SNP modelling has nothing to do with bills


Unsafe and past their best, Scotland’s nuclear power stations are not wanted by the people. We have massive gas production, four times our needs, even greater renewable wind generation with prospects of powering the entire UK.

The bills are going up because we are not independent and able to exploit our own natural resources and because we are, despite them, subject to the lack of modelling or even cigarette pack scribbling, of the Tories in Westminster.

Somehow, we must share the costs of Russian gas just as we shared the cost of Saudi oil – because we’re in the UK.


17 thoughts on “SNP modelling has nothing to do with bills

  1. Yes and we are going to have to pay our share of England’s nuclear power stations which Scotland doesn’t need.
    The “British” political parties are very keen to bury this fact by foisting unwanted and unrequired nuclear installations on us.
    The proposal for a fusion reactor site in Scotland is in principle a good thing but is far from being a realistic production model.
    Westminster has been doing it’s best to restrain the development of renewable power in Scotland for political reasons which are patently clear.
    England can never be “seen” as being dependent on Scotland for anything but that is going to be very difficult to continue to hide for much longer.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Before Dounreay and many times since. When ever the waist monster comes up with a jolly new wheeze, they look around and hey ho! We’ll give it a try. Do park it somewhere in jockland, there’s a good fellow.
    So we got the first nuclear reactor, the first nuclear power station, the first fast breeder reactor, the first nuclear reactor to be kept running online for years with cracks in it, rusting nuclear hulks on the forth, and live nuclear weapons in and out of the clyde on a regular basis.
    Aren’t we so lucky the waist monster loves and pets us so much, next thing you know they’ll be calling us george.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. That’s because Scotland is ‘remote’ and, as General Wolff said prior to the attack on Montreal, by Scottish troops: “It is no great concern if they perish.”

      Liked by 4 people

  3. “Somehow, we must share the costs of Russian gas just as we shared the cost of Saudi oil – because we’re in the UK” where almost no Russian gas comes, and I mean close to zero.

    From recent data on gas for the entire UQ, half is produced domestically, a third is imported from Norway (to England), leaving a shortfall of 17% imported from France, Belgium, etc. at “wholesale market rates”. Note that NONE including the media refer to it as the EUROPEAN wholesale market rate to imply it is a worldwide issue, and avoid awkward questions from Brexiteers.
    There is NOT a snowball’s chance in hell (a Boris Johnson truth as it’s come to be known) that the Norwegian agreed rate will be at the european wholesale rate, so 17% of supply increases by 60%, yet consumers are landed with 100% at the 60% increase ? Hello ?
    Ditto England’s shortfall for power of ca 30% (heard elsewhere) of UQ total demand, 30% at an increase of 60% but paid for by consumers for 100% of supply.

    The price charged to the consumer is mandated by London, NOT the producers.
    Richard Murphy blogged an excellent article a couple of weeks back on this exact issue, and called on the existing Tory promoted arrangement to be scrapped as it was hurting consumers, with more than a few BTL well informed comments.

    Bol’s Herald article is a pathetic attempt to swerve criticism of the Tory fiasco to anybody else, bonus points from the Editor for taking a swing at the SNP.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Time after Time I must say That Westminster MUST keep going with nuclear power,despite the hideous construction costs and then the horrendous decommissioning monies required
    Because it is their only source of weapon grade nuclear material , Read the lease agreement with the US regards Trident
    The UK must produce entirely its own warheads,and the nuclear material required has to be completely replaced at regular intervals in order to guarantee
    It goes BANG
    Never mind the massive extra cost being
    Added to everyone,s energy bill
    Such must be added.
    Because if not, eventually UK nuclear deterrent becomes useless and dangerously unstable.
    Further and more importantly Westminster now well aware what little power it has left, would lose all and any influence it had upon World affairs given that its conventional weaponry is now at least one generation behind Russia and China
    Note that all political debate upon this energy crisis NOT one shall ever even hint at of what I speak here
    Clearly demonstrating that they are firmly and clearly instructed by the real power behind the scenes by never ever to
    Let all this out into the open for intelligent public debate

    Liked by 3 people

  5. This report about inflation, from beginning of February, aside the English business guy with his butchers apron, it’s interesting to watch, in relation to energy use and prices etc as well.

    The BritNats really do hope the people of Scotland are thick enough to believe that energy prices are the SNP’s fault. Bring back nuclear!

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I wasn’t serious about nuclear btw in case of any doubt. Can’t understand the belief by some who say it’s ‘clean’ energy. Tell that to the future generations who will have to deal with the waste, or live with it, if they can that is.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. This is another example of things getting very silly! The press in Scotland to a large degree seems to lack the capability – or perhaps it’s more the motivation – to deploy basic critical thinking skills. An opportunity to report ‘SNP/Scottish Government bad’ claims seduces them.

    On this subject of modelling, an article in The Courier quotes Tory MSP Liam Kerr. It showcases a remarkable example of muddled thinking – or perhaps Kerr is just blatantly disingenuous! I wonder which? Whatever the case, the journalist seems to have no appetite to subject Mr Kerr’s remarks to any test before the newspaper amplifies them.

    Mr Kerr states: “It is remarkable that the SNP have not carried out any modelling on these (nuclear plant) closures.” I suspect there are many matters of policy reserved to Westminster that are not being explicitly modelled by the Scottish Government at any given time. But is there not an implication here that consumers in Scotland can no longer rely on Westminster’s management of the UK energy system? And anyway, Torness is still generating electricity as far as I know!

    The reader will search in vain in Mr Kerr’s remarks for evidence of a causal link between very recent energy price rises internationally and the termination of power generation at one nuclear site in Scotland. He appears to get confused over short, medium and long term inputs, outputs and impacts of energy system policies and operations.

    Then matters get very bizarre as he adds “THEY have pressed ahead with shutting down these power stations and have ruled out using nuclear as a future energy source.’ (my emphasis) Leaving aside his evident difficulty with this ’time’ thing again, – and seemingly unaware of structural/safety reasons for ending generation at these ageing facilities – whoever is he referring to as ’they’? Those that have not done the modelling, i.e. the Scottish Government? It is hard to believe that even he would push that line!

    The following statement, dated 20 August 2020, comes from the website of EDF, the nationalised French company that operates Hunterston B and Torness.

    ‘Decisions on end of generation dates for EDF’s nuclear power stations in the UK are independent of the regulator or government and are taken by EDF’s licensee board following recommendations from EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Limited’s Executive. …. The decision on the change of end of generation date for Hunterston B was taken following a series of EDF executive, board and shareholders meetings on 27th August 2020.’

    Now nuclear site operations in the UK are of course subject to regulation. This is the task of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Established by the UK government with a mission ‘to protect society by securing safe nuclear operations’, the ONR is described as the UK’s independent nuclear regulator for 36 licensed nuclear sites across England, Scotland and Wales.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. The nub of the issue being run with here by The Herald and others seems to be that the loss of nuclear generation capacity in Scotland is somehow linked to the current rise in energy prices in Scotland. UK energy market and international energy market factors are incidental. If only the Scottish Government had modelled the impact of this loss in generation capacity, it could have acted, somehow, and now all would be so much better!

    As always ‘perspective’ comes to rescue us from such stuff. In this case thanks are due to the International Energy Agency (IEA) who publish online time series data on the supply and consumption of energy by country and by energy source (it’s actually a very neat interactive tool!).

    If the scale of the recent loss of Hunterston B’s generating capacity has been so negatively impactful (a loss not caused by the Scottish Government by the way!), then candidly what do the IEA’s trend data on UK nuclear generation over the past 30 years say about Westminster’s (reserved) governance of energy generation capacity and security within (the much vaunted by Unionists) UK energy system?

    Fact 1: Electricity in the UK supplied by nuclear power over the past 30 years peaked in 1998 when 99,486 GWh were generated.

    Fact 2: Supply fell to 71,726 GWh in 2016.

    Fact 3: Supply fell even more rapidly after 2016, to just 50,278 GWh in 2020.

    Fact 4: This long term downward trend in the supply of electricity from nuclear energy and the most recent rapid fall to 2020 came whilst both Hunterston B and Torness were operational.

    Fact 5: Highly developed countries of comparable size of population to Scotland survive – indeed are well able to thrive – economically without indigenous nuclear power generation. Norway, Ireland and Denmark are relevant examples.


    Liked by 4 people

  8. Hon Sarah, she’s awa’, good-bye fair thee weel.
    Yer Faither though, was ane; braw, honest Chiel.
    “Product placement”, wi Sarah, was the BBC’s sin.
    Placed in a job, she should ne’er hae been in.
    When we called, “BEEB you’re biased”,
    Scots deserve integrity of the highest.
    We got Hon Sarah the Slyest.
    Whose next—- said in jest?
    A glib Tory? Union-est?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Hickley Point costing £Billions of Chinese loan monies. The most expensive, dangerous power ever. Where will the waste go? Jetted all over the world. Japan nuclear disaster still ongoing 10 years later. Discharging radioactive waste into the sea. A disaster costing £Billions. Chernobyl covering needed for 100 years. Still not safe. The last nuclear plant built in Finland years late and over budget. There was a need for reconciliation to decide the cost, fault and who pays the final price. The consumers.

    Two tidal schemes in Humber and elsewhere were declined because of cost. They were cost effective and safe than any nuclear power plant. A renewable power scheme in Swansea reneged upon by the Tories cost £1Billion.

    CCS projects reneged upon by the Tories at Longannet, Fife and Peterhead. The way forward and the expertise. Scotland loses out again. Paying for Westminster mistakes and bad, poor decisions.

    Scotland Oil & Gas revenues and resources wasted for years and years to fund London S/E. Scotland pays more despite being in surplus and nearer the source. An absolute scandal. Scotland gaining £Billions in renewable energy. Left with UK high fuel and energy prices when it should be less for parity.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. OT – It was amusing to observe yesterday the BBC’s Scotland web-page feature two articles on “gender” and three on the Politics web-page ending weeks of stagnation.

    Today they’ve disappeared from the Scotland web-page yet still retained on the Politics web-page alongside a final Sarah Smith cameo of “Calls for reckoning over online abuse of political journalist”.

    This latter piece is hypocrisy on steroids, a frankly feeble effort to paint Sarah Smith and thereby the BBC as victims.
    There is no excuse for personal abuse, but compared to the staggering abuse of power evidenced over many years from the BBC in Scotland, and Sarah Smith in particular, it can hardly be a surprise when tolerance boils over, yet all of this is conveniently ignored in proclaiming innocence, it wisnae us….

    The anger of Scots at being serially gaslighted by those purporting to be impartial ‘journalists’ is buried under excuses ranging from tribal nationalism to her sex, as if Glenn Campbell was any less recognised as a blatant propagandist as his boss.

    With the baton passed to James Cook, will he attempt to rebuild the credibility of Pacific Quay ? If this article is any guide, not a hope in hell.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.