Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Nhs f*****, ambulance service f!!!!!, but rat face Sturgeon is only concentrating on a fake referendum campaign, trying to rewrite the meaning of pronouns, arguing the biological fact of gender and fuc**** up anything the c*** touches , it should be put on a ferry with her "convenient" husband Our Pete and Sent to a deserted island, O f**k it forgot the ferry's are 2 years behind. Never mind my free dental work must be due along with the laptops for schools!! 

My commiserations on the life-changing brain injury.

[sophia]

but if she were to call a referendum, I should say oi, Sturgeon NO

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, spongeheid15 said:

Nhs f*****, ambulance service f!!!!!, but rat face Sturgeon is only concentrating on a fake referendum campaign, trying to rewrite the meaning of pronouns, arguing the biological fact of gender and fuc**** up anything the c*** touches , it should be put on a ferry with her "convenient" husband Our Pete and Sent to a deserted island, O f**k it forgot the ferry's are 2 years behind. Never mind my free dental work must be due along with the laptops for schools!! 

If you’re a real person (and I hope you are), the positive thing for Scotland is that your heart will explode in a shower of gammon long before the next elections. I hope the medical staff who let you flatline includes at least two transgender nurses and a non-binary doctor, just to make the end extra quick. 

[Anonapersona]

1 hour ago, spongeheid15 said:

Nhs f*****, ambulance service f!!!!!, but rat face Sturgeon is only concentrating on a fake referendum campaign, trying to rewrite the meaning of pronouns, arguing the biological fact of gender and fuc**** up anything the c*** touches , it should be put on a ferry with her "convenient" husband Our Pete and Sent to a deserted island, O f**k it forgot the ferry's are 2 years behind. Never mind my free dental work must be due along with the laptops for schools!! 

I admire the way you combined your username with your IQ and brain material.

[Baxter Parp]

2 hours ago, spongeheid15 said:

Nhs f*****, ambulance service f!!!!!, but rat face Sturgeon is only concentrating on a fake referendum campaign, trying to rewrite the meaning of pronouns, arguing the biological fact of gender and fuc**** up anything the c*** touches , it should be put on a ferry with her "convenient" husband Our Pete and Sent to a deserted island, O f**k it forgot the ferry's are 2 years behind. Never mind my free dental work must be due along with the laptops for schools!! 

Don't go changing, y'all.

[speckled tangerine]

2 hours ago, spongeheid15 said:

Nhs f*****, ambulance service f!!!!!, but rat face Sturgeon is only concentrating on a fake referendum campaign, trying to rewrite the meaning of pronouns, arguing the biological fact of gender and fuc**** up anything the c*** touches , it should be put on a ferry with her "convenient" husband Our Pete and Sent to a deserted island, O f**k it forgot the ferry's are 2 years behind. Never mind my free dental work must be due along with the laptops for schools!! 

I hope you bin the WiFi when you lose the UC uplift next month.

It would be for the best.

[The_Kincardine]

On 09/09/2021 at 18:55, TheBruce said:

Nationalise all industries strategically important to the nation.

Rail, buses, electricity, gas, water.

Power to the people.

"Arise ye starvelings from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want"

This pish died out decades ago though Militant tried to revive it in the early 90s.  Great song and rotten politics:

 

[Detournement]

The SNP conference is taking a harder line on Sturgeon than the simps on here. 

 

[Abdul_Latif]

I read she’s set to be getting the screws turned on her this afternoon to get off the fence and make her stance on Cambo.

Quite a laugh this one, as she can’t win. Anyone climate focused, not to mention the Greens, will go nuts if she supports it and if she comes out against she can kiss goodbye to ever winning the vote of anyone working in the oil and gas sector.

 

[Suspect Device]

4 hours ago, Abdul_Latif said:

I read she’s set to be getting the screws turned on her this afternoon to get off the fence and make her stance on Cambo.

Quite a laugh this one, as she can’t win. Anyone climate focused, not to mention the Greens, will go nuts if she supports it and if she comes out against she can kiss goodbye to ever winning the vote of anyone working in the oil and gas sector.

 

I thought she already had.

Nicola Sturgeon calls on UK ministers to ‘reassess’ Cambo oil field plan (energyvoice.com)

 

[The_Kincardine]

4 hours ago, Abdul_Latif said:

I read she’s set to be getting the screws turned on her this afternoon to get off the fence and make her stance on Cambo.

Quite a laugh this one, as she can’t win. Anyone climate focused, not to mention the Greens, will go nuts if she supports it and if she comes out against she can kiss goodbye to ever winning the vote of anyone working in the oil and gas sector.

 

You forgot the 'blame it on Westminster' opt-out

[Gordon EF]

On 11/09/2021 at 13:04, Detournement said:

The SNP conference is taking a harder line on Sturgeon than the simps on here. 

 

This in the week where two electricity suppliers go bust, including one Edinburgh-based not-for-profit supplier (the second Edinburgh based not-for-profit supplier to go bust since this idea was first talked about), bringing the number of suppliers who've gone bust this year up to 7 as energy prices hit record highs.

But yeah, it's definitely Sturgeon who's wrong for deciding not to expose Scottish Government finances to that kind of risk.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Gordon EF

[alta-pete]

Ok, so why vaunt it’s conception in the first place? 

[Detournement]

39 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

This in the week where two electricity suppliers go bust, including one Edinburgh-based not-for-profit supplier (the second Edinburgh based not-for-profit supplier to go bust since this idea was first talked about), bringing the number of suppliers who've gone bust this year up to 7 as energy prices hit record highs.

But yeah, it's definitely Sturgeon who's wrong for deciding not to expose Scottish Government finances to that kind of risk.

The energy suppliers are going bust because they are loaded up with debt and can only compete on cost in a market which doesn't grow. The market failure of these companies is exactly there should be a national supplier. 

The proposal also wasn't just to be one of 30 odd companies that buy and sell electricity. It was to have a national company at the centre of the expansion of renewables to ensure that unlike with North Sea oil and gas the whole of Scottish society benefits from these common assets.

 

 

[Gordon EF]

20 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The energy suppliers are going bust because they are loaded up with debt and can only compete on cost in a market which doesn't grow. The market failure of these companies is exactly there should be a national supplier. 

The proposal also wasn't just to be one of 30 odd companies that buy and sell electricity. It was to have a national company at the centre of the expansion of renewables to ensure that unlike with North Sea oil and gas the whole of Scottish society benefits from these common assets.

But a national supplier has to compete on exactly the same terms as all those other suppliers. The UK energy market is reserved in that sense. Any Scottish Government owned supplier would be exactly the same as Our Power or People's Energy except owned by the Scottish Government.

There seems to be a conflation of two things though, generation of renewable energy and supply of energy at cost or near to cost to keep prices down. No company or body the SG can set up can do those two things in tandem. They can become an electricity generator but anything they generate gets sold off into the common pot and bought by the likes of EDF, Scottish Power, etc. And/or they can be a supplier and buy energy from the common pot and sell it to customers at as close to cost as possible. It's not possible to generate renewable energy and then sell that energy directly to customers at cost.

They can do these two things but they have to do them separately.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Gordon EF

[Gordon EF]

29 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Ok, so why vaunt it’s conception in the first place? 

If you're being charitable, the energy market became incredibly choppy in 2017. Prior to that, companies were generally getting by fine. From 2017, prices became more volatile, risk shot up and companies started going bust all over the place. It's perfectly reasonable to have thought it was a good idea in 2016 and then looked at what happened form 2017 and changed your mind.

If you're being less charitable, they didn't realise how difficult and risky it would actually be. Someone who knows what they're taking about sat them down and explained it to them.

[BigDoddyKane]

22 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

But a national supplier has to compete on exactly the same terms as all those other suppliers. The UK energy market is reserved in that sense. Any Scottish Government owned supplier would be exactly the same as Our Power or People's Energy except owned by the Scottish Government.

There seems to be a conflation of two things though, generation of renewable energy and supply of energy at cost or near to cost to keep prices down. No company or body the SG can set up can do those two things in tandem. They can become an electricity generator but anything they generate gets sold off into the common pot and bought by the likes of EDF, Scottish Power, etc. And/or they can be a supplier and buy energy from the common pot and sell it to customers at as close to cost as possible. It's not possible to generate renewable energy and then sell that energy directly to customers at cost.

They can do these two things but they have to do them separately.

Thats a good explanation , when you say they can do 2 things but separately you mean they would need to create 2 different entities or they could still do it through one entity.

Were Our Power and People Energy basically a supplier and buying energy from the common pot and then selling it on. Is it more more in this part of the market that we have seen dificulties for companies?

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by BigDoddyKane

[Gordon EF]

12 minutes ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Thats a good explanation , when you say they can do 2 things but separately you mean they would need to create 2 different entities or they could still do it through one entity.

Were Our Power and People Energy basically a supplier and buying energy from the common pot and then selling it on. Is it more more in this part of the market that we have seen dificulties for companies?

 

You can do them through the same entity I think, but the processes have to be separate. I'm not sure what every company does but Scottish Power, for example, have three separate arms - one for supply, one for generation, and one for energy networks. 

OP and PE were just suppliers. They bought energy on the market and sold it to their customers. This is where companies have been having more difficulty. You have to buy energy well ahead of time, months into the future. In a volatile market it's hard to know if you'll be buying or selling at same price. It's also hard to know exactly how much you'll need to buy to satisfy your customers demands at any given time in the future. Companies who get their supply and demand balancing wrong can also face some extremely stiff penalties for that.

[BigDoddyKane]

17 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

You can do them through the same entity I think, but the processes have to be separate. I'm not sure what every company does but Scottish Power, for example, have three separate arms - one for supply, one for generation, and one for energy networks. 

OP and PE were just suppliers. They bought energy on the market and sold it to their customers. This is where companies have been having more difficulty. You have to buy energy well ahead of time, months into the future. In a volatile market it's hard to know if you'll be buying or selling at same price. It's also hard to know exactly how much you'll need to buy to satisfy your customers demands at any given time in the future. Companies who get their supply and demand balancing wrong can also face some extremely stiff penalties for that.

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 looking at the long term and the stability that gives would mean they could run an energy supplier who trys to sell at a fair price and or if its done for profits the profit goes to the country rather than some faceless hedge funds.

Im still of opinion its a viable option and would be good for the long term of Scotland as a whole, in same way Norways state energy company was for them. I feel theres a danger the same happens with renewable energy as did with oil and if that can be avoided thats one plus.

Ofcourse you have tpo keep an open mind on these things but if someone has sat down with SG and said its not viable that has to be openly shared as there was quite a few people have stated the SG did nothing on this. Do we know when SG will publish their findings

[Gordon EF]

16 minutes 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 looking at the long term and the stability that gives would mean they could run an energy supplier who trys to sell at a fair price and or if its done for profits the profit goes to the country rather than some faceless hedge funds.

Im still of opinion its a viable option and would be good for the long term of Scotland as a whole, in same way Norways state energy company was for them. I feel theres a danger the same happens with renewable energy as did with oil and if that can be avoided thats one plus.

Ofcourse you have tpo keep an open mind on these things but if someone has sat down with SG and said its not viable that has to be openly shared as there was quite a few people have stated the SG did nothing on this. Do we know when SG will publish their findings

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.