Broken Society? Immigration

Following on from my last article, I thought I would jot down some ideas about another one of the Tories' favourite scare stories - immigration.

If you listen to the media and the Tories, Britain is (to use Thatcher's infamous quote) being swamped by immigrants. Our way of life is being destroyed, extremism is being fostered and our language crushed underneath a mound of 'alien' tongues. Since we have such a PC (the most dreaded insult the Mail can use) Government, none of this is fought against - indeed, Brown et al are encouraging the tide, keen through liberal self-loathing to see the end of Britain and the rise of Londonistan.

Absolute rubbish.

Anyway, now that I feel that I've stated the obvious in response to the fears, it's important to sit back and actually analyse the situation. As with crime, there is a lot of 'fear' about immigration - most of it is not necessarily based on reality, but that doesn't make it any less real for the public concerned, or any less important for politicians to take seriously.

The first thing that we have to do, and I cannot emphasise this enough, is restore the clear distinction between asylum seekers/refugees and economic migrants. Sadly, the media has used asylum seeker as shorthand for all their attacks on immigrants - descriptions of spongers, scroungers and criminals are repeated ad nauseum and have become associated with the term. Of course, the reality is that refugees and asylum seekers are defined legal terms which we, as a nation, have legal obligations in regards to. We receive very few asylum seekers and refugees - the vast majority end up in countries neighbouring the one that they have fled from - but we have international obligations to support those who seek asylum and ensure that they are protected. It is a travesty that asylum seekers are not able to work - by paying tax and earning for themselves they would contribute far more money to the Exchequer than any small measure that Liam Byrne is suggesting, along with aiding the process of integration. In addition, it would benefit the UK by capitalising upon skills and talents which are currently going to waste, allowing them to contribute to the economy at a time of downturn. However, to be able to promote this approach will require the attitudes of people to be changed - the Government can do this, but it first has to actively decide that it will promote the benefits that immigrants (both Asylum seeker/refugee and economic) bring to the nation.

In regards to economic migrants, who are a different issue for discussion, we need to open up the arena for debate. Currently, immigration is a non-debatable issue, as it is quickly stolen by extremists for their own ends. Nobody wants to get into a debate and find that they are being tarred by association with the BNP or their ilk, but if no debate is held then the lies of the BNP are given dark places to flourish. Like much fear, the fear of immigration is best countered by open discussion and exploration, by acknowledging the feelings which have legitimate roots and challenging those which have darker motives behind them. There are areas of the UK which have witnessed great changes in terms of the diversity of their population, and people do feat that which is different. Part of the problem is that these changes are often in areas which are already encountering social deprivation - diversity and immigration are therefore seen as additional strains on the system rather than possible contributions.

If we do not work on the tensions which already exist in communities, then we should not be surprised that immigration will further heighten them. We have a remnant of a working class which feels that Labour has abandoned it and nobody else is interested - apart from the BNP, who talk 'Old Labour' economics with the easy balm of providing someone to blame for everything thrown in for good measure. The lure of a scapegoat is a powerful one, particularly for people who feel disempowered in their own lives, and is a large part of the growth of the far-right in recent years. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that we are improving life for both established and recently arrived communities. This requires publicising improvements that are made for communities, demonstrating falls in the crime rate (such as is being reported today) and listening to the concerns of those who feel alienated from society.

I think that the learning of English for immigrants is an important aspect of this. Britain has long been the subject of immigration (both military based and otherwise) and has benefited from this. Our history is one of evolution, with influences from the Continent (from Romans to Vikings to Normans to the Dutch) impacting on our development alongside the later influence of immigration from the Empire. So much of British culture has its roots elsewhere in the world, but has arrived on our shores and been developed into something unique. Therefore the different languages that come to the UK are to be welcomed and encouraged, allowing immigrants to retain the roots of their native country and to add to our own cultural mix. However, a shared language is a vital component of social interaction and community building - it empowers immigrants to contribute to society economically, socially and culturally and allows established communities to interact equally with all those around. I believe that we should increase the provision of ESOL classes to ensure that everyone has access to English classes. The Government has talked about immigrants forming a social contract with the UK when they choose to come here, and part of this should be the commitment to utilise resources for learning English - the Government would at the same time commit to providing widespread and free access. Who knows, it might prove popular with some 'Brits' too!

In terms of a contract with the UK relating to acceptance of certain cultural stipulations, I am sceptical of this. For people who have been British citizens their whole life there is widespread disagreement over what constitutes Britishness - think about topics such as the Monarchy or the future of the Union for obvious ones. We should certainly acknowledge that immigrants who choose to complete the citizenship requirements will be better qualified and knowledgeable about being British than most of us - a reflection on how much we take for granted and a sign that more education is required to increase knowledge amongst those born British.

I believe that immigration provides an important contribution and resource to this country, but I do also realise that it is an argument that still needs to be won with the British public. Papers such as the Mail pick on the extreme cases to tar all immigrants or those they define as not being truly British, such as when some Muslims object to pig-related material etc. Our shame as a Government is that we do not do enough to counter these claims, instead lowering ourselves to their level with our 'tough' stance on immigration. Locking asylum seekers up in camps is barbaric, and a disgrace to our nation, and provides fuel to the BNP.

Immigration is an opportunity, we need to make sure that we utilise it. Britain is not a fixed concept, it is an evolution and each generation contributes to that. But we should recognise that there are areas which require continued investment to improve them for those who live there already. By creating and sustaining these communities, Britain will continue to be a country that people want to live in and Britishness a state that others wish to attain.

Broken Society? Crime

One of the recurring motifs for the Conservatives since the ascent of Cameron has been Britain's Broken Society - the theme that crime is rampant, social ties have vanished and immigration is running roughshod over what it is to be British. It is clever targetting of the base fears of our citizens, good politicking for an Opposition party short on ideas but big on ambition, and, combined with the negativity pouring unchecked for the media, is causing the very problems in society which it is claiming to identify.

We therefore want nothing to do with it as a Party. However, there are elements underlying some of the issues and fears which people have which do require action and which we can make positive changes to. I am going to try and explore some of these in a series of blogs, starting with crime. It is just thoughts on specific areas of each issue, but hopefully might provoke debate.

It is hard to not be influenced by the stories which we see reported in the media. The series of tragic murders in London and elsewhere have been hugely emotive. The thought that young people are being killed, often by accident or chance, is one that points strongly to serious problems within elements of our society. Glasgow may not have as many murders, but we have the joint highest incidence of knife crime in the world per head of population. London feels that it is in the midst of an epidemic of knife-related murders and other urban areas also fear the influence of knives in their communities. General public opinion reflects a fear of crime, particularly serious crime, even if the actual reality is that they are unlikely to come into contact with it. There is a widespread demonisation of young people, with the inevitable generational rift that follows on from this.

I believe that within this context, the Broken Windows theory of James Wilson and George Kelling deserves a serious look (available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf). Essentially, their theory holds that fear of crime is often linked to a causal process, starting with issues as simple as windows in a building being broken. If the windows are not fixed, then an impression is created that breaking them will not lead to any repercussions, and more will be broken. Over time, this can lead on to other crime being more common, as an environment is created without social responsibility. Although it is not inevitable that serious crime will flourish, the perception of those living in the community (and indeed it can progress to the stage where there ceases to be a true community) will be that there are not boundaries or rules, with a resultant lowering in their own feelings of safety.

This is, for me, a fascinating concept, as it is really rooted in psychology and emotional effects - working on how people feel and think about where they live, work or commute. There is a benefit to increasing the feelings of safety that people have, even if it doesn't appear to be directly related to the realities on the ground. This is reflected in the insecure feelings which are reported in the UK just now - although most people do not come into contact with crime or disorderly behaviour, they feel insecure and worried that they will be affected by it.
One of the obvious measures which can be introduced in relation to this is putting police on the beat. Now, most studies have shown that foot patrols do not lead to a demonstrable reduction in the crime rate, and therefore they have been reduced in numbers. However, what they do do is increase the feeling of security in a community, and increase the connection and interaction between the police and the community. The Police Force exists to serve our communities, but nowadays it is very detached from those they serve. It is not to hark back to an idyllic past which never existed, but there is certainly a difference between having a Police Force which is only seen at moments of crisis and one which is a welcome and visible presence in a community. Community involvement on the behalf of the police has to be more than just visiting schools or directly responding to criminal behaviour when it has reached breaking point.

Tony Blair famously declared that the Labour Party would be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, but I think we have not followed through on this clearly enough. There still seems to be a feeling that law and order is a right wing issue, and that only conservatives discuss society and its ills. This is a failure on our part, and presents an open goal for the Conservatives. To highlight this, we can take the example of New York.

NY is one of the most Democratic cities in the US - Republicans are heavily outnumbered in terms of voters and representatives. However, the most successful Mayor of New York in recent years has been Rudy Giuliani. When he became Mayor in 1994, he took over the running of a city which was viewed as out of control and offputting to tourists and residents alike. But crucially, it was also felt that this was the inevitable result of urban decay and nothing could be done to change it. Giuliani took the Broken Windows theory as his inspirition and, combined with the introduction of Compstat which was an innovative new way of tracking statistics in the city, worked with NYPD to crack down on seemingly unimportant crimes, such as graffiti and squeegeemen (the guys who come and clean your windscreen at the traffic lights). He was mocked for this, but in line with the Broken Windows theory these actions started to demonstrate that there was now a different set of rules in play in New York. He then followed this up by restricting the presence of sex shops and cracking down on antisocial behaviour, with the result that New York had a bigger fall in the crime rate than the national average, and returned to its place as one of the preeminent tourist destinations in the world.

Critics have argued that the fall in the crime rate (particularly noticeable in the murder rate) was a reflection of wider national trends, however, the fact that NY managed to consistently beat that national average implies that there were also local dynamics making crucial improvements, especially in contrast to other comparable cities such as Los Angeles. But we as a Party do not seem to have taken those examples on board. Yes, Giuliani is a Republican, but we should be looking to build on success and to implement policies which have been proven to work. However, if Boris Johnson has half a brain (debatable I know!) and implements them in London with similar success, we could be viewing a significant period of Conservative Mayoralty.
Crime is a fear and a significant issue for the public, and we have to respond to this. The Party has to show that we are listening and also that we are learning from elsewhere - we are right not to make unsustainable 'promises' of specific numbers of new police like the SNP did, but we do need to commit to a well-supported police force, able to respond to communities in effective ways. The dispute over the pay for the police was a ridiculous mess which seriously harmed our credibility, and we need to accept the decision that was made by the panel. We need to restore respect for the force by ensuring that it is seen as part of the community, at the service of the community.

Conservatives talk about crime but only to stoke up fear in order to profit electorally. We need to return to Tony Blair's pledge and follow it through - it is possible to be of the left and still tough when dealing with criminal behaviour. We are the Party who believe in society, in contrast to Thatcher's legacy in the Conservative Party, but we do not demonstrate this if we do not listen and respond to the fears which society has.

Politics as art

"Should art and politics mix? Absolutely. Politics is an art and should be aspirational. Politics should never be mundane or accepting of the status quo, and neither should art." Eliza Carthy, English folk musician in New Statesman (30th June 08)

I read the quote above from Eliza Carthy from last week's New Statesman this morning and have been capitivated by it ever since. My job is focussed on encouraging ethnic minority communities in Scotland to participate in democracy and politics. Sadly, I often encounter reactions from people which highlight their disillusionment with politics and the fact that they don't see it as relevant to their lives - and we all know that this is an attitude common to all sectors of society just now.

Politics has become a discredited subject, something that only geeks or power crazed individuals are attracted to. The only time art is ever mentioned in connection to it is "The Dark Arts" of spin and media manipulation. Politics is about back stabbing, power and domination, and is a world far removed from the concerns of everyday life.

What a shame. For me, politics is the thread which flows through all of life, impacting on every aspect of our existence. I start every one of my presentations by focussing on this, by emphasising the role that politics has on our lives. Politics is the chance to change the world and change life - far too important for us not to be involved in.

Looking at it as an art form is an an exciting new way of thinking. Art is the "quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing or of more than ordinary significance." (dictionary.com) Politics is, can be, and indeed should be, all of these things. Artists seek to change the world, to share their vision and allow others to see through their eyes, feel through their emotions and think through their thoughts. All of these should underpin our politics, creating beauty rather than staid management.

Art can be controversial but it is inspiring and gets people talking - beauty attracts and motivates, whereas the boring may be reassuring but is rarely inspiring. Of course, I am not reducing this to beauty in physical terms - afterall, politics has been called acting for ugly people, so our representative bodies tend not to have many classically beautiful people in them!

However, beauty in terms of inspiration should be at the heart of our policies as a Labour Party. To create a radical centre, we need to be able to create a coalition - to do this, we need to motivate people with disparate goals and ideas. To win and to make a difference to the country, we need to do more than be conservative and boring. We need to take risks and to provoke discussion - we then need to participate in those discussions to outline our point of view and defend our principles. Maybe it is naive to believe that discussion still has a place in the modern 24hr media world, but I think we underestimate the public if we leave the control of the debate to the Sun and its ilk.

Politics as art, beautiful policy. Am I going mad? =)

The Conversation

Margaret Hodge's speech to the IPPR on Britishness, Heritage and Culture is being reported on the BBC website due to her perceived criticism of the Proms for not being inclusive enough. You can read (or indeed listen to) a copy of the speech on the IPPR website, and it is an interesting contribution to the ongoing debate over 'Britishness', and raises the question of the role that culture can play in the cohesion of a society.

Margaret starts by outlining that she is looking at the role of cultural institutions in developing "shared values and common purpose". She outlines her own initial experience of Britishness - having arrived in the UK as part of an immigrant family, she was forced to eat cucumber sandwiches and fruit cake to convince the inspector that they were British enough! It is a lovely story, but it did make me stop and think. I don't think I've ever eaten a cucumber sandwich in my life! Indeed, living in Glasgow, traditional 'British' fare (in the post devolution whirlwind that we live in, of course there is great debate over British/Scottish, but that is a tangent!) would be seen as chips, either with fish, pie or smothered in cheese, washed down with a large volume of lager. Margaret Hodge might have had more of a struggle to get citizenship if that had been the test!

Of course, I am playing up to stereotypes, but isn't this what the test itself implied? National identity is a ethereal concept, and often becomes associated with either concepts which go beyond national borders (equality, fair play, liberty etc) or are based on stereotypical concepts. So Britishness should be defined by either a commitment to 'fair play' (whatever that exactly means) and/or a stiff upper lip and lack of culinary ability.

Margaret explored culture as a means for bringing together a society and helping to find shared bonds. I think that she has a valid point with this, however I think that the shared bonds that are discovered through 'culture' are more often than not bonds which join all humanity, not just the members of our national community. Music, art, sport, knowledge - these are all international bonds, which are fed by the experience of human beings across the planet. We may bring particular viewpoints to them, shaped by our geographic location, upbring, history or beliefs, but ultimately they succeed because they tap into a beauty and inspiration which is shared across the world.

She is right to encourage culture and to open it up to all. A country with a flourishing cultural sector will indeed witness improved bonds as a society - but they will be improved because our society will be looking outwards to the world, rather than inwards to what makes us different. I am proud of my country, and I believe that our history and context do help us to play a role in the world which can do great good. However, our role in the world is to sustain and support our fellow humans, learning from the knowledge and beauty that they posses, and helping them to share in what we have.

In her speech, Margaret described culture as "the public expression of the constant and unyielding conversation between our values, rules and behaviour". This, to me, is a beautiful way of expressing what culture can and should be, and the role that it can play. But it also clearly demonstrates the never ending evolution of culture. If it is ever possible to define Britishness today, we can guarantee that by tomorrow that definition will have changed as it winds along its never ending path.

The Proms are a unique experience, the only real time (other than in the bedlam of a sporting event) that Britain really goes overly patriotic. If anything, the Proms could be dismissed as being the opposite of stereotypical Britishness, a 'foreign' approach, not in keeping with our carefully maintained reserve. But this is what makes the Proms special. A reserved nation going mad over the (stereotypically) most reserved form of music. It is a ludicrous joy, and Margaret is right to want to explore the event to make sure that it is as accessible to every one as it can be.
Margaret rightly identifies that each of us has multiple identities, and that these can react to events in different ways. This is crucial to the debate on national identity. We need to accept that someone can be a British Muslim, with both of those identities equally important to them. We need to accept that someone can be a Scot and a Brit without compromising either of those identities, but rather strengthening them. Diversity is not a weakness in our country, and we need to start celebrating it rather than lameting the loss of a nation that, in reality, never existed.

Britain is not the same now as it was a generation ago, and this will be the same in future. We are changing and adapting, moving into the uncertain future influenced by the diverse pasts that we bring to the conversation. Our culture will adapt with this conversation, reflecting the triumphs and tensions that we are going through, bringing our particular viewpoints to the international discussion. Sometimes the conversation will be heated and voices will be raised - this will be reflected by productions which push boundaries or challenge conceptions and beliefs. But ultimately, as long as we all keep talking, the conversation moves on, and new topics appeal to different sides of our multifaceted identities.

Culture can be ignored in the hustle bustle of economics and politics, but it is culture that makes the world real and our dreams worthwhile. A commitment to culture is a crucial aspect of our desire to make our country, and the world, a better place, and we must ensure that we keep conversing.

Louis Theroux - Behind Bars

I had taped Louis Theroux's latest documentary "Behind Bars" at the weekend, and got round to watching it. It was a programme about him going to San Quentin prison in California for two weeks to explore the lives of the inmates and the effect that their imprisonment has on them.

It was horrifying.

The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.

It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.

Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.

We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.

It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.

I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.

Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.

The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.

The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.

I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.


Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.

Bobbies on the beat cut crime - well duh!

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bobbies-on-the-beat-DO.3667986.jp

I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.

Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.

There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.

Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.

Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.

Nuclear Power

I am pleased that the Government is supporting a new generation of nuclear reactors for the UK. I realise that this is an opinion that is not universally held, to say the least, but I believe that in light of the challenges that we are going to face in regards to energy in the coming years, alongside our commitments to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear is the option which presents us with the best chance of success, certainly when combined with other forms of energy production.

Nuclear power is an issue that raises very strong gut reactions in people, both positively and negatively. The implications of Chernobyl had a lasting impact on public opinion, and combined with the low price of oil and gas conspired to push nuclear power out of the scene. Even as recently as 2004, Tony Blair's review found that although they wouldn't rule out nuclear power for ever, it certainly wasn't being considered at that point, which caused some environmental groups to happily proclaim the death of nuclear.

Of course, while they were proclaiming its death, nuclear power was continuing to be used as an environmentally friendly power source elsewhere in the world, and indeed was continuing to contribute 20% of the power in the UK. Huge advances have been made in the safety of modern reactors so that an incident such as Chernobyl is learnt from and avoided. At the time of Chernobyl, the reactors had to be constantly monitored or they would overheat and cause problems - the modern reactors have to be constantly interacted with or they switch themselves off - a change in how the industry approaches the issue of safety.

Of course, the issue of waste is one of the most emotive, due to the length of time that it lasts for. However, the production of energy from coal produces huge amounts of heavy metals to be disposed of, along with the release of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere. In Switzerland, a country where over 40% of the national energy is produced from nuclear plants, 40 times as much toxic waste is produced by the fossil fuel sources as by the nuclear industry, all of which must be disposed of and which has seriously damaging effects on the environment.

Criticism is made of the huge cost of nuclear power, but in fact the cost is deceptive. It is true that the industry has large capital costs which dwarf those of other power production sources. However, the running costs of a plant are much smaller than other sources. Even factoring in the mining of uranium, the CO2 production from nuclear power is virtually non-existent, and we would see a large improvement in our emissions were we to increase the percentage of our power that we supplied in this manner.

The fashionable renewable sources (wind, solar, tide) all represent useful complementary forms of energy production, and combined with nuclear will allow us to move away from a dependency on fossil fuels, which in turn will reduce our vulnerability to pressure from foreign countries such as Russia over gas prices. However, the renewables are not going to be able to provide all of the energy that we require. Solar power is limited to the daylight (and living in Scotland we will run out very quickly if we only relied upon it!) and we have all witnessed the furore that the creation of wind farms can create. I think that the Government is to be commended for pursuing a multifaceted energy policy which involves different means of production.

Of course, this foresight doesn't extend to the SNP administration here in Scotland, who have refused to have any new plants built north of the border. This has serious economical implications for the communities in Scotland who are based around, and rely upon for jobs, the existing power plants. It also reflects the SNP's naive and potentially dangerous reliance upon oil in the North Sea. All of their financial justifications for independence are based upon a finite and heavily polluting resource. This worries me about the future of energy production in Scotland, should they somehow get their wish to destroy the UK. Admittedly Salmond produces enough hot air to power all of Scotland's cities, but I would be worried if that become the basis of our future energy security.

What do other people think about the nuclear decision? Are you pleased with it? If not, what are your objections and how would you suggest Britain can meet its energy needs in future?