Boris Johnson’s remark about coal mining and Margaret
Thatcher is entirely truthful. The statement
Thanks to Margaret
Thatcher, who closed so many coal mines across the country, we had a big early
start and we're now moving rapidly away from coal altogether.
has been condemned by Nicola Sturgeon Keir Starmer and
polite opinion in Scotland, but what part of it is false? If it had not been
for Margaret Thatcher and her victory in the Miner’s Strike Britain would have
continued to dig coal at the previous rate, we would have used that coal for longer
in our power stations and we would have made less progress towards not using
fossil fuels than we otherwise would have.
Was Margaret Thatcher motivated by the desire for
Britain to have greener energy? Not entirely. She recognised that coal mining had
become uneconomic in Britain and this was her primary motivation for taking on
the National Union of Miners. But the recognition that coal was uneconomic implied
that other forms of energy would be needed in the future. Thatcher was also one
of the first serious politicians in Britain to realise that the use of fossil
fuels was problematic because it damaged the environment.
The recognition that digging coal and heavy industry
generally was both uneconomic caused a great deal of job losses in the 1980s
and damaged communities dependent on this industry. But what if Margaret
Thatcher had not been elected? In the 1980s we could have had as an alternative
Government either Old Labour or else some sort of Tory Wet Government managing
decline. Labour would have continued digging coal and using it to fuel power stations
and would have tried to prop up this industry with subsidy. A weak Tory Government
like Edward Heath’s unwilling to take on the unions and to recognise that
subsidising failure just made Britain poorer would have done nothing to prepare
Britain for a modern competitive world.
Jobs in heavy industry would have been saved if there
had been no Margaret Thatcher, but they would not have been saved for ever.
Heavy industry would still have been uneconomic. We were simply unable and unwilling
to follow the practices in Germany that could make a profit from such industry.
The SNP and Labour both wish to eliminate the use of
fossil fuels. So, when would they have closed down the mines? They would not
have done so in the 1980s and condemned Thatcher for doing so, but in order to
reach Net Zero they would have had to close down the mines at some point. This
would have had exactly the same consequences for people’s jobs. So, while condemning
wicket Tories for closing mines Sturgeon must accept that logically if she had
been in charge, she would have had to do just the same. But clearly if fossil
fuels damage the environment, it is better to close them earlier rather than
later.
In the 1980s and indeed all the way up to 2014 the SNP
believed that the economy of an independent Scotland depended on heavy industry
and North Sea Oil. But clearly if Net Zero is desirable today, it would have
been better if we had left North Sea Oil under the sea. The SNP argument until
very recently indeed depended on fossil fuels. Now like everyone the SNP wants
to eliminate them. But how does it suppose that Scotland could move from an
economy heavily dependent on fossil fuels to one that doesn’t use them at all
without job losses?
Margaret Thatcher was willing to make hard choices for
the sake of the economy. We are much more prosperous today than in the 1970s because
she eliminated nationalised industry, curbed union power and made clear that
loss making industry would not be subsidised. This was painful but led to
better employment and profitable jobs today. Our standard of living is entirely
due to those tough choices.
But does anyone suppose that transforming Britain now into
a Net Zero economy will be without pain? People will have to pay higher prices
for energy. It soon won’t be possible to drive a car fuelled by petrol. Certain
industries will no longer be economic if they cannot burn fossil fuel. But Sturgeon
and Starmer say nothing about job losses. They just present the ideal of Net
Zero without even mentioning the negative consequences of moving towards it.
If Scotland today was still stuck with a 1980s model
of heavy industry dependent on fossil fuels and Sturgeon had achieved her dream
of independence, she would be responsible for doing what Margaret Thatcher
already did, otherwise how could she form a coalition with the Scottish Greens.
But neither the SNP nor the Greens would actually be willing to do what is
necessary to achieve an economy free from fossil fuels. The SNP after all
thinks that it can achieve its goal of independence while spending British
Treasury money without limit. I can remember no instance where either Labour,
the SNP or Greens have honestly told the electorate that its policy goals would
involve either cuts in public spending or job losses.
You cannot logically complain about Margaret Thatcher closing
coal mines, when you yourself aim for a Net Zero economy. If she had not closed
them, someone else would have had to. The failure to recognise this is simply
childish. Tough choices will have to be made if we are to eliminate fossil
fuels, because it will be far harder than what Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s.
But politicians who cannot recognise the necessity of Thatcher’s policies in
the 1980s even though they had unpleasant consequences will be unable to be
adult enough to treat the electorate honestly.
Sturgeon thinks that she can achieve a Net Zero
independent Scotland with ever higher public spending, no job losses and indeed
nothing bad happening at all. She has never once told the Scottish electorate
that her goals might involve sacrifice. She therefore lacks the ability to make
the difficult choices that would be necessary and is merely using flag waving
to con the electorate into thinking it would all be easy. At least Boris spoke
the truth about Thatcher and was honest about it. No one else in Scotland is.
