Published in partnership with The Herald
As the world leaders gather in Brazil, to discuss the climate catastrophe facing us at COP 30, communities here in Scotland are trying to navigate the path of decarbonising our own energy supply.
The UK and Scottish governments have been implementing a policy of a huge shift to renewable energy over the last twenty years – from fossil fuels (oil and gas) to renewable energy (wind, tidal and solar). Up until now, the vast proportion of this renewable energy shift has been offshore wind, but now onshore wind is also coming onstream at scale.
Recently, this shift has seen a huge backlash as communities face an overwhelming amount of planning applications from giant corporate energy companies, many of whom feel this process as something done to them rather than with them.
Entering this mix, where rural communities feel beleaguered and attempt to protect land rights, ecology and community is another factor – a resurgent right in the form of Reform UK, who reject Net Zero as a concept in itself and engage in climate denialism.
What was previously a place of consensus has become a deeply contested, and at times weaponised issue. At a time when clean energy is an absolute must for us to play our part in the fight against climate change, the manner of its roll-out is putting the whole process in jeopardy.
The People’s Voice
The Scottish Beacon is a local journalism collaborative that brings together community-based news publishers across Scotland. Partners spoke about how divisive this issue has been, even causing family rifts – which is why we decided to tackle this topic together to try and get a true picture of what was happening across the country.
So, to get a sense of how this was playing out on the ground, The Scottish Beacon surveyed people across Scotland. We had responses from 67 distinct locations across Scotland, covering everything from major cities to small villages and islands. Analysis of all the survey responses revealed six clear areas of concern: environmental impact; frustration with the planning process; lack of community voice; questions over money and ownership; the emotional and mental toll; and a feeling that the benefits were not being felt fairly.
What became immediately clear was that most people weren’t opposed to renewable energy itself. Their frustration lay in feeling ignored or pushed aside as developments gathered speed. One respondent in Lerwick wrote: “We are not all against green energy, but smaller community projects would be far more rewarding than destroying vast peat wilderness.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, environmental worries dominated, particularly in rural areas. People described hillsides turning into industrial corridors and peat bogs being carved up for access roads and turbine platforms. For many, it wasn’t the presence of one development that troubled them most, but the cumulative effect – wind farms, pylons, substations and BESS units appearing, with no sense of an overall plan.
Concerns about the planning system weren’t far behind. Many felt overwhelmed by the volume of applications and struggled to understand how decisions were made. Several communities told us they were trying to respond to multiple proposals simultaneously, with little support. From Beauly, one resident wrote: “We are drowning under a mountain of planning applications… It is tearing our communities apart.”
Money and ownership came up again and again alongside a sense of injustice. People asked why those living beside turbines still faced some of the highest energy bills in the country, and why so much of the infrastructure was owned by companies based overseas. One respondent from St John’s Town of Dalry put it starkly: “The blight on the landscape only benefits rich investors and not the people.”
Running through all of this was the emotional strain. Many spoke about the sheer exhaustion of constantly responding to developments, the sense of losing control over their surroundings, and the upset caused by long-standing community divisions. In Rothienorman, a resident described how: “The mental health and stress of trying to participate in the planning process of these projects is taking its toll on our residents and because we have no idea of how the ECU [the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit] makes its decisions, we have no way of knowing how best to object to proposals.”
Yet the message from most respondents was not anti-renewable. Respondents recognised the need for clean energy and the urgency of climate action. What they wanted was a transition that protected the landscape, shared the benefits more fairly and respected the knowledge and experience of people who live in these places. As a Shetland islander from Whalsay wrote: “Our beautiful unspoiled land has been destroyed bit by bit. The benefits to locals are negligible.”
Such responses speak to a process that is at times dysfunctional, with huge payouts to corporate energy companies to not produce energy, while communities languish with both the environmental impact and fuel poverty. At the same time, most of these companies are foreign-owned and the actual benefit in terms of job creation for the local economy seems minimal. To many, it feels like there is nothing ‘just’ about this transition.
Who is Benefiting from the Power Shift?
As Neil McInroy has written: “The expansion of the sector is vital to a successful green transition. But with the scale and speed of this growth in renewables, questions arise over who owns these resources, and who truly benefits from them.”
One recurring theme in this whole episode – and a key question from who is benefitting – is the issue of foreign-ownership. As Sarah Ade, editor of Glenkens Gazette put it: “One frustration voiced by locals is that almost none of this infrastructure is Scottish-owned; Windy Rig belongs to Statkraft, the Norwegian state energy company, Shepherds’ Rig is owned by Boralex of Canada, Other wind farms involve Danish and French companies, and even Scottish Power, our ‘national’ electricity company, is owned by the Spanish giant Iberdrola.”
The prospect of a much talked about ‘Just Transition’– the idea that the workers and communities from the oil and gas sector could and should be re-employed in the renewable industry; and the idea of clean and affordable energy – is the prize at stake in this energy revolution. But questions are being asked about this whole process, who benefits and why we are not seeing the outcomes for communities, taxpayers and the environment that we might expect.
It’s important to note that it’s not all bad. There are many examples of highly successful and impactful community-owned projects that can be replicated, several of which were highlighted in a report by Equitable Energy Research CIC.
These include Tilley, the community owned wind turbine on Tiree, which returns over 100x more economic value to the community than the privately-owned Beinn An Tuirc 1-2 Wind Farm, despite being around 1 percent of the size. In Shetland, the Community-owned Garth Community Wind Farm in Yell returns around 90x more value per MW to the community than the privately-owned Viking Wind Farm, despite being 100 times smaller. And the Orkney Community Wind Farms, wholly-owned by Orkney Islands Council, are set to deliver £5.5 million in revenue each year, helping to support public services across the islands.
But if the business-as-usual model prevails, then the vast potential of the renewables revolution will be wasted. Large sectors of the renewable energy industry is foreign-owned (none of the proposed wind farms include ownership participation from Scottish entities), and the Community Benefit Payments – direct payments paid annually to communities – have not been updated since 2010 when £5,000 per MW per annum was established as an industry benchmark by Forestry and Land Scotland. The system of conversion to renewable energy seems at best un-strategic and at worst incoherent.
The scale of the revolution is vast. The renewable energy sector is huge and growing. According to Equitable Energy Research the combined capacity of operational onshore and offshore wind projects in the Highlands and Islands is around 5 GW. If all projects currently in the pipeline were to be built, the total capacity could exceed 25 GW.
But despite the fact that we know that “community energy generates 100x more wealth than corporate counterparts,” the actual amount of community-owned onshore wind is pitifully small. The amount of onshore renewables in community shared ownership in Scotland is 0.2% contrasting with 52% in Denmark. This has led to calls at the Public Petitions Committee at Holyrood in June to make offering community shared ownership mandatory for all new wind farm developments.
Netty Sopata, editor of Fios, the North Lewis newspaper reports: “In Lewis, while global corporations secure prime access to a new £billion interconnector to the mainland, local community energy groups – which have already proven their power to generate income, jobs and resilience – are being pushed to the margins. It raises questions about who benefits from the renewable transition: multinationals chasing profits, or islanders who have fought for community ownership of land and energy for decades.”
In Sutherland, Kyle Chronicle readers are seeing an unprecedented number of planning applications for renewable energy developments and for transmission infrastructure. As editor, Silvia Muras writes: “The proposed developments are of such a scale that they would dwarf the small, dispersed crofting communities and transform the area into an industrial landscape. The Kyle of Sutherland is a stronghold of endangered species such as Fresh Water Pearl Mussel and Atlantic Salmon, and home to wildlife such as Red Squirrel, Pine Marten, Hen Harrier, Osprey, Curlew and Golden Eagle.
“Despite having several operational wind farms and hydro schemes at our doorstep, standing charges in Sutherland are among the highest in the country, and as many as 65% of households were living in fuel poverty in 2023.”
These examples, from Sutherland and Lewis, are mirrored across the country, from Dumfries to Shetland, from Uist to the North East, where communities are facing the same issues: overwhelmed by the scale of proposals, an inability to get grid connection, under-funding for community renewables, or entanglement in an opaque planning system. Perhaps worse, rural communities face ongoing fuel poverty while enduring the impacts of industrial development.
The Scottish Community Coalition on Energy state: “There is growing opposition to new clean energy infrastructure, threatening Scotland’s climate targets and the UK’s clean power targets. The UK Government plans to build the majority of new onshore wind capacity before 2030 in Scotland, but 53 community councils in the Highlands recently supported a joint statement calling for a pause on energy infrastructure developments, and 10% of Scots are against the development of onshore wind.”
They have now released a manifesto ahead of the Holyrood Elections 2026 urging a shift towards community-owned renewable energy. The manifesto argues for:
- Increasing the CARES funding package for community energy to £15m/year, rising each year.
- Using public land to boost community-owned energy.
- Updating the National Framework Agreement for the Supply of Electricity to allow local authorities and other public bodies to buy energy directly from community energy groups.
- Establishing a Scottish Community Wealth Fund to equitably distribute a portion of the wealth being generated by Scotland’s natural renewable resources.
The Narratives
The problems of the rollout of onshore renewables have become a political crisis with rural communities in open revolt as the gap between the promise of clean affordable energy (and jobs) and the reality has become all too clear.
The crisis has led to a clash of political narratives about what’s going on and how it might be resolved. These include a backlash against renewables in and of themselves, with an outright rejection of the goals of Net Zero itself, and climate denialism from some in Reform Scotland and the Conservative Party, to those of a Scottish nationalist persuasion such as the campaign group Believe in Scotland who argue that Scottish communities are effectively suffering to generate energy for the England. While the Labour government argues that the ‘pain’ of bringing connectivity up to speed will be short-lived and followed by reduced bills and lower-carbon energy. Others argue that the issue is one of ownership, both of the means of production and the equipment and technology that produces wind energy.
A wide range of actors are involved in Scotland’s renewable energy transition. Major companies such as SSEN, Statkraft, SSE Renewables, Scottish Power Renewables, EDF and Ocean Winds lead much of the infrastructure and generation work. Alongside them, community organisations – from local land trusts to development trusts and national groups like the Scottish Community Coalition on Energy – push for local benefit and democratic control. Government bodies also play a role: Scottish Renewables represents the industry, while Local Energy Scotland manages CARES, supporting communities to take part in the shift to net zero. Together, they form the complex mix shaping Scotland’s energy future.
Ultimately, the renewable energy revolution has failed so far to deliver on its potential and promise, and as such has become political dynamite as we enter the year of the next Holyrood elections.
In the Power Shift series we’ll be hearing the local stories from those on the ground. We’ll be exploring what solutions we might bring to the table and how these might be implemented.
This article is part of The Power Shift – a collaborative investigation by 10 independent, community-based publishers across Scotland, exploring the impact of the green energy transition on communities. Co-ordinated by the Scottish Beacon and supported by the Tenacious Journalism Awards, the project aims to amplify local voices, facilitate cross-community learning and push for fair, transparent energy development.
Sign up to the Scottish Beacon newsletter for all the latest from this project.
