Leaderboard

I see he's not pardoned himself or family... yet. But Steve Bannon (amongst others) gets a pass for ripping off supporters donating money to build his wall. I'm gonna go out on a limb here - stabbing in the dark as I go - and surmise Steve has a good deal of dirt on Trump and this is some sort of buy-off.

A wise man one told me he landed a muckle troot and den watched in fascination as folk rushed tae the sem loch and thrashed the water tae a foam. What I canna understand, he said, is why folk go mad trying tae catch a troot dats already been caught. Yes, folk should keep an eye on da wye VE is byggit now, but it canna be stopped. Looking ahead tae Mossy Hill, and the Yell eens is what may be still worth fighting. Then, if they canna be stopped, what will be the community benefit from them?

If he asks/accepts (for) a pardon, is that not an admission of guilt.

I'm not in a position to respond to that fully as I've only ever been in one of the anti groups. There the focus has moved from out and out opposition to one of recording and monitoring the work as it progresses, with an emphasis on ensuring as far as practically possible that if VE must proceed that all relevant conditions and procedures are met in full. I can only speculate based on my own opinion as to why there is no acknowledgement that VE has a positive side, and that is because its very difficult to find much of substance to show one. Yes, a few local firms/people are getting work out of it, and that's fine, but its a flash in the pan at best, once the construction phase is complete, that ends. What then? Projected permanent staff numbers once operational are relatively small, and its unlikely given the specialist nature of the work most will go to locals anyway. There's no word of cheaper electric for consumers, and its unlikely much by way of goods and services will be sourced locally longer term. The landowners will profit, but thats only a handful of people and entities, a significant percentage of whom are not Shetland based. Grazings shareholders of the land occupied with get something, but given that they would only have been taking £30-50 per hectare p.a. threough agri subs for the land before VE, their cut only needs to exceed that figure for it to make sense for them to take it. Stepping outwards to the bigger picture, if you throw up the 'green' and 'saving the planet' arguments, you have to first accept that windfarms are both 'green' and will help 'save the planet', and those claims are still very much in contention. If someone doesn't accept windfarms are proven to be 'green' and 'planet saving' they're not going to see any benefit on that level either. Again, I can only comment on the mood in the group I have been in and not any others, and while I can understand why you might suspect a wholly anti group could collectively escalate the anxiety levels of individual members, its not something I've seen any evidence of. Irritation, anger, ire, disgust, contempt, hatred, and an occasional whiff of vengeance. Yup, seen all of those expressed, but nothing I'd class as anxiety. The atmosphere tends to be clenched fists rather than handwringing anytime I've had a look.

The gas plant comparison is very valid, and really highlights the emotive nature of the windfarm issue. The entire gas plant project was developed, proposed and constructed in a fraction of the time of what is now the Viking Energy Windfarm. Caused extensive disruption to peat and of course produces fossil fuels with all the negatives that brings. However, not a pleep in objection. Partly because if wasn't the "cool thing to object to" on social media, but also because the majority of people who are aware of them, myself included, are willing to balance the benefits both locally and in the bigger picture, with the damage and pollution they cause, knowing better options will come along sooner rather than later. I'm going to offer a very personal view now. I was born in the early 70's. I had no say in Sullom Voe Oil Terminal, though I do know there were councilors for an against at the time, and they were voted for accordingly. I totally understand the huge economic positives the oil industry has brought to Shetland. From roads and leisure, to the care services and beyond. Mismanagement and controversy aside, these funds have played a massive part in Shetland being what it is today, and still do. But they came, and come, at a price. As a young man, I had to clean up the dead oily birds from the shore. We had to wear shoes on a summer day at the beach because of tar balls. Even tonight, I look out at the bonny clear sky to the north, as the view south is dominated by the glow of the flare stack (and I live in Yell, for those who don't know). But no matter where we live. We all need power. Flowing through the power lines that claim the lives of many birds every year held up by ugly "hydro poles" all ower the islands. (Imagine that project starting now) So, thought all the local elections and public consultations, I fully supported the cleaner option, and as it developed from when the Susetter windmill went up in the 80's (my personal memory of the potential), voting for "The Windfarm" was the way I went. Now, at last, after all these decades of hope, I can finally see a sustainable future for Shetland that wir bairns can be proud of. And maybe I will be able to go on the back porch in a few years and see the stars in the southern hemisphere clearly fae hom for the first time. Already I know of at least one young Shetland family of four who have moved back home because of the work and promise from the windfarm. I posted this opinion, because that's what it is, my opinion, on social media a few weeks ago. It is staggering how many abusive private messages I got before I took it down. Ranging from calling me a liar to just straight up abuse. No fine, but I keen (hope) they're just caught up in mob mentality.

Interestin! https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19020448.scotlands-richest-man-mount-legal-challenge-spaceport/ Mr Povlsen objected to the development on environmental grounds and later announced he had invested more than £1.4 million in a rival spaceport in Shetland. Dat's an expensive wye tae tak on da planning department

Building windfarms, and building and running fossil fuel stations, both have negative environmental consequences. But unless you're comparing specific shared criteria between them then the comparison is pointless - apples and oranges. I expect that if Viking Energy was built out of sight then the strength of negative feeling about it would be fractional. It's absolutely someones right to object to the visual impact of a development, but that objection often doesn't carry any weight - frustrating for the individual, particularly when they group together and begin to believe that everyone shares their opinion. But from a personal ethics point of view I don't believe my subjective aesthetic opinions should matter much in the big scheme of things. Most of the discussions I have had with people about the windfarm eventually boils down to the fact they don't like the visual impact, and the statistical / scientific / ethical / legal arguments they use are there to back-up and add substance to an existing aesthetic opinion. For example, I don't recall any discussion about displaced peat or use of materials during the construction of Sullom Voe or the Gas Plant both of which arguably have a worse environmental impact than Viking Energy - but they're out of sight, out of mind, and after-all folk need energy and jobs, so no need to grapple with difficult ethics and environmental issues. Disclaimer: the above is not meant to be an attack on people who are anti Viking Energy. It is merely an observation on human nature!