6 May 2025
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons when he criticised governments’ current approach to achieving net zero. Writing in the foreword of a new report by his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), Blair argued that strategies centred on rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and forcing lifestyle changes are “doomed to fail.”
He believes the public is being asked to make too many significant sacrifices for what appears to have limited global impact — a stance that has clearly resonated with many in the Scottish Borders, where communities are increasingly faced with a surge in wind farms, battery storage facilities, and other renewables infrastructure.
But while Westminster debates the balance of policy priorities, a deeper issue is emerging on the ground: local democracy and community voices are being squeezed out in the name of net zero. This is an issue all too familiar in the Scottish Borders. Time and again, communities have voiced opposition to wind farm developments only to be overruled from above.
A striking recent example is the Wull Muir wind farm near Heriot. Despite being rejected three times by Scottish Borders Council due to significant visual and landscape concerns, and facing strong objections from local residents and community councils, the project was approved on appeal by the Scottish Government. This decision not only dismisses the judgment of elected local representatives, but also sends a worrying message: that national climate targets trump community voices.
Also, in 2024, a coalition of community councils and residents from areas including Heriot, Stow, Fountainhall, and the Teviot Valley submitted a petition to the Scottish Borders Council. The petition requested a review of the procedures used by Planning Officers when preparing documentation for wind farm applications under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Specifically, it called for the inclusion of representative comments and responses from community councils and local residents in reports presented to the Planning Committee. The petitioners expressed concern that referring the public solely to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) website for submissions or objections diminished local engagement and transparency in the planning process.
To date, the Scottish Borders Council has not made any changes to its procedures in response to the petition.
It’s important to clarify this isn’t about opposing renewable energy. Most people support clean energy and recognise its role in addressing climate change. But when developments are repeatedly imposed without meaningful local input, public confidence in both the planning process and the broader policy agenda begins to erode.
Climate action will only succeed if it brings people along with it. Undermining local decision-making risks turning public support into resentment—and could prove counterproductive in the long run.