Data centres in Scotland? Only if they serve people and planet

Decisions about data centres are decisions about Scotland’s economic future. They shape how we use our energy, land and water, who benefits from those resources, and what influence communities have over changes that affect their lives.

The debate often starts with promises of investment, economic growth and greater productivity. Investment alone, however, does not tell us whether a development will improve people’s lives. Its value depends on what it enables, how the benefits are shared and the environmental costs involved. 

At WEAll Scotland, we believe the starting point should be a more fundamental question: would data centre developments help build an economy that delivers good lives for all within planetary boundaries?

A Wellbeing Economy provides a framework for answering this. Its five interconnected needs,  purpose, nature, dignity, fairness and participation,  help us assess economic activity against the outcomes that matter. Applying them gives us five questions to ask about data centre development in Scotland.

Nature: Can development fit within environmental limits?

Environmental limits must be a condition of development. If new data centres cannot operate within planetary boundaries, we should not build them, whatever investment or other benefits they promise.

Data centres need large amounts of reliable electricity. Committing to that demand means making a choice about how Scotland uses its energy, with consequences for our ability to cut emissions across the rest of the economy. Their cooling systems can also require substantial amounts of water, while construction and equipment have environmental impacts through material extraction, manufacturing and supply chains.

Scotland’s renewable energy resources are not a blank cheque for development. Clean electricity is urgently needed to decarbonise homes, transport and industry. We cannot assume that renewable generation and grid capacity will expand quickly enough to meet all these needs alongside substantial new demand from data centres.

Approving developments without resolving that tension risks locking in electricity demand that delays the transition away from fossil fuels. A claim that an individual facility will use renewable electricity is not enough: the test is whether meeting its demand would leave sufficient clean energy and infrastructure for the wider transition.

Before further developments proceed, government must establish whether their combined energy, water and material demands are compatible with climate commitments and nature recovery. Developers must demonstrate that their proposals fit within those limits, rather than leaving the public to bear the consequences if they do not.

The question is whether Scotland can accommodate new data centres without undermining climate action or putting further pressure on nature. If that cannot be demonstrated, development should not go ahead.

Purpose: What are data centres for?

Data centres house the computing infrastructure that supports digital services, including artificial intelligence. Their contribution to wellbeing depends partly on what that capacity is used for.

AI tools could support medical research, improve resource management or help deliver better public services. The applications with the greatest social value, however,  will not necessarily generate the largest financial returns. Where commercial returns drive decisions, profitable activities may take priority over those that meet people’s needs.

We need to ask what Scotland wants this infrastructure to achieve. What conditions would ensure that public benefit shapes how capacity is used? How could decisions about development support the collective wellbeing of people and planet?

Access to Scotland’s resources should depend on a clear case for social and environmental benefit, within the limits those resources can sustain.

Dignity: Would data centres help people live better lives?

An economy that delivers dignity ensures everyone has enough to live in comfort, safety and happiness. Promises of investment and growth need to be assessed against that goal.

The employment case deserves particular scrutiny. Research by James Meadway for Verdant challenges industry forecasts and suggests that proposed UK data centres would create substantially fewer permanent jobs than claimed. It also distinguishes ongoing operational roles from temporary construction work.

Those jobs could matter to individual communities. Promises of employment must however be weighed against the scale of investment and resource use, with clear evidence about job quality, who could access the roles and whether benefits would reach people experiencing poverty or insecurity.

Claims that AI will improve productivity also need scrutiny. Any gains must translate into better lives for workers and service users. Job losses, more intensive working conditions or reduced access to human support in public services would undermine that goal.

Greater productivity could mean better services, less repetitive work or more time for family and community life. It could also mean job losses or reduced access to human support in public services.

These outcomes depend on decisions about how technology is introduced and used. The test should be whether development helps meet people’s needs, improves the support they receive and strengthens their ability to live well.

Fairness: Who would benefit, and who would bear the costs?

Ownership matters. Without deliberate changes to ownership and control, we risk allowing data centre development to deepen existing concentrations of wealth and power, with financial returns flowing mainly to shareholders and a small number of technology companies.

The people receiving those returns may be different from those experiencing local environmental pressures or disruption. Understanding that distribution is essential to assessing whether development is fair.

More democratic ownership should be a principle guiding these decisions. Public, community and cooperative models should be considered as ways to give people a greater say and share benefits more widely.

What protections would workers need as the technologies supported by data centres change employment? What arrangements would ensure communities receive lasting benefits?

Fairness needs to shape development from the outset.

Participation: Who gets to decide?

People should have meaningful influence over economic decisions that affect their lives. For data centres, that requires accessible information, opportunities to examine competing claims and a genuine ability to shape outcomes.

Individual planning applications are only part of the picture. Scotland also needs a democratic conversation about the combined effects of proposed developments and the overall direction we want to take, considering the questions about ownership, governance and environmental impact set out above. Without such a conversation, there is a real risk that data centre developments in Scotland will entrench our unjust and unsustainable economic system.

That conversation should include affected communities and workers, with deliberate efforts to hear people whose voices are often excluded. It should allow people to question the scale, pace and purpose of development. It must also leave open the possibility of deciding that particular developments should not happen.

A democratic decision about Scotland’s future

We are calling for a pause on new data centre developments to allow this conversation to happen, supported by robust, independent analysis. A citizens’ assembly could provide one route.

That process should answer three questions:

• How much capacity can Scotland host without undermining climate action or putting further pressure on nature?

• What should that capacity be used for to improve social and environmental wellbeing?

• Who should own and control it, how should benefits be shared, and what say should workers and communities have?

  
  

Answering these questions would give Scotland a clearer basis for deciding whether, where and how data centres should develop,  with good lives for all on a healthy planet guiding those decisions.