| |
5 April, 2008
I AM obliged to David Thomson for his speedy reply. Mine is less so
as, unlike him, I have to see to such matters in my very limited
spare time.
Regarding information on the VE website may I remind him that there
is still a sizeable proportion of the Shetland population without
easily available internet access, relying solely on local radio and
printed newspapers for information.
According to him, my misunderstanding of scoping procedures is “a
common one”. This makes me wonder why this hasn’t prompted him to
prevent further misunderstandings by explaining to us all what a
scoping procedure is, what it involves, who’s being consulted and
what the responses, if any, have been so far? Isn’t the provision of
information on all aspects of the proposed VE project part of his
job?
This seems to be the core problem with VE; a reluctance to expose
certain elements of this project to public scrutiny. For example,
the Windylights public opinion survey was carried out almost a year
ago. At the Althing debate in January David and Aaron (Priest)
promised to publish it “shortly”. It still hasn’t appeared in the
public domain.
Such prevarications only serve to increase the doubt and uncertainty
surrounding this project, and, according to the feedback I’ve
received of late, there is a strengthening feeling amongst the
public that VE’s approach lacks clarity and transparency.
Above all, a growing number of Shetland residents believe that their
concerns regarding the Viking windfarm have not been fully or
satisfactorily addressed, and this was clearly demonstrated by the
packed Bixter hall, when Sustainable Shetland invited those who
shared their concerns to attend their open meeting.
As to VE’s mandate to progress and promote a giant windfarm in
Shetland, I was heartened to learn that this does not come from the
Mori poll in 2006. Neither does it come from the SIC, according to
David. In my book a willingness by our elected representatives to
investigate an identified opportunity is hardly the same as
progressing and promoting it.
After the discussion at Bixter I walked around the hall, listening
to various conversations, noting that the same theme ran through
every one of them. Let me give you a few quotes: “…they (VE) are
trying to bulldoze this through…”; “…they are trying to pull the
wool over our eyes…”; “…they’re trying their best to sell this (the
windfarm) to us…”
The trust and goodwill VE may have enjoyed when they first mooted
this idea seems to be fast eroding, and I don’t have to spell out to
David what that means.
There may, however, be a very simple solution when it comes to
restoring some of the public’s trust. It is quite clear from the
response at Bixter that the people of Shetland are interested in
hearing the arguments against a giant windfarm. To assist them in
their decision-making process, let’s get both sides of the picture
out there. To this end, how about offering Sustainable Shetland half
the space of the forth-coming Windylights publication?
As VE has already had several years and £1.4 million to put their
case across, giving a few pages to the opponents is surely a very
reasonable request?
I am grateful to David for giving me permission to ask anything
anywhere, and I have one more question for the time being. In your
recent survey what was the greatest depth of peat found, and how
extensive is it?
Rosa Steppanova
The Lea
Tresta |
|
|
|
