As usual Ben Thomson of the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility makes a good rhetorical and theoretical case for more fiscal autonomy for Scotland in the Scotsman, but it's never precisely clear what's meant in practical terms by arguments regarding such concepts as responsibility and accountability.
However, it's perhaps instructive that in relation to "tailoring taxes to improve economic growth" Mr Thomson mentions Dublin. Perhaps by accountability he thus means going cap in hand to the EU or IMF when a nation state nearly collapses under a sea of debt?
And post-devolution Scotland's politics seem to have been dominated by public spending profligacy contributing to UK public borrowing, with the SNP blaming London for the belt tightening necessitated now that the bills for all this have to be paid.
Indeed, the evidence suggests that a fiscally autonomous Scotland would combine things like no income tax increases, slashed fuel duty, lowered corporation tax and council tax frozen for nearly a decade on the one hand, with free prescriptions, free higher education and numerous other costly spending pledges and freebies on the other.
Of course, the circle would be squared in the form of borrowing powers, but hence the danger of another Brown-esque debt mountain, which would be consistent with the barely credible spending commitments made during the recent Holyrood election campaign, thus perhaps more fiscally reckless than responsible.
And with Alex Salmond steering the SNP towards abandoning the cash cow oil industry in favour of the subsidy-junkie renewables sector, the danger of another Ireland or Iceland seems more likely than the prudence of Norway.
Of course, all this is consistent with crude Nationalist rhetoric about having more economic powers to "grow the economy", as if some magic wand could be waved to overturn the laws of economics and world experience if only the SNP were given the chance, which is redolent of the again Brown-esque economic alchemy of "no more boom and bust".
For example, does the Nationalist endgame entail retaining sterling with interest rates set by the Bank of England, once considered by the SNP to be inappropriate for Scotland?
Or is the party still wedded to the idea of euro membership, with monetary policy decided by bankers in Frankfurt and which has been instrumental in crippling the economies of some eurozone member states?
And the latter two points relate to one facet of the question regarding precisely what independence for Scotland entails - if indeed dominant SNP opinion desires a degree of greater autonomy that could even reasonably be called independence - which will of course become increasingly prominent and vexed in the coming handful of years.
But when earlier this week Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman questioned Nicola Sturgeon on the choice between the sterling and euro alternatives as regards the currency and monetary policy, under pressure she eventually reverted to the "whatever's in Scotland's best interests" response. (And as regards what the concept of independence would mean for Scotland it's perhaps instructive that a purely Scottish currency isn't even mentioned any more.)
And when SNP MSP Linda Fabiani was grilled by Newsnicht's Gordon Brewer a few minutes later on the efficacy of one of her own party being elected to the position of Holyrood's presiding officer and on the question of scrutiny and accountability generally in a unicameral legislature with a majority governing party, she too defaulted to the "best interests of Scotland and its people" reply.
Roughly translated that probably means "we havnae got a clue" or "cannae think o' a credible answer"!