Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[paulb]

yep thats a good point. there would have to be options but it would take some doing.

 

is stuart joining the pro or anti faction may be viking has paid him to join the anti campain.

[paulb]

^^But, what if it was 75% against.

What would happen then?

 

then if the counsellors did not withdraw from the scheme you would know what they were more interested in. but to get that level of no to a wind farm you would have to have a very closed ended question. even the most avid anti supports smaller scale production.

[Guest Anonymous]

Ask a sensible question, get a stupid answer.

Where else, Shetlink. THX paulb

Sorry, cross posting.....

[Guest Anonymous]

Seriously, I think that for once I agree with Da Flea, the councilors should withdraw completely from this and put it to a public vote.

I think it's the only way that the Shetland public will ever be able to live with the decision, either way.

MAJORITY RULE.

[paulb]

don't they have to express a view to edinburgh. yes i agee a vote would be best. it would save years of arguing by everyone.

[Guest Anonymous]

All the clever people here who can quote fancy figures about carbon footprints etc. as far as I can see are forgetting the simple fact that the public should decide.

How about Shetlink starts a simple poll, asking the question "Should a referendum be held" "Yes" or "No"

That might in some way give a small indication as to the backing for Cllr. Duncan's proposal.

[Malachy]

I'd be interested to know what people think about Cllr Duncan's insistence on a referendum.

Is he right in his idea, that in a democratic society, the people should decide?

 

What Councillor Duncan is forgetting - predictably - is that the council don't get any real say in whether this project goes ahead. The Scottish government does. So a vote wouldn't mean anything. The council has to decide whether to support or object to the proposal, but their decision has to be based on an analysis of the arguments, not on numbers for and against. The government won't take that into account. They are looking for reasons not numbers.

 

Perhaps he means that there should be a referendum and, if it goes against VE, the charitable trust could then try and halt the project. But that just exposes what a muddle and a conflict of interest we have with councillors also being trustees. I suspect they've taken it too far for a referendum now.

[Carlos]

How about Shetlink starts a simple poll, asking the question "Should a referendum be held" "Yes" or "No"

If you were going to have a referendum, what would the question be?

[Fjool]

All those in favour of a poll asking whether we should have a referendum, say 'Aye'.

 

Erm... (>_

[crofter]

Then please explain to all of us how "Shetlands wildlife and enviroment" is going to sail on happily into the future, untouched by climate change.

 

Seriously, I want an answer to this question. I've asked it more than once over the last two years and have yet to receive an answer.

 

The answer is that the climate will change and Shetland, along with its wildlife will not be unaffected. However, the windfarm will have absolutely no effect on climate change because it is a global process and it will continue regardless of how many windmills we build.

 

The green arguments are irrelevant, we must concentrate on whether this project can earn money, or not...

[shetlandpeat]

There is no legal obligation to vote, in General Elections, Local and referendums...

 

So a referendum would still not paint a full picture....

 

The No vote appears more passionate than the yes vote from the amount of hands shown......

 

I get the feeling that we all know something needs to be done but don't really know what.

 

I do have an interest in our future, I have the odd issue that is ongoing and needs attention, and could be affected by a completely wrong choice, or a choice that cannot be sustained but right....

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Dunrosness results,

 

76.9% against

 

17.9% for

 

5.1% dunno,

 

Lerwick tonight!

[paulb]

and how many are part of your group. how many have been to brae,aith and dunrosness. quoting 79% against is false those attending are more likely to be anti than pro. even if all the meetings voted 80% against it would only mean a couple of hundred were apposed. your pertion proves that about 10% are against so whats new. if there was a massive no seniment you would have had thousands more sign it.

 

of those apposed how many would be in favour of a modified plan. with smaller more spread out turbines.

[unlinkedstudent]

and how many are part of your group. how many have been to brae,aith and dunrosness. quoting 79% against is false those attending are more likely to be anti than pro. even if all the meetings voted 80% against it would only mean a couple of hundred were apposed. your pertion proves that about 10% are against so whats new. if there was a massive no seniment you would have had thousands more sign it.

 

of those apposed how many would be in favour of a modified plan. with smaller more spread out turbines.

 

Actually Paul, it isn't false. I was there at the South meeting. I am not a member of Sustainable Shetland. Before the vote is taken at each meeting, the Chairwoman makes it perfectly clear that those who have attended previous meetings cannot vote and that she knows who they are.

[unlinkedstudent]

Perhaps I've over done it by putting too much filtered coffee in the old Krupps this morning (No, I ain't posh, I bought it second-hand off eBay) but ...

 

... I reckon it is about time Panorama or Despatches did a programme on the whole windfarm scenario in the UK. If they've already done it then I haven't seen it.

 

On second thoughts, it had better be Panorama cos not all of us get Ch 4.