Andrew Bowie says a future Conservative government would legislate so that new nuclear power “can and will” be built in Scotland despite Scottish Government opposition. The powers at the centre of the dispute are not a recent SNP creation: responsibility for consenting major generating stations in Scotland has rested with Scottish Ministers since the opening of devolution in 1999.
The Conservatives have moved Scotland’s nuclear argument beyond a dispute over energy policy and into the machinery of devolution itself.
Speaking at the Conservative Party conference on 5 October, shadow energy security secretary Andrew Bowie said a future Conservative government would legislate to enable new nuclear development in Scotland, accusing the Scottish Government of using devolved planning powers to prevent investment in nuclear generation.
Bowie said the Conservatives would build a third large-scale nuclear reactor and that no part of Britain, including Scotland, would be excluded from consideration. He described energy as reserved to the UK Parliament and said legislation would be used to ensure that new nuclear could proceed north of the border despite the Scottish Government’s longstanding opposition.
No Bill has yet been published. The Conservatives have therefore not established precisely which Scottish powers they intend to amend, remove or bypass, and it would be premature to describe any particular legal mechanism as settled policy.
What is already clear is that the obstacle Bowie intends to overcome is real, statutory and considerably older than the present Scottish Government.
The Nuclear Barrier Is More Than Planning Policy
The shorthand description of Scotland using “planning law” to stop nuclear development conceals a more complicated legal arrangement.
Energy policy and nuclear safety are substantially reserved to Westminster. Nuclear installations are regulated at UK level through bodies including the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Security of electricity supply is also reserved and is managed across Great Britain through the UK Government and the National Energy System Operator.
But the physical construction of a major generating station in Scotland enters a separate consenting system.
Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires consent for the construction, extension or operation of generating stations above the relevant threshold. In Scotland, the functions associated with section 36 are exercised by Scottish Ministers.
For generating stations above 50 megawatts, this means the decision about whether the development receives electricity consent sits in Edinburgh rather than with the UK Secretary of State.
Scottish Ministers can also use the associated provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 when determining such projects. Smaller generating proposals falling below the Electricity Act threshold generally enter the ordinary Scottish planning system through the relevant local authority.
A new reactor therefore cannot simply be authorised in Scotland because nuclear energy itself is a reserved subject. The site still has to pass through Scottish consenting and planning law.
Those Powers Date to the Beginning of Devolution
The present arrangement did not begin with the SNP Government elected in 2007.
When the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government were established, the Scotland Act 1998 was accompanied by a series of orders transferring executive functions previously exercised by UK ministers.
The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999 transferred functions under the Electricity Act, including section 36 consenting functions, to Scottish Ministers from 1 July 1999.
The legislation has subsequently been amended and supplemented, including further transfers and modifications in 2006 and later environmental-assessment arrangements, but the central structure remains: Scottish Ministers exercise the relevant generating-station consenting functions for Scotland.
A UK Government explanatory memorandum describing later changes to the system has stated expressly that the 1999 Order gave Scottish Ministers executive devolution over section 36, section 36C and section 37 of the Electricity Act.
That history gives the Conservative announcement a different character from a conventional promise to change energy policy.
If a future UK government alters the section 36 settlement specifically to allow nuclear development over the objection of Scottish Ministers, it would be changing part of the executive devolution architecture established when the Scottish Parliament opened.
Scotland Began Using the Power Against New Nuclear in 2007
The legal power existed before Scotland adopted its present anti-new-nuclear policy.
The political significance became explicit after the SNP formed the Scottish Government in 2007.
On 29 November that year, First Minister Alex Salmond was asked in the Scottish Parliament about the UK Government’s consultation on nuclear power. He said the Scottish Government opposed new nuclear stations and pointed directly to section 36 of the Electricity Act.
Salmond told Parliament that an application to build a nuclear power station in Scotland would require the consent of Scottish Ministers rather than the UK Government.
That was the practical basis of what later became widely described as Scotland’s nuclear veto.
The policy then moved into Scotland’s formal planning framework.
National Planning Framework 2, published in 2009, stated that the Scottish Government did not support construction of new nuclear power stations. It envisaged existing stations continuing temporarily while Scotland moved towards a different electricity system.
National Planning Framework 3 was more explicit. Published in 2014, it said there would be “no nuclear new build in Scotland”, although it left open extensions to the operating lives of Hunterston B and Torness where safety requirements permitted.
The current National Planning Framework, NPF4, came into force in February 2023 and now forms part of Scotland’s statutory development plan alongside local development plans.
During its preparation, a request to include new nuclear development within the Hunterston Strategic Asset national development was rejected because new nuclear was not supported by the Scottish Government’s energy strategy.
The Government’s current nuclear policy remains to oppose construction of new stations using present nuclear technologies.
The Conservatives Are No Longer Merely Asking Scotland to Change Its Mind
That is where the October announcement represents a substantive change in the political argument.
Scottish Conservatives have long supported new nuclear generation. Their case has included the continued contribution of Torness, the loss of generating capacity as Scotland’s reactors retire, nuclear employment and the possibility of deploying small modular reactors.
In June, Conservative MSP Liam Kerr secured a Scottish Parliament debate calling for the Scottish Government to reverse its opposition to new nuclear. The motion argued that nuclear provided dependable low-carbon electricity and supported skilled employment.
That position still assumed the political answer was to persuade or replace the Scottish Government.
Bowie’s conference speech points to another route.
Rather than wait for Scottish Ministers to grant consent, a future Conservative government would legislate at Westminster to ensure nuclear development could proceed.
The language marks the movement from an argument over how Holyrood should exercise its powers to an argument over whether Holyrood should continue to possess the relevant power when nuclear development is involved.
Modern Scot Identified This Route in July
The development follows directly from an unresolved point identified by Modern Scot earlier this year.
In July, this publication examined a UK Government technical study that had placed Scotland back on Britain’s potential nuclear-development map.
Great British Energy–Nuclear had been commissioned to examine whether areas of Scotland could technically accommodate future reactors. Its report identified existing nuclear locations at Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay, together with broader areas around the Firth of Forth and Scotland’s eastern coastline, as having potential for further investigation.
The report did not select a site, recommend construction or override Scottish consent. It was a high-level desktop assessment of technical potential.
Modern Scot noted at the time that a project could not proceed under the existing settlement unless one of two things happened: the Scottish Government changed its nuclear policy, or Westminster attempted to change the legal arrangements.
Three months later, the Conservatives have explicitly proposed the second course.
The Current UK Government Acknowledges Scotland’s Power
The Conservative proposal also goes further than the position presently taken by the UK Labour Government.
Westminster’s Advanced Nuclear Framework promotes private investment in advanced nuclear projects but acknowledges that devolved governments retain important powers over infrastructure delivery, including planning, environmental protection and consent.
The framework states that because the Scottish Government will not currently give planning consent to new nuclear projects, the private advanced-nuclear programme is effectively available for projects in England and Wales rather than Scotland.
The June Scottish siting study similarly did not attempt to circumvent those powers.
It identified technical possibilities and left the political and legal problem unresolved.
Bowie is now proposing to resolve it by legislation.
Holyrood Has Not Yet Assessed How an Override Would Work
There is an unusually timely piece of evidence in the Scottish Parliament record.
On 8 September, Labour MSP Paul Sweeney asked the Scottish Government what discussions it had held with Westminster about potentially using critical-national-infrastructure arrangements to facilitate small modular reactors at Hunterston, Torness, Chapelcross and Dounreay.
He also asked what assessment had been made of whether such an approach might interact with or supersede devolved powers.
Energy Minister Stephen Gethins answered on 22 September that no discussions had taken place and that the Scottish Government had made no such assessment because it opposed new nuclear stations using current technologies.
Less than two weeks later, the principal UK opposition party announced that it intends to legislate specifically to overcome the Scottish barrier.
A related parliamentary answer confirms the present Scottish position in unusually clear terms. The Scottish Government said its opposition extends to variations of conventional nuclear fission technology and that power-station decisions are devolved. Stations over 50MW require Scottish ministerial consent under the Electricity Act; smaller projects fall principally to the relevant Scottish planning authority.
Those answers now form part of the legal and political territory the Conservatives would have to alter.
Westminster Can Legislate — Even in Devolved Areas
The constitutional question is not whether the UK Parliament possesses the legal capacity to pass legislation affecting Scotland.
It does.
Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 expressly states that the creation of the Scottish Parliament does not affect Westminster’s power to make laws for Scotland.
Since 2016, section 28(8) has also recognised the Sewel convention, under which the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Those provisions coexist.
A future UK government could therefore introduce legislation affecting devolved Scottish functions. Whether Holyrood consented would become a major constitutional issue, but withholding legislative consent does not amount to a legal veto over an Act of the UK Parliament.
The exact importance of Sewel in this case cannot be determined until the Conservatives publish legislation. A Bill might transfer an existing Scottish executive function, create a new UK-wide nuclear consenting regime, reserve an additional subject or devise a narrower exception specifically for nuclear generating stations.
Each route would raise somewhat different devolution questions.
Bowie’s conference speech establishes the intended result. It does not yet supply the statutory mechanism.
The Physical Nuclear Map Is Already Taking Shape
If that legislation were eventually enacted, the question would quickly become geographical.
The UK Government’s June study identified three existing nuclear locations prominently: Torness in East Lothian, Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Dounreay in Caithness.
None has been selected for a new power station.
Torness nevertheless occupies a particularly prominent position in the emerging argument.
The station has two advanced gas-cooled reactors with a combined output of about 1,190MW. EDF currently expects generation to continue until March 2030, subject to inspections, reliability and regulatory approval.
The site has an established grid connection, cooling-water access, decades of nuclear use and an existing skilled workforce.
There is also local political interest in examining the site’s future.
In August 2025, East Lothian Council backed a motion asking the UK Government to fund an independent characterisation study of Torness to determine whether the site could accommodate new nuclear infrastructure.
The council did not approve a reactor. It asked for geological, environmental, infrastructure and community factors to be investigated so that a future decision could be evidence-based.
The motion also called for engagement with the Scottish Government, EDF, trade unions and the local community.
That local position complicates any simple account of Westminster attempting to impose a reactor on an unwilling Scotland. Views are divided not only between governments but within Scotland itself, and some communities and elected representatives associated with existing nuclear sites are interested in further development.
Hunterston Has Already Tested the Nuclear Question in NPF4
Hunterston provides another instructive example.
The North Ayrshire site has extensive industrial land and a long nuclear history. Hunterston B has ceased generation and moved through defuelling towards decommissioning, while the surrounding area is being considered for new industrial uses.
During preparation of NPF4, representations sought to include new nuclear development within the nationally significant Hunterston Strategic Asset.
The Scottish Government declined to do so.
Its explanatory report recorded that there would be no change because new nuclear was not supported by the current Energy Strategy.
That means the prospective confrontation is not hypothetical planning theory. Scotland has already used its national planning framework to exclude nuclear generation from a site where further nuclear development had specifically been proposed for inclusion.
Dounreay Presents a Different Nuclear Legacy
Dounreay is different again.
The Caithness site was one of Britain’s centres of experimental nuclear development, including fast-reactor programmes, but is now dominated by decommissioning.
The UK siting study identified the area as technically worthy of further consideration because of its nuclear heritage, workforce and infrastructure.
Any return to generating reactors there would have to be considered alongside a decommissioning programme expected to continue for decades, the local economy’s dependence on nuclear skills, transmission infrastructure and the considerable distance from major electricity demand centres.
The June report did not establish that Dounreay should host a reactor. It identified technical potential for future study.
The Argument Is Also About Thousands of Existing Jobs
The employment issue has become increasingly prominent at Holyrood.
Industry figures cited in parliamentary questions put Scotland’s civil nuclear workforce at 5,583. The Scottish Government has said it has not independently verified that figure but recognises the contribution made by Scotland’s nuclear workforce.
It also argues that decommissioning at Dounreay, Hunterston and Chapelcross will continue to employ skilled workers for decades and that similar work will eventually follow at Torness.
When asked in September what assessment it had made of the employment consequences if Scotland received no new nuclear projects, the Government said it had undertaken no such analysis.
That leaves a gap in the public evidence.
The Scottish Government maintains that renewables, storage, hydrogen and other low-carbon industries can support Scotland’s future energy economy. Nuclear supporters argue that this does not establish that the specialised employment attached to existing nuclear locations will be replaced locally, at comparable wages or on the same timescale.
Neither proposition can simply be assumed.
Nuclear Cannot Replace Torness by 2030
The strongest practical limitation on the current argument is time.
Torness is scheduled to stop generating in 2030.
No large nuclear station authorised after a future general election could plausibly pass through site selection, design, regulation, finance, consenting, construction and commissioning quickly enough to replace Torness when it closes.
The same applies to Britain’s first generation of commercial small modular reactors. These are intended to shorten construction times through standardised factory manufacture, but Britain does not yet have an operating commercial SMR from which actual domestic construction times and costs can be measured.
The Conservative proposal is therefore about Scotland’s electricity system in the later 2030s and beyond, not an immediate solution to the retirement of Torness.
The gap between those dates will have to be managed through the wider Great Britain electricity system regardless of what future governments decide about nuclear development.
The Cost Argument Remains Unresolved
Large-scale nuclear development also carries financial questions considerably larger than the planning dispute.
Modern Scot’s July investigation examined the National Audit Office assessment of Sizewell C, where the baseline construction estimate had reached £38.2 billion and completion was expected in the late 2030s.
Hinkley Point C has meanwhile experienced substantial delays and cost escalation.
Nuclear supporters argue that subsequent projects should benefit from replication, existing supply chains and lessons learned from first-of-a-kind construction. Small modular reactor developers make a similar case for standardisation and factory production.
Those claims cannot yet be verified against an operating British SMR fleet because none exists.
The relevant comparison is therefore not simply nuclear against wind on the basis of headline generation cost. A future Scottish electricity system has to provide energy, firm capacity, system stability, transmission, storage and resilience through periods in which renewable output varies.
Equally, the need for firm generation does not itself prove that nuclear is the lowest-cost way of providing it.
That decision would require a system-level comparison of nuclear, storage, interconnection, flexible demand, renewable overbuild, other dispatchable generation and the network investment associated with each combination.
Waste Policy Would Remain Another Scotland–UK Divide
A new Scottish nuclear programme would also reopen a longstanding disagreement over radioactive waste.
Scotland already contains major nuclear decommissioning sites at Dounreay, Hunterston and Chapelcross and will eventually inherit the decommissioning programme at Torness.
The Scottish and UK governments have historically taken different approaches to the long-term management of higher-activity radioactive waste. The UK programme is pursuing geological disposal for the most hazardous material, while Scottish policy has favoured near-surface, near-site management for relevant higher-activity waste streams where practical.
A decision to construct new reactors would therefore involve more than granting a construction consent. It would create waste and decommissioning responsibilities extending far beyond the operating life of the plant.
The Missing Document Is Now the Conservative Bill
The announcement on 5 October establishes a political objective but leaves the decisive legal questions unanswered.
It is not yet known whether the Conservatives intend to remove nuclear applications from the Scottish section 36 system, transfer those functions back to a UK minister, establish an entirely new nuclear consenting process or create a narrower statutory power capable of overriding a Scottish refusal.
It is not known what role Scottish local authorities would retain.
It is not known how environmental permitting by Scottish regulators would interact with the proposed system.
It is not known whether Westminster would seek legislative consent from Holyrood or proceed without it if consent were refused.
Nor has a Scottish location been selected for the third large-scale reactor Bowie says the Conservatives want to build.
Since 1999, Scotland has possessed executive authority over the principal electricity consent required for a major generating station. Since 2007, successive SNP governments have used that authority alongside Scottish planning policy to prevent new nuclear development. Since 2009, that position has appeared formally in Scotland’s national spatial planning framework.
In June 2026, the UK Government demonstrated that technically plausible Scottish nuclear locations still exist. In July, Modern Scot identified the legal fork that followed: Scotland could change its policy, or Westminster could change the rules.
The Conservatives have now said which route they would take.
The next document capable of showing how far they intend to go is the legislation itself.
Sources
‘Bring it on’, Bowie tells Scottish Government over nuclear power
ITV News, 5 October 2026
https://www.itv.com/news/2026-10-05/bring-it-on-bowie-tells-scottish-government-over-nuclear-power
Potential Future Nuclear Power Plant Siting in Scotland
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Great British Energy–Nuclear, 30 June 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/potential-future-nuclear-power-plant-siting-in-scotland
Scotland Has High Potential for New Nuclear Development
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 30 June 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scotland-has-high-potential-for-new-nuclear-development
Advanced Nuclear Framework
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-nuclear-framework/advanced-nuclear-framework-accessible-webpage
Electricity Act 1989
UK Parliament
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/contents
The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999
UK Parliament, 1999
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1750/contents/made
Scotland Act 1998
UK Parliament, as amended
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents
Meeting of the Parliament, 29 November 2007
Scottish Parliament, 29 November 2007
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-29-11-2007
National Planning Framework for Scotland 2
Scottish Government, 2 July 2009
https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-scotland-2/
National Planning Framework 3
Scottish Government, June 2014
https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-3/
National Planning Framework 4
Scottish Government, 13 February 2023
https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/
National Planning Framework 4: Explanatory Report
Scottish Government, November 2022
https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4-explanatory-report/
Nuclear Energy
Scottish Government, current policy
https://www.gov.scot/policies/nuclear-energy/
Nuclear Power in Scotland — Motion S7M-00258
Scottish Parliament, June 2026
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/votes-and-motions/S7M-00258
Torness Power Station Site Characterisation Motion
East Lothian Council, 26 August 2025
https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/26037/15_motion_request_for_funding_to_undertake_a_full_independent_survey_of_torness_power_station_site_characterisation_to_establish_its_suitability_for_a_new_nuclear_power_station
Torness Nuclear Power Station
EDF Energy, current station information
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-stations/torness
Sizewell C
National Audit Office, 2026
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/sizewell-c/
Scotland Put Back on Britain’s Nuclear Map Without Its Government’s Consent
Modern Scot, 10 July 2026
https://modernscot.ch/scotland-put-back-on-britains-nuclear-map-without-its-governments-consent/
