Visiting Tokyo about 15 years ago, we went on a bullet train out of the city to take in the old capital of Kyoto. What struck everyone in our party was how long it took us to see any signs of countryside. There were factories, industrial sites and grim-looking housing for miles.

A former Japanese ambassador to Britain was with us and he told us: ''This is a direct result of handing over city planning to an American colonel at the end of the war. I met the officer and, in civilian life, he had been the station master at Santa Fe.''

Last month in Dublin one of the councillors there told me of the pressure his local authority is under to find land for more housing. Blocks of flats are going up every month in the Irish capital. Any patch of grass or empty building on the south side is the target of envious eyes.

Cities, particularly successful or beautiful ones, are magnets for many and my own falls squarely into both categories. Had we listened to the sweet-talking developers we would be built up all the way to Livingston and beyond.

So I was intrigued last week when I received a glossy document entitled ''What do you want Edinburgh City Region to be like in 20 years?''.

There were two main articles in the brochure, one entitled Capital Punishment and the other Capital Gains, a kind of good-cop, bad-cop routine. In the first we are warned that in the lead up to 2020 Edinburgh could be involved in a spiral of decline. Businesses are likely to leave in large numbers, we will have grid-locked roads, we will experience depopulation fuelled by expensive housing. Education standards will plummet, the infrastructure will decay, and we will be left with a feel-bad factor and a disjointed, timid city.

Government spending will be diverted to the west of Scotland (no change there, then).

But, fear not; there is an alternative. Edinburgh could have a sustained boom in finance, education, biotechnology and tourism. Road congestion could be eased by cheap, comfortable public transport. Partisan politics could be replaced by networking and a stronger role for women (no, I don't know what that means, either). As we host major events and house global organisations we all feel good.

So what are the big differences between those scenarios? There are only two, really. According to the authors, we must introduce congestion charging on our roads, the pet policy of the Labour administration and loathed by the citizens, and we must throw open the doors to asylum seekers by providing dispersal centres, raising the population of greater Edinburgh to one million-plus. Didn't hear a lot about the latter at May's municipal elections. We should also, apparently, become full members of the Baltic Federation, which would allow us to welcome workers from Turkey, Bosnia and Croatia.

I am implacably opposed to the congestion charge, which will not stop people driving into the city, but simply make them pay more to do so. It is regressive, pays no attention to income levels and is riddled with inconsistencies. Most of the congestion in Edinburgh is council-caused. If we have a fairly conducted referendum, as promised, the charge will not happen.

The document says: ''There had always been those who grumbled about change whose outlook could be expressed as 'Edinburgh's quite big enough, thanks'.'' Yes, I am happy to admit to being one of them.

I believe the current level of around 450,000 is about the right population for the capital. It is part of the charm of the city which attracts millions of visitors every year. If you relax the rules on green-belt land, and that would have to happen to accommodate the numbers, there will soon be bungalows on the Pentlands.

Yes, there is a need to provide more affordable housing for some of the people who work in Edinburgh but this cannot, and should not be, in the city itself or on green-field sites.

The Borders is an area crying out for more people to live there. We must encourage population growth in this region by re-building the railway line from Waverley to Galashiels, better still to Hawick. This would mean a huge benefit to all the Border towns. After all, a journey to work of some 45 minutes is undertaken by thousands of Scots every day.

In terms of planning rules, developers would find land along new transport routes becoming more valuable and could be pressed into contributing towards transport links. An upgrade of the M8 to three lanes either way is something both Edinburgh and Glasgow should support.

The document predicts the emergence of a new educational industry and that children from China, Russia and India could arrive and be taught in Edinburgh's large private school sector. Are these the same schools that Labour have told us for years are divisive and should have their charitable status re-examined? I urge all the citizens of the capital to write to the city development department and obtain a copy of the leaflet. They will probably not agree with too much of it, because it is pure political spin, but they have paid for its production.

Brian Meek is a

Conservative member of Edinburgh City Council.