Meeting of the Parliament 11 November 2025
Fergus Ewing is absolutely right, and I could not agree more because the “Striking the Balance” report justifies exactly what we have just heard.
The report reaches three fundamental conclusions. First, the demand for oil and gas is not going away. By 2050, the UK will still require significant amounts, only about 30 per cent of which will be for domestic purposes. We will need oil and gas to heat our homes, to keep the lights on, to make our mobile phones, to fuel our cars, buses and trains, to run medical equipment and to make fertiliser.
Today, the UK produces about 20 per cent of the oil and gas that it uses. Even if we achieve net zero and even if Jackdaw and Rosebank go ahead, the UK will still need to import more oil and gas than it produces to meet demand, which means more imports from countries such as the United States of America, where production emissions are three to four times higher than ours, countries with dubious regulatory or human rights records, and countries that might capriciously switch off our supply.
Secondly, there will be no just transition without the oil and gas industry. The real choice is not one between oil and gas or renewables; it is a choice between a managed transition that maintains a viable domestic industry while building up renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture, and an accelerated decline of exporting jobs, losing skills and importing higher-carbon energy at a higher cost.
The difference between those futures lies not in geology or technology but in political decision making. That is the subject of the third conclusion, which focuses on the role of both of Scotland’s Governments. The UK Government's fiscal regime is now one of the most regressive in the world. Investment allowances have been stripped out, creating uncertainty. Meanwhile, Norway provides a stable and progressive regime, continues to invest and uses the proceeds to fund its transition. That is why Fergus Ewing is right—we must see an end to the energy profits levy and the UK Government’s ridiculously naive ban on new oil and gas licences.
The Scottish Government, meanwhile, says one thing in Aberdeen and another in Glasgow. The “no new oil and gas” rhetoric that was reiterated by former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon just last week may win headlines, but it sends a chilling message to the very workforce that will deliver net zero. No one can ignore the fact that the Scottish Government’s draft energy strategy still contains a presumption against new oil and gas. It is the people of oil and gas who will drive the transition, but half of Aberdeen’s energy workforce hold a degree qualification and if policy tells them that they have no future here, they will simply go elsewhere, representing a loss to our economy, a grave loss to our population and a loss to any chance of delivering the transition.
As the report highlights, there is a very narrow Goldilocks zone between 2025 and early 2030 in which the UK must sustain and repurpose its existing workforce. If we run down oil and gas before renewables are ready to absorb those skills, the opportunity will be lost, and so will tens of thousands of jobs.
I think that we all share the same desired destination—a Scotland that is prosperous, sustainable and secure and which runs off a genuinely balanced energy mix. The question is how we get there. The “Striking the Balance” report makes it clear that the window of opportunity is closing. If we act wisely now, we can secure the sweet spot of the transition, protecting jobs and skills while cutting emissions. If we act too slowly or ideologically, we risk losing the workforce, the supply chain and the capacity to deliver any transition at all.
This is not about oil and gas versus renewables. It is about the North Sea and the energy transition—a transition that, if managed properly, can secure Scotland’s energy future and the livelihoods of the people who will power it.
16:42