The energy debate will become a hot potato

The week has not been completely news-free, however, and the let-up in pace at Holyrood did at least allow proper attention to be paid to two important stories about Scotland's renewable energy sector.

New statistics showed Scotland remains on course to meet its ambitious target to generate the equivalent of its total energy needs from renewable sources by 2020: the figure for last year was an encouraging 40.3%, up from 24.1% in 2010.

That was the good news. It came after we learned of a delay in energy regulator Ofgem's Project TransmiT, an already long-awaited plan to cut transmission charges for renewable energy schemes in the north of Scotland (and Wales and parts of northern England), which is designed to make them more cost-effective and encourage future investment. The announcement was greeted with frustration by politicians on all sides, who recognise the merit in rebalancing the UK's energy market in favour of renewables. Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Energy Minister, said the "long-term discrimination" against electricity generators in Scotland had just got longer.

The delay, caused by energy suppliers threatening to put up prices if they were not given longer to adjust to the proposed new structure, means a final announcement on Project TransmiT will not now be made until March next year. That timing surely increases the chances of energy generation becoming an issue in the independence debate. To date energy has played only a walk-on part, while equally technical subjects such as the currency, EU membership and pension provision have been pored over in minute detail. Strange, you might think, given the competing claims made by the Yes and No camps.

The SNP's big offer on energy is a pledge to cut energy bills by about 5% per year - worth £70 or so to the average household - by relieving suppliers of some green costs which are currently passed on to consumers and meeting them from Government budgets instead.

When Nicola Sturgeon announced the plan during the SNP's conference in October, aides said the cash would come from EU funds, so taxes would not have to rise. Since then, however, it has been claimed the money available through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would cover only a small fraction of the cost of cutting bills by 5%. The EU ETS did not appear in the SNP's White Paper on independence.

More generally on energy, the SNP wants to maintain the existing UK-wide market, with a few regulatory tweaks here and there. The pro-UK parties believe that is a great idea, of course, arguing that the present set-up - in which Scottish generators receive a third of all the UK's subsidies for green power - is part of their positive case for the Union. Bills would come down/bills would go up: that sums up the fairly limited public debate on energy and the impact of independence so far. The issue is being considered behind the scenes, though.

Earlier this month, The Herald revealed the findings of a new report which concluded that prospects for renewables would be better in an independent Scotland pursuing its own energy policies. Under that scenario, said lead researcher Dr David Toke, of Aberdeen University, Scotland could deliver its 2020 renewables target with a 7.2% rise in bills. By contrast, bills would have to rise by 10.4% if Scotland remained part of a UK-wide energy system committed to costly new nuclear power stations. Pro-UK politicians dismissed the report as "highly misleading". The SNP welcomed it, saying it highlighted "some of the options" for an independent Scotland" (conveniently ignoring the fact the SNP Government is not pursuing the option of withdrawing from the UK energy market.)

A debate about the possible impact of independence on energy and prices has begun, then, even if it is not making headlines yet. That may change next year.