NPR

spike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:25 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 7:58 pm

Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:52 pm


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.

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 8:26 am

spike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:25 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 7:58 pm

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

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 8:26 am

spike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:25 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 7:58 pm

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 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 10:31 am 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 9:18 am

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 8:26 am

spike wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:25 pm

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 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:52 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 10:31 am 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 4:55 pm

spike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:52 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 10:31 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 6:28 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 4:55 pm

spike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:52 pm

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.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:39 am 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.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:51 pm 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.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:39 am 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.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:14 pm

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 9:39 am 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.

robmatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:09 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:51 pm 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.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:55 pm 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:52 pm I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:52 pm I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:57 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:52 pm I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

Just as she's Perimenopause?

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:52 pm I think Kate Forbes would be excellent in five or ten years.

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 4:05 pm 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.

tc27 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 4:05 pm 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.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:57 pm

robmatic wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:09 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:51 pm 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

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.

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:11 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:56 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:11 am 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:57 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 12:21 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:57 am 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.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 12:21 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 11:57 am 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.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:04 pm 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.

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:53 pm 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

C T wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:16 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:53 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:27 pm

C T wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:16 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:53 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:35 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:27 pm

C T wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 2:16 pm

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.