In the afterglow of election triumph, First Minister alex Salmond was enough of a statesman to disavow a  monopoly of wisdom  in the Scottish Parliament. But does deference to external expertise stretch beyond politics to Scotland s future energy provision?  The question is becoming urgent. a report last week by accountants PwC raised doubts about the affordability of offshore wind-power generation in its projected starring role in Scotland s future energy mix. This came days after a report by the UK Government s Committee on Climate Change, whose new coolness towards offshore wind on the same grounds, suggested changing presumptions in this ever-shifting, lobbyist-rich landscape. There are now many technically competent and genuinely disinterested voices expressing unease about the Scottish Government s gamble on expensive and unproven technologies to replace decommissioned power stations in an age of a privatised, fragmented power supply landscape. They believe that Scotland is risking what Blair armstrong, a civil engineer and former renewables chief for Scottish Enterprise, calls  a major energy deficit , threatening brownouts [drops in power supply] and increased bills for the consumer. The bureaucrat-speak for the renewable capacity target is  a challenge . armstrong prefers  crazy risk .  In the minds of engineers, which work differently from those of politicians, civil servants and profit and subsidy-hungry business people, technical uncertainty is a serious matter. To them it reaffirms the need for a state-sponsored, unprejudiced commission to analyse Scotland s future energy needs, and direct the complex business of servicing them as securely, cleanly and cheaply as possible.  Doubts over the direction have been robustly expressed by Dr Peter Hughes, head of the influential industry group Scottish Engineering, who described the SNP s campaign promise to generate 100% of energy from renewables as the stuff of cloud cuckoo land . Hughes, whose organisation includes companies from across the energy and  clean tech  spectrum, earned a phone call from the First Minister for that remark. The banter was good-humoured, but Salmond s explanation as to why the target was either possible or desirable still did not convince.  I said  alex, I m an engineer and you are an economist. I know what I m talking about .  Hughes is a Fellow of the Royal academy of Engineering, the elite technical fellowship that has 78 fellows in Scotland, which some see as best qualified to review the thorny questions of how to provide electricity  baseload  (to compensate for wind intermittency) and  distribution throughout the grid, buying and selling to a friendly neighbour at times of dearth and excess.  Hughes said:  Scottish engineering companies are excited by the opportunities which will arise in the coming decades, and it s good to set challenging targets.  However, we need to be realistic, completely frank, and transparently honest with the public. If we get even 50% of our energy from renewables we will be doing well. To suggest that we can get everything from renewables is just not true.  For engineers, uncertainty supports the case for a root-and-branch risk analysis of the alternative options. The process must be deaf to the special pleading and political spin that, critics argue, subjects the national interest to the lobby with the most silver-tongued advocates or the cosiest Government contacts. a commission with teeth, chaired by an authoritative, unswayable figure, fed evidence by specialist technical experts could, the argument goes, inspire confidence that imminent big decisions on commissioning future capacity are the right ones.  Decisions that the civil service has no option to accept are currently being made on the basis of the personal preference and political expediency,  says Iain MacLeod, head of the 150-year-old Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilding in Scotland (IESIS), which has argued for a fundamental review since 2009, and will be seeking an early meeting with whoever is appointed energy minister.  We want the Government to succeed in its aims, but it is not using an engineered approach to energy provision.  Macleod defines  engineered approach  in contrast to the existing one, which works backwards from political aspirations, an approach which the IESIS suggests is at odds with Scotland s great tradition of science and engineering.  To those with more intimate knowledge of how the grid works, including the IESIS s Colin Gibson, a former network director of the National Grid, the preferred approach is a standard methodology in civil engineering: to gather information and data on alternative solutions, weigh them in the balance, and work out a timetable of implementation.  We have to get this right first time,  says MacLeod.  Civil engineering is not like mechanical engineering, you can t build prototypes and go back and tweak things. Engineering the process does not eliminate risk, but it does reduce it.  Yes, the Scottish civil service contains smart people but their approach is to hire consultants to confirm an existing strategy   they are more confirmatory than explorative. What you really need to do is take a step back and ask what is the best way ahead? There is a lot of very complex calculation and modelling of the grid to be done and you can t approach it in a piecemeal fashion. You need the right people asking the right questions about how to keep the lights on. You certainly don t start by saying  we want lots of renewables and no nuclear . It is simply not acceptable to use a non-engineering-led approach to generate policy decisions.  Did someone say nuclear? any mention of the power source that provides Scotland with 20% baseload power presses buttons that make dispassionate discussion difficult beyond the technical sphere. But dispassionate calculations are exactly what secure power supply relies on.  In the world of the layman, or the lobbyist, matters such as the Fukushima disaster can impact heavily on the debate. But if the question is  how do we achieve secure, low-carbon energy?  Japanese tsunami damage is as much a red herring, as is the recent revelation that Scottish wind-farm operators demanded hundreds and thousands of pounds in  constraint payments  for a few hours in april when their power input was not required by the grid.  according to Hughes, the time for pussyfooting around nuclear is over.  If [the projected renewables component] is not possible and it is necessary to extend the life of our nuclear Plant at Torness beyond the current planned 2023 closure date as [former enterprise and energy minister] Jim Mather suggested, then we need to be up front and tell the public that.  Niall Stuart, chief executive of trade body Scottish Renewables, does not support calls for an independent technical commission on the grounds that Scotland already has a plethora of expert forums. He cites the Scottish Government s Energy advisory Group constituted for  effective, high-level, open and informed engagement between ministers, the energy industry and other relevant bodies , chaired by Professor Jim McDonald principal of Strathclyde University, himself a fellow of the Royal academy of Engineers in Scotland.  None of these forums are competent to conduct the kind of analysis advocated, and Stuart concedes that all of these forums are swayed by vested commercial interests   which these days include academics. But he makes the unan