The fog of confusion around Dounreay is as impenetrable as ever and there is no point in the prime minister accusing others of alarming the public by asking questions. The alarming element in all of this is the incompetence and secrecy of Dounreay historically and it is compounded by Mr Blair's apparent belief that it is irresponsible to try to discover the truth. The prime minister's statement in the Commons deserves some close textual analysis. He insists that no material of the sort in question has been stolen from Dounreay or fallen into terrorist or criminal hands, but nobody has seriously suggested any such thing. He says further that no material has been sent from Dounreay for UK weapons purposes. This is possibly true, but material could have been sent from Dounreay for further treatment elsewhere before ending up in UK weapons.
Mr Blair's testimony should be regarded with caution. The statement of the chief executive of the Atomic Energy Authority is simply incredible. The ''lost'' material was not lost, he says. It never existed because those logging material into Dounreay years ago must have made an arithmetical mistake. Yet his own agency says in a report that it is either in the notorious shaft or in the plant or both. As is well known, the material was of enormous value in the late sixties, and the proposition that the huge sum of 170kg was noted down wrongly defies sense.
Dounreay does not have a good reputation to recover and current and potential examinations of the plant will not accomplish that impossible task. We have always argued that the workforce has decommissioning skills which should be marketed internationally, and that continues to make sense. We have said the widening and development of the local economy to embrace other industries is long overdue and, as if by magic, the Scottish Office announced a significant hi-tech development in Thurso yesterday which will bring many skilled jobs. The level of government investment in this project is unusually high and may yet run foul of EU regulations but it is very welcome, especially if it signals the end of Dounreay as a reprocessing plant.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article