They’re stealing our electricity now

Protecting English countryside at the expense of Scottish countryside?

There’s always the little issue of England being generally less windy than Scotland cos geography!

Add that to the fact that onshore power needs more wind anyway and it makes much of England unsuitable for large scale wind farms.

Offshore is another matter but geography is always the prime dictator.

Not just onshore that was blocked in the South by the tories:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-34188026

The NIMBY lobbying against this one was off the chart given that it would have been visible by the Poole harbour yachting set.

I assume it’s so that when Scotland gets Indy there’s a way to easily export electricity to England and continue to have them “subsidise us”?

You do realize that little / none of the generation is owned by “Scotland” or “The UK”.  I would assume that post independence that the national grid would need to continue to exist in a slightly more complicated way to distribute energy generated by private companies to private individuals..

And if for a moment we think of it the other way where somehow the rUK and iScotland become socialists utopias and nationalized all their generation.  Scotland would be ******.  It might produce more renewable energy than it uses on a longer term average.  But renewables are cheap, and if Scotland was selling that energy to England, it would likely be at a time when England also had lots of wind, so wouldn’t want it, so the price would be low.  Then because Scotland has vetoed Nuclear in it’s own backyard, it’s going to be reliant on some very expensive energy from England on windless days.

All that’s moot and hypothetical though, because neither side actually own the infrastructure.

I would assume that post independence that the national grid would need to continue to exist in a slightly more complicated way to distribute energy generated by private companies to private individuals

Not really, the border DNOs broadly conform to the old SSEB/CEGB demarkation, it would be edge cases that didn’t.

Scotland would be ******. It might produce more renewable energy than it uses on a longer term average. But renewables are cheap, and if Scotland was selling that energy to England, it would likely be at a time when England also had lots of wind,

Okay, so Scotland is one of, if not the, windiest place in Europe. Not the UK, Europe. Meanwhile, the south of England has more solar intensity to make up for that. In between is a sliding scale between the two extremes.

So whilst it might make sense to build offshore wind off the English and Welsh coasts for self sufficiency if it’s the taxpayer paying, as a private company it doesn’t make sense if you can build it where the best ROI is. In the same way that all that wind power needs to be sold so does the solar so it should even out.

As for nuclear, watch this space. SNP won’t be in power forever, plenty would welcome a Hunterston C or Torness B station.

Let’s see the South Downs and New Forest have as many wind turbines as the Highlands or Dumfries and Galloway.

Begrudgingly I’d agree with the Tories, the de-facto ban on onshore wind development in England was probably a good thing as whilst every little helps, it’s pissing in the wind of the problem. Offshore development can be and is of a completely different scale.

I don’t mind wind turbines in the landscape.  But it pisses some noisy people off and that energy and money is better put into big projects that can actually deliver. Not on fighting nimby’s over the small stuff.

Much more likely that onshore is pointless in many places because the geography doesn’t allow for strong, steady wind so a complete waste of time and resources. Solar, on the other hand, is in many places in the southwest, to the annoyance of some locals, as they see it as losing productive farmland, ignoring the fact that not all farmland can produce high quality food crops, or is suitable for cattle, so the  farmer being paid to allow the land to be used for energy production should be seen as an advantage, and sheep can be grazed under the panels, which keeps the grass down, and the sheep benefit from the shelter.

There’s also solar farms being set up on land like former rubbish tips, which once capped are unsuitable for anything else, so perfect for covering with panels. They’re not unsightly, mostly hidden behind hedges, and from a distance a bit like a large stretch of open water.

to the annoyance of some locals, as they see it as losing productive farmland, ignoring the fact that not all farmland can produce high quality food crops,

Also that, if you live in a capitalist economy, the utilization of resources is determined by the profitability. If a solar farm pays more than growing food, a capitalist should welcome the solar farm.

You do realize that little / none of the generation is owned by “Scotland” or “The UK”.

I do, but you seem confused how ecconomies work.  Scotland (the country) don’t own any distilleries, Germany (the country) don’t own any car factories, etc – it’s still very important to their economies that (a) there is work; (b) there is export opportunity.

my post was not meant to be taken any more seriously than the original suggestion it was being stolen!

And if for a moment we think of it the other way where somehow the rUK and iScotland become socialists utopias and nationalized all their generation.  Scotland would be ******.  It might produce more renewable energy than it uses on a longer term average.  But renewables are cheap, and if Scotland was selling that energy to England, it would likely be at a time when England also had lots of wind, so wouldn’t want it, so the price would be low.  Then because Scotland has vetoed Nuclear in it’s own backyard, it’s going to be reliant on some very expensive energy from England on windless days.

just as well Scotland has been investing in hydro for decades, including pumped storage and finally signs that tidal might be viable on the same sort of vague maybe one day timeline of Indy!

All that’s moot and hypothetical though, because neither side actually own the infrastructure.

its like roads, rail etc – owning the infrastructure isn’t the important thing – having the ability to move your “product” to your “customer” is essential.  Throughout civilisation economic success has been achieved in areas with highly interconnected networks (whether roads, ports, trains, water or telecoms).  Power is no different.  Regardless of whether you care more about a uk or Scottish economy this is a good thing.  That bit of wire actually has ripples way beyond Scotland too – it makes the uk marginally less dependent on Russia and the Middle East.  Thats good for almost everyone!

Just because you had the toaster and the digital watch while we were still painting ourselves blue  is no reason to have a “us and them” attitude these days. If you don’t want us using “your” electricity, put up a giant windbreak along the west coast.

I’m not even sure why the scotch are complaining, isn’t England using their surplus supporting their industry?