Scots to ‘foot the bill' for Sizewell C, SNP claims
Mr Miliband said the charge would be limited to an average of around £1 per month.
The SNP-led Scottish Government has long been against new nuclear power and has said it would block plans north of the border through the devolved planning system.
16 years ago I identified Sizewell as a site for new nuclear power.
Today I am delighted that Sizewell C has finally been given the green light.
We're delivering the biggest nuclear building programme in a generation 👇 pic.twitter.com/tOxLAU1Y7Q
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 22, 2025
Speaking in the wake of the announcement, the SNP's energy spokesman at Westminster Graham Leadbitter said nuclear power was 'extortionate, takes decades to build and the toxic waste is a risk to local communities'.
'Just months ago, the Labour Government rubbished the £38 billion figure for Sizewell C, yet today Ed Miliband snuck out a statement that confirmed they've lost control of this project before spades are even in the ground,' he said.
'To make matters worse, Scots will be left to foot the bill with a levy on energy bills – you simply couldn't make it up, yet Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour back this extortionate and wasteful plan that energy-rich Scotland will pay for through the nose.'
Mr Leadbitter also hit out at the spending of the UK Government south of the border compared to Scotland, pointing to the closure of the Grangemouth refinery with the loss of 400 jobs.
'Be it Prax refinery, British Steel or Sizewell C, when it comes to projects south of the border it seems the pot of cash never runs out,' the SNP MP said.
'Meanwhile, Grangemouth has been shut down and Westminster's fiscal regime has ruined Scottish energy jobs – Scotland isn't just an afterthought, it's barely a thought at all.
'It is absurd that energy-rich Scotland is home to fuel-poor Scots and that while energy bills go up, Scottish energy jobs are going down – that's directly as a consequence of Westminster policy, and the further squandering of cash on expensive nuclear won't change that.'
Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said Scotland was 'losing out' because of the opposition of the Government to new nuclear energy.
'This deal will bring jobs to and investment in the local economy, as well as helping us meet our clear power ambitions,' he said.
'The UK Government is driving forward nuclear power in other parts of the UK, but in Scotland the Scottish Government continues to block new nuclear sites.
'That means that Scotland is being left behind, missing out on jobs and growth, as well as affordable energy.
'I urge the Scottish Government again to put Scotland's interests first and drop their ideological objections.'
And Mr Miliband talked up the scale and ambition of the project as he announced it, with the UK Government taking a near-45% stake.
'It is time to do big things and build big projects in this country again – and today we announce an investment that will provide clean, homegrown power to millions of homes for generations to come,' he said.
'This Government is making the investment needed to deliver a new golden age of nuclear, so we can end delays and free us from the ravages of the global fossil fuel markets to bring bills down for good.'
New Sizewell C investors include Canadian investment fund La Caisse with 20%, British Gas owner Centrica with 15%, and Amber Infrastructure with an initial 7.6%.
It comes alongside French energy giant EDF announcing earlier this month it was taking a 12.5% stake – lower than its previously stated 16.2% ownership.
The total investment, which is split between equity funding from investors and debt financing, exceeds the target construction cost of £38 billion, therefore acting as a buffer in case costs overrun.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Network Rail cuts maintenance spending after net zero increases electricity costs
Network Rail has slashed its maintenance budgets after the Government's net zero targets pushed up electricity prices. Sir Andrew Haines, the chief executive of Network Rail, said rising electricity prices had forced the organisation, which looks after train tracks and stations, to 'focus more on refurbishment than renewal' in the coming years. He said the change in focus meant more money had to be spent buying power for trains instead of replacing worn-out railway infrastructure. A rail trade body chief described this as a 'consequence of Britain's broken energy policy'. Writing in Network Rail's annual financial accounts, published this week, Sir Andrew said: 'We've seen our spend on traction power rise by 40 per cent, squeezing what we have left further. 'Our Control Period 7 plans reflected that, setting out that we are expecting to focus more on refurbishment than renewals, but with a continued focus on safety and performance.' Control Period 7 is the name for Network Rail's £43.1bn operations and maintenance budget over the next four years. It covers everything from electricity for trains to buying new rails and revamping stations. It comes as the country struggles with soaring electricity prices caused by net zero policies. Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, has previously claimed bills are rising because of the price of gas used in some power stations. Others point to the number of wind and solar farms being built, with Government officials guaranteeing to developers that high prices will be paid for the electricity those sites generate. Steven Mulholland, the chief executive of the Rail Plant Association, which represents railway maintenance vehicle companies, condemned the shrinking maintenance budget. He said: 'Network Rail's decision to cut back renewals and rely on patch-up repairs is a direct consequence of Britain's broken energy policy. 'Track renewal isn't optional. It underpins safety, reliability and growth. If the Government allows short-term costs to dictate strategy, it risks dismantling the supply chain we'll need to rebuild later at far greater cost.' Freight firms fading In July, The Telegraph revealed an electric freight train company was on the brink of collapse, partly because of high power prices. Varamis Rail has suspended all operations and stopped paying its staff after finding it too difficult to compete against road freight, although it hopes to restart in mid-September. Among the high costs it has faced are those for traction electricity used to power its trains, which, according to Telegraph analysis of Network Rail figures, doubled in price between 2020 and 2024. Other rail freight companies have invested in ' bi-mode ' locomotives, which can run on either electricity from the overhead lines or an onboard diesel engine. Operators of such engines, including GB Railfreight, which is currently introducing its bi-mode Class 99 locomotives into service, can therefore run them on whichever propulsion method is the cheapest, depending on diesel and electricity prices. A Network Rail spokesman said power costs had increased by 50 per cent between the 2022-23 financial year and now. He said: 'Although utility costs represent a larger share of our spending in this control period compared with the previous five years, they still represent a relatively small portion of our overall expenditure. 'It is true to say that wider inflationary pressures are having an impact, however. While a third of our income comes from Track Access Charges, which are subject to inflation, the remainder is fixed for the control period and the increase in costs from our supply chain and across the board over the past year means there is increased pressure on funding and therefore the amount of work we can deliver.'
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Scottish Tories eye Reform electoral pact
Senior Scottish Conservatives have discussed striking an electoral pact with Reform UK for the Holyrood elections next spring. One figure backing a deal told The Telegraph it could help avoid splitting the vote on the Right and kick the SNP out of power in Scotland. The deal, which would not need to be made public, would see the Tories either not stand candidates or go easy in areas where Reform is better placed to win and vice versa. It comes as Nigel Farage 's party sits above the Conservatives in third place in opinion polls for the Scottish Parliament elections next May. A pact does not have the backing of Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader, whose team released a statement ruling out the possibility when approached by The Telegraph. But the fact a deal is being considered at senior levels in the party underscores the scale of Reform's popularity surge north of the border and the concerns it has triggered among Tories. In Scotland, Reform now has 15 councillors, 14 of whom used to be Conservatives. It is in marked contrast to other political parties previously run by Mr Farage, such as the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which struggled to get a foothold north of border. One Tory MSP has privately spoken of a defection 'watch list' in Holyrood of those suspected of switching to Reform. Mr Farage also waved away the idea he would agree to any such pact, telling The Telegraph: 'No chance. The Tories are dying in Scotland and I've got no desire to do a deal with them whatsoever.' The idea of some form of agreement, public or private, between the Conservatives and Reform has become a common discussion point in Westminster. Average UK-wide voting polls have Reform in first place on 30 per cent of the vote, with the Tories in a distant third on 17 per cent. Labour is in second place on 22 per cent. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has ruled out a pre-vote deal with Mr Farage, but speculation continues with the next general election not due until 2029. The recent by-election result for the Scottish Parliament seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse underscored the challenges of Right-wing parties splitting the vote. Labour won the seat with 32 per cent of the vote, followed by the SNP on 29 per cent. Reform came third on 26 per cent. Had the Tories, who got 6 per cent, not stood a candidate, it is possible Reform would have beaten Labour and taken the seat, though pollsters often caution against hard conclusions when predicting voter behaviour. Mr Farage has agreed to election pacts before. The Brexit Party, the precursor to Reform which Mr Farage led, had criticism of the Tory handling of the issue of Europe as its heart. Yet he still agreed not to stand candidates against sitting Conservatives at the 2019 general election to help Boris Johnson win and get a Brexit deal through the Commons, securing the UK's departure from the European Union. Despite interest in some quarters of the Scottish Conservative Party, other figures strongly played down the possibility of a pact. One Scottish Tory politician who has spent years in influential positions said: 'Churchill's phrase comes to mind, 'You don't negotiate with a tiger when your head's in its mouth'. We're in competition with Reform – we're not in partnership with them.' The source said Scottish Tory supporters had brought up the prospect of a deal with Reform but that there was little chance it would be adopted by the leadership. Another senior Scottish Tory said: 'Why would Reform do a deal? I can see why we might be interested in it, but why would they?' There have long been suspicions on the Right of coordination between Labour and the Liberal Democrats at general elections to maximise the chances of Tory defeats. The Lib Dems surged from winning 11 MPs at the 2019 general election to 72 MPs at the 2024 general election with almost no increase in overall vote share. The party's strategists have talked about how they ruthlessly focused on a small number of winnable seats rather than competing hard everywhere. Labour was likely to have benefited from the decreased campaigning in non-target seats. But there are reasons why striking some form of deal would be less likely in elections for the Scottish Parliament than the UK-wide Parliament in Westminster. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has a proportional element, meaning as well as individual constituency races a party wins some MPs for their overall vote totals. Reform, whose strategists hope to get between 10 and 20 MSPs next spring, is expected to get their victories almost entirely via this way, known as 'the list', rather than winning constituencies. That could provide a disincentive to strike a deal with the Tories, given a lower overall vote total would likely mean fewer MSPs thanks to this proportion element of the election. In polling for next spring's Scottish Parliament elections, Reform is on around 17 per cent, above the Tories on around 12 per cent. The SNP is top, followed by Labour. A year ago, it looked likely that Labour could win power in Scotland but a support slump since Sir Keir Starmer took office last summer means the SNP is now well-placed to remain in office. A Scottish Conservative spokesman said: 'Nigel Farage has said he is content with the SNP winning another five years in power and Reform stood multiple pro-independence candidates in the general election, so no, this won't be happening. 'The Scottish Conservatives want to get the SNP out of power, while Reform will gladly help the nationalists.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
