The corkscrew
Alert readers may have noticed that we tend to slack off a bit at the weekend these days. There’s no point burning ourselves out with busywork at a time when there’s not very much going on in Scottish politics (certainly not in terms of independence, at any rate), and weekend traffic is always lower anyway.
So we’ve only just now got round to taking a proper look at something the online Yoon community and punditariat was getting itself very excited about on Saturday.
And it’s a fascinating piece of work.
The article in question asserts unequivocally that a Twitter graphic relating to fracking, which had been tweeted by an SNP MSP, had been “debunked” by an “expert”. Let’s examine that claim.
The “expert” in question is one Ewan MacLeod, a solicitor at what the Herald calls “leading” Edinburgh-based law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn. (“Leading” is one of those meaningless puff words, like “respected”, that newspapers use to inflate the standing of someone they want readers to believe. The Herald offers no metric or evidence to support its use.)
We’re sure Mr MacLeod is indeed a skilled practitioner in his field, though his CV is a bit sparse – his LinkedIn page says he graduated in law from Dundee University in 1995, then joined S&W 11 years later in 2006, with no other work listed in between.
It’s not until we get more than 200 words into the story that we actually hear from Mr MacLeod, and even then it’s not in the form of a direct quote. The Herald simply tells us what its interpretation of his words is:
Saying that the Scottish Government is correct to continue with its current policy of a moratorium, and correct to say that it could face a legal challenge if it adopted a ban instead, is a pretty bad start for a “debunking”. But it’s the last line that’s interesting, where the Herald tells us that Mr MacLeod’s assessment is that there’d be “no prospect” of a legal challenge giving companies the right to frack in Scotland.
It’s another couple of hundred words before we get to an actual quote, the only one from Mr MacLeod that’s found in the entire article:
Wait, what? Let’s just read that again:
“The government’s ban on fracking would be removed.” Or in other words, companies WOULD win the right to start fracking if the Scottish Government were to adopt a ban instead of a moratorium – which is of course the exact claim made in what the Herald calls “the discredited image”.
As far as we can see, then, the text of the image is entirely correct, and is in no way contradicted by Ewan MacLeod’s comments. Mr Macleod agrees that a ban could be overturned in court, and that a moratorium is the only policy which can prevent fracking in the meantime.
It’s a very weird definition of “debunking” and “discredited”. Not a single word of the image has been disproved, and the factual parts of it – leaving aside the lurid guff about Scotland being left “a wasteland” etc – have in fact been confirmed.
(We’re going to skip over the fact that these aren’t even the “SNP’s claims”, as the Herald headline asserts. The image wasn’t created by the SNP, and the MSP who tweeted it, Gail Ross, didn’t endorse it, offering it up only for discussion.)
We’re not sure how Ewan MacLeod feels about this apparent misrepresentation of his words. We’ve dropped him a line and we’ll let you know if we hear back. In the meantime, readers, continue to read newspapers on the presumption that the headline is almost always a lie.
Saw that on Saturday and came to the same conclusions as yourself…does this now mean I am a nasty mind controlled cybernat? I certainly hope so…
This is an interesting (and legally informed) look at the moratorium vs ban position on fracking.
link to talkingmince.wordpress.com
The conclusion seems to be that neither a moratorium or ban is actually a legal position, and that a ‘ban’ could, indeed, face legal challenge.
There has only been one case of the SG being taken to court under this process, which AXA lost. However, that doesn’t mean that an opportunistic fracking company couldn’t try it again and, as the circumstances are pretty different to the AXA case, force the SG to spend a lot of time and tax-payers money defending their position.
P.S. I cannot tell a lie. I created the ‘discredited image’ based on the Facebook posting 😉
Whoever produced that awful, distorted image, with the shrunken rig, right next to the house, with the deviated (horizontal) well in the subsoil, is in need of being killed with hammers.
Do newspapers serve a purpose.
Well I light my fire with them. No particular preference. They all burn equaly well. Some times I need a big paper to draw up the fire. That’s more problematic as the choice is much more limited.
I am sure that a number of readers line the bottom of various cages with them. Budgie, hamster etc. I believe for cats there is actually a better product on the the market. So there you have. The news papers of today are not even good enough for a cat to shit on them.
I am beginning to think that there is a form of reverse ghosting going on in yoon newspapers.
In-house churnalists write the “article,” decide what needs to said and incorporate prescripted bullet points which can be justified by phoning around some mates and politicos to get endorsed.
Either that or Blair MacDougall wrote the who thing minus the legal bits.
Same same, but different.
“Whoever produced that awful, distorted image, with the shrunken rig, right next to the house, with the deviated (horizontal) well in the subsoil, is in need of being killed with hammers.”
I await the coming of the hammers 😉
The message here is to read the actual words in the columns and ignore the opinions and headlines.
Once upon a time reporters, and columnists, used words to inform people of the news – now the SMSM abuse words in headlines, columns and broadcasts with the express aim of deceit and deflection.
Mind you there was always Establishment propaganda heading northwards but it was a good deal more sophisticated and clever. Now even our schoolchildren can understand the lies. omissions and deflections.
I don’t buy newspapers and haven’t done so for at least 10 years.
I get them free and use them for my daughters rabbit hutch.
Maybe Daniel Sanderson assumed he was reading an official SNP statement because the image shows black print on a yellow background. That would sum up the level of perceptiveness required to become Scottish Political Correspondent with a shabby rag like the Herald.
@ Vambomarbeleye
I’m interested that you find all newspapers burn equally well – my experience is that The Telegraph, which I used to get from a colleague, is by far the best, followed by The Herald.
The Guardian is rubbish, but by far the worst was Scottish Socialist Voice. There may be a moral in there somewhere.
This latest story the corkscrew only highlights just how the unionist media will do everything it can to try and spin any story they can to show the Scottish Government in a bad light.
Meanwhile in her weekly or should that be weakly column in the Daily Stranger Dugdale accuses the Scottish Government
of not giving a straight answer and being confused over fracking by abstaining on the votes to ban it.
She also claims the Scottish government of siding with the Tories by having voted against Labour’s proposal for levying a higher rate of tax raised on the richest one percent.
I take it Scotland`s journalists have not signed up to a Code of Ethics,
the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability,
The Ethics of journalism in Scotland has sunk almost as low as the quality of our football players.
@Colin – I’d place distorted illustrations in the same bin as distorted headlines – meaningless at best, misleading at worst.
I’ve been saying this for a while of a certain Mr Sanderson’s ‘work’ – Mischievous & Deceitful in line with Gardham Guidelines is putting it very, very mildly.
Full on SNP Bad mantra at every opportunity and as Rev says headline never represents article content or has substantive quotes only innuendo & writers opinion.
But then again it all goes along the lines of ‘Herald Editorial’ directive anyway.
Beware the Herald Mince.
Perhaps Mr Maclood should sue the Herald for the misrepresentation after all he is a solicitor so it should be easy for him 😉
@SOG
I’d place distorted illustrations in the same bin as distorted headlines – meaningless at best, misleading at worst.
(Shrugs) As a designer, you have to speak to people in a visual language they understand. That sometimes means using images or diagrams which may not be technically correct (e.g. logos), but are clearer and more comprehensible to ordinary people who don’t understand the finer technicalities.
Hey Yoons – has the penny dropped yet? Do you not yet see the lies the Colonial Media in this country are peddling you and which you continue to swallow as truth? FFS – waken up Yoons. You’re being duped by the Colonial Media every single fecking day. Aye and that includes the big Yoon ring master, BBC Paedo/Pravda.
Once you’ve shouted “FIRE” nobody hangs around to hear the next words which could be “That water pistol again wee johnny and you’re in trouble”
Same with newspapers, nobody hangs around to read the rest of it, Job Done
This is the yoon media trying desperately to help British Labour out of another deep hole they have dug themselves. Following their Phyrric victory at Holyrood last week, the penny is dropping (finally) that they may have screwed up (yet again) with this fracking ban. The only motivation for last weeks amendment was to embarrass/trap the SNP but it has already backfired spectacularly. This is what happens when stupid people try to be clever. People are not daft – most folk understand the moratorium, and what they don’t like is important (and tragic) issues being used for selfish, political gain.
Newspapers are a wonderful aid if you want to see what’s really happening in the world. They really enhance transparency, and enable you see things much more clearly.
Just put some vinegar in a bucket of water and use them to clean your windows.
Amazing how the Herald has morphed from a respected broadsheet to a laughable tabloid over the last few years. Joke “journalists” for a joke paper.
Even Mr McLeod’s quotes are “would and coulds”, so not very definite. Best not to risk it.
I’m an ordinary Scot, but I couldn’t afford a big hoose like that one in the diagram. Maybe when we get independence…..
When this infographic first appeared, my first question was “Who’s Howard Kennedy, and why’s he the expert?”
This piece has been batted about for some time now, and I’m not aware of Mr Kennedy backing himself up. Anyone know Howard? Ask him for a bit more info maybe?
Frackanory – narrated today by Daniel Sanderson.
If this wasn’t Scotland, if this wasn’t *name any newspaper* (but, in this case, The Herald), if this wasn’t that parallel yooniverse we’ve fallen through the red, white and blue hole we find ourselves observing, it would be unbelievable that such poor propagandists are allowed “pen and paper”!
If it wasn’t for Wings, they’d never know the error of their ways… or, would they? Obviously, there is nothing else of importance happening to bother voters. Oh wait… of course, no one can keep up with the daily obfuscation scarefest over the EU; must be why the office juniors are being allowed to write “stories” and all their own work too.
“I cannot tell a lie. I created the ‘discredited image’ based on the Facebook posting”
Do you have any idea who “Howard Kennedy” is?
I`m happy to be corrected but it is my understanding that fracking in Scotland is only possible never mind viable in certain areas. these areas are basicly the Forth valley (both sides) as far west as Stirling. Parts of the M8 corridor and greater Glasgow. Aso some offshore in the Forth estuary perilously close to North Berwick (highest seaside house prices in Scotland. `Mon the NIMBYs!)
It is also my understanding that the SGs moratorium includes taking into account public opinion. So I think anyone with any sense can see where the SNP are going with this. Hopefully fracking will never happen in Scotland and that is despite the unionist opposition for the sake of it aided and abetted by our wonderful MSM.
I’m curious about Howard Kennedy’s assertion the UK’s Supreme Court could over rule the Scottish Parliaments ban. Didn’t the AXA case contesting Holyrood’s right to pass laws establish the fact the UK’s Supreme Court could do no such thing? Scottish sovereignty resides with the people, and does so in perpetuity, and since Holyrood is the democratically elected house of government, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with Holyrood’s decisions even if it wanted to.
I’m not saying the Frackers couldn’t contest the ban in law, but I don’t think the Supreme Court would be the place where it happened; it would fail just like the AXA case on the technical grounds of jurisdiction.
Me no lawyer, but what’s sauce for the goose and all that…
Scottish Labour’s environment spokesperson, Claudia Beamish, who tabled the amendment, stated “There is no doubt about the science” (from the Guardian).
They do like the ‘d’ words – deny, distract, divert.
Maybe she should read ‘Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health’ or ‘Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming’.
I firmly believe all the opposition parties want Fracking for the following reasons
Tories: Revenue generated goes to Westminster under the pretense of job creation
Labour: So they can complain the SNP didn’t do their job properly in protecting Scotland if we don’t like it, job creation which they forced the Scottish government into, if we do like it
Greens: Exactly the same reasons as Labour except diversification of job skills into renewables
Lib Dems: All of the above and anything else they can think of as long as the money goes into the Police or Mental health (for the kiddies)and the rest to Westminster, which is only right
New day, same old pooh from the meeja.
Greens and RISE were orgasmic at the headline, then raging and crestfallen that the content contradicts the headline.
I keep saying, SNP can’t fend off a legal challenge from the wealthy oil lobby, by saying – we read on the internet, folk don’t like it, and its a dirty business. They have to actually collect data, and do impact studies relevant to this country, and public consultation will add weight.
Unfortunately, this logical and careful approach to protecting the environment, and public monies cuts no ice when it comes to SNP bad, and SLab are their new BFF.
Fracking? Smoke and mirrors from the SNP as they seen it coming.
Meanwhile the Tories led by Commander Ruth the Mooth, Labour led by spineless politicians and Lib Dems in their clown suits all work together yet again with no option for the Greens other than be in favour of a ban while knowing the moratorium is the best option at the moment.
Within the past few weeks Chile, Germany and Portugal have all been able to produce enough Solar / Wind / Wave power to provide free energy to their users.
A huge mad UKOK aspect to all this relentless grot belching out of newsrooms in Scotland, while Scottish democracy blossoms into what probably will be nation statehood, newspapers and broadcasting have turned into utter shite, relentlessly attacking our democracy.
Its maybe a cliche but normally, fledgling and new democracy usually produces amazing journalism at the very least. If only because there’s usually a lot to talk about and report. Not from teamGB hackdom in their Scotland region though.
Why do newspapers exist? A few years ago I would answered that question with something like this:
To sell advertising by providing a news service to a section of the public. A ‘section’ because they have always held opinions which appeal to a subset. On top of this, proprietors have exercised power to form opinion, to suit their wider agenda. A wide range of media views would result in politicians being held to account publicly.
Now, we can pretty much drop the news service, other than sport, celebs, and crime. They rest is reworked press releases, or just made up!
Also, there is little balance now. Almost completely pro Union / anti Scottish. So although they promote opinion, it’s all one sided.
They fail to hold politicians to account. WM and Unionists get off with ‘murder’.
So, we now have a media which is failing Scotland and her fledgling democracy very badly.
Like so many other things, I can only see solution post Indy!
Someone was tub thumping on Twitter about the herald group being balanced over the weekend.
This proves conclusively its shite.
Shite reporting, shite headline in a shite newspaper.
Shite.
3 points
1. Shepherd & Wedderburn is a “leading” law firm according to any commonly used measurement (number of employees, revenue, history, peer reputation etc.) Presumably the exact metric was not detailed precisely because it is widely regarded as a leading firm – a bit like a newspaper can accurately describe Arsenal as a “leading” English football club without going in to the details of number of League and FA Cup wins, size of stadium etc.
2. Ewan MacLeod has worked for S & W since around the late 90s I believe. From a quick review it seems that his Linked In profile is skeletal and barely used which is presumably why his full biography is not detailed there. He should probably consider either fleshing it out fully or simply take it down to avoid the sort of narrative used in this article, but that is another matter.
3. I agree that the Herald seems to be writing cheques the quotes can’t cash.
“Shepherd & Wedderburn is a “leading” law firm according to any commonly used measurement (number of employees, revenue, history, peer reputation etc.)”
It may well be, but, y’know, [citation required]. Evidence and sources are how we do things here.
Slightly O/T but relevant.
I’ve just seen a video clip of a Brewer interview with the Children’s Commissioner.
Brewer attempts, as usual, to not only put words in the Commissioner’s mouth but does his usual SNP BAAAAD! act. He promptly gets his nose in a sling.
The Children’s Commissioner, Tam Baillie:-
link to cypcs.org.uk
makes the very pertinent point that Liam Fee was way beyond the point of, “The Named Person’s”, Legislation stage of things.
Sorry I cannot give you a cite for that Brewer interview as I don’t watch TV on or off line but I expect it will be on the player or on YouTube.
The Commissioner made the salient point that the Named Person bit was long past and it had indeed done its work perfectly well.
The Named Person’s Legislation is for those, at risk, children who are not yet in the system .
Liam was long past that stage and had long been in the system. The authorities had already been alerted several times. That is exactly what a Named Person is supposed to do.
They are not empowered to take any other action than to, “Alert the proper authorities”, and in poor wee Liam’s case the authorities were well and truly alerted that he was, “At Risk”.
Yet neither Fife Council, Scottish Police nor The NSPCC took action to prevent his death.
It rather looks to me that the relevant authorities had all assumed someone else was tackling the problem, (but that is pure speculation on my part), and we all know these authorities all have more than enough to cope with.
Especially as The Establishment are Hell bent upon making the poor and vulnerable pay for the sins of the rich and powerful.
There can be no real austerity in this UK where the richest have more than doubled their riches while the poor die of illnesses caused by poverty, hunger, depravation and sanctioning.
Yet here we have Brewer doing his very best, (or is it worst), to deflect the blame upon the Named Person’s legislation that, in all fairness, had done it’s work well.
I watched with disgust Gordon Brewer’s interview with the children’s commissioner Tam Baillie.
It seemed all brewer was interested in was trying to get the children’s commissioner to admit that the named person’s legislation had failed Liam Fee.
The Herald sinks further into the gutter.
Thanks for the info as can now use that on twitter to shut up wee Ross
Why did The Herald quote “Fictitious” in the headline?
Oh look the Herald`s big cheese might have got one of those big brown envelopes stuffed with cash from a special interest group,just like the one the yoons might have got,i wonder if their staff will maybe see any of it.
Read this when it first appeared and I am very glad to see it exposed as another scare story. Well done.
PS:
Murdo Fraser MSP and Callum McCaig SNP MP were on radio shortbread this morning discussing the ‘oil slump’ and shale gas / fracking.
Murdo is tally ho! about it and SNP bad with planning ineptitude and too slow on renewables and fracking safe!
Callum McCaig too nice and was bounced in the middle of his speel but got most of his case across. He needs to be a bit tougher with the likes of Murdo. 🙁
From 2hrs 09min 30secs in for about 10 mins.
link to bbc.co.uk
@ call me dave
Good clip. I thought Callum McCaig held his own very well in that interview reminding us that it is Murdo’s government that is hampering the development of renewables.
Also, there are more problems with shale oil beyond the “safe to frack” argument e.g. the Paris agreement.
Why did The Herald quote “Fictitious” in the headline?
Plausible deniability. The suggestion is that it isn’t their lie but rather that Daniel got it from a source (Jackie Baillie perhaps 🙂 )
They are fooling no one. It is their lie and I wouldn’t use the Herald to wrap chips lest the toxicity rub off.
o/t
Very interesting article from Gordon.
link to businessforscotland.co.uk
And i do think he is on to something here been having the same thoughts myself.
The Herald doesn’t actually state that this is the opinion of Gail Ross but they do a brilliant job of leaving the reader with the impression that she is making these claims.
Caught out again being sneaky and devious yet again Herald. SNP Bad. They are not to be trusted.
Howard Kennedy’s anti-fracking image that is reproduced in the posting is typical of the hysterical bollocks this lobby indulges in. Scotland a wasteland? For heavens sake get a sense of proportion. As bad as the anti wind turbine lobby suggesting that Scotland is completely covered in turbines. Also the laughably misleading scale between the house and the drill hole – on the basis that the roof ridge is 40ft high, the drill hole is less than 20ft under the house. An utterly absurd misrepresentation. Nicola is doing the right thing by getting on with sober assessment during the moratorium period and ignoring the grand standing loony lobby.
Hi Stuart,
In answer to your question…
t’was me wot wrote the wurdy bits 😉
It was written on one of the Facebook discussion groups before the election .
I wrote it because I was sick to death of the number of idiots screaming “SNP are planning to allow fracking, otherwise they would ban it!”, probably egged on by agents provocateurs from the digital warfare boys.
It’s interesting that the yoons have been so desperate to say it has been “debunked”. Even Blair MacDougall was begging his Twitterati to find out who this person was. I find the level of desperation displayed quite telling. To paraphrase Shakespeare: “Methinks they doth protest too much”.
Now that they know I am a photographer and not a legal expert, of course they are slavering at the mouth. So to clarify; no I am not a legal expert but I am not “just” a photographer. I spent 12 years as an engineer in the aviation industry before returning to uni to study Psychology, obtaining an MA(hons) at the University of Aberdeen and subsequently working for 9 years as an outreach psychologist for young adults with schizophrenia before redundancy due to cuts forced me to forge another career path.
My take on fracking is that, if it can be proved to be safe I have no problem with it. However, the studies touted by the industry and the apologists are modelling studies and anyone who has any scientific background knows that modelling studies are next to useless without associated empirical data. I have a friend who is a soil scientist and a true blue Tory and he said to me “I’ve seen the science and it looks safe to me”. My reply was that modelling studies mean nothing, especially if they are funded and in some cases influenced/controlled by people and organisations with a stake in a particular outcome.
The thing about modelling studies is that they are only as good as the data entered/omitted. Like anything from a computer: GIGO (garbage in garbage out). Modelling studies are great for things like traffic flow predictions in town planning, where all of the variables and the relationships between them are known.
The refusal of the industry to allow independent empirical assessment at fracking sites is very informative. If there was no problem, then they would be happy to show that. The few empirical studies that are slowly coming out make sobering reading for anyone thinking of fracking: One recent study showing that over 60% of fracking wells will suffer casing fractures (which leads to pollution/contamination) within 20 years. Another recent study by Duke University detailed lead and radium poisoning of rivers from leakage of fracking waste-water wells in North Dakota.
If the industry and those who want to join the “gold rush” had been open and honest from the start about the risks and allowed fully independent monitoring of the first wells and used that data to improve prediction models and safety measures, then I would have more respect for what they have to say but from the beginning they have been secretive, elusive, obtuse and obstructive; all of which suggests to me that they have a very ugly secret to hide.
Serious question? Do people really think that SLAB are so thick that they did not realise a ban would be overturned and fracking introduced?
I realise the answer to that might well be yes.
But if it is no, then what is their game? Simply trying to make the SNP look bad when it happened? Regardless of the consequences to tourism health and brand Scotland?
If so then the only apropos adjective can be ‘evil’.
all of which suggests to me that they have a very ugly secret to hide.
They picked north Yorkshire for a frack because there’s not that many people around the area. They know that as they get closer to the south of England, all hell breaks loose.
Its a great UKOK stick for UK press to beat the SNP they hope but there is an awful lot of frackable hydro carbon energy waiting under the UK.
@heedtracker
The shale oil fields in the SE have already been ruled out. I saw a map somewhere.
OT Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp may be spot on, here
link to businessforscotland.co.uk
Astonishing clarity..
Luigi, agree all the way..but you say
at the end..
..’what they don’t like is important (and tragic) issues being used for selfish, political gain.’
Where, even, is that ‘political gain’ realised?
It was just the original NO voters,(of all parties) who are now the target for the (attempted) ‘we told you so’ onslaught from the British nationalist media.
.
ME
Great article (the Rev’s, not the Herald one). We are still in a position where 99% of the media output in our country disrespects and ignores 50% of the electorate. It cant go on.
Can we bring back the Wings subway posters, or something similar, to wake more people up to this shite?
Britnat scribblers, especially those in Scotland, are ignorant eejits who only have one thing on their tiny minds: doing down Scotland. Don’t buy britnat papers, don’t visit their websites – BBC included of course.
@Howard Kennedy
Not only do modelling studies require good data but the “model” itself needs to be robust.
Further the equations embedded in the model need to be solvable, if not analytically, then by numerical methods with the incumbent computing time budget and rounding off errors.
Fracking is not good.
Worse still is the underground burning of the coal seams. Let’s keep an eye on that one!
Chic McGregor says:
6 June, 2016 at 2:52 pm
@heedtracker
The shale oil fields in the SE have already been ruled out. I saw a map somewhere.
I’m an ex driller in a past life, Shell and BP. Late 80’s we had 2 years looking for frack oil and gas land drilling, across the Midlands towards Birmingham. Essentially, where there’s coal fields, there’s frackable oil and its not deep either. It usually sits directly above coal strata.
The primary reason for the UK not going after it all so far, is ofcourse the UK north sea oil patch. We’ll probably see fracking growing very quickly in English rural areas, with big land owners getting a taste of the action, to shut them up. Much like in Scotland with the evil wind mills.
..and on fracking itself, its just the wrong technology for Scotland. Whether it’s ‘safe’ or not, it would be insane to jeopardise our international reputation for a clean environment, and with it our HUGE food and drinks industry (30% of all UK food and drinks exports).
We already have vast amounts of other hydrocarbon reserves, not to mention huge potential for renewables. We don’t need fracking, especially as we the people would see precious little benefit from it.
So the Brit Nat Creeps lied again. Increasingly hysterical attacks SG/SNP and Scotland as Ingerland prepares to vote for BritNatExit.
The one Geologist I know pretty much says that you don’t want onshore Fracking. His Oil & Gas Industry employers though will be telling him to BS any reports he has to do in relation to onshore Fracking. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Privately though he wouldn’t want it anywhere near him.
It is corruption UKOK Style! The Brit Nat Creep show at the Herald will change its tune for some advertising Green Backs though. The UKOK Press and Media has form for that.
New ICM online poll out this morning:
Leave: 48% (+1)
Remain: 43% (-1)
Don’t Know: 9%
um….is the fat lady starting to sing? maybe still too early to say
link to businessforscotland.co.uk
this guy gordon mckintyre kemp is good
he would make a good rep for a local yes group
anyone know if he is snp or in any political party?
Hi Howard, many thanks you for your comments, ‘this’ is the crux, for me anyway:
‘If the industry and those who want to join the “gold rush” had been open and honest from the start about the risks and allowed fully independent monitoring of the first wells and used that data to improve prediction models and safety measures, then I would have more respect for what they have to say but from the beginning they have been secretive, elusive, obtuse and obstructive; all of which suggests to me that they have a very ugly secret to hide.’
If it’s been promoted by government’s it’s because the big corporate lobbies know there is a ready supply of billions to be made from it and they have the ears of our politicians, who will and do ‘dress it up’ as ‘job creation’ and ‘investing in the economy and any other soundbite that allows them to hoodwink the population, so that they pave the way for what has already been decided, well in advance of any publicity drive.
They have no interest in the consequences in terms of health, environment and future generations having to pay the price for their greed…again.
The SNP have their measure. I Pray to the gods to get us out of this ‘Union’ as soon as possible before they destroy our land/water with their rapacious and relentless greed.
Fracking is a filthy industry, that would be visited on the Central Belt, home to the majority of us, and in areas just about recovering from the coal industry scars.
Huge amounts of water have to be brought in, so that’s noise and dirt pollution right there. There has been no discussion over what chemicals they inject. Frackers in US have fought to keep that secret.
Shifting stone and soil in areas that are densely populated? And, it does shift via the high pressure injections. Again, U.S. has tracked the tremors, and its astonishing.
You cannot monitor fugitive emissions underground. If your water is contaminated, there is no going back.
Scotland has been working away at renewables, and we must maintain this country’s reputation of clean air and beauty.
Fracking should be fought by everyone, because you will all pay for the clean up, when it goes tits up.
Ineos have been criticised numerous times for practices at Grangemouth, but they want to march into housing schemes to retrofit gas fields.
@Cat
Gordon writes for The National on a regular basis. I always enjoy his writing, very clear and logical, and that EU piece really pulls some of my thoughts together.
I’m not sure if he is a party member, but he is definitely a big supporter of independence.
I kept thinking, if Scotland votes Remain, is that not our statement of intent to continue our country’s relationship with the EU?
As I’ve said previously, Alex and Nicola (and I’m sure many more) have worked quietly away at making sure we are seen by the EU as having a separate identity and manners!
I see the Herald has an article about 64^ of people in a poll being against named person. Is this the same poll the Rev trashed a couple of weeks ago??
The Herald is getting as bad as the BBC
Heard Call Kay this morning – she sounded really gutted that 95%+ of cancer patients were really pleased with their treatment in the NHS – it just ruined her whole programme
The stupid wuman. She sounded like Hommer Simpson when he drops a doughnut
The unionist media are starting to sound really silly
@ call me dave says at 1:34 pm …. ”Murdo Fraser MSP and Callum McCaig SNP MP were on radio shortbread this morning discussing the ‘oil slump’ and shale gas / fracking.”
Oil is now around $50 a barrel and someone on here (Chic?) posted that it had never been above that figure pre-2006. I didn’t know that and found that snippet to be very interesting indeed (use it now when I’m talking to no voters). In other words throughout the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and up until 2006 Westminster seemed to be ‘happy’ with the return and managed to rob hundreds of billions from us.
……………………………………….
@ DerekM says at 2:10 pm …. ”Very interesting article from Gordon. And i do think he is on to something here been having the same thoughts myself.”
link to businessforscotland.co.uk
I’m posting this again Derek as it’s a ‘must read’ for everyone.
…………………………………………
No matter WHICH WAY the EU Ref vote goes Engerland is in some mess, it’s going to get worse, much worse re. the immigration situation, and I for one want to ‘detach’, ASAP.
May 2016 ……
link to youtube.com
……………………………………..
The Herald has already pointed out that the price of our energy will come down if we allow fracking. Aye right. We’ve been swimming in oil, steeped in gas and have wind, wave and solar energy coming out of our ears and we’re still paying through the nose for energy bills in Scotland. I for one will be joining the ‘Army’ of Scots who will put up a fight against this. They wont be bl**dy happy until they see Scotland totally decimated (damage irreversible). Water and air pollution, homes devalued, whisky poured down the stank and tourism out of the window. And if the latest US research is correct chemically induced gender-bender issues to deal with and all to line the fat cats pockets and to keep old Engerland’s lights on. FRACK OFF.
thanks val
i know he is big on indy, just thought about adding him to the list of yes2 personalities and leaders, not being associated with specific indy political parties is an advantage for the relaunch of yes2.
i also see the yes registry is coming to life. good for them
O/T sorry.
Forbes has Wee Nicola as No 50 in ranking “Most Powerful Women”.
Gives Residence as Glasgow, Scotland and Citizenship Scottish.
link to forbes.com
The Yoons must love this!
Simple Definition of Machiavellian
Using clever lies and tricks in order to get or achieve something : clever and dishonest.
Twisted Labour want to ban fracking in order to allow fracking!
We already tap gas from some of these fields using our own natural gas extraction methods why would we opt for the one time smash and grab from these wells when they have been giving us gas for years relatively safely.
Frackers your old dad invented natural gas extraction so dont try to take us for mugs we are not against extracting gas but when its well stupid we draw a line,so prove to us its not stupid destroying these seams,or i might think you are out to deprive my country of a natural resource before we get our independence.
Meanwhile in Scotland, the polling looks very different…
Remain: 56.4%
Leave: 27.1%
Undecided: 15.9%
The legal situation is quite straightforward:
If the SG bans fracking and is challenged in court, it will have to prove that it does harm.
If the fracking companies challenge the moratorium, they will have to prove that it does no harm.
Since verifiable research into fracking has only recently begun, the SG would lose a challenge to a ban since it cannot conclusively prove that fracking does harm, and the fracking companies would lose a challenge to a moratorium since it cannot conclusively prove that it does no harm.
Hence the SG’s position.
OT MAYBE Re many comments about brexit I watched Tasmina Ahmed Sheik on daily politics, Coburn was asking about immigration and what number she thought was acceptable, TAS refused on more than one occasion to give a number, instead she quoted that 2 million immigrants had came to the UK whilst 2 million people had emigrated, by this logic how many years would have to pass before the UK, Scotland included would be depopulated of indigenous people and replaced with a purely immigrant and refugee population. According to the fact check website the UK could have a majority muslim population within 40 years if things carry on as they are
As I have stated previously on my comments I dream of an independent Scotland, I support many things the SNP SG do and propose but I don’t support their stance on the EU or immigration
Immigration is and will always be a contentious issue but it has to be faced up to and addressed. I want the best for ALL Scots but I want my and our culture and beliefs to be at the forefront of our decisions going forward
Does anyone think this “parliament may override a Brexit vote” thing is an attempt by the Tories to shaft Labour (which they always do in these “better together” projects) and the SNP?
I am pretty sure the SNP are too canny, however, to fall into any Tory traps.
Far better to keep any pro-EU declarations and resolutions to Holyrood….
Some twat calling himself frack free MPs tweeted me that link on Sunday then got all huffy and blocked me for “spamming” him when I pointed out it was idiotic. No idea why anyone purportedly against fracking in the UK is so obsessively fixated on Scotland and the SNP anyway, given it’s the only area of the UK where fracking has been stopped.
I would ask anyone with an open mind re the EU to check out this video http://www.brexitthemovie.com it is very informative
@crazycat
From what I gather newsprint is recycled paper, but I guess the percentage of recycling varies, and the quality of the recycled paper used. So for instance the Guardian possible has a lot of original material, and the socialist worker definitely would. But the telegraph recycles daily mail stuff, and the herald recycles any paper it can get its browser on.
I’m surprised the herald doesn’t burn the best, it should have the highest percentage of reccyled material of all.
@cat
So that makes it 67% remain, 33% leave for Scotland. A difference of 34% for Remain, which with our 1/12th UK population gives a +3% Remain. So if the rUK was less than 53% leave and 47% remain, Scotland would just about keep the UK in the EU.
Ha. FU-UK. You can dance to Scotland’s jig-a-jig.
A reliable source once told me that ‘The Law is an ass.’
Best to be avoided.
And that is what the SNP moritorium is successfully doing.
Fears grow over Forth Crossing opening date… I say no more! 🙂
Oops!
Link Bridge:
link to archive.is
Breeks:
‘the fact the UK’s Supreme Court could do no such thing? Scottish sovereignty resides with the people, and does so in perpetuity, and since Holyrood is the democratically elected house of government, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with Holyrood’s decisions even if it wanted to’.
Not sure this is true Breeks. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom…maybe gives the game away. This Tony Blair inspired judicial organ has the right to rule on appeals from our Court of Session…in other words, over-rule our own ‘Supreme Court’. It also has final say over Devolution Issues and on the Human Rights Act.
Yes historically sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, as Mr. P drones on about. But De Facto and De Jure the English rule us and were allowed to do by our pathetic ‘Independent’ Judiciary ( Remember Lockerbie…puppets on strings?). We’re allowed to keep our criminal stuff to ourselves though….you know like our news bulletins?’There’s been a murder….’
See Nicola has been listed by Forbes magazine as one of the greatest females in the world,
Nicola was listed 5oth out of 100 most powerful woman on the planet,
lizzy was 29th,
Ruthfuhrer was nowhere,
The Rowling was nowhere,
link to forbes.com
Awizgonny@4:54.
I’m sorry, your post was far too clear and logical for Yoonster journalists and politicians, and, sadly, for some RISE and Green activists.
But thanks, anyway.
I hate to pee in the pickles here, folks.
But to horribly misquote the late/great Muhammad Ali, “I ain’t got nothing against them frackers.”
I say this because from the view in the little log cabin in the Rockies where I was raised I could see on a good day maybe a hundred oil wells.
They had been drilled out in the 1950s and a lot of them are still producing today.
And because the Cardium formation from which they are pumping is what they call a “tight sand” EVERY ONE had to be fraced.
This is old school fracing because the wells were vertical soda straws and only one frac package was used to open up the oil-bearing rock and allow the crude to flow to the well bore.
All taking place, it should be noted, 3,000 feet below the land surface in solid sedimentary rock and not the “sub soil” as someone earlier claimed.
(You drill through the loose stuff with a “rat hole” rig then pressure cement the outer pipe called the “casing” to the rock formation. Which is Halliburton’s claim to fame.)
Recently the same Pembina Oil Field has reinvented itself with the new school fracing where the wells are being drilled with a klick or more of horizontal leg, a dozen or more frac packages are employed and the lease is covered with fracing units (basically huge pumps mounted on trailers) when the job is taking place.
Believe me it’s pretty impressive when all that iron is fired up.
And because these horizontal wells are now clustered on “pads” and not the traditional 80-acre spacing the surface disturbance is greatly reduced.
Is this perfect? Of course not.
But the oil patch sure feeds a lot of families and pays a lot of taxes around here. Built up some fine ranches too with what we call “off farm income.”
So far, after 66 years of intensive fracing the catastrophes that the Patrick Harvie World is predicting have yet to happen. But, I guess, you never know.
Although Scotland’s land-based sedimentary basin is a heck of a lot smaller than my great Western Sedimentary Basin, there’s still a lot of wealth locked in those rocks. Think Bathgate.
Now here’s the drill. The way the Scottish government is going about it is bass akwards.
Allowing one outfit to dominate with a blanket concession is plain dumb. God bless the moratorium.
Here’s what needs to be done. First set up a Scottish Oil and Gas Commission (Use the devolved environmental powers if necessary.)
Then SOGC drills a series of exploratory wells (cutting lots of cores on the way down)so everyone generally knows what they heck is down there.
I get the impression nobody really knows where the “basement” (top of the pre-Cambrian) really is.
Next create a competitive bid system where individual energy companies (preferably home-grown Scots ones) identify specific targets for their wells (none of this centre-of-the-earth crap).
SOGC also develops tight environment controls to regulate drilling, production and well abandonment. Minimizing the footprint to the max.
A Scottish Surface Rights Board will resolve landowner/mineral rights holder disputes.
But most important of all, the Scottish Government will establish an oil and gas royalty regime (ya, I know there will be a big fight with Westminster) so Scots receive their fair share of the resource. Some (maybe all) of which gets tucked away in the Oil Fund.
Then let the good times roll. Because fracking rules. baby!
(Note to Nick, I’m available 24/7 for a consult. Rate card on demand.)
This is probably not going to go over too well but what the heck.
My little log cabin has a good solid lock.
AlbertaScot says:
6 June, 2016 at 6:31 pm
I hate to pee in the pickles here, folks.
British isles floats on frack oil and gas, so what do you think’s stopped fracking happening at all here?
It must be the heat, or is this guy Sanderson simply a complete idiot?
HS sinks furrther into the bought and paid for Unionist mire.
A million raised in funding for Yes. Will this merit a mention anywhere in our MSM?
Thought not.
Is anybody buying Dead Tree Scrolls who has more than two brain cells still functioning?
@ twathater says at 4:56 pm …. ”As I have stated previously on my comments I dream of an independent Scotland, I support many things the SNP SG do and propose but I don’t support their stance on the EU or immigration
Immigration is and will always be a contentious issue but it has to be faced up to and addressed. I want the best for ALL Scots but I want my and our culture and beliefs to be at the forefront of our decisions going forward.
I would ask anyone with an open mind re the EU to check out this video. It is very informative.”
http://www.brexitthemovie.com
I totally agree with you TH. I’m voting to ‘Stay’ in the hope that we get to ‘Leave’ and then (re) consider membership of the EU as an Independent country.
I want to see the 170,000 unemployed Scots ’employed’, the thousands of Scots, of 50,000 plus, that leave every year to find work …. ‘finding it here’ and a points system put in place for people from the EU and elsewhere …. the World over. It’s a shame in a way that discussing immigration has become a bit of a taboo subject and if you don’t agree with the status quo one is often deemed to be racist. Imo, we can’t go on with the system that’s in place because it just aint working.
Thanks for the link. Very informative indeed.
@shug says: 6 June, 2016 at 4:03 pm:
” … The unionist media are starting to sound really silly.”
Naw! Shug. The Yoon SMSM has always sounded silly. It’s jist yersel noticing it muckle mair noo.
Ah but you miss the big picture AlbertaScot its not about if fracking should take place its about when and what type of fracking,aint no point in fracking it if those damn English are just going to blag it all.
That is what we are stopping maybe once we get our freedom we might reconsider though considering we have lots of other resources damaging shale seams under our towns and cities is a bit pointless.
I’m at the point now where I don’t read any papers.
They won’t be around much longer.
Only so much shit you can stand.
@AlbertaScot says: 6 June, 2016 at 6:31 pm:
… My little log cabin has a good solid lock.”
Aye! AlbertaScot but there’s a wee, important difference between yer wee log cabin and ma ain wee cottage sat abin the workings o the auld Fife coalfield.
The Scots geology is such that both the Highlands and Southern Uplands of Scotland were formed by massive Continental Shelf collisions that threw up those highlands and those uplands.
The bit in the middle, where the majority of Scots live, has a geology of rock formations shattered and fragmented to an extent that, the then, United Kingdom National Coal Board made fundamental errors.
They went to the very large expense of building the complete new town of Glenrothes as the place for the miners who would man a the new, highly expensive, coal mining super-pit to live. This decision was made under the mistaken belief the super-pit could utilise the massive, imported, USA made coal cutting machinery used throughout the Americas – including Canada.
Thing is that the coal seams in the Scottish coalfields are not the same as in the Americas. Neither are the rest of the geological strata that Fracking would, of necessity, be drilling through. The first problem their super-pit encountered was that it constantly flooded the workings due to the higgledy-piggeldy and fractured seams.
Then they discovered the big machines were designed to cut coal on long straight seams and the town of Glenrothes never benefitted from manning a super-pit for that mine never produced a single ton of coal.
The Scottish mountains and uplands were formed at the expense of the land between them being squashed together while throwing up the mountains and uplands. It is thus totally unsuited to any form of fracking or even modern forms of mining.
Plenty of coal, (and gas and oil), down there – just not all in nice neat layers like in the Americas – or even like in the Welsh Valleys.
Any risk assessments for fracking/nuclear/renewables/GM crops
must consider possible SEVERE damage to the marketing of our FOOD & DRINK INDUSTRY.
Secure jobs in dairy/cheese, fish, whisky, seafood, water etc are non-expendable, TRUMPING the oil companies’ rights to make profit.
There was another article saying, ‘That the opposition had forced the SNP to ban fracking’. One minute they are claiming the SNP fracking ban is ‘fictitious’. The next they are claiming the SNP were forced to make a ban.
The only thing ‘fictitious’ are the Press claims. They are contradictory.
Buy The National to keep The Herald alive.
Chic McGregor @ 2:48 pm
But if it is no, then what is their game? Simply trying to make the SNP look bad when it happened? Regardless of the consequences to tourism health and brand Scotland?
If so then the only apropos adjective can be ‘evil’.
I have been thinking along these very lines about the political parties and the media with their attempts to scupper indy and the SNP.
There is no way to ascertain their intent but the outcome of both the political parties and the media is damaging all aspects of Scotland.
The argument needs to be re-framed not on how both these bodies are biased against indy but how they are affecting the livelihoods of ordinary people through a negative perception that the outside world gets of Scotland because of them that in turns puts of investment and folk coming here.
The media is a tough nut to crack but an achievable aim is destroying the Red Tories in Scotland. Of course, there is an unfinished business in regards to them in their sleekit role in indyref 2014. This can be started with getting them out of power at a local election next year and continue to do so until their masters in London realise that funds of their Northern branch is a waste of resources.
Of course some will say that it is undermining democracy but wanting to destroy another party. That is incorrect. There are other parties that can fill the void if the Red Tories vacated from Scotland. The most likely ones are the Greens who are lukewarm to independence at the moment and it wouldn’t be hard for them to make a move to a more unionist stance that would be acceptable to the Red Tory voters.
The essential inanity is that the SNPs stance is show us that fracking is safe. In other words it’s an evidence based approach that should be hard to argue against.
You can however take the Labour/Green approach and ban it as a carbon reduction measure. Logically they should also shut down the oil industry. Obviously they aren’t necessarily saying the technology is provably unsafe.
The tories have left themselves open to allegations that they don’t require proof that there’s no enviromental impact. However they’ve left wiggle room.
@ Rock says at 9:02 pm …. ”Buy The National to keep The Herald alive.”
Still snooping aboot Torcuil?
Buy The National and read articles by Alex Salmond, Joanna Cherry, Keregan, Sheppard, MacIntyre Kemp, Mhairi Black etc etc etc.
The Italian Job.
Spooky. I too haven’t bought a newspaper in nearly a decade and also get free ones to line my daughters rabbit cage.
Just as well rabbits can’t read. We’d be done for animal cruelty.
Even supposing they can access the shale gas by fracking it safely, and I’m nowhere near convinced they can, shale gas remains a fossil fuel which pumps CO2 into the atmosphere.
Let us please not value crude money above an irreversibly wrecked planet which cannot support ourselves or the critters we share it with. Every penny we invest in clean renewables is worth a thousand times the same sum invested in fracking.
I suppose that does sound like hypocrisy given the oil industry, but when you consider how diligent the Norwegians have been with the husbandry of their black gold and compare it to the profligacy of the UK with ours, for as long as these money grasping short sighted imbeciles are left to reign over us, I say we leave the damned stuff where it is, and I won’t thank you for trying to persuade me otherwise.
When new technology comes along it’s pretty easy to decommission a big windmill for a wee tiny windmill
No mess, nice and tidy
More difficult to decommission big drill rigs over big holes you can set on fire
although I suppose that would make it easier to cook all the dead poisoned fish for the birds to eat and then their eyes would fall out to be eaten by…..Oh well, you get it
Am I being too pessimistic?
Actually Dr. Jim it’s a piece of cake to decommission a land-based shale oil well – which I think we’re talking about here.
First of all there haven’t been permanent land rigs on holes since the old Spindle Top days in Texas. The offshore is different.
They run mobile, truck-mounted units called service rigs.
When a well gets declared dry and abandoned you remove the pump jack. That’s the up and downy thingy.
Then you bring in a service rig to pull the inner pipe called tubing and the valve stack called a Christmas tree.
After that a trackhoe is brought on site and digs a Jesus big bell hole around the well bore and you cut it well below surface. Next weld on a flange.
Then bring in a cement unit (that’s Halliburton again) and pump a sh!t load of slurry down the casing – which has already been cemented to the formation so it can’t be abandoned.
Then you fill up the hole.
After that the lease site is stripped of aggregate, the top soil which has been stockpiled on site is back-bladed with a CAT onto the disturbed ground.
If it’s agricultural the land owner – who has been getting surface rights payments for years – is compensated for a few more years until the Scottish Oil and Gas Commission declares the site just like a new one.
Easy Peasy!!
That’s how the oil patch works. Plus a whole lot of guys get a pretty good wage out of it.
Glad I could help.
So it is only due to the SG creating a ‘legitimate expectation’ that the companies could challenge, not because the SG are acting ultra vires.
Stuart
Re. your 5.55pm post, if you want a reference to sources to back up the description of S & W as a “leading” firm then here it is described as a top tier regional heavyweight by the Legal 500 (link to legal500.com). You could also look at its rankings on Chambers and Partners (link to chambersandpartners.com). These are generally considered to be a measure of quality and reputation.
I stand by my original point though; as it is accepted in the industry that S & W is a leading firm, a journalist doesn’t necessarily have to quote sources to use the adjective.