Fi

[G. F. Allen @AuthorGFAllen]

I hope I can sell a copy of my book today 😭

[Fi @WeanFi]

@LoamAndLight @johnadgrady Did Joe Rogan? Did all his listeners? Did they know how many 5 year old children he meant when he said one murder?

[Fi @WeanFi]

@RestoreBritain Shame on him for the lie about Dunblane

[Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p]

Here’s why Labour’s nuclear plans are wrong for Scotland.
UK Government has used the distraction of Andy Burnham’s coronation and the row over defence spending to quietly push out a report that sets out where they would like to build new nuclear power plants in Scotland. However, it hasn’t gone unnoticed by energy experts.
I co-author.
https://t.co/LqjRIDOMeO

[Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p]

LABOUR ministers are “scaremongering” in the hope of pressuring Scotland into building new nuclear power stations, a group of energy experts has warned. Writing a joint article for The National, six academics suggested that the UK Government was using “false promises” of a “golden age of nuclear in England and Wales” in order to try and force a U-turn from the Scottish Government. As it stands, the SNP have an effective veto on any new nuclear developments north of the Border because planning laws are devolved to Holyrood. However, the UK Government last week published a GB Energy report scoping out Scottish sites that could host a new nuclear power plant, and on Tuesday UK energy minister Michael Shanks said Labour will do “everything we can to move forward”. Writing for The National, Dr Keith Baker, Dr Paul Dorfman, Professor Peter Strachan, Dr Ian Fairlie, Professor Lynn Jamieson, and Gordon Morgan argued that Scotland does not need any new nuclear energy plants “and no amount of scaremongering, cajoling, or false promises from Shanks or the nuclear industry should persuade our government to think otherwise”.

The National 7th July 2026
https://t.co/v4RSr8jt7J

[Fi @WeanFi]

@Indy_Quint @MrsBr0wn_82 I stayed here end of April for a couple of days. It was a perfectly normal hotel and a normal hotel experience with other guests and staff. I saw no signs of any other use.

[Fi @WeanFi]

@FireflyBiilym @ToryFibs It's not a set amount for everyone.

[Fi @WeanFi]

@MrsAstronaut So blonde.

[iScot Magazine @iScotNews]

Cape Verde has a population of little more than half a million people - less than Glasow.
This week their team stood toe-to-toe with Uruguay, Spain and Argentina.
They have their own country. Their own currency. Their own passport. Their own TV broadcaster. Their own seat at the United Nations.
Scotland has ten times the population, yet we're constantly told what we can't have.
Perhaps the biggest barrier to Scottish independence isn't Westminster.
Perhaps it's believing Westminster approval to be the 'gold standard',

[Dr Murray Cook @murrayJamescoo1]

Revealing an over 2000 year old Scottish broch thing!

[Fi @WeanFi]

@AwTroon Such a sad thought PD. As ever willing him well. xx

[Fi @WeanFi]

@AwTroon Ah ok so they want him to be at 2kg before they can do it. More waiting and worrying for you. xx

[Fi @WeanFi]

@AwTroon Good luck today. xx

[Dr Paul Dorfman @dorfman_p]

"The Scottish Labour MPs who are behind this report should tell us who among them wants one of these extortionate, wasteful, and unnecessary nuclear plants built in their constituency. Scotland produces more energy than it uses – we simply do not need nuclear..."

https://t.co/jtfIwawlPG

[LustraSkye @LustraSkye]

‼️Ten communities. One message.

Campaigns from Auchtertool, Hermiston, Larbert, Dunbar, the Gyle, Hunterston, Bishopriggs, Chapelhall, Longformacus/Lammermuirs and Hurlford gathered outside the Scottish Parliament to demand a moratorium on hyperscale AI data centres.

This is what a coalition looks like. Scotland is being asked to host a wave of hyperscale AI data centres, freeports, special economic zones and offshore wind infrastructure all at the same time, all under planning frameworks that were never designed for this scale, and all without an updated national energy strategy since 2017.

Communities facing these applications have no statutory right of appeal, no mandatory environmental impact assessment, and no enforceable definition of what ‘green’ actually means in planning law.

The Scottish Government is processing each application as if it exists in isolation, while the cumulative demand on Scotland’s land, water, grid and communities is anything but isolated.

This isn’t a planning problem. It’s a governance failure.”

People want to point fingers to London but that’s only half of the story The SNP along with all other Parties in the relevant responsibilities are denying communities an updated energy plan that strengthens devolved planning powers that would protect them because both Westminster & ScotGov WANT inward global investment Mandelson style and have made communities collateral damage to get it. Thats the real takeaway from all of the threads.

The irrefutable argument

Scotland has a live, accelerating pipeline of 24 hyperscale data centre proposals requiring up to 6,000MW more than 1.5 times the country’s entire peak electricity demand being assessed against a planning framework that predates the technology it is meant to regulate, with no binding definition of the term the government uses to justify approval, no mandatory environmental assessment for most sites, no community right of appeal, no water standard, and no published account of what any of this will cost in grid capacity, household bills, or climate impact.

The government has been asked, formally and in writing, to pause.

It has a direct, recent precedent for doing exactly that. It has declined not because it disputes the facts, but because it has chosen not to act on them.

That is not a position.
It is an absence of one.

1. THE SCALE IS NOT MARGINAL IT IS DESTABILISING

24 proposals. Up to 6,000MW. Scotland’s current peak demand: approximately 4,000MW.

This was placed on the official parliamentary record by Ross Greer MSP on 18 June 2026 and was not disputed by the First Minister.

This is not a planning question about individual sites. It is a question about whether Scotland’s electricity system can absorb a demand increase larger than the system itself, decided one application at a time, with no body responsible for assessing the total.

2. THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN DEFINITION IS CIRCULAR

At FMQs on 18 June 2026, the First Minister defined a “green data centre” as one that “has been approved with due account taken of the environmental implications.”

A green data centre is one that has been approved as a green data centre. There is no threshold, no metric, no standard capable of being failed.

This is not a definition. It is the absence of one, dressed in the language of one!

3. THE EVIDENCE ALREADY EXISTS AND IT IS ALARMING

This is not a hypothetical risk. The developer’s own Environmental Impact Assessment for the Larbert data centre required because Larbert, unlike most sites, needed one found that routine generator testing alone would produce 288 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide and nitrous oxide annually, and that nearby homes, a hospital, and a nursery could be exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels of up to 8,800 micrograms per cubic metre 44 times the safe hourly limit.

This would rank a single “green” data centre among Scotland’s top 10 industrial polluters, ahead of Mossmorran and Peterhead.

[LustraSkye @LustraSkye]

#Labour
#NOTWorkingForScotland

‼️Everyone’s debating what Andy Burnham might offer Scotland more powers here, a devolved fund there, maybe a chat with local councils.

‼️Wrong question!

The right one:
‼️Why is Westminster still the one deciding what Scotland gets offered at all?

“Power devolved is power retained” a phrase from the very podcast dissecting this speech.
‼️That’s the whole problem in five words.

Devolution, however generous, is still permission granted from Westminster

It can be redrawn, delayed, or withdrawn by whoever’s in Number 10 next.

‼️The real and more urgent question is NOT
“what will Burnham devolve.”

‼️It’s when will the people of Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 get to decide our own constitutional future directly not offered a menu by a Westminster politician not yet even in office, choosing the terms on our behalf?

A referendum where Westminster pre-decides the options isn’t self-determination.

It’s Westminster still deciding the question.

Self-determination isn’t Westminster’s gift to design, ration, or improve upon.

It’s a right.

The priority isn’t better devolution.

It’s Scotland’s 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 people directly deciding our own future not having that future decided about us, however Devo-packaged the offer.

“Why Andy Burnham's speech proves he has NO INTEREST in Scotland”
https://t.co/9zfRbRt73k via @YouTube

[Fi @WeanFi]

@meljomur I'm sure I heard one of them say it'll probably mean cancelling some road building and something else which I can't remember.

[Fi @WeanFi]

@joe_yer99 I hope they do something. I love that part of the town.

[Fi @WeanFi]

Wasn't this put to the electorate very recently? I remember sharing a pre election newspaper headline on Labour's plan if they won Holyrood. The electorate voted a majority of MSPs who are against this and yet we still face this increasing daily barrage.

[Anas Sarwar @AnasSarwar]

The SNP's ban on clean nuclear power is robbing Scotland of jobs and investment - it needs to go.
https://t.co/qwmOmlIgAj