Submitted by Bill Fernie
28th September 2026
Chancellor John Healey is expected to tell the Labour Party conference in Liverpool today that Britain is entering a “new age of industrialisation”.
That is an interesting message for a country which spent decades moving in the opposite direction, with manufacturing employment falling, major industries disappearing and many communities becoming increasingly dependent on services.
But there is an equally important question for places such as Caithness.
If Britain really is entering a new industrial age, how much of it will reach the far north of Scotland?
Some of the answer may already be visible in the announcement being made alongside Healey's speech.
The Government has confirmed multi-billion-pound investment in British shipyards, including three new floating docks for the Royal Navy's submarine service at HM Naval Base Clyde. A new marine research vessel is also to be built by a British shipyard.
The Government says the projects are intended not simply to provide military or research equipment, but to support British jobs, engineering businesses and supply chains.
That is important because it represents a different way of looking at government spending.
Instead of seeing public spending simply as money going into a particular project, the Government is arguing that it can also be used to build industrial capacity.
A large contract can employ engineers, designers and construction workers. Those companies then buy components and services from other businesses. Their employees spend money in local economies. Smaller suppliers can gain experience and potentially win further contracts.
The hope is that the economic effect becomes considerably larger than the original government contract.
This is also the reverse side of an issue we have been considering recently with National Insurance.
Higher employment costs can work their way through supply chains, as businesses seek to recover some of their additional costs through prices. Government spending can work through supply chains in the other direction, creating demand for businesses and workers.
That is the theory, at least.
Healey has already set out a broader economic strategy. In his growth speech earlier this month he argued for greater public investment, more devolution, stronger local industrial strategies and greater use of public procurement to support British companies.
He also acknowledged that businesses are facing higher energy costs, regulation, planning constraints and labour costs. His stated aim is to create the conditions in which private businesses invest, innovate and employ more people.
The question for Caithness is therefore not simply whether Britain needs more industry.
It is whether government policy can recognise the potential of places that are a long way from Britain's largest cities.
Caithness already has a substantial industrial history. Dounreay created a highly skilled workforce and a network of engineering and specialist businesses. Nuclear decommissioning continues to provide work and expertise, while the wider energy sector offers opportunities in electricity transmission, renewables and other forms of energy infrastructure.
There is also a strong argument that Britain's future industrial economy will not necessarily look like the industrial economy of the past.
Healey is not talking about reopening coal mines or recreating the huge factories of the twentieth century. The emerging model is more likely to involve advanced engineering, nuclear technology, defence, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, specialist manufacturing and highly skilled supply chains.
That could potentially suit places such as Caithness better than the old industrial model did.
But potential is not the same as investment.
One of the most interesting parts of Healey's earlier growth speech was his argument that government investment decisions should take account of the economic potential of places rather than simply measuring them by their current economic size. He also announced changes intended to give more places a fair hearing when major investment decisions are made.
That principle could matter greatly to rural and remote areas.
A project in London or Manchester may look more attractive if decisions are based largely on existing population, economic output or transport links. But investment in a smaller community can sometimes have a much larger effect relative to its existing economy.
That is precisely why the phrase “growth in every postcode”, which Healey has used in describing his strategy, will be worth watching.
For Caithness, the real test will not be whether ministers make speeches about reindustrialisation.
It will be whether government procurement, infrastructure investment and industrial policy eventually produce contracts, jobs and new businesses in places such as Wick, Thurso and the wider north.
There is certainly a new direction being signalled.
Whether it becomes a genuine new industrial age, or simply another set of government announcements, is something we will have to judge by what actually happens on the ground.
And after Healey delivers his speech today, we should have a much better idea of what he believes that new industrial age is actually going to look like.