
The SNP's blockade of nuclear power in Scotland is out of date
In a last throw of the dice, the SNP tried to undercut the UK Government's plan for a nuclear energy future by insisting that they would concentrate on wind and solar power to keep the lights on in Scotland ... without nuclear power.
It was all a bit pathetic. Even before Ed Milliband, the Energy Secretary, had finished his oration on the UK's welcome new energy policy, the 'flat earthers' in the SNP and Greens were out in force denouncing what they claim were the dangers of nuclear power.
And what was most pathetic was the fact that renewable power will probably always play a part in Britain's energy needs – after all, Mr Milliband is a fan – alongside a new £14-billion nuclear programme. But with an SNP Government, only renewables will count; no nuclear allowed is to be their policy.
What's wrong with both, asks the man and woman in the street?
The answer is simple: John Swinney's 'die in a ditch' dislike of nuclear power may be legendary but it is also outdated at a time when the Russian invasion of Ukraine has threatened the world's oil and gas supplies. And the recent power shutdown in Spain, which also affected Portugal and parts of France, has raised serious questions about renewables such as wind and solar power.
In spite of this, the First Minister has often declared that he 'never had and never will' support investment in nuclear power plants. This puts him in direct opposition to the UK's energy plan, and also without a cogent policy for how he would keep Scotland's lights on.
His view, however, is not just opposed by Labour and Conservatives, but even by SNP supporters. A recent opinion survey suggested that a majority now believe that their party's stance is, at the very least, 'unrealistic'.
It has always looked hypocritical for Scotland to benefit from nuclear power when its SNP Government continued to oppose it, and the rest of the UK shouldered the burden, But this attitude now looks perverse.
UK energy policy the preserve of Westminster, but the Scottish Government retains power over planning – SNP ministers have used planning controls to block the construction of any new nuclear plants in Scotland.
They did this despite one of Scotland's two ageing nuclear power stations, the Hunterston B plant in North Ayrshire, shutting down in January 2022. And Torness, which still accounts for around 15 per cent of Scotland's electricity generation, is due to close in 2030.
Ian Murray, Labour's Scottish Secretary, posted on X: 'The SNP block on new nuclear is costing Scotland jobs and investment.'
Michael Shanks, the energy minister and twice recent victor over SNP candidates in Rutherglen, echoed Mr Murray's pledge that an incoming Labour Scottish Government next May would abolish the SNP's opposition to nuclear.
First of all, however, Labour must win that election to the Holyrood Parliament. Around 20,000 Scottish jobs were already dependent on the nuclear power industry and 150 Scottish firms were working on the Hinkley Point C plant.
Mr Shanks added that many more jobs would be in the pipeline for Scotland with a Scottish Government that 'unashamedly backs nuclear power'.
The energy situation is bound to play a massive part in next year's Scottish Parliament election. How strange that Labour will be saying that both renewables and nuclear will play a part in keeping the lights on, while the SNP will insist that only half of that equation is enough.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Donald Trump is reshaping democracy for authoritarians
It depicts US president Donald Trump as a firefighter arriving at an emergency scene somewhere – most likely Los Angeles – declaring: 'I'm here to put out the fire.' Facing off against him is a lone US citizen who duly points out to the firefighter that what, in fact, he's carrying is not a water hose but a flamethrower. To say that it encapsulates what is happening in Los Angeles right now would be an understatement, for the United States is changing in ways rarely seen before. READ MORE: SNP minister responds to 'secret meeting to discuss John Swinney leadership' reports Some, rightly, will argue it was ever going to be thus after the last US presidential election, and Trump was unleashed by the American people on themselves. In retrospect, doubtless some Americans regret electing Trump now that they see him set about the nation, brandishing every available tool or weapon capable of causing division or harm. 'Chainsaw' or 'flamethrower,' these have become Trump's weapons of choice in reshaping his country's democracy in tandem with imposing a blueprint of authoritarian rule. Yes, Trump has insisted that sending in federal troops is aimed at restoring calm or 'putting out the fire' of radical 'left-wing' agitators. He's even suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to quell the protesters in Los Angeles. But the real insurrection here – as back in January 2021 – is one ignited by Trump himself. There is a familiar even deeper historical pattern emerging here too, one that I was reminded of while watching a repeat on BBC4 recently of the landmark series, Rise Of The Nazis. As one newspaper review of the original series aired back in 1999 rightly noted, it served as a lesson in 'how easily – and petrifyingly quickly – a democratic country can move to a totalitarian dictatorship'. (Image: Evelyn Hockstein, REUTERS) Those who say such an observation is nothing but hyperbole in relation to America right now, need to think again. For watching the Rise Of The Nazis is to recall the ease with which propaganda, economic exploitation, and political manipulation came together and were harnessed for authoritarian rule. Trump like Hitler – and all those with authoritarian tendencies – know the political value in triggering those same tendencies among supporters by presenting them with a perceived threat to their shared way of life. Just as the Nazis manufactured crises to work to their advantage, so too does the Trump administration. Right now, the federal intervention in the US – again like 1930s Germany – is aimed at creating a showdown by painting a picture of a threat of disorder to the country at large. In Los Angeles, the template being deployed was outlined succinctly this week in The Economist magazine and goes as follows. First, 'announce an immigration crackdown on a city whose leadership does not want it, wait for protests, then call in the troops to put down the protesters. Cracking heads serves as a warning to other cities that might resist. It is also a signal to MAGA loyalists that Trump is doing what they elected him for'. (Image: MARK FELIX, AFP /AFP via Getty Images) Trump then is increasingly keen on using the military to quell protests against his policies. Sound familiar? 'We're gonna have troops everywhere,' he said, when asked about the situation in Los Angeles. And that's just the start, for Americans will see lots more US military personnel and weaponry on the streets of Washington this weekend as parades marking the US Army's 250th anniversary get underway. That there are echoes here of the Nuremberg rallies of 30s Nazi Germany has not been lost on many. The deployment of federal troops and US Marines in Los Angeles aside, we've also seen paratroopers drop from the sky with Trump giving a partisan encore speech to troops at Fort Bragg. This weekend it will culminate in a 'big beautiful' parade to coincide with the 'great leader's' birthday that will make last month's Victory Day parade in Moscow look quaint by comparison. Only the most blinkered could fail to see what Trump is doing here. This, after all, is a president with whom the US military has by and large had little truck until now. Trump's timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam never did him any favours in the eyes of many veterans. His unwillingness to recognise their sacrifice in fighting fascism in the Second World War led also to that infamous remark that Europe's military cemeteries 'were filled with losers'. But now, for Trump, it's time to think again, for that's what despots and dictators do when they need the military onside. All this wooing of America's armed forces with false praise allows Trump to make a point of showing executive force he always coveted but could only dream of during his first term. Admittedly, not everyone is convinced by Trump's newfound 'celebration' of America's military might, with reports that US veterans are split over their president's true motives. While some see it as a thing to be proud of, others remain wary of Trump's manipulation of it for his own political ends. Which takes me back to events unfolding in Los Angeles, for here the devil lies in the detail. That detail is how Trump's administration has cited a provision in the armed forces code allowing the president to put National Guard members under federal control when there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' against the authority of the US government. It's almost as if Trump and his cabal know what's coming with regard to America's future as they cynically seek to expand the powers of his presidency by riding roughshod over America's political system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Some might say so what? Trump, they argue, was elected democratically by a sweeping majority. But so too have other leaders who went on to consolidate authoritarian regimes. Back in 1930, while appearing before a constitutional court, Adolf Hitler brazenly informed the court that once he had achieved power through legal means, he intended to shape the government as he saw fit. 'So, only through constitutional means?' a judge asked, to which Hitler's now infamous sharp reply was, 'Jawohl'. Yes indeed. Just as Germany transformed politically in the 1930s before the world's eyes, likewise the momentum in America's shift toward authoritarian rule is accelerating by the day. It's high time we sat up and took notice of just what that could mean for us all.


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Drug consumption room leads to abandoned needles complaints
The figures, which go up to May 20, 2025, are thought to be the 'tip of the iceberg' with fears residents may be handling the issue themselves instead of lodging an official report. The number of police call outs within the vicinity of the building can also be revealed. The police data includes Police Scotland's BA18 beat, which includes Hunter Street, Bell Street and parts of Duke Street. Councillor Allan Casey, city convener for addictions, said the facilities was part of the solution - not the problem. The Herald reveals the data days after the Scottish Government confirmed suspected drug deaths had risen by a third between January and March 2025. There were 308 such deaths in the first three months of the year, up 33% during the same time in 2024. Official reports suggested suspected drug deaths in Scotland 'remained at a high level', with cases up by 76 when compared to October and December 2024. Read more: Scotland's first drug consumption room opened in January under a three-year pilot project which allows clients to inject illegally-bought heroin or cocaine under medical supervision. The specific aim of the facility is to reduce overdoses and drug-related harm. Between January and March, 143 people visited The Thistle Centre a total of 1,067 times. Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain confirmed that users would not be prosecuted for possessing illegal substances while at the facility. However, the data obtained by the Scottish Tories also revealed police officers have been called to the surrounding areas of Hunter Street 195 times since the facility opened. Between January and May, officers responded to 95 incidents relating to theft, 23 for public nuisance, 19 for disturbance and 13 for specific drugs or substance misuse. Other incidents included intrusion, noise, abduction and extortion, sexual offences, vehicle crime and assault. Annie Wells, drugs spokeswoman for the Scottish Tories, urged the Scottish Government to call time on the 'reckless' experiment. She said the Scottish Government instead should back the Right to Recovery Bill, introduced to Holyrood by former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, which looks to enshrine the right to treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. She said: 'SNP ministers are completely detached from reality. Their flagship drug consumption room is making life a misery for local residents. Read more: 'They pinned all their hopes on state-sponsored drug taking, but their solution is failing. Drug deaths are still climbing and locals are left to pick up dirty needles just to keep their streets safe. 'The Thistle is piling even more pressure on our already overstretched police officers. 'SNP ministers really don't have a clue what's going on. They think putting needle bins on the streets will fix things, when in reality it will just normalise drug use. 'SNP ministers should call time on this reckless experiment and finally back the game-changing Right to Recovery Bill, which would enshrine in law a right to treatment.' After suspected drug death figures were revealed on Tuesday, the Scottish Government stressed numbers 'fluctuate from quarter to quarter', adding that 'care should be taken not to interpret movements between individual calendar quarters as indicative of any long-term trend'. The data also showed there were 166 – or 14% - fewer drug deaths in the 12 months to March 2025. Councillor Casey told The Herald: 'Annie Wells' remarks are not only detached from reality but dangerously misleading. To suggest that crime and drug use are new problems in this community is a blatant denial of decades of challenges that this community has faced. 'The Thistle facility is not the cause of these issues — it is part of the solution. With 38 overdose reversals already under its belt in just 5 and a half months, the Thistle has undoubtedly saved lives that would have otherwise been lost. Calling for its closure is reckless and shows a complete disregard for the health and wellbeing of vulnerable people and their families. 'Ms Wells was due to visit the Thistle this week as part of her role on the Criminal Justice Committee to hear directly from staff about the vital, life-saving work they are doing — yet she couldn't even be bothered to show up. This absence speaks volumes about her unwillingness to engage with the facts and the people on the ground. 'Ms. Wells owes those whose lives have been saved, their families and the wider community struggling with addiction, a clear explanation of why she wants to shut down a proven, life-saving service. Instead of spouting empty rhetoric, she should support real, evidence-based harm reduction strategies — something SNP ministers have shown the courage to do while critics like her cling to failed, outdated approaches.' The Scottish Government has been asked for comment.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Geert Wilders collapsed the Dutch government. He wanted power, but had no idea how to govern
Earlier this month, Geert Wilders decided he had had enough. 'No signature for our asylum plans. No changes to the coalition agreement. The PVV is leaving the coalition,' he posted on X. After 11 months, he was withdrawing support for the Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof's rightwing cabinet, forcing the Netherlands back to the polls. The decision put an end to Wilders' far-right Freedom party's (PVV) first spell in power. Following an unexpected victory in the 2023 elections, the PVV joined a government for the first time in its 18-year history – alongside the conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the centrist New Social Contract (NSC), and the agrarian-populist Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB) – although Wilders's coalition partners did not let him become prime minister. But the promise to drastically reduce immigration and implement a strict asylum policy proved difficult to deliver due to numerous constitutional and legal restrictions. The Netherlands now faces a familiar question: What is the 61-year-old politician trying to achieve – and how? Looking solely at his political platform, the answer seems relatively clear. With its emphasis on immigration, national identity, sovereignty, more direct democracy and stricter law enforcement, the PVV is a fairly typical radical rightwing populist party. In the European parliament, the PVV belongs to the Patriots for Europe group, alongside Marine Le Pen's National Rally, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and Matteo Salvini's League. Within that circle, Wilders is one of the most prominent and pioneering ideologues, introducing a highly alarmist caricature of Islam as a totalitarian ideology of conquest. 'Walk the streets of western Europe today … and you will often see something resembling a medieval Arab city, full of headscarves and burqas … Mass immigration is rapidly changing our culture and identity. Islam is rising, and I do not want Islam to rise! Islam and freedom are incompatible,' he proclaimed in his keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest in May. In Wilders' worldview, Israel is the primary defender of western freedom against Islam and therefore deserves unconditional support. 'If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Paris, or Amsterdam are next,' he said in the Dutch parliament last week. 'Western mothers can sleep peacefully because the mothers of Israeli soldiers lie awake.' Wilders' anti-Islam crusade soon clashed with the Dutch constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. To join the coalition, he put his most extreme positions 'in the freezer', as he described it – including a ban on the Qur'an and the closure of all mosques. Instead, he focused on curbing asylum migration from Muslim countries, repatriating Syrians and supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank (he consistently refers to the latter as Judea and Samaria). Yet, even in these areas, he faced setbacks. Under pressure from parliament and public opinion, the Dutch foreign minister, Caspar Veldkamp, has recently adopted a slightly more critical stance toward the Israeli government – much to Wilders' displeasure. In justifying the fall of his cabinet, Wilders mainly blamed resistance from his coalition partners, the bureaucracy, the courts and the media. But the truth is, he also has himself to blame. Nearly 20 years after its launch in February 2006, the PVV is still hardly a political party in the conventional sense. Exploiting a loophole in Dutch electoral law, Wilders chose not to allow any formal members into his party. As a result, neither PVV ministers nor parliamentarians are actual members of the party. Ultimately, he has failed to build and lead a professional political organisation that is capable of governing. Wilders adopted his party's unusual structure partly out of fear of attracting opportunists and troublemakers. But according to many observers, he is also a deeply suspicious and solitary figure by nature, someone who prefers total control and avoids consultation. His permanent security detail, a result of a fatwa, has likely reinforced these traits and made it even harder to establish a party structure. 'If I wanted to speak to a candidate, it had to happen in a hidden hotel, on the sixth floor, with six policemen in front of my bedroom door,' he once claimed in an interview. As a result, the PVV remains entirely dependent on Wilders' personal political instincts. While parties such as National Rally, League and Fidesz have large organisations with tens of thousands of members, local chapters, professional offices and well-funded campaign machines, the PVV is little more than Wilders' small, tightly controlled entourage. When he wants to change direction, there is no party congress or critical internal faction he has to convince. This is an undeniable advantage in today's volatile political landscape, but its cost is high. First, the PVV remains poor. In the Netherlands, only parties with more than 1,000 members qualify for state subsidies. The impact of this underfunding is evident in its amateurish election campaigns, low-quality videos, clumsy communication and a lack of skilled personnel. Second, the party operates in near total opacity. Its hierarchy, finances and candidate selection process are a mystery not only to outsiders – politicians, journalists, lobbyists – but even to its own supporters. As a result, many potential candidates and volunteers shy away. Who is willing to risk their reputation for a career in such a controversial and opaque organisation? Who dares to become a minister or junior minister for a party that revolves entirely around the unpredictable whims of one man? When Wilders was required to nominate ministers, he discovered he had no capable candidates with administrative experience, an understanding of the Dutch political system or knowledge of the constitution. He had never invested in training his own people or building a network of future administrators. In desperation, he appointed a few loyal early followers such as Marjolein Faber as minister for asylum and immigration; she subsequently got herself embroiled in a scandal for refusing to sign off on royal honours for individuals who volunteered to help asylum seekers and falsely stating that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not democratically elected (she retracted her words). Other PVV ministers also stood out mainly because of their blunders and incompetence. After the cabinet's collapse, his party's ministers seemed almost relieved when speaking to the press. They had been cast in roles they couldn't fulfil and never truly wanted. Wilders claims he wants to become prime minister after the next elections. But does he truly mean it? There is little evidence that he is taking the country's governance more seriously. After the failed experiment of the past months, future coalition partners will also take this aspect into account – this week the VVD ruled out entering another coalition this with this 'unbelievably untrustworthy partner'. It seems that Wilders, the solitary ideologue, is really more interested in opposition, where the burdens of responsibility are far lighter. Koen Vossen is a political historian and the author of The Power of Populism: Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands