Why betting it all on offshore wind is a high-risk strategy for Scotland

To emphasise his point, Mr Doogan accompanied his tweet with a crude montage of Mr Miliband wearing a Union Jack pith helmet. At least nobody can accuse Dave of subtlety – only of abysmal ignorance, not least about his own party’s position on the subject.

Like many others, myself included, SNP ministers went through a learning curve on zonal pricing. It took them a bit longer due to the obvious attraction of any claim that Scotland is being done down. The fact opposition has been led by Scottish interests was a problem for that approach, though nobody seems to have told Dave.

READ MORE: Zonal pricing: What is the scheme, is it good for Scotland and will the energy system actually happen?

SNP confusion about zonal pricing

The case made by SSE, Scottish Power, Scottish Renewables, trade unions and many others was not all that complicated. If generators of power in Scotland were obliged to sell for a lower wholesale price because of location, they were less likely to attract the large-scale investment required to build offshore windfarms in the first place.

Or, as Kate Forbes MSP – she’s your deputy leader, Dave – put it: “Zonal pricing is going to be hugely challenging as we could end up in the position where we don’t get industrial opportunities and consumers don’t get lower bills.” Asked directly if he still supported zonal pricing, John Swinney – being a bit more sleekit – refused to say yea or nay. But the Scottish Government’s silence yesterday was deafening.

READ MORE: 'New game, old rules': How Scottish communities should benefit from net zero project rush

While zonal pricing made headlines, there might have been greater significance elsewhere in Mr Miliband’s statement on energy. The commitment to an overall review of wholesale pricing takes us to a starting point which should have been reached years ago. A coherent approach would have involved co-operation between Scottish and UK Governments, as well as the regulator Ofgem. None of that happened.

The result is that we now have, particularly in Scotland, a catalogue of uncertainties, on which vast sums of money and dubious political assumptions depend. Zonal pricing would have added an additional uncertainty but taking it off the table does not mean the others have gone away. The need for reappraisal is urgent even if conclusions might be unpalatable.

Importance of UK market

I am a long-term supporter of renewable energy and when in government did my fair share to promote it. The Renewables Obligation was probably the most successful mechanism of its kind anywhere. Scotland was able to contribute disproportionately because of our onshore wind resource. But I also always argued for a balanced energy policy which is the crucial ingredient missing from current debate.

The blithe assumption that Scottish interests are best served by unlimited reliance on offshore wind needs to be challenged and scrutinised before further commitments are made. Mr Doogan and his ilk would do well to remember that Scottish renewables generation is based on the premise that there is an eager and willing market in the rest of Britain.

That market has to be competed for, rather than taken for granted as one crucial sentence about the forthcoming review made clear: “Reformed national pricing will send a clearer upfront signal ahead of the point of investment decision about the relative system value of investing in different locations, which can be accurately priced into those investment decisions.”

READ MORE: Skye landowner who turned down three wind farms says developments will 'change the island forever'

Roughly translated, this points towards generating power closer to areas of highest demand. Or, as Professor Dieter Helm – a genuine expert – put it: “Perhaps the real lesson from the zonal pricing debate is that some of the wind generation should not have been built in the north of Scotland in the first place, and perhaps not more should be built there now.”

That possibility cannot be dismissed lightly. Until there is a far clearer picture about the future pattern of generation, to serve the interests of net zero and lower bills, how much sense does it make to behave as if no such uncertainty exists?

Turning Scottish backs on nuclear?

Offshore wind developments on the scale envisaged only make sense if there is access to markets. Otherwise, we end up with billions in “constraint payments” to generators who can’t generate. Pump-storage hydro can mitigate that problem (and please let’s get on with it) but only in part. Rationally, how much does the market actually need?

Large-scale offshore wind is just as feasible around other parts of the UK which are far closer to population centres. As I write (albeit on a sunny day), solar is providing a third of Britain’s electricity, which would not have been foreseen even a few years ago. A quarter of our power is coming in via interconnectors while wind accounts for just 2.3 per cent.

My instincts tell me that much of the ScotWind programme may never be built because lower cost alternatives will emerge. We need to speed up these projects and also ensure recognition of their particular importance to peripheral areas where this is a one-off economic opportunity. Ofgem won’t do that so politicians must.

We must think again about whether it makes sense to run down gas or turn our Scottish backs on nuclear (in each case, the answer is “no”). We still need a balanced energy policy in which Scottish renewables play a significant part.

However, the inescapable fact is that the highest public and political priority is cheaper electricity. Scottish renewables will have to compete in that market and it is ill-advised to pretend otherwise.