They are also wrong, as Ofgem’s review of the UK energy market yesterday made clear. The energy watchdog considered four possible future scenarios in a bid to estimate how much consumers might be paying by the 2020s to power their homes. What emerged was that, while investing in renewable energy infrastructure like wind and tidal power plants will be costly, not doing so will be more so. Without that investment, by the UK and other countries, global competition for gas could cause prices to spike, especially in the context of strong economic resurgence boosting demand for energy. This could result in bill hikes of 60% for consumers.

No mainstream politician of any party believes a high carbon future is feasible or desirable. What now has to be decided is what our future energy mix will look like, and whether it will contain nuclear power.

The SNP Government has signalled its opposition to new nuclear power stations at the same time as setting for Scotland the world’s most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets. That creates a major challenge in terms of securing continuous energy supply as many renewable technologies, including wind, wave and tidal, provide intermittent supply.

There is also the small detail that tidal and wave power are in their infancy, and the fact that it takes time to plan and install the infrastructure to harness renewable energy. Then there is the headache that current power stations are ageing, raising the spectre of an energy gap.

The upshot is that action must be taken. As Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan made clear “early action can avoid hasty and expensive measures later”, expensive measures paid for by the consumer. An energy mix containing nuclear power is likely to be Scotland’s best hope for a secure, low carbon future.