Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Fresh blow to 'Scotland plc' after French buy nuclear energy giant

View Video
Download Video

Video

Sir Adrian Montague, chairman of British Energy, discusses the firm's takeover by EDF
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 September 2008
FEARS have been raised that Scotland is losing its key decision makers in the international business world after a £12.5 billion buyout of British Energy was announced yesterday.
The takeover by French energy giant EDF has raised serious concerns over the long-term future of British Energy's headquarters in East Kilbride and 1,400 jobs in Scotland.

With Lloyds TSB's buyout of HBOS and the loss of the Scottish & Newcastle headquarters recently, the number of FTSE 100 companies based in Scotland appears to be dwindling.

Added to that are concerns that the Scottish Government's implacable opposition to nuclear energy will see EDF eventually withdrawing offices in Scotland – despite assurances yesterday that the East Kilbride HQ would remain open.

The Scottish CBI "regretted" the loss of a major company based in Scotland. CBI Scotland's director, Iain McMillan, said: "It is sad to see the loss of another major company headquartered in Scotland.

"Our preference is obviously for Scots-based firms being the ones who are launching the takeover bids."

But EDF has committed to maintaining British Energy's East Kilbride office and said staff at the site and other locations, including Barnwood, would "benefit from new opportunities".

Pierre Gadonneix, chairman and chief executive of EDF, offered reassurances to British Energy staff.

He said: "We are keen on making British Energy involved in a new nuclear development in Britain. Among the assets in which we are very interested are the skills of the people of British Energy which would be involved in new nuclear development."

However, this commitment did not prevent a political row breaking out in Holyrood over the damaging effect of the Scottish Government's anti-nuclear policies.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, who has met EDF executives to discuss the future of Scottish jobs, was accused of being a hypocrite and "showing bare-faced cheek".

Labour's finance spokesman, Andy Kerr, who is also the MSP for East Kilbride, said: "The takeover by EDF of British Energy obviously carries with it concerns about employment and headquarters functions.

"And it is ironic that the Nationalists call for the retention of the headquarters function here in Scotland while having closed minds and closed doors to the renewal of nuclear capacity in Scotland. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the SNP."

However, Mr Kerr said he was optimistic jobs would remain in Scotland and East Kilbride because of their highly specialised expertise.

Conservative enterprise spokesman Gavin Brown, a fierce critic of the SNP's energy policy, added that nobody wanted to see Scotland's fourth-largest plc taken out of the Scottish economy.

But he said: "Alex Salmond has a brass neck and bare-faced cheek if he thinks that EDF would keep jobs in a country that doesn't want its product.

"The way to keep the jobs is for the SNP minority government to get behind British Energy and stop messing about with the security of Scotland's future energy supply."

But the argument over energy policy was dismissed by Mr Salmond.

A spokesman for the First Minister said: "Clearly, if EDF are making a commitment to keep the jobs here then it is not a problem.

"We welcome the commitment by EDF to East Kilbride and to Scotland."

He added that Mr Salmond had met EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivas in June to discuss the potential deal.

The spokesman said: "He emphasised the Scottish Government's opposition to new nuclear stations but also pressed for an assurance by EDF about the East Kilbride facility."

BACKGROUND

THE £12.5 billion deal means that EDF, which is 85 per cent owned by the French government, will own Britain's eight nuclear power stations.

These include Torness and Hunterston in Scotland.

It gives EDF a 27 per cent share in the UK energy market, making it the largest provider. More importantly, it gives EDF the chance to develop the next generation of nuclear power stations in the UK and increase its share of the market.

For British Energy shareholders, EDF's all-cash bid values British Energy at 774p a share, 9p more than a previous bid that was rejected. This included a £6 billion pay-day for the British government.

Deal heralds new wave of nuclear power plants for Britain

THE £12.5 billion takeover of British Energy by EDF has paved the way for the next generation of nuclear power stations to be built in the UK.

Because of the Scottish Government's anti-nuclear policy none of the new stations will be built in Scotland, but EDF has announced plans to construct and operate two reactors each at existing nuclear sites at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk.

In the foreseeable future the company wants to build four new European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design plants in the UK, the first of which it hopes to begin constructing in 2012 and commission in 2017.

The EPR plants are designed to be more efficient and produce less waste than British Energy's older plants.

Yesterday, the company refused to comment on how much the new plants would cost, but said a similar plant it was building in Flamanville, France, was in 2005 estimated to cost 3.3 billion.

As part of the agreement with the government, EDF is also developing a portfolio of sites it will make available for other companies that want to develop new nuclear plants.

Several companies, including Perth-based Scottish & Southern Energy and ScottishPower owner Iberdrola of Spain, have also indicated an interest in developing new nuclear plants in the UK.

In his speech to the Labour Party conference this week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown emphasised again that he saw nuclear power as the cornerstone of future British energy provision and attempts to reduce carbon emission by 80 per cent by 2050.

Yesterday he welcomed news of the takeover as "good value for the taxpayer and a significant step towards the construction of a new generation of nuclear stations".

The deal will also swell Treasury coffers by £6 billion because the British government is a major shareholder in British Energy.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 September 2008 10:02 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

druidh,

edinburgh 25/09/2008 00:24:50
Great, innit? We privatise the utilities and then they're snapped up by foreign government organisations.
2

subrosa,

25/09/2008 00:55:17
Andy Kerr: "And it is ironic that the Nationalists call for the retention of the headquarters function here in Scotland while having closed minds and closed doors to the renewal of nuclear capacity in Scotland. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the SNP."

One of my neighbours owns 5 butcher shops. I don't like meat. Yet he's a pleasant man and good company. Is that hypocrisy?

Andy Kerr you're really making a wee bit of a fool of yourself. This is about jobs. Why Westminster has sold France this organisation totally defeats me and I agree with #1 druidh.

3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 01:37:53


druidh ~1,

This is because, we act like, 'little-mice' now and in centuries past!

Act the 'martyrs' so be treated as, the 'martyrs'!

It makes one, ashamed to be called Scottish!
4

Guga II,

Rockall 25/09/2008 01:46:47
This is just the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party continuing on with their Tory policy of selling off publicly owned property. This usually disadvantages the true owners of the things they are selling, i.e. the public, but is of great advantage to their business buddies.

Keir Hardie must be spinning like a top in his grave.
5

,

25/09/2008 01:53:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

somerferg,

perth 25/09/2008 01:56:51

ANDY KERR - more like Andy Cap. As for hypocrisy NO-ONE comes close to the monkeys with red rosettes. I don't know how this will end but I do know that Alex Salmond and the SNP government will fight Scotland's corner which is more than Andy Kerr or anyone else from his "Scottish" liebour party ever has or ever will do.
7

Jo Larkinson,

25/09/2008 02:40:30
QUOTE: "He added that Mr Salmond had met EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivas in June to discuss the potential deal"

I'm hoping reassurances about the East Kilbride HQ have been given post-deal. A CEO would say anything controversial to avoid spoiling £12.5 billion buyout.
8

Jo Larkinson,

25/09/2008 02:42:40
#8 oopps! I meant "A CEO would AVOID saying anything controversial to avoid spoiling £12.5 billion" deal.

A year or two down the line ....
9

The Pict.,

Canada 25/09/2008 03:24:07
# 3 Charles Linkskaill. After reading your previous Anti-Scottish comments from before you should be ashamed to call yourself a Scotsman if you are one.

You know very well that the seller is your English er British government and Prime Minister Salmond doesn't have the authority to stop the take-over because of lackies like you who are happy to live under English rule.

Slainte mhath.
10

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 25/09/2008 06:00:13
It is time for Salmond to get off his high horse, replace our nukes with new ones and kick the windfarms in to touch.
It is he who is anti nuke, not the Scottish people - he has never asked them.
11

calum,

25/09/2008 06:24:44
East Kilbride HQ will eventually disappear, and the jobs with it. See it from EDF's viewpoint, would you base your company HQ in a country that is so opposed to nuclear power as Scotland (through its Government, whether that government has a locus or not)? It wouldn't make sense.
12

suchaparcelofrogues,

25/09/2008 06:27:29
Is this the deal all the trolls were on about on the other blogs? doesnt this support the case for nationalisation?

2.
No it isnt its energy policy. The SNP dont see nuclear as the future of energy and why should they when there are better alternatives?
13

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 25/09/2008 06:28:30
11

Cant even be bothered to take that post seriously.
14

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 25/09/2008 06:34:05
Is the fact that successive UK governments have been following dogmatically a policy of privatisation over decades now going to be spun into another anti SNP troll frenzy by the Staff of the Scotsman?
Looks like it to me.
15

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 25/09/2008 06:35:25
3

Yes they commonly refer to it these day as the union dividend.
16

Boy Wonder,

25/09/2008 07:36:29
Looks like they know Scotland will have its Independence soon ... so they're selling off the best bits now ... to impoverish us into becoming Unionists!
17

,

25/09/2008 07:42:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Unimpressed one,

25/09/2008 07:59:44
#19, Well said. But we will have no carrier bags and loads of useless windmills. This is what happens when you allow politicians to try to rule on technical decisions by listening to green groups. We saw the result of that with the parliament building. We're about to see a repeat on energy policy.

As for engineers, I think most of them vote with their feet.
19

Edward,

25/09/2008 08:08:38
Why are the media not questioning Gordon Brown's involvment with this sale?
Its widely known that his brother Andrew Brown is a director of EDF
20

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 08:12:07
We may live in a global economy but according to the EU website very few large companies in France are foreign owned.

Could it be that legislation prevents foreign companies from taking over large French organisations although many are still State-owned?
21

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 25/09/2008 08:34:48
-- (as if a technology has a personality)

Car makers spend £Ms on advertising to convince you so.

The Scottish people are, for the most part, against more nuclear power plant. They haven't seen great economic benefits where it's located. There are better alternatives to burning the hull of the planet (nuclear) when we're in a great energy Sea of Space. Can we build non-polluting working machinery from the new physics. Yes. Just as we built steam engines and internal combustion motors.

The EU is all about central control which it is applying to renewables too. Any sort of government gets trapped in day to day politics. It's for us the people to get them to think! For the cost of a mile of road we could be pioneering ZP technology. Priorities!
22

Edward,

25/09/2008 08:42:02
I find it farcical that the English media as well as the Labour government see this as a good deal, with talk of more stable prices for Electricity etc
Farcical in that EDF is majority owned by the French Government
Farcical that EDF have the priced capped in France, for both Gas and Electricity, so they fund this capping by hiking prices up in the UK and will continue to do so
Farcical that a director of EDF in the UK is Gordon Brown's brother and yet Labour have not admitted an interest and the Media have ignored this
Farcical that Labour MP's and French Chairman of EDF kept stating investment in the UK, when the build's will be in England.
Farcical that British Energy has its HQ in East Kilbride, yet the press conference was in London
23

thinking,

25/09/2008 08:44:56
#2 'Why Westminster has sold France this organisation totally defeats me'
"For British Energy shareholders, EDF's all-cash bid values British Energy at 774p a share, 9p more than a previous bid that was rejected. This included a £6 billion pay-day for the British government.
£6 billion for the government black hole - that's why
24

Edward,

25/09/2008 08:48:16
#27
Andrew Brown may not be directly involved in the decision making of the French EDF Group and no reason for him to be involved. BUT be assured that he would be very well aware of what was being planned and if he knew then Gordon Brown would know.
Apart from the decision of EDF to take over British Energy, there is also the aspect of other EDF activities, such as price planning etc
As communications director Andrew Brown would be fuilly aware of whats going on, after all he is tghe COMMUNICATIONS director!
25

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 25/09/2008 08:48:54
20

No this is a direct result of the right wing conservative dogma to privatise every national asset.
Take it out of public control and give it to private individuals to make a profit from which of course includes making a profit from selling it to the highest bidder.
You have over 20 years of right wing Thatcherite dogma to thank for this not the SNP.
Get yer FACTS straight.
26

Peter Curran,

Kirkliston 25/09/2008 08:57:33
The criticisms of the financial implications of this foreign takeover are understandable, but they obscure a much more significant issue. The safety issue in the nuclear industry is paramount, and the consequences of failure are catastrophic, and last for centuries, if not millennia. The world has already had one catastrophe on this scale, Chernobyl, and an earlier warning with the Three Mile Island failure, plus innumerable smaller failures of containment and pollution. This is before we even begin to examine the intractable problem of nuclear waste, a poisonous legacy for our children, our grandchildren, and generations beyond.

This is an industry given to lying about its shortcomings and covering up its accidents and failures, as even a cursory scrutiny of the record of the last fifty years will show. It is subject to exactly the same incompetence, lack of foresight, corrupt contract procedures, failure of regulations and inspection, careerism and political short-termism as any industry, but in this industry, such human failings have outcomes that are devastating.

As a society, and perhaps as a species, we are not yet mature enough to control this technology. It was bad enough when the technology and the industry were under our own control, but to let that control slip away to another nation is nothing short of criminal.

Losing a bank is one thing, but losing control of this beast within our own country is quite another. Is my language emotive? I sure as hell hope so.
27

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 25/09/2008 09:18:19
www.projectearth.com/

"There have been solutions available since Tesla. The problem is that all of the real solutions have been systematically kept from us by compromising politicians and politically correct “scientists” who, drunk with a false elitism, fear that their corporate constituents/handlers would replace their sorry asses with new ones if they ever actually told the truth."
28

Alan B,

25/09/2008 09:39:24
Scotland should look asap at devolving competition policy. We really need a serious debate about how to protect our companies from takeover ie what we can seriously do under EU rules and whether it is desirable.

Other European countries do not have the laisse lafre approach to takeovers as seen in the uk.
29

Unimpressed one,

25/09/2008 09:44:38
#28, ZP energy, or the 'energy of the vacuum', is a hypothetical source of unlimited energy that so far,is unrealisable. However there is no lack of proponents who claim to have solved our energy needs by tapping into this and getting limitless power for nothing. Of course their revolutionary devices are gathering dust in their garden sheds because the "scientific world is not yet ready for this great discovery". Pie in the sky.
30

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 25/09/2008 11:02:41
#10 - The Pict in Canada
"You know very well that the seller is your English er British government and Prime Minister Salmond doesn't have the authority to stop the take-over because of lackies like you who are happy to live under English rule."

Either yoiu live in a cave in the Rockies or you haven't been reading the news since 1997. Britain was taken-over by the Scottish mafia in 1997: Tony Blair, Prime Minister - Scottish; Gordon Brown - Chancellor - Scottish; Robin Cook - Foreign Secretary - Scottish, John Reid - Home Secretary - Scottish Communist - then after 2007: Gordon Brown - Prime Minister - Scottish; Alastair Darling - Chancellor - Scottish, Des Browne - Defence Minister - Scottish, Douglas Alexander - Foreign Minister - Scottish.

The tragedy is that this bunch of Mac-Morons have been running Great Britain since 1997 and in that time they have bankrupted the most successful economy in the world; destroyed the education system; destroyed our fisheries, handed our law-making to a bunch of unelected fascists in Brussels; overseen the collapse of two major banks. It is not Scotland which is oppressed by the English - it is the entire UK which has been ruined by the Scots!
31

Gordon, Canonmills,

25/09/2008 11:08:56
Leaving aside the grave enough matters of asset stripping, the sale of stolen property and horse trading in general, Peter Curran at #33 has the rights of it when he says that the important question here is that of having a nuclear-free Scotland for ourselves and for the sake of future generations.

It gives a chillingly poignant new meaning to the slogan of the 1820 radicals: "Scotland free or a desert"!
32

Publius,

London 25/09/2008 11:12:18
#42 Lara Crofter

Whether Alex Salmond met EDF people or not is irrelevant. The jobs are East Kilbride are notlikely to survive long after independence. Neither the French government nor the post-independence English government will want nuclear power jobs in a state which won't have nuclear power stations and appears to see nuclear power as the eighth deadly sin.
A whole raft of other jobs may disappear with independence too, e.g. national savings in Glasgow.
It's time the SNP addressed questions about the jobs, pay and pensions of UK government employees in a serious way. Otherwise the very act of independence may cause personal disaster for a lot of people.
33

Ewan M,

25/09/2008 11:13:30
#29 Edward there is no logic to your statement. Why is the press conference in London? That's like saying why is the HQ in East Kilbride when it British Energy? If the rest of the Uk was to apply your argument which they very rarely do compared to us hard done by Scots then surely the HQ should be somewhee else in the UK? It was state owned the rest of UK paid far more into it than Scotland. You agree this is very small minded and petty, but i see this all too often here. You are bringing in this usual us versus them paranoia that is all to common in Nationalism that is why i will never support it. It brings out the worst in Scottish people.

I have to agree with #21 sectarianism is increasingly rearing it ugly head in Scottish politics because of the constant bombardment of anti UK rhetoric from the SNP. I think the fair minded SNP supporters would largely agree.
34

Ewan M,

25/09/2008 11:15:35

Publius you may struggle to bear the forum as your comments are based on fact and realism. Too often played down on this site. Good luck!
35

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 11:44:16
Oh dear, SM753 - if arrogance and ignorance were the same as intelligence and insight, you'd have it made.

You say: " "We welcome the commitment by EDF to East Kilbride and to Scotland."

But EDF's "commitment" is only a corollary of their takeover of BE. So logically the Nats welcome the takeover itself."

I've no idea whether the SG welcomes the takeover or not. However, it's possible to welcome a commitment to jobs made during a takeover while being in favour, against or neutral to takeover itself. Your logic here is faulty.

The SP/Iberdrola takeover was completely different. SP is of greater strategic importance to Scotland because of its engineering functions and the sheer number of jobs involved. BE has never had the same scope or employed as many people in Scotland, so it's not got anything like, or even at all, the same 'strategic' importance as SP. Strike 1...

"Then there's the HBOS comparison. Let's get it straight: we're against the acquisition of a “strategic” bank by another UK bank, but we “welcome” the acquisition of a “strategic power company by a French one?"

Er, HBOS employs more people in Scotland than does BE, and plays a far more significant role in the economy. But even then, the SNP Scottish Gvt has not said it is against the LTSB takeover. Strike 2...

"And finally, let's note that EDF are buying BE to get a leg up in the race to build new nuclear power stations in the UK.

Let's rewind to the SNP 2007 manifesto:
“As a starting point a Scotland led by the SNP will say no to new nuclear.”
Oh, but we welcome an investment in Scotland by a company committed to new nuclear build – as long as they build the things in England."

Where to start? A takeover isn't the same as an investment. It's up to EDF where it runs BE operations from, but since this already happens from East Kilbride, it's as well that this continues. The merits of the logic of so doing are in no way affected by the enthusiasm or lack thereof in the Scottis
36

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 11:45:40
Bloody size limits...


Where to start? A takeover isn't the same as an investment. It's up to EDF where it runs BE operations from, but since this already happens from East Kilbride, it's as well that this continues. The merits of the logic of so doing are in no way affected by the enthusiasm or lack thereof in the Scottish Government for a future generation of N-power stations.

So, to recap, your logic is rubbish, your allegations of hypocrisy are demonstrably false. As for the SNP being 'not too bright', well, that's in the eye of the beholder. However, on the above evidence, you seem to be a pretty low watt bulb yourself.

Nuclear fanatics are fond of claiming that the 'lights will go out' if we don't build new stations. I'm not sure any number of new reactors could switch your lights on...
37

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 25/09/2008 12:07:45
-- ZP energy, or the 'energy of the vacuum', is a hypothetical source of unlimited energy that so far,is unrealisable.

The point is that it has been demonstrated!

"It is safe to say that the understanding of Zero Point Vacuum Fluctuation Physics is one of the more important leaps that has ever occurred in the history of science and indeed of humankind. It disallows for a fragmented universe. It points out that a neg-entropic or non-dissipative process actually characterizes material existence on the most fundamental level. As a contributor and participant in this field of endeavor I have participated in relevant research since 1979. In June of 1989 at New York, a former collegue and I demonstrated a solid state circuit which produced fifty times the electrical power on the output side as compared to the input."

Superpower militaries are certainly using this technology. Their current status is open to debate (while we're still allowed this). It's generally agreed that the USA kept the cold war going by supplying the (inferior party) USSR (created by New York bankers) with the science and the technology -- and food too. However when you put all your efforts, scientists and engineers into the killing field, new discoveries and weapons are made. Desperate tactics to play China and Russia against each other haven't worked.

Where are the Bolshevics now? In the Bush-Bin Laden camp on prison-planet. They call it homeland security.
38

ebbi,

spain 25/09/2008 12:10:42
in the name of free market everything has been auctioned off in this country and no one and absolute no one has benefited from this free market but the multinational companies.water,electricity,phone,almost everything.next will be the oxygen in the air to breath!!! as long as we have corrupt politicians who are in their pockets they will keep raping this land to the last penny.
39

Unimpressed one,

25/09/2008 12:43:38
#50, Yok Finney, "In June of 1989 at New York, a former collegue and I demonstrated a solid state circuit which produced fifty times the electrical power on the output side as compared to the input."

Details?
40

danbob,

25/09/2008 13:13:18
Dave from Barra 21# The most sensible post I have read yet. At least somebody sees where all this is heading.
41

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 25/09/2008 13:24:48
Nuclear power was and always will be a short term measure fro electricity generation. Uranium is a depleting natural resource, like oil, and will eventually be exhausted. I have read 40 years. It doubly bad for the environment - its production - and eventually the disposal of nuclear waste. If it had not been its application in the military after WW2 it would not have been considered for electricity production. The countries most in favour of it Russia France, USA, UK developed it for the plutonium it would produce.
Resources need to be put into renewables, geothermal, tide, wind and hydro,
As for Salmond wanting to retain the HQ at East Kilbride. His opponents accuse him of hypccrisy. He is between a rock and a hard place on this one , but at the end of the day it boiled down to pragmatism. In the long term these jobs are not sustainable in Scotland. These top range jobs need to be replacede by others in alternative technologies. We need to phase out nuclear power stations as they become redundant and not replace them. In time natural resources (lack of uranium) will do it anyway. Far better to be developing the technology which the rest of the world will soon come to require.
42

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 25/09/2008 13:52:24
details:

"What stimulated me, and I’ve said this before, since 1980, was the recognition that certain astrophysical phenomena express energies in excess of what the apparent input is. This is a very common thing in astrophysics, whether you’re talking about quasi-stellar objects, or whether you’re talking about the planet Jupiter."

"Anybody who studies vortical physics, fluid dynamics, plasma dynamics knows that there is no greater stress than that by which we invoke a vortical momentum. And therefore it is not hard to imagine, if we simply consider the fact that we are dealing with a medium of this extraordinary density. It is not hard to imagine or even begin to feel that just by simply biasing this field in a rotating cylinder or perhaps in an oscillating circuit, by biasing this field correctly, we can precipitate vortical momentum.

Now we may only precipitate a quasi-electron. In the vacuum fluctuation of space, their production is occurring all the time. In a biased environment however, where an electrical potential exists, that quasi-electron, instead of annihilating with its anti-particle, might indeed be distracted along the potential and find its way into what we refer to very blithely as manifestation.

It doesn’t necessarily take giga-electron volts for this to occur. And that’s why Tewari, DePalma, others and myself speak of the generation of power from space."

And the actual machinery has been tested and verified.
43

Weegiewarbler,

Docked 25/09/2008 14:03:55
Intersting anti Scots's spin.

Simple - Scotland voted to be anti nuclear.

Why should we care?

Labour followed the lobbyists and their fears of an independant Scotland - THEY should care.
44

Publius,

London 25/09/2008 14:14:50
#56 Lara Crofter

That neither the English nor the French government may want to run part of the nuclear power industry from a rabidly anti-nuclear independent Scotland is obvious.

I presume the SNP has contingency plans for the workers in East Kilbride. Please will you tell us whether the SNP has these plans in place and what they are?
45

11+failed,

the pans 25/09/2008 14:30:55
53 Unimpressed one
It's all driven by an electric motor that requires 55 times the output current! It operates on the same principle used to convert base metal into gold.
46

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 14:36:20
#59 - there's nothing obvious at all about where EDF or any future English government may wish BE's current operations to be run from.

Given the (far more obvious) need to use English as 'la langue de préférence' in BE's dealings, it's unlikely that anything much will move to France. Equally, given that BE's operational and staffing requirements are presumably being met satisfactorily as things stand from East Kilbride, there's nothing to suggest that the upheaval of a move south and the massive recruitment and staff training exercise which this would entail, would be in any way advantageous to any party.

The SG opposition to nuclear is unlikely to affect Scotland's non-nuclear future much anyway. Given transmission losses and the fact that greatest demand for increased generation is in the south of England, no power company in its right mind would wish to put a nuclear power station in Scotland given it's inability to compete economically with other forms of generation available for exploitation here.

The only potential attraction of Scotland for new stations was that the existing sites at Torness and Hunterston would have been less likely to encounter local objection than entirely new sites south of the border.
47

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 15:42:47
#66 - SM753: The SNP stance was to highlight that it demonstrated that n-power was not economically viable and that the existing plants should be allowed to see out their natural operating lifespans.

Far too sensible a position for you to grasp, I suspect.
48

John S,

25/09/2008 15:52:31
System Transfers
N.Ireland to Great Britain: 75MW
France to Great Britain : 952MW
North-South: 6484MW
Scot - Eng: 1703MW
25/09/2008 15:50:00
49

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 16:14:02
#69 - I did answer your question. Not my fault if it wasn't the answer you wanted.

The SNP wanted the nuclear stations to continue to operate for the remainder of their lifespans - what do you think that implied about their stance towards those who ran the stations?

Take your time...
50

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 16:33:48
You asked what the SNP attitude was to BE at that time, not whether the SNP wanted it nationalised or allowed to go bust a la Railtrack. The question you asked, even if it wasn't the one you meant to ask, was answered.

Anyway, why is this relevant to anything? Are you hoping I'll say that the SNP would have let BE go bust and from there, try to extend an argument that the SNP would have been content to see jobs go at East Kilbride, so as to try and back up your earlier claims of 'hypocrisy'?

51

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 25/09/2008 16:35:39
Hey Dudes

All U fanatical SNP supporters driving for an Independence for Scotland.

You don't get it . This is a world where the big survive, and the global economy eats up the big and small companies.

How would an independent Scotland stop a foreign company from buying Scotland plc ?

Stop ur innate whining , suck it up and move on.

An independent Scotland on its own, would go bankrupt in under ten years.

Its infrastructure would stop expanding and its health care services would closed down.

Money makes the world go round but there won't be no money in an independent Scotland.

But as a member of EU u may survive, but then, U are not independent nation. U will be part of a giant foreign bureaucracy .

Dream on dudes . Or move out of ur historical cave mentality, and into the sunshine.

Whining and name calling never but bead on the table

Adios

GC

52

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 25/09/2008 16:37:54
correction #74 for bead ..read bread

GC
53

brownlie,

25/09/2008 16:45:10
GC

"How would an independent Scotland prevent a foreign company taking over Scotland plc?"

How could an independent UK not prevent the sale of this company to a foreign company?

How are things in Paisley?

54

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 16:53:43
#76 - I was right! Take something unrelated and use it to try and present unfounded personal prejudice as 'reality'!

Can I mind-read the CyberBrits or what? :-)
55

brownlie,

25/09/2008 17:06:49
"How can this party be trusted on any policy on any issue whatsover"

For some-one who does not vote Labour you, on a daily basis, jump enthusiastically to their defence.

Can you tell us which party can be trusted on any policy on any issue?
56

brownlie,

25/09/2008 17:07:33
80 Comment was for sm753!
57

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 17:16:33
Yeah, yeah #79 - I read it all the first time round and it hasn't improved in quality since then. My answer at #48 & #49 to your earlier dross remains unchanged.

If your point is that the SNP wanted British Energy to be taken over in 2002, so are hypocrites for welcoming the commitment to jobs given in the current takeover, then that's no point at all - it's just drivel.

If on the other hand your point is that everyone at BE would have lost their job if it had been allowed to go into state ownership back then, then you're relying not so much on conjecture as a complete flight of fancy.

Anyway, away and play with AM2. I'm sure he'll agree with your every word, even if few others will.
58

Porty Nat,

Edinburgh 25/09/2008 17:23:44
#84 - that looks too much like algebra to me. I'm away for an asprin :-)
59

Publius,

London 25/09/2008 17:51:39
#65 Lara Crofter

Chasing totally green energy is like chasing after the crock of fairy's gold at the end of the rainbow. The British Energy jobs in East Kilbride are real and here and now. An independent Scotland with an anti-nuclear power policy will chase them away.
60

Publius,

London 25/09/2008 17:53:16
#85 Porty Nat
I'm away too - but for a Ledaig, just as medicinal as an aspirin, if not more so.
61

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 25/09/2008 18:12:51
77
brownlie,

Hey dude what or where is Paisley

GC
62

,

25/09/2008 19:17:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
63

clan_mackay,

25/09/2008 20:34:32
Check out Guido , he tells the world that blogsites are being infiltrated by the red and blue rosette wearers to try to stifle tales (true tales ) that have made it into the public domain via bloggers.
They are trying to curtail free speech.

tinyurl.com/nmohg

"PR Week can reveal that the Labour Party is exploring plans for an online rapid rebuttal unit, designed to kill off damaging stories circulating in the blogosphere. Former lobbyist Derek Draper will oversee the initiative, having recently been called in by Labour’s general secretary to advise on how the party can communicate its message. Labour strategists are keen to respond to the growing influence of right-wing blogs. The eventual system could resemble a modern-day version of Labour’s famous Excalibur unit, which was successfully used to kill negative stories by Tory-supporting newspapers in the run-up to the 1997 general election."
64

yoric,

25/09/2008 21:11:22
Its Nuclear power, or you sit in the dark.
Forget wind power, its mickey mouse.
Don't believe the lies the greens put out about renewables, its nuclear or candles.
65

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 26/09/2008 00:32:30
What a shamble the labour party is presently. They are doomed to failure since Iain Gray says one thing and Andy Kerr says another. Hands up anyone who knows what labour stand for.
66

The Pict.,

Canada 26/09/2008 05:03:43
# 43 Tweedmouth Coldstream.

What you say about the Bliar, Hen Broon etc. has not got anything to do with what I said. These people you mention don't give a d##n about Scotland indeed Bliar has always claimed he is ENGLISH. My point to all of the English er British lackies who claim to be Scots is that with the only politician to STAND UP FOR SCOTLAND IS ALEX SALMOND. Also I was responding to Charles Linkskaill's # 3 comments.
Further for your information I get home to Edinburgh quite a bit and I keep up with what's going on in Scotland through my relatives and reading the various media reports.
I am not one of the 'canny dae that' Scotsmen.
ARE YOU?
SLAINTE MHATH
67

Scythia,

27/09/2008 16:02:04
Say good-bye to British Energy, in a few years time when the dust has settled or when EDF merges with another company the HQ question will be redundant as will the people who work there.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.