PROSPECTS of wind farms, giant transmission pylons and high energy costs have been powering voter concern in the Highlands as UK parliamentary electioneering enters its final days.
“Talk of industrialising our area’s renewable resources while paying lip service to the beautiful countryside and so-called ‘consulting’ us is a disgrace to democracy,” said one woman who attended an end-of-week event. Her companions agreed.
Indeed, energy was the burning question in a hustings debate for Westminster candidates in the newly enlarged boundary of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency, geographically the UK’s largest.
Amid party promises and reform strategies, prospective candidates had agreed to take part in the hustings event in Dingwall last Friday, with much on the line for the two historic rivals in the region.
Yet the SNP’s Lucy Beattie withdrew from the debate due to illness from Covid. Less expectedly, the Scottish LibDem’s Jamie Stone, a pre-boundary incumbent, dropped out to attend his party leader’s event in John O’Groats – also in the constituency – the following day. He had been summoned to wave off leader Ed Davey on one of his trademark stunts, a 1313-mile bus tour of party seats to Land’s End in England, to include circus tricks like plate spinning.
Stone’s no-show at the hustings event was “disappointing” and “a miscalculation” according to activist organizer, Better Cable Route.
That particularly refers to the narrow 204 votes that won the LibDems the seat previously, according to the party’s own publicity. Still, the LibDems and SNP still sent representatives, unlike Reform UK’s Sandra Skinner who simply withdrew with apologies and never appeared.
Stone’s replacement David Green, would-be LibDem MSP for the constituency, read his colleague’s prepared statement underlining the national importance of decarbonising energy, creating greater energy security while preserving the beautiful countryside; constituents’ views should be valued on their environment with a view to integrating underground and undersea transmission cables.
Stone’s earlier words in the Westminster Parliament stood out when read out: “There’s a feeling of hopelessness among our constituents.” Some ironic chuckling ensued in the meeting.
READ MORE: Despite predicted central belt revival, Labour face a struggle in this Scottish seat
With Highland constituents paying significantly more in standing charges than the rest of the UK, while set to host many new wind farms, battery storage facilities and a massive transmission project, there were actually glimmers of hope that party representatives could offer something to vote for.
While promising to work on reducing “unfair standing charges and increase community benefits”, Anne Thomas of the Scottish Greens was firm on transitioning energy resources: “transferring to green jobs, new green infrastructure and power generation with proper consultation.” All very commendably green.
Being nominated only weeks earlier and well after Rishi Sunak’s election announcement, Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate Fiona Fawcett had a stout rebuttal, demanding an immediate pause on all Highland renewable projects.
She said: “Industrialisation of our region is a tragedy. We want an evidence-led review and an emphasis on offshore wind, solar and nuclear power, hydro-storage (not battery storage) and an office of net zero to hold the Scottish Government to account.” There were claps for a worthy effort.
For Scottish Labour, Eva Kestner was surprisingly muted on leader Sir Keir Starmer’s election promise of setting up a Great British Energy investment enterprise somewhere in Scotland and attaining 2030 net-zero goals while calling for a collaborative approach she mentioned energy policy only after other priorities of the Highland economy and NHS waiting lists.
She said: “Our aim is maximizing green energy resources from local sources instead of investment from foreign parts, so looking at supply chains, job opportunities and promoting brand Scotland.”
The Alba Party’s candidate Steve Chisholm, an 18-year energy industry management expert and supporter of the oil and gas sector certainly understood resources. He said that a new community-led consultation on net-zero goals with reduced standing charges for those affected is needed.
Chisholm made the point that onshore wind farms don’t generate many local jobs. He further argued that efforts should be focused on offshore wind, which doesn’t have a supply chain in Scotland yet, as it has the opportunity to create thousands of jobs north of the Border.
He also said smart-led technology like more intelligent grids as well as heavy fabrication, data centres, and hydrogen plants could be used in conjunction with North Sea power.
By contrast Maree Todd, standing in for Beattie, read a statement from the latter calling on energy regulator Ofgem to prioritize offshore windfarms and a need to justify onshore transmission pylons to protect the Highlands’ natural landscape. The SNP’s proposed social tariff was needed to allow vulnerable people to pay less on energy bills.
READ MORE: LibDems hope to keep pro-Union Orkney and Shetland
Todd, MSP for the constituency and a Scottish Government minister, later added that for energy renewables, major questions stood out on community involvement, benefit and transition.
She said: “We need to look very carefully at UK decisions on oil and gas and future renewable opportunities related to manufacturing and supply chain businesses.”
Yet she also foresaw talks between incoming SNP and Labour governments on “rapid opportunities in transitioning out of oil.”
Questions and comments from the floor were pointed: Should Scotland’s devolved powers include Highland energy, decoupled from gas?
“Yes” from the Greens’ Thomas and Alba’s Chisholm. Other candidates were not so sure: It was complicated. “Who decided that the Highlands should be trashed to make money for energy multinationals?”
It was an evening of highs and lows.
UPDATE: A previous version of this article contained a selected quote from Alba candidate Steve Chisholm which he argued did not accurately reflect his full arguments. They have been paraphrased above to make these clear.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel