This is just so shocking for so many reasons.

Tourism battered, peat destroyed, birds killed, property prices decreased, fuel poverty rises...

AND they don't do what they say on the tin.

Utter utter madness; the essence of these places is lost for at least the duration of our lifetimes. They will be visible for 30 miles and this is a disgrace.

A complete farce - DISGRACEFUL.

Absurd, sad, unbelievable, vandalism, shocking, betrayal, con, disgraceful, awful, ridiculous and wrong.

Just some of the words that spring to mind.

'Renewables' are like a ferry service running beneath a perfectly good bridge. Is that ferry sometimes used? Sure. Does that ferry running stop the bridge being used? No. Does it even dramatically effect the numbers using that bridge? No. Is the bridge used all the time? Yes. Can the ferry ever be used all of the time? No.

The ferry is not needed in any way whatsoever.

Sham.

You could not make this up.

The 'technology' laughable. It does not lower our fuel prices. It does not make us 'greener'. It does not make us more energy independent because we end up using more imported gas.

We are trashing one of the most exceptional landscapes in the world in the name of the EU cult.

Scots who care about the environment want nuclear. Arguments against it are misinformed, outdated and regressive.

As of 2012, France's electricity price to household customers is the 7th cheapest amongst the 27 member European Union, and also the 7th cheapest to industrial consumers, with a rate of €0.14/kWh to households and €0.07/kWh to industrial consumers. France was the biggest energy exporter in the EU in 2012, exporting 45TWh of electricity to its neighbours.

NUCLEAR FRANCE = 65 million people. 395 million metric tonnes of CO2 produced annually.

COAL/ GAS/ NUCLEAR (+pathetic renewables sideshow) BRITAIN = 60 million people. 532 million metric tonnes of CO2 produced annually.

Hinkley, in Somerset, will cost £14 billion and supply power to 5,000,000 homes. Scotland has little over 2,000,000 homes.

Those condoning windmills across the land are mad.

Bye Bye Scotland. Hello Norway!

Are the SNP not meant to be pro localism? If so, they would have seen that the vast majority were opposed to these for economic, environmental and aesthetic reasons.

This is now beyond a joke.

SCOTLAND IS BEING RUINED.

Driving from England into Scotland you will not go for more than 6 minutes without seeing massive groups of 400ft+ high turbines EVERYWHERE.

This is desecration (for no good reason) on a simply MASSIVE scale.

Someone, somewhere, will have some serious questions to answer over the coming years.

Time for action dont ever vote SNP again they are condoning the ruination and industrialisation of one of the worlds most unique and fragile environments, all for the greed of all those connected with these turbine companies. Would be worth seeing a list of investors/shareholders, in the likes SSE, and how many are connected directly or indirectly to Councillors, planners or MSP's, then we would know why this is being forwarded. This landscape is not for sale, time for a national campaign? This in the the light of todays news of the rapid decline of our indiginous wildlife, 10% of which is heading towards extinction if no action is taken & no wonder... This is going to steal one of the last areas of true wilderness, recognised worldwide for its beauty, ruggedness, diversity and for its wonderful peace.... All that to be lost to the whining blades of massive turbines, god help us, get real Highland council, this landscape belongs to us all, you are supposed to be custodians.......

This is what happens when you have town dwelling non-engineers deciding upon our energy policy.

Scandalous is the word that springs to mind.

Scarcely believable - surely the SG will reject both schemes on the spot? If not, then this will simply be another case of the SNP showing the majority of Scots just how unfit for office they really are.

Just back from a fortnight in Scotland to see this item.
Scotland's landscape is being devastated at an ever increasing rate.
The Beauly-Denny power line is going in at the moment - another scar on the view to add to the pylons already all over the place. Why didn't they spend a bit more & underground it.
The huge turbines in the Southern Uplands are another blot. (Why do people refer to windmills & wind farms ? They are not grinding corn. They are turbines & industrial estates.)
Other landscape desecration projects prevalent are run of the river hydro schemes & tree harvesting.
If the Glencassley & Sallachy schemes go ahead it will be an outrage & a disaster. The powers that be in Scotland are shooting themselves in the foot.

Perhaps no-one noticed the comments made by local people whose life this would benefit. And clearly everyone who has made comments so far about the efficiency and effectiveness of wind energy do not know the facts of the technology today.

What is scandalous and scarcely believable is that mountaineers who contribute next to nothing to the local economies (who are usually town dwellers) think the area should be preserved for them!

I am glad to see this decision - common sense prevailing at last!

Yet another false step in the race to establish the unproven case for energy independence by the next King of Scotland. No integrity!

As a local in Lairg, Sandy, I can assure you that those comments were in a tiny minority. The estate sent a letter out to all its contractors and said 'we need your help' - all responded because if the estate has money, they have money. That does not make it right; it isn't.

If you think the wind is any match for nuclear, coal or gas then you are utterly deluded.

A bold decision and a good one. I'm sure the people who object to this would have objected to the building of the Hydro schemes at Nostie and Cluanie which brought electricity to this area for the first time in the 1940's!!!!! when every other bugger down south had had it for years! The land around here is for everyone's use not just hillwalkers and climbers - who are very often from elsewhere!

Dear MikkyBlueEyes, I find it really difficult to understand how any sane minded person would ever consider nuclear a 'clean' or even safe energy source with all the past recorded disasters. And how can anyone who supposedly cares for their environment even think about burning fossil fuels?

A good example is Dounreay nuclear power station which leaked nuclear waste many years ago which STILL contaminates Sandside Bay to the extent that sea life is affected and surfers are told not to surf there. And this is an example that was not even considered a major disaster!

If, and it is a big if, we could make the nuclear waste safe then maybe nuclear would be an option. But as it stands how can anyone consider nuclear waste being buried in Scottish Lochs or in the Scottish countryside a sane alternative to wind turbines?

I would take issue with your assertion Sandy, about mountaineers contributing next to nothing to the economy of Scotland. Just returned from a trip that has put in at least £300. And I am one of many.
Furthermore haven't you noticed the huge numbers of continental visitors to Scotland. I think you'll find their presence dwindling as the landscape gets increasingly despoliated.

Nigel, I am not saying hill walkers don't spend anything, just in relative terms people doing a loch cruise or visiting places of cultural heritage for example, spend more. In terms of visitors, I work in the tourism industry and I have heard foreign visitors rave about our scenery AND the wind turbines! I just think it is important to keep an open mind and look at other cultures and not assume everyone has the same perspective on life or the landscape as oneself. Our country is unique and amazing but preserving it will just make it stagnate. I believe we need to take a more balanced view on how to progress (on all fronts - economically, in energy production terms, and in conserving the best quality environments). Incidentally, the proposed wind farms this article talks about are sandwiched between two hydro schemes. Not really the wild land at all. Anyway, that is my opinion and I just wanted to share it to bring some balance to the comments I see on this page.

Sandy.

You would not cite problems with cars from the 1950s in an argument about the safety of modern road cars today, would you?

Yet in bringing up Dounreay - a first gen 1950's nuclear research facility - you seem to apply this flawed logic to energy discussions. It's absurd.

NUCLEAR IS CLEAN! To quote Moira:

"NUCLEAR FRANCE = 65 million people. 395 million metric tonnes of CO2 produced annually.

COAL/ GAS/ NUCLEAR (+pathetic renewables sideshow) BRITAIN = 60 million people. 532 million metric tonnes of CO2 produced annually."

You also forget that radiation is natural. The levels of radiation are perfectly safe.

Lastly, your views on nuclear - which truly educated conservationists like Mark Lynas support wholeheartedly - are redundant here because wind power can never replace or displace our use of coal, nuclear or gas.

A national grid requires two types of electricity production. The majority must come from sources that run all the time to meet base-load demand. In addition, other sources are needed that can be switched on or off at short notice to meet peak demand. Clearly both types of source must be guaranteed to be available all the time. By its very nature, wind power cannot be guaranteed and can thus fulfil neither function.

Base-load demand can be met by nuclear, coal, gas, oil or hydroelectric power stations as all of these run continuously.

Coal, gas, oil and hydro sources can all also be used to meet peak demand as they can all be turned on or off at short notice. Coal, gas and oil stations operate on the basis of heating water to make steam to drive a turbine that in turn drives an electricity generator.

Although the generator can be disconnected to stop electricity production, the boiler must be kept running all the time thus these stations consume fuel continuously regardless of whether or not they produce electricity. Nuclear plants cannot be turned on and off at short notice in this manner.

Roger Helmer on nuclear waste:

"OK, I hear you asking, but what about all that nuclear waste which will sit there for millennia? I remember on my 2007 visit to Olkiluoto on Finland, standing under1000 feet of granite looking at a vast underground cavern, with 30 years-worth of waste in a tiny pile in the corner. I was with Spanish MEP Alejo Vidal Quadras, now a Vice-President of the parliament, and I’ll never forget what he said to me there: “Roger, nuclear waste disposal is simply a technical problem which has been solved”."

Monbiot:

"“Even if we assume that we’ll want to get rid of them (nuclear wastes), rather than use them as a valuable fuel, the claim that it’s unsafe to put fissile materials underground is inexplicable. Isn’t that where they came from? Why is it less safe to leave uranium several thousand metres below the surface, encased in lead, backfilled with bentonite and capped with concrete than it is to leave it, as nature did, scattered around the planet, just beneath the surface?”"

If people love turbines so much then why do they negatively effect tourism and property prices (the courts n Candad are formally recognizing this as I type)?

(The conclusions about tourism spend are drawn from two university studies (the first commissioned by the Scottish Government; the second, a submission to the Scottish Parliament’s 2012 Renewables Inquiry); a private sector survey in 2012; VisitScotland’s own 2002 research; and a recent poll conducted for Scottish Renewables.)

Wind power is the biggest scandal of our time.

Sandy.

You would not cite problems with cars from the 1950s in an argument about the safety of modern road cars today, would you?

Yet in bringing up Dounreay - a first gen 1950's nuclear research facility - you seem to apply this flawed logic to energy discussions. It's absurd.

NUCLEAR IS CLEAN! To quote Moira:

"NUCLEAR FRANCE = 65 million people. 395 million metric tonnes of CO2 produced annually.

COAL/ GAS/ NUCLEAR (+pathetic renewables sideshow) BRITAIN = 60 million people. 532 million metric tonnes of CO2 produced annually."

You also forget that radiation is natural. The levels of radiation are perfectly safe.

Lastly, your views on nuclear - which truly educated conservationists like Mark Lynas support wholeheartedly - are redundant here because wind power can never replace or displace our use of coal, nuclear or gas.

A national grid requires two types of electricity production. The majority must come from sources that run all the time to meet base-load demand. In addition, other sources are needed that can be switched on or off at short notice to meet peak demand. Clearly both types of source must be guaranteed to be available all the time. By its very nature, wind power cannot be guaranteed and can thus fulfil neither function.

Base-load demand can be met by nuclear, coal, gas, oil or hydroelectric power stations as all of these run continuously.

Coal, gas, oil and hydro sources can all also be used to meet peak demand as they can all be turned on or off at short notice. Coal, gas and oil stations operate on the basis of heating water to make steam to drive a turbine that in turn drives an electricity generator.

Although the generator can be disconnected to stop electricity production, the boiler must be kept running all the time thus these stations consume fuel continuously regardless of whether or not they produce electricity. Nuclear plants cannot be turned on and off at short notice in this manner.

Roger Helmer on nuclear waste:

"OK, I hear you asking, but what about all that nuclear waste which will sit there for millennia? I remember on my 2007 visit to Olkiluoto on Finland, standing under 1000 feet of granite looking at a vast underground cavern, with 30 years-worth of waste in a tiny pile in the corner. I was with Spanish MEP Alejo Vidal Quadras, now a Vice-President of the parliament, and I’ll never forget what he said to me there: “Roger, nuclear waste disposal is simply a technical problem which has been solved”."

Monbiot:

"“Even if we assume that we’ll want to get rid of them (nuclear wastes), rather than use them as a valuable fuel, the claim that it’s unsafe to put fissile materials underground is inexplicable. Isn’t that where they came from? Why is it less safe to leave uranium several thousand metres below the surface, encased in lead, backfilled with bentonite and capped with concrete than it is to leave it, as nature did, scattered around the planet, just beneath the surface?”"

If people love turbines so much then why do they negatively effect tourism and property prices (the courts n Candad are formally recognizing this as I type)?

(The conclusions about tourism spend are drawn from two university studies (the first commissioned by the Scottish Government; the second, a submission to the Scottish Parliament’s 2012 Renewables Inquiry); a private sector survey in 2012; VisitScotland’s own 2002 research; and a recent poll conducted for Scottish Renewables.)

Wind power is the biggest scandal of our time.

A couple of blokes looking after the windfarms once built does not compare with the thousands of locals relying on the tourist income in these areas.
What would you rather have?

As the Lakes found out in 2001, when we stop coming, you will notice.