ARCHIE STIRLING Leader, Scottish Voice
PROPOSALS
to construct a chain of giant electricity pylons across 137
miles
of Scotland amount to environmental vandalism on an
unprecedented
scale.
Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) is determined to
hoist 600 pylons,
some nearly as tall as the 220-foot Wallace
Monument, between Beauly
in the Highlands and Denny, near
Falkirk.
SSE claims the £320 million overhead power line
is vital to allow
renewable energy projects to connect to the
national grid. An ongoing
public inquiry - the largest ever held
in Scotland - has received more
than 17,000 objections, including
my own.
I am appalled the authorities could even contemplate
giving the
go-ahead to a project that will leave a scar on the
countryside and
damage the country's tourism industry. Yet, as
strongly as I feel
about that, my opposition is more
deep-rooted.
While I am a farmer and landowner with holdings
in the Stirling area
and Perthshire, my opposition to the scheme
is not motivated by
personal interest. The underground alternative
to pylons would cause
me and many of my neighbours more
disruption. Yet this would be
preferable to an overhead power line
which will be contrary to the
national interest.
I believe
the inquiry is premature. What is at stake is not just the
viability
or otherwise of an overhead power line or the costs of
providing
an underground alternative, but whether we have a fully
developed
and coherent energy strategy.
The proposed power line is, in
part, intended to carry electricity
from northern wind farms to
the metropolitan areas where it is needed.
But the true cost and
impact of wind-turbine energy has never been
fully
examined.
Ultimately, we are certain to turn to sources of
energy, such as tidal
and wave, which can produce consistent
output, unlike the power from
wind. When we do so, the
Beauly-Denny line, being in the wrong place,
will become
redundant.
Are we really satisfied that the proposed power
line is not a response
to the need for politicians to be seen to
"do something" to accelerate
the move towards
alternative energy?
Never mind that the wider, more important
debate about future energy
provision has been stifled, the inquiry
has been regrettably
restrictive in what it has allowed as
evidence.
A scientific study which found current standards for
emissions from
power lines were inadequate to protect public
health was disallowed by
the inquiry on the grounds that it was
posted after the deadline for
submissions. Considering the inquiry
has run for months, what possible
reason could anyone have for
rejecting the most up-to-date evidence if
the right conclusions
are to be reached?
I have no doubt that, in the long-term, the
answer to future energy
transmission lies in and beneath the sea.
It would be tragic and inept
if the government proceeded with a
plan that could be redundant before
it is completed.
We
must hope that sense prevails. If our politicians allow this
proposal
to go ahead, they will have failed Scotland.
