git-intae-thum

All good points. As you pointed out though there is a clear beneficial in terms of the electorate(16 to 18 year old, EU/ foriegn nationals etc) for using the Holyrood system. Simply...we are more likely to gain the necessary majority using a Holyrood plebiscite. I also get the argument for the need for an existing devolved administration to frame further policy in an election manifesto if it wishes to continue as a devolved gov........but.... surely there has got to be a point where the SNP decides if it is content to be the establishment party of devolved government.....or be true to its principles and go for independence. Maybe it needs to be made clear to the public if such a future scenario becomes necessary that in the event of them shiting the bed again they are getting stuck with a SLAB or Tory Scotgov. Using any election as a de facto referendum is always going to be the nuclear option of last resort. Used when all other attempts to claim democratic right have been denied. It being the nuclear option means you don't go at it half arsed.....as Sturgeons latest plan was shaping up to be.

Good...a de facto referendum needs to be done at the Holyrood election.

what debt?

Thanks to Nicola for just over 8 years of mostly competent leadership of our nation. Longest serving first minister. Accomplished devolutionist and election winner. The annals will record a premiership rating of probably around joint 3rd equal with Henry McLeish in terms of devolved parliament first ministerial greatness. She is a proven election winner and beyond doubt, the eminent political communicator on this island. It could have been so much better though. Nothing in this country is going to improve until we have all decisions about Scotland, made in Scotland, for the benefit of the people of Scotland. We are no closer to independence than we were on the 19th September 2014.

Cmon.... that's no what was meant n u know it

Good win.....but lets see what haplens when we play a decent international team.

This is incoherent. Criticising the SNP is not endorsing the the current shambles of how the UK govt runs things. Its about wanting the best for the future of (hopefully) independent Scotland. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/23152165.wales-set-public-energy-firm-scots-gov-blows-plan/ "The company - yet to be named - will initially look at developing onshore wind farms on Welsh government-owned woodland estate, which covers 6% of Wales and is largely made up of hilly, windy sites." TBH what Wales does doesn't really concern me. But good luck to them. I hope it is a resounding success. With regards to Scotland....it is just going to be more than a little bit shit in the coming decades watching the profits of our energy resource going into the public finances of France, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, Spain, China, UAE etc etc........because their public or part public owned energy companies leased our renewables on the cheap in January 2022. Thats before BP, Shell etc take their share out.

From the same link: "The (Welsh) government said its new state-owned developer would help deliver its aim of securing more than 1 gigawatts (GW) of locally-owned generation by 2030, enough to supply approximately 750,000 homes." Thats a majority of homes in Wales. Thats not underwhelming. Selling off Scotlands energy future on the cheap is worse than underwhelming.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-41579842 The initial intent was to supply the consumer. The sensible long term goal would have been to control production. Notably the Welsh exec seem to be moving in the right direction: https://www.gov.wales/wales-announces-publicly-owned-renewable-energy-developer They have set ambitious goals to actually own the infrastructure, therefore ensuring profit is returned to the public purse.

The whole Scotwind project simply allows big business to once again profiteer from Scotlands natural resources at the expense of Scotlands people. When fully operational these wind farms are estimated to be capable of producing an initial 5 billion profit and rising annually. Now that money is all going to go to the energy giants.....again....just like NS O&G. The public purse will instead receive an estimated 90 million annually on the continuing lease deals. Bit of a difference. Long term (up to 60 year) seabed leases have been handed to these firms ......with no real penalty or enforcement if the promised supply chain beneficials fail to materialise. Setting up a public energy firm was key SNP policy and heavily backed at conference. The initial capital investment for infrastructure may well have put the leadership off. But given any initial outlay would likely have paid for itself within a couple of years the necessary finance could surely have been raised. Cancelling the publicly owned project and going with the privatisation model would appear to have been rushed through with the aim of getting production going as quickly as possible. This may well have been to meet short term self imposed climate goals. This is at the expense of our nations long term financial and environmental sustainability. Its either a case of skewed priorities.......or they just couldn't be bothered.

They'll never get their grubby paws on the real thing

This is Daily Express reader levels of understanding in how a public economy works......and a complete failure to understand who actually subsidises who. The true revenue generator from large public infrastructure projects is from the multiplier effect that the government spend creates in the economy of the region where the capital investment is made. The initial government investment creates numerous spin off enterprise and multiplies the tax take in that particular region. As projects like HS2, Crossrail and so on are almost always centered on the Southern half of the UK, the multiplier effect is concentrated almost entirely within that region. Needless to say consequentials such as the Barnett formula are calculated on the initial govt investment. Nothing is paid back in terms of the multiplied tax income generated. This being despite the fact that Scotland also made an investment, as part of the initial UK gov spend and helped generate that tax take in the South. Its all a bit of a swindle really. Scotland (and other parts of the UK tbh) miss out massively in favour of London and the SE.

Its economic reality. Until we use less than we produce (and thats not going to happen for at least a quarter of a century if not longer)....its really not very clever either from an economic or environmental standpoint to shut down the North Sea.

No such thing as unionism anymore. There is no "union" of the UK. This was confirmed by the supreme court. Call them what they really are.......... UK Nationalists.

The UK " supreme" court ( established 2009) should be asked to rule on whether it should exist. Any approbate of the union should know that.

Exactly......the term "unionist" is in no way any longer correct for these people.

Any deduction Scotland makes or imposes is a grain of sand on the beach in comparison to the large polluters. It would be shear lunacy for an iScotland not to fully exploit its oil reserve. Only this would allow the public purchase of the renewable energy industry, ensuring our collective wealth........and ability to fund important research and development in the sector. That is surely a better long term and sustainable plan towards funding and ensuring our move to 100% renewable and taking a position as true world leaders in green energy. Far better than the current gesture politics pish getting spouted.

I am all for Scotgov putting any barriers to new extraction in place that are available to them. I don't want our remaining reserves to continue getting drained away into the pockets of Westminsters big money chums. Upon its restoration as a sovereign state, Scotland should be aiming for its own version of statoil and a public fund. After that..... open the taps and let it flow. Use the remaining oil wealth to fund the full transition to publicly owned renewable energy. Future benefits of our energy resources should benefit the whole nation.......not just the energy billionaires.

The irony of labelling others as nationalists.

Gilmour to Doak....back to Gimour......too Doak. GOAL SCOTLAND Fingers crossed

wrong forum bud

Although the SNP have undeniably and inconceivably dragged heels on this, I think they are gradually moving away from the sterlingisation plan. Adopting a new currency, preferably as close after the end of a transition period, is the sensible option. It allows the aforementioned levers of control. With regard to deficit, most of Europe (apart from some notable examples remarkably similar to Scotland) have consistently run deficit for a number of years. An actual annual deficit is not that important. What is important is the level of annual deficit.....and whether like the UK's it becomes structured long term into the public economy and therefore leaves the country heading towards a slow and steady decline. Obviously current GERs figures cannot and should not be used to base presumptions on the finances of an independent Scotland. So with a lack of accurate figures we are left with a red herring argument. If I was to wager though......given that Scotland is an energy resource rich, advanced and varied exporting economy with a positive BofP and GDP comparable to similar sized European nations, and if it adopted a West European spend model..... I don't think any deficit at independence will be too far off the regional averages.

Only during any period of initial sterlingisation. Scotland is a resource rich developed economy. Our own currency, will allow exactly the same mechanisms avaliable to manage deficit as any other nation. This is a good link examining requirements. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-new-institutions-of-economic-policy-would-an-independent-scotland-need The whole deficit issue in an independent Scotland (including the fact that there is no way to currently examine revenue offset against future spending decisions) is a bit of a red herring tbh.

How does the UK manage to maintain its public expenditure? Given it has barely been out of deficit for the last 50 years.

Where does the funding come from for the UK government's spend policies?