Windfarm policy (3)
The best until last.Whatever one thinks of windfarms, there is one undeniable truth: the energy companies are prepared to pay substantial sums to use the land in Lewis to increase their profits.
We, as a community, are on the cusp of enjoying substantial sums for the exploitation of our land.
Statement 5: If the developments are prevented - by a political decision - then the Government should compensate the people of the Western Isles for taking care of the land for the benefit of the people of Scotland. Any politician advocating refusal of the planning permission should also be offering equal compensation to the communities for the new responsibility for looking after the land.
In essence, the people of Ness and Barvas - whatever their views - should be arguing for the same thing: £10m per annum for the next 25 years either from the developers or the Government. Any politician seeking election who is offering to give away these economic rights is costing you £5,000 per annum or about £125,000 in total, and is not even pretending to represent the best interests of the Western Isles.
We have two weeks to force every political party into that corner.
3 comments:
Over the years Angus I have not agreed with your politics. But on the windfarm issue I give you my full support. If the windfarms do not come here there is going to be nothing for todays yougsters in another 10 years. We need something here to keep them on the islands as they are our future. Also if the windfarms come we will for 1) Have new roads built for us. "Don't let anyone tell me that from the Butt to Barra that we do not need new roads. But we must not go near the peat for our roads according to some so we will need to have a flyover all the way to the Butt." 2)Money to build proper sports facilities. 3)Refurbishment of Lewis Castle and many more projects.
Well I hope the new elected concillors are going to be as supportive of the windfarms as you were.
Whatever one thinks of windfarms, there is one undeniable truth: the energy companies are prepared to pay substantial sums to use the land in Lewis to increase their profits.
That's true; the real question, then, is 'from where does the money come in the first place?'
Answer: via public subsidy. The money offered by developers is supplied by fellow Britons via the ROC scheme.
We, as a community, are on the cusp of enjoying substantial sums for the exploitation of our land.
The phrase 'a mess of pottage' comes to mind, here; 'exploitation' is an apt term.
Statement 5: If the developments are prevented - by a political decision - then the Government should compensate the people of the Western Isles for taking care of the land for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
That's illogical. By such reasoning, an individual could say, 'hey, I want to build thus-and-such for my own benefit, and if you deny me planning permission, I should be compensated in some manner out of the public purse.'
Somehow I don't see that as either equitable or likely in law.
Any politician advocating refusal of the planning permission should also be offering equal compensation to the communities for the new responsibility for looking after the land.
'New'? No; the land remains as is; so far as I know there's no extra duty of care imposed by a planning refusal.
In essence, the people of Ness and Barvas - whatever their views - should be arguing for the same thing: £10m per annum for the next 25 years either from the developers or the Government.
Why? First off, nobody forces the people of Ness and Barvas to live and work there; it's their own free-will choice, and hence no reason for other Britons to subsidize them, either via ROCs or direct government grant. You apparently want other Britons to do so--demand it as a matter of right, in fact. Were the windfarm developers using their own money to br....er, 'offer community development funds', that might be one thing, but they're not--they use publicly supplied subsidy money.
Any politician seeking election who is offering to give away these economic rights is costing you £5,000 per annum or about £125,000 in total, and is not even pretending to represent the best interests of the Western Isles.
Who would be 'giving away' such 'rights'? Do you think that the public should have no say in how its money is spent, be it via ROC or direct grant? How about the 11,000 individuals who oppose windfarms on Lewis? Do they have no say--since we're talking about 'popular interests' here?
We have two weeks to force every political party into that corner.
I don't think so; first off, this is likely to go to the EU since this proposal relies upon building in environmentally protected areas.
With any luck, we'll see criminal prosecutions if the law has in fact been broken.
Your position seems to be: 'give us public money, either via ROCs or direct grant. It's our right, so there.
'We'd rather build all over the islands and get our public handout that way, but if you, our fellow Britons, don't want that, then we insist you give us some of your hard-earned money directly.'
Is that pretty much it? If so, we'd rather just give you a direct grant and preserve the islands' PROTECTED (remember that) habitat, than see utterly useless windfarms being used as the wealth-transfer mechanism. That way, at least, we could cut out the middleman who takes the vast majority of the ROC, give you some more money, and save ourselves some tax pounds in the bargain.
At least it appears that you aren't even bothering any more to claim that windfarms actually provide any net benefit to anyone.
If it's a subsidy you want, please just be plain about it; though for my part, I'd sooner be a ditch digger, or work at the local fast-food shop, than accept public subsidy (aka 'charity') from anyone. But that's just me and my old-fashioned sense of pride.
And if you've suddenly discovered the notion that politicians should be held individually responsible for their decisions--well, that sure does open up some interesting topics for discussion.
If I had my way, the revenue from the windfarms would go to the Western Isles 100%, after the development company had got the money back that they spent on building the things. £5m a year, the current suggested compensation, is laughable in comparison to the amount of money that LWP et al stands to make.
Post a Comment