The Scotsman, on Climate, 27 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Chancellor warned not to axe North Sea energy project to fund defence in carbon capture 'betrayal'

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

Chancellor John Healey has been warned not to hold back Aberdeen’s oil and gas sector by ensuring extra defence spending does not come at the expense of a key energy project. It is widely anticipated that Mr Healey, who will deliver his first Budget on Wednesday, will signal a ramping up of spending on defence. Mr Healey quit Sir Keir Starmer’s government as defence secretary in protest at a lack of funding being pledged on Britain’s military.

Energy projects earmarked by former net zero secretary Ed Miliband are expected to be in the firing line to make way for the additional defence spending. Mr Miliband used a visit to Aberdeenshire last year to pledge £200 million for the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. A final investment decision is expected to be made in the UK government’s spending review next year - but cuts to the energy security and net zero budget in the Budget would lay the path for funding for the project to be scrapped.

UK ministers committed £9.4 billion at last year’s spending review to support the carbon capture industry up to 2030, with £21.7 billion pledged over the next 25 years. But speculation has mounted that carbon capture projects could be in line for the axe. David Whitehouse, chief executive of , told The Scotsman investment in carbon capture should be coming forward from Westminster. “It is the key time for our carbon storage future,” he said.

Left out here: One side gets the space

The article quotes OEUK, the SNP, the Scottish Conservatives and a Labour minister, and all of them support carbon capture funding. It never mentions the campaigners who were urging the chancellor that same week to scale back carbon capture support as poor value. A reader comes away thinking the only open question is whether Westminster will short-change the industry.

How we know

“I think the opportunities for Scotland are significant. “Acorn is important, but it's not just Acorn. We see across the North Sea huge opportunities to store carbon dioxide, not just from the UK and Scotland but also from Europe. “I’ve been delighted to see the progress that we're now seeing on the first two track 1 projects. But I do think it is going to be a critical decision at the spending review next year, seeing support coming through for Acorn and the projects that sit beyond that.

“That will be an important message for the industrial sector in Scotland but also for our future in carbon storage.I think critical decisions will lie ahead of us next year.” SNP MP Seamus Logan said: "The Westminster government has dithered and delayed on North East carbon capture for too long and quite frankly this is a complete betrayal of the sector. "Energy security is national security so let's not pretend this is about defence spending - this is about Westminster hammering Scottish industry to patch holes in the Treasury finances just as they always have done.”

Scottish Conservative energy spokesperson, Liam Kerr, said: “Both of Scotland’s governments have repeatedly short-changed the North East when it comes to investing in carbon capture and storage. “Now there are real fears that the UK Labour government is preparing to follow the SNP’s lead and fail to fully support this technology in the Budget. “The people of the North East will be eagerly awaiting to see if Labour’s Budget decides investing in these facilities is no longer a political priority for them and if they will ignore the calls from the industry.”

UK reindustrialisation minister Blair McDougall said: “Both hydrogen and carbon capture undersea storage are an essential part, not just of the reindustrialisation story, but of the net zero story as well. “Decisions on all of these projects will be a matter for the Budget, but we are absolutely committed to the role that hydrogen can play in the UK economy.”

Read the original article on scotsman.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

The Scotsman reports fears that the Budget will cut funding for the Acorn carbon capture project, and quotes Offshore Energies UK only as an "industry body", never saying it is the trade association for North Sea oil and gas companies. In its own voice it calls the project "crucial" for Scotland's clean energy ambitions, although campaigners were urging the chancellor that same day to scale back carbon capture spending. Every voice in the piece backs the funding.

  1. Hides who the source is

    Serious

    “industry body Offshore Energies UK (OEUK)”

    Why this matters
    The words "industry body" are the only description The Scotsman gives of Offshore Energies UK before its chief executive makes the case for Westminster investment in carbon capture.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes OEUK as a neutral voice for industry in general, offering expert judgement on the value of carbon storage.
    The context
    OEUK is the trade association for the UK offshore industry, formerly Oil & Gas UK. It represents North Sea oil and gas companies and runs the Back the North Sea campaign. Its members stand to gain from public money for carbon storage in the North Sea, and the article never says so.

    How we know

    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “trade association” and “formerly”.
    • Elsewhere in the article“We see across the North Sea huge opportunities to store carbon dioxide”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    David Whitehouse, chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, the trade body for North Sea oil and gas companies, told The Scotsman investment in carbon capture should be coming forward from Westminster.

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “The project is crucial for Scotland’s clean energy ambitions.”

    Why this matters
    The Scotsman states in its own voice, with no attribution, that the Acorn project is "crucial" to Scotland's clean energy plans.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as settled that carbon capture spending is essential to cutting emissions, and that any cut can only be a loss.
    The context
    The value of carbon capture spending is contested. On the same day, campaigners led by Chris Packham urged the chancellor to cut the government's carbon capture plans in favour of schemes that reliably cut emissions. They said the support is now larger than the planned spending of the US, the EU, Norway and Japan combined. The article gives the backers' view as fact.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. One side gets the space

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article quotes OEUK, the SNP, the Scottish Conservatives and a Labour minister, and all of them support carbon capture funding. It never mentions the campaigners who were urging the chancellor that same week to scale back carbon capture support as poor value. A reader comes away thinking the only open question is whether Westminster will short-change the industry.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Scotsman

  1. 28 OctMinisters accused of 'catastrophic failure' for approving gas power station amid climate and energy bill fears6.0
  2. 28 OctElectric vehicle drivers left 'high and dry' as SNP-backed scheme sees decline in charging points6.0
  3. 27 OctScotland weather: Search for missing person at Largs halted amid severe weather warnings across Scotland3.0
  4. 26 OctTribute to man killed by falling tree in Dumfries and Galloway during Storm Boelo6.0
  5. 26 OctSNP ministers were warned oil and gas slump driving renewables investment out of Scotland3.0

Everything we scored from The Scotsman