‘Islanders do not need more consultation; they need more influence’

As Shetlanders, we’re often reminded that we’re a vital strategic asset.

Which is nice.

Unfortunately, “strategic asset” can sometimes sound like a polite way of saying, “somewhere convenient to put things.”

The Faroe Islands and the Isle of Man offer an interesting comparison. Like Shetland, they are island communities built on the sea. Yet both enjoy considerably greater influence over their own development.

One suspects that if either were asked to host quite so many nationally significant projects, the first question would be simple: “And what’s in it for the island?”

Meanwhile, Shetland increasingly finds itself hosting infrastructure designed to meet national objectives. Sometimes the process feels remarkably straightforward:

• The south needs something
• Shetland has room
• A consultation is arranged to explain why everyone should be delighted

Today the justification may be net zero. Tomorrow it may be artificial intelligence. Either way, the pylons, substations, cable corridors and industrial infrastructure still arrive in the same place. If we are expected to help power the future, it seems reasonable to ask:

Advertisement2 of 9

What does the future do for us?
And will it help more people stay?

We’re increasingly told that ever more energy infrastructure is needed to support the digital economy, artificial intelligence and data centres. Yet many of the highest-value elements of that economy — from semiconductor manufacturing to software development and data ownership — are located elsewhere.

Island communities are entitled to ask whether they are simply being asked to host the infrastructure while the majority of the economic value is created somewhere else. If the future requires more of Shetland’s land, sea and energy resources, then it is reasonable to ask what share of that future will actually be built in Shetland.

Shetland already contributes enormously through fishing, aquaculture, energy production and marine industries. Few places contribute more to the national economy per head of population, yet few have less influence over how that contribution is used.

Advertisement3 of 9

Despite helping to feed and power the country, many islanders still face some of the highest electricity standing charges in Britain, rising fuel costs, transport challenges and a housing shortage that makes it difficult for young people and key workers to remain in the islands.

When fuel prices rise, islanders cannot simply switch to a train, underground network or motorway. They pay the bill. We’re encouraged to cycle more, drive less and embrace active travel. Yet electrically assisted bikes, often promoted as part of that solution, can still find themselves excluded from some public premises.

Sometimes the greatest barrier to progress is not technology, but the inability of different policies to agree with each other.

• The Faroes export seafood;
• The Isle of Man exports financial services;
• Shetland exports seafood and energy;

Advertisement4 of 9

All three contribute far beyond what their populations might suggest. The difference is not what they contribute. The difference is how much influence they have over the future of the places that generate that contribution. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that while the benefits of Shetland’s resources are often shared nationally, many of the costs and consequences remain stubbornly local.

Too often, Shetland exports value but imports decisions. For all the talk of growth, the real test is simple:

Will there be more people living, working and raising families in Shetland 20 years from now than there are today?

Scotland has learned before that communities are easier to lose than rebuild. The great waves of 19th century emigration did not happen because Scotland lacked resources. They happened because too many people saw greater opportunities elsewhere.

Yet prosperity already exists here.

The fishing industry, aquaculture sector, marine services, tourism businesses, crofting communities and countless small local enterprises have spent decades building an economy that supports families across the islands. The challenge is not finding something new for Shetland to do.

Advertisement5 of 9

It is ensuring that existing industries have the infrastructure, workforce, housing, transport links and local support needed to continue succeeding.

Investment is important. But investment should be judged not only by how much infrastructure it delivers, but by whether it helps keep people in Shetland.

The real measure of success is not the number of projects built, but whether more families can afford to stay, more young people can build careers locally and more communities can thrive rather than slowly decline. After all, infrastructure should help sustain island communities, not become another chapter in the long story of population drifting away from them.

The irony is that Shetland is not asking others to pay its way. We already provide seafood, energy and economic value far beyond what our population would suggest.

Advertisement6 of 9

The more interesting question is how much the rest of the country would miss Shetland if its seafood, energy, skills and resources suddenly disappeared tomorrow. Or, to put it another way, we’re good enough to provide the fish, the oil, the gas, the wind, the waves and the seabed—but not always good enough to decide what happens next.

History also offers a note of caution. Anyone seeking reassurance that all large national infrastructure projects proceed exactly as promised need only glance at HS2 — a project that somehow managed to become both shorter and more expensive while still being described as a success.

And if governments have struggled to keep pollution out of rivers they already control, islanders can perhaps be forgiven for asking a few questions before being told everything will be different this time.

Advertisement7 of 9

Many islanders are also surprised to discover how much activity can take place before a final decision has been made.

By the time communities are invited to comment, surveys may already be complete, routes identified and work underway. At that point, consultation can begin to feel less like a conversation and more like a project update.

A stronger voice does not require constitutional upheaval. It could begin with something much simpler:

• A guaranteed share of the benefits from nationally significant developments;
• Greater local influence over major planning decisions;
• Investment in housing, transport and workforce development;
• Tangible benefits for communities helping to generate and export energy.

As Tove Jansson’s island characters often discovered, life tends to work best when the people living on an island have some say over what happens on it.

Islanders do not need more consultation; they need more influence. If Shetland is good enough to power the future, it is good enough to help shape it. A nationally significant contribution deserves a nationally significant voice.

The Faroese ask what is good for the Faroes. The Isle of Man asks what is good for the Isle of Man.

Neither seems especially embarrassed about doing so. Perhaps it is time Shetland was trusted to answer the same question for itself.

Regina Irvine
Whalsay