07/12/2011 Newsnight Scotland

tried. The banks have to take hard fiscal choices and let others worry

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, the Government announces it will

announce -- it will allow a return Denny-to-Beauly power line to be

built. Is the one approved now it any different to the one proposed

earlier this year? And are these projects all

imperative to save the environment or is there a backlash from people

who believe they are destroying the environment in the process?

The Government has given its final response in the mitigation of the

Denny-to-Beauly power line. What does that mean? You have to choose

your preferred version of the narrative. Everyone knows that it

depends on the power getting delivered South.

The Highlands - you might not want to live with them but you do not

function as a nation without them. The Government says that the Denny-

to-Beauly power line is the more significant project their

generation. It will allow the renewable energy in the north of

Scotland to be harnessed. But it underlines issues that have faced

the SNP in government. Protesters in Stirling say their 25 metre

pylons currently would be some -- would be replaced by those much

higher, almost as high as the Wallace Monument. While none of the

new collectors are to be buried underground, an extra section will

be. Today, the Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing, explained by

underground in was not an option. - - explained why sticking the power

lines underground was not an option. I do not find it appropriate to

seek approval for spending �63 million of electricity consumers'

money, especially at a time of economic difficulty. It is bad news

for campaigners against the pylons, who want their lines buried

underground. The minister offered some general compensation, with all

apply once coming down. The us will carry a cost of �12.9 million for

seven kilometres of having power once removed. This represents a

more efficient use of money than the �20.7 million for a section of

all the 1.6 kilometres of the �263 million for a sector of 15

kilometres. I have asked that wider landscape enhancement is ensued --

has pursued. Consultants have recommended a wider landscape to

offer other Bannister -- to other benefits. Opponents remained

unimpressed. The announcement today is a slap in the face for the

people of Stirling. The additional schemes proposed to mitigate amount

to be AV -- commented very little given the impact on locals and the

Wallace Monument. It was in January last year that the last SNP energy

minister kicked the Denny-to-Beauly power line decision into the long

grass by asking the Scottish government to mitigate the impact.

There is no required to under ground any of it? We cannot do that.

We can mitigate. Today, he continued his line of questioning.

Given that he rejected recommendations but required to 16

kilometres of existing wind to be under grounded, does that justify

the two years further of reaching the decision by his very modest

requirement? The Liberal Democrats smelled a rat with the timing of

the decision and the usefulness of the delay. Will he acknowledged

there is a strong suspicion cobble notably in the Stirling area, that

it is more the timing of last May's election that is to do with the

announcement rather than the cost of putting the lines underground.

In rural areas, pions can be very contentious. But in a country where

the cold bites and energy builds can sting, this debate is heated.

The Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing came in the earlier. I asked him

how it would defer to day from what was proposed by Scottish Power

earlier in the year. The proposals we have approved a different in

several respects. Firstly, we have approved the placing of the lines

underground of another line. That extends seven kilometres in length

across open countryside. That will be placed under ground. That

followed a proposal initially put forward by the reporter and backed

up by our independent landscape consultants. But beyond that, which

does not involve putting any of theUnderground, is there anything

involved here other than painting a few to was green and planting a few

hedges? The underground nature of the liner will involve a cost, so

it is not something we will say is cosmetic. We are proposing agree

network of landscape improvements in the hall area and that will

involve a significant investment. - - the whole area. I have written to

the leader of Stirling Council for a meeting before the end of the

year to take this forward. This will improve the landscape,

particularly of the areas which are most effective -- most affected. It

will create a new path networks and woodland habitat and provide

opportunities for local residents to benefit. So if you live in the

area, you may well welcome the fact that some pylons will be put

underground but none of the new big ones will be, but beyond that,

what? A path, some hedges, and a couple of car-parks? Why is that

going to make you think that, in any way, that makes a difference?

have already explained to ways in which we have provided additional

mitigation. As far as the main line is concerned, we have concluded

that to spend between five and 15 times more than is required, at a

cost of up to �263 million, which would have to be paid for by you

and I, through their electricity bills, that cannot be justified.

Secondly, were we to have approved the placing of the lines

underground, the delay is that would have resulted would have

created two to three years to lay and would have hampered and

jeopardised their jobs, jobs which we believe will come in their tens

of thousands for young people in Scotland. That surely is a prize

that we cannot afford to jeopardise. Anyone that says we can afford that

delay, I am afraid it is an argument that is false and reckless.

Did you explore ways to explore -- to use public money to police these

lines underground so that the cost- benefit analysis would be changed?

We did not consider using taxpayers' money because the

insistent -- the system for improvements to the ground if men

the improvements being met by the electricity bill payer. But you

could ever explored ways of using public money to do that. A we do

not consider it prudent to spend additional amounts of public money

where it is neither appropriate nor necessary. But yesterday, Alex Neil

proposed �60 billion spending on dozens and dozens of projects,

stretching out into infinity. It is a question of priorities. It is

reasonable for you to say that you have a lot of these proposals, we

just do not really care about the Stirling mitigation measures. In

that case, just be honest about it. The proposals do not stretch into

infinity. The question here is not how placing the lines underground

would be funded, it is whether it is appropriate. When the cost of

overhead lines is between 5 and 15 times less expensive. Surely,

especially at a time of economic difficulty, the public expect

politicians not to pile extra costs on two schemes. These costs can be

avoided. Was there any reason to delay all this? You candidates were

being criticised. Was there a case for kicking us into touch? When he

kicked it into touch, he said he wanted all at options examined,

including putting the lines underground. You are saying that he

did not know all these basic economic truths that you're telling

me about. There was no way you could justified spending public

money on it. Have you just discovered this in the last few

By finger question presupposes Underground was the only option. It

was considered. Had it not been for the fact that we underwent this

process of consultation with nine meetings, 23 options considered in

detail and are thereafter, following the formal letter we

received in August, a further period of consultation with the

council, which extended to 45 days. And I met with the council and

concerned individuals inspecting the site. Had we not had that

process, we would not have seen the additional measures to wit -- which

I have announced. I think that justifies the process would we have

gone through, and it will result in additional mitigation measures

which will leave a lasting legacy and benefit I believe for the

people of Stirling. I am joined now by the policy

director of the John Muir Trust, Helen McDade, add the commentator

at Ian Macwhirter. I know this is an issue to which

you took an interest. Can I have your reaction to today's

announcement? I suppose it is lack of surprise.

What we have discovered, amongst other things, is we have a very

terrible process for deciding large infrastructure is she's, and we

need a national energy plan. It is no surprise, the decision. I did

not think the economic case stood up at inquiry and I did not think

the Scottish Government could risk going back to Ofgem to look at this

again with further cost. When you mean the economic concern,

you mean... For the Beauly-Denny line. Because

the rest was marginal, they could not risk going back to Ofgem to

look at it again with extra cost. They may have said, could we do

this with an undersea cable, and the answer was certainly, yes.

Ian Macwhirter, what do you make of this? What do you make of these

people who don't like the prospect of these pilots? Do they have good

bite the bullet in the greater interest of renewables?

This has been a very traumatic experience for the environment of a

whole. I have seen it ramblers and friends

of the Earth having stand-up rows about the Beauly-Denny line. They

are being very careful not to discuss this in public too much now

that the final decision has been made. The City of Boston in America

spent $8 billion putting a section of motorway underground because it

was spoiling the view. Hang on a minute, that became

famous as one of the greatest pieces of squandering of public

money in US history. Yes, it was a lot of money and they

went ahead with it. What I am saying is, under the present

circumstances here in Scotland, the present financial constraints, this

was not going to happen. The real scandal here is the many, many

years it has taken to get this line up and running and we can afford to

spend the best part of a decade on an infrastructure problem like this.

I totally disagree. The real scandal is this was not the right

project to go ahead and we don't have a national strategy to look at

this. You say we do not have a national

strategy, but if we did have, it is pretty much inconceivable it would

have to incorporate some way of getting electricity generated by

renewables in the Highlands and Islands down south.

Absolutely that is why subs C/ cables but to be discussed at

inquiry. We could not, I was told that undersea cables were not

advanced enough. Now we're told, we need them as well. Actually,

succeed tables are not so much expensive, Underground is more

expensive and is a good way to move power over a long distance. --

undersea cables. I am curious about

environmentalists having stand-up fights about the Beauly-Denny line.

As the green agenda has become more mainstream and things are being

built to carry it out, you are seeing these disagreements, and the

other obvious question is that there is a big split in the green

movement over whether to build nuclear power stations because a

lot of their instincts are, we have been against nuclear power for

years, and other people in the agreement are saying, this is the

easiest way to stop carbon emissions.

The most obvious comparison is with onshore wind farms. They did create

a blight on the environment and the physical environment on the view,

they do damage it. Nevertheless, at the moment this is the only

economically viable way of using Scotland's prodigious reserves of

renewable energy. Certainly, the Beauly-Denny line under present

technology is the only way of making a reality out of Scotland's

extremely valuable resources of green energy. Things change, and

the one good thing about pylons is they can be removed relatively

easily. They do not have a huge long-term impact on the environment.

Once undersea cables become necessary and technology developed,

perhaps alternatives will be found. If you look at one of our cities,

only 20 or 30 years ago you would have found a network of all sorts

of electrical cables and telephone lines wedding across the street.

Most of these have gone. Hopefully in future years this will goal, too.

For the time being, there is no end up -- alternative, if you want

energy, you have to have pilots. Do you think more generally there

is a danger of a public backlash against a lot of these things, not

just the pilot's, but like onshore wind farms, perhaps even offshore

wind. Yes, I think there is a major issue

there. One of the reasons is, people do not trust what they have

been told. It is absolutely not true that the economic way to go

about this is the way we are doing it. The best way to use public

money is on energy conservation, and we should be using that public

money taken from people through their energy bills into that and

research and development. For instance, carbon capture and

storage, which was cancelled. That is where public money should be

going. Public money should not be going into onshore wind, which is

really quite ineffective. It is not true that economically this stacks

up. Our economic policy is being led by energy companies, who are

subsidy junkies. There are thought the next

generation of power will be offshore wind. Do you think that is

I think this is not a religion, and you have a favoured thing. For

older people it is to, we want wind-powered, we want nuclear, it

saves our landscape. Obviously the John Muir Trust is a landscape and

natural heritage organisation and we are concerned about onshore wind.

It is easy for my point of you to see onshore wind would be --

offshore wind would be better. I have to say, the country has to go

back and look at the figures for this. We're spending public money

in a way that is not justified. This is still experimental, we are

really taking a huge leap in the dark here. To come back to

something Fergus Ewing said, underground cables will happen in

the English national parks and in London for the Olympics. People are

spending that money, and it was not supported money because it was paid

for the - - -- because it was paid for by the UK.

Do you think there is something of a public backlash about these

projects? Are the public saying we are not sure whether we want to see

windmills in the countryside? There is certainly a backlash, and

certainly concern about the economic viability of windmills and

wind farms, onshore wind. At the moment you have a problem. The

green energy resources are in the remote parts of the country, the

cities are in the south. You have to get the power to play it is

needed, and that needs transmission lines.

Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed.

Quickly, tomorrow's front pages. The Herald talks about the 90 mph

hurricane forecast for tomorrow afternoon. The Scotsman, Mike

Russell those to act on schools Russell those to act on schools