Election debates prove Westminster holds the main levers of power
The leaders’ debates in the run-up to the Holyrood election on May 7 are spending most of the time discussing matters that the Scottish Parliament has no say over, such as the decision to block a massive Chinese investment in the Highlands, the failure to protect jobs in oil and gas or invest in a just transition, and the huge energy bills Scots face.
That tells its own story - Westminster holds the main levers of power.
The Holyrood election won’t be able to change most of the policies that are causing issues for Scotland. We need independence to do that. Electing a pro-independence majority to Holyrood on May 7 is important - it would mark another step on the road to independence.
One subject that has arisen in all the leaders’ debates has been the blocking of a huge renewables manufacturing investment from Chinese investors in the Highlands. The Scottish government was not even consulted and John Swinney was mocked by unionist politicians for saying the decision was “anti-Scottish”. Scots are supposed to just accept this high-handed decision without question - despite Chinese investments in sensitive areas going ahead in England unchallenged.
In another example, the first third of the BBC Question Time debate in Aberdeen was devoted to energy. There is clearly a lot of anger because the city has been let down badly. There is little sign of the prosperity that is visible in other oil capitals like Houston or Stavanger. But when it comes to oil and gas, the transition to renewables, industrial policy, infrastructure investment and migration - Westminster rules. They do not put Scotland’s interest first - or even high up on the agenda.
Another issue that is often raised is the high cost of energy in Scotland, despite Scotland being an exporter of electricity.
Scots look at this and ask - why should we leave these important decisions to a government that does not give a damn about Scotland’s interests?
Westminster has not valued or protected energy jobs
The decision to open up Scotland’s oil and gas fields to rapacious multinationals without retaining a stake was Westminster’s. So was the decision to create a tax regime that was going to destroy jobs.
The tax regime has been badly managed, leading to haemorrhaging of jobs and investment. Norway has managed its industry much better, placing a value on the jobs and impact on the communities that host the oil industry.
Greener alternatives have been starved of investment - Labour’s flagship policy of establishing GB energy has been a huge disappointment, a confidence trick even, with just a handful of the promised staff in Aberdeen.
Westminster killed a major investment in Ardersier
The port of Ardersier was a hub of the oil and gas industry in the 80s and 90s, where thousands of skilled workers built oil rigs. Its reincarnation as an Energy Transition Zone is the Highlands’ single biggest regeneration project. It has been part-funded by £50 million from the Scottish Government’s Scottish Investment Bank.
The yard was cleared in anticipation of the arrival of the Ming Yang wind turbine factory, which was to involve an investment of £1.5 billion and thousands of jobs. But last month, the UK government rejected the proposal on security grounds.
There has been no explanation of why Chinese-designed turbines made in Scotland would be more of a security threat than those imported directly from China. At the same time, Scots can see that the green light was given to a controversial Chinese Embassy in London and that the Chinese are investing in nuclear power in England. Why should Scotland have to leave these kinds of decisions to a government in another country?
Huge energy bills another issue
The unaffordable energy bills being charged to Scottish homes and businesses are a huge issue. Scotland has higher fuel poverty rates - by far - than any EU country. They are also three times that of England, 34% here compared to 11% in England.
The decision to privatise the grid was made by Westminster. It was left weak and starved of investment as a result. Then Westminster chose to load the cost of upgrading the privatised grid onto electricity bills instead of paying for it out of taxation. That choice means electricity is four times the price of gas per kilowatt hour.
This massively penalises Scottish households, a fifth of whom don’t have access to the gas network. It has also disincentivised moving to electric methods of heating like air source heat pumps. Finland - despite its low winter temperatures - is an air-source superpower with almost all homes having them.
UK decisions like ruling out zonal pricing mean that a lot of Scottish renewable projects are getting massive constraint payments to turn off the power while locals who could have done with that power suffer from the highest fuel poverty levels in Europe. Other projects have been kicked off the queue for grid connection. Sweden - which uses zonal pricing - has some of the lowest fuel poverty rates in Europe at 3%.
Scotland does not have any say over how its energy resources are managed. Other medium-sized independent countries prioritise producing affordable power for citizens and businesses.
The Brexit effect
Before Brexit, Britain was doing well relative to its peers. Now growth in real GDP per head is among the lowest in the G7. “The Economic Impact of Brexit” concluded: “ Brexit has reduced UK GDP by 6 to 8 per cent”. Scotland did not vote for the UK’s damaging Brexit and has had no say in trade deals that the UK has done, which may not serve Scotland’s interests.
Scotland exports six times as much food and drink per head as the rest of the UK. Its food and farming sector has been forced to deal with the extra tariffs and red tape that Brexit has caused.
One of the biggest issues facing Scotland’s health service is managing the care of an older, sicker, more rural population than England. The issue of bed blocking has been brought up time and time again. But there is an absence of social care workers - especially in the Highlands and Islands and other rural areas. This is very hard to solve without access to the pool of workers in the EU. Workers from other countries want to bring their families. But now UK rules have abruptly removed family routes for care workers.
The UK government promised our EU funds would be matched - but they have not kept that promise. For example, when we were in the EU, Scotland got almost half of the UK’s fishing funding. The UK’s replacement fund is slashing that amount. Instead, it gives Scotland a population share - less than 8%.
Conclusion
The UK does not even give the Scottish government the right to be consulted over decisions such as blocking the Ming Yang turbine factory. As an independent country, Scotland could rejoin the EU and be treated as an equal partner in the largest trading bloc in the world, instead of being ruled over by London.
An independent Scotland, for example, could decide when to borrow money to spend on infrastructure, instead of being constrained by Westminster with a shrinking capital allowance. An independent Scotland could offer international students post-study work visas if it thought this would benefit the Scottish economy. It could set salary levels for migrants at a level that would help up-and-coming Scottish firms to attract global talent.
Scotland needs independence. Electing pro-independence parties to Holyrood on May 7 is a step on that road.