IN the 1970s, the SNP took up what would become one of the party’s best-known slogans: “It’s Scotland’s Oil.” There was a quiet genius to it. In three small words lay the economic case for independence, the argument for Scottish statehood and the injustice of the existing structure of the British state.
Of course, whether Scotland’s oil could sustain a new, independent nation, has been hotly debated. In recent years, this has come under more scrutiny – not least because of the climate implications involved.
Whatever your view of the technical detail, the slogan seemed to connect. It was during the general election of 1974, when the SNP recorded their highest return of MPs in the party’s history up until that point, that “It’s Scotland’s Oil” featured in campaign material and as a central plank of the independence message. It raised an important question: Why should Scotland’s oil wealth end up under the control of the UK establishment, rather than with the Scottish people?
TODAY'S MCCRONE REPORT SERIES STORIES
- Richard Murphy: Renewables and a wealthy independent Scotland
- The problem with ScotWind and the risk of history repeating itself
- McCrone: Can Scotland ditch oil and gas and still be 'energy rich'?
- Aberdeen's ambitious plan to become a net zero city
- Critical minerals and their role in the future of Scotland's energy
What about now?
In 2023, the independence movement lacks this cutting edge. A complacent SNP leadership, despite enjoying unrivalled political power, failed to present the kind of case required. One that spoke to the concerns of Scots who, after 10 years of austerity, a pandemic, and then a cost of living emergency, needed to feel part of a vision for real change.
The much-vaunted “White Papers” revealing a “revamped” case for independence appeared to stop halfway through. What they did produce was thin soup. There was no attempt to trailblaze on display. No sense that the powers of independence could help build a new society. One not just free from Tory pantomime villains, but the ruinous and failed economic model championed by both New Labour and Conservative governments for decades.
Renewable energy could – indeed, should – have been central to the call for independence. As people see their bills soar alongside the vast profits of the big oil corporations, there is surely an easy case to make for bringing Scotland’s national green assets into public hands. If it was Scotland’s oil, then it should also be Scotland’s wind. Why should ordinary Scots face the false choice of heating or eating, when they live in a country brimming with green energy potential?
It is true that energy is not devolved. It would not be possible under the current set-up to nationalise Scotland’s oil and renewable energy. That is why it is such a powerful argument for independence. But that does not mean the argument for such a vision could not be made in the here and now.
With independence, we will nationalise the Scottish energy grid. We will eradicate fuel poverty in doing so. And we will make certain our natural resources work for the people. At a time like this, that is surely a powerful message. Yet it has not been conveyed or rallied around by the outgoing SNP leadership.
Instead, moves in this kind of direction have been shelved and halted, despite the views of the SNP membership. The First Minister announced the setting up of a National Public Energy Agency in 2017 to great fanfare. Despite it being the central talking point of her conference speech, the idea was kicked into the long grass in practice. Years passed before SNP members mobilised to raise the issue again.
In 2021, they voted overwhelmingly for the policy at their conference. The vote was, to be blunt, forgotten about as soon as the conference ended.
Interestingly, The Ferret revealed that in 2020, government ministers were having meetings, outside of the public record, with big businesses seeking to cash in on Scotland’s renewables industry. The Scottish Government would launch a “green investment portfolio” worth £3 billion of Scottish green assets.
This package, a substantial component of Scotland’s economic future, is being bought up by private and foreign capital and will never be owned in common unless there is a seismic political change.
ScotWind has resulted in large tracts of the renewable wind energy grid being handed over cheaply, to the likes of Shell and British Petroleum (BP), without guarantees of supply line jobs. Billions in profits will be lost every year.
Meanwhile, Scotland’s six offshore wind farms paid a derisory £150,000 to nearby communities in the 12 months from May 2021-22.
How do we make it work for Scotland?
If you want to set up a functioning, independent state, you need infrastructure. If you want a meaningful independence that unlocks the democratic ownership and control of resources, you can’t sell them all off in advance. You certainly can’t flush billions in profits from your most valuable assets down the drain. All the talk of “resilience” is for nought unless it is attached to an economic and industrial strategy which embeds the security of energy and much else into the future of the country. It should be at the core of the argument for independence. But it must be actively made, and unconstrained by the boardrooms of the multinationals.
Jim Sillars (above), a member of the Labour Party when the “It’s Scotland’s Oil” slogan came to the fore in the 1970s, made the following point in the 2014 referendum: “BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors.”
The same spirit should be applied to renewable energy. That is the kind of popular stance that has been missing under the present SNP leadership. Independence is off the agenda as a practical reality for many years to come – in no small part because the argument simply hasn’t been made.
Rebuilding the case will take time and will emerge through debate and discussion. Central to it then, now and into the future, will be the question of Scottish resources, who owns them and in whose interests they are deployed.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel