There is an interesting nationalist energy security case for building new nuclear in Scotland (at the UK consumer’s expense), beyond getting a large economic boost and highly productive multi generational employment.

You can tell from the comments that 90% of people commenting haven’t read the article.

The nationalised industries performed relatively well and achieved feats they simply couldn’t have under private ownership, making for a strong postwar recovery. Yet one of the dominant narratives of 20th century Britain is that ‘nationalisation didn’t work’.

Using MeyGen as a(n inferred gotcha) against the nuclear industry is extremely interesting considering the local context surrounding the development, the respective socio economic impact, and social licence of both industries. [Coming from a long time proponent and shareholder].

If private sector proponents want to have the benefit of public sector pensions (/terms and conditions) they should simply move to the public sector and forfeit their higher salary.

Exceptional.

A96 last week was awful, A9 equally so. It shouldn’t be out of the ordinary to expect that Scotlands cities should be connected by a dual carriageway and dual trail lines, even in the age of net zero. But half the population lives within 10 miles of the M8.

City neighbourhoods with (legitimate) concerns about access to services shouldn’t use remote/island comparisons to justify their cause. Is it a boat journey or 50 to 100 miles? No. glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/scottish-…

Dumbarton was producing a million barrels a day in the 80’s.

Finland doesn’t exist.

That 2014 vision has faded, fragmented, and faltered. It seems difficult to imagine how it can ever be recaptured in coming decades, and if independence is won in that timeframe it will be in spite of itself and coming from a poorer place.

The British imperial approach to the Highlands and Islands post-unification only continued the imperial approach to the region that an independent Scottish state started.