Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps meets with industry leaders to discuss the Government’s energy security and business plans to invest over £100bn, including to accelerate renewables, to help grow our economy
Discussions include new powers to protect critical energy infrastructure from disruptive protest groups and maintain energy supply
Summit hosted at No10 Downing Street as part of Government push to strengthen energy security, support jobs and attract investment in the UK’s energy industry
Leaders of the UK’s energy industry will meet in Downing Street today to discuss their plans to collectively invest over £100bn and create jobs around the country, working with Government to boost energy security.
Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps will meet a wide range of energy companies – including EDF, SSE, Shell and BP, who collectively have multi-billion pound plans to invest in low and zero-carbon projects.
Each of these will support thousands of jobs across the country, which could help reduce household energy bills while delivering cleaner, more secure sources of energy, to deliver on the ambition to have the lowest wholesale electricity prices in Europe by 2035.
Mr Shapps will outline Government measures to protect UK energy supplies from disruption both at home and abroad. He will highlight decisions to invest in home-grown energy sources – including renewables, a revival in nuclear power, and backing North Sea oil and gas.
But he will also highlight measures to protect critical energy infrastructure from disruptive protests. This follows in the wake of protests such as those at the Kingsbury and Thurrock clusters of oil terminals and Grangemouth refinery.
The Public Order Act now includes a new criminal offence of interfering with key national infrastructure – including oil refineries – aimed at preventing protests from causing or threatening public safety or serious disruption.
It particularly addresses tactics that these protesters have used such as locking on and tunneling.
Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps said: “We need to send the message loud and clear to the likes of Putin that we will never again be held to ransom with energy supply. The companies I am meeting in Downing Street today will be at the heart of that.
“Energy industry leaders can see that this Government will back home-grown, secure energy – whether that’s renewables, our revival in nuclear, or our support for our vital oil and gas industry in the North Sea.
“But it is a sad reality that we also need to protect our critical national infrastructure from disruptive protests. Today I’ll be setting out what we are doing to achieve this and want to hear from the energy companies the vital work they are doing in this area.”
Energy firms have demonstrated their confidence to invest in the UK, and collectively the firms meeting at 10 Downing Street plan to invest tens of billions over the next decade in energy projects across the country.
Some of these investment commitments include:
Shell UK aims to invest £20-25 billion in the UK energy system over the next 10 years. More than 75% of this is intended for low and zero-carbon products and services.
BP intends to invest up to £18bn in the UK to the end of 2030.
SSE plc have announced plans to invest £18bn up to 2027 in low carbon infrastructure creating 1,000 new jobs every year to 2025. SSE’s plans could see it invest up to £40bn across the decade to 2031/32.
National Grid plc will be investing over £16bn in the five-year period to 2026.
EDF have outlined plans to invest £13bn to 2025.
RWE have an ambition to invest up to £15bn in clean energy infrastructure in the UK by 2030.
To provide greater reassurance and support to industry, the Energy Security Secretary will outline the range of measures the Government is taking to protect energy infrastructure from intentional disruption, as well as maintaining the network’s strong resilience.
This includes:
The Public Order Act, with specific powers coming into effect in July to protect critical infrastructure;
Working with the Police to ensure protestors cannot gain unauthorised access to sites;
The work of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, whose 1,300 officers and 300 support staff operate to protect nuclear sites across England, Scotland and Wales
The Energy Security Secretary will also discuss progress on major UK energy investment projects across renewable projects, oil and gas, new nuclear, and new technologies such as carbon capture.
They include:
Carbon capture – earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced two further projects in Humber and the North East of Scotland, which can move towards becoming clusters for this new technology – alongside eight already being considered, and two existing clusters in the North East, and in the North West and Wales.
Oil and gas – The Prime Minister has also confirmed future licensing rounds will continue for the extraction of oil and gas in the North Sea – while the North Sea Transition Authority reports they have received over 115 bids from 76 companies in the latest licensing round.
Nuclear – companies can now register their interest with the UK’s new organisation, Great British Nuclear, to secure funding support to develop new technologies including Small Modular Reactors.
Offshore wind – the UK has the world’s largest operational wind farms off its shores, with plans for further development off the East Anglia Coast and at Dogger Bank in the North East which could collectively provide enough clean energy for over 6.5million homes.
COLLISION COURSE: SUPREME COURT JUDGES SAY ‘NO’ TO SCOTTISH REFERENDUM
The Scottish Government has made a reference to the Supreme Court to establish whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an independence referendum.
The case was heard on the 11th and 12th of October and the verdict was made public this morning – Wednesday 23 November.
TIME FOR SCOTLAND RALLY
THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT:
Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 UKSC 31
Date:23 November 2022
Justices
Lord Reed (President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose
Background to the Appeal
The Scottish Government has drafted a Scottish Independence Referendum Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. Under the Scotland Act 1998 (“the Scotland Act”), the power of the Scottish Parliament to make legislation (or its “legislative competence”) is limited.
A provision of a Bill will be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore not law if it relates to the matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster (sections 29(1) and (2)(b)). These reserved matters include “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)).
In this reference, the Lord Advocate (the senior law officer of the Scottish Government) asks the Court whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament because it relates to either or both of the reserved matters of the Union or the United Kingdom Parliament.
This is a legal question about the Scottish Parliament’s power to make legislation under the Scotland Act. The Court is not being and could not be asked to give a view on the distinct political question of whether Scotland should become independent from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The powers of the Scottish Parliament were not in issue during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. This is because, in 2013, an Order in Council under section 30(2) of the Scotland Act modified the definition of reserved matters to enable the Scottish Parliament to pass the 2014 referendum legislation. The United Kingdom Government is currently unwilling to agree to the making of another Order in Council to facilitate another referendum on Scottish independence.
The Lord Advocate’s reference was made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The Advocate General for Scotland (the Scottish law officer of the United Kingdom Government) raises two preliminary issues, namely, whether the Court can and should answer the reference.
There are consequently three questions which the Court must consider. First, is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a “devolution issue”? If not, it cannot be the subject of a reference under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6, which would mean that the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide it. Secondly, even if it is a devolution issue, should the Court exercise its discretion to decline to accept the reference? Thirdly, if the Court accepts the reference, how should it answer the question the Lord Advocate has referred to it?
Judgment
In a unanimous judgment, the Court answers the questions before it as follows. First, the question referred by the Advocate General is a devolution issue, which means that that the Court has jurisdiction to decide it.
Secondly, the Court should accept the reference. Thirdly, the provision of the proposed Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” does relate to matters which have been reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the Scotland Act.
In particular, it relates to the reserved matters of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, in the absence of any modification of the definition of reserved matters (by an Order in Council or otherwise), the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.
Reasons for the Judgment
Issue 1: Is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a devolution issue?
Only a “devolution issue” can be referred to the Court under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The term “devolution issue” is defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6. Under paragraph 1(f), it includes “any other question arising by virtue of this Act about reserved matters” [13-14]. The Court concludes that the question referred by the Lord Advocate falls within this description and is therefore a devolution issue which the Court has jurisdiction to decide [47].
In reaching this conclusion, the Court holds, first, that the question referred is one “arising by virtue of” the Scotland Act because it is a question which arises under section 31(1) for the person wishing to introduce the Bill into the Scottish Parliament [16]. That person is required, on or before the Bill’s introduction, to give a statement confirming that, in their view, the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [9]. Secondly, the existence of the separate scheme for the scrutiny of Bills for legislative competence by the Court in section 33 of the Scotland Act does not prevent a reference from being made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 in relation to a proposed Bill, before it is introduced [21-27]. Thirdly, the terms of paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 6 are very wide. They are intended to sweep up any questions arising under the Scotland Act about reserved matters which are not covered elsewhere [37-42]. Fourthly, it is consistent with the rule of law and with the intention of the Scotland Act that the Lord Advocate should be able to obtain an authoritative judicial decision on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in advance of the introduction of a Bill [44-46].
Issue 2: Should the Court decline to accept the Lord Advocate’s reference?
The Court concludes that it should accept the reference [54]. The reference has been made in order to obtain an authoritative ruling on a question of law which has already arisen as a matter of public importance. The Court’s answer will determine whether the proposed Bill is introduced into the Scottish Parliament. The reference is not therefore hypothetical, academic or premature [53].
Issue 3: Does the proposed Bill relate to reserved matters?
The question whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would relate to matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act (section 29(2)(b)) is to be determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances (section 29(3)) [56-57], [70], [75].
A provision will relate to a reserved matter if it has something more than a loose or consequential connection with it [57], [71-72]. The purpose and effect of the provision may be derived from a consideration of both the purpose of those introducing the legislation and the objective effect of its terms [73]. Its effect is not restricted to its legal consequences [74].
Applying this test, the reserved matters which are relevant here are “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)). The latter reservation includes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament [76]. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to hold a lawful referendum on the question of whether Scotland should become an independent country, that is, on ending the Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament over Scotland [77], [82]. The Bill’s effect will not be confined to the holding of the referendum. Even if the referendum has no immediate legal consequences, it would be a political event with important political consequences [78-81]. It is therefore clear that the proposed Bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Accordingly, the proposed Bill relates to reserved matters and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [82-83], [92].
The Scottish National Party (intervening) made further written submissions founded on the right to self–determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law [84]. The Court rejects these submissions, holding that the right to self–determination is not in issue here [88-89] and does not require a narrow reading of “relates to” in section 29(2)(b) so as to limit the scope of the matters reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act [90]. Similarly, the allocation of powers between the United Kingdom and Scotland under the Scotland Act does not infringe the principle of legality [91].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
Note
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available online. Decided cases
The UK Supreme Court has today determined that the draft Scottish Independence Referendum Bill is outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, said that the UK Government was committed to working with the Scottish Government on the issues that matter most to people in Scotland.
Alister Jack said: “We note and respect the unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court today.
“People in Scotland want both their governments to be concentrating all attention and resources on the issues that matter most to them. That’s why we are focussed on issues like restoring economic stability, getting people the help they need with their energy bills, and supporting our NHS.
“Today alone, 11.6 million UK pensioners – around one million in Scotland – are starting to receive up to £600 to help with their energy bills this winter.
“As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government in tackling all the challenges we share and face.”
NICOLA STURGEON’s RESPONSE:
“Earlier today, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the Lord Advocate’s reference, seeking clarity on whether or not the Scotland Act 1998 allows the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence.
“First of all – while I am obviously very disappointed by it – I respect and accept the judgment of the Court. In securing Scotland’s independence we will always be guided by a commitment to democracy and respect for the rule of law.
“That principle also reflects a practical reality – the route we take must be lawful and democratic for independence to be achieved. And as is becoming clearer by the day, achieving independence is not just desirable – it is essential if Scotland is to escape the disaster of Brexit, the damage of policies imposed by governments we don’t vote for, and the low growth, high inequality economic model that is holding us back.
“However, we must be clear today that the Supreme Court does not make the law – it interprets and applies it. If the devolution settlement in the Scotland Act is inconsistent with any reasonable notion of Scottish democracy – as is now confirmed to be the case – that is the fault of Westminster lawmakers, not the justices of the Supreme Court.
“In addressing the implications of today’s ruling, it is also important to be mindful of what the Court was not asked to decide and therefore what the ruling does not tell us.
“The Court was not asked to decide if there is a democratic mandate for a referendum. The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable.
“Nor was the Court asked if Scotland should be independent. Only the Scottish people can be the judge of that. And it was not asked if there is any democratic means by which Scotland can choose independence.
“The question the Court was asked to decide – the only question the court could reasonably answer – was a narrower one. Would a Bill providing for an advisory referendum on independence be within the current powers of the Scottish Parliament?
“In other words, can the Scottish Parliament legislate for an independence referendum without the prior agreement of Westminster? The Court has answered that question in the negative.
“It has determined that under the Scotland Act 1998 – which encapsulates the current devolution settlement – even an advisory referendum asking the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?’ is a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
“What that means is that without an agreement between the Scottish and UK governments for either a section 30 Order or a UK Act of Parliament to change its powers, the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for the referendum the people of Scotland have instructed it to deliver.
“That is a hard pill for any supporter of independence – and surely indeed for any supporter of democracy – to swallow. However, as I said back in June when I informed Parliament that the Lord Advocate had agreed to make this reference, it was always the case that in the absence of an agreement with the UK government, the question of the Scottish Parliament’s competence in relation to a referendum would end up in the Supreme Court – if not before legislation then certainly after any decision by Parliament to pass a Bill.
“So while it is a statement of the obvious that this is not the outcome I hoped for, it does give us clarity. And having that clarity sooner rather than later allows us now to plan a way a forward, however imperfect it might be. Now, I am enough of a realist to know that the immediate questions posed by today’s judgment will be for me and the SNP.
“I am also long enough in the political tooth to expect some triumphalism on the part of unionist politicians. However, unionists of a more thoughtful disposition will, I suspect, know that to be misguided.
“Indeed, they will have been hoping that the Court – as the UK government asked it to do – would have declined to answer the substantive question today.
“That is because they will understand that this judgment raises profound and deeply uncomfortable questions about thebasis and future of the United Kingdom. Until now, it has been understood and accepted – by opponents of independence as well as by its supporters – that the UK is a voluntary partnership of nations.
“The Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs back in 1950 said this: “Scotland is a nation and voluntarily entered into the Union as a partner”.
“That sentiment was echoed nearly 60 years later by the cross-party Calman Commission which described the UK as “a voluntary union and partnership”.
“And it was reinforced in 2014 by the Smith Commission which made clear that “nothing in its report prevented Scotland becoming an independent country should the people of Scotland so choose”.
“What today’s ruling tells us, however, is that the Scotland Act does not in fact uphold that long held understanding of the basis of the relationships that constitute the UK – on the contrary, it shatters that understanding completely.
Let’s be blunt: a so-called partnership in which one partner is denied the right to choose a different future – or even to ask itself the question —cannot be described in any way as voluntary or even a partnership at all. So this ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality.
“And that exposes a situation that is quite simply unsustainable. In the words of former Tory Prime Minister, John Major: ‘No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will’.
“Indeed, perhaps what today’s judgment confirms more than anything else, is that the only guarantee for Scotland of equality within the British family of nations is through independence – that fact is now clearer than ever before.
“The immediate question, of course, is what happens now. Obviously, I am making these remarks just a couple of hours after the Court issued its judgment.
“While the terms and import of the judgment are clear it will still be important to absorb and consider it fully. I think it is safe to predict that this will not be my last word on the matter.
“However, my initial views – building on what I said in June – are as follows. First of all, it is worth repeating that the Court judgment relates to one possible route to Scotland making a choice on independence – a referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament without Westminster agreement.
“While it is absolutely the case – if the UK was a voluntary partnership – that this would not be needed, it remains open to the UK government, however belatedly, to accept democracy and reach agreement.
“I make clear again today, therefore, that I stand ready at any time to reach agreement with the Prime Minister on an adjustment to the devolution settlement that enables a lawful, democratic referendum to take place – a process that respects the right of people in Scotland to choose their future, in line with the mandate of the Scottish Parliament, lets politicians make the case for and against independence and, crucially, allows the Scottish people to decide.
“What I will not do is go cap in hand. My expectation, in the short term at least, is that the UK government will maintain its position of democracy denial. That position is, in my view, not just unsustainable – it is also utterly self-defeating.
“The more contempt the Westminster establishment shows for Scottish democracy, the more certain it is that Scotland will vote Yes when the choice does come to be made.
“As for that choice – and for the avoidance of any doubt – I believe today, just as I did yesterday, that a referendum is the best way to determine the issue of independence.
“The fact is, the SNP is not abandoning the referendum route. Westminster is blocking it. And in that scenario, unless we give up on democracy – which I, for one, am not prepared to do – we must and will find another democratic, lawful and constitutional means by which the Scottish people can express their will.
“In my view, that can only be an election. The next national election scheduled for Scotland is the UK General Election, making it both the first and the most obvious opportunity to seek what I described back in June as a de facto referendum.
“As with any proposition in any party manifesto in any election, it is up to the people how they respond. No party can dictate the basis on which people cast their votes. But a party can be – indeed should be – crystal clear about the purpose for which it is seeking popular support.
“In this case, for the SNP, it will be to establish – just as in a referendum – majority support in Scotland for independence, so that we can then achieve independence. That, then, is the principle.
“However, now that the Supreme Court’s ruling is known, and a de facto referendum is no longer hypothetical, it is necessary to agree the precise detail of the proposition we intend to put before the country – for example, the form our manifesto will take, the question we will pose, how we will seek to build support above and beyond the SNP, and what steps we will take to achieve independence if we win.
“As you would expect, I have views on all of that. However, given the magnitude of these decisions for the SNP, the process of reaching them is one that the party as a whole must be fully and actively involved in.
“I can therefore confirm that I will be asking our National Executive Committee to convene a special party conference in the new year to discuss and agree the detail of a proposed de facto referendum.
“In the meantime, the SNP will launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy. For we should be in no doubt – as of today, democracy is what is at stake. This is no longer just about whether or not Scotland becomes independent – vital though that decision is.
“It is now more fundamental – it is now about whether or not we have the basic democratic right to choose our own future. Indeed, from today, the independence movement is as much about democracy as it is about independence.
“To conclude, I am well aware that there will be a real sense of frustration and disappointment today in both the SNP and the wider movement. I share it. My message, though, is this: while that is understandable, it must be short lived. And I believe it will be.
“Indeed, I suspect we will start to see just how short lived in the strength of the gatherings planned for later today in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. The fact is we have work to do.
“The case for Scotland becoming independent is more compelling and urgent than ever. Independence is now essential because of what Westminster control means, on a day-to-day basis, for people in this country, and for future generations.
“Thanks to Westminster control, the UK economy is in crisis – and we are entering a new age of Tory austerity. Low-income households in the UK are now 22 per cent poorer than their counterparts in France, and 21 per cent poorer than in Germany.
“To put that in context – it means the living standards of the lowest-income households in the UK are £3,800 lower than their French equivalents. Thanks to Westminster control, we are subject to an immigration and asylum system that neither works in practice, nor serves our need to grow our population.
“It mistreats those who come to our shores looking for sanctuary from oppression, and deprives us of the talents and taxes of those who want to live, work and contribute to our country. Thanks to Westminster control, even the limited measure of self-government that devolution provides is no longer guaranteed.
“The steady erosion of the powers of our Parliament, the undermining of the Sewel Convention, the imposition of the UK Internal Market Act, and now the Retained EU law Bill.
“And if we stick with Westminster control we are stuck outside the European Union permanently. And that comes at a heavy cost.
“According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Brexit will mean in the long-run a fall in national income of 4 per cent compared with EU membership. That is equivalent to a cut in public revenues in Scotland of £3.2 billion.
“All the main Westminster parties now support a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. And the Brexit conspiracy of silence that exists between them means the UK economy will become weaker, and people will pay a heavier and heavier price.
“That price will be paid in hard economic terms – but also in the narrowing of horizons and loss of opportunities for the generations to come. Scotland can do better than this.
“The example of independent countries across Europe and the world, many with nowhere near the assets and strengths we have, tells us that loudly and clearly. We hear from Westminster that what is needed is stability.
“But let’s be clear – the Westminster system has shown that it is not capable of securing stability. The people relying on food banks are not being offered stability.
“Those across our country afraid to switch on their heating are not being offered stability. The businesses struggling with Brexit are not being offered stability. The young people denied the rights and opportunities of EU membership are not being offered stability.
“A UK economic model which delivers low growth and low productivity coupled with sky high rates of poverty and inequality does not, and never will offer stability. Scotland can do so much better. So, yes, of course, this judgment is a disappointment. But it is not one we can or will wallow in.
“Indeed, getting the judgment now rather than later gives us the clarity we need to plot a definite way forward. Fundamentally, our job today is the same as it was yesterday. It is to persuade a majority of the Scottish people of the fact that independence is the best future for Scotland – and ensure a democratic process that allows majority support to be established beyond doubt.
“That job is not easy, I know – on some days, like today perhaps, it feels more difficult than ever. But nothing – nothing – worth doing is ever easy. There is no doubt in my mind that independence will be worth it. And my resolve to achieve independence is as strong as it has ever been. Indeed, it is if anything even stronger. Prosperity, equality, internationalism – and now, without any doubt, the very democracy of our nation – depends on independence.”
Crown Estate Scotland has announced the outcome of its application process for ScotWind Leasing, the first Scottish offshore wind leasing round in over a decade and the first ever since the management of offshore wind rights were devolved to Scotland.
The results coming just months after Glasgow hosted the global COP26 climate conference show the huge opportunity that Scotland has to transform its energy market and move towards a net zero economy.
Highlights include:
17 projects have been selected out of a total of 74 applications, and have now been offered option agreements which reserve the rights to specific areas of seabed
A total of just under £700m will be paid by the successful applicants in option fees and passed to the Scottish Government for public spending
The area of seabed covered by the 17 projects is just over 7,000km2 (a maximum of 8,600km2 was made available through the Scottish Government’s Sectoral Marine Plan)
Initial indications suggest a multi-billion pound supply chain investment in Scotland
The potential power generated will provide for the expanding electrification of the Scottish economy as we move to net zero.
The details of the 17 applicants who have been offered option agreements can be found below and in the downloads section.
Map reference
Lead applicant
Option Fees
Technology
Total capacity (MW)
1
BP Alternative Energy Investments
£85,900,000
Fixed
2,907
2
SSE Renewables
£85,900,000
Floating
2,610
3
Falck Renewables
£28,000,000
Floating
1,200
4
Shell New Energies
£86,000,000
Floating
2,000
5
Vattenfall
£20,000,000
Floating
798
6
DEME
£18,700,000
Fixed
1,008
7
DEME
£20,000,000
Floating
1,008
8
Falck Renewables
£25,600,000
Floating
1,000
9
Ocean Winds
£42,900,000
Fixed
1,000
10
Falck Renewables
£13,400,000
Floating
500
11
Scottish Power Renewables
£68,400,000
Floating
3,000
12
BayWa
£33,000,000
Floating
960
13
Offshore Wind Power
£65,700,000
Fixed
2,000
14
Northland Power
£3,900,000
Floating
1,500
15
Magnora
£10,300,000
Mixed
495
16
Northland Power
£16,100,000
Fixed
840
17
Scottish Power Renewables
£75,400,000
Fixed
2,000
Totals
£699,200,000
24,826
Simon Hodge, Chief Executive of Crown Estate Scotland, said: “Today’s results are a fantastic vote of confidence in Scotland’s ability to transform our energy sector. Just a couple of months after hosting COP26, we’ve now taken a major step towards powering our future economy with renewable electricity.
“In addition to the environmental benefits, this also represents a major investment in the Scottish economy, with around £700m being delivered straight into the public finances and billions of pounds worth of supply chain commitments.
“The variety and scale of the projects that will progress onto the next stages shows both the remarkable progress of the offshore wind sector, and a clear sign that Scotland is set to be a major hub for the further development of this technology in the years to come.”
Should any application not progress to signing a full agreement, the next highest scoring application will instead be offered an option.
Once these agreements are officially signed, the details of the supply chain commitments made by the applicants as part of their Supply Chain Development Statements will be published.
This is just the first stage of the long process these projects will have to go through before we see turbines going into the water, as the projects evolve through consenting, financing, and planning stages.
Responsibility for these stages does not sit with Crown Estate Scotland, and projects will only progress to a full seabed lease once all these various planning stages have been completed.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has welcomed the “truly historic” opportunity for Scotland’s net zero economy, as the winners of the ScotWind offshore wind leasing auction were announced by Crown Estate Scotland yesterday.
17 projects, with a combined potential generating capacity of 25GW, have been offered the rights to specific areas of the seabed for the development of offshore wind power – with developers giving commitments to invest in the Scottish supply chain, providing opportunities for high quality green jobs for decades to come.
The projects are expected to secure at least £1bn in supply chain investment for every 1GW of capacity proposed. They will also generate around £700 million in revenue for the Scottish Government and represent the world’s first commercial scale opportunity for floating offshore wind.
As well as helping complete Scotland’s own journey to net zero, creating thousands of jobs in the process, our offshore wind resource also has the potential to position Scotland as a major exporter of renewable energy, including green hydrogen.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: ““The scale of opportunity here is truly historic. ScotWind puts Scotland at the forefront of the global development of offshore wind, represents a massive step forward in our transition to net zero, and will help deliver the supply chain investments and high quality jobs that will make the climate transition a fair one.
“It allows us to make huge progress in decarbonising our energy supply – vital if we are to reduce Scotland’s emissions – while securing investment in the Scottish supply chain of at least £1 billion for every gigawatt of power.
This will be transformational. And because Scotland’s workers are superbly placed with transferable skills to capitalise on the transition to new energy sources, we have every reason to be optimistic about the number of jobs that can be created.
“That means, for example, that people working right now in the oil and gas sector in the North East of Scotland can be confident of opportunities for their future. The spread of projects across our waters promises economic benefits for communities the length and breadth of the country, ensuring Scotland benefits directly from the revolution in energy generation that is coming.
“The scale of opportunity represented in today’s announcement exceeds our current planning assumption of 10GW of offshore wind – which is a massive vote of confidence in Scotland. So we will now embark on the rigorous consenting process required to make sure we can maximise the potential that clearly exists in offshore wind while also ensuring that the impacts of large scale development – including on other marine users and the wider natural environment – are properly understood and addressed.
“While it is not yet possible to say with certainty what the scale of development will ultimately be, there is no doubt that the scale of this opportunity is transformational – both for our environment and the economy.”
The Falck Renewables and BlueFloat Energy partnership taking part in the current ScotWind offshore wind leasing round is celebrating the success of three of its bids to secure seabed leases for sites which lend themselves to the deployment of large-scale floating wind technology in Scotland.
Two of the partnership’s proposed projects – a site east of Aberdeen in Plan Option E1 and a site north of Fraserburgh in Plan Option NE6 have been granted leases from Crown Estate Scotland – along with a proposed site east of Caithness in Plan Option NE3 which will be developed by a consortium of Falck Renewables, BlueFloat Energy and Ørsted.
The three areas could accommodate a total of approximately 3.0 GW of offshore wind capacity with the projects scheduled to be operational by the end of the decade, subject to securing consent, commercial arrangements and grid connections.
The successful bids combined BlueFloat Energy’s knowledge and experience in developing, financing and executing offshore wind projects with Falck Renewables’ strong track record of global project development and over 15 years of community engagement in Scotland.
Carlos Martin, CEO of BlueFloat Energy, said: “The Scottish coastline is ideal for developing offshore wind projects and our team is thrilled to be given the opportunity to deploy our expertise to deliver these projects in Scotland.
“The potential for boosting the economy and reinforcing Scotland’s position at the forefront of the energy transition is huge. We have already carried out extensive work on mapping out the Scottish supply chain and now look forward to ensuring we work with as many local companies as possible.”
Toni Volpe, CEO of Falck Renewables, said: “We are delighted that our applications have won the support of Crown Estate Scotland and that our offshore wind projects will be making a considerable contribution to providing Scotland with clean energy.
“Falck Renewables has a worldwide renewables portfolio and with our growth strategy we are on track to facilitate the global transition to a low carbon future.”
Richard Dibley, Managing Director of Falck Renewables Wind Ltd, said: “We are hugely excited about the positive impact these projects will have on the whole of Scotland in terms of creating jobs, economic benefit and helping to achieve a net zero future.
“Over the past 15 years we have seen communities empowered with the help of the financial support they have received from our onshore wind farms and we look forward to sharing the benefits of offshore wind with local communities.”
The Falck Renewables, BlueFloat Energy, Ørsted consortium has already begun work with community ownership experts Energy4All on a new framework which will allow residents of Scotland and Scottish communities to share the financial benefits of the offshore wind energy projects the consortium plans to build in the future.
As part of the preparatory work to deliver the offshore wind projects the consortium will collaborate with Energy Skills Partnership Scotland (ESP) to help train up a skilled workforce in time for construction to begin.
Research will also be carried out with the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) to investigate the potential effects of floating offshore wind developments on the marine environment. Projects under discussion will examine how fishing interests and offshore wind can work together and study the interaction of fish, marine mammals and seabirds with floating offshore wind farms.
Energy4All is a non-profit distributing co-operative social enterprise formed by the Baywind Energy Co-operative in 2002 to enable more communities to own and operate renewable energy projects.
Marna McMillin, Chief Executive of Energy4All, said: “Climate breakdown is the key environmental challenge facing our society. If we are to successfully decarbonize our economy, we must rapidly replace polluting fossil fuels with clean power. This requires us to generate much more zero carbon electricity to heat our homes and power our vehicles.
“We need the public to support those changes, and we believe one of the best ways of ensuring that support is to allow individuals to have a share in those projects.
“Falck Renewables has a 15-year track record of working with Energy4All having successfully set up seven co-operatives at its Scottish onshore wind farms, enabling thousands of people to buy a stake in their local wind farm.
“We think partnerships of this sort could be a model for other offshore projects in both the UK and the rest of Europe.”
Reacting to the outcome of the application process for ScotWind leasing by Crown Estate Scotland, the ALBA Party Depute Leader and MP for East Lothian Kenny MacAskill MP said:“This offshore wind giveaway is selling the family silver cheap while Scots families face crippling energy bills this April.
“Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. It looks like the Scottish Government have surrendered vast chunks of the North Sea wind resource for a relative pittance just as Westminster gave away Scotland’s oil in the 1970s.
“Instead of a one off payment of under £700 million there should be annual payments. Instead of Scottish resources being just handed over to international investment companies there should be a public stake in every single field.
“One has to question the basic competence of Crown Estate Scotland. They think they have auctioned away 10-12 GW of power. Informed industry estimates are the real capacity from this round alone is double that.
“Offshore wind is fast becoming the most lucrative major power source on the planet. Scotland has one quarter of the resource of Europe. It will be cold comfort to Scottish pensioners shivering in their homes facing vast fuel bills to know that the Scottish Government have given away so much of the green power of the future for so little in return.”
The STUC says that the announcement must mark the end of broken promises to Scottish workers and presage the start of a long overdue renewables jobs revolution.
Oil giants Shell and BP, alongside Scottish and Southern Energy, Scottish Power Renewables, and a number of multinational companies have all won leases to develop offshore wind farms off Scotland’s coast.
Following campaigns from trade unions in the wake of failures to secure meaningful fabrication contracts at BiFab, the ScotWind leasing round included requirements on companies to make supply chain commitments, with many bidders making public statements promising major investments in job creation. However, these statements have not yet been published and in any case they do not require a specific proportion of work to be undertaken locally.
The STUC continues to be concerned that so few successful bids are from domestic companies, with previous experience showing that multinational companies regularly offshore work to Europe and the Far East.
The STUC is calling for the Scottish Government to call a summit of successful developers to secure ongoing commitments to cooperate on delivery and work with unions and government to make the green jobs revolution a reality.
STUC General Secretary Roz Foyer said: “Over the past six months the public relations teams of the prospective bidders have been in overdrive, promising the long overdue renewables jobs revolution. Now we need to make that happen.
“The First Minister says that we have every reason to be optimistic about the number of jobs that can be created, but our skills workers in oil and gas need more than words given the experience over the past decade tells us that jobs in offshore wind are consistently offshored overseas.
“With over 1000 massive turbines to become operational over the next decade, it would be nothing short of economic vandalism if we fail to build a thriving supply chain in Scotland. Fundamental to that is building the infrastructure to enable large scale fabrication in Scottish yards, requiring local content from developers, and addressing questions of ownership through the development of a Scottish National Infrastructure company.
“Unions will work proactively and positively with employers and business to deliver the Fair Work future our workers deserve, but we will also campaign vigorously to ensure that promises are kept.”
Salmond says: “The BBC are the broadcasting Bourbons – they have learnt nothing from their blatant bias of 2014”
The BBCs coverage of the Scottish election campaign and what has been described as its “virtual blackout” of ALBA will be the subject of special Ofcom election Committee hearing today (Friday 23rd April).
ALBA leader Alex Salmond said: “The BBC’s record as a public service broadcaster in Scotland is lamentable and there is no better illustration than their conduct during this Scottish election.
“However, they are no longer a law unto themselves and I am grateful to Ofcom for convening an emergency meeting of their Election Committee to consider BBC coverage – or more accurately, lack of coverage – of ALBA. It is much appreciated that Ofcom have responded so quickly in fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure fair and balanced coverage of the Scottish campaign.
“The exclusion of ALBA from the leadership election debates is deplorable but even worse is the blackout from the news on a daily basis.
“On the odd occasion when they deign to interview ALBA representatives, the tone of the interviews has been unremittingly hostile.
“Aggressive questioning is perfectly acceptable if part of a range of coverage. However, inaccurate smearing is quite another when it dominates the few interviews BBC apparatchiks deign to grant ALBA.
“The BBC even allow smearing of ALBA by the other party representatives who are covered every day in every election programming with not even attempts by the interviewers to maintain any semblance of balance.
“Given that the BBC has fine some journalists and producers still working for them, we can only conclude that this is now the official house style to denigrate ALBA and the quest for Scottish independence. Indeed it is obvious that some journalists are asking questions to editorial direction.
“BBC outlets dominate broadcasting coverage and that means they dominate the election campaign during a pandemic. They have ample time and opportunity to show fairness to new parties emerging onto the political scene.
“The fact that they have so blatantly and so arrogantly failed to do so, shows that they are now a de facto state broadcaster rather than a public service one. The day that Greg Dyke was effectively sacked as Director General in 2004 is the day that the rot set in to the BBC and it has been downhill ever since.
“The BBC disgraced themselves in their coverage of the 2014 referendum and like the Bourbons they have learnt nothing.
“Every other broadcaster regulated by Ofcom have at least made some attempt at balance in their coverage and are not the subject of complaint by ALBA.
“STV for example did not (wrongly in ALBA’s view) include ALBA in their leader’s debate but did interview an ALBA MP immediately afterwards. Other radio and television outlets have all included ALBA in their round of leadership interviews and on a reasonably fair basis with the other parties.
“Ironically one of the BBC’s many personal attacks on me is that I co-host a political programme which is broadcast on RT. That programme, produced independently by a Scottish company, is a model of fairness and balance compared with anything the BBC now seem remotely capable of.
“ALBA are now calling time on the BBC exactly in the interests of political fairness and balance.”
The offer was launched in the wake of Friday’s announcement of the formation of the new Alba Party, to be led by fomer First Minister Alex Salmond.
The new party aims to deliver a ‘supermajority’ for independence in May’s Holyrood elections.
The Scottish Conservatives said: “Labour have refused our offer to work with pro-UK parties against the new threat of an independence super-majority. They’re in coalition with the SNP in six councils. They abstained in the vote against Nicola Sturgeon. They supported the SNP’s Hate Crime Bill.
“You can’t trust them to stand up to the nationalists anymore.”
Rejecting the Tory offer, Labour leader Anas Sarwar said: “We deserve better than your desperate attempts to take us back to old arguments and the politics of the past.
“In case you hadn’t noticed Scotland is in the middle of a pandemic.
“This election is not some kind of game, it is about focussing on a national recovery.
“This election cannot be about an SNP psychodrama. It cannot be about Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond settling old scores. And it cannot be about your petty agenda of game playing.
This election must be about the people of Scotland, their families and a national recovery.
“As you have recognised yourself, one of the largest threats to the Union is the leader of your own party.
“Scotland has had enough of divisive politics which you and Nicola Sturgeon share. Both you and the SNP want to waste time and energy on the imagined conflicts that divide us.
“But in Scotland, child poverty has risen – and was rising before the pandemic hit.
“This is among countless issues where the blame lies at the feet of both your party in Westminster and the SNP at Holyrood.
“A heartbreaking example of how the obsession with past disagreements fails people today.
“Rather than entertain your latest desperate plea for attention, I am focusing our energy on what matters – guaranteeing a fairer recovery and a stronger Scotland.
“Scotland deserves a better government and – as your letter demonstrates – it deserves a better opposition.”
Scottish Liberal Democrat campaign chair Alistair Carmichael MP said: “Lib Dems will work with others to deliver a constructive and ambitious plan for recovery but Douglas Ross’s politics are far too dark and divisive.
“We will focus on winning seats and ensuring that the next government is focused on putting the recovery first, not independence.
“As a football referee Douglas Ross has a knack for uniting the fans of opposing teams. As a party leader he seems to do the exact opposite.”
