CLAIMS that Labour’s GB Energy plans will be “the powerhouse of a new Unionist project” prompted fury from the SNP.
Former Tony Blair aide John McTernan ruffled feathers with his claim last week that the proposed scheme would be a boon to Unionism.
Speaking as election results rolled in on Friday morning, McTernan said: “I think Great British Energy will be the powerhouse of a new Unionist project.”
Responding to his claims, SNP energy spokesperson Dave Doogan (below) told the Sunday National GB Energy was really a “hopeless re-branding exercise”.
He said: “McTernan's florid political hyperbole underscores the profound ignorance of the GB Energy sector that presides within this Labour government.”
"Gone is the headline £28 billion GB Energy budget to be replaced with a few billion that the Tories already had in the [Department for Energy Security and Net Zero] coffers.
“This represents merely a hopeless re-branding exercise which is fooling nobody.
“Bill payers and the wider sector will be amongst the first to succumb to, and raise the alarm over, the vacuum at the heart of Labour’s ‘change’ prospectus.”
READ MORE: Keir Starmer launches 'new Unionist project' with Saltire message to Scotland
The proposed scheme, which is to be based in Scotland, has already been met with criticism.
Labour came under fire before the election for scrapping a flagship pledge to spend £28bn on green infrastructure, which would have complemented plans for GB Energy.
It is expected to cost £8.3bn to set up and they also have plans to set up a “national wealth fund” worth £1.5bn per year part funded by a raid on oil and gas companies in Scotland.
That money is intended to be invested in ports, hydrogen and industrial clusters across the country, aimed at forcing the most energy intensive sectors to decarbonise.
READ MORE: From ‘looking deep’ to ripping it up and starting again, SNP’s ex-MPs react to defeat
But there has been confusion over the role of GB Energy. When it was first touted, it was compared with European state-owned energy firms which generate energy and sell it on the market.
During the election campaign, Keir Starmer said it was an “investment vehicle” and would rather be used to pump public money into private energy firms with the aim of fuelling green investment.
He said: “It’d be an investment vehicle, not an energy company, it’s an investment vehicle in the energy of the future.
“The money going into it would be public money but used to trigger private investment alongside it.”
The Labour leader said he expected it to be profitable and that he believed it would create jobs.
But his comments saw the SNP brand the plans “a sham”.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: "Creating a new, publicly-owned clean energy company, headquartered in Scotland, will help us build an energy system fit for the future, a system that powers every British home with clean electricity.
"Great British Energy will be owned by the British people, and work for the British people. It will deliver wind, solar and clean power projects up and down Britain, cutting bills for good, strengthening our energy independence, and creating jobs across our country."
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