BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Simon_Brooke

Listed below are comments made by Simon_Brooke between Monday, 13th October 2008 and Wednesday, 4th February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

It's not easy being Green 5:49pm on 04 Feb 2009 Like my friend and neighbour Ed, I most certainly hope this is not the end of minor parties in the Parliament. I think they are part of what keeps the place honest. And the home insulation proposal is undoubtedly a good one - using less energy from any source is in the long run better all round than building new facilities to generate energy more cleanly.

However, there's no doubt that the Greens mishandled this particular episode. It's a shame, but I think political inexperience showed.
Opening the government's purse 12:51pm on 08 Jan 2009 I'm interested that people see cancellation of the proposal for free prescriptions as a sensible economic measure. The prescription charges are expensive to administer; abolishing them saves unnecessary beurocracy. Reinstating the charges does not necessarily mean much for the exchequer, but hits people when they are vulnerable.

All taxes cost money to collect; small taxes - like the radio license and the dog license and now the prescription charge - may simply not be worth collecting.

Oh - and - I too would count myself among Brian's fans. Witty, good humoured, incisive and knowledgeable journalism - who could ask for more?
A nationalised national bank? 4:49pm on 19 Nov 2008 Am I missing something here?

If the businesses were good credit risks, the banks would lend to them; if the banks won't lend to them, presumably they're not good credit risks. And if they aren't good credit risks, then the last thing we want is the government propping up a lot of lame ducks.

I speak as someone who lost businesses in both the 1981 and the 1988 recessions; I'm not unsympathetic to people whose businesses are going down the tubes. It's bloody tough. And a lot of businesses which would otherwise have been sound had it not been for the calamity of the irresponsibility in the banking sector which the present administration presided over.

It's a shame. It's desperately sad. But we should not be pouring good public money after bad. If these businesses are sound, they will adapt and trade through the recession. If they're not, then pumping money into them isn't going to help.
Having it both ways 5:16pm on 18 Nov 2008 The Bank of Scotland was founded by the Scottish Government in 1695, to fund the Compagnie of Scotland and its bold if disastrously poorly organised attempt to seize the Panama Isthmus. Scotland - more or less the whole nation of Scotland - was bankrupted by the failure of that venture, and it was that crash both in our finances and our national self confidence which led directly to the Act of Union.

So the Bank is a key symbol in our history, in who we are as a nation. Its also the oldest bank in Britain. So it's not perverse to take some pride in the institution, even if it was born in epic failure.

Also, our banks are some of Scotland's highest profile institutions; when they were doing well they raised our national morale, now they're in serious trouble they depress it. The Trustee Savings Bank was also, once a Scottish institution, and it has already been swallowed by Lloyds; it will have a negative impact on the national psyche if the Bank of Scotland goes the same way.

Gordon Brown is a politician and an able one. He knows that, whatever the merits of the financial case, when Scotland feels self confident the nationalists do better, when we feel less self confident the nationalists do worse.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that spiting the SNP was the only, or even the main, reason that Gordon Brown wants the Bank of Scotland humbled, but he wouldn't be human if it wasn't one of the reasons. And, of course, it will work - people are already wondering whether Scotland could be independent if our banks have failed so badly.

And, lets face it, if our banks had failed as badly under independence as they have under the union - because, lets be clear about this, both the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank really are in trouble and that real trouble is mainly of their own making - then an independent Scotland would have found that very tough.

But let's be clear about this: our banks have got into trouble under corporate governance regimes set by the Union government. It we had been independent we'd probably have been in the Euro Zone, and consequently our currency would not be vulnerable to the international speculative pressure which is currently undermining the pound. And Scotland's underlying economy remains strong - we're still an energy rich nation, not only in oil, but also in 'green' energy; we still have a well educated population. The loss of the Bank of Scotland may be humiliating in the short term, but independence is not a short term project.

Oh, and before anyone pours scorn on the Compagnie of Scotland - yes, it was an epic failure. Yes, the reasons for that failure were in poor planning and poor preparation. But if Scotland had succeeded - if we had been able to control trade between the Atlantic and the Pacific - then the history of the last three hundred years would have been interestingly different. It was a desperate gamble, but the prize would have been worth it.
Calman's cautious contribution 4:43pm on 18 Nov 2008 #54. Neil Small

Brian has a valid point about nuclear power. There is a lot of talk about investing in green technologies - which I am all in favour for - but at the moment nothing much is happening. It cannot at this moment be ignored. What if there is a crisis which disrupts gas and oil supplies? What will you do? Open a coal mine? Oops, no we can't since that is not "green".

The point about Nuclear power is that we don't need it. Scotland is a net exporter of electricity and was so even when both its nuclear power stations were out of commission. In practice we export the whole production of Torness - none of its electricity is used in Scotland - and we would export the whole of the production of Hunterston if it actually worked, and there was sufficient capacity on the interconnectors.

Scotland isn't short of power, and Scotland isn't going to be short of power. So the whole 'ooh scarey the lights might go out' nonsense simply doesn't apply in Scotland.

England, of course, does have a major generation shortage in the next few decades - but the reason we're not going ahead with big wind farms in the Western Isles is that it actually isn't very efficient to transmit electricity long distances. If England needs more nuclear power (which arguably it does) then I can think of a jolly good place to build that nuclear power capacity.

In Scotland, it's a radioactive red herring. Mind you, given the amount of radioactive pollution in our coastal waters already there'd be a good argument for Scotland joining Ireland and Norway in campaigning against further nuclear power in England.

Nuclear power is not 'green' by any stretch of the imagination.
Calman's cautious contribution 4:42pm on 18 Nov 2008 #54. Neil Small

Brian has a valid point about nuclear power. There is a lot of talk about investing in green technologies - which I am all in favour for - but at the moment nothing much is happening. It cannot at this moment be ignored. What if there is a crisis which disrupts gas and oil supplies? What will you do? Open a coal mine? Oops, no we can't since that is not "green".

The point about Nuclear power is that we don't need it. Scotland is a net exporter of electricity and was so even when both its nuclear power stations were out of commission. In practice we export the whole production of Torness - none of its electricity is used in Scotland - and we would export the whole of the production of Hunterston if
it actually worked, and

there was sufficient capacity on the interconnectors.

Scotland isn't short of power, and Scotland isn't going to be short of power. So the whole 'ooh scarey the lights might go out' nonsense simply doesn't apply in Scotland.

England, of course, does have a major generation shortage in the next few decades - but the reason we're not going ahead with big wind farms in the Western Isles is that it actually isn't very efficient to transmit electricity long distances. If England needs more nuclear power (which arguably it does) then I can think of a jolly good place to build that nuclear power capacity.

In Scotland, it's a radioactive red herring. Mind you, given the amount of radioactive pollution in our coastal waters already there'd be a good argument for Scotland joining Ireland and Norway in campaigning against further nuclear power in England.

Nuclear power is not 'green' by any stretch of the imagination.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Simon_Brooke