It's series of tweets from Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon's chief of staff for five years during her term as first minister, and a long-time spad and office holder for the SNP. I've run all the tweets together to make them easier to read:
Liz Lloyd
@eliz_lloyd
Ahead of the expected announcement on Scotland’s climate targets a little context to where 75% came from, why it was always described as “stretching”, what has happened and the questions it raises
The original @thecccuk recommendation was for Scotland to reach net zero by 2045. They didn’t propose a 2030 target but when asked by Scotgov said it should be on a straight line to 2045. That would have been 70% which was what Scotgov proposed.
Scotgov was a minority govt and all parties pushed to increase the target. The consensus became 75% (the Greens wanted 85%). I remember @strathearnrose making clear to parties that the target went beyond @theCCCuk advice on what could be done but needed consensus to pass the bill
That’s why it’s always been stretching. Scotland’s progress also depends in part (but not wholly) on the UK net zero trajectory and UK Carbon budget. These were not designed or adjusted to take account of Holyrood’s decision to go for a 75% target
Revisions to the inventory used to calculate the baseline also made the challenge harder as did new research on what amount could be attributed to negative emission technologies during this period.
None of this is to get away from questions on whether SG could have gone further or faster but the background is part of why the Scotgov is where it is today.
Recent Fiscal Commission work highlights the scale of investment needed. This should raise questions about whether the Scottish Parliament’s responsibilities in this area are matched by its fiscal means (they are not) and whether the next UKG will do anything about that
Climate was not an area of policy when parliament was established in 1999. It just wasn’t thought about. The scale and pace of investment required by public sector and in public goods/fairness of transition goes well beyond Scottish Parl capital borrowing powers
Resetting the path to 2045 does not ease the pressure on all parties and both Govt’s to drive credible climate action in industry, heating, transport and farming but could it open space for a more constructive and successful discussion in parliament on how and with what money?
Question for all parties in Holyrood is if they will find a science based consensus and the means to deliver or use a legislative opportunity to play pre-election politics. Particularly as for the first time Labour might think they’ll be in office when policies need delivered.
Original tweet thread here:
So Labour and the Tories forced the SNP's hand in setting an unrealistic and eventually unachievable climate target, then did little in the mean time to support the SNP's legislation to try to achieve it, in some cases being downright obstructive.
Welcome to Scottish politics.
The likes of ex-Labour leader Ed Milliband and some of the opposition in Holyrood have opportunistically tried to capitalize on this announcement on Twitter. Their hypocrisy's unbelievable as the Tories under Sunak have tried to run a mile from any green commitments, and Starmer's Labour, which looks like it may form the next UK government, axed its £28 billion green investment pledge in February. The Tories even vetoed outright the Scottish scheme for a deposit return system for glass bottles after a lot of money had been spent setting it up, on the grounds that it might conflict with a UK-wide scheme the Tories planned to introduce. Shortly thereafter, they abandoned their plans for any such scheme.
Welcome to UK politics.
= new reply since forum marked as read