Words by Dr John Kenny (University of Mannheim)
Article originally posted on the Campaign on Social Science website.
Whether the UK government should enable the expansion of oil and gas fields in the North Sea has become a substantial political issue. The power to decide this has not been devolved to the Scottish parliament, but resides at Westminster. At the 2024 General Election, the Labour manifesto recognised that North Sea oil and gas production would be part of the country’s energy mix over the coming decades, but committed that they would ‘not issue new licences to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis’.
When the Court of Sessions in Edinburgh ruled last year that licenses for the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields granted by the previous Conservative government were unlawful due to insufficient consideration of their impact upon the climate, that led to some uncertainty on how Labour would consider fresh applications for these. Upon his appointment as Prime Minister this summer, Andy Burnham indicated that his government would take a more ‘pragmatic’ approach to North Sea drilling, highlighting that the resources cannot be ignored when people are struggling.
The first of these decisions came when Jackdaw received the go-ahead to drill. The decision was welcomed by the Conservative Party, who had made increased North Sea drilling a centerpoint of the campaign that delivered a by-election victory in Aberdeen South in June. The decision was also in line with Reform UK policy and lauded by US President Donald Trump. It was however heavily criticised by the Greens with leader of the Green Party of England and Wales Zac Polanski describing it as ‘climate vandalism’ and the co-leaders of the Scottish Green Party condemning the move. Scientific experts also heavily critiqued it. Andy Burnham justified the decision in parliament by remarking that “In these difficult times when we have resources, I think the public would expect us to use them to help people to get jobs secure in Aberdeen”.
Yet what does the public think? Given that the drilling will take place off the coast of Scotland, in this piece for the Campaign for Social Sciences Devolution Hub I investigate the views of the Scottish public on the issue. This is possible through analysing data from the Scottish Election Study that was fielded earlier this year on a representative sample of individuals 16 and over. A first wave was carried out between 4 April-6 May and a second wave between 15 May-5 June. With large representative samples, the data enables Scottish views to be more reliably ascertained than is possible when using sub-samples of a standard British or UK survey.
In the first wave, respondents were asked on a 5-point scale their agreement with the statement, “There should be new drilling for North Sea oil and gas to improve energy security”. The policy is clearly a popular one. Of the 2,201 people asked, 57% agree with this (33% strongly; 24% tend to agree), compared to just 24% that disagree (11% strongly; 12 % tend to disagree).
What the headline figure masks is substantial variation between different groups. In the North East electoral region of Scotland where employment from offshore energy is most heavily concentrated, 59% strongly agree compared to circa 25% in both the Glasgow and Lothian regions. Even stronger divides are seen based on partisan identities. Though partisans of most parties support the proposal, a staggering 79% of Reform UK and 66% of Conservative supporters strongly support it, compared to 34% of Liberal Democrat, 25% of SNP and 21% of Labour supporters. Green partisans are the only ones against it. Just 9% agree with it, 79% disagree (56% strongly; 22% tend to disagree).
In the second wave, a similar question was asked regarding the statement “New licences should be issued to explore new oil and gas fields in the North Sea”. This displays similar regional and partisan divides as the first question. The wave also asked individuals whether they thought that the financial investments needed for a green transition in Scotland would be lower than the costs of the damages that may otherwise arise from climate change. Of the 1,601 respondents asked this question, 33% agreed while 23% disagreed. These views appear to structure opinion on the granting of new oil and gas licenses. Of those who strongly agree that the costs of a Green transition will be lower, 56% strongly disagree with the granting of new licenses. Whereas of those who strongly disagree and thus think that the costs of a Green transition would be higher than that of any future damage from climate change, 79% strongly agree to the granting of new licenses. Public support for clean energy transitions is extremely important, and these results fit with findings that perceived costs and benefits of a transition can and do impact upon concrete policy support.
In conclusion, new oil and gas drilling is not an unpopular policy among the Scottish public overall, but it is one that engenders substantial divides. The Scottish government has just this year requested devolved powers on energy matters, yet regardless of whether it remains with Westminster or becomes a competency of Holyrood, it is likely to continue to constitute a difficult issue. The employment and wellbeing of constituents in the sector and short- to medium-term energy security are being balanced by policymakers against climate change mitigation commitments. This is evident in the Labour government’s recently proposed Energy Independence Bill, which would prevent the issuing of new oil and gas licensing to explore new fields, while allowing for new production in areas in or close to existing fields. This is already being criticised by both environmental groups for not going far enough to secure a clean energy future and by Aberdeen business groups for endangering economic prosperity, The results from the Scottish Election Survey do show that the North East of Scotland which is most directly reliant on the industry for its local economy has the strongest support for further drilling, and concerns on the financial cost of a Green transition are associated with greater support for new oil and gas extraction. The concerns are real, with a House of Commons report last year finding that the creation of clean energy jobs is not keeping up with the scale of job losses in oil and gas production.
Climate issues are furthermore ones that have become increasingly politicised within Britain as a whole and indeed within Europe more broadly, and political divides are certainly evident here. Increasing the rate of provision of high-quality jobs in the renewable-energy sector may help reduce perceptions of trade-offs between climate action and job provision and, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, ensuring an equitable transition away from fossil fuels that meaningfully engages with stakeholders and communities may minimise future electoral backlash.
About the author
John Kenny is an Academic Staff Member at the Chair of Comparative Government, University of Mannheim. He is also a Visiting Fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton; a member of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; and an Affiliate of the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations. His research focuses on public opinion, elections and environmental politics.
Follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn and subscribe to our newsletter for future updates from the CAST team.