Newsnet Main Articles
Monday, 09 July 2012 06:26
54 Comments
By Martin Kelly
The transmission charging scheme that sees power generating companies in England paid a subsidy to connect to the grid, whilst those in Scotland have to pay a levy, has been criticised for being ‘anti-Scottish’.
The SNP has today called for urgent reform of the outdated and discriminatory system after publication of the latest tariffs revealed that the gap has widened between charges levied in the north of Scotland and subsidies paid in London.
Generators in North Scotland pay £21.96/kW (up from £21.49 in 2011/12) and Peterhead pays £20.11/kW (up from £19.77), while generators in London are subsidised by £13.35/kW – a doubling of the subsidy from £6.85 in the previous year.
The locational charging methodology levies higher charges on generators furthest from the main centres of demand for connection and use of the grid. This favours generation in the southern part of the UK and presents an inbuilt bias in the UK transmission regulatory system against Scottish based generation.
As a result, Scottish generators produce 12 per cent of UK generation, but account for 40 per cent of the transmission costs, or about £100 million per year more than their fair share.
SNP Westminster Energy and Climate Change spokesperson Mike Weir MP slammed the discrepancy:
"The north of Scotland has Europe’s best renewable energy resources, yet the unfair system of locational charging means local generators face the highest charges in the UK - while subsidies are paid to generators in London and the south.
“It cannot be fair that Peterhead Power Station pays millions every year for the right to produce power while an identical generator in London is subsidised to set up shop.
"The UK Government must deliver a fundamental and effective change to create a fairer charging regime - one that does not penalise generators and developers in the very areas with the best renewable resource.
“The regulator OFGEM indicated that the system needs reform but has recently been sending mixed signals on the issue. It is imperative that this issue is addressed quickly. Their recent review also delivered no solution for Scotland’s islands, where there is huge potential to generate clean, green energy but the charges could make it uneconomical.”
The system has been criticised amid claims that it could hamper investment in the Scottish renewable sector.
In December last year OFGEM published ‘Electricity Transmission Charging: assessment of options for change’ which set out new options that the watchdog claimed would result in lower connection costs for renewable generation in the north of Scotland.
Ofgem claimed that generators in the north of Scotland could see their connection charges reduce by as much as 60%. However the latest figures suggest that in some areas at least, the problem has actually worsened.
Mr Weir added:
"Scotland has some of the best renewable energy resources in Europe, with a quarter of Europe's tidal and offshore wind potential and a tenth of its wave power. That is why the Scottish Government set an ambitious, but achievable, target of the equivalent of all of Scotland's energy needs to come from renewables by 2020.
"But this locational approach makes no sense, and is a barrier to renewable energy generation in Scotland. It is not fit for purpose to deliver a more sustainable, low carbon energy mix, ensure security of energy supply and meet Scottish, UK and EU renewable energy targets.
“Scotland has overwhelming energy potential but our future wealth is being sabotaged by the continued use of these unfair charges which discriminate against Scotland.”
In a separate move, the SNP MP also called for cross party support for his Private Member’s Bill to help pensioners beat their winter fuel bills, after a parliamentary inquiry highlighted the vulnerability of the off grid sector to fuel poverty.
The Energy and Climate Change Committee is conducting an inquiry on Fuel Poverty in the Private Rented and Off-Grid Sectors. Important points from the evidence sessions were raised in a letter to the Minister for Energy and Climate Change Gregory Barker MP which included:
- 16% of off grid households with gas heating were fuel poor, 29% with oil heating, 50% using solid fuel and 25% using electric heating.
- Some of the off-grid population (3%) don’t have access to a range of suppliers so can’t switch to control costs.
- The off-grid customers do not get the same consumer protections as those on the gas grid.
- There was a lack of activity in addressing energy efficiency in rural areas.
Mr Weir said the evidence provides further support for the Private Member’s Bill he has introduced, to bring forward payment of winter fuel allowance for off-grid pensioners.
The Bill [the Winter Fuel Allowance Payments (Off-Grid Claimants) Bill] would provide for the early payment of Winter Fuel Allowance to pensioners whose homes are not connected to the mains grid and whose principal source of fuel is home fuel oil, liquid petroleum gas or propane gas. This would allow vulnerable consumers to fill up their tanks prior to the onset of winter and at a time when prices tend to be lower.
Mr Weir, who has long campaigned on the difficulties faced by off-gas grid energy consumers, now hopes to build cross-party support for the proposal and said:
"The Energy Committee’s findings reinforce the problems of fuel poverty amongst the off-grid sector, and supports the need for action to help pensioners tackle their heating bills.
"Off grid customers, who have no access to social tariffs, are especially vulnerable to fuel poverty, but for too long have been off the political radar. Nothing has been done to ensure that these customers are afforded the same protection as mains gas and electricity households.
"The energy committee’s work will help bring this issue to the attention of the UK Government, and hopefully provide further support for the Private Member’s Bill I have introduced.
"The Bill would bring forward payment of the pensioners winter fuel allowance earlier in the year so households can fill their tanks prior to the onset of winter and when fuel prices tend to be cheaper."
Comments
#
2012-07-09 08:00
Upstake, you are always asking for the Scottish government to "do something", so what exactly do you suggest. Energy is a Reserved power so Westminster has TOTAL control of the policy and the detail of these decisions.
When it can DO something (e.g. over the disgraceful welfare cuts by Westminster) it does. When it can do nothing, all it CAN do is raise the issue.
Are you proposing revolution? Or maybe UDI, when, according to the polls, at present only 40% or so Scottish voters support full Independence?
Every one of these small 'slights' against Scotland will come home to roost when the time is right. The SNP have so far played a blinder, pushing the pro-dependency parties into places they do not want to go.
We are barely out of the opening moves in this chess game for Scotland's future, there is no need to sacrifice the Queen on an uncertain strategy just yet. It will all become clearer.
When it can DO something (e.g. over the disgraceful welfare cuts by Westminster) it does. When it can do nothing, all it CAN do is raise the issue.
Are you proposing revolution? Or maybe UDI, when, according to the polls, at present only 40% or so Scottish voters support full Independence?
Every one of these small 'slights' against Scotland will come home to roost when the time is right. The SNP have so far played a blinder, pushing the pro-dependency parties into places they do not want to go.
We are barely out of the opening moves in this chess game for Scotland's future, there is no need to sacrifice the Queen on an uncertain strategy just yet. It will all become clearer.
#
2012-07-09 08:42
According to this article the SNP are doing something about it!
shetlandtimes.co.uk/.../...
Fingers crossed!
shetlandtimes.co.uk/.../...
Fingers crossed!
#
2012-07-09 08:18
@aplinal. I have to agree with you. There are many examples where the SNP have taken action to protect the people of Scotland. Free Prescriptions, travel etc. Why this has been allowed to go on for so long is what I have a problem with. I suggest that every single one of us writes to our msp to raise, re raise and raise again, this unfair issue of Scotland being charged and England being paid. It does not get any more ANTI SCOTTISH than that.
#
2012-07-09 08:39
Letter off to my Westminster MP Mr Tom Clark.
I know what will happen - I could probably write the reply I will recieve having worked for a long while in Customer complaints. But it will swell his post bag a bit, and maybe get him to thinking of how much he should be doing down there to look after his constituents.
I know what will happen - I could probably write the reply I will recieve having worked for a long while in Customer complaints. But it will swell his post bag a bit, and maybe get him to thinking of how much he should be doing down there to look after his constituents.
#
2012-07-09 08:40
According to the logic of supply and demand, we should be paying less for our electricity as we consume it. Does anyone know whether this is the case?
John
John
#
2012-07-09 08:56
Quoting john__:
Yes.
nationalgrid.com/.../...
Generators in Scotland pay the highest transmission charges, because in Scotland there is an excess of generation over demand - and a queue of new projects trying to get on to the grid.
By the same token consumers in Scotland pay the LOWEST transmission charges - see table 1.12 in the document I linked.
If you want to reduce the charges for Scottish generators, you would have to increase them for Scottish consumers.
Why would you want to do that?
According to the logic of supply and demand, we should be paying less for our electricity as we consume it. Does anyone know whether this is the case?
John
Yes.
nationalgrid.com/.../...
Generators in Scotland pay the highest transmission charges, because in Scotland there is an excess of generation over demand - and a queue of new projects trying to get on to the grid.
By the same token consumers in Scotland pay the LOWEST transmission charges - see table 1.12 in the document I linked.
If you want to reduce the charges for Scottish generators, you would have to increase them for Scottish consumers.
Why would you want to do that?
#
2012-07-09 12:33
The difference appears to be a lot less than in the production charges. But that is just the transmission charge (and note, nowhere is it negative), so in effect we are paying twice for the transmission of the energy.
total per kW capacity (prod and cons):
Northern Scotland: £32.64
Southern Scotland: £28.8
Midlands: £29.8
London: £17.8
I guess we can still see who is being subsidised.
It seems that everyone is paying then network costs to carry the energy to London except the londoners themselves.
Does anyone know the actual cost at the door of the energy in London and Scotland. I.e. are the power comapnies themselves "evening out" the consumption transmission charges?
John
total per kW capacity (prod and cons):
Northern Scotland: £32.64
Southern Scotland: £28.8
Midlands: £29.8
London: £17.8
I guess we can still see who is being subsidised.
It seems that everyone is paying then network costs to carry the energy to London except the londoners themselves.
Does anyone know the actual cost at the door of the energy in London and Scotland. I.e. are the power comapnies themselves "evening out" the consumption transmission charges?
John
#
2012-07-09 12:51
Quoting john__:
You can see nothing of the sort. You have just tried to add apples and helicopters.
The charges for generators are per kW of GENERATION CAPACITY, the charges for consumers are per kW of PEAK DEMAND of THAT CONSUMER.
There is also the fact that consumer-side charges are calculated to cover 73% (IIRC) of National Grid's use-of-system costs, generation charges only cover 27%. Why those numbers? There is a long and technical explanation on the Grid website.
The details are irrelevant; the point is that Scottish consumers are NOT paying more for power because of the transmission charge regime. On the contrary, the charges actually work to bring DOWN the cost for us. The SNP's stance on this issue is bonkers; they want to change the system to the benefit of big-companies-who-build-wind-farms, when the ROC subsidy system is so generous that there's and endless queue of the same!
BTW, despite the transmission charge's downward influence on our prices, Scottish consumers do still pay higher prices than average overall. Nothing to do with transmission, it's down to the local distribution charges set by Scottish Hydro and Scottish Power. Simple physics: lower population density = longer wires and more kit per consumer = higher price. Too bad.
I guess we can still see who is being subsidised.
John
You can see nothing of the sort. You have just tried to add apples and helicopters.
The charges for generators are per kW of GENERATION CAPACITY, the charges for consumers are per kW of PEAK DEMAND of THAT CONSUMER.
There is also the fact that consumer-side charges are calculated to cover 73% (IIRC) of National Grid's use-of-system costs, generation charges only cover 27%. Why those numbers? There is a long and technical explanation on the Grid website.
The details are irrelevant; the point is that Scottish consumers are NOT paying more for power because of the transmission charge regime. On the contrary, the charges actually work to bring DOWN the cost for us. The SNP's stance on this issue is bonkers; they want to change the system to the benefit of big-companies-who-build-wind-farms, when the ROC subsidy system is so generous that there's and endless queue of the same!
BTW, despite the transmission charge's downward influence on our prices, Scottish consumers do still pay higher prices than average overall. Nothing to do with transmission, it's down to the local distribution charges set by Scottish Hydro and Scottish Power. Simple physics: lower population density = longer wires and more kit per consumer = higher price. Too bad.
#
2012-07-09 15:23
Hardly apples with helicopters. I was just using a simple assumption that the capacity going into a system equals the capacity going out. In actual fact the capacity going out is likely to be larger (I suspect). That ratio between consumption peak and production peak however will be the same for all areas (except areas of high renewable generation, where the peak capacity (and hence the price paid) is going to be higher relative to the energy produced than areas of conventional generation). So the penalty paid by generation in Scotland still applies.
As for your last point, what are transmission charges to pay for if not the cost of distribution? You are forgetting that near loss free transmission is possible over thousands of miles. Indeed in most countries the definition of local generation is within a thousand miles. Why then the need to discriminate on location of generation? Is it possibly because our infrastructure has been so neglected that 1000 miles is not local? Why then are we paying for a system that was privatised when it was lop-sided?
John
As for your last point, what are transmission charges to pay for if not the cost of distribution? You are forgetting that near loss free transmission is possible over thousands of miles. Indeed in most countries the definition of local generation is within a thousand miles. Why then the need to discriminate on location of generation? Is it possibly because our infrastructure has been so neglected that 1000 miles is not local? Why then are we paying for a system that was privatised when it was lop-sided?
John
#
2012-07-09 17:24
Quoting john__:
Marvellous, you've invented perpetual motion. Hallelujah.
Quoting john__:
Transmission charges pay for the cost of the transmission system.
Distribution charges pay for the cost of the distribution system.
Look it up.
In actual fact the capacity going out is likely to be larger (I suspect).
John
Marvellous, you've invented perpetual motion. Hallelujah.
Quoting john__:
As for your last point, what are transmission charges to pay for if not the cost of distribution? John
Transmission charges pay for the cost of the transmission system.
Distribution charges pay for the cost of the distribution system.
Look it up.
#
2012-07-09 22:34
"Marvellous, you've invented perpetual motion. Hallelujah."
Hardly, capacity does not equal energy. If you don't understand that then you have missed the whole point of this argument.
"Transmission charges pay for the cost of the transmission system.
Distribution charges pay for the cost of the distribution system"
So what you are saying is that we pay more to get the electricity to our house/factory from a local power station than London residents pay to get it from here to London? Just because an artificial break has been made in the price doesn't make it right. The whole system was part of a single network before it was privatised. Now it appears that we have been left with the expensive electricity and a high cost of generating. that sounds like a good deal - not.
John
Hardly, capacity does not equal energy. If you don't understand that then you have missed the whole point of this argument.
"Transmission charges pay for the cost of the transmission system.
Distribution charges pay for the cost of the distribution system"
So what you are saying is that we pay more to get the electricity to our house/factory from a local power station than London residents pay to get it from here to London? Just because an artificial break has been made in the price doesn't make it right. The whole system was part of a single network before it was privatised. Now it appears that we have been left with the expensive electricity and a high cost of generating. that sounds like a good deal - not.
John
#
2012-07-09 08:44
Did they really use the phrase 'anti-Scottish' ?
While I see nothing wrong with it personally, you just know thats what the unionist media and politicians will highlight in a bid to divert the attention away from the issue and turn it into some accusation of 'rabid nationalism'.
That's of course, if it's even reported in the msm.
While I see nothing wrong with it personally, you just know thats what the unionist media and politicians will highlight in a bid to divert the attention away from the issue and turn it into some accusation of 'rabid nationalism'.
That's of course, if it's even reported in the msm.
#
2012-07-09 08:48
The SNP have been complaining about these unfair charges ever since they were introduced by the last labour government. Alex Salmond used to bring it up regularly when he was an MP but was largely ignored by the unionist politicians and the majority of the MSM. Who is going to inform the Scottish public of this latest increase of charges for Scotland and subsidies for London and the South? I looked through the BBC website and there is no mention of it and it is unlikely to be reported in any of the MSM. Not everyone in Scotland visits this website.
The SG should get together with the grid owners in Scotland (SP and SSE) to try and get OFGEM to speed up their proposed reform of the system and set a short deadline. These high charges must also affect SP and SSE profits. If they fail to meet that deadline then Scotland should withdraw from OFGEM control and SP and SSE should set their own fairer connection charges. This may well be illegal but at least it would highlight to the general public in Scotland the unfairness of these charges and with sympathy on the side of SP and SSE what would Westminster do?
So I'm with Upspake on this.
The SG should get together with the grid owners in Scotland (SP and SSE) to try and get OFGEM to speed up their proposed reform of the system and set a short deadline. These high charges must also affect SP and SSE profits. If they fail to meet that deadline then Scotland should withdraw from OFGEM control and SP and SSE should set their own fairer connection charges. This may well be illegal but at least it would highlight to the general public in Scotland the unfairness of these charges and with sympathy on the side of SP and SSE what would Westminster do?
So I'm with Upspake on this.
#
2012-07-09 09:42
Edzell - The National grid is a separate company in its own right, as part of the strategy behind energy privatisation.
As utilities SP and SSE have to pay the grid for the distribution of their product.
It is a dividend created by a grid operating as a monopoly and effectively controlling both supply and demand side pricing to suit political ends.
As utilities SP and SSE have to pay the grid for the distribution of their product.
It is a dividend created by a grid operating as a monopoly and effectively controlling both supply and demand side pricing to suit political ends.
#
2012-07-09 09:50
John,
National Grid own and operate the grid in England, Wales and NI. In Scotland the grid is owned and operated by SP and SSE but regulated by OFGEM and to a certain extent National Grid.
National Grid own and operate the grid in England, Wales and NI. In Scotland the grid is owned and operated by SP and SSE but regulated by OFGEM and to a certain extent National Grid.
#
2012-07-09 13:02
Edzell; the relevant section of the Act -
“Distribution System” the system consisting (wholly or
mainly) of electric lines owned or
operated by any Authorised
Electricity Operator and used for the
distribution of electricity from grid
supply points or generation sets or
other entry points to the point of
delivery to Customers or Authorised
Electricity Operators, and includes
any Remote Transmission Assets
operated by such Authorised
Electricity Operator and any
electrical plant and meters owned or
operated by the Authorised
Electricity Operator in connection
with the distribution of electricity, but
shall not include any part of the GB
Transmission System;
“Distribution System” the system consisting (wholly or
mainly) of electric lines owned or
operated by any Authorised
Electricity Operator and used for the
distribution of electricity from grid
supply points or generation sets or
other entry points to the point of
delivery to Customers or Authorised
Electricity Operators, and includes
any Remote Transmission Assets
operated by such Authorised
Electricity Operator and any
electrical plant and meters owned or
operated by the Authorised
Electricity Operator in connection
with the distribution of electricity, but
shall not include any part of the GB
Transmission System;
#
2012-07-09 08:49
O/T
I believe Scotland get charged for holding functions at British Embassies, while England don't. So no surprise they charge us more for connecting to the grid.
I believe Scotland get charged for holding functions at British Embassies, while England don't. So no surprise they charge us more for connecting to the grid.
#
2012-07-09 09:09
A comprehensive list of the Union 'dividends' for Scotland would and should be available for Scots examining the data for a 'Yes' vote in 2014.
A full costing is likely to show that Westminster is at its deceitful best when sporran-picking our cash.
A full costing is likely to show that Westminster is at its deceitful best when sporran-picking our cash.
#
2012-07-09 10:12
Presumably when the North Sea connectors are in place,Scottish based electricity providers will have options as to where they sell their product.
Continuation of this policy will be shooting themselves in the foot as England will have to either change the policy to attract Scottish electricity or look elsewhere.
Do they currently charge French companies who supply nuclear sourced power to England via a connector ?
Continuation of this policy will be shooting themselves in the foot as England will have to either change the policy to attract Scottish electricity or look elsewhere.
Do they currently charge French companies who supply nuclear sourced power to England via a connector ?
#
2012-07-09 10:18
I have never understood the logic of the charges. The scheme seems to assume that all electricity generated in Peterhead is used in London. I doubt whether Peterhead's output gets much further than Aberdeen. Can someone please clarify?
#
2012-07-09 11:15
Maybe Alistair Darling and the rest of his Tory/Lab/LibDem Abominable No-Men can explain how this supports and proves their "Better Together" slogan? And answer came there none!
I hope our First Minister keeps hammering home this example of unfair and unbalanced discrimination against our Scottish power providers at every FMQs, every time the three unionist stooges, Lamont, Davidson and Rennie, come out with their anti-SNP sniping comments. It is also ammunition for any SNP members of future BBC panels on political matters, especially those concerning independence issues.
I hope our First Minister keeps hammering home this example of unfair and unbalanced discrimination against our Scottish power providers at every FMQs, every time the three unionist stooges, Lamont, Davidson and Rennie, come out with their anti-SNP sniping comments. It is also ammunition for any SNP members of future BBC panels on political matters, especially those concerning independence issues.
#
2012-07-09 11:56
As a result, Scottish generators produce 12 per cent of UK generation, but account for 40 per cent of the transmission costs, or about £100 million per year more than their fair share.
OK we produce 12% generated, now how much of that is used in scotland? are we not a net exporter of energy? if we are why are we being CHARGED for it?
OK we produce 12% generated, now how much of that is used in scotland? are we not a net exporter of energy? if we are why are we being CHARGED for it?
#
2012-07-09 13:15
Quoting megz:
Er, who is this "we"?
Generators - big, FTSE100 companies - are being charged for the service which allows them to get their product to market.
"We" - i.e. Scottish electricity consumers - pay LOWER transmission charges than anywhere else. This is possible precisely because the generators are charged more.
OK we produce 12% generated, now how much of that is used in scotland? are we not a net exporter of energy? if we are why are we being CHARGED for it?
Er, who is this "we"?
Generators - big, FTSE100 companies - are being charged for the service which allows them to get their product to market.
"We" - i.e. Scottish electricity consumers - pay LOWER transmission charges than anywhere else. This is possible precisely because the generators are charged more.
#
2012-07-09 17:41
You really do need to try and get out more if all you've got to do with your time is pick arguments with nationalists. Maybe you could spend some of this spare time,you obviously have an abundance of,by getting together with some of your unionist chums and telling us what all the benefits of the union really are for us Scots,since all we've heard so far are vague haverings!
#
2012-07-09 17:54
"vague haverings"
Yes, that is why consistently ~70% of Scots want the Scottish Government to control almost every aspect of the governance of Scotland. Wesminster rule just ain't that appealing.
Yes, that is why consistently ~70% of Scots want the Scottish Government to control almost every aspect of the governance of Scotland. Wesminster rule just ain't that appealing.
#
2012-07-09 13:20
Because we just sit back and do nothing, there is no incentive to change it for the good of the people.
£100million divided by 2m households, thats £50 a year for each household. And thats not including the fact that we produce more than we use. And this is just one thing. How many more are there...we are ripped off.
£100million divided by 2m households, thats £50 a year for each household. And thats not including the fact that we produce more than we use. And this is just one thing. How many more are there...we are ripped off.
#
2012-07-09 14:01
This arrangement flies in the face of normal commerce. Living in the Highlands, if I buy something from Ebay, I pay up to £20.00 additional charge for transport if it comes from elsewhere. Any business here will try, if possible to recoup transport costs if they can, although that depends on the uniqueness of the product. But in a producers market where there is a shortage of supply - South East England- consumer pays would be appropriate.
#
2012-07-09 14:32
O/T
I have just read this google.com/.../... & it says support for independence has dropped to 30% while support for the union has risen to 50%.. 1,022 people were asked
should we worry about that or... ? i would appreciate a reply.
Thanks
I have just read this google.com/.../... & it says support for independence has dropped to 30% while support for the union has risen to 50%.. 1,022 people were asked
should we worry about that or... ? i would appreciate a reply.
Thanks
#
2012-07-09 15:07
Murray, I wouldn't give too much credence to opinion polls, whether these are for or against independence. On the day of the poll, it depends on WHICH people are polled, and how - in the street, by phone, etc. Personally I have never yet been polled, nor have any members of my extended family, in which case we would have boosted the "in favour of independence" percentage.
Remember the polls just before the 2011 election for Holyrood, in which the Labour supporting press and BBC were all gleefully predicting a Labour victory. In the event, as we now know, the SNP didn't just win, they ended up with an overall majority, against all the odds and against even the PR system designed (by the then UK Labour Blair government) to prevent just such a result! As has often been said, the only poll that really matters is the one on polling day!
Final point, made I think by Blair Jenkins, if each one of us in the pro-independence camp manage to convince just ONE "undecided" would-be voter, we'll win by around 60% to 40%. And who knows, Andy Murray might even have won his first major tournament by 2014 too!
Remember the polls just before the 2011 election for Holyrood, in which the Labour supporting press and BBC were all gleefully predicting a Labour victory. In the event, as we now know, the SNP didn't just win, they ended up with an overall majority, against all the odds and against even the PR system designed (by the then UK Labour Blair government) to prevent just such a result! As has often been said, the only poll that really matters is the one on polling day!
Final point, made I think by Blair Jenkins, if each one of us in the pro-independence camp manage to convince just ONE "undecided" would-be voter, we'll win by around 60% to 40%. And who knows, Andy Murray might even have won his first major tournament by 2014 too!
#
2012-07-09 16:13
I guess you are right about that. I won't worry about any opinion polls before the important day in 2014, Thanks for the reply & I will be voting in favour of Independence. Cheers!
#
2012-07-09 23:54
Firstly who said it has dropped and how is it a fact, as I dont see how it can be from 1,022 people being asked, strange these surveys are constantly being carried out and I have never been aked just a thought, and the same question for how has it risen to 50% cant see that somehow considering the banks are headline news with Darling (incidently where is he these days I thought he was spear heading the no campain?) in the thick of it just another thought who comes up with these figures? dont believe everything you read, and also out of the debates for no and yes so far I have heard why we should vote yes for Independance but nothing for the no, if people think that this corupt government is working for the good people of Scotland then they must have there head in the clouds, for me it would be a better way of life with solid choices, with the no campain it is better together, so Trident our escalating mountain of debt, the wars, the banks, the E.U. imagration incidently coming back to haunt the last government who thought they knew best, fuel poverty the list is endless, is this better together, no it is not not for me with 5 million or so Scots I know we and the rest of the defunk U.K. would be much better off Independant of each other FACT. just a thought
#
2012-07-09 14:53
The tariffs are just another way of our dear Unionists trying to hinder Scotland's progress in any way they can.
#
2012-07-09 14:55
m-techenergy.com/.../...
This unit will save you 20-30% on your central heating bills. Using, Natural gas, oil or LPG. Contact me for more info. Distributors wanted for North Scotland.
This unit will save you 20-30% on your central heating bills. Using, Natural gas, oil or LPG. Contact me for more info. Distributors wanted for North Scotland.
#
2012-07-09 16:28
@357ms and John__
357 is just using politics and current bad practice. If it were an open market it is absolutely certain that Scotland can produce and transmit power to S. England as part of renewable obligations cheaper than they produce it themselves 90% of the time.
There is a lot of smoke and mirrors here.
The UK is split into 3 North/South zones
see: "Entry Application Fees for New Bilateral Agreements" in the national grid charging doc.
Zone C is north of Scotland
Zone B South and central Scotland and N England
Zone A South and Central England/Wales
Essentially most of the excess generated in Scotland in Zone B is sent to England via the East and West Interconnectors .
Their excess is mostly sent to Zone A.
357 talks of transmission versus connection charges. It is nothing but a game that ensures that generators in Zone C get subsidised and to ensure that generation in B and C has less of a competitive advantage. The rest is mince.
As I said with independence, Zone B will split. Zone C will have to get power on open market because it can nowhere near produce enough power themselves and have to get it from Europe, Ireland, Nordic and Scotland.
Don't kid yourself that electricity consumer prices will get lower in Scotland, however Scotlands balance of payments will be ++ compared to now. Plus Londons prices will go up as they cannot be subsidized to the same extent.
Important Note: New Large installations > 1.3 GW get the best deals. This favours Nuclear New build compared to renewables which are smaller outputs per installation. Only Nuclear / Coal has output this size. But guess who is pushing Nuclear and who Renewables? Ofgem know their master.
This is in any case a clear (when aware), but otherwise obfuscated, Nuclear subsidy.
Ofgem strategy: Lets balance UK Energy market by subsidizing New Nuclear and helping the South rebalance the advantages of the North.
357 is just using politics and current bad practice. If it were an open market it is absolutely certain that Scotland can produce and transmit power to S. England as part of renewable obligations cheaper than they produce it themselves 90% of the time.
There is a lot of smoke and mirrors here.
The UK is split into 3 North/South zones
see: "Entry Application Fees for New Bilateral Agreements" in the national grid charging doc.
Zone C is north of Scotland
Zone B South and central Scotland and N England
Zone A South and Central England/Wales
Essentially most of the excess generated in Scotland in Zone B is sent to England via the East and West Interconnectors .
Their excess is mostly sent to Zone A.
357 talks of transmission versus connection charges. It is nothing but a game that ensures that generators in Zone C get subsidised and to ensure that generation in B and C has less of a competitive advantage. The rest is mince.
As I said with independence, Zone B will split. Zone C will have to get power on open market because it can nowhere near produce enough power themselves and have to get it from Europe, Ireland, Nordic and Scotland.
Don't kid yourself that electricity consumer prices will get lower in Scotland, however Scotlands balance of payments will be ++ compared to now. Plus Londons prices will go up as they cannot be subsidized to the same extent.
Important Note: New Large installations > 1.3 GW get the best deals. This favours Nuclear New build compared to renewables which are smaller outputs per installation. Only Nuclear / Coal has output this size. But guess who is pushing Nuclear and who Renewables? Ofgem know their master.
This is in any case a clear (when aware), but otherwise obfuscated, Nuclear subsidy.
Ofgem strategy: Lets balance UK Energy market by subsidizing New Nuclear and helping the South rebalance the advantages of the North.
#
2012-07-09 17:03
As it happens 357ms I am an independent distributor for a small utilities company that supplies some of the cheapest energy around the UK. On our tariff leaflet, we like the "big six" companies, divide the UK in to 14 tariff zones. Scotland is always in the top three as the most expensive place in the UK to use energy, all the other companies tariffs are the same. So your argument is at best spurious.
It is the law of supply and demand that makes diesel more expensive than petrol because we use more diesel than petrol.
For those very same reasons Scotland, is charged more for energy as it uses more than the rest of the UK, due to our colder climate and longer winters. So we are hit with a treble whammy. People I speak to in London cannot believe the size of energy bills here and the tariffs. I am paid on commission on clients bill spending, so it is good news for me, but bad news for the Scottish clients.
I have seen you punting this line on The Scotsman also and you were roundly ridiculed on there, I think you were Yeah1 at the time. Good to see you taking an interest in a proper news site. The trolls have totally destroyed The Scotsman, it is now no more than a howling shed.
PS Note to all energy users. We do not use the comparison web sites who charge companies for their inclusion. Last I heard it was £90 per new customer. So if you log on to one and say you are a customer of company A, the comparison site will recommend you are better of changing to company B.
If you then log out and clear your cache and cookies and log back in as a customer of company B the comparison site will recommend you are better of with company A. KERRCHING.
The energy supply industry is one massive cartel, dominated by 6 multi national companies. It is a massive rip of. That is why off grid renewable energy pundits get such a hard time. The simple fact is that there is now no need for a national grid, the technology is there.
It is the law of supply and demand that makes diesel more expensive than petrol because we use more diesel than petrol.
For those very same reasons Scotland, is charged more for energy as it uses more than the rest of the UK, due to our colder climate and longer winters. So we are hit with a treble whammy. People I speak to in London cannot believe the size of energy bills here and the tariffs. I am paid on commission on clients bill spending, so it is good news for me, but bad news for the Scottish clients.
I have seen you punting this line on The Scotsman also and you were roundly ridiculed on there, I think you were Yeah1 at the time. Good to see you taking an interest in a proper news site. The trolls have totally destroyed The Scotsman, it is now no more than a howling shed.
PS Note to all energy users. We do not use the comparison web sites who charge companies for their inclusion. Last I heard it was £90 per new customer. So if you log on to one and say you are a customer of company A, the comparison site will recommend you are better of changing to company B.
If you then log out and clear your cache and cookies and log back in as a customer of company B the comparison site will recommend you are better of with company A. KERRCHING.
The energy supply industry is one massive cartel, dominated by 6 multi national companies. It is a massive rip of. That is why off grid renewable energy pundits get such a hard time. The simple fact is that there is now no need for a national grid, the technology is there.
#
2012-07-09 17:13
"Afghan snub angers the SNP"
This is just another snub Scotland has suffered from Westminster,it refers to Keith Brown the Scottish Veterans Minister who has been refused permission to visit the troops in Afghanistan.
I read this in the Sunday Post but can't find any mention of it anywhere else,maybe NNS could have a look at it.
This is just another snub Scotland has suffered from Westminster,it refers to Keith Brown the Scottish Veterans Minister who has been refused permission to visit the troops in Afghanistan.
I read this in the Sunday Post but can't find any mention of it anywhere else,maybe NNS could have a look at it.
#
2012-07-09 19:09
So I take it we are all agreed that the transmission charging regime cannot possibly be "anti-Scottish", since I have proved that Scottish consumers pay lower transmission charges than anywhere else in the UK.
As this statement has already been backed up with a direct document link to the National Grid website, I expect the moderators to publish it.
As this statement has already been backed up with a direct document link to the National Grid website, I expect the moderators to publish it.
#
2012-07-09 21:06
It may not be anti Scottish and it hurts the North of England too but it is certainly anti competitive with the added bonus that it hurts power generation in Scotland most. Read that as you wish.
Transmission charges: So Scots pay less for transmission FROM their own local zone TO their own zone. While Londoners pay higher transmission charges from the North to London. (Sounds normal to me, not a bonus to consumers in Scotland/North)
Meanwhile generation gets subsidized in SE, + production costs + salaries + land prices are far higher.
Hmm, how on earth can the SE compete...I know its called the OFGEM charging scheme :)
The maths are really very simple. Though your maths are bizarre.
"lower population density = longer wires"
I laughed so hard I almost paid my electric bill. So no, just fewer people very close to the source.
Longer wires = Generation in North (low pop, resource rich) to South East UK (overpopulated, no resources worth mentioning).
Ah, but wait, London is the center of your universe so maybe you think the wires are longer because they go from London to the yokels in the North? That's why the generators get charged for the privilege of using them? We should be so grateful.
Sorry, but your entire rational is stuff and nonsense.
Transmission charges: So Scots pay less for transmission FROM their own local zone TO their own zone. While Londoners pay higher transmission charges from the North to London. (Sounds normal to me, not a bonus to consumers in Scotland/North)
Meanwhile generation gets subsidized in SE, + production costs + salaries + land prices are far higher.
Hmm, how on earth can the SE compete...I know its called the OFGEM charging scheme :)
The maths are really very simple. Though your maths are bizarre.
"lower population density = longer wires"
I laughed so hard I almost paid my electric bill. So no, just fewer people very close to the source.
Longer wires = Generation in North (low pop, resource rich) to South East UK (overpopulated, no resources worth mentioning).
Ah, but wait, London is the center of your universe so maybe you think the wires are longer because they go from London to the yokels in the North? That's why the generators get charged for the privilege of using them? We should be so grateful.
Sorry, but your entire rational is stuff and nonsense.
#
2012-07-10 10:16
Er, nobody pays for transmission on a point-to-point basis. It is physically impossible for any consumer to tell where "his" electrical energy came from.
The charges are zonalised. In a generation-surplus zone (e.g. Scotland), consumers pay low transmission charges and generators pay high transmission charges. In a generation-deficit zone (e.g. SW England), consumers pay high transmission charges and generators pay low (or even negative) transmission charges. The idea is to incentivise generation to locate close to where it's needed. The same applies for large industrial demands - so another effect of the current charging system is to give an incentive for factories, data centres and the like to locate in Scotland. Have you got a problem with that?
I also can't see your problem with my explanation of the higher DISTRIBUTION charges (a separate issue) in Scotland.
Let's try again. In an area of low population density, it takes more km of road per head of population to connect all the people together.
And more km of telephone wire per head.
And more km of electrical wire per head.
Therefore the distribution charges, per head, are higher.
Got that now?
The charges are zonalised. In a generation-surplus zone (e.g. Scotland), consumers pay low transmission charges and generators pay high transmission charges. In a generation-deficit zone (e.g. SW England), consumers pay high transmission charges and generators pay low (or even negative) transmission charges. The idea is to incentivise generation to locate close to where it's needed. The same applies for large industrial demands - so another effect of the current charging system is to give an incentive for factories, data centres and the like to locate in Scotland. Have you got a problem with that?
I also can't see your problem with my explanation of the higher DISTRIBUTION charges (a separate issue) in Scotland.
Let's try again. In an area of low population density, it takes more km of road per head of population to connect all the people together.
And more km of telephone wire per head.
And more km of electrical wire per head.
Therefore the distribution charges, per head, are higher.
Got that now?
#
2012-07-10 15:05
So you are saying that energy is cheaper in the north of Scotland than it is in the south east of England?
#
2012-07-10 20:01
Quoting snowthistle:
The wholesale price of electrical energy per se is the same across the entire UK, because there is only one synchronised interconnected network.
Regional differentials come in due to the transmission and distribution charges. As previously explained, transmission charges are lower in the north, but distribution charges tend to be higher in low population density areas.
Then, of course, there are other differentials depending on which company you have chosen to buy your power from, since they all have different purchasing & hedging policies and tariff structures.
No "anti-Scottishness" in it anywhere.
So you are saying that energy is cheaper in the north of Scotland than it is in the south east of England?
The wholesale price of electrical energy per se is the same across the entire UK, because there is only one synchronised interconnected network.
Regional differentials come in due to the transmission and distribution charges. As previously explained, transmission charges are lower in the north, but distribution charges tend to be higher in low population density areas.
Then, of course, there are other differentials depending on which company you have chosen to buy your power from, since they all have different purchasing & hedging policies and tariff structures.
No "anti-Scottishness" in it anywhere.
#
2012-07-10 20:10
Sorry, not getting you. Do you claim that industry is attracted to remote areas because they pay less for energy than they would in the south east?
#
2012-07-10 20:31
If you were a big industrial consumer with a direct connection to the transmission grid - say an aluminium smelter, or a steelworks - then you would indeed pay a bit less for your power if you located in Scotland, or North Wales (for example).
Whether that cost reduction would outweigh your higher costs of attracting a workforce or getting your product to market is another story.
Whether that cost reduction would outweigh your higher costs of attracting a workforce or getting your product to market is another story.
#
2012-07-10 19:26
Oh don't worry we have all understood how it works... except you.
Perhaps another example will help, using your own terminology. It boils down though to the fact that deep down you see Scotland no more than a region and not a country.
England is a gas deficient Zone.
Norway is a Gas surplus zone (as is Scotland)
The UK (actually England) needs the the Gas, so built a pipeline from Norway to England. This is the equivalent of the grid or transmission system.
Norway provides the surplus GAS Energy, England consumes it.
In your Tellytubby la la land:
Norway consumers should pay more because they have lower pop. density per km. of pipe and should pay higher connection charges. London GAS producers should pay less to provide GAS...yes that is indeed ok...except they can't really as providing Gas or electricity in London is not at all easy or cheap unless you load the dice.
For electricity In S England the dice are loaded to Nuclear.
In reality we all know the UK paid and pays a fortune to get the Norwegian Gas energy to where it is needed based on ease/cost/ROI of supply and demand. Scotland and N England again got shafted in the process.
Scotland, England and Norway are all different countrys with One common market. In fact under current Ofgem rules, once the interconnector between Norway and Scotland is in place it will probably often be cheaper to Send power from Norway to England, than it is from Scotland since they have no huge connection charges while transmission costs and losses are less significant. Norway plays by market forces, Scotland and England bow to Ofgem.
Got that now?
Perhaps another example will help, using your own terminology. It boils down though to the fact that deep down you see Scotland no more than a region and not a country.
England is a gas deficient Zone.
Norway is a Gas surplus zone (as is Scotland)
The UK (actually England) needs the the Gas, so built a pipeline from Norway to England. This is the equivalent of the grid or transmission system.
Norway provides the surplus GAS Energy, England consumes it.
In your Tellytubby la la land:
Norway consumers should pay more because they have lower pop. density per km. of pipe and should pay higher connection charges. London GAS producers should pay less to provide GAS...yes that is indeed ok...except they can't really as providing Gas or electricity in London is not at all easy or cheap unless you load the dice.
For electricity In S England the dice are loaded to Nuclear.
In reality we all know the UK paid and pays a fortune to get the Norwegian Gas energy to where it is needed based on ease/cost/ROI of supply and demand. Scotland and N England again got shafted in the process.
Scotland, England and Norway are all different countrys with One common market. In fact under current Ofgem rules, once the interconnector between Norway and Scotland is in place it will probably often be cheaper to Send power from Norway to England, than it is from Scotland since they have no huge connection charges while transmission costs and losses are less significant. Norway plays by market forces, Scotland and England bow to Ofgem.
Got that now?
#
2012-07-09 23:22
Quoting 357ms:
What's this demanding that the moderators bow to your foot stamping? You are not on the Scotsman now Mr AM/ Yeah who ever you are.
You have proved nothing other than the fact that you have a unique blinkered talent for believing your own publicity and spinning what you say is figures that support your propaganda.
Scotland is paying more for energy consumption and generation than the SE of England. That is an undeniable fact. The document you have linked to is a classic UK exercise in smoke and mirrors, the kind of which has been used by people such as you for decades to brain wash and scaremonger Scots in to thinking we owe some huge debt to England for our existence.
So I take it we are all agreed that the transmission charging regime cannot possibly be "anti-Scottish", since I have proved that Scottish consumers pay lower transmission charges than anywhere else in the UK.
As this statement has already been backed up with a direct document link to the National Grid website, I expect the moderators to publish it.
What's this demanding that the moderators bow to your foot stamping? You are not on the Scotsman now Mr AM/ Yeah who ever you are.
You have proved nothing other than the fact that you have a unique blinkered talent for believing your own publicity and spinning what you say is figures that support your propaganda.
Scotland is paying more for energy consumption and generation than the SE of England. That is an undeniable fact. The document you have linked to is a classic UK exercise in smoke and mirrors, the kind of which has been used by people such as you for decades to brain wash and scaremonger Scots in to thinking we owe some huge debt to England for our existence.
#
2012-07-09 20:57
This is just another case of trying to make Scottish ideas for renewable energies unworkable.They can,so they will.
Expect this in every area they influence.
Expect this in every area they influence.
#
2012-07-10 00:03
Agreed Leswil,
Here the Tory led council have taken their lead from London to try to thwart the Scottish government's renewables targets.
northern-scot.co.uk/.../...
"Moray seeks windfarm moratorium"
I liked this comment:
"The Scottish government has a target of 100 percent renewable energy capacity by 2020, but the London government is determined to throw a spanner in the works, only to divert the subsidy towards new nuclear in England, a technology that despite being old will require far more subsidy than wind power. No-one should be surprised that our Tory and ‘Closet Tory’ led council are siding with London on this issue when all that is required really is sensible planning."
The people most likely to respond to any consultation are those with a luddite's fear of turbines, when there's no justification for it.
Here the Tory led council have taken their lead from London to try to thwart the Scottish government's renewables targets.
northern-scot.co.uk/.../...
"Moray seeks windfarm moratorium"
I liked this comment:
"The Scottish government has a target of 100 percent renewable energy capacity by 2020, but the London government is determined to throw a spanner in the works, only to divert the subsidy towards new nuclear in England, a technology that despite being old will require far more subsidy than wind power. No-one should be surprised that our Tory and ‘Closet Tory’ led council are siding with London on this issue when all that is required really is sensible planning."
The people most likely to respond to any consultation are those with a luddite's fear of turbines, when there's no justification for it.
#
2012-07-10 09:19
If nuclear energy is the cheapest source of power. There is in fact a cheaper and better way to have it. THORIUM,
this can be used in much the same way as uranium without the problems. It degrades much quicker, it is safer to use, it is cheaper, it is easier to handle,and nuclear weapons cannot be made from it, so also no use to terrorists.
So why isn't it used?, because governments want use uranium for warheads whether they themselves use it for that, or sell it to countries that do.
I cannot understand how THORIUM can safely replace conventional nuclear power.
this can be used in much the same way as uranium without the problems. It degrades much quicker, it is safer to use, it is cheaper, it is easier to handle,and nuclear weapons cannot be made from it, so also no use to terrorists.
So why isn't it used?, because governments want use uranium for warheads whether they themselves use it for that, or sell it to countries that do.
I cannot understand how THORIUM can safely replace conventional nuclear power.
#
2012-07-10 09:48
"
The eye-watering expense of nuclear power
The coalition wants us to depend more and more on nuclear power, but quite simply, it is too expensive to be able to deliver
"
guardian.co.uk/.../...
The eye-watering expense of nuclear power
The coalition wants us to depend more and more on nuclear power, but quite simply, it is too expensive to be able to deliver
"
guardian.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-07-10 10:39
Scotland first, hydrogen economy here we go.
scotsrenewables.com/.../...
Quentin Wilson: “Scotland and Aberdeen has the potential to be the hydrogen capital of Europe.” ,, “There is a politician out there who gets this stuff – The first minister of Scotland”
scotsrenewables.com/.../...
Quentin Wilson: “Scotland and Aberdeen has the potential to be the hydrogen capital of Europe.” ,, “There is a politician out there who gets this stuff – The first minister of Scotland”
#
2012-07-10 21:20
No. You have confused several things.
In your example, Norwegian gas CONSUMERS would pay low TRANSMISSION charges because they live in a gas-surplus zone. Norwegian gas PRODUCERS would have to pay high TRANSMISSION charges (i.e. pay their share of building the pipeline to the UK, which is exactly what they did) because otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell their gas. Being in a gas SURPLUS zone.
Back to the UK: power GENERATORS in Scotland (a SURPLUS zone) need to pay high transmission charges so that the wires get built so that they can sell their product. Meanwhile CONSUMERS in that surplus zone (i.e us) pay low transmission charges, for exactly the same reason.
That all OK for you?
In your example, Norwegian gas CONSUMERS would pay low TRANSMISSION charges because they live in a gas-surplus zone. Norwegian gas PRODUCERS would have to pay high TRANSMISSION charges (i.e. pay their share of building the pipeline to the UK, which is exactly what they did) because otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell their gas. Being in a gas SURPLUS zone.
Back to the UK: power GENERATORS in Scotland (a SURPLUS zone) need to pay high transmission charges so that the wires get built so that they can sell their product. Meanwhile CONSUMERS in that surplus zone (i.e us) pay low transmission charges, for exactly the same reason.
That all OK for you?
#
2012-07-10 23:49
Not Ok.
killajoules.wikidot.com/.../
The crucial difference is that Norway set the terms of the deal, set the rate of the transmission charges etc to make sure it is viable and in their interest. While the South UK gets a steady strategic supply.
Meanwhile Ofgem sets the unlevel terms for producers in Scotland. Funny I don't see Ofgem setting any rates whatsoever for Langeled. The operator do indeed contribute to the transmission but at a guaranteed price not a revised "balancing system" by Ofgem. Norway simply passed the cost for ROI directly onto the receiver in the UK. While this is great for the Norwegion Economy and Jobs, Scotland has no such luxury to negotiate on such a level field.....not yet.
killajoules.wikidot.com/.../
The crucial difference is that Norway set the terms of the deal, set the rate of the transmission charges etc to make sure it is viable and in their interest. While the South UK gets a steady strategic supply.
Meanwhile Ofgem sets the unlevel terms for producers in Scotland. Funny I don't see Ofgem setting any rates whatsoever for Langeled. The operator do indeed contribute to the transmission but at a guaranteed price not a revised "balancing system" by Ofgem. Norway simply passed the cost for ROI directly onto the receiver in the UK. While this is great for the Norwegion Economy and Jobs, Scotland has no such luxury to negotiate on such a level field.....not yet.
#
2012-07-11 10:55
THIS is what we need!!
english.seoul.go.kr/.../...
As XYZ alludes to,firms like ITM .. a producer/storage manufacturer and AFC, a power generator using Hydrogen and fuel cells, two different parts of the hydrogen sector which can, and indeed must be utilised locally thereby reducing reliance on the grid .. effectively cutting out the middle man.
On a somewhat larger scale .. well, much larger actually is the Yerostigaz/Linc energy model which would use much of the old workings across the coalfield belt from Fife and Midlothian all the way across to Ayreshire, again locally produced and used, cutting down losses in transmission as an additional benefit.
However, we would need the manufacture of the maximum amount of the process structures made in Scotland.
english.seoul.go.kr/.../...
As XYZ alludes to,firms like ITM .. a producer/storage manufacturer and AFC, a power generator using Hydrogen and fuel cells, two different parts of the hydrogen sector which can, and indeed must be utilised locally thereby reducing reliance on the grid .. effectively cutting out the middle man.
On a somewhat larger scale .. well, much larger actually is the Yerostigaz/Linc energy model which would use much of the old workings across the coalfield belt from Fife and Midlothian all the way across to Ayreshire, again locally produced and used, cutting down losses in transmission as an additional benefit.
However, we would need the manufacture of the maximum amount of the process structures made in Scotland.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Be sure to send this story to the Drum m... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
That's an excellent idea Breeks. The Dev... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Brilliant. - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I say compile a dossier of facts, commen... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
On the day of the All Energy Conference ... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Good idea - Perhaps NS or one of the mai... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I also see the BBC is running a story ab... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
The very old news about tuition fees cou... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
It would appear from the article that th... - SNP MSP leads debate on a nati...
Apart from the pinewoods, Scotland's nat... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
What about trying the Elliot Ness approa... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I also wrote to them today complaining a... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
A few years ago I was doing research on ... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Having seen this... bbc.co.uk/.../... (h... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Why do we not just stop watching ,the BB... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
If the Scottish Government ignore the ad... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Boy, oh, boy Newsnet have you rattled th... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
A couple of years ago I asked the rotten... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
More absurdity from BBC Scotland, they a... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I pursued BBC Scotland via FOI several y...