IF ever a UK Government white paper highlighted the Union divide, it’s the recent energy proposals launched this past week.
At first glance, the new energy white paper seems an eminently sensible and vital step forward in our responsibility to the environment and our planet’s future – a massive overhaul of our energy systems to ensure low to zero-carbon power sources are the main focus as we aim to meet our climate targets by 2030 and 2050, or 2045 in the case of Scotland.
Increasing renewable energy capacity from a variety of environmentally friendly sources and a transition from fossil fuels, switching to greener boilers and energy efficiency upgrades in our homes and buildings, increasing electric vehicle infrastructure, hydrogen production, carbon capture and storage – the list reads like a veritable green wish list in many ways.
However, with this current incarnation in government, there is always a “but”. It’s Johnson’s emphasis on the centrality of nuclear power as a source of greener power, alongside offshore and onshore wind and solar that is a marked difference between Westminster and Holyrood.
Alongside its publication, the UK Government announced that they are in discussions with French power giant EDF to build a new £20 billion nuclear power plant at Sizewell, in Suffolk. They also plan to support the development of small modular reactors which are factory-built rather than involving heavy construction, as well as research and development into more advanced nuclear technologies. Hey presto, lots of new green jobs and lots of net-zero options. What’s not to like?
I understand the argument that we need to look at all renewable and low-carbon sources of energy as we wave goodbye to fossil fuels and face our climate responsibility head-on. But the Scottish Government and the Scottish electorate are on a very different page when it comes to anything nuclear related. We already carry a heavy burden as the home of the UK’s domestic nuclear defence base, with getting rid of Trident from Scottish soil one of the main cornerstones of SNP policy once we have achieved independence.
Importantly, in terms of specifically nuclear power, the Scottish Government is opposed to the development of new nuclear power stations.
At present, nuclear power is still part of the energy mix in Scotland from two stations at Hunterston and Torness but with a view to decreasing this proportion as renewable sources such as wind and solar increase. In 2019, wind turbines in Scotland produced nearly twice the entire nation’s domestic power requirements, enough for Scotland and enough to export to our neighbours down South and in Europe too. Wind and solar is by far the cheaper option as compared to nuclear, with offshore wind at £39.65/Mwh to Hinkley’s nuclear product at £92.50.
Nuclear power is regarded as of far less value to the consumer than other renewables, with eye-watering sums pledged by Johnson to support the plant at Sizewell, which will come from the public purse. It’s also by far the slowest route for renewables in terms of results, so not the best option when we’re faced with a climate emergency of terrifying and urgent proportions.
And there’s the thorny issue of toxic waste and decommissioning, with Dounreay, near Thurso, a no-go site for the next 313 years – yes, three hundred and thirteen years – according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, not to mention reactors at Hunterston being shut down due to cracks appearing in the graphite core.
Interestingly, it’s not just the Scots who are concerned with nuclear power. At the UK wide Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change that took place this year, members were far less supportive of nuclear options as part of a green energy mix, with 46% strongly disagreeing that nuclear should be part of net-zero planning. People living close to the power stations and new sites also have their reservations as well as environmentalists who fear of damage to local nature ecosystems.
But Scotland is unique in this dysfunctional family of nations as we have a plethora of renewable options other than nuclear. Are we willing to accept the possibility of small modular reactors (SMR) popping up on our land even if its spun as an opportunity to create new work and boost manufacture to Scotland by Tory nuclear enthusiasts?
Johnson et al have already sunk a lot of money into this SMR development and obviously eye this as a big money-making future market with pretty decent returns for investors and shareholders – ie, not citizens. Does any of this sound even a wee bit familiar?
And will we have any say in Johnson’s nuclear development plans given that energy is a reserved matter? Holyrood is in charge of grant of consent and planning permission but the law-breaking Internal Market Bill being forced through Westminster by the Tories will drive a coach and horses through our democratic devolved powers as Johnson takes back control of the constituent nations of the UK as well as from Europe.
THIS is where the danger
lies for Scotland. The emasculation of our devolved parliament will have many negative knock-on effects for a nation that has prided itself on diverging from nuclear into far cleaner and safer carbon-free energy. We have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to natural resources; as a country that has hit the jackpot twice in this regard, once with oil, now with wind and water, we’re as aware of our responsibility to the natural world as we are to less-than-scrupulous opportunists rubbing their hands at the thought of all the money they can make from it. Once bitten, twice shy.
Our transition to a greener future is about justice, fairness and wellbeing, the polar opposite of this current UK Government’s credo if their party’s last 10 years in power and their rampant cronyism during the pandemic is anything to go by.
With Johnson’s obsession with centralisation at Number 10 and his petty populist payback to the devolved governments’ successes, our values will almost certainly be subsumed in a tsunami of private competition and market deregulation in Brexiteers so-called “sovereign” UK.
It’s clear that the only way to protect our values and unlock our renewable potential to match our climate ambition is to do it untethered from Westminster. In 2021, let’s make sure that Scotland says no to nuclear, and yes to independence.
Douglas Chapman MP is the SNP’s small business, enterprise and innovation spokesperson
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