Capitalist destroyers (David Spence)

I’m intrigued to know exactly what Viking Energy’s manifesto is regarding the construction of such a massive operation as the 127 wind turbines, producing zero energy for Shetland, but gaining financially by “selling to the highest bidder” what energy these turbines generate.

It seems very obvious to me that Viking Energy’s manner of thinking is very typical of your “let’s make a quick buck mentality” capitalist, completely disregarding any long-term damage they will, not may, cause to the environment, the fragile eco-system and the pollution and carbon footprint they will generate in the construction as well as the maintenance of such a project.

Why hasn’t Viking Energy done any research and development into other alternative sources of energy like tidal, wave or even solar?

Wind energy, in respect to the infrastructure and cost, is the cheapest in terms of construction and maintenance. So, you build the cheapest means to generate energy, you sell it off to the highest bidder and the greed orientated shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank, not giving a damn as to the monstrous damage “they” have caused, as long as “they” make their profit … profit, the saviour to the capitalist, the destroyer of worlds for everybody else as recent history is proving.

What gives the Scottish Parliament the right to make such a decision affecting Shetland so much when it hasn’t actually proven the islands belong to Scotland (we’ll just go with the status quo, don’t want to rock the boat … it’s not the Shetland thing to do)? Just a passing thought, but one which could, legally, be looked into.

David Spence
27 Commercial Street,


Add Your Comment
  • roberta clubb

    • June 1st, 2011 10:31

    Viking Energy is about turbines only.. David.

    Shetland had it`s own ” prototype ” of 5 turbines in situ.

    It was to develop wind turbines , and wind turbines only, that the Viking Energy Ccmpany was formed involving our S.I.C. in a grand scale , like everything else !

  • Gordon Harmer

    • June 1st, 2011 13:51

    David the dictionary defines a capitalist as an investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise. These people create jobs and prosperity for others as well as wealth for them selves.

    The same dictionary defines a Luddite as one who opposes technical or technological change or any opponent of technological progress. These people create nothing but negativity and oppose change because they are afraid of it. It also defines rhetoric as (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display, to bombast.

    My own dictionary defines some one who does not research what they write as a diddly donk. How do you know Viking have not researched tidal, wave or solar power and are not going to provide power for Shetland are you privy to information the rest of are not?

    Now the Germans are closing down all their nuclear power stations there is going to be a shortage of electricity throughout Europe which will make power generated by any means a viable project. Or should we dismantle all the German nuclear power stations and rebuild them up here.

  • Leslie Lowes

    • June 2nd, 2011 12:06

    The “shareholders” of Viking Energy include you and me David, through the Charitable Trust which will own almost half the Viking windfarm.on our behalf. Exporting electricity to make a profit is no different from exporting fish. It is simply another way to exploit local resources.

  • Bert Morrison

    • June 2nd, 2011 23:36

    The opposite of a capitalist is a communist is it not?
    China I believe is still a communist country?
    China has displaced around 1.4 million people to dam the Three Gorges on the Yangtze river…which is turning into an ecological disaster by all accounts.
    Communist destroyers?

    Solar – are you having a Giraffe? When was the last time we saw the Sun for more than five minutes?

    Bring back the Hammer & Sickle . All the worlds energy and climate change problems solved and if anyone disagrees then a holiday in Siberia on the house comrade!

  • David Spence

    • June 3rd, 2011 17:47

    In answer to Gordon Harmer, I am not opposed to using technology to advance energy production. Building massive wind turbines to generate the energy in respect to the potential damage caused does put into question the viability of such technology and the justification of the project. Viking Energy may have done research into other alternative sources of energy, but in terms of economics and overall cost, wind energy is the cheapest means of creating electricity. I presume, like running any business, you take the cheapest option in regard to providing a service or manufacturing a product irrespective of any potential harm you may cause in the long term. Short term thinking is the basis of capitalism in respect to gaining profit as quickly as possible, especially when the ‘ greed factor ‘, is taken into consideration……recent events regarding the banking system proves this point. There is a balance between using technology to improve or sustain a service to this of protecting and preserving what we regard as socially and morally beneficial to us as a species on this planet……We are not superior to other animal species, we are part and parcel of a collective entity which also includes the environment….equally a living entity as life itself. As for Bert Morrison’s comments….. it is not a case of one political ideology against another (communism never ever started in Russia….Lenin did not live long enough to bring his ideals into fruition before Stalin, completely changed the whole social structure more akin to this of a dictatorship…….as for the propaganda, this was perpetrated after the WW II, by the US in respect to the technological/Space Race between the USA and, as it was known then, the USSR…….so, to apportion blame of communism onto Russia is factually incorrect.)

  • David Spence

    • June 3rd, 2011 18:00

    As for the Germans closing down (decommissioning, which will take many, many years), their nuclear energy reactors/programme and replacing this energy by, so I am led to believe, buying it from France, who are the largest users, in Europe, of nuclear energy (75% of their electricity is by nuclear power), seems more like a knee-jerk reaction in respect to events in Japan, than long term projection of energy consumption and use……..and I would suspect unworkable economically……I do not think Germany will entirely give up its nuclear power in the long term.

  • Ian Tinkler

    • June 4th, 2011 22:06

    Soon to become history. Goob bye Viking Energy. A matter or hunan rights.

    House of Lords Session 2010 – 11
    Internet Publications
    Other Bills before Parliament

    Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL]
    Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL]




    Make provision for a minimum distance between wind turbines and

    residential premises according to the size of the wind turbine; and for

    connected purposes.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and

    consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present

    Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Planning permission

    (1) No relevant authority may grant planning permission for the construction of a

    wind turbine generator unless it meets the minimum distance requirement

    under section 2, subject to the exception in section 3.

    (2) “Relevant authority” means the local authority or government department
    with the power to grant planning permission for a wind turbine generator.

    2 Requirements for minimum distance

    (1) The “minimum distance requirement” means the necessary minimum distance

    between the wind turbine generator and residential premises as set out in

    subsection (4).
    (2) “Residential premises” means any premises the main purpose of which is to

    provide residential accommodation, including farmhouses.

    (3) If a number of wind turbine generators are being built as part of the same

    project the minimum distance requirement applies to each wind turbine

    generator individually.
    (4) If the height of the wind turbine generator is—

    (a) greater than 25m, but does not exceed 50m, the minimum distance

    requirement is 1000m;

    (b) greater than 50m, but does not exceed 100m, the minimum distance

    requirement is 1500m;
    (c) greater than 100m, but does not exceed 150m, the minimum distance

    requirement is 2000m;

    HL Bill 17 55/1

    Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL]

    (d) greater than 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 3000m.

    (5) The height of the wind turbine generator is measured from the ground to the

    end of the blade tip at its highest point.

    (6) There is no minimum distance requirement if the height of the wind turbine

    generator does not exceed 25m.
    (7) If planning permission is granted on the condition that the proposed wind

    turbine generator meets the minimum distance requirement under subsection

    (5) the actual height of the wind turbine generator must not exceed the

    maximum height in relation to that minimum distance.

  • Ian Tinkler

    • June 5th, 2011 8:58

    Although the above is not Scottish Law, The Human rights issue comes under The Supreme Court (UK). This is the Highest UK court and has jurisdiction in Scotland. No wonder Salmond and the SNP hate it. I for one will appeal to this court to fight the Viking Energy cash cow and protect the Shetland environment from the greedy few.

  • Colin Hunter

    • June 7th, 2011 11:25

    There he goes again! Banging on about human rights!
    My Question is:
    Exactly who’s human rights have been / are being / will be breached by The Viking energy windfarm? (Or any other industrial development) And in what way?
    Also, how can you appeal to the Supreme Court without first going through the entire legal system, losing every case and appeal on the way, before finally arriving (Penniless by this time) at the Supreme court? It’s the end of a very long and arduous legal process and, as far as I know, you can’t just say “I like that one because Alex Salmond doesn’t, that’ll do me”, and waltz in the door shouting “I don’t like windfarms, will you ban them please”.
    Also, who are the “Greedy few” you refer to? I was under the impression, as Leslie Lowes stated above,that the development was on behalf of the people of Shetland. All of us. So does that make you one of the greedy few as well?

  • David Spence

    • June 8th, 2011 15:54

    It is an interesting question, when it comes to the private sector, who will actually benefit from the Viking Energy Programme?

    Based on previous performances where (Conservative Policies under Thatcher) State run services have been, without any consultation to the people, either sold or transferred to the private sector, whilst at the same time, those private companies been given millions and millions of tax payers money to, allegedly, start off or to improve what has been given too them (based on the privatisation of water and sewerage (1994), it seems very evident that many of the private companies have not invested in the infrastructure of the industry taking into account the number of complaints as well as the massive amount of water being wasted due to broken, badly maintained pipes etc).

    I think I would be pretty safe to place a bet that Viking Energy, after using ‘ Shetlands money ‘, to construct their private money making scheme, will be the only benefactors, financially, from this whole operation. The so-called share-holders will not be the shetland people but a selected few, if you are rich enough to buy viking energy shares, who will be better off and the cost of everybody else. In the private sector, its the few who exploit, cheat, deceive, lie their way in which to better themselves at the cost of everybody else. As the saying is ‘ You’ll never meet a honest business man/woman ‘……how true this is.

  • David Holmes

    • June 13th, 2011 16:36

    Sadly, your correspondent, Mister Spence, seems to have some strangely romanticised idea of the late and unlamented “Lenin”, and appears to blame “Stalin” for perverting “true” Communism and making the USSR the oppressive and tyrannical regime it became.

    It was not “Stalin” who founded the Cheka, nor who ordered the sociopath Dzerzhinsky to arrest, torture and murder or imprison thousands of political opponents in the first years following the Revolution. That honour falls solely to the equally murderous “Lenin”. By the time of his death, the Chekisty numbered in the hundreds of thousands and were so “successful” in their purges and maintenance of the Gulags that even “Stalin” was so impressed that he kept them in place when he rose to power.

    “Ideals”? Thank the Lord he didn’t live long enough to do more! The dictatorship was well in place by the time of his death. A system – or individual – to be lauding, Mister Spence? A little history lesson might be warranted…

  • David Holmes

    • June 14th, 2011 14:30

    By the by, I have never heard this “saying”, regarding businessmen/women. It seems rather a slur against any such enepreneur, including any and all of those found on Commercial Street, amongst others. Is it local, perhaps,?


Add Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

200 words left

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Get Latest News in Your Inbox

Join the The Shetland Times mailing list to get one daily email update at midday on what's happening in Shetland.