Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) spent £58,282.31 on its study into the potential for sites in Scotland to host new nuclear projects and used the services of AtkinsRéalis and Mott MacDonald.
GBE-N says it is “a government-owned, arm’s-length body responsible for delivering the UK’s new nuclear energy programme, starting with small modular reactors (SMRs)”.
In October 2025, the then Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) secretary of state Ed Miliband asked GBE-N to explore deploying new nuclear at Torness, Hunterston and potentially other parts of Scotland, despite the fact that the SNP-run Scottish Government does not allow new nuclear developments in Scotland.
He told journalists he had asked GBE-N to conduct the assessment in advance of Scottish Parliament elections, which were due to be held on 7 May 2026.
Holyrood retains power over planning policy for the country and the SNP opposes nuclear, meaning no new nuclear will be built in Scotland while the SNP remains in government.
The SNP retained enough seats at the May election to form a minority government.
The outcome of GBE-N’s assessment was published in a report titled GBE-N Technical Advice on Potential Future Nuclear Power Plant Siting in Scotland on 30 June.
The outcome of GBE-N’s assessment was published in a report titled GBE-N Technical Advice on Potential Future Nuclear Power Plant Siting in Scotland on 30 June.
However, the cost of the study and specific private sector involvement was not know.
The report said: “The study concludes that, from a technical perspective, Scotland has land areas with high potential for new nuclear development.”
It repeatedly caveated its contents, stating that it was technical and not policy-focused, and added that commercial interest was also not considered, which would likely be critical for any future new nuclear power projects in Scotland.
The study singled out Torness nuclear power plant (NPP) and surrounding coast, Dounreay nuclear site and surrounding coast, Hunterston NPP and surrounding coast, North Shore, Firth of Forth Estuary, Stirling, South Bank of the Forth, and Angus & Aberdeenshire East Coast as areas of consideration.
The cost of the study and the names of the companies were revealed in response to a request NCE made using the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
GBE-N said: “The total value invoiced in relation to the assessment of potential locations in Scotland for new nuclear development is £58,282.31.”
That covered £35,422 for a “secondee resource” from AtkinsRéalis, £10,159 for professional services from Mott MacDonald and £12,683 for population and technical data from the Health & Safety Executive.
GBE-N added: “One secondee from AtkinsRéalis assisted with the delivery of the study. No other staff were seconded from the supply chain to conduct the study.”
GBE-N, AtkinsRéalis and Mott MacDonald were approached for comment.
Have your say
or a new account to join the discussion.
Facts Only
* Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) is a government-owned, arm’s-length body.
* GBE-N spent £58,282.31 on a study regarding potential new nuclear sites in Scotland.
* The study utilized services from AtkinsRéalis, Mott MacDonald, and the Health & Safety Executive.
* Expenditure breakdown: £35,422 for an AtkinsRéalis secondee, £10,159 for Mott MacDonald professional services, and £12,683 for HSE data.
* Ed Miliband, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero secretary of state, requested the assessment in October 2025.
* The request occurred prior to the Scottish Parliament elections on 7 May 2026.
* The SNP-led Scottish Government prohibits new nuclear developments in Scotland.
* The SNP formed a minority government following the May election.
* The resulting technical advice was published on 30 June.
* Identified areas of consideration include Torness, Dounreay, Hunterston, North Shore, Firth of Forth Estuary, Stirling, South Bank of the Forth, and Angus & Aberdeenshire East Coast.
Executive Summary
The UK government, via Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N), has conducted a technical assessment of potential sites for new nuclear power plants in Scotland, specifically focusing on small modular reactors (SMRs). This initiative was directed by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in anticipation of the 2026 Scottish elections. The resulting report concludes that Scotland possesses land areas with high technical potential for nuclear development, highlighting several coastal and inland regions including Torness and Hunterston.
The project faced significant political friction, as the SNP-run Scottish Government maintains a policy opposing new nuclear developments. While the SNP retained enough seats to form a minority government, the UK government proceeded with the technical study. The assessment was strictly limited to technical viability; it explicitly excluded policy considerations and commercial interests. Details regarding the cost and the involvement of private firms AtkinsRéalis and Mott MacDonald were only disclosed following a Freedom of Information request.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is one of prudent governance: the UK government is performing necessary due diligence and technical mapping to ensure energy security options are available regardless of which party holds power in Holyrood. By keeping the study strictly "technical" and not "policy-focused," the state avoids a direct constitutional clash while preparing the groundwork for future infrastructure.
However, this situation reveals a pattern of strategic positioning. Conducting a study in direct opposition to the current governing party's stated policy—and timing it specifically around an election cycle—suggests a move to create a "technical inevitability" that can be leveraged if political winds shift. The reliance on private sector consultants (AtkinsRéalis and Mott MacDonald) to deliver this state-owned body's findings introduces a cycle where private entities benefit from studying projects that are currently politically impossible.
The root cause is the systemic tension between UK-wide energy security goals and devolved Scottish political autonomy. This echoes historical patterns of "pre-emptive planning," where a central government prepares the technical architecture for a policy it cannot yet legally implement.
Implications for agency suggest that technical reports can be used as tools of political momentum; by labeling a site "high potential," the discourse shifts from "should we?" to "where can we?" This potentially marginalizes the current democratic mandate of the Scottish Government.
Bridge Questions:
1. If technical viability is decoupled from policy and commercial reality, what is the actual utility of the expenditure?
2. How does the involvement of private consultants influence the "technical" framing of sites?
3. Would the disclosure of these costs have happened without FOI intervention?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated campaign to undermine the SNP would highlight the "waste" of public funds on "impossible" projects or, conversely, frame the SNP as "anti-science" by ignoring "technical potential." The current presentation is a factual report of expenditure and does not match this aggressive playbook.
Patterns detected: none
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be a transparent report summarizing facts, figures, and political constraints surrounding a specific government-funded study, leaning towards traditional journalistic reporting.