Scottish Labour leader shoots himself in foot…again

Yesterday, Jamie Maxwell tweeted this response to the above news:

@chaillich offered us the above unholy triptych.

So, how good is Sarwar’s judgement?

  1. I don’t need evidence that Labour supporters are again austerity do I?
  2. 56% of Scots opposed Trident renewal in a 2016 Survation poll.
  3. In a 2014 Panelbase poll, Scottish respondents were most opposed to fracking (82%).

Which other group is in favour of 2 and 3? The GMB! Do they help fund the Labour Party? They do? Well, well, well.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-143.png

14 thoughts on “Scottish Labour leader shoots himself in foot…again

  1. Scotland could have led the world in wind power. The UK wanted nuclear.
    A generation on and we now have to buy our kit from Denmark etc.

    Scotland leads the world in tidal flow energy. The UK wants nuclear.
    A generation from now we will be buying sea turbines from where ever—and nuclear will STILL be an expensive white elephant.
    Time for Scotland to leave this rotten, sleaze-ridden Greater England.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. This nonsense from Sarwar is 100% political.
    If the excuse is that the wind doesn’t always blow then a cheaper alternative would be pump storage systems or Hydrogen production from off peak supplies.
    Scotland doesn’t need nuclear power and some countries e.g. Germany are getting rid of it as an energy source.
    Nuclear is now prohibitively expensive for those states who don’t have a military nuclear weapons program to support and in the case of the UK,the only purpose that serves is as a seat on the UN Security council.
    Wilson is a relic from the past and so is the UK nuclear power program.
    A modern independent Scottish state would be creating wealth from the supply of renewable energy to Europe at a much more competitive price than that generated by England’s nuclear power.
    That,of course,is why London has been trying to restrain renewable developments in Scotland.
    And not forgetting that Scotland,according to the Westminster political representatives here in our country,isn’t supposed to diverge from England in any significant way.
    That is what Sarwar and his cronies are trying to ensure,nothing to do with securing energy supplies.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. I find such a position ludicrous. We live in a country which has 25% of the renewables potential of the entire continent of Europe and which already produces more than 100% of electricity needs via renewables.

    ‘Ah, but….’’ say the carbon heads, “the wind is not always blowing.” Clearly, they are unaware of hydro, tidal, solar (sneer from unionists – sun shining in Scotland?????!), heat pumps and better house insulation.

    We in Scotland have had long experience of nuclear power generation, and the population say, ‘No more’.

    I note that at the Celtic FC AGM, that Brian Wilson was one of those booed by the shareholders present and given a vote of no confidence by the meeting. He will continue as a Board member because the wealthy shareholders will vote for him. The Chairman stated that the Scottish Government was responsible for Celtic’s failure to win the League last season.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I do not think Scotland needs nuclear energy as undersea turbines could provide several times our power needs on their own. Then there are tidal barrages, wave generators, on shore and off shore wind.
    Electricity however cannot power everything, lorries, ships, large aircraft etc.
    We will need hydrogen for that. Spare electricity could create this from the sea or air.

    Nuclear though has a future place in the world as it is clean at power generation even if that is transitory until we get a hydrogen economy going. Indeed there are new design models for nuclear that creates less waste. Plans are to build the first of these in Wyoming, USA. I feel the world cannot ignore this power source. Time will tell.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Not sure I agree with you on nuclear, what is never take into account is the horrendous cost of decommissioning afterwards and the storage of waste

      Liked by 2 people

        1. In the same way they again chose to build another nuclear plant at Hinckley point which will be costing the highest ever price for electricity, I forget the actual figures?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. It’s a vastly more complex problem for England, struggling to generate power with pitiful returns on wind, and a government still wed to nuclear warfare and not insulating homes on principal (halving their electrical demand). It’s an absurd scenario England’s population will will pay for dearly for decades, but that’s their problem.

            We on the other hand should have no need beyond potential standby sources should problems arise over alternatives, but we should not dismiss how nuclear may develop on the basis of how previous iterations were problematic.

            The inventor of the square wheel never knew what would follow his failure 😉

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Busy for now to comment, but I saw an ad on YT other day for this company, offices in London but in their ad they say they are going to invest £billions (!) into Scottish offshore wind power, along with the Scottish government(?) I haven’t looked into what that all means for Scotland properly as yet, within the context of the UK.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.