Nothing there that I would particularly disagree with.
I proposed in a different thread moving to 75% nuclear, but if you want to go to 90% I won't fight about it.
Trouble is of course over the last 10 years we have shut down more nuclear stations than we have built.
I don't think you can entirely discount the financial side of this.
Maybe 1GWatt in Pentland firth would cost in - not sure what the duty cycle would be there - probably 60 -80% at a guess.
Kens original idea was for much smaller tidal machines in an area of much smaller tidal streams which becomes a different case.
I agree about the management of the grid, although by nature a "privatiser" I think its time that the management moved to the former basis of the CEGB type of approach.
I didn't realise that the two nuclear stations in Scotland were not managed on the National Grid.
I would still discount wind and wave - without being able to predict its availability it seems to me to be of little value.