OIL has long been a source of tension in the UK, primarily between Scotland who had it and the UK’s political class who wanted it.

From its role in pricing people out of their homes in Aberdeen as the consequences of the oil boom hit, to more contemporary questions around the future of the resource in the face of catastrophic climate change, Scotland’s oil seeps with allegory for broader issues around class and our relationship with Westminster.

Upon its discovery Britain was quick to exploit the black gold as quickly and carelessly as possible with little thought for the future.

Labour ministers were repeatedly advised during the 1970s to set up an oil fund, given the finite nature of the industry – yet declined. This irresponsible attitude toward the resource continued long after the Labour government, through the Thatcher years, and up to today. Whatever opportunity there was, is now gone.

Other countries who did set up oil funds are still reaping the rewards, such as Norway who now boast one of the largest single stores of wealth on the planet. The UK almost uniquely had no such thought for the future, instead committing itself to the short-termism that we’ve all come to expect from our born-to-rule politicians.

READ MORE: Labour plotted to steal Scottish oil and change marine borders to stop indy

The manner in which oil was handled by Westminster is just one part of a broad history of disdain toward the north. During her reign as prime minister, Thatcher drained oil revenues from Scotland to prop up the economy while cutting tax income in a bid to keep Middle England on-side.

Westminster has treated Scotland simultaneously as a resource to be exploited and as the nation’s rubbish tip; carrying oil to the south with one hand while dumping nuclear waste in the Solway Firth with the other.

We all know the story of the McCrone report; the UK Government review into the potential value of North Sea oil that was suppressed for years lest it lend credence to the argument that Scotland could be a successful and financially independent nation.

What has only come to light last week is that the Labour government under James Callaghan had an even more insidious plan in mind than just shielding Scots from the truth of the resource on our doorstep: if Scotland left the Union, England would just redraw its borders to bring the North Sea under its control.

These newly released memos provide a snapshot of the kind of attitude held by the UK’s political class toward Scotland at the time. With the discovery of oil, independence was suddenly a real threat, brought into focus by the SNP’s “It’s Scotland’s Oil” campaign,which more than ruffled a few feathers among the Westminster elite who had been rubbing their hands over the potential cash that could be made from the resource.

What if Scotland took its ball and went home? Well, England would take the ball ... and burn down the home for good measure.

Jump forward about 40 years, and you would once again discover the Labour Party drawing up secretive plans around oil that required trampling over the popular will of Scots once again – except in this case, it was the voices of 100,000 marching through Glasgow against the coming Iraq War.

When John McGrath wrote the brilliant The Cheviot, The Stag and the Black, Black Oil in the early 1970s it was to draw attention to how once again Scots were being forced from their homes for the benefit of the rich; a theme has that dripped through Scotland’s political history since the time of the Highland Clearances, when the landlords cleared people from their homes to make way for more profitable sheep-farming.

Scotland was once again asking the working class to shoulder the burden of lining the pockets of the wealthy, and Scots found themselves once again sitting on a valuable resource only to watch it disappear, replaced by growing inequality.

The play had a profound impact on Scotland’s theatre scene, and remains relevant today alongside work like From Scotland With Love, that documents the various ways Scotland’s resources, alongside its people, have found themselves in distant lands.

READ MORE: How Scottish independence could re-ignite the north-east energy sector

Like Westminster, oil is a relic of our past. It is a symbol of Scotland’s exploitation by big business, who even now are champing at the bit for UK taxpayers to fund the decommissioning of the very rigs they made a fortune off of, thanks to substantial tax reliefs granted by HMRC. In the buffoonish words of Boris Johnson, oil and gas giants are getting to “cake, have, eat”.

Take into account the fact that Johnson’s government are also greenlighting organisations with questionable green credentials as COP26 sponsors, and you have a clear example of how staying in the UK can only hinder Scotland from reaching its green potential, and leaving its past behind.

Scotland needs a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels, and the future economic case for independence cannot rely on the industry.

The only argument that oil can now make for Scotland leaving the UK is a historical one: a list of the means by which the resource was exploited, of the ways in which the UK planned to swindle land from Scots to keep the money flowing, and the failures of successive governments to challenge the giants who took more than they ever gave.

Scotland’s future is one without oil – and without Westminster.