AFTER any election defeat, the initial reaction from most political figures is always something along the lines of: “Lessons to be learned. A soul search is needed.”
The crushing defeat for the SNP in the Aberdeen South by-election was no exception.
All the bookies predicted the party would regain the seat won by Stephen Flynn in 2024. But it was the Tories that would prevail, by a big margin too – the SNP secured 8258 votes, well short of the Tory total of 14,308 votes.
“We have all got to consider the implications of the by-election result, and that is what we will do,” John Swinney said afterwards – predictably.
While some have suggested the guilty plea of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell may have played a part, the conventional wisdom is that the Tories fought and won the by-election as a referendum on the oil and gas sector.
That interpretation carries particular weight given the SNP’s already evolving stance on the sector.
Under Swinney, the party has moved away from the firmer opposition to new drilling seen under Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf. Its current position – balancing climate compatibility with energy security – represents a clear shift.
The First Minister has emphasised the need to weigh “our climate change obligations”, “the issues of energy security”, and the imperative of a “just transition” for the north east.
Alongside this, the SNP have called for the UK Government to scrap the energy profits levy, with Swinney arguing the windfall tax is “undermining" investment in the oil and gas sector.
In other words, he is attempting to strike a compromise of sorts.
The issue here – according to one senior SNP source – is that this doesn’t really resonate with voters, who perhaps don’t understand this position or view it as weak.
And in the wake of a defeat framed so heavily around the oil and gas sector’s troubles, the question is whether this recalibration will go further – will the SNP take a leaf out of US president Donald Trump’s book and become a party of "drill, baby, drill", notably of the controversial Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields in the North Sea.
That will certainly appear to be an attractive option for the SNP bigwigs in the short term, perhaps from an electoral standpoint.
The oil and gas industry in the north-east is haemorrhaging jobs and this could be seen as a quick fix.
But does it risk losing sight of the larger picture? Namely the potential of Scotland’s renewables sector, a genuinely just transition and, oh, climate change.
Simon Barrow, the national secretary of the SNP Trade Union Group, the party’s largest affiliate body, suggested much the same.
He told The National that the by-election loss was a “massive wake-up call” to the SNP on energy policy.
“Trimming further to oil industry demands in the short run might look attractive. But it won’t lower prices and secure jobs—or votes,” Barrow said.
“A new, bold renewables-directed transition plan and jobs guarantee for the north east is needed, alongside huge pressure on the UK government to direct windfall profits there.”
Greenpeace, meanwhile, said that what Aberdeen really needs is a “well-funded government plan” to move into a more sustainable future.
“But their belief in the opportunities of a clean and just transition has to be strong enough for them to let go of the industry that built their community, and trust that the new economy will be ready to catch them,” Amy Cameron, programme director at the organisation, said.
“Oil workers and their families must not be abandoned in the way coal miners were, and politicians need to make more effort to show they understand that.”
Regardless, you would hope that calm heads prevail and that the SNP Government weigh their options fully rather than resort to panic policy.
