Campaign statement

Shetland’s greatest inheritance

Shetland’s natural beauty, clean waters, wildlife, fisheries, crofting and landscapes are an inheritance beyond monetary value.

Every year, the Voar Redd-up demonstrates the willingness of Shetlanders to protect their environment. But what happens when the threats come not from discarded rubbish, but from industrial development on a scale capable of transforming the islands?

The Sovereign Nation of Shetland (TSNS) is launching a public programme of investigation, accountability and environmental restoration, beginning with Viking Energy wind farm.

Our approach will follow two simple principles: 1) Who benefits? (follow the money) and 2) Nobody can give something they do not have.

We intend to establish who benefits from Shetland’s industrialisation, who bears the costs, what environmental damage is occurring, and what legal authority is relied upon.

Our declared objective for Viking Energy is the lawful removal of its 103 turbines and restoration of the affected environment. We will pursue that objective through evidence and lawful procedures. Viking is our starting point, not the limit of our undertaking.

Who benefits — and who pays?

Viking Energy began as a joint venture but is now wholly owned by SSE. Its community benefit funding of approximately £2.1 million annually is widely promoted. That is a substantial sum, and the organisations receiving it may do valuable work. But it is only part of the financial picture.

Wind farm operators also receive constraint payments when generation is curtailed because of transmission-system limitations. Such payments are part of wider electricity-market arrangements, with costs ultimately recovered through the electricity system.

How much has Viking Energy received in constraint payments? Who pays those costs? Who receives the profits, and how much remains in Shetland?

Community benefit payments are not gifts created out of nothing. The arrangements behind them deserve examination, including the public and consumer costs of generation and transmission.

Meanwhile, fuel poverty remains a serious problem in Shetland. Households struggle with heating and electricity bills while major energy infrastructure occupies the surrounding landscape. Why should an island community producing electricity for export continue to experience such hardship?

We are not suggesting that Viking Energy alone determines household electricity prices or fuel poverty. We ask whether the overall arrangements deliver a fair outcome for the people whose environment is being transformed.

Who decided Shetland’s future?

Shetland once met its electricity needs locally. Today, wind farms, interconnectors, substations, pylons and associated industries are reshaping the islands. A second electricity interconnector, proposed at approximately three times the capacity of the first, would support further expansion.

This is not simply about supplying Shetland’s own needs. Do the people of Shetland want this industrialisation in the first place?

One project can create the infrastructure and commercial incentives for another, until individual decisions collectively transform a community. Consultation on separate projects is not necessarily a meaningful choice about that transformation.

Who sets the agenda?

Shetland Islands Council (SIC) is elected to represent the people of Shetland, but operates within wider government policies and institutional arrangements.

The Shetland Partnership brings together public bodies under Scotland’s statutory community-planning framework. Its Management and Leadership Team includes a senior Scottish Government official, identified in published membership information as Nick Ford, Shetland Place Director.

The Partnership’s 2023–2028 Delivery Plan includes EmPowering Shetland, jointly led by SIC and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Published participants include UHI Shetland, Lerwick Port Authority, Shetland Net Zero Energy Forum and NORN Engineering Alliance. Some represent businesses with commercial interests in energy development. Its published membership does not include anyone asking the question “Is this what Shetland wants?”.

These organisations have legitimate interests. Their involvement nevertheless raises questions about how policy is developed, whose interests are represented and how elected councillors exercise oversight. We are not alleging improper conduct: we intend to examine the decision-making arrangements.

A fair share of what?

In July 2026 SIC approved the Shetland Development Charter, developed through EmPowering Shetland, seeking greater local benefits from major developments.

Employment, investment and community payments matter. But securing a better share of the proceeds is not the same as deciding whether the development should happen in the first place.

Why does the discussion begin with how much Shetland can gain, rather than whether Shetland wants the development at all?

What is happening to our environment?

Viking’s 103 turbines, roads, foundations and drainage have altered land, peat and watercourses. We intend to investigate the condition of that environment and the effectiveness of monitoring and restoration.

The Burn of Lunklet. In December 2023, the burn was reported to remain in very poor condition following construction-related problems. Concerns included silt, acidification, trace metals and aquatic life. What evidence exists of restoration and recovery? Have the trout come back?

Turbine-blade erosion. A 2021 Norwegian report discusses an estimate attributed to NORWEA of up to 150 grams of blade material lost per turbine annually. Applied hypothetically to Viking’s 103 turbines, that represents 15.45 kilograms annually, or approximately 386 kilograms over 25 years. These are not Viking measurements or BPA-emission estimates.

A 2019 scientific review reported emergency blade repairs at 140 of 175 turbines at London Array and blade work affecting 87 of 111 turbines at Anholt, Denmark. It also reported that some repair patches failed within six to twelve months, while many seldom lasted beyond one or two years. Those examples do not establish Viking’s blade condition, but demonstrate that erosion and repair durability are industry concerns.

Bisphenol A (BPA). Turbine blades use epoxy resins manufactured with BPA. Whether free BPA is released from Viking’s blades remains to be established. The EU Drinking Water Directive records a WHO-proposed monitoring benchmark of 0.1 micrograms of BPA per litre. Just one gram of dissolved BPA in ten million litres of water would produce that concentration.

These are theoretical dilution calculations, not evidence of BPA release at Viking, nor proof that the resulting water would be unsafe. Drinking-water benchmarks are not ecological damage thresholds. They show why very small concentrations merit investigation. What is released from turbine blades, where does it go, and what independent monitoring has been and is being undertaken?

An enquiry sent by TSNS on 4 February 2025 was acknowledged, but no substantive response has been received.

The damaged turbine blade. In October 2024, serious damage to a turbine near Vidlin was reported. Vestas began an investigation and photographs showed fragments. Two replacement blades were subsequently observed on Lerwick quayside. We seek clarification of their purpose, the investigation findings, debris-recovery records and any environmental testing.

Evidence must determine the answers; we will not substitute speculation for investigation.

Nobody can give something they do not have

Our second principle concerns lawful authority. Scottish Ministers granted Viking’s principal consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, with deemed planning permission under Scottish planning legislation. SIC participated in the process and owns land on which some turbines stand.

But what establishes the underlying authority to exercise those powers in Shetland?

The TSNS Foundation Corpus examines the Scottish Crown’s asserted title, drawing upon the current Laws of Scotland, including the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, and the instruments concerning the pawnings of 1468–1469. TSNS has repeatedly requested evidence of the Crown’s allodial title to Shetland without receiving the proof sought.

Who owns the Alod?

“Alod” is an unfamiliar word, but the idea behind it is straightforward: land owned outright, without a superior landlord. “Allodial” describes that form of ownership.

Under Scotland’s former feudal system, landholders held their land under superiors, with the Crown at the top. Shetland’s udal inheritance was different. A udal owner held land without a feudal superior. In that relationship of landownership, the king was not above the udal owner: each held their own land outright.

Scotland abolished its feudal system of land tenure in 2004, making former feudal landholders outright owners. In that respect, the reform brought their position closer to that already enjoyed by Shetland’s udal owners. How could Scotland give those owners something they already had?

For TSNS, this brings the investigation back to a fundamental question: who owns the Alod, and what evidence establishes that ownership? Where the Crown’s asserted allodial title is relied upon as the foundation of authority in Shetland, we ask for the documents establishing it.

That question belongs alongside every discussion about who may authorise the use of Shetland’s land and waters. Nobody can give something they do not have.

Our investigation will distinguish that constitutional question from the statutory powers, property rights and legal instruments relied upon for individual developments. Failure to answer a title enquiry does not, by itself, invalidate a consent. Nevertheless, any organisation claiming authority to alter Shetland’s land and waters should be able to identify its lawful basis.

Foundation Corpus: https://www.sovereignshetland.com/2026/foundation/index.html

What happens next?

TSNS has sent its first formal evidence-request letter to SSE, and the letter is presented on the TSNS website as the opening correspondence in this investigation. We will pursue responses and seek financial information, including constraint payments; environmental monitoring and maintenance records; the damaged-blade investigation findings; and the documents establishing the authority relied upon.

Full correspondence, responses and supporting evidence will be presented in a dedicated section of the revised TSNS website. We invite Shetlanders to contribute documents, photographs, observations and relevant information.

We intend to establish facts, identify responsibilities and pursue appropriate remedies, including environmental restoration and, where justified under applicable law, decommissioning and removal.

The choice belongs to Shetland

Shetland’s land, waters and wildlife are not simply resources to be exploited for the greatest financial return. They are our home and inheritance.

We do not question the right of businesses to pursue legitimate commercial interests. We question whether the arrangements governing those interests are lawful, accountable and consistent with the wishes of the people whose lives they affect.

Who benefits? Who pays? Who has the authority?

Above all, does Shetland want this industrialisation in the first place, and has its implementation been lawful?

Shetland’s future should not be treated as a foregone conclusion. It deserves to be determined openly, lawfully and with the people of Shetland at its centre.

Principal references

Herring, R. et al. (2019), The increasing importance of leading edge erosion and a review of existing protection solutions, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115, 109382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109382

Directive (EU) 2020/2184, Recital 5 and Annex I, Part B.

TSNS Foundation Corpus: https://www.sovereignshetland.com/2026/foundation/index.html

Shetland Partnership, Delivery Plan 2023–2028 and published governance information.

Shetland Islands Council, Shetland Development Charter, July 2026.