| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| azzuri |
Rebirth of a nation... in a small waysee - http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/58778.htmlRebirth of a nation... in a small way Scotland's population figures were their most positive for almost a decade last year, as the gap between births and deaths shrank dramatically. The annual report from the registrar general showed 54,387 Scots were born in 2005, the highest number since 1999. This compared to 55,747 deaths, down 440 on the previous year. The gap between them was 1460, a third down on 2004, and the narrowest difference since 1997. The figures were welcomed by ministers as a positive sign that Scotland's long-predicted population slump may be further off than first thought. A Scottish Executive spokesman said that efforts to encourage more migrant families to work and settle in Scotland under the Fresh Talent Initiative could also help stem the decline. The figures showed there were 28,084 boys and 26,303 girls born in Scotland last year, a record 47.1% to unmarried parents. The percentage was last in single figures in 1978. There were 843 sets of twins born, the highest number since 1971, and eight sets of triplets. North Lanarkshire boasted the highest productivity rate, with 11.9 births per 1000 people, while Argyll and Bute had the lowest, at 8.5 per 1000. There were 30,881 marriages, 4% less than in 2004. Divorces also fell 4% to 10,805. Cancer remained the biggest killer in Scotland. The 15,144 fatalities from the disease represented 27.2% of all deaths, fractionally up on 2004. More than 4000 were lung cancer and 1000 breast cancer. Coronary heart disease deaths fell 4% to 10,326, while the number of strokes also declined, down 6% to 5800. There were 2334 deaths as a result of mental disorders, including dementia, 342 of them due to excess alcohol. Pneumonia killed 2465, mostly among the elderly, and diseases of the nervous system killed 1301. Tuberculosis claimed 48, the lowest level for several years, while 30 succumbed to HIV, a doubling of 2004's low figure, but back to the long-term trend. Accidents cost 1255 lives, including 663 falls, and 37 poisonings. Other provisional figures put the population at 5,078,400 in June 2004, with Glasgow the council with the most citizens at 577,670, followed by Edinburgh at 453,670, and Fife at 354,600. Duncan Macniven, the registrar general for Scotland, said: "There were 420 more births in 2005 than in 2004, making annual births for 2005 the highest since 1999. "The annual increase is under 1% though – much less than the increase of almost 3% between 2003 and 2004. The recent upturn in the birth rate is encouraging but it may be easing off." The population changes will be studied by the executive's futures unit, which has to plan the long-term shape of Scotland's public services. In recent years, it has essentially based its plans on coping with decline, as the population shrinks overall, and the number of elderly people grows, while the numbers of those in work and supporting them shrinks. There are now 60 children or pensioners for every 100 people of working age, but by 2031 the "dependency ratio" will be 71 per 100 workers, and 75 by 2044. An executive spokesman said the expectation was still that, after a brief rise, the population would level out, then fall in the long-term, but if in-migration did reverse the trend, public services would be able to cope. "Nothing in the demographic situation is going to happen overnight, and public services are flexible and adaptable enough to tackle anything thrown at them." The Fresh Talent scheme and the expansion of the European Union recently boosted the population through in-migration. Last year, forecasters also revised their figures, and said the population would not fall below the psychologically important five million mark until 2037, instead of 2017 as predicted. As long as Bird Flu doesn't have it's way with the population we'll be fine! 
|
||||||||
| Neil |
So long as house prices are going up faster than GNP people will increasingly be unable to afford family sized homes & consequently won't have families. Meanwhile the planning system prevents or pushes up the price of building new homes (the Lib dems have just decided that nobody will be allowed to build a house unless they put a windmill on it). | ||||||||
| azzuri |
a windmill? are you joking? | ||||||||
| Neil |
No.
Perhaps a marginal exageration since you could instead put in solar panels or CHP (no I don't know either) but this was passed last week at their conference.
|
||||||||
| azzuri |
that's a bit narrow-minded to say the least.
....is this negotiable or will no planning permission be granted without it according to the lib dems? |
||||||||
| Neil |
It is a conference decision which makes it theoretical party policy but the leadership can decide to ignore it (a bit like all the motions Labour passes on peace & stuff that Tony ignores). However I think the fact that this motion was put in, together with several other motions from the policy committee (ie bosses) on stuff like cutting the speed limit to 20mph to encourage bicycling, suggests it does have leadership support.
On the other hand, unless the Lib Dems get over 50% of Scotland's vote at the next election it will be negotiable - but then that cuts both ways in that it can still be negotiated in with the major party even if they only get 10%. So - yes I think they do mean it. |
||||||||
| SLG |
What's the problem with this? I totally agree that every new build should only be given planning permission if it meets certain environmental criteria. Every new build that is situated in an environment that makes mini-turbines cost and environmentally effective should be made mandatory. Just as there should be criteria for insulation, photovoltaics, undersoil water heating etc. | ||||||||
| Neil |
Windmills are not cost effective, even on 60% taxpayer grants - if this were not so people would not have to be forced to have them. If anybody can define what "environmentally effective" means we can discuss that.
The problem with this is that it unnecessarily pushes up the cost of housing which, for reasons already explained, I consider a bad thing - you are, of course, entitled to disagree, but in a free society you would not be entitled you would not be entitled to pass the cost of what you want on to others. If the Greens were to call for increased income tax for all Green party supporters to cover the costs of all "environmentally effective" legislation they want this would be admirable. |
||||||||
| SLG |
By 'environmentally effective' I meant that over the lifetime of the windmill it will lead to a reduction in energy use from the grid that is greater than that required to produce, install and maintain it. I was under the impression that a significant number of new builds are in a position in which that criteria would be met. I can't confirm that though.
As for the economic factor, I was also under the impression that with present subsidies, many new builds receive enough wind to make them cost effective over a number of years. That is based on present prices and subsidy. I have also been led to believe that the production price of these mini-turbines has fallen by about 50% a year for the last couple of years and predicted to do so again this year, mainly as production efficiency has increased due to scaling-up. Compulsory inclusion in new builds situated in appropriate locations would lead to a huge change in scale which I imagine would lead to a continuation of this reduction in price to the point where subsidies are not necessary. It will inevitably add to the cost of a house, but that would be recapped over a few years. Rather than subsidy, the Executive could offer low interest loans to cover the initial costs. |
||||||||
| Neil |
Your "environmental" definition then has nothing whatsoever to do wit pollution, or resource use (otherwise nuclear would be accepted by all "environmentalists" as effective) & is olny about minimising the size of the grid. Why is that particularly "environmental".
A 50% per annum reduction in windmill prices would indeed be spectacular but I would require some serious evidence of it. If true this would mean that windmills now cost 1/1000th of what they did 10 years ago. If so subsidy seems unnecessary, but I suspect this is, like so many Green claims over the years, is not so. A low interest loan is a subsidy, albeit a much lesser one than the politicos insist on us paying now, but I would agree that it would be better for those who vote for such things to bear there cost than for us to load it all onto new buyers. |
||||||||
| SLG |
It is environmental because if you minimise the size of the grid, then you minimise the energy that is produced from other sources (non-renewable sources). On the face of it nuclear would do this as well. Nuclear has problems associated with it that make it less desirable to many folk though.
No, it wouldn't mean a 1/1000th of the cost because AFAIK the prices have dropped ~50% in each of the last two years, and expected to do so again this year. I can't give you evidence for that though. Maybe you could enquire with one of the manufacturers. It has only really been in the last two or three years that they have been selling significant number of these turbines. My point was that schemes like the one proposed would lead to an end to subsidies due to the greater efficiency of production. I never heard anything about prices from a 'Green', but from a friend who has been enquiring as to prices over the last couple of years with a view to installing one on their house when prices drop to an affordable level. This is due to happen in about 12 months time.
Unless you have a referendum on the issue, that is nonsense. What if my SGP candidate is the best politician in the world, I agree with him on everything, apart from the these loans. Should I not vote for him on the basis of that one issue? |
||||||||
| Neil |
Point (1) - We are in agreement that nuclear is environmentally effective. Indeed i have long argued that those "environmentalists" who oppose nuclear aren't really environmentalist at all but Luddites under false colours.
(2) 50% to the power 10 is 1/1000th (actually 1/1024th). As I said I don't believe it either. In any case the point stands that if this is anything like a genuine trend subsidy is clearly unnecessary. (3)A good question that goes to the heart of the problem with a non-liberal Parliamentary system. A good system of government should link power with responsibility & one of the objectives should be to allow the maximum human freedom. In Parliamentary democracy it is perfectly possible for 51% of the population to vote that the other 49%, or new home buyers, or Jews should bear all the buredens (in our system which has not yet reached the point of being a Parliamentary democracy you only need 36% of the vote). I admit I would prefer a system where government, laboured under more checks & balances. |
||||||||
| SLG |
I think nuclear is in theory environmentally effective. For me, there are still many unanswered questions regarding nuclear. I wouldn't use the term Luddite for those who are anti-nuclear. I think it is more of a lack of trust in the industry. There is also a perception that with enough investment, Scotland could exist on sustainable energy without the need for nuclear.
I know what 0.5 to the power of 10 is. I said that that is not relevant though as in the orignal post and the previous one I have said "AFAIK the prices have dropped ~50% in each of the last two years, and expected to do so again this year".
And that was exectly my point. Should this trend continue, subsidies will be unnecessary. At some point. That's why I would view these subsidies as an investment at present with a view to them being unnecessary in the near future because of that investment. Without the subsidies at present, they will never reach the scale of manufacture to become cost effective.
So would I. But that is another story. We have to work in the political environment we have. |
||||||||
| Neil |
Thanks.
We seem to be in pretty close agreement. The only difference being in whether a major reduction in cost of windmills is likely. This is a technical mastter which, in any case will probably only time wil tell. Cheers. |
||||||||
| azzuri |
I think it is a given that the costs will reduce as manufacturing these is getting cheaper all the time, and as the demand for them grows the companies can afford to make less profit on each one.
A friend of mine works in one of the biggest wind turbine companies in the UK, Proven Energy from Stewarton. He says the profit margins pn them are huge at the moment, and as demand picks up all the companies will be trying to undercut each other. |
||||||||