It's a pity Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond haven't spoken since August, because if they had, they might have been able to avoid last week's demeaning spat over the new generation of nuclear power stations. There is a perfectly rational and adult solution to this issue: while England reinvents the atom, why not let Scotland power ahead developing renewable energy? Let's see which works out in the long run?

Yes, it is rocket science, and there are complex technical issues about whether renewables like wind and tidal can be developed fast enough to meet the "energy gap". But there is no doubt about Scotland's potential. The government's own figures show we have 60 gigawatts of sustainable energy - 10 times the peak demand and equivalent to three-quarters of the UK's entire electricity generating capacity. We have 25% of Europe's wind and tidal energy reserves.

Surely, the solution is a dual-fuel policy: if England is so keen on nuclear, it can be the world's atomic hub, leading the field in new-age nukes, while Scotland becomes a world leader in alternatives such as clean coal, carbon capture, micro-generation. Whatever happens, renewable energy is going to be one of the great global industries of the 21st century. It would be irresponsible not to develop Scotland's natural resources.

So, why is Westminster so resistant to this? Why did the UK business minister, John Hutton, attack the Scottish government for being "irresponsible" and "playing politics" by opting out of the nuclear revival? I suspect it is because, having bet on nuclear, Westminster has to make sure it doesn't lose. It would look pretty stupid if, after covering England in nuclear dumps - sorry, above-ground monitored storage repositories - Scotland then shows they weren't necessary. Alternative energy must be marginalised so it doesn't prove ministers, and the nuclear lobby, wrong.

There's a constitutional dimension too. The prime minister is a Scot, with a Scottish seat, and doesn't want to appear to be inflicting risk on England while leaving Scotland nuclear-free.

But the real problem is that the government has to get the nuclear numbers to fit, and that requires some heroic assumptions. The incredible thing about last week's announcement on a new generation of up to 10 nuclear power stations is that it happened at all. Nowhere else in the world is there a programme as ambitious as this. Until recently, nuclear power has been regarded as a dead duck economically, of interest only to emerging nations like China and Iran with strategic ambitions.

Nobody has built a nuclear plant in Europe for over a decade and Finland's highly subsidised plant, Olkiluoto 3, is two years overdue and a well over budget. Four years ago, this Labour government's energy white paper ruled out nuclear power as uneconomic and irrelevant to tackling climate change. And the government's sustainable development commission has said nuclear power would be an expensive and dangerous mistake.

The economics of nuclear power are perverse because of the risk - not just to the environment but to financiers. The cost of decommissioning reactors is so vast no commercial operator has ever taken it on without government subsidy. Despite promises that the private sector would pay all the bills, this time the government has agreed to underwrite profits by effectively guaranteeing energy prices. It has also agreed to cap the costs to industry of decommissioning power stations and said, in last week's white paper, that the state will shoulder the costs of "ensuring the protection of the public and the environment". We already know that protecting the environment is hugely expensive. Look at Dounreay.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency is spending up to £100 billion dismantling the last generation of nukes, and still doesn't have a long-term solution to disposing of nuclear waste, except dumping it underground and hoping for the best. The new generation of power stations will be, we are assured, cheaper to run and will produce less waste. But the waste they do produce will be more concentrated and therefore more dangerous.

There are also new cost implications. Most nuclear stations are on low-lying coastal sites which are likely to become inundated as sea levels rise through climate change. This means an incalculable cost of building sea defences to keep the nukes dry.

Then there is the cost of security to guard the transport and storage of increased quantities of nuclear waste. And the cost of international proliferation, for countries like Iran can hardly be expected to end their nuclear programmes now. And the cost of the accidents, which will inevitably happen. You can't eliminate human error, and radioactive material always gets into the environment in the end. Just two years ago, a nuclear waste company, AEA Technology, was fined £250,000 for allowing highly toxic radiation to escape from a lorry-borne flask in the north of England.

Personally, I'd be happy to see a new generation of clean, carbon-free nuclear power stations producing electricity at low cost. But unfortunately, nuclear has never fulfilled its promise, on economics or safety, and there is no credible evidence this new generation will be any different.

But who am I to dictate energy policy? If England wants to go nuclear that is its affair, and Scotland has to accept it. However, what's wrong with hedging our bets and putting real effort into renewables in this corner of Britain? Let's see real money going into sunrise technologies, things like combined heat and power, and insulation. The vast majority of CO2 emissions result from transport and heating our homes.

This is not an easy option for Scotland. Alex Salmond has committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 80% in 40 years, yet is pressing ahead with transport policies based on fossil-fuel cars and airports. So why doesn't Westminster call his bluff? If Gordon Brown is so confident the lights will go out without nuclear, why not demonstrate this? Show that renewable energy is a nice idea but incompatible with economic growth.

Think of it as a technological experiment, with Scotland as the control. I'm sure English public opinion could be persuaded of the advantages of a dual-fuel policy if politicians showed a lead. So, come on guys. Lift the phone.