The Scottish Politics Thread

[Slick]

Not last year.
High exports to France

There are also more HDVC's being built, the one connecting England to Denmark should be online by 2024.
There is even one proposed to connect Morocco to UK (the cable for it will be built in Scotland)




The other thing about water.
The bits of the UK that need more water are nowhere near Scotland and to move the water from the N to the SW/SE would probably cost more than HS2

Uk exporting to France was a one off for known reasons, as above.

We could of course wonder why the HVDC line to Norway, to access more hydro storage, wasn’t terminated in Scotland, where the excess is generated and where it’s closer.

There was a NorthConnect project to link Norway to Scotland, to utilise excess Scottish wind power and balance with Norwegian hydropower, proposed by a consortium of Norwegian companies. The Norwegian government though wasn't convinced of the benefits and stopped it.

The SG’s energy plan is muddled and been incredibly slow to react to what is happening elsewhere and has lost most of its early mover advantages to other European countries. It has missed out on several strategic alliances because of this.

That came from a very senior SDI energy person

[Biffer]

Uk exporting to France was a one off for known reasons, as above.

We could of course wonder why the HVDC line to Norway, to access more hydro storage, wasn’t terminated in Scotland, where the excess is generated and where it’s closer.

There was a NorthConnect project to link Norway to Scotland, to utilise excess Scottish wind power and balance with Norwegian hydropower, proposed by a consortium of Norwegian companies. The Norwegian government though wasn't convinced of the benefits and stopped it.

The SG’s energy plan is muddled and been incredibly slow to react to what is happening elsewhere and has lost most of its early mover advantages to other European countries. It has missed out on several strategic alliances because of this.

That came from a very senior SDI energy person

Most aspects of energy are reserved to Westminster.

[spike]

Uk exporting to France was a one off for known reasons, as above.

We could of course wonder why the HVDC line to Norway, to access more hydro storage, wasn’t terminated in Scotland, where the excess is generated and where it’s closer.

There was a NorthConnect project to link Norway to Scotland, to utilise excess Scottish wind power and balance with Norwegian hydropower, proposed by a consortium of Norwegian companies. The Norwegian government though wasn't convinced of the benefits and stopped it.

The SG’s energy plan is muddled and been incredibly slow to react to what is happening elsewhere and has lost most of its early mover advantages to other European countries. It has missed out on several strategic alliances because of this.

That came from a very senior SDI energy person

TBF large scale power is a UK government reserved area. However whatever happens with independence we will have a UK wide power grid. It would be very silly and costly to separate Scotland , for everyone.

[Biffer]

I think there’s actually less energy devolved than there used to be. The RO was managed by the devolved administrations but CfD contracts are managed from Westminster. The move from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference was an absolute shitshow and put a major choke on renewable development across the UK for a few years. All because the Tory government wanted to leverage support for nuclear into the same scheme. I believe it’s now technically in the same scheme, but run very differently because it’s so ridiculously expensive compared to pretty much anything else.

[spike]

I think there’s actually less energy devolved than there used to be. The RO was managed by the devolved administrations but CfD contracts are managed from Westminster. The move from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference was an absolute shitshow and put a major choke on renewable development across the UK for a few years. All because the Tory government wanted to leverage support for nuclear into the same scheme. I believe it’s now technically in the same scheme, but run very differently because it’s so ridiculously expensive compared to pretty much anything else.

Not sure you're right here. RO was unsustainable, it was very expensive for the taxpayer (but great if you got the feed in tariffs!). Plus it was instigated by the Dept of Business and Energy and administered by OFGEM across the mainland UK , inc Scotland,. I haven't seen much criticism of CFDs, they seem to be effective in managing the cost to consumers, and giving more certainty to energy investors, although happy to be corrected.

[Slick]

There was a NorthConnect project to link Norway to Scotland, to utilise excess Scottish wind power and balance with Norwegian hydropower, proposed by a consortium of Norwegian companies. The Norwegian government though wasn't convinced of the benefits and stopped it.

The SG’s energy plan is muddled and been incredibly slow to react to what is happening elsewhere and has lost most of its early mover advantages to other European countries. It has missed out on several strategic alliances because of this.

That came from a very senior SDI energy person

Most aspects of energy are reserved to Westminster.

Good point. It was around hydrogen specifically now I think about it

[Biffer]

I think there’s actually less energy devolved than there used to be. The RO was managed by the devolved administrations but CfD contracts are managed from Westminster. The move from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference was an absolute shitshow and put a major choke on renewable development across the UK for a few years. All because the Tory government wanted to leverage support for nuclear into the same scheme. I believe it’s now technically in the same scheme, but run very differently because it’s so ridiculously expensive compared to pretty much anything else.

Not sure you're right here. RO was unsustainable, it was very expensive for the taxpayer (but great if you got the feed in tariffs!). Plus it was instigated by the Dept of Business and Energy and administered by OFGEM across the mainland UK , inc Scotland,. I haven't seen much criticism of CFDs, they seem to be effective in managing the cost to consumers, and giving more certainty to energy investors, although happy to be corrected.

ROs needed to be changed, no doubt about it. They're different from FITs as well. It was the amount of time it took to change to CFD that was ridiculous, stopped investment for a two or three years and left bits of the industry in a wee bit of limbo.

ROs were all set centrally but some of the administration of the scheme was devolved. Not sure of the details tbh.

[spike]

I think there’s actually less energy devolved than there used to be. The RO was managed by the devolved administrations but CfD contracts are managed from Westminster. The move from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference was an absolute shitshow and put a major choke on renewable development across the UK for a few years. All because the Tory government wanted to leverage support for nuclear into the same scheme. I believe it’s now technically in the same scheme, but run very differently because it’s so ridiculously expensive compared to pretty much anything else.

Not sure you're right here. RO was unsustainable, it was very expensive for the taxpayer (but great if you got the feed in tariffs!). Plus it was instigated by the Dept of Business and Energy and administered by OFGEM across the mainland UK , inc Scotland,. I haven't seen much criticism of CFDs, they seem to be effective in managing the cost to consumers, and giving more certainty to energy investors, although happy to be corrected.

ROs needed to be changed, no doubt about it. They're different from FITs as well. It was the amount of time it took to change to CFD that was ridiculous, stopped investment for a two or three years and left bits of the industry in a wee bit of limbo.

ROs were all set centrally but some of the administration of the scheme was devolved. Not sure of the details tbh.

Ah didnt know about the delay. Typically governmental sloth. I think the Scottish government although tied in to UK set policy, can reject schemes through the planning process, so can influence things that way. For instance, new nuclear won't be built in Scotland.

[Biffer]

Not sure you're right here. RO was unsustainable, it was very expensive for the taxpayer (but great if you got the feed in tariffs!). Plus it was instigated by the Dept of Business and Energy and administered by OFGEM across the mainland UK , inc Scotland,. I haven't seen much criticism of CFDs, they seem to be effective in managing the cost to consumers, and giving more certainty to energy investors, although happy to be corrected.

ROs needed to be changed, no doubt about it. They're different from FITs as well. It was the amount of time it took to change to CFD that was ridiculous, stopped investment for a two or three years and left bits of the industry in a wee bit of limbo.

ROs were all set centrally but some of the administration of the scheme was devolved. Not sure of the details tbh.

Ah didnt know about the delay. Typically governmental sloth. I think the Scottish government although tied in to UK set policy, can reject schemes through the planning process, so can influence things that way. For instance, new nuclear won't be built in Scotland.

Yeah, that's one of their main influences along with the stuff related to the crown estate in Scotland.

I was working in renewable at the time when they were pissing about with the RO/CfD schemes and it was frankly fucking ridiculous. I think two or three times they had a good scheme for renewable that got torn up because someone said 'oh, but wait, it needs nuclear'. And look how that's worked out.

[clydecloggie]

What's the fuss about Kate Forbes' faith? First I've ever heard about it being an issue, and she's been part of the government for a good while now.

[Tichtheid]

What's the fuss about Kate Forbes' faith? First I've ever heard about it being an issue, and she's been part of the government for a good while now.

I've not been reading this in detail as I have no vote, not being a party member or anything, but I think the feeling is that being from the right of the party and given her stance on issues such as abortion and the GRR, it's highly likely that she would blow up any deal with the Green Party.

OTOH, some analysts think that she would win a lot of votes back to the SNP, so a deal with the Greens might not be needed.

[Blackmac]

Funny how the Greens object to some of the more extreme views of Forbes' religion but don't seem to have a problem with the more extreme views of Yousaf's.

[robmatic]

Funny how the Greens object to some of the more extreme views of Forbes' religion but don't seem to have a problem with the more extreme views of Yousaf's.

Forbes is publically committed to her beliefs though. How much of a believer is Yousaf?

Not that I am impressed by the idea of the Greens viewing gender self-ID as more important than environmental issues.

[weegie01]

What's the fuss about Kate Forbes' faith? First I've ever heard about it being an issue, and she's been part of the government for a good while now.

It is interesting that the particular strand of Chrisitianity to which Forbes belongs is being made an issue at a time when the UK has a Hindu Prime Minister, and one of the other contenders for the SNP Leadership is a Muslim.

The Free Church of Scotland to which Forbes belongs has a very traditionalist doctrine. Forbes has however said that her religious beliefs are rooted in the 'Wee Frees' but she does not subscribe to all their teachings. She is however conservative in her views on gender and is pro life.

She is socially liberal / left wing (I never know the right terms these days) and very supportive of measures to ensure everyone in society is supported and treated fairly. So she aligns with the general direction of the SNP except on gender and abortion issues.

She has never been explicit herself, but her supporters say she would never impose her views, and would accept that the SNP has to be guided by the majority will. The question is whether it is possible to have someone leading a party who is at odds with some of its policies.

Edit
I started that post and was interupted, so by the time I'd finished some had already been answered.

[Slick]

What's the fuss about Kate Forbes' faith? First I've ever heard about it being an issue, and she's been part of the government for a good while now.

It is interesting that the particular strand of Chrisitianity to which Forbes belongs is being made an issue at a time when the UK has a Hindu Prime Minister, and one of the other contenders for the SNP Leadership is a Muslim.

The Free Church of Scotland to which Forbes belongs has a very traditionalist doctrine. Forbes has however said that her religious beliefs are rooted in the 'Wee Frees' but she does not subscribe to all their teachings. She is however conservative in her views on gender and is pro life.

She is socially liberal / left wing (I never know the right terms these days) and very supportive of measures to ensure everyone in society is supported and treated fairly. So she aligns with the general direction of the SNP except on gender and abortion issues.

She has never been explicit herself, but her supporters say she would never impose her views, and would accept that the SNP has to be guided by the majority will. The question is whether it is possible to have someone leading a party who is at odds with some of its policies.

Edit
I started that post and was interupted, so by the time I'd finished some had already been answered.

She's a really interesting candidate and would be my preferred choice. Interestingly I've heard 2 opposing views of her as a political operator, one from when the negotiations around freeports were going on that she was the only adult in the room from SG side and another that says she is almost comically naïve on many issues.

Talking of comical, I can't believe Yousaf is actually being taken seriously. I think he would be a disaster - both for the SNP and Scotland as a whole. In saying that, would be pretty incredible for England, Scotland and Ireland all to have political leaders from Asian backgrounds.

[Blackmac]

Funny how the Greens object to some of the more extreme views of Forbes' religion but don't seem to have a problem with the more extreme views of Yousaf's.

Forbes is publically committed to her beliefs though. How much of a believer is Yousaf?

Not that I am impressed by the idea of the Greens viewing gender self-ID as more important than environmental issues.

The difference is she has had to regularly defend them and has been made to distance herself from some of the views. Are you really trying to suggest that they would do the same to Yousaf or any other Muslim politician. Not a cat in hells chance

[weegie01]

She's a really interesting candidate and would be my preferred choice. Interestingly I've heard 2 opposing views of her as a political operator, one from when the negotiations around freeports were going on that she was the only adult in the room from SG side and another that says she is almost comically naïve on many issues.

Both are apparently true. I am told she is very clever, and very good at certain things. But she also has very little life experience (quite remarkably so for someone with her CV) and once outside that she can struggle.

To be fair, she is not alone in this. It seems to be a general issue with people getting into politics young and lacking life experience, and once they are in the bubble many seem to not grow the breadth of life experience others do.

[Biffer]

I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

[Sandstorm]

I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

Just as she's Perimenopause?

[Slick]

I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

Agree. It's a really fucking poor list

[Biffer]

I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

Just as she's Perimenopause?

Misogynist as fuck. You know men go through significant hormonal changes during their forties as well, right? Do you question their temperament during that time?

[weegie01]

I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

There are some very bright young SNP politicians around. With a little more experience they could be very good indeed.

[tc27]

I am really amazed Swinney and Robertson have not run - it really is a changing of the guard both within nationalist politics and the Scottish devolved government.

[Slick]

I am really amazed Swinney and Robertson have not run - it really is a changing of the guard both within nationalist politics and the Scottish devolved government.

I'm not surprised at Swinney, but Robertson was a shock. Does make you wonder why none of the "big guns" are interested

[Biffer]

I am really amazed Swinney and Robertson have not run - it really is a changing of the guard both within nationalist politics and the Scottish devolved government.

Swinney was leader before and wasn't very good at it. Recognising his own weaknesses I think.

[robmatic]

Funny how the Greens object to some of the more extreme views of Forbes' religion but don't seem to have a problem with the more extreme views of Yousaf's.

Forbes is publically committed to her beliefs though. How much of a believer is Yousaf?

Not that I am impressed by the idea of the Greens viewing gender self-ID as more important than environmental issues.

The difference is she has had to regularly defend them and has been made to distance herself from some of the views. Are you really trying to suggest that they would do the same to Yousaf or any other Muslim politician. Not a cat in hells chance

Is that not because of her specific denomination though? I genuinely have no idea how devout Yousaf is or what sect he is. If he is devout, then that is problematic, but not all Muslims are socially conservative Salafis. My wife is Muslim but is probably more anti-Sharia than anyone on this board and fairly liberal, and it would be somewhat ridiculous expecting her to defend the veil etc.

[SaintK]

Not a particularly good start from Forbes!!!
From this morning's Politco Playbook

CRASH AND BURN: SNP MPs, activists, Scottish journalists, political opponents and, well, the world, really, took to social media last night to declare Kate Forbes’ candidacy in the Scots Nat leadership race dead in the water. Her (politically at least) ill-judged assertion that she would have opposed gay marriage had she been in the Scottish parliament when the law was passed seems to have gone down like a lead balloon north of the border.

TikTok: Playbook makes it exactly seven hours, 24 minutes from Forbes launching her slick campaign video to publication of her surely fatal interview with the Scotsman in which she declared her position “as a matter of conscience.”

Ouch: The response was swift — and brutal. The Scotsman’s Alexander Brown heard from a member of Forbes’ own team that she had, how shall we put this, messed up her campaign. Hannah Bardell wasn’t impressed either. Nor was Pete Wishart, who seemed to have been considering voting for Forbes before her disastrous media round. Stewart McDonald, Richard Lochhead, Paul O’Kane, and Tory peer Ruth Davidson all took to Twitter overnight to sound the death knell for her candidacy. Carol Monaghan was one of the few to defend Forbes.

[pjm1]

Not a particularly good start from Forbes!!!
From this morning's Politco Playbook

CRASH AND BURN: SNP MPs, activists, Scottish journalists, political opponents and, well, the world, really, took to social media last night to declare Kate Forbes’ candidacy in the Scots Nat leadership race dead in the water. Her (politically at least) ill-judged assertion that she would have opposed gay marriage had she been in the Scottish parliament when the law was passed seems to have gone down like a lead balloon north of the border.

TikTok: Playbook makes it exactly seven hours, 24 minutes from Forbes launching her slick campaign video to publication of her surely fatal interview with the Scotsman in which she declared her position “as a matter of conscience.”

Ouch: The response was swift — and brutal. The Scotsman’s Alexander Brown heard from a member of Forbes’ own team that she had, how shall we put this, messed up her campaign. Hannah Bardell wasn’t impressed either. Nor was Pete Wishart, who seemed to have been considering voting for Forbes before her disastrous media round. Stewart McDonald, Richard Lochhead, Paul O’Kane, and Tory peer Ruth Davidson all took to Twitter overnight to sound the death knell for her candidacy. Carol Monaghan was one of the few to defend Forbes.

And that's why it's not a great idea to have any form of extremist as the leader of a country... Even if her wee free "extremism" isn't waaay out there, it's too far for the vast majority of the population, and in direct opposition to the zeitgeist.

[clydecloggie]

Not a particularly good start from Forbes!!!
From this morning's Politco Playbook

CRASH AND BURN: SNP MPs, activists, Scottish journalists, political opponents and, well, the world, really, took to social media last night to declare Kate Forbes’ candidacy in the Scots Nat leadership race dead in the water. Her (politically at least) ill-judged assertion that she would have opposed gay marriage had she been in the Scottish parliament when the law was passed seems to have gone down like a lead balloon north of the border.

TikTok: Playbook makes it exactly seven hours, 24 minutes from Forbes launching her slick campaign video to publication of her surely fatal interview with the Scotsman in which she declared her position “as a matter of conscience.”

Ouch: The response was swift — and brutal. The Scotsman’s Alexander Brown heard from a member of Forbes’ own team that she had, how shall we put this, messed up her campaign. Hannah Bardell wasn’t impressed either. Nor was Pete Wishart, who seemed to have been considering voting for Forbes before her disastrous media round. Stewart McDonald, Richard Lochhead, Paul O’Kane, and Tory peer Ruth Davidson all took to Twitter overnight to sound the death knell for her candidacy. Carol Monaghan was one of the few to defend Forbes.

And that's why it's not a great idea to have any form of extremist as the leader of a country... Even if her wee free "extremism" isn't waaay out there, it's too far for the vast majority of the population, and in direct opposition to the zeitgeist.

Funny that, a week ago I had no idea she was wee free and now she's conclusively answered the question I posed further up this thread. Looks like Ash Regan might be getting this by default, even if Humza Yousaf is successfully positioning himself as 'religious but not a nutter'.

If it is Ash Regan, for good or ill this independence ride might be coming to a conclusion soon.

[Biffer]

I have a feeling the press going after both Yousaf and Forbes will then lead on to a Scotland-religious-intolerance-backward-looking presentation from some aspects of the press, to feed into a nationalists-are-all-extremist-zealots underpinning for the next few years.

[Blackmac]

I have a feeling the press going after both Yousaf and Forbes will then lead on to a Scotland-religious-intolerance-backward-looking presentation from some aspects of the press, to feed into a nationalists-are-all-extremist-zealots underpinning for the next few years.

Do you really think the press would question Yousaf's beliefs. As Robomatic said, I don't know what his views are and have no reason to believe that he would hold any views even close to extremist, but I'm not convinced they would pressure him the way they would be prepared to pressure Forbes.

[pjm1]

I have a feeling the press going after both Yousaf and Forbes will then lead on to a Scotland-religious-intolerance-backward-looking presentation from some aspects of the press, to feed into a nationalists-are-all-extremist-zealots underpinning for the next few years.

Do you really think the press would question Yousaf's beliefs. As Robomatic said, I don't know what his views are and have no reason to believe that he would hold any views even close to extremist, but I'm not convinced they would pressure him the way they would be prepared to pressure Forbes.

I think you're right. It's too close to the bone to probe ("just asking questions"!) so he'll get far more of a pass. Whereas a lot of the population are Christian (of varying flavours) so anything a bit more out there will be presented as "alternative" and more extreme.

[Biffer]

I have a feeling the press going after both Yousaf and Forbes will then lead on to a Scotland-religious-intolerance-backward-looking presentation from some aspects of the press, to feed into a nationalists-are-all-extremist-zealots underpinning for the next few years.

Do you really think the press would question Yousaf's beliefs. As Robomatic said, I don't know what his views are and have no reason to believe that he would hold any views even close to extremist, but I'm not convinced they would pressure him the way they would be prepared to pressure Forbes.

They won't go after him in the same way, they'll rely on insinuation and their built in racism to lump him into a 'hmmm, well, you know what they're like' category.

[clydecloggie]

Forbes now reported as saying that having children out of wedlock is 'wrong'. Full-on 1950's Christian bollox. Can't see her coming back from this, I don't think the average SNP member is on the same wavelength at all.

[Biffer]

Forbes now reported as saying that having children out of wedlock is 'wrong'. Full-on 1950's Christian bollox. Can't see her coming back from this, I don't think the average SNP member is on the same wavelength at all.

She's making it very easy for them.

[tc27]

Watching the reverse ferret of numerous MSPs/MPs over endorsing Forbes is very funny.

The wheels are coming off - the party that was best at internal discipline and clever messaging now looking like clown show. I cant say I am not enjoying it

Edit - Fwiw I admire Forbes integrity in this regard.

[C T]

Watching the reverse ferret of numerous MSPs/MPs over endorsing Forbes is very funny.

The wheels are coming off - the party that was best at internal discipline and clever messaging now looking like clown show. I cant say I am not enjoying it

I'm more bothered by her saying she would vote against, than her discussing her views on the matter.

What I'm trying to say is that she is entitled to not agree with same-sex unions, however archaic and ridiculous her view may be.

However she should be voting based on her constituents views, not her own. Personally believe that being proven to vote against your constituents is, what would be called in most ways of working life, gross misconduct.

[Blackmac]

Watching the reverse ferret of numerous MSPs/MPs over endorsing Forbes is very funny.

The wheels are coming off - the party that was best at internal discipline and clever messaging now looking like clown show. I cant say I am not enjoying it

I'm more bothered by her saying she would vote against, than her discussing her views on the matter.

What I'm trying to say is that she is entitled to not agree with same-sex unions, however archaic and ridiculous her view may be.

However she should be voting based on her constituents views, not her own. Personally believe that being proven to vote against your constituents is, what would be called in most ways of working life, gross misconduct.

I take it you know her constituency. There is a strong possibility that the majority agree with her views.

[clydecloggie]

Watching the reverse ferret of numerous MSPs/MPs over endorsing Forbes is very funny.

The wheels are coming off - the party that was best at internal discipline and clever messaging now looking like clown show. I cant say I am not enjoying it

I'm more bothered by her saying she would vote against, than her discussing her views on the matter.

What I'm trying to say is that she is entitled to not agree with same-sex unions, however archaic and ridiculous her view may be.

However she should be voting based on her constituents views, not her own. Personally believe that being proven to vote against your constituents is, what would be called in most ways of working life, gross misconduct.

I take it you know her constituency. There is a strong possibility that the majority agree with her views.

It's not Harris is it? Lots of wee free running about Skye and Lochaber? I'd think they'd welcome any new bairns there with open arms, wedlock-born or not.

[Blackmac]

I'm more bothered by her saying she would vote against, than her discussing her views on the matter.

What I'm trying to say is that she is entitled to not agree with same-sex unions, however archaic and ridiculous her view may be.

However she should be voting based on her constituents views, not her own. Personally believe that being proven to vote against your constituents is, what would be called in most ways of working life, gross misconduct.

I take it you know her constituency. There is a strong possibility that the majority agree with her views.

It's not Harris is it? Lots of wee free running about Skye and Lochaber? I'd think they'd welcome any new bairns there with open arms, wedlock-born or not.

I don't think you would necessarily need to be a Wee Free to by sympathetic to some of their views, especially not with the older voters in the North and North west.