The article about the Scottish government's rejection of a windfarm application near Kirkconnel described how a windfarm that was supported by the local community was turned down (The wind farm investment that is set to make the Duke of Buccleuch even richer, News, March 15).
The overwhelming reasons were based on the grounds of visual disturbance to the area.
I've skimmed through the planning documents and there was a lengthy consideration of visual matters and maybe the Scottish Government made the right decision although the locals supported the application and it would have generated a local income of around £500,000 per year to help local regeneration.
It is not clear that there was any competition between it and a nearby, and more recent, application for another windfarm on the Duke of Buccleuch's property.
This second windfarm is quite a distance from the first and I would think the notion of "either or" is imaginary. However, that's not the important point. On one hand we have a private landowner with, because of his inherited position, 240,000 acres of land worth around £1bn and a personal wealth of around £100m (according to the Sunday Times Rich List) able to get richer from windfarms (and mining, forestry, agriculture and property). In contrast, his neighbours in Sanquhar and surrounds inherited an area of multiple deprivation.
I hope this gross inequality will come to an end under an independent Scotland. In the meantime perhaps the Duke will, in defence of his privileged position, sign over any windfarm profits to the local community. Given his wealth, he probably won't even notice the difference.
David Mellor
Lochwinnoch
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article