The Yes case carried the vote, overwhelmingly, and its most-respected argument was about the cost of stopping before alternatives are ready: “it just liquidates our industrial capacity.” Other Yes voters tied new licences to energy security and manufacturing, calling the two “industrial security”; some wanted production kept for domestic use, while others argued for taxing it to fund nuclear and renewables.
That left the winning side’s central tension in view: more domestic production was presented both as a way to reduce dependence and as breathing space before moving away from fossil fuels. One Yes voter put the caveat plainly: “only until such time as we've managed to increase our own new energy”.
The most-respected No case answered with a warning about dependence, not simply emissions: “The only route out is to get clean.” Other No voters challenged whether new licences could deliver the promised security, arguing that fuel would still be sold on global markets and that the beneficiaries would be oil companies and shareholders. Yes voters did not settle that question; some instead called for domestic-use guarantees and fuel reserves.
The disagreement belongs to the live argument over how quickly the UK can shift to cleaner energy without leaving industry exposed in the meantime. For Yes voters, the bridge was continued North Sea production; for No voters, it risked making the eventual exit harder.
The vote favoured the bridge, while leaving its destination—and who controls the crossing—contested.
53 Opinions
Dependence on foreign sources needs to be addressed
It was a good idea once, when the supplies were there. Now? No.
It wont have a big enough affect to help, dependency from imports will still be high
Hard left endorsing stupidity as usual.
Yes, but (given N.Sea oil is a finite resource) income should be seen as community wealth, rather than extra money for the government.
Absolutely. I don't understand this need to pander to the Greens and liberal in this matter, I could say that a lot.
Even if we didn't directly help the fuel prices in the UK it would bring in a substantial amount for the UK
I am concerned about climate change. But Norway seems to have derived so much more benefit from NS oil than us. We need to protect our energy security and earn the revenue right now.
This is a really bad idea. We could drain every drop of oil in the north sea and it wouldn't make a jot of difference to prices - it's a global commodity market!! All this does is put money in the pockets of the oil companies at a time when we desperately need to adopt more wind, solar and hydro power (with appropriate storage to cover variability in supply). There are better, cheaper and cleaner alternatives to north sea oil and gas
Yes but with a caveat. Britain must keep the oil and gas for domestic use. Every drop taken from the North Sea has simply been sold on the open market.