The Saltire, flag of Scotlandindependent.scot

Straight answers to honest questions about Scottish independence

← All questions

The nation's books

Could Westminster force nuclear power on Scotland?

The short answer

Not today - and the reason is a power most people don't know Scotland has. Under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, no power station over 50 megawatts can be built in Scotland without the consent of Scottish Ministers. Successive Scottish governments have said that consent will not be given to new nuclear stations, and Westminster's own press releases acknowledge it.

So when the UK government announced on 30 June 2026 that Scotland has "high potential" for new nuclear development, it was publishing a map of sites it cannot currently build on. The interesting question is why it published the map anyway - and what that tells you about where the decision really sits.

This page takes no side on nuclear power itself. Scots disagree about it, in every party, and an independent Scotland would be free to reach either answer. The question here is narrower: whose answer should count?

What Westminster announced

The Energy Secretary commissioned Great British Energy-Nuclear, the UK government's nuclear delivery body, to survey Scotland for possible reactor sites. Its study, published on 30 June 2026, names the land around Torness in East Lothian, Dounreay in Caithness and Hunterston in North Ayrshire, along with Stirling, the north shore of the Firth of Forth and stretches of the Angus and Aberdeenshire coast.

UK energy minister Michael Shanks framed it as opportunity: "Sadly Scotland is missing out" on the "golden age of nuclear" being delivered in England and Wales. The nuclear industry body says the sector employs a record 98,000 people across the UK, and that Scotland saw the smallest jobs growth last year for want of new projects.

Asked whether the Scottish Government had been consulted before the study about Scottish sites was published, a UK minister declined to say. The Scottish Government's energy minister, Stephen Gethins, said the study "changes nothing": it does not change the economics of nuclear, and it does not resolve the waste.

Notice what happened there. A government Scotland did not elect surveyed Scottish ground for reactors, published its findings, and would not say whether it had asked the government Scotland did elect. No rule was broken. That is the point: no rule requires Scotland to be asked.

The shield, and where it came from

Nuclear energy is a reserved matter - Holyrood cannot legislate on it. But planning and consenting are devolved, and it is consent that decides whether concrete gets poured. Every application to build a large power station in Scotland lands on the desk of Scottish Ministers, and the Scottish Government's published policy is to oppose new nuclear stations "using current technologies", on the stated grounds that they are poor value for consumers. Successive administrations have held that line.

That veto is devolution working as intended: a decision about Scottish land, made by people answerable to Scotland. It is worth being precise about this, because both sides of the constitutional debate get it wrong. Scotland does not need independence to refuse a nuclear station today. What independence changes is something else - who owns the veto.

The pressure on the shield

A devolved power exists because Westminster legislated it into existence, and Westminster can legislate again. The Sewel convention says the UK Parliament will "not normally" override Holyrood on devolved matters - but it is a convention, not a law, and the courts have confirmed it cannot be enforced.

The squeeze has already started at the edges. The Prime Minister's response to the UK nuclear regulatory taskforce proposes a "lead regulator" model for nuclear projects that the Scottish Government says "impinges on devolved issues without the agreement of Scottish ministers", raising what it called serious concerns about the independence of SEPA, Scotland's environmental regulator. Environmental regulation is devolved; the reform is being designed in London.

None of this means Westminster is about to seize planning powers and start pouring concrete at Torness. It means the shield Scotland relies on is held in place by Westminster's self-restraint. A power on loan is not the same as a power owned.

And the waste?

Waste is where the timescales get honest. Radioactive waste policy is also devolved, and Scotland's differs from England's: since 2011, Scottish policy is that higher-activity waste should be stored near the surface, near the site that produced it, where it can be monitored and retrieved. England's plan is a deep geological disposal facility - a permanent underground vault. Three candidate communities are being assessed, all in England, and on current planning it would accept intermediate-level waste in the 2050s and spent fuel from 2075.

Read that date again. Under every plan currently on paper, spent fuel from any new Scottish reactor would sit on site, beside the reactor, for decades - whoever builds it and whoever consents to it.

Scotland already knows what nuclear timescales feel like, because we are living inside one. Dounreay, sited in Caithness by Whitehall in the 1950s, stopped generating in 1994. Fragments of irradiated fuel from its operations - hundreds have been recovered since monitoring began in the 1980s, over 200 of them from Sandside beach, which is open to the public - are still monitored for today, and fishing has been restricted within two kilometres of its old discharge point since 1997. The cleanup was meant to reach its interim end state by 2033; the schedule now runs to 2070, and trade press reports put the revised bill at close to £8 billion. Dounreay's reactors were a decision made far from Caithness, and Caithness will be answering for it a century after they shut down.

Modern reactors are not 1950s Dounreay, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. But the lesson is not about engineering. It is that a reactor is a commitment measured in generations, and the people who make that commitment should be the ones who answer to the country living with it.

The jobs are real, and so is the cliff

Now the part the independence movement has to be honest about. Torness stops generating by March 2030. Around 550 EDF staff work there, with more than 180 contractors, and the station is estimated to support a couple of thousand more jobs in the region. Decommissioning provides work for years, but it tapers: when Hunterston B moved from generation to decommissioning, roughly half the workforce transferred. Voices in East Lothian, including people who have spent careers in the industry, want replacement nuclear on the site, and they are not fools or stooges for saying so. Scotland ran nuclear stations for decades, largely safely, and they provided reliable low-carbon power and skilled, well-paid work in places that did not have much of either.

Those jobs matter, and any honest answer starts by saying so. The Scottish Government itself supports extending Torness's operating life if safety criteria are met; the disagreement is about what comes after. And what comes after - new reactors, renewables manufacturing, grid work, decommissioning expertise sold to a world full of ageing reactors - is exactly the kind of choice a country should make for itself. The economics of the nuclear option deserve stating plainly too, since value for money is the Scottish Government's stated objection. Hinkley Point C was agreed in 2016 at an estimated £18 billion and is now projected at around £35 billion in 2015 prices - roughly £48 billion in today's money - with its first unit expected in 2030 at the earliest, and a contract that commits consumers to subsidise it for 35 years once it starts generating. Small modular reactors may change that arithmetic; none is yet running commercially in the UK. A country weighing that bet should weigh it with its own hands on the scales.

So what's the real question?

Strip away the reactor and the argument underneath is simple. Westminster believes nuclear power stations should be built in Scotland. Scotland's elected government, sustained by a parliament Scots actually voted for, says no. Today, devolution means Scotland's answer holds. But the study published over Holyrood's head, and the regulatory reform designed without its agreement, are reminders of the small print: every devolved power is Westminster's to lend and Westminster's to take back.

Independence does not answer the nuclear question. It relocates it - permanently - to the only place it can be answered with full authority: a parliament elected entirely by the people who will live beside the reactors, keep the waste and inherit the cleanup. An independent Scotland could keep the current policy for good. It could equally, one day, elect a government that says yes. Either way, the decision would be Scotland's to make and Scotland's to change - not a concession that survives only until London finds it inconvenient.

Related: If Scotland's so energy-rich, why are my bills so high? · Why does oil-rich Scotland now import its petrol? · Wouldn't more devolution do?

Take it with you

Facts for sharing - each button copies the line, with its source and a link back to this page.

  • No power station over 50 megawatts can be built in Scotland without the consent of Scottish Ministers - section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. That consent is currently the only thing between Westminster's nuclear ambitions and Scottish ground (gov.scot energy consents)
  • Westminster's nuclear delivery body named Torness, Dounreay, Hunterston and Stirling among 'high potential' nuclear sites on 30 June 2026 - and a UK minister declined to say whether the Scottish Government was consulted before publication (DESNZ; BusinessGreen, July 2026)
  • England's deep disposal facility is not planned to accept spent fuel until 2075. Fuel from any new Scottish reactor would sit on site, beside the reactor, for decades under every plan currently on paper (Nuclear Waste Services)
  • Dounreay stopped generating in 1994. Its cleanup is now scheduled to run to 2070, and radioactive fuel fragments are still monitored for on a public beach nearby. A reactor is a decision someone answers for over a century (GOV.UK; Nuclear Engineering International)

Check our working