Cohesion against the madness of wind as a significant energy source

There are a plethora of anti- wind energy groups.

Some wonder why they are not better co-ordinated and why a new  political party has, despite being little more than a group of single issue lobbyists, has registered?

Don't be confused - the ant-wind lobbies are all united together against wind energy; they have a strong message and Scotland Against Spin does quite well in reaching out to them all. 

As they all, however, lack political clout, some have formed a party.  That doesn't solve the wider issue, because the new party's policies are inept.

The reason for the lack of proper clout lies in the persistence of  political loyalties amongst the lobbyists.  This makes it difficult for the various groups to present a single clear political message.

So,  for most part, they proclaim the need to be "non aligned" in order to keep folk on board.

No one who is truly active on any political issue, however, can be wholly devoid of a party political view or avoid a party preference; for the thinking majority, innate and natural party loyalties are hard to drop.  

It is impossible to divide one's soul between a blind loyalty and a conflicting political objective. So there in the unspoken coalition of supporters of all parties (all but UKIP supporters) in which each member silently bears the dilemma that the party for whom loyalty is felt, does in practise support, promote and implement the abhorrent wind energy polices.  

The question is, can "non-alignment" defeat the dynamics of that dilemma?  Need it?  Will the dilemma lead to much, or continual, repositioning?

When the opportunity to have an impact greater than simple objection and protest arrives, that is, when standing at the ballot box, each individual will have to face down their own demons.  

Will they vote then for undying loyalties that promote wind and accept the drive from the EU, or will they think afresh and vote for UKIP, against both the stupidity of wind as a significant energy source, and against the continued subjugation of the UK to EU rules?

We will have to wait to see what they do on the day. In the meantime Salmond sails on, the Coalition continues dodging, and the EU seems unassailable.  A huge rise in UKIP members and poll support for our clear message could, however, shock the incumbents into policy change.

Scotland's New Party

Created wholly out of the swelling disillusionment with the Governents' Energy Policies, a new anti wind turbine party has appeared on scene.

Of course it raises the anti wind profile, but it doesn't raise the chances of success for two good reasons - splits any real anti-wind vote away from UKIP, and, like the established incumbents, ignores the fact that the driver is the EU, to which they all kow tow.

The real threat to the complacency of those in power will come from UKIP when all anti-wind activists vote for us (secretly if they wish). 

Which party has a policy to scrap DECC?

Which party has a policy to Repeal the Act? 

Which party will STOP subsidies, not simply switch the revenue source? 
 

Tory Wind Bluff and Bluster

UKIP Scotland Chairman has dismissed a Tory ploy to hide the fact that the Coalition Government is behind funding the surge in wind farms.

"The Tories have now got everyone bothered about the costs of the planning system and about planning authorities being overwhelmed bybturbine applications.

 

"Yes, it is a waste, but let's get back to the real issue - the economic waste of useless turbines, and the desecration of our landscape. The cost of all the wind energy policies far outweighs the cost of the planning burden on councils, and the Tory politicians have cunningly got away from explaining why their party doesn't  scrap the subsidies and stop the whole nonsense.

 

"It's a red herring.

 

"Liz Smith MSP says 'It is extremely worrying that so many of these local authorities are unable to outline to overall financial cost of this.'

"So, can the Coalition Government outline the full costs of what all the subsidies will amount to over the full life of their schemes?  And how much of the country will be covered by wind farms?

 

"The Conservatives can't see the economic wood for the turbines"

Media Blocks

Pleased to see that Alan Cochrane, writing in Scottish Field,  has taken up the issue of councillors being gagged.

Hurrah! I have been banging on about that for years - and even sent fruitlessly to the media - including the DT.

Ex Cllr Arbuckle used to say nice supportive things when I railed on over the issue in meetings of the Council, and he has since gone to his pet press and published as a journalist on the issue too.  Ironic, as his party was probably the driver for the gagging clause.

Annoying thing is that UKIP policy would put paid to the stupidity but the media seem to have a mental block when they see the letters UKIP - pavlovian beasts, they assume we are a one issue party.

Why don't they read of policies?

A waste of a By Election

Bradford West will have shocked them a bit but it is a shame that the voters didn't send a real message by electing UKIP - that would signal real intent for the people to have a say across the whole of the UK. Gorgeous George is an eccentric nuisance, effective maybe, but not a nation wide movement. The Coalition can survive George.

Bats - did you know?

The Committee of Auchtermuchty Landscape and Environment Group are concerned about windfarms being installed throughout Fife and beyond. You may not be aware of the threat to bats posed by wind turbines and the fact that the legal position in Europe is that in order to implement the EU Habitats and Species Directive, Member States have to enact their own domestic legislation, and in the UK this is done through the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (amended in Scotland in 2004). The European Commission keeps a close eye on how well member States are implementing the Directive. During the past couple of years, the UK has been obliged to make some changes. Thus in the UK, the legal protection of bats was strengthened in relation to the EU Habitats Directive, and in Scotland the previous laws were again amended. We now have: The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007. This states that “It is an Offence, intentionally or recklessly, to kill, injure or take a bat.”

Saving St Andrews and others from the Planners, the UKIP way.

I fervently hope that residents of North East Fife, especially those concerned about the autocratic and often crippling Fife Structure Plan, have read the UKIP policy on Housing and Planning.

St Andrews and Cupar, facing massive developer led over-development, could both be saved from those dire consequences, were UKIP policy to prevail.

Here are some highlights from the Executive Summary:

UKIP will abolish the Planning Inspectorate (Scottish Reporter) and end appeals to
Government Ministers. Planning decisions will be taken by local authorities and local
Referenda with a final right of appeal to the High Court.

There will be direct binding Referenda on all major housing schemes and economic
developments such as supermarkets, housing developments of more than 50 homes and
other major building projects.

UKIP will abolish centrally and regionally directed housing requirements.

UKIP will scrap centrally and regionally directed targets. UKIP will also abolish
Regional Development Agencies and Regional Assemblies.

UKIP will return to county, local and district plans that will be under the control of the local authorities. UKIP will also introduce a UK National Plan that will provide an overview and guidance for local authorities. This won’t be a rigid framework as is currently the case.

UKIP is opposed to mass housing estates.

UKIP will encourage the building of more ‘community’ housing such as the Dorchester
suburb of Poundbury as well as smaller developments of fewer than 50 homes.

UKIP will demand higher quality and standards of material, craft, soundproofing and
spacing for new homes to ensure that any new houses last as long as Edwardian and
Victorian homes.

From the saved UK contributions to the EU, UKIP will spend 1.5 billion a year on
building new quality social housing and demolishing poor quality houses.

UKIP will encourage the building of new local council homes by local councils instead of forcing developers to provide social housing on new developments which amounts to a ‘homeowners development tax’. That puts house prices up.

UKIP will remove VAT and its replacement Local Sales Tax from the costs of
conversion of listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and on empty buildings.

UKIP will encourage the return to productive use of the nearly one million homes that are currently empty.