John Swinney 'irresponsible' for urging Andy Burnham to rethink Labour's Ming Yang factory block


The First Minister raised the proposed Chinese investment when he met Andy Burnham in Glasgow last month.
John Swinney has been called “irresponsible” by a UK Scottish Labour minister for urging Prime Minister Andy Burnham to reconsider a ban on a Chinese company building a wind turbine factory in the Highlands.
Michael Shanks, the UK government’s energy minister has criticised the SNP First Minister for having raised the Ming Yang proposals at his first meeting with the new Prime Minister, as revealed by The Scotsman.


It is understood the talks around Ming Yang between the two leaders were positive and centred around the jobs and economic benefits of the proposed project, before Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander, who also served under Keir Starmer when the plans were blocked, intervened - insisting that the issue had already been examined.
Mr Swinney has also written to Mr Burnham, urging him to “undertake a review of the assessment”, with the letter “highlighting the economic and industrial significance of Ming Yang’s £1.5 billion investment proposal and the potential benefits for Scotland's economy, supply chain development, and the wider UK renewable energy industry”.
READ MORE: Swinney calls on Burnham to review Ming Yang's controversial wind factory plans blocked by Labour
The GMB union has also called on the UK government to take another look at the proposals while Ming Yang has made contact with the UK government directly over a rethink of the decision, taken by the previous Labour leadership in March.
It is understood that the UK government has no current plans to change its mind on blocking the project.
The proposed development, earmarked for Ardersier Port near Inverness, could create up to 1,500 jobs.
Writing on social media, Mr Swinney said: “ The UK government’s decision to block Ming Yang investment, with 1,500 planned new jobs, has serious implications for Scotland.
“Andy Burnham should reconsider this decision.”
Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland, Mr Shanks, the MP for Rutherglen, said that following comments made in April by Mr Swinney following the decision to block the project, he had personally arranged for the First Minister to have a “security briefing at the highest level” on the issue.


He argued it was therefore “surprising” that “having had that security briefing” the First Minister is continuing to pursue the matter.
Mr Shanks added: “I do think it is surprising he is now making what feels like a political intervention.
“I think it is for him to answer why he is balancing what seems to be a political intervention against the country’s national security.
“I think it is irresponsible for the First Minister to do that.
“There is no inherent reason why the UK government would not want to see jobs created in the north of Scotland either, so I hope people would take it on face value when I say there are national security implications. That is a legitimate reason for us to say no to a particular investment.”
GMB Scotland secretary, Louise Gilmour, told The Scotsman that if the security concerns can be addressed, “ministers should urgently seek the necessary assurances from Ming Yang, review the plans, and find a new way forward”.
SNP energy secretary, Stephen Gethins said: We are deeply disappointed that the UK government blocked the use of Ming Yang turbines in UK waters and in doing so prevented Ming Yang’s investment at Ardersier.


“While recognising the importance of national security considerations, the First Minister has written to the new Prime Minister urging the UK government to undertake a review of the assessment, highlighting the economic and industrial significance of Ming Yang’s £1.5bn investment proposal and the potential benefits for Scotland's economy, supply chain development, and the wider UK renewable energy industry.
“Scotland has a tremendous offshore energy opportunity and we would encourage the UK government to fully get behind that ambition.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.