Here’s a bold statement: Hundreds of millions of pounds are being proposed to save just 400 jobs by 2050, and one Green candidate is calling it a ‘brazen attempt’ to prop up a risky venture. But here’s where it gets controversial—is this a wise investment, or a corporate power play disguised as job security? Let’s dive in.
On February 12, 2026, Shetland’s Green candidate for the upcoming Scottish parliamentary election, Alex Armitage, vehemently opposed the plan to invest up to £300 million into the Sullom Voe Terminal. The goal? To safeguard 400 jobs by 2050 by transitioning the terminal to low-carbon fuel production. Armitage argues there are far better, less speculative ways to spend such a massive sum.
The debate was sparked by a report from the University of Strathclyde’s Centre for Energy Policy (CEP), released on Wednesday. The study warns that without intervention, 234 jobs could be lost in the next decade, rising to 402 by 2050. However, CEP suggests this could be avoided if terminal operator EnQuest and its subsidiary Veri receive £300 million for the first phase of e-fuels production. Sounds like a solution, right? Not so fast, says Armitage.
In a sharply worded response, Armitage labeled the report a ‘breathless policy briefing’ and questioned its motives. ‘When I read this, urging public support for a corporate energy project, I smelt a rat,’ he said. He argues that the energy transition threatens corporate power, as renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and tidal power naturally lend themselves to smaller, community-controlled projects. ‘This briefing is a brazen attempt to maintain corporate control,’ he added.
And this is the part most people miss: Armitage points out that the proposed investment equates to £750,000 per job saved. ‘Surely there are less speculative ways to invest that money?’ he asks. Instead, he suggests creating a Sullom Voe transition fund to provide long-term economic security for Shetland’s workers.
But let’s step back for a moment. Is Armitage’s critique fair, or is he overlooking the urgency of job preservation? The other candidates—John Erskine (Labour), Hannah Mary Goodlad (SNP), Emma Macdonald (Lib Dems), and Brian Nugent (Sovereignty)—have yet to comment. But the question remains: Are we prioritizing corporate interests over people and the planet?
Armitage doesn’t hold back. He argues that powerful corporations are funneling wealth into the pockets of the super-rich at the expense of public services, affordable energy, and mental health. ‘This isn’t just politics,’ he says. ‘It’s the reason so many of us struggle daily.’
So, here’s the big question: Should governments invest in speculative corporate projects, or focus on decentralized, community-driven solutions? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this is a debate worth having.
