Law breach row over ministers' energy projects summit snub
But both Scottish energy secretary Gillian Martin and UK energy minister and Rutherglen MP Michael Shanks have declined an invitation to attend the summit in Inverness on August 12.
READ MORE:
No ScotGov timetable for 24/7 stroke treatment access as deaths hit eight year high
Revealed: 13,000 Scots oil and gas jobs disappear in a year - as UK relies on imports
Row over £17.6m of public money spent on Scots sporting estate with 'no plan'
Ms Martin's office told the convention in a letter that "in terms of the ministerial code, it would not be appropriate to discuss matters pertaining to live applications or proposals which could come before a live application for consent".
The group were told: "Therefore, the cabinet secretary is unable to accept your request."
Gillian Martin (Image: PA) A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero source said Mr Shanks had turned the convention down as planning of development was devolved to the Scottish Government, although the convention wanted to talk about policy.
Highland councillor Helen Crawford, who is chairman community council convention and is a former lawyer, believed they had "ignored" the United Nations-administered Aarhus Convention, a binding piece of international legislation that guarantees the right to a healthy environment and enshrines people's rights to access information, to participate in decision-making and express any concerns.
Ms Martin also strongly criticised double standards saying that developers had been met with by Scots ministers as live planning applications were being pursued and that no specific projects would ever need to be discussed.
Campaigners have been demanding an ethics inquiry into concerns over ministerial code breaches involving former First Ministers Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon over a controversial gas-fired power station plan - which has received millions of pounds in public money backing.
First Minister John Swinney has rejected complaints of dozens of breaches of the ministerial code over plans for various energy plans including Peterhead power station project, headed by energy giants SSE, based in Perth and Norwegian government owned Equinor.
They included a complaint about former First Minister Humza Yousaf's visit to the Peterhead site and a subsequent 'promo' video produced by the developers, energy giants SSE. Mr Swinney said the video was not connected to the proposals they were considering.
Also complained about was a meeting on April 2022 between then First Minister, [[Nicola Sturgeon]] and Norwegian government-owned Equinor, which has said it will proceed with the development of the controversial Rosebank oil and gas field off Shetland.
(Image: Derek McArthur) She was told by civil servants to say that she welcomed 'Equinor's continued investment in Scotland' while the briefing stated that 'the Peterhead site is ideally placed for carbon capture technology...." The latter commentary is identical to that produced in a press statement by SSE and Equinor in 2021.
The ministerial code states: "Ministers should take particular care to avoid conflicts of interest when dealing with planning matters, including the granting of energy consents.'
The code also states: "To help ensure the fairness and transparency of the planning system, the planning minister, or any other minister involved in the planning decision, must do nothing which might be seen as prejudicial to that process, particularly in advance of the decision being taken."
Ms Crawford said there was frustration that no minister would discuss energy matters with what she called an "unprecedented gathering of Highlanders".
"It is a failure of local democracy and the Aarhus Convention is clearly not worth the paper it is written on," she said.
"We have an absurd scenario where the UK energy minister and the Scottish energy minister can't speak to communities about energy. It is actually incredible. It is worthy of a new episode of Yes Minister.
"Saying they can't discuss a live application just doesn't stack up because she does meet with developers such as SSE.
"That is why there is so much frustration in grass roots level. It is shutting the door on people's concerns."
"If they can meet developers and not communities that want to talk about direction of travel, that is very concerning for Scotland."
The convention has called for the Scottish Government to undertake an inquiry to address the cumulative impact of all major renewable energy infrastructure developments on the communities and landscape fearing projects "may hasten depopulation in some areas".
It wants a pause on all major applications, "until a clear national energy policy is in place and an economic impact assessment is undertaken given that tourism is currently the backbone of The Highland economy".
In June, 300 gathered in Beauly, near Inverness in a public meeting to discuss concerns over feeling "disregarded" over the wave of projects.
Among the most controversial are plans for a so-called 'super-pylon' plan which was to run for over 100 miles across some of Highlands and Aberdeenshire's most picturesque areas to enable 'significant' growth of renewable energy and support transition away from fossil fuels.
(Image: SSE) Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks Transmission, which owns, operates and develops the high voltage electricity transmission system in the north of Scotland and islands unveiled the strategy three years ago which it says was a 'critical project of national significance' as it has been identified as 'essential' to deliver government targets for offshore wind.
The project at that point was to involve building a new 400kV overhead line connection - or energy motorway - between Beauly, Blackhillock, New Deer and Peterhead to enable the transmission of renewable power into the network for onward transmission to 'areas of demand further south'.
The Scottish Government has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
30 minutes ago
- The National
Robin McAlpine: Why I won't be reading Nicola Sturgeon's book
Not because I couldn't be fair-minded but because I wasn't sure everyone would think me fair-minded on the topic. But really, that wasn't my main reason for saying no. Much more to the point, I simply do not like political autobiographies and think it is an actively unhelpful genre. I do not read them and I'm not about to start. So, they asked me to explain why. The 'rapid memoir' is now a fundamental part of politics. A successful leader will get a book deal shortly after leaving office. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss – they've all had a shot (Alex Salmond and Theresa May did something slightly different). Nicola Sturgeon at the launch of her memoir, Frankly (Image: PA) As someone who towered over Scottish politics for nearly a decade, there is no question Sturgeon has earned her book. But honestly, I wish none of them had bothered. I can't think of a single useful thing we learned from any of them. There is a simple reason for this. All long-form writing involves an author 'selling you' a story. They want you to believe in their thesis (non-fiction, biography), to buy into their plot (fiction) or to find their lives interesting (autobiography). In every case, the story serves the reader. Only in the political autobiography does the story exist to serve the author. A retired footballer doesn't relive all his key games trying to persuade you the referee robbed him or it was an unfortunate gust of wind and actually he was a better footballer than you thought he was. That's what political autobiographies do. READ MORE: BBC Scotland slammed over 'farcical' Debate Night impartiality ruling There are other problems. Politics is basically self-chronicling as you go along. Politicians tell you what they want you to think in real time. By the time Blair was writing his autobiography, we'd heard his justifications for the Iraq War so many times you wondered why he bothered writing them down again. A biography reveals things the subject doesn't want revealed so those can be useful. If you kept diaries, then they can be worth publishing as a contemporary record. Further down the line, the memoir, which is really a historical reflection, can be interesting and enlightening – if the politician is far enough past the events to no longer be trying to spin them. That's the fundamental problem for me. I was a spin doctor when they were still called spin doctors (pager and everything). I've seen so much narrative manipulation and distraction in my time that I am largely immune. I mean, I've been responsible for some of it and I didn't believe that either. Rapid political autobiographies are, without fail, manipulative and a distraction. They are always obsessed with litigating the legacy of the politician concerned. So, if you have a passionate interest in the minutiae of what happened 10 years ago then knock yourself out. I'm much more concerned with today. Across the Western world, there is a crisis in democracy and the public is losing faith in the system. From Gaza to poverty to climate change to AI, democracy seems incapable of stepping up to the challenges of our era. Abusive oligarchy is replacing the social contract. In Scotland, we're stuck in a constitutional impasse. Worse, there doesn't seem to be a single political party in Scotland capable of generating a convincing (never mind inspiring) new generation of leaders. At the moment, the future doesn't look great. All of this is happening right now and so, for me, looking in the rear-view mirror is an indulgence. Let me therefore offer you the two big pieces of advice I give anyone who cares about politics and cares about the future. READ MORE: Kate Forbes not barred from Summerhall, venue confirms First, ignore what they say and focus on the facts. All that matters is what is done, why it is done, how it is done and what happens as a result. Adjectives don't change facts. Second, just like with a magic trick, ignore the manipulation and distraction. Politics is often a game of distraction, but inside that distraction is the thing that counts, the purpose, the important thing. Stay focused on that and never look where the politician is guiding you to look. With Sturgeon, the facts you choose to look at will define your opinion. If it is electoral success, she was pretty impressive; if it is what was done with the power that resulted, she really wasn't. I am a 'power for a purpose' kind of person and for that reason I have long viewed the Sturgeon era as a criminally wasted opportunity. You may feel differently. Either way, anecdotes about tattoos and panic attacks change nothing at all.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Plastic pollution treaty talks in Geneva end without an agreement
Nations were meeting for an 11th day at the United Nations office in Geneva to try to complete a landmark treaty to end the plastic pollution crisis. They remain deadlocked over whether the treaty should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics. The negotiations at the UN hub were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the oceans. But just like at the meeting in South Korea last year, they are leaving without a treaty. Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chairman of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations. Mr Valdivieso said on Friday morning as the delegates reconvened in the assembly hall that no further action is being proposed at this stage on the latest draft. After a three-hour meeting, he banged a gavel made of recycled plastic bottle tops from a Nairobi landfill. He said the session was adjourned, to be resumed at a later date. Representatives of Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and others nations said they were deeply disappointed to be leaving Geneva without a treaty. European commissioner Jessika Roswall said the European Union and its member states had higher expectations for this meeting and while the draft falls short on their demands, it is a good basis for another negotiating session. 'The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfil that duty,' she said. Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said despite challenges, despite the disappointment, 'we have to accept that significant progress was made'. This process will not stop, she said, but it is too soon to say how long it will take to get a treaty now. The Youth Plastic Action Network was the only organisation to speak at the closing meeting on Friday. Comments from observers were cut off at the request of the US and Kuwait after 24 hours of meetings and negotiating. The plastics industry also urged compromise. The Global Partners for Plastics Circularity said in a statement that governments must move past entrenched positions to finalise an agreement reflecting their shared priorities. Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators said the latest proposal takes other states' views more into account and addressed plastic production, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty. That draft, released early on Friday, did not include a limit on plastic production, but recognised that current levels of production and consumption are 'unsustainable' and global action is needed. New language had been added to say these levels exceed current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, 'thereby necessitating a co-ordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends'. The objective of the treaty was also revamped to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things such as better design, recycling and reuse. Powerful oil and gas-producing nations and the plastics industry oppose production limits. They want a treaty focused on better waste management and reuse. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it is also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Thursday was the last scheduled day of negotiations, but work on the revised draft continued into Friday. Science shows what it will take to end pollution and protect human health, said Bethanie Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicology professor at Sweden's University of Gothenburg who coleads the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty. The science supports addressing the full lifecycle of plastics, beginning with extraction and production, and restricting some chemicals to ensure plastics are safer and more sustainable, she said. 'The science has not changed,' she said. 'It cannot be down negotiated.' Environmentalists, waste pickers and indigenous leaders and many business executives travelled to the talks to make their voices heard. Some used creative tactics, but are leaving disappointed. Indigenous leaders sought a treaty that recognises their rights and knowledge. For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam and others have said that consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary. Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation in Geneva, urged delegates in that direction. 'We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result,' he said as Friday's meeting was ending.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Highland community councillors are angry, united and very vocal
There was some uncomfortable shifting in seats from a few, and some got short shrift as they blamed everything but themselves and failed to take accountability or read the room. The reaction from the audience was angry, united and very vocal. READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Highlanders have the right to be angry over explosion of wind farms Most of the blame lies with Holyrood. The climate is changing, but using a woolly connection to net zero (whatever that means for us) is no reason for further energy exploitation. Communities were there to call for a halt to the rubber-stamping of the industrialisation of the Highlands by multinationals for energy export. They were there because they are being sidelined, landscapes commodified, and voices drowned out by corporate ambition dressed up as green progress. They are being steamrollered by rampant speculative development, and silenced by political complicity in corporate colonisation. The environment, wildlife, our wellbeing and health are being sacrificed for a green agenda that has no overarching plan and no independent cost/benefit analysis. Our health is being scoped out of planning applications, with Scottish Government and local authority approval, and the cost to all – environmentally, economically and emotionally – is immeasurable. Our tourism industry is under threat: visitors come for the views, not the volts. READ MORE: MPs and MSPs commit to debates on Highland energy projects pause The community so-called benefit that a few politicians thought should be wrung out of the developers won't touch what has been lost and destroyed, and was forcefully rejected. As for community ownership, it should have been a number one priority more than a decade ago. Do communities want yet more energy developments? Ask them. Ballot them. Do not presume to speak on their behalf based on cherry-picked national polling that fails to reflect their reality. Attempting to silence people, mentally and financially burdening them and allowing huge swathes of their natural environment to be plundered by wealthy multinationals is not democracy – especially when the enabling ministers don't even bother showing up to face the music but happily, and regularly, meet the very multinationals responsible for so much misery. What is happening in our glens and villages smacks of dictatorship. READ MORE: Scottish spot named one of Europe's best for stargazing The scale of the Big Energy construction that we are witnessing today was in no manifesto I read. We have been deliberately kept in the dark as to the true intentions of what was in store for us. That is not just or fair. It is certainly not honest, and we doubt it is even legal. For some it's a life sentence for a crime they didn't commit. We demand a halt. A moratorium against further Big Energy development just like the Scottish Government has in place for nuclear and fracking. They do have the powers. We need an independent cost/benefit analysis. We need a sensible plan – not reckless over-production of energy without guaranteed customers that will increase constraint payments and raise bills. What a ludicrous business model that has turned out to be for the Scottish people. And we need a national inquiry. We need all of that and we need it now before there is nothing left to save. This is not obstruction – this is survival. Lyndsey Ward, Beauly Communities B4 Power Companies EXCELLENT article from Lesley Riddoch (Highlander revolt is not a case of climate change denying and Nimbyism – it's anger, Aug 14). It is appalling that Highland communities are being left – each one on its own – to raise awareness, organise, and fight the destruction of their local environment. If the Scottish Government wants that, it is inexplicable and shameful. If it doesn't, but can't do anything, it should say so, fight back, and give the electorate another good reason to vote for independence. John Galloway via AN excellent letter from Ron Lumiere (Aug 14), which should be compulsory reading for politicians of all parties and those making public statements promoting either side of a 'complex policy question' as a 'binary contest', especially in matters related to 'culture wars'. Life presents few simple choices and the polarising doctrine of the far-right is more likely to spread misunderstandings, diminish mutual respect and 'fuel conflict' than bring enlightened harmony. Politicians in particular should be wary of arrogantly adopting entrenched positions, no matter the heights of their self-perceived personal intellects or otherwise. Stan Grodynski Longniddry, East Lothian
