A PUBLIC health expert has issued a major warning about Scotland’s AI datacentre boom.
It comes with at least 24 proposed AI data centres currently
in the planning system across the country, with others expected to be
imminent. This includes an £8 billion AI investment zone in North
Lanarkshire, a £5 billion data centre project near the small village of
Auchtertool in Fife, and a £2 billion data centre proposal in the Borders.
While proponents stress the economic opportunity with such developments,
critics, including local campaign groups, have warned of the centres’
impact on the environment, including extremely high electricity and water
usage.
Now, Andrew Watterson – an emeritus professor at the University of
Stirling whose research has focused extensively on occupational health and
safety and environmental health policies – has said that Scotland is
“rushing” to develop AI and that we “do not know whether we can
control it or not”.
“If those that work at the cutting edge of
researching its safety have profound doubts we can control it – and they
have voiced those doubts this week – and prevent harm to society, it’s
astonishing GB governments and local authorities are contemplating
approving hyper data centres at this stage,” he said.
“We have also seen evidence about a wide range of adverse impacts associated with such
developments. This is at a time when global warming is visible to all and
heat islands and mortality and morbidity from ‘rushed’ failed past energy
and economic policies are clear.”
The National 11th Sept 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26542059.public-health-expert-issues-warning-scotlands-ai-data-centres/
Britain stands against oppression in Palestine… by supplying F-35s
Finian Cunningham, September 11, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/09/11/britain-stands-against-oppression-in-palestine-by-supplying-f-35s/
Britain is fuelling the genocide by Israel, as it is with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.
So, Britain announced with much fanfare this week that it was imposing sanctions on Israel’s illegal settlements in Palestine. Note that the sanctions are not against the Israeli state, but rather a much narrower definition: Israeli entities in the Occupied Territories.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham claimed that the move was an example of Britain giving international leadership to stand against oppression and injustice.
Addressing the British Parliament, Burnham said: “In this difficult and dangerous world, Britain has to stand for something, Britain has to show leadership, Britain has to stand for fairness against injustice… That is what the British people expect of us, and that is what this government will do.”
Several other European states and Canada have also joined the British-led initiative to ban trade and investment with companies doing business in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank.
Israel’s occupation is illegal under international law, yet Britain, the European Union and the United States have done nothing in the way of imposing sanctions. Sanctions are something the West prefers to impose on Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, among others.
In announcing the sanctions, the United Kingdom’s foreign minister Ed Miliband told the House of Commons that “Britain was a country that upholds its values at home and around the world, fighting against oppression and suffering, and standing up for what is right.”
The pious tones from London about Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” are not convincing.
For starters, the supposed sanctions do not cover British components for the F-35 fighter jets that the United States sells to Israel. The British parts are crucial for flying the US-made stealth aircraft. The warplane has played a major role in razing Gaza to the ground. Also not included in the sanctions are drones and surveillance equipment that British firms supply to the Israeli military. All those components are crucial for enabling the nearly three-year genocidal violence that Israel has conducted in Gaza.
If the British government were serious about “standing against oppression,” it would go a lot further than focusing on violations by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories. The pogroms and construction of new settlements are carried out with the full assistance of the Israeli state, not just by gun-wielding fanatical settlers. Britain and other Western states have provided the legal and diplomatic cover for Israeli war crimes.
In any case, the supposed measures against Israeli business and exports from the West Bank are minimal. A recent Al Jazeera investigation found that Britain has billions of dollars invested in companies that are intimately involved in illegal settlement building. We can be sure that London is not going to cancel investments.
Total British-Israeli trade is estimated at $8 billion a year, including lucrative military items. The amount of business that Britain does with the Occupied Territories is about 1 per cent of its total trade with Israel.
Burnham and Miliband said the British government did not support boycott and divestment sanctions against the state of Israel. Both of them were at pains to emphasize that the measures are nominally limited to the violations going on in the Occupied Territories, not what Israel is doing right across Palestinian land, including Gaza, which is a genocide.
So there you have it. Britain’s “moral leadership” is nothing but tokenism and duplicity.
Should we expect anything else? After all, as former British diplomat Craig Murray pointed out this week, Burnham’s government has decided to give top-secret information for building cruise missiles to the corrupt Kiev regime. Murray warns that the Storm Shadow missiles will soon end up being sold on the black market, given the rampant corruption of Ukraine under the Zelensky cabal.
Britain is also supplying this NeoNazi regime with long-range drones that are being used to target Moscow and Russian civilians.
Is this standing up against oppression and for supposed British values?
What’s really behind London’s belated show of concern for Palestinians?
As Burnham and Miliband alluded, it’s all about Britain appearing to show international leadership. It’s a cheap way to burnish London’s “moral posturing” as a defender of “humanitarian values.”
Israel has hit back with the usual denunciations of “anti-semitism” and by closing down the British consulate in East Jerusalem. But for London, these repercussions are bearable for the bigger gains of British international PR.
As noted above, the lion’s share of its lucrative trade with Israel will go on, business as usual.
The other key motive for the Burnham government is that it realizes that a majority of the British public has become staunchly opposed to the Israeli regime. The three-year genocide has opened the eyes of many Britons (and those of other Western nations) to the historical injustices and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. Israel is increasingly seen as a pariah, apartheid state that should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Britain’s role as the former colonial power in the Zionist annexation of Palestine is one of deep complicity and shame.
Andy Burnham was shoehorned into Downing Street to take over from the hopeless and hapless Labour leader Keir Starmer. The British establishment has bet on Burnham to shore up its imperialist interests by boosting military spending and deepening involvement in the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
However, Burnham’s popularity has quickly worn off as he looks like Starmer 2.0.
The tokenistic moves to support Palestinian rights and oppose Israeli violations are a cynical electioneering ploy. By talking up sanctions against Israeli illegal settlements, Burnham is calculating that it will garner votes from the growing public anger over the genocide.
But the measures that London is taking are negligible. They amount to a polite tap on the wrist of the Netanyahu regime as it continues its genocide.
Britain is fuelling the genocide by Israel, as it is with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. British duplicity is as legion as its hypocrisy.
Labour delays ordering new attack submarines
Government accused of ‘kicking the can’ after putting off decision on building subs to 2028
Telegraph Pieter Snepvangers Political Reporter. Tony Diver Political Editor, 2 September 2026
Labour has delayed ordering new attack submarines until 2028, The Telegraph
can reveal. Sir Keir Starmer pledged last year to build “up to 12”
nuclear-powered submarines. He said Labour would decide how many vessels to
commission by the time its defence investment plan (DIP) was published.
Despite finally releasing the delayed DIP in June, the Government has
deferred its deadline for committing to buying the subs until 2028, The
Telegraph has learnt. Wes Streeting, the Defence Secretary, wrote to James
Cartlidge, his Conservative shadow: “The DIP clearly sets out our
intention to buy up to 12 SSN-A submarines, but a decision on exact hull
numbers does not need to be taken at this stage. “The programme is
currently midway through its design phase and we anticipate that the number
of submarines will be confirmed before the end of this phase in 2028.”………………………………………………….
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/09/12/labour-delays-buying-new-attack-submarines/
Rolls-Royce boss bets big on new engines and small nuclear
he declared that Rolls-Royce was a “burning platform”.
The second big bet is on small modular reactors (SMRs),
analysts say the promised cost savings of SMRs have yet to be proven.
Having led an extraordinary turnaround since 2023, Tufan Erginbilgiç is staking the company’s continued growth on small modular reactors and a return to the single-aisle commercial jet market
Jeevan Vasagar, Observer 6th Sept 2026
he chief executive of Rolls-Royce was in typically forthright form at the Farnborough International Airshow in July. More than a decade after exiting the market for narrow-body aircraft, the British engineering company planned to return to making engines for the single-aisle planes that are the world’s bestselling commercial jets – but the CEO wanted government support to do so.
If it were not forthcoming, Tufan Erginbilgiç added, then Rolls-Royce had other options.
Erginbilgiç, a former BP executive, has led an extraordinary turnaround. At his first town hall meeting as chief executive, he declared that Rolls-Royce was a “burning platform”. The pandemic, which brought global air travel shuddering to a halt, could not be blamed for the engine-maker’s troubles, Erginbilgiç said, telling staff: “We underperform every key competitor out there.”
Rolls-Royce’s share price has soared from about 99p when Erginbilgiç took the helm in January 2023 to £14.67 this week, an increase similar to Nvidia’s surge in that time. “Rolls is a great business, and Tufan has played the City like a piano,” one aviation industry insider said.
The question is: can it last?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Rolls-Royce’s defence business, making power and propulsion systems for combat aircraft and submarines, has benefited from the increase in defence spending. The power systems division, supplying diesel generators and gas engines, has thrived with the boom in data centre construction. But here too Rolls-Royce is not just surfing the rising market. Profit margins have gone up as well, analysts point out……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The second big bet is on small modular reactors (SMRs), a technology that’s meant to reduce the time and cost of delivering nuclear fission at a moment when the uncertainty of fossil fuel markets, soaring electricity demand and emissions goals are driving renewed interest in nuclear power.
Delivering emissions-free energy is a valuable sideline for a company that relies for most of its business on burning kerosene. But analysts say the promised cost savings of SMRs have yet to be proven.
If Erginbilgiç can pull off either of these moonshots, the post-pandemic surge in Rolls-Royce’s valuation might just be the beginning.
https://observer.co.uk/news/business/article/rolls-royce-boss-bets-big-on-new-engines-and-nuclear
UK Nuclear Liabilities Fund selects Brookfield to manage initial $1bn
By IPE Staff10 September 2026
The Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) has selected Brookfield to manage a long-term, multi-asset investment mandate, with an initial commitment of $1bn (€850m).
The mandate will be managed by Brookfield’s Investment Solutions Group (ISG), which will draw on the investment capabilities across the firm to construct a portfolio tailored to NLF’s objectives, risk parameters and investment horizon, it was announced.
The portfolio will invest globally across Brookfield’s infrastructure, energy, private equity, real estate and private credit strategies. Investments are expected to comprise fund commitments, direct investments and co-investments.
The mandate is designed around the multi-decade nature of NLF’s liabilities associated with decommissioning eight of the UK’s nuclear power stations.
Brookfield said the investment horizon will be aligned with NLF’s multi-decade funding requirements, with the aim of supporting long-term capital growth and compounding investment returns to help meet future decommissioning costs.
Investment proceeds are expected to be reinvested into new opportunities rather than routinely distributed, allowing capital to remain invested across market cycles.
For NLF, the mandate is intended to ensure that sufficient assets are available to meet future decommissioning costs “without unnecessary reliance on taxpayers”……………………………………………………………….. https://www.ipe.com/news/uk-nuclear-liabilities-fund-selects-brookfield-to-manage-initial-1bn/10138410.article
UK datacentres will create just 25% of jobs predicted by tech sector, analysis finds
Facilities likely to employ 10,400 workers, compared with 40,000 in industry estimates, thinktank says
Datacentres in the UK will
create just a quarter of the jobs predicted by the tech sector, while
consuming vast amounts of energy, according to new research. Environmental
thinktank Verdant predicts that all the datacentres currently planned are
likely to directly employ 10,400 workers – compared with the more than
40,000 cited in projections by the industry lobby group TechUK. Labour has
defended the rapid rollout of AI datacentres in the face of growing public
scepticism, amid concerns about their demand for water and energy. The
government has also echoed TechUK’s claims about job creation.
Verdant’s analysis is based on 20 projects for which data on staffing
levels are publicly available, including via planning applications, company
accounts and press releases – as well as international comparisons.
Guardian 9th Sept 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/09/uk-datacentres-will-create-just-25-of-jobs-predicted-by-tech-sector-analysis-finds
Hinkley Point C seeking appeal against environmental data transparency tribunal ruling
08 Sep, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hinkley-point-c-seeking-appeal-against-environmental-data-transparency-tribunal-ruling-08-09-2026/
EDF’s Hinkley Point C has told NCE it has requested permission to appeal against a tribunal ruling in favour of an argument from campaigners which would subject the nuclear power station to environmental information transparency rules.
The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) decided on 26 June, following a hearing on 29 April, that NNB Generation Co (HPC) Ltd is a public authority according to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).
NNB Generation Company (NNB GenCo) is the company that owns Hinkley Point C. EDF is the majority owner of the company, with China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) as a minority owner.
The EIRs are operated in a similar but different way to the Freedom of Information Act.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had decided that NNB GenCo was subject to the EIRs after it made a ruling on behalf of environmental group Fish Legal, which was seeking environmental information about the nuclear power plant.
It announced its position in a decision notice published on 5 September 2024.
The ICO’s decision notice followed a complaint from Fish Legal, which represents anglers and has been repeatedly denied information from the developers of the nuclear power station about its methods of deterring fish from the site.
Hinkley Point C will require vast volumes of water to cool its nuclear reactors. Tunnels for water intake and outfall will circulate 120,000l of water per second. There are concerns this will lead to marine life being sucked into the system and killed.
NNB GenCo had a legal obligation to use an acoustic fish deterrent, based on its approved development consent order, but changed its plans to building a saltmarsh instead. It has now switched back to a plan for an acoustic fish deterrent, having discovered a new “safe and effective” method for implementing it.
Despite this, Fish Legal is continuing to support the ICO position because it covers matters broader than just the fish deterrent at Hinkley Point C – it believes that foreign-owned private companies building and operating nuclear power plants in the UK must comply with domestic environmental information laws and therefore provide details on environmental plans when asked.
A Hinkley Point C spokesperson told NCE: “We have now sought permission to appeal against the tribunal’s decision.
“Hinkley Point C has already made extensive amounts of environmental information available to the public and it will continue to keep stakeholders fully informed about the project.”
Reacting to Hinkley Point C’s decision to seek an appeal, Fish Legal head of policy and strategy Zoe Wedderburn-Day told NCE: “We are aware that NNB Generation Company, the EDF subsidiary responsible for Hinkley Point C, has sought permission to appeal the Upper Tribunal’s decision and we will be watching developments closely.
“The Upper Tribunal judgment was an important decision for environmental transparency, confirming that a privately owned company entrusted with significant public functions and statutory powers can be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations.
“We will consider the implications of any further proceedings once the appeal position becomes clearer.”
An ICO spokesperson told NCE that the ICO noted the judgment but didn’t make any further comment.
Reacting to NNB Gen Co’s request for an appeal, Nuclear Industry Association chief executive Tom Greatrex told NCE: “The single biggest driver of biodiversity loss and habitat destruction is climate change.
“By delaying the deployment of nuclear power, which has the lowest carbon emissions, land use, and overall impact on ecosystems of any electricity source across its lifecycle, we are accelerating that damage and prolonging our reliance on higher-carbon energy sources.”
He added: “To reduce cost and accelerate delivery, we must ensure proportionate regulation.
“To achieve this, the government must fully implement the Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations to strengthen the UK’s energy security with clean power and enable new nuclear projects to progress at pace while maintaining high environmental standards.”
Gates-backed TerraPower targets British nuclear power plant start by 2034
Sodium cooled nuclear reactors are not necessarily safer. https://blog.ucs.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-plant-accidents-fermi-unit-1/
By Susanna Twidale, September 7, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gates-backed-terrapower-targets-british-nuclear-power-plant-start-by-2034-2026-09-07/
- Summary
- Companies
- Britain would be TerraPower’s first market outside United States
- First UK plant could be operational by 2034
- Electricity cost expected under £100 per megawatt hour
ONDON, Sept 7 (Reuters) – TerraPower, the U.S. nuclear developer backed by Bill Gates, expects its Natrium reactors to begin generating electricity in Britain by 2034, its CEO told Reuters, making the UK its first market outside the United States.
Britain has backed the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) to help to increase energy security and meet climate targets, launching an Advanced Nuclear Framework this year to support privately funded projects.
Chris Levesque, TerraPower’s president and CEO, said progress on the company’s first Natrium reactor, due to be completed in 2031, showed that “2034 nuclear electricity in the UK from Natrium is very possible”.
The technology has cleared regulatory requirements in the United States, where the first plant is being constructed in Wyoming and is currently being assessed under Britain’s Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process.
Each sodium-cooled Natrium reactor generates 345 megawatts of baseload power and includes storage capable of boosting output to 500 MW for more than five hours. The reactors run on high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU).
Britain and the U.S. are both building plants to produce the fuel, which was previously only commercially available from Russia.
Levesque said electricity generated by Natrium plants would be competitive with other low-carbon technologies, including combined solar-and-battery projects, at less than £100 ($135.32) per megawatt hour.
TerraPower has yet to choose a site for its first UK project, but said its British subsidiary is likely to be based in Liverpool, northwest England, close to the country’s nuclear regulator.
In the U.S., the company has an agreement with tech giant Meta (META.O), opens new tab to develop up to eight reactors. Levesque said TerraPower could seek similar partnerships in Britain.
Boris Johnson Continues to Lie About Subverting Ukraine Peace Talks
The origin of the Johnson sabotage story is not Russian propaganda. It was first reported by Ukrainska Pravda. The Ukrainian paper says that as soon as Ukraine and Russia had “agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning.” He told Zelensky that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
Johnson also wooed Zelensky with promises of “influence” and “fame” as a great war hero.
The charge against Johnson is supported not only by Ukrainian testimony, but by British testimony
Columnist Ted Snider takes on the former PM
Ted Snider is a columnist for The Libertarian Institute and a contributing editor for The American Conservative. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and other outlets.
In a recent interview, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson repeated his denial that he discouraged Ukraine from negotiating peace in the first days of the war. “This is complete, utter nonsense,” Johnson said. He insisted that the story was just the Kremlin spreading allegations.
Johnson has used that defense before. In January 2024, he told The Times that “This is nothing but total nonsense and Russian propaganda.”
But none of the sources of the charge are Russian. They are all either Ukrainian or British.
Johnson denies that he encouraged Zelensky to fight. He says that Zelensky’s mind was already set on fighting and that “there was not a single European or Western leader who could have stopped the Ukrainians from fighting for their country.”
That was not true at the time. In a February 25, 2022 address to Ukrainians, Zelensky said, “We are not afraid to talk to Russia. We are not afraid to say everything about security guarantees for our state. We are not afraid to talk about neutral status.”
The origin of the Johnson sabotage story is not Russian propaganda. It was first reported by Ukrainska Pravda. The Ukrainian paper says that as soon as Ukraine and Russia had “agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning.” He told Zelensky that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
That story, first reported in the Ukrainian press, was confirmed by the head of the Ukrainian negotiating team, Davyd Arakhamia, who says that when the Ukrainian team “returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight.” He adds that the West “actually advised us not to go into ephemeral security guarantees.”
Far from Russian propaganda, the charge against Johnson has a Ukrainian media source backed by primary source confirmation from the lead Ukrainian negotiator.
Though it carries less weight because she was not there and because she was no longer in office at the time, there is also secondary source confirmation from within Zelensky’s administration. Iuliia Mendel, Zelensky’s press secretary from 2019-2021, retells the story of Johnson rushing to Kiev to urge the Ukrainians to keep fighting. She also adds the claim, without support or attribution, that Johnson also wooed Zelensky with promises of “influence” and “fame” as a great war hero.
The charge against Johnson is supported not only by Ukrainian testimony, but by British testimony. A senior government source told The Times at the end of March 2022 that the British government warned Zelensky not to be bullied into concessions and that it was the position of the UK that he shouldn’t be “too eager… to settle” and that “Ukraine needs to be in the strongest possible position militarily before those talks can take place.”
Johnson did say that the UK “would back Ukraine a thousand percent.” But he also said, “I could not see for the life of me what the deal could be, and I thought that any deal with Putin was going to be pretty sordid.” He then told Zelensky that “as far as I am concerned, Putin must fail and Ukraine must be entitled to retain full sovereignty and independence.” Johnson then made the promise of providing the Ukrainian armed forces with military supplies.
In The Russo-Ukrainian War: Follies of Empire, Richard Sakwa reports an earlier phone conversation in which Johnson told Zelensky that the UK “would not stand as a guarantor power and urged Zelensky to refuse the deal.”
It is important to set Johnson’s perjury straight not just to correct the historical record, but to remember that, at a time when the war is becoming increasingly hopeless for Ukraine, before most of the death and destruction, there was the chance of peace, and that Johnson contributed to discouraging it and encouraging this horrible war.
Does Britain really face an imminent Russian threat?
By Anatol Lieven, 8 Sept 26, . https://unherd.com/newsroom/does-britain-really-face-an-imminent-russian-threat/
Diane Abbott has been subjected to ferocious attacks on her character for claiming on Wednesday that “the imminent threat from Russia is a Nato fiction.” The Labour MP added that the alliance was attempting “to justify their complete capitulation to Trump’s demands for more military spending. The increase should not go ahead.” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch branded the comments “reprehensible”, while another Tory, Ben Obese-Jecty, labelled Abbott “Putin’s useful idiot”. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP even received criticism from her own Labour colleagues.
Many of the responses to Abbott are little more than attempts to shut down public debate on a question of vast importance to the United Kingdom. However, it is also true that she would have been much closer to the facts had she emphasised one word and added another: “The imminent conventional threat from Russia is a Nato fiction.”
Put like this, the argument is persuasive. Any suggestion of a Russian invasion or sustained air campaign in Western Europe is absurd. The Russian military and air force are already occupied with a grinding war in Ukraine: where is Moscow supposed to find a new army with which to attack Nato? How would the Kremlin pay for the resulting war when Nato has practically shut down Russia’s maritime trade?
Had she phrased her statement in these terms, Abbott would have been close to what sensible Nato figures and analysts have been saying. In June, the American Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR), General Alexus Grynkewich, said that “Russia is not looking for a conflict […] They do understand the term ‘defensive alliance’, and they do understand that we have a number of asymmetric advantages.” Really, Russia’s threats have been intended to deter a direct war with Nato in Ukraine, not to start one.
Russian-organized hybrid attacks in Europe and Britain are a much more realistic danger, one which Abbott should have mentioned. Moscow has engaged in cyber warfare, as well allegedly organizing arson attacks and the sabotage of railway lines and undersea cables. Last month, explosive drones were discovered close to Ukrainian planes with military supplies at Leipzig/Halle Airport in Germany.
So far, however, the effects have been small, suggesting that Russia’s campaign has been either highly incompetent or deliberately restrained. If the latter, this is presumably because the Kremlin still wants to maintain some element of plausible deniability, and because these attacks are meant to be warnings rather than attempts to do serious damage and cause casualties.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has threatened that “the response to Ukrainian strikes using British missiles on Russian territory may become [attacks on] any military sites and equipment of Britain in Ukraine, or beyond its borders.” This would mean making Russian hybrid attacks overt — a strategy Vladimir Putin has thus far avoided, both because of the risk of a radical increase in Western help to Ukraine, and perhaps because his instincts as a former intelligence officer are more geared towards covert operations.
In war, accidents happen. On the first day of the American-Israeli war on Iran, the US unintentionally destroyed an Iranian elementary school, killing 120 children. In 1988, American forces mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 people. Russian contacts assure me that if a British missile were to destroy a school or an airliner in Russia, a direct response against the UK would be unavoidable.
At present, though, a direct threat from Russia to Britain is far from imminent. What is needed is a realistic public debate about the escalation of British support for Ukraine and its possible consequences, and a serious negotiating strategy rather than one that sabotages US initiatives. Support for Ukraine is legitimate, but it is the interests and security of the British people that ministers should be prioritizing. https://unherd.com/newsroom/does-britain-really-face-an-imminent-russian-threat/
Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.
Nature at risk
by beyondnuclearinternational,
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/09/06/nature-at-risk/
UK Nuclear regulations will destroy havens for wildlife. This needs to be stopped, argues The Wildlife Trusts
The following is a position statement put out by The Wildlife Trusts in Britain, after the UK government published its response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025. (Note: Ed Miliband is no longer the the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero since the departure of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.) After a massive public outcry, the most environmentally damaging proposals have been watered down. However, the Labour government has committed to new guidance about how to apply nature rules. This tinkering with protections could still lead to damage to nature-rich spaces. Writes the The Wildlife Trusts, “Resistance to this dismissive approach to nature is growing and we’ll keep sticking up for nature.” Their statement:
Recommendations in the Nuclear Regulatory Review put nature at risk
Wildlife and natural places need more protection, not less. But the UK Government is thinking about making it even easier and cheaper for developers to destroy our last few natural spaces.
A report called the Nuclear Regulatory Review is suggesting that protections for nature should be weakened. It says these protections result in unnecessary costs for developers. This is not true. We can’t afford to destroy the few havens we have for wildlife.
This isn’t policy yet – there’s still time to stop this from happening. That’s why we encouraged our supporters to take our simple action to send an email to Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and help us to stop this in its tracks.
The Nuclear Regulatory Review proposes weakening the Habitat Regulations
The Review proposes amending the Habitats Regulations so that developers don’t have to worry about avoiding harm to nature sites when they build nuclear plants. It also proposes removing a duty on public bodies to further the conservation and public access purpose of National Parks and National Landscapes.
Nature cannot afford this. Evidence continues to show that nature is in decline, and damage to nature is also damage to climate.
The Prime Minister previously suggested he wants the proposals to apply beyond the nuclear sector
In a speech on 1st December, the [then] Prime Minister said he agreed with all recommendations in the Nuclear Regulatory Review and also asked the Business Secretary to apply them to sectors beyond nuclear in the upcoming Industrial Strategy. This means the harmful recommendations could be extended beyond potential new nuclear energy sites.
If Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) gives the green light for the harmful Nuclear Regulatory Review recommendations, it makes a second damaging Planning Bill inevitable. This will slam the door on nature’s recovery and make net zero even harder to achieve.
If those proposals go ahead, people will suffer as well as wildlife
The recommendations in the Review will make natural spaces less safe from development and more vulnerable to damage and loss. These spaces might be close to where you live, or special landscapes that you visit and care about. The UK has already lost more biodiversity than any other country over the last few decades.
The risks of environmental damage through these recommendations will also have knock-on impacts for economic stability, which affects everyone through the cost of living.
Allowing the natural world to be neglected in this way will only benefit a handful of developers who can cut costs by bending the rules in future.
In the last year, the UK Government has targeted nature and wildlife, calling spiders and bats and newts ‘blockers’ and deliberately getting rid of legal safeguards and policies that are supposed to help nature recover. This goes against all evidence, and the public’s views that nature is necessary to everyone. Evidence shows a healthy environment underpins our economy and our wellbeing, and that building with nature in mind helps to ensure development is high quality and sustainable.
The original published statement can be read here on The Wildlife Trusts website.
Small modular reactor client lines up £1.1bn Wylfa early works deal
07 Sep 2026 By Harmsworth,
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/buildings/small-modular-reactor-client-lines-up-1-1bn-wylfa-early-works-deal-07-09-2026/
CGI of former plans for a nuclear site at Wylfa Newydd
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has outlined plans for an early works contract worth up to £1.1bn as part of its small modular reactor (SMR) programme.
The government-owned nuclear developer said the package would cover civil engineering, infrastructure, buildings, mechanical and electrical work and earthworks at the Wylfa site in Anglesey, north Wales.
The contract has an indicative value of £730m-£1.1bn and is expected to run from June 2028 until June 2034, GBE-N said in a preliminary market engagement notice.
It also included an option to extend the contract until June 2037.
The client said it had previously considered splitting the work into two packages but ultimately decided to combine them to reduce interfaces between contractors.
The successful supplier will take responsibility for design from RIBA stage four and delivery of site-enabling works.
07 Sep 2026 By Harmsworth
CGI of former plans for a nuclear site at Wylfa Newydd
Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has outlined plans for an early works contract worth up to £1.1bn as part of its small modular reactor (SMR) programme.
The government-owned nuclear developer said the package would cover civil engineering, infrastructure, buildings, mechanical and electrical work and earthworks at the Wylfa site in Anglesey, north Wales.
The contract has an indicative value of £730m-£1.1bn and is expected to run from June 2028 until June 2034, GBE-N said in a preliminary market engagement notice.
It also included an option to extend the contract until June 2037.
The client said it had previously considered splitting the work into two packages but ultimately decided to combine them to reduce interfaces between contractors.
The successful supplier will take responsibility for design from RIBA stage four and delivery of site-enabling works.
Work will include species relocation, remediation, site clearance, site establishment, construction utilities, drainage and haul roads supporting bulk earthworks.
The works are intended to establish ground levels, provide construction access and create the physical platform required for later phases.
GBE-N said the programme will cover planning, licensing, design and construction needed before its technology partner installs and commissions SMR technology.
Key parts for a new UK nuclear power station will be made in the North East.
The Siemens Energy plant in Byker, Newcastle, will manufacture steam turbines for Rolls-Royce’s flagship small modular reactors (SMRs) being built on Anglesey in North Wales.
It is the first time that such components will be produced for a small modular reactor anywhere in Europe.
Energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh visited Siemens Energy’s Shields Road facility on Thursday morning and said that the deal showed “what our golden age of nuclear looks like in practice”…………….
Ms Fahnbulleh said that the SMR station, which is due to open in the mid-2030s, would help deliver long-term energy bill savings for families……………
Rolls-Royce SMR selected Siemens Energy as its global turbine supplier in 2025 and has also secured contracts for similar nuclear power stations in Sweden and Czechia……………………
Rolls-Royce SMR CEO, Chris Cholerton, called Siemens Energy a “world class” supplier.
He said: “This is a perfect example of reindustrialisation and the golden age of nuclear bringing that to life.” https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/politics/nuclear-power-station-parts-to-be-built-in-the-north-east-under-deal-for-siemens-energy-factory-8960138
Ministry of Defence withheld information about nuclear test veterans’ records, ex-minister claims
He said the information was “deliberately withheld” by the MoD and claimed there was an effort to delay its release until surviving veterans had passed away.
2 Sept 26, Tabby Wilson, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3d787k9kpyo
Former veterans minister Tobias Ellwood has accused the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of deliberately withholding the medical records of Cold War veterans who oversaw nuclear tests, calling it “an absolute cover-up”.
Ellwood told BBC Newsnight he now believes some information he gave to Parliament about the UK’s nuclear programme, based on MoD briefings, was “a complete lie”.
Veterans have campaigned for the release of their medical histories, arguing blood and urine test results could help them prove that nuclear exposure damaged their health.
An MoD spokesperson said the government had conducted an “extensive records discovery exercise” to address questions about the programme, with its findings published in full.
As many as 25,000 members of the UK armed services, scientists and civilians took part in the nuclear testing programme between 1952 and 1967 at sites including Australia and several islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Veterans have claimed the tests caused severe lifelong health problems, alleging they have suffered cancers of the liver, bone, bowel, skin and brain, as well as leukaemia, heart disease, stillbirths and generational birth defects as a result of their exposure.
Ellwood, who served as a junior defence minister between June 2017 and July 2019, said he believed ministers over the years had been briefed to say they had no evidence to help nuclear test veterans, despite thousands of documents about the programme being held.
He said the information was “deliberately withheld” by the MoD and claimed there was an effort to delay its release until surviving veterans had passed away.
“The more you unpick this story, the more murky, the more shady, the concerning it becomes,” Ellwood told Newsnight, calling it bigger than the infected blood, Windrush and Post Office scandals “because of the longevity… and the number of people that have been involved”.
“This is a scandal. It’s absolutely tarnished the reputation of the MoD.”
Calling for an independent tribunal into the matter, Ellwood asked: “Why it is that the MoD – rather than help veterans, provide the information – closed ranks and said ‘nothing to see here’, and then told ministers such as me ‘actually we haven’t got that information and we’re not willing to help the veterans’?”
The ministry in 2024 promised to embark on a comprehensive examination of any information the department held on the issue, and has since released five reports.
In those, it said there were a number of factors affecting the way medical records were kept, including the lack of a centralised approach and high levels of Cold War “secrecy”.
Ellwood conceded that some documents were to be handed to the National Archives, but said they would still be heavily redacted: “They have to be declassified. This isn’t enough to help the veterans, who understandably remain deeply angry.”
An MoD spokesperson said the government had examined “tens of thousands of documents to address long-standing questions from veterans about blood and urine testing policies during the nuclear testing programme”.
They said it had been published in its entirety “following regular engagement between Ministers, nuclear test veterans and community groups throughout the process.”
“We owe an enduring debt of gratitude to the more than 22,000 Service personnel, scientists and civilians who contributed to the UK’s nuclear testing programme and helped safeguard our national security,” the spokesperson said.
UK government does not know what datacentres are being used for, FoI request shows
Lack of information raises fears over environmental impact of the AI boom
Pippa Neill Environment reporter, Wed 2 Sep 2026 ,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/02/uk-datacentres-ai-boom-foi-environment
The UK government does not know what the country’s datacentres are being used for despite fears over the growing environmental impact of the AI boom.
When asked in a freedom of information (FoI) request who was using the largest sites and what for, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said it did “not hold the requested information”. The ministry has since been dissolved.
With hundreds of datacentres awaiting planning permission and 315 queueing to connect to the National Grid, there is growing concern over a lack of transparency and justification for these projects given their environmental impact.
Ministers announced plans in January to allow qualifying datacentres to opt into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project scheme. This lets developments bypass local planning committees by securing approval from the government. Campaigners say this “insulates” datacentres from local scrutiny.
Zack Polanski, the Green party leader in England and Wales, said: “The government plans to steamroller over local opposition so private companies can build these facilities – yet they can’t even explain what the benefits are and who is benefiting.”
Datacentres use a huge amount of resources. The Guardian revealed last month that two planned sites will have higher carbon emissions than ExxonMobil in the UK, with concerns raised over how this will fit within the country’s carbon targets.
The government designated datacentres as critical national infrastructure in 2024 and campaigners fear this could mean the water-hungry sites are prioritised over households in times of drought. Water UK, the trade body representing water companies in Britain and Northern Ireland, warned in July that the UK did not have enough water for the datacentre expansion.
Polanski said: “What is more ‘critical’ than people’s access to water? What is more ‘critical’ than our need to transition to a low-energy, low-pollution world so we can put the brakes on climate extremes?”
While there is consensus that datacentres can provide some essential services, there are concerns that developments with a huge environmental impact and local opposition are being prioritised regardless of their use.
Oliver Hayes of Global Action Plan, the environmental charity which submitted the FoI request, said: “It’s highly likely that we’re going to end up seeing datacentres given favourable and preferential treatment when it comes to resources that are actually running chatbots or enabling people to do benign and very wasteful, pointless things.
“At the more serious end, these datacentres could be powering chatbots that enable people to nudify teens without their consent and much worse, frankly.”
With reports that the Scottish government is inching toward a moratorium on new datacentres, there is growing pressure for the UK government to follow suit.
Friends of the Earth is calling for a ban on new sites until environmental safeguards are in place. The campaign group wants the government to publish clear environmental rules for new and existing datacentres, including requirements for 100% additional renewable energy generation for new projects.
Anisah Khan, the campaigns manager at Global Action Plan, said: “When individuals across the country are facing hosepipe bans and essential housebuilding is being delayed because datacentres are gobbling up grid connections, what we need is not more chatbots at any cost.”
The government did not respond to a request for comment over its failure to say what large datacentres were being used for.
A spokesperson said: “A pause on building new datacentres would simply send investment and good jobs abroad, while leaving Britain dependent on other countries for the processing of sensitive health and defence data. Put simply: it would be a disaster for jobs and national security.”
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 