2nd April 2026
Walk anywhere in Caithness these days and you can't miss them. Turbines on every skyline. New ones arriving on convoys that grind our roads into gravel. Substations expanding like industrial mushrooms. Pylons marching across peatland. We can all see the transformation yet somehow, we're still waiting to feel the benefit.
And with an election approaching, candidates will soon appear on doorsteps with leaflets full of promises. Many will talk about "green prosperity", "local benefits", and “Scotland’s renewable future”. But here in the far north, people have a simple question:
If we’re hosting the infrastructure, why aren’t we sharing the prosperity?
The marketing lines don’t match lived reality
Every wind farm developer arrives with the same glossy claim:
“This project will power X hundred thousand homes.”
It’s a great line for a press release. But people in Caithness know it doesn’t mean:
cheaper electricity for local households
reduced bills for rural families
lower fuel poverty
more secure local supply
The turbines spin above our heads, but the savings spin south.
The economic model extracts value from the north
Residents see the pattern clearly:
The land is here.
The turbines are here.
The visual impact is here.
The transport disruption is here.
The grid infrastructure is here.
But the ownership?
The profits?
The decision‑making?
The headquarters?
Those are somewhere else entirely.
People in the Highlands aren’t asking for miracles. They’re asking for fairness — a share of the value created on their own doorstep.
Community benefit funds aren’t a substitute for real participation
Developers often point to community benefit funds as proof that the region gains. But many locals see these as small, voluntary goodwill payments rather than structural economic participation.
Other countries have taken different approaches:
Some guarantee community ownership stakes.
Some ensure local dividends.
Some offer reduced local energy tariffs.
Here, the model is still:
“You host it. Someone else owns it.”
The infrastructure burden is growing — but the benefits aren’t
People in Caithness aren’t blind to the national need for renewable energy. They understand the climate challenge. They understand the need for clean power.
What they don’t understand is why the region that produces so much of Scotland’s renewable electricity:
still pays some of the highest energy bills
still faces fragile grid connections
still sees little long‑term local employment
still watches profits flow elsewhere
It’s the same old story: the north provides the resource, the centre captures the value.
With an election coming, people want straight answers
This is where the barbs belong — not at individuals, but at the pattern of political behaviour people here recognise all too well.
Residents are weary of:
candidates praising “the renewable revolution” while ignoring rural fuel poverty
speeches about “green jobs” that never seem to land north of Inverness
promises of “local benefit” that dissolve after polling day
parties celebrating record wind capacity while communities see no reduction in bills
People in Caithness aren’t asking for slogans. They’re asking for a settlement that recognises the region’s contribution.
What people here want is simple
Not handouts.
Not token funds.
Not photo‑ops beside turbines.
But structural fairness:
A meaningful local stake in the energy produced here
A share of the economic value
A system where hosting infrastructure brings real, visible benefit
A recognition that rural Scotland shouldn’t just be the backdrop for national energy targets
If Scotland is serious about a just transition, then the communities that host the infrastructure must be part of the prosperity — not just the scenery.
Caithness has powered Scotland for generations — from Dounreay to hydro to wind. The region has done its part. The question for every candidate standing in this election is simple:
When will the far north stop being the place where energy is produced, and start being the place where energy prosperity is shared?
No one has ever made the case for local benefit
This is the political failure.
Other countries do this differently:
Norway: local ownership and municipal stakes
Denmark: community co‑ops with guaranteed returns
Germany: Bürgerenergie (citizen energy) with local dividends
Scotland?
We get “community benefit funds” — essentially goodwill payments, not structural participation.
So people look at the hills full of turbines and think:
“We’re the power station for the rest of the country, but we’re still paying the highest bills.”
And they’re right.