TRUE science fiction aficionados will know that Scotland was first into space. You can take your pick as to who got there first, but they were definitely Scottish.
Dan McGregor Dare, for instance: Pilot of the Future in the old Eagle comic and UN Space Fleet hero. Dan had a Scottish mum – just like Donald Trump, Guglielmo Marconi and Joan Baez – and his ancestors fought with Bonnie Prince Charlie.
Back in the 1950s, long before Star Trek’s Scotty kept the dilithium crystals polished, the first great television sci-fi programme in the UK was The Lost Planet. Based on the novels of Angus MacVicar, The Lost Planet featured the irascible Scottish inventor Dr Lachlan McKinnon, who builds an atomic rocket on his remote Highland estate and flies it off to discover new planets. I was hooked from the start.
Today, the final debate of the virtual SNP conference – how sci-fi is that – will debate setting up a Scottish Space Agency. The conference motion reads: “Conference recognises the Scottish Space Sector is at the forefront of the European Space Sector with launching capacity, satellite build capacity, Earth Observation ability and academic support from leading Scottish universities. Conference therefore resolves to support and invest in an independent Scottish Space Agency with the objectives of supporting Scottish Space capacity and building ties with other national agencies …”
Of course, there may be a few problems along the way. One of these involves a little thing called the US-UK Technology Safeguards Agreement, which was signed in June. Never heard of it? Well, few folk have. Unfortunately, this Trumpian agreement is designed to keep the UK’s space ambitions firmly under America’s lock and key. Or did you think that doing trade deals with the US was a partnership of equals?
The new treaty is designed to pave the way for US companies to operate from UK spaceports and bring their space launch technology over here. So far so good. After all, the Americans have the big rockets. Despite all the hype about a UK space industry, the Brits are still at the sub-orbital stage. A tiny, sub-orbital rocket was launched from Shetland in June, but we are a long way off competing with the Yanks in providing the boosters to get up there.
READ MORE: Westminster failed Scotland's youth by squandering oil wealth
Unfortunately, the Americans guard their rocket technology jealously. Hence the new space treaty. Most of its provisions relate to protections to stop unauthorised access to, or transfer of, US rocket and space technologies to anyone else. For instance, Article #1 mandates that the purpose of the treaty is to “preclude unauthorized access to or transfer of US-origin technologies associated with the launching from the UK spaceports”.
How do you stop such rocket secrets leaking? By taking over any launch facilities and keeping them under US guard. So the treaty allows US agents on British soil to designate (with limp UK approval) special “controlled areas” at UK spaceports, including in Scotland. Effectively, these will become US territory. These segregated zones will handle US launch vehicles, spacecraft, related equipment and technical data. Once an area is so designated, access is to be permitted only to persons authorised by the US and will be controlled by the US government or entities licensed by it (Article VI). For “controlled” read US armed guards. Why are the Americans so keen to launch from the UK? They have a lot of empty land at home to launch safely, and they are nearer the equator which suits most satellite orbits.
There are two reasons involved. First, northerly launches are useful for reaching polar orbits with low altitude, small satellites – equator launches are better for the bigger stuff headed for geosynchronous orbit. Second, the UK (and Scotland in particular) is good at building very small, hence cheap, satellite craft.
As a result, Lockheed Martin – one of the world’s biggest aerospace and defence contractors – has just announced it is transferring its European small satellite launch operations to the Shetland Space Centre (SSC) on the island of Unst. SSC expects that by 2024, it will support around 140 jobs locally, and possibly another 450 elsewhere in Scotland. There are also plans for a £17 million launch hub in Sutherland, which recently received planning permission, and is backed by Highlands & Islands Enterprise. Both launch sites claim they are not rivals, but one has to doubt the market for two Scottish spaceports.
The Lockheed Martin move to Shetland is being funded by the UK Space Agency. Quite why Lockheed Martin needs subsidising is beyond me – the company’s revenues last year were worth $60 billion. The firm is also charging the UK taxpayer between £130m and £155m for each and every one of its F-35 fighters being bought by the RAF. God help the pilot who crashes one.
READ MORE: Who could replace the Queen as head of state in an independent Scotland?
I have my suspicions about Lockheed Martin’s interest in a Shetland launch site. The company is already a big global player in mini satellite manufacturing, so don’t expect orders going to Scottish firms such as AAC Clyde Space. In fact, much of Lockheed Martin’s small sats are configured for military use, lately for missile launch detection capability. I’d hazard that the company has its eyes on a new generation of detection capability for the US military aimed at Russia – which makes a Shetland base ideal.
This brings us back to the new US-UK Technology Safeguards Agreement. The US insistence on UK launch sites being under some American control and supervision only makes sense if you understand that military and surveillance tech will be involved. I dare say there are Cold Warriors in the UK and Scotland to whom this is perfectly acceptable – though the Americans would never, ever agree the reverse at a US spaceport. My worry is about what this means for Scotland post-independence. Are we throwing out British nukes, but happy to accept US-controlled reconnaissance satellite bases in Shetland?
Space is the new frontier. There are already around 42,000 people working in the UK space sector and rising. The plan in Scotland is to grow the industry to around £4bn in annual revenues by 2030. But space travel is one of those romantic notions that addles the brains of politicians faced with the blandishments of corporate death merchants such as Lockheed Martin.
SNP MPs should at least be asking questions about the US-UK spaceport treaty. Any agreements about designating US zones of operation at Scottish spaceports should be subject to Scottish parliamentary scrutiny and veto – I trust the Green Party will raise this point also. The danger is that the new spaceport treaty sneaks in under the radar.
READ MORE: French law banning discrimination against accents prompts reflection
There is a corporate rush to exploit space. But given what profit-seeking capitalism did to our home planet, we should be very suspicious of what the corporates will do in outer space. Politicians talk about tough choices, but actually, they hate setting priorities. Setting up a Scottish Space Agency sounds exciting, but there’s a lot more to do on the ground.
Meanwhile, on the safe assumption today’s SNP conference’s space motion is passed, I hereby patent the idea that our first launch site should be named The Dan McGregor Dare Space Port.
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