Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[BigDoddyKane]

6 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I'm not against the idea in principle. But I think the situation we have at the moment is that without independence, it would effectively be a state owned company, starting from scratch, going into an established, competitive, privatised market, without any of the safeguards or advantages that actual nationalisation provides and without any ability to shape the actual market. The energy market is run and regulated at a UK level.

The risk that it would end up being financially disastrous under these circumstances is pretty significant. Under different circumstances, I can see it making much more sense.

Its a good conversation for the country to be having and thats why the findings from the SG's review of it should be shared so when Indy comes the country is ready to do whatever legally and in set-up it needs to do to get one. I think it would be worth investing in some renewable energy generation now even to start building on and increasing with a long term view of having a certain percentage of renewable energy in Scotland owned by SG by a certain date.

[Detournement]

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

I'm not against the idea in principle. But I think the situation we have at the moment is that without independence, it would effectively be a state owned company, starting from scratch, going into an established, competitive, privatised market, without any of the safeguards or advantages that actual nationalisation provides and without any ability to shape the actual market. The energy market is run and regulated at a UK level.

The risk that it would end up being financially disastrous under these circumstances is pretty significant. Under different circumstances, I can see it making much more sense.

It's the least competitive market out there. Everyone provides exactly the same product and the market is simply pricing. There is no real market in energy or gas. 

If a national energy company was formed they would immediately get enough customers to cover costs and wouldn't have to worry about marketing costs and would be able to share overheads with other parts of the public sector. We have just seen the procurator fiscal pay out something like 80 million on mishandling Rangers liquidation investigation, the Scottish Government aren't exactly careful with their money.

Claiming common renewable assets for the public good is also risk free. Unless you are a politician with an eye on lucrative private sector roles in the future and don't want to piss off any future employers. 

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, Detournement said:

It's the least competitive market out there. Everyone provides exactly the same product and the market is simply pricing. There is no real market in energy or gas. 

If a national energy company was formed they would immediately get enough customers to cover costs 

Everything above is complete and utter horse shit I'm afraid.

 

Quote

wouldn't have to worry about marketing costs and would be able to share overheads with other parts of the public sector.

Marketing and overhead are not the problems facing suppliers.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

5 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Everything above is complete and utter horse shit I'm afraid.

 

Marketing and overhead are not the problems facing suppliers.

rings a bell yeah, is it not wholesale costs that are the main problem?

[strichener]

9 hours ago, BigDoddyKane said:

For the SG and the country could it be a viable option to have state owned energy company that they could invest in and build up generating power assets

This is a description of what SHE uses to be before the deregulation of the energy market.

Also, in response to Gordon EF, you would have to be very selective to use 2017 as the point that the electricity supply market started losing participants.  I have been with many companies that have went bust over the last 20 years both for commercial and residential markets.  Nobody would have been looking at the market in 2016 thinking a nationalised company was a good idea and now suddenly thinking it ain't such a good idea, it really hasn't changes that much.

[Gordon EF]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

Also, in response to Gordon EF, you would have to be very selective to use 2017 as the point that the electricity supply market started losing participants.  I have been with many companies that have went bust over the last 20 years both for commercial and residential markets.  Nobody would have been looking at the market in 2016 thinking a nationalised company was a good idea and now suddenly thinking it ain't such a good idea, it really hasn't changes that much.

We can pointlessly quibble over the exact point in time when an increased number of electricity suppliers went bust but it's very clear that things changed in 2017/18. From what I can find 5 went bust in 2017, 17 in 2018 and 24 in 2019. I'm not trying to tie this in to some particular point in time to make a specific point.

I'm clearly not saying that no electricity supplier went bust before 2017 but I'll bet pretty heavily that the rate of electricity suppliers failing is significantly higher since 2017 than before it. If you've got any evidence to show that's not the case, I'd be surprised.

the impression I got from people in the industry at the time it was brought up was that it would not be a good idea to create a state-run energy supplier. I think everything we've seen since then backs that up.

Most people simply don't change their minds when it comes to politics, no matter what happens.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Gordon EF

[Boo Khaki]

Isn't the issue for the smaller suppliers that they lack the means to hedge their future supply, so they are extremely vulnerable to spikes in wholesale cost in a manner that the larger and/or more canny suppliers are not?

[git-intae-thum]

Is it fair to say this is a no go until independence? Essentially we cannot nationalise the supply side if the production side (which remains a UK reserved prerogative) remains private.

[BigDoddyKane]

the one thing that can be done is the SG share there findings, they spent half a million was it reviewing it, so there must be clear analysis why they decided against it.

Thats something to share to add to the conversation, they are going to share this publicly?

Edited September 16, 2021 by BigDoddyKane

[sophia]

6 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Is it fair to say this is a no go until independence? Essentially we cannot nationalise the supply side if the production side (which remains a UK reserved prerogative) remains private.

I would rather think so.

There seems to be one or two on here that don't quite grasp how the energy is developed, built, operated, traded and sold.

All this is underpinned, no matter the fuel, with public subsidy of one sort or other.

[BigDoddyKane]

So releasing a plan would be a good idea of why they are not going for it now and what they would suggest is done at independence to ensure it can/will be done

May as well get the ball rolling rather than start from scratch years from now

[Detournement]

14 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

We can pointlessly quibble over the exact point in time when an increased number of electricity suppliers went bust but it's very clear that things changed in 2017/18. From what I can find 5 went bust in 2017, 17 in 2018 and 24 in 2019. I'm not trying to tie this in to some particular point in time to make a specific point.

I'm clearly not saying that no electricity supplier went bust before 2017 but I'll bet pretty heavily that the rate of electricity suppliers failing is significantly higher since 2017 than before it. If you've got any evidence to show that's not the case, I'd be surprised.

the impression I got from people in the industry at the time it was brought up was that it would n

When did we go from a handful of suppliers to 30 though?

The fact that the people working in private companies don't want a state supplier is hardly surprising ffs.

[Gordon EF]

48 minutes ago, Detournement said:

When did we go from a handful of suppliers to 30 though?

The fact that the people working in private companies don't want a state supplier is hardly surprising ffs.

What, suppliers going bust? I've literally put the numbers in my post.

This wasn't people who worked for suppliers, so wouldn't have been a competitor.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

What, suppliers going bust? I've literally put the numbers in my post.

This wasn't people who worked for suppliers, so wouldn't have been a competitor.

His point is that there were fewer suppliers going bust as there were fewer suppliers in the market.  For example if you go back to 2010 there were the big six and around 10 other suppliers.  The explosion in licences is what has led to the implosion of suppliers.

Edited September 16, 2021 by strichener

[Gordon EF]

15 minutes ago, strichener said:

His point is that there were fewer suppliers going bust as there were fewer suppliers in the market.  For example if you go back to 2010 there were the big six and around 10 other suppliers.  The explosion in licences is what has led to the implosion of suppliers.

Ah right, fair enough. I don't know the stats for % of new entrants going bust over the past 10 years.

But I think there's still a decent argument that a packed market with companies entering and imploding fairly regularly makes it more unattractive.

[strichener]

15 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Ah right, fair enough. I don't know the stats for % of new entrants going bust over the past 10 years.

But I think there's still a decent argument that a packed market with companies entering and imploding fairly regularly makes it more unattractive.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. 

The reality is that compared to some of the projects that the SG have pumped money into, an energy supply company would have far more impact on the country and could even be directed toward those that are in fuel poverty specifically.

[Scary Bear]

24 minutes ago, strichener said:

I don't disagree with the sentiment. 

The reality is that compared to some of the projects that the SG have pumped money into, an energy supply company would have far more impact on the country and could even be directed toward those that are in fuel poverty specifically.

This government is better at producing glossy brochures and leaflets than actually doing stuff. I wonder when those new ferries will finally be in use?

[Scary Bear]

Coming up for 7 years as First Minister. Achievements?

[Granny Danger]

42 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Coming up for 7 years as First Minister. Achievements?

Being First Minister for 7 years and having a huge positive popularity rating.

[Dawson Park Boy]

9 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Being First Minister for 7 years and having a huge positive popularity rating.

Popularity isn’t achievements!!