but the conclusions can be sussed out from the summary, pretty much.
http://issuu.com/therobertgordonuniversity/docs/the_dreud_report_2013
If there is independence, and IF the Scots can incentivize their wind farm systems and other systems, then the Scots may save a tiny amount over keeping an "energy union" with UK even if they go ahead w/independence. The problem, according to the report, is that they're doing the "lotta talk, little walk" thing:
This perspective raises a different question about the effects of devolution: not to ask what have
the devolved government’s done for renewable energy within their own territory, but to what extent
have they used their access to policy formulation processes in Westminster to challenge the
prevailing UK energy pathway? The evidence of our research suggests that the devolved
governments have not done so. Indeed, with the exception of Scottish opposition to new nuclear,
both Scottish and Welsh Governments are broadly comfortable with an energy development
pathway that consists of large developments, international investment and conventional generation
technologies. Indeed, our research suggests that energy generally – and renewable energy in
particular – is not a subject on which there is fundamental disagreement about policy direction
between London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast.
Thus an alternative reading of the effects of devolution on renewable energy is that Scotland’s
experience shows us the conditions that are required for the UK renewable energy pathway to
work successfully: significant elite cohesion around the agenda and access to a wider pool of
supportive resources. That there is less sign of elite cohesion around the expansion of renewables
in Westminster, Cardiff or Belfast qualifies the scope for any easy ‘borrowing’ of policy lessons
from Scotland. However, given the asymmetric and uneven distribution of powers attendant on
devolution, Scotland may find it hard to fully insulate its renewable energy ambitions from any
outfall from conflict over the direction of energy policy in Westminster.
I am getting the sense that there are a lot of people in Westminster that are vested in the status quo, and they are reluctant to support anything that requires a huge outlay with returns that aren't going to be obvious immediately. They'd as soon someone else take the risk so long as they can be in on the reward.
The devolution issue is salient to this discussion for several reasons--first, the UK government has planning permission for new nuke plants; if Scotland doesn't vote for independence, those plants might still get built. Also, the whole issue of "Can they go it alone?" is at the forefront of discussions leading up to the vote--this is discussed in the first report and the addendum report that followed--like it or not it is always, it seems, "all about the money."
I found an article that is less technical that lays it all out, big picture. It does present the sanguine scenarios offered in the report as well as opposing views. That said, the big picture isn't at all clear. There will still be nuke plants in Scotland, Scotland will continue to subsidize nuke power, even as they personally oppose it, the UK will subsidize their costs if they stay in an energy union--the power issues are all mixed up and mired in the independence question, and whether or not Scotland retains a "grid" union with UK should they vote for independence next year.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/05/scottish-independence-boosted-cost-green-energy-reforms-ageing
The naysayers have this POV:
There was a contradiction in the Scottish government's proposals because having a UK-Scotland deal on energy co-operation after independence meant Scotland would be helping fund new nuclear power while having a policy opposing new nuclear investment.
He added: "I can't see how the Scottish government is going to work in reality because they can't have it both ways. They can't not pay for nuclear power and then (expect to) get the renewables incentives under the same contract."
Tom Greatrex, Labour's shadow energy minister at Westminster, said Toke was now ignoring his previous report's evidence that Scotland's renewables investment was heavily dependent on UK subsidy.
Scottish power firms get a third of overall UK support for renewables despite having 8.5% of the UK population, so after independence electricity bills would soar or investment would need to be cut.
"This confusion seems to run right through the report. It is highly misleading, cherry-picking statistics and twisting the facts to produce an image of a separate Scotland that is far from realistic," Greatrex said.
I will admit I don't have enough of an "inside baseball" knowledge of these players to know who is bloviating and who is speaking hard truths--but I am not getting a sense that they can pull this off easily. There may need to be investment, and the question is, will the people be willing to 'invest' through taxation or will they need to privatize?
And, of course, all of this hinges on whether or not Scotland votes for independence next year.
= new reply since forum marked as read
