´óÏó´«Ã½

This is typical of the perverse way in which the planning process supposedly listens to all concerned parties and then ignores them. As far as I am aware, every authority through whose area these mega-pylons shall pass has objected to the plan.
As the plans are currently constituted, they carry, on balance, a detriment for the Highlands. The current pylons are bad enough, but there not very many places in which they break the skyline. Those which are proposed shall do so, constantly." Come and look at our new pylons" is not a good marketing tagline.
If the power is needed in the south, let them generate it more locally to the demand. We are obsessed with vast farms hundreds of miles away from the demand and then spending megabucks transporting it.
It may be a different matter if this were to generate long-term employment at a significant level, or if local areas were to receive free electricity, but neither of these is the case.

Local authorities must insist on a percentage of any power generated in a local area being credited to the local area free , before planning permission is granted. How this is apportioned is anybody's guess but maybe a deduction from local taxation would work. If the power companies do not agree, then let them find alternative sites. Why should the punters have their quality of life destroyed so power companies can make vast profits? Government should have the courage to fix the prices of domestic energy, and if the power companies cant live with it, then let someone else who will, provide the service; they obviously can, like every other industry, cut labour costs , take smaller profits and pay smaller dividends to their shareholders.

Beauly to Denny is not the only grid route from the Highlands to Central Scotland. Strengthening the current East Coast Route via Keith, Kintore and Tealing would provide the same capacity, at lower cost and without spoiling some of Scotland's finest scenery. And it could be done quickly, with the proposed subsea grid providing any additional capacity that was needed later. So why the push for Beauly-Denny? Maybe because it will be more profitable for the grid companies. If some undergrounding makes it even more expensive, that will only add to its profitability for the grid licensee. And the existing licensees may not be awarded the licence for any subsea connections. It is easy to see why the grid licensees want Beauly-Denny - not so easy to see why they should get planning approval

"blots on a beautiful landscape"

Ah! And think how much more beautiful it would be, if we also removed these ugly telephone poles, and the roads, and the houses, and the people ......

Nobody likes change, but the current landscape was created by the activities of people. At least pylons and windfarms can be removed at some point in the future.

Surely the logical way to go is subsea as shown [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]here down both East and West coasts. Most cities and populations live along coastlines resulting in less loss in transmission.

I don't live in the area affected so won't take a stance on these particular proposals, but I believe 'oldnat' hit a nail on the head when he laughed at the wider reaction of people to change.

As he eruditely pointed out, people don't like anything 'new' but are amazingly tolerant of stuff that is old - and which they would automatically object to if it were brought up today.

A classic case in point are the electrical pylons that are at the heart of this very debate.

Angus has row after row of these huge constructions following along the A90 corridor.

And yet I've lost count of the amount of times that people in my neck of the woods have complained about the blight that a small windfarm (of say around three to seven turbines) would be on the landscape - when those same people drive underneath dozens of pylons every day and barely even notice them.

You've got to laugh at the irony.

People hate change. I'd bet good money that if Scotland and the other nations in the British Isles had erected windfarms 20 years ago those same people who despise the very idea of them today would instead be sad that the devices were nearing the end of their operational life - and that a landmark they'd grown up with would soon be disappearing.

Classic examples of people's fickle feelings are the Eiffel Tower and the Angel of the North. Both drew vocal protest when first proposed and the tower was even scheduled for demoltion around the time of WW1.

Yet today both are much-loved symbols of the area in which they are located.

Even less artistic 'blots' on the landscape bring similar repsonses. When I was growing up in the north of Northumberland there was a huge radar listening station not far from Alnwick, which had three collosal radar dishes.

These could literally be seen for tens of miles and are a structure which would undoubtedly draw reams of angry letters if proposed today.

And yet they were such a recognisable landmark that when they were replaced with a single golf ball dome, itself only half the size of one of the dishes, there wasn't a single person I knew who wasn't sad to see them go - me included.

There really is nowt as weird as folk.

Some typically knee-jerk reactions from those who ASSUME that my comments imply opposition to change. On the contrary, I have long thought that the Western Isles should be the locus for a University of Alternative Technology Engineering, as it has sufficient of each of the green energies to make 100% clean power a possibility. No single form of renewable has yet the capability to provide 24/7 power - taken in combination, however, it may become a reality.

My objection to the current plans is not nimbyism - it is based on the fact that all the detriment would be in one area, and all the benefit would be elsewhere.

It's an intelligent idea for the Western Isles to have renewable energy,