Don’t let them fool you: energy will not be an indy bonanza
A FORMULA frequently adopted by some submitting letters to The Herald is to
start by bemoaning aspects of national life and ascribe blame for these
reason for Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom, concluding that, by
doing so, Scotland will become an idyllic place.
Elizabeth Scott (Letters, September 26) offers a classic example of the
genre. She links Brexit, the recent fiscal statement and aspects of the
funeral of Queen Elizabeth before concluding that “our only hope is
independence” because Scotland can “keep the energy” it produces and “lower
its price” for people in Scotland.
The claim that independence would result in a lower energy price is, at
best, questionable. There are two aspects to this.
First, while there is a significant amount of renewable generating capacity
in Scotland, it seldom produces sufficient electricity to meet Scotland’s
needs. As I write on a windy Monday morning, wind generation is providing
78 per cent of Scotland’s generation needs while gas and nuclear generation
provides the remaining 22%. On August 28, when the wind was light, wind
generation produced 9%, nuclear and gas generation together provided 83%
and electricity was imported to Scotland. Torness, Scotland’s last nuclear
power station, is due to be decommissioned in 2028 and the SNP Government
policy is to run down oil and gas production. What will be the source of
this cheap electricity post-independence?
Secondly, both the UK and Scottish governments have sold the rights to
exploit Scotland’s energy resources to private companies. These companies
have made substantial investment to exploit the resources and generate
electricity which they then sell. That will not change simply as a result
of independence. What mechanism would allow an independent Scotland to sell
this electricity at a lower price?
George Rennie, Inverness
0 Comments