time and there were gangs of outraged opposition MSPs demanding a full ban, the SNP insisted that would attract legal action.  Guess who was right.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-energy-fracking/scotland-rejects-fracking-citing-overwhelming-public-opposition-idUKKCN1C81M5

Edited by Baxter Parp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, strichener said:

You know that pedantry and myself are like hand and glove. ;)  However, the lawyer was quite specific in what that he stated - that the use of the phrase "effective ban" was PR gloss.  Basically the governments case with Ineos is that you cannot have the ban reviewed as there is no ban.  That isn't legalese pedantry, that is acting with deception in Parliament or in court.

I can understand why Ineos are miffed, but it's not lying. Ineos are quite free to apply for fracking planning permission, so in that sense it's not a ban. The Scottish Government is also quite free to say they will refuse it. So in legalese it's not a ban but in the normal sense of the word, it is. I'm sure the lawyers will make a fortune out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I can understand why Ineos are miffed, but it's not lying. Ineos are quite free to apply for fracking planning permission, so in that sense it's not a ban. The Scottish Government is also quite free to say they will refuse it. So in legalese it's not a ban but in the normal sense of the word, it is. I'm sure the lawyers will make a fortune out of it.

And yet in FMQs, the first minister stated (emphasis mine):

Quote

Let me be clear, because to some ears, it will sound as if some members are dancing on the head of a pin: fracking is being banned in Scotland—end of story. There will be no fracking in Scotland, and that position could not be clearer.

Quote

What Paul Wheelhouse outlined to the chamber earlier this week is an effective way of banning fracking and—as the precedent on nuclear energy demonstrates—is also the quickest way of banning fracking. Instead of continuing to have this abstract argument, those who, like me, do not believe that fracking should go ahead in Scotland should welcome the fact that fracking in Scotland is banned.

Unambiguous.  Quite ironic that the BBC were pulled up on a different thread for accurately portraying the Scottish Government's it is/it isn't position.

Edited by strichener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, strichener said:

And yet in FMQs, the first minister stated (emphasis mine):

Unambiguous.  Quite ironic that the BBC were pulled up on a different thread for accurately portraying the Scottish Government's it is/it isn't position.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-energy-fracking/scotland-rejects-fracking-citing-overwhelming-public-opposition-idUKKCN1C81M5

"Scotland will block fracking indefinitely" "Scotland imposed a moratorium on fracking, the process of fracturing underground shale rock to release gas and oil, in 2015 and that will now remain for the foreseeable future. "

Effectively banned but not officially banned. 

And, having read it, your "unambiguous" Sturgeon quote doesn't include what Paul Wheelhouse actually outlined to the chamber. So.  Quite ambiguous.

Edited by Baxter Parp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...