Green Leadership in the Shadow of States: Scotland’s climate leadership overseas and the Green argument against Scottish independence

Guest article written by Campbell MacPherson.

A bitter Scottish unionist might scorn at the thought of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on the international stage, let alone listening to her proclaim herself as a world leader on tackling the climate emergency. But even I, an avid critic of Sturgeon and a unionist myself, must confess: when it comes to overseas climate leadership, the First Minister and her government are doing rather well. 

As a devolved nation in the United Kingdom, Scotland does not conduct its own foreign affairs – that is the job of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office down in London. Whilst lacking an independent foreign office does debilitate Scotland in the realm of international relations, Scotland still enjoys a unique and influential position as a world leading sub-state actor when it comes to tackling the climate emergency.

The sub-state actors I refer to are devolved or federal governments, subordinate to the states they belong to, but are given certain powers over matters that can be addressed at a regional level. Scotland, a devolved nation with the economic and political weight of the UK behind it, has considerable influence and leadership over many of these actors, particularly when it comes to climate action. Most crucially, Scotland sits as one of the five co-chairs of the Under2 Coalition. 

Under2 is a network of sub-state governments who tackle the climate emergency as subnational actors. As outlined on Under2’s website, the group brings 260 regional governments together, representing over 20% of the world’s population and 50% of the global economy - a sizable amount of our international society.

Although our international governments have the most potential to curb the climate crisis, there is a general consensus that current international efforts are simply not enough to make the change we so desperately need. In the face of this interstate failure, the climate action undertaken at more regionalised levels of government is looking far more promising - Under2 is a clear demonstration of this. As stated in a press release, Under2’s members are expected to cut their carbon emissions by around 5 billion tons annually by 2030 - subsequently making Under2 ‘the international collaborative initiative with the biggest potential to reduce global emissions’. 

In addition to their promising emissions projection, the Under2 Coalition (along with other non-state coalitions) called upon COP26 nations to deliver a progressive ‘Glasgow Package’. This package demanded for states to deliver $100 billion (£74 billion) of climate financing to the Global South, to ensure that the Covid-19 recovery is a Green recovery, and that the Paris Agreement is adapted to encompass cities and regional administrations into its implementation framework. 

The reasons why sub-state solutions are seemingly more ambitious and effective than international solutions are best stated by Hélèn Charier, head of zero-carbon development for C40 Cities. In an article she wrote, Charier states that ‘an agreement which much be accepted by all [states] cannot be bold’. Because of the sheer breadth of the states in climate negotiations (in terms of their numbers, sizes, diversity, and domestic complexity), this intricacy will inevitably water-down any agreement that can be met (as seen with the Glasgow Pact). On the other hand, by devolving climate powers to cities, councils, and other sub-state governments, this complexity can be reduced, and we can empower the subnational governments who - after all - have the greatest understanding of their own unique environments. 

In short, sub-state actors are ambitious about facing the climate crisis head on, and are also well suited to make the commitments necessary to achieve climate targets. The future of our planet may depend on the efforts of these subnational groups.

But then, where does Scotland come into all of this? Scotland is a leader whom these subnational actors rally around, and its influence to motivate progressive climate action across the globe is truly impressive.

The Net Zero Futures initiative - led by the Scottish Government as Under2 co-chair - is a prime example of how Scotland can invigorate impactful climate action across the world. The initiative allows regional governments across the world to assist one another by pooling together experiences and resources to enable others to take progressive climate action. The result of this is that sub-state governments from across the globe - from Santiago to West Bengal, Budapest to Vancouver - are given the tools they need to excel at reducing the impacts of climate change, and this is an initiative set-up and lead by Scotland.

Moreover, at COP26, the Scottish Government was the first government to give ‘loss and damage’ funding to the Global South for the devastating consequences of climate change through a Climate Adjustment Fund. The fund is, as Nicola Sturgeon asserted, a genuine reparation and not an act of charity, and it shows how Scotland can and is leading by example on the issue of climate justice. 

The Walloon Government (a Belgium regional government) swiftly responded and matched the Scottish Government’s ‘loss and damage’ fund, which goes to show just how much of an impact Scotland can still have internationally as a devolved nation.

Although sub-state actors like Scotland have shown some meaningful progress to curb the climate crisis, they have been largely overlooked by our international governments. Despite subnational governments calling for the much needed ‘Glasgow Package’ described above, this demand was brushed off by states, and there is still no incorporation of cities and regional governments into the Paris Agreement’s implementation. Therefore, the impact Scotland and other subnational actors can have is still limited under current international conditions.

However, there are emerging signs that the world’s governments are starting to embrace sub-state actors into their climate change tackling institutions. The Beyond Oil and Gas Agreement (BOGA) is an institution which was announced at COP26, set up by Costa Rica and Denmark to phase out oil and gas around the world. The agreement labels itself as a ‘coalition of governments’ (not of states or nations), and so we are starting to see subnational governments mingling with states when it comes to the international climate response. In an unprecedented fashion, Quebec, Wales, and California are now discussing sustainable energy targets as equals with France, Sweden and Ireland.

  - - -

Although the question of Scottish independence seems to creep its way into every discussion about Scotland nowadays, I feel like there is some value in evaluating what climate leadership means for Scotland’s position in the UK. Several arguments have been made, most notably by Lorna Slater MSP, putting forward the notion that  Scotland requires independence from Westminster in order to take effective climate action. 

However, in light of this article’s subject matter, I hold a very different view. I would like to present an argument that is rarely made (if ever), that is, the Green argument against independence.

Scotland holds a position of unprecedented global influence as a climate leader of sub-state actors. Even whilst being overshadowed and shrugged off by states, we have already seen tremendous progress to protect our planet at the subnational level. The future for the emancipation of subnational actors looks promising too, as we have just started to see sub-state governments appear in international climate pacts. So, with Scotland playing such a critical role by leading a large network of governments in the fight against climate change, I ask you this: should Scotland maintain its position as a sub-state heavy-weight on the issue of climate change, or should it concede to joining a network of international governments failing humanity on the climate crisis?

If we want to continue to rally the world in the fight against climate change, then we should not take the risk of pursuing independence where we may lose the crucial influence we enjoy currently. We are scarily close to climate catastrophe, and Scotland’s potential to curb this damage should not be wasted in pursuit of sovereignty. For the planet’s sake, let’s keep doing what we’ve been excelling at already - let’s keep saving our world.

Image courtesy of Junta de Andalucía ©2021, some rights reserved.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.