Windfarm supporters are taking us for fuels 

Our fuel bills are beginning to look like mortgage payments and there seems no end to the misery.

The SNP Government’s delivery of a commitment to renewables has helped drive up the cost of energy.

We are now seeing international power companies and venture capital funds invest in Scotland to obtain vast profits, all at our expense.

Initially I took no interest in this issue. After all Alex Salmond trilled heartily on the subject of free wind, green energy, sustainability and Scotland leading the world in terms of new technology.

But I have learned from many people across Scotland that there are downsides to the Government’s approach that we must consider before it gets too late.

I also know that those who have reservations on the subject of the Government’s energy strategy are often ignored and marginalised.

Windfarm subsidies paid by you, the consumer, have topped £1billion this year and are due to rise considerably, adding to the cost of our fuel bills.

The downside to these industrial processes – they can hardly be called windfarms – in the midst of our most beautiful countryside across Scotland are only now being realised by communities.

I have more than 600 letters from individual communities affected by the commercial development of wind turbines across the country.

They have an impact on our environment, tourism, the health of those living nearby and the values
of properties.

At the same time, communities fighting back find themselves overwhelmed by big-business interests determined to make profit from Scotland, no matter what the cost to us as a people.

The most recent scientific advice indicates that not only are turbines unreliable in terms of their efficiency and output, they are expensive to run.

The extension of turbines into the sea will generate even higher costs.

It is time to revisit the subject of energy in light of current scientific and technical knowledge to assess demand and provision before we pay even more for our power.

The Government must come clean on the costs and the service we can expect in terms of power provision for the future. This will become all the more significant should Scotland separate from the United Kingdom. I find it difficult to believe other nations will be happy to continue to subsidise our energy strategy as they do now.

The Government should also stop offloading responsibility for these developments on to local authority planning committees, ill prepared for the decisions they need to make.

America is fuelling its economic recovery on the back of cheap energy provided by gas, a fuel cleaner than coal or oil and a dependable source for the future.

If we are to compete, we need to ensure we are not left supporting a cause that will fail to deliver at a cost we can afford.

People are in fuel poverty. They are making decisions about whether they should eat or heat. It cannot continue.

Advice suggests we can save up to 70 per cent of our energy needs by effectively insulating our buildings.

Surely we should be seeing a greater effort in this activity rather than happily allowing our homes to pump hot air into the environment. After all, I thought that was what Government ministers did?