| Back
to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage
Will the last person in Scotland in 2020
turn out the light?
The SNP’s energy policy is utterly untenable
Magnus Linklater
Editor: The Times (Scottish Edition)
Filed 26 May 07
©Magnus Linklater
This article was originally
published in the
Scottish Edition of The Times on May 25th.
It is reproduced here by kind permission of
its author and of the newspaper From this
week I have become a citizen of a nuclear-free nation. While England
and Wales set course for a new generation of nuclear power stations
to safeguard electricity supplies and reduce carbon emissions, those
of us in the happy position of living in Scotland can wash our hands
of the moral, ethical and ecological objections to nuclear fission,
and watch, with polite but detached interest, as our close, but
thankfully not too close, neighbours embark on the rancorous and
divisive debate over energy supplies.
I do not feel particularly proud of my role in
all this. Indeed, I may fall prey to the occasional surge of Presbyterian
guilt. But there it is: when Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry
Secretary, announced on Wednesday that the great decision had been
taken in principle, and that Britain was to become, once again,
a nuclear nation, he spoke for just one part of that nation.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister,
has confirmed that he remains opposed to nuclear power, and will
not approve the building of any new stations on Scottish soil. “There
is absolutely no chance of us allowing a new nuclear power station
in Scotland,” he told the BBC.
He has, of course, no control over energy policy,
which is a matter reserved to Westminster, but his executive certainly
has the right to block any planning applications to begin replacing
the two nuclear power stations, at Torness and Hunterston B, which
account for a third of Scotland’s electricity supplies, and
which reach the end of their productive lives in 23 and 11 years
respectively. If challenged, he will point to a small, but telling
clause in the 1989 Electricity Act, which long predates devolution,
and specifies that the consent of Scottish ministers is required
for “the construction, operation and extension of power stations
with an installed capacity in excess of 50 Megawatts”.
The fallout from the SNP’s policy has hardly
been felt yet. But the power companies have already accepted the
reality of a Scottish veto. British Energy acknowledges that Scotland
is now the least attractive part of the UK for any new generation
of nuclear power stations, and will concentrate instead on sites
in England and Wales. “There are economic and political decisions
that make Scotland – at this moment in time – a less
attractive option than the South of England,” said a spokesman
diplomatically.
To which the response from us truculent Scots
is likely to be: “I’m all right, Jock.” Riding
high on support from a broad consensus of Green, Liberal and popular
opinion, which is still largely anti-nuclear, we can explore the
comforting options of alternative energy, secure in the knowledge
that, in a couple of decades, when the last of our nuclear stations
closes down, the oil is running out, wind power is less reliable
than we had hoped, carbon emissions are still rising and other sources
of energy have failed to fill the gap, we can always fall back on
energy supplies from England. These, of course, would include nuclear
power. At the moment Scotland produces more energy than it needs,
thanks to its own nuclear and hydro supplies. These are exported
south via an expensive and not always cost-effective interconnector.
But if the worst came to the worst, the flow could always be reversed
so that Scottish lights continue to blaze.
I have the sneaking feeling that the English might
not be entirely happy about that. In fact, I cannot imagine anything
more likely to inflame anti-Scottish opinion than the realisation
that the political disruption, security risks and potential health
hazards that will accompany any expansion of Britain’s nuclear
ambitions will be borne entirely by England and Wales, while Scotland,
happily detached from the furore, stands ready nevertheless to benefit
from the power they produce.
It is an untenable position – morally bankrupt
as well as politically damaging. By clinging to a vote-winning pledge
and backing away from even a period of consultation over the nuclear
option, the SNP has demonstrated that it has not yet made the transition
from party of protest to responsible government. Saving the planet
is more important than winning elections, and every scientist who
has examined the facts objectively accepts that nuclear power must
be part of the world’s energy balance.
James Lovelock, our premier and most passionate
eco-scientist, compares the Earth to a patient with type 2 diabetes,
for whom there is only one cure: “Nuclear energy,” he
says, “is the medicine that sustains a steady secure source
of electricity to keep the lights of civilisation burning until
clean and everlasting fusion, the energy that empowers the Sun,
and renewable energy are available.” The SNP’s position
could just be sustainable if it had a well-worked-out policy showing
how alternative supplies will come on stream in time to close the
energy gap. But, as Mr Salmond’s airy statement in Parliament
this week made clear, he has no idea how soon, or how reliably,
the alternative sources will come good. Most experts agree that
none of these sources – wave, tidal, clean coal or biomass
– will be available in sufficient supplies to meet the country’s
energy needs by 2020. What an irony that an SNP government, were
it to be in power then, would have to turn, either to nuclear power
from England, or to the supplies of fossil fuels from Russia, which,
as Tony Blair pointed out on these pages this week, were unreliable
and politically unsafe.
In any event, is it morally acceptable for one
part of what is still a United Kingdom to turn round and announce
that it is opting out of the shared responsibility for ensuring
that all of its people benefit from every conceivable source of
reliable energy, with the aim of reducing carbon emissions and slowing
down climate change? If I were Gordon Brown, I would be tempted
to stand the SNP’s North Sea oil slogan on its head, shut
off the interconnector and announce: “It’s our power.”
©Magnus Linklater
|
