Scotland has the sites for new nuclear, and it has the skills. And soon, it will have the benefit of watching somebody else test whether a new era of reactors can deliver.

Yet its answer to new nuclear development remains no.

The Scottish Government opposes new nuclear power stations “under current technologies”, and that includes small modular reactors (SMRs). That position is becoming harder to defend.

This isn’t because Scotland has to choose nuclear over renewables. It shouldn’t have to choose.

Scotland is hardly averse to backing emerging energy technologies.

The Hydrogen Action Plan acknowledges there are high production costs but at the same time backs innovation, market development and supply-chain growth in the expectation that barriers can be overcome. And Scotland continues to champion carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), despite continued uncertainty over its economics and deployment at scale.

There are good reasons for doing both.

But there is an obvious inconsistency in how Scotland approaches uncertainty in exploring alternative energy solutions. With hydrogen and CCUS, uncertainty is something to manage, invest through and learn from. With new nuclear, uncertainty over economics and delivery is used as an argument for keeping the door closed.

Why?

New technologies like SMRs have plenty to prove. Claims of cheaper, faster and more repeatable nuclear construction need to survive contact with reality. Questions about safety, waste and decommissioning don’t disappear because a reactor is smaller.

Scotland doesn’t have to take that risk first though.

Rolls-Royce SMRs are planned for Wylfa in North Wales. Let that programme test the claims. Let it demonstrate the economics, construction model, supply-chain benefits and deliverability.

Scotland can decide whether to build once the evidence is there. But it should be exploring the opportunity now.

Yet the current policy is shutting down the conversation before it starts. Waiting for SMRs to prove themselves is one thing. Waiting until then to explore the opportunity is another. By the time the evidence arrives, the investment, jobs and opportunities could already be elsewhere.

In 2025, the Scottish Government confirmed it had not met Rolls-Royce SMR, Westinghouse or other nuclear developers about potential Scottish investment because it does not support new nuclear.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, a UK Government-commissioned study found land with “high potential” for new development in Scotland, including around Torness, Hunterston and Dounreay.

So we have potential sites, an existing skills base and developers investing elsewhere – while Scotland signals that it is not interested.

Nuclear is not just a generation asset. A project can sustain skilled employment, apprenticeships and local supply chains through construction, decades of operation and eventually decommissioning. For communities hosting these projects, the economic benefits can span generations.

We know this because we already have nuclear communities. But Hunterston B is now in decommissioning and Torness, our last operating nuclear station, is currently expected to stop generating in 2030.

Once skills disappear and investment goes elsewhere, rebuilding that capability becomes considerably harder. Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C demonstrate just how difficult and costly it is to rebuild nuclear construction skills and supply chains after decades without a sustained new-build programme. Scotland should be wary of repeating that experience just as a new generation of nuclear development gathers pace.

Keeping the nuclear option open does not mean writing a cheque, weakening Scotland’s renewable ambitions or giving a future project an easier ride through planning and regulation. Nor is it cost-free: government attention and infrastructure are finite.

But it means something much simpler.

Scotland should set out what it would take for that position to change. What would SMRs need to demonstrate on cost, safety, waste, energy security and economic benefit? And when will that evidence be reviewed?

The Government’s opposition to nuclear under “current technologies” hints that there should be an answer. But if no technological advance or evidence from elsewhere could change its mind, it should say so.

Scotland is prepared to back other emerging technologies despite their uncertainty. It should be prepared to consider the evidence for nuclear too because keeping that option open isn’t a commitment to build. But refusing to consider it risks closing off opportunities for generations.