Swinney: Ming Yang would not have been blocked if it was in England
The First Minister said the decision by the UK government was ‘unacceptable’
John Swinney has claimed plans by the Chinese company Ming Yang to open a major wind turbine manufacturing plant in the Highlands would not have been blocked by the UK government if the project was in England.
The First Minister said the decision had cost Scotland £1.5 billion worth of investment, which he said was "unacceptable". Opponents said he should “take off his tinfoil hat” instead of furthering “another grievance”.
It came as Mr Swinney urged Downing Street to step in and alleviate the cost increases hitting consumers on energy bills and at petrol stations. He warned the cost-of-living crisis will “get worse” as a result of US and Israeli action in Iran.
Ming Yang had proposed to build the facility in Ardersier, near Inverness, with the potential to create up to 1,500 jobs. But the plans were held up by Westminster over national security fears about the Chinese firm.
Last month, the factory was rejected after a lengthy process, with the Scottish government hitting out at the decision.
Addressing SNP activists on Tuesday in Leith, Mr Swinney said: "Labour have turned their back on investment that could have really strengthened the renewables energy revolution in Scotland.
"The most recent decision in relation to the Chinese developer Ming Yang has lost Scotland £1.5 billion worth of investment in renewable energy.
"And do any of us believe that if that development had been taking place south of the border, where investment from China is apparently welcome, a Labour government would have turned its back on that investment south of the border?"
The First Minister later expanded on the comments while speaking to journalists.
"There's very significant Chinese investment in major energy developments in England which have got the go-ahead, and we find ourselves with a £1.5 billion prospective investment in Scotland which has been blocked by the UK government,” he told The Scotsman.
"I just don't understand the rationale for that, and nobody has explained the rationale for that, as to how it's plausible and acceptable for there to be Chinese investment welcomed south of the border but it's not welcome north of the border."
Mr Swinney added: "I think it's unacceptable. I think it's a loss of economic opportunity for Scotland when we could be developing our manufacturing potential in offshore renewables, in which we've got formidable expertise.
"There is a desire to encourage and develop manufacturing capability within the United Kingdom, and I'm totally signed up to that and seeking that, but we've had an absolute blockage put in our way by the UK government and I don't understand why that's the case."
A spokesperson for the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said Mr Swinney’s claim was “untrue”.
They said: “We will always act to protect our national security – while pursuing a positive investment relationship with China when it is in our national interest, across the four nations.
“Our record‑breaking renewables auction is backing thousands of skilled jobs and giving industry the confidence to invest in Scotland - including Vestas’s plans for a new offshore wind factory and the world's largest planned offshore wind farm, Berwick Bank."
UK energy minister Michael Shanks said: “John Swinney should take off his tinfoil hat - he knows that this decision was reached for national security reasons. Only the SNP would think that’s something to just cast aside to so they can further another grievance.
“The UK government has unlocked billions of pounds of investment in Scotland through the clean power mission – investment he would put at risk with his increasingly desperate pitch for independence.
“It’s clear the SNP are trying everything they can to turn out a core vote rather than talking up the huge opportunities for Scotland’s energy future as part of the UK.”
Earlier this year, the UK approved China's plans for a new ‘mega-embassy’ in central London.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.