WHAT is the difference between nationalising SMG and the government paying the broadcaster £15m a year to ensure it makes Scottish programmes for Scotland?

Not much, I would argue, and if that £15m ensures we never have to watch Andy Walker “presenting” another football programme, then I for one believe that it will be money well spent.

Incidentally, for those who cannot stand the prospect of Walker fumbling through this week's Rangers Uefa Cup game, here's a tip: ITV4.

SMG's results last week were a mixed bag. TV profits fell a bit; revenues were down. On the plus side, there was a huge drop in net debt thanks to that share issue and writedowns and some bullish stuff about prospects.

None of this much cheered the City; SMG's share price ended the week firmly stuck on 11p but in terms of a few more steps on the road towards a new SMG, it was probably one of the company's better days.

There was much to suggest that chief executive Rob Woodward is feeling more confident about the road ahead. The long drawn-out disposal of Virgin remains stubbornly in the background, and I do not buy this line about not selling unless the price is right. SMG has already cut the amount it wants and the sooner they can get Virgin off their hands the better. It is more a case of getting the “least worst” price.

SMG can then focus on what it wants to be - a Scottish broadcaster - and that's where this suggested subsidy comes in.

If, as was suggested, the TV world has changed so much that the broadcaster can no longer afford to produce home-grown news and politics programmes without help, then it needs to be seriously looked at. SMG needs to be able to devote as much of its resources as possible to making profitable programmes that will be attractive to the network

A weak SMG gives the BBC a free run, and nobody benefits from that.

Hot air on power: Speaking of the BBC, I may be wrong but I am sure that someone once told me you could power a city the size of Dundee using the hot air generated by just one edition of Newsnight Scotland.

Having watched a debate last week on the subject of renewables, I suspect you could actually light up the whole of northern Scotland and still have enough left over to power a small kettle in Dumfries.

First minister Alex Salmond's £10m prize for marine renewable energy innovation was the subject, and as ever on BBC Scotland, few people from the business world were asked to comment on the initiative. Why bother, when you can fill the airwaves with former MPs and academics?

The contributors seemed rather sceptical, as did the presenter, and it is true that there are great hurdles to overcome, but the very real fact is Scotland has a unique opportunity to be the world's leading place for marine renewable energy, and anything that underpins this is good.

Speaking to entrepreneur Chris Gorman last week, he said we Scots were still too cautious, still too focused on the negative, and this programme seemed to underline depressingly what he was saying.

Keeping marine renewables in the spotlight with hard cash is a positive thing and while £10m is a relatively small sum, it is a step in the right direction.

The other thing this did was spur my Invisible Chum Nicol Stephen back into life. He woke up long enough to slag off Salmond's move as a gimmick.

When he was deputy first minister in charge of paper clips, I asked him what he considered his greatest success. After pondering for a bit, he came up with efforts at wresting control over some renewables policy from the UK government.

I actually think he is right and deserves some credit for helping speed things up, but it seems rather churlish to then score cheap political points only a couple of weeks after telling the Liberal Democrat conference that he wanted “Scotland [to be] the renewable energy powerhouse of Europe ... to lead the world in wave and tidal power”.

And Stephen's way of doing this? He set up a commission. Now who's being gimmicky?

So long, S&N: If only they still made Kestrel lager we could all toast the end of Scottish & Newcastle with an appropriate drink.

For those without long memories, Kestrel was so weak it was said that its alcohol content actually rose when lemonade was added to make a shandy.

The end of a Scottish plc is nothing to celebrate, especially when we have such a small pipeline of potential successors.

As the drinks world shrunk under the weight of increasingly bigger players, S&N was always vulnerable yet somehow it seemed possible to hope that it had an independent future. Sadly not.

It is true that S&N chief executive John Dunsmore and co extracted a hefty price from Carlsberg and Heineken, but for non-shareholders, that is scant reward.

I hope that Heineken does not ditch the Scottish heart of S&N and looks to ameliorate the loss with a strong commitment to Scotland.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see where Dunsmore ends up next. His reputation is enhanced and, wherever it is, I am sure his next role will last longer than his time at the top of S&N.

john.penman@sunday-times.co.uk