The trouble is that people will only wake up to what we have lost when it is too late. Energy companies get away with claims that 400 foot turbines on the top of hills will have no significant visual impact while planning officers swallow meaningless surveys saying that wind farms will actually increase tourism due to people going to visitor's centres. Over the border in Northumberland a wind farm is being built which will totally destroy the views to and from the most popular hills in the National Park - the Simonside Hills. This is an act of environmental vandalism of the highest order yet Northumberland National Park's formal objection wasn't even registered at the planning meeting where this was approved. The development is unlikely to even save any CO2 after the thousands of long truck journeys and 12 hectares of woodland clearances are taken into account. The turbines will be visible from most of Northumberland, ruining what was "the land of far horizons" for walkers, yet who is standing up and getting angry about this? Nobody, because even walkers are taken in by the propoganda from the vested interests who stand to make millions that wind farms have something to do with solving climate change.

I wish the MCofS were being a bit less selective about what constitutes a landscape worth protecting. There are areas of fine wild land with few or no Munros and Corbetts. They need standing up for as well, in the clearest way possible. Trotternish, for example, or the far north west, or the whole of the Outer Hebrides.

Deugar, Could you post a link to the planning officers report to substantiate your claims? - they sound fairly unlikely to me. I also assume that you are vegan, don't fly, don't own a car and light your house with one energy saving lightbulb that you move from fitting to fitting to minimise your carbon footprint - if not are you being a touch hypocritical?

The arguments surrounding wind turbines are often too emotive for rational debate and there is too much misinformation (on both sides of the debate).

To add to Jon's point, there is very little real wilderness left - man has impacted practically everywhere in the UK - whether that is through deforrestation over hundreds of years, grazing of animals (both sustainably and unsustainably) or the use of land for sports such as shooting or other recreation. Are stalkers tracks that facillitate access for mountaineers acceptable but turbine access tracks not?

Finally, I would add that MCofS position is pretty shallow - Scotland has far more "selling points" than the just the Highlands - yes they are special, and yes I love walking and climbing in them. However, a balance must be found and focussing on one small aspect of the debate is not going to make any difference.

It seems strange that the MCofS have gone for this tactic as Visit Scotland has a robust-looking visitor survey showing that most people questioned were not strongly opposed to wind farms in the countryside and the presence of wind farms would not affect their holiday decisions.

Summary is here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/04/windtourism24042012

and the full results here: http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/Insights%20Wind%20Farm%20Topic%20Paper.pdf

Just asking businesses to lobby isn't enough. There needs to be contrary evidence which can't just be based on the volume of vocal emotive opposition. It seems hard for those who passionately oppose windfarms to see that there are others who do not share their views.

Jon - the MCofS has to be selective because we have very limited resources. Our website shows the developments which we have responded to at http://www.mcofs.org.uk/developments.asp

Dave - we are focusing on the mountains because that is where our members' interest lies.

Blowing in the wind - good nickname - the visitor surveys have been undertaken at a time when most of the wind farms that are currently either in construction, consented or in planning have yet to be built. We think the tourism sector needs to act to understand the threat that wind farms pose to their businesses. For example - we have just responded to a WF proposal which would be adjacent to Glen Affric National Scenic Area - if it gets the go-ahead. The glen gets 35,000 visitors a year who come for the scenery and walks. Will they keep coming when the glen is overlooked by wind turbines?

I recommend you read the MCofS Manifesto on Onshore Wind Farms to get a full understanding of our position http://www.mcofs.org.uk/lps.asp

A letter in the P & J today had this catchy phrase "...subsidise an increasing forest of foreign-owned rotating cash machines".

The letter writer also observed that an engineer from India he was talking with said, "With the wind power industry it is common for governments to subsidise indigenous companies and help them to export goods and services. But here, you are subsidising foreign companies to bring goods in to the detriment of your own econemy and then handing them huge profits for the next 25 years which they take home."

As applicants can appeal to the Government to reverse local decisions we need to get it onside, as well as councils and others, if we are going to stop these wind turbines being built.

Are you disillusioned by rising electricity prices, over dependence on the "green" dream [especially uneconomical and inefficient wind farms] and the destruction of our countryside then please object to the Government at

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22958

or by GOOGLING "E-PETITION 22958" and following the link.

Please pass this message on to Councillors, friends, neighbours and anyone else you know to persuade them to sign up too. If you are really concerned about wind turbines please write a letter promoting this petition to your local Newsletter and to the Editors of your local newspapers.

This often gets polarised, as in some of the above comments, as an 'either or' debate - either wind farms, or no renewable energy. That's devisive and misleading. The problem here in terms of the effectiveness of wind energy in addressing our future in economic, carbon and landscape terms is that the same top-down corporate model is being used that's responsible for most of the other things which have degraded Scotland's natural environment, and are preventing its recovery. As long as local aspirations are trumped by those of landowners and big corporations, we'll be stuck with whatever the next wave of asset-stripping happens to be. We've had timber, game and hydro, now we have windfarms. In its current form it's very little do with climate change or local jobs: it's to do with the opportunity for large corporations to make money, and these corporations are the winners here. Efficiency losses because of the diseconomies of scale of small-scale, locally run wind developments would be more than made up for by reduced transmission losses in a reworked national grid (which we'll need soon anyway), the landscape benefits of a local-scale approach, and the benefits of local communities controlling their own generation. The community run turbine projects I know of have been massively successful (e.g. Jura, South Uist), and are on a scale which doesn't overwhelm the environment. I know of no reason, beyond the lobbying power of large companies and the keenness of the government to woo them, why such developments shouldn't be the preferred model for developing Scotland's wind resources. If the issue's a legislative, then let's change the legislation so local communities have a proper investment in the development of their own resources.