Scotland is on track to generate 100% of its Electricity by 2020 from renewable sources and has a target of 50% of total energy (including transportation) by 2030. Its potential for producing even more sustainable energy from offshore wind and wave farms is the most significant in Europe. Scotland currently exports over 30% of its electricity generation to other parts of the UK. This is projected to increase.The Norwegians also have a much much smaller population, nearly all their power is generated by hydroelectric and they also have fair sized reserves of other resources such as iron ore, copper and aluminium. As you say the oil and gas is just a bonus.
Ithout a doubt that is impreasive, but how much of it would happen without subsidies from UK energy bill payers and the over generous Barnett block grant that allows Scotland to provide greater subsidies for renewable energy schemes ?Scotland is on track to generate 100% of its Electricity by 2020 from renewable sources and has a target of 50% of total energy (including transportation) by 2030. Its potential for producing even more sustainable energy from offshore wind and wave farms is the most significant in Europe. Scotland currently exports over 30% of its electricity generation to other parts of the UK. This is projected to increase.
Ithout a doubt that is impreasive, but how much of it would happen without subsidies from UK energy bill payers and the over generous Barnett block grant that allows Scotland to provide greater subsidies for renewable energy schemes ?
England (which is what you really mean when you say the UK) doesn't subsidise Scotland any more than Scotland subsidises England (uk). A refusal to accept this is why the two sides continuoisly pull in oppositie directions, and why the union is heading where it is.
the block grant comes from the Treasury, not England. If it is so out of kilter, why do successive governments leave it in place. Btw, some of the reasons why it is more per head are in the fact check article you posted.Ithout a doubt that is impreasive, but how much of it would happen without subsidies from UK energy bill payers and the over generous Barnett block grant that allows Scotland to provide greater subsidies for renewable energy schemes ?
I really don't know. Do you?Ithout a doubt that is impreasive, but how much of it would happen without subsidies from UK energy bill payers and the over generous Barnett block grant that allows Scotland to provide greater subsidies for renewable energy schemes ?
I never said England on a serious note, I know it's the UK block grant . I never said there were not reasons for the block grant. And finally the obvious reasons why successive UK governments keep imo are as follows: They don't want to pour oil on the fire of Scottish nationalism. Blair did enough of that with his devolution bill. It's a pretty good bribe to keep Scottish voters onside within the union. They don't want to be the PM in charge if and when Scotland does go it's own way. Finally they are content to spend the UKs money unfairly to the detriment of other parts of my the UK which are equally deserving. Something I am not in favour of.the block grant comes from the Treasury, not England. If it is so out of kilter, why do successive governments leave it in place. Btw, some of the reasons why it is more per head are in the fact check article you posted.
The vote was the people of the UK unless every area that voted to remain admittedly not that many should declare itself independent.hardly hypocritical when the Scots rejected Brexit by a large margin don't you think?
Yawwwn.The vote was the people of the UK unless every area that voted to remain admittedly not that many should declare itself independent.
Yawwwn 2 out of 3 would be no great lossYawwwn.
Only Scotland, Manchester, London ......