Why I'm convinced Labour will turn green energy gold-rush into a real industrial revolution

None of these conditions exist and, in Scotland, that is of exceptional concern because we have most at stake, for good or ill. The scale of proposed change and disruption is awesome while any route map which exists has been shrouded in uncertainty and absence of leadership.

There has been no shortage of posturing, target-setting and, in some cases, denial. Now the Labour government’s unambiguous commitment must be matched by credible means of delivery. Among many daunting challenges facing the new government, none is more complex and difficult than this one.

Against that background, one of Keir Starmer’s least reported appointments will prove to be among the most significant. The title awarded to Chris Stark does not trip off the tongue – “head of mission control for clean power 2030”. But it offers encouragement by recognising a “mission” and also the need for central “control”.

I also welcome the appointment of Michael Shanks as a minister in the Department of Energy which is redolent of Gavin Strang’s role as oil minister in the 1970s Labour government, with a remit to bring order to the free-for-all they inherited. Currently, effective working between UK and Scottish governments is a high priority.

Myriad obstacles

The key question is whether vast offshore wind programmes which have been licensed can be made to happen within the intended timescales. How will myriad obstacles be overcome? What lasting benefits will be extracted? How many jobs will remain in the UK instead of again being exported without let or hindrance?

For multinational companies, this is currently gold-rush time. If they can get an offshore wind licence, a subsidy and a grid connection, there are fortunes to be made. If they can’t, they will go elsewhere. If it suits them to support local jobs and supply chains, they might. If it doesn’t, they will go where it’s cheapest. That is no way to run a revolution.

Until recently, Mr Stark was chief executive of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) which monitors progress towards net-zero targets. It was he who finally blew the whistle on the SNP’s “world-leading” nonsense with the acid observation that setting undeliverable targets merely gets in the way of genuine actions. That is a good starting point for the realism now required.

None of this is easy

He must cut through a jungle of overlapping responsibilities – regulator Ofgem, the National Grid and other infrastructure providers, our leisurely planning system, each with its own agenda. Government’s power to say something will happen and then see it through is hugely constrained, even in a “climate emergency”. We can be certain not a single hydro-electric scheme would have been built under current conditions.

The Labour manifesto recognised that “the national grid has become the single biggest obstacle to deployment of cheap, clean, power generation” with connections offered more than a decade from now. ‘Mission control’ will ask how this is remotely compatible with imperatives which the government has set. None of this is easy but the absolute certainty is that without a coherent approach, in place of piecemeal decision-making, much of it will not happen.

Another obvious starting point would be a complete merging of effort between the UK and Scottish governments. “Re-wiring Britain” is necessary because power generation must move from the old coal and steel economy towards the north and coastal areas of Britain. There is no point producing renewable energy in Scotland if there is nowhere for it to go, so a wholly integrated approach is essential. Does the Scottish Government accept that?

The Devil Incarnate

I see some of this through the prism of the Western Isles. According to existing consents, there will be billions of pounds invested in multiple projects on, or around, islands with fewer than 30,000 people. Where is the plan for infrastructure, for housing, for skills and – critically – for community involvement which will bring substantial, lasting benefits that do not depend on the grace and favour of multinational companies? None of these questions has begun to be answered.

The other side of the coin is that the pace at which fossil fuels can be run down depends on delivery of clean alternatives. Before stepping down from his old job, Mr Stark gave evidence to a Holyrood committee where he said: “We must not get into a position where the planning regime or the consenting regime holds us up. We have a proud – or not proud – history of that happening in Scotland.” In other words, concentrate on delivery and targets will look after themselves.

And how about the years wasted on arguing about North Sea licences as if they represented the Devil Incarnate? Mr Stark despaired of having “an endless debate about oil and gas licences” when the difference they would make is marginal and imports would be much worse.

“We know that we will need gas until 2045,” said Mr Stark. “We see that, without new licences, there will be a 97 per cent reduction in North Sea gas production by 2050. With new licences, that reduction will be 95 per cent.

“That difference between 95 and 97 is not the issue, but those two percentage points have dominated the political discussion of climate for two whole years. My biggest concern is that that has crowded out the discussion about how to get off the stuff in the first place.”

Those of us who are serious about energy policy share these frustrations. Mr Stark was merely being realistic and realism is now the essential prerequisite for addressing challenges that are infinitely more complex and urgent than has so far been admitted.