🏞️ “We Live in a Democracy — Not in China.”

The Westminster Debate That Exposed the Truth About Britain’s Energy Infrastructure

In a powerful debate at Westminster this week, John Lamont — MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk — tore a hole through the carefully maintained illusion that the UK’s renewable and grid expansion drive is a fair, democratic process.

> “We live in a democracy, not in China,” Lamont declared.
“Yet people and councils are powerless, decisions are taken in cities, and infrastructure is bulldozed through against the will of local communities.”



This single line may well become a defining quote in the growing national backlash against pylons, solar sprawl and BESS infrastructure.
A NATIONAL PROBLEM — NOT A LOCAL QUIBBLE

Lamont spoke movingly about his visit to Lauder Common — an unspoilt Borders landscape now targeted by SP Energy Networks as part of its Cross Border Connection project.

His argument wasn’t just about the Borders. It was about what’s happening across the whole of rural Britain:

Wales: MPs spoke of landowner rights being bypassed and local communities left voiceless.

The West Midlands: MPs raised BESS being dumped on greenbelt land, now cynically rebranded as “greybelt”.

The North-East: MPs complained that consultations are inadequate, disorganised and disempowering.

Tourism, farming, and rural business are already being damaged by chaotic, developer-led grid expansion.


Every region is seeing the same pattern: projects imposed from above, no meaningful say for communities, and an ever-shrinking space for public objection.

CONSULTATION IS A SHAM

Lamont described how local people had invited SPEN and the Scottish Government to visit their area — a perfectly reasonable request — and how both refused.

The message is clear:

Decisions are already made before local consultation begins.

Infrastructure is being imposed through centralised diktat.

Developers are racing to get their applications in while governments look the other way.


This isn’t local democracy. It’s theatre. And communities across the UK know it.

UNDERGROUNDING AND ALTERNATIVES IGNORED

One of Lamont’s sharpest points came when he challenged why undergrounding of cables is being dismissed on cost grounds.

> “At what cost to the countryside?” he asked, as Michael Shanks — MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West — was seen “scoffing” at the idea.



Undergrounding isn’t just technically feasible. It’s common practice across much of Europe. But in the UK, the default is the cheapest, ugliest, and most damaging option — vast overhead pylons — because developers and regulators like Ofgem are incentivised to build as cheaply as possible, not as responsibly as possible.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT: WHERE IS NESO?

Lamont asked the question many communities have been asking for months:

> “Where is National Energy System Operator?”



He pointed out that the Highlands already have 1,300 infrastructure projects underway. Similar situations are playing out in Yorkshire, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and across Wales.

There is no meaningful cumulative impact assessment.
No coherent national plan.
Just developer-driven chaos.

NUCLEAR, LAND USE AND IDEOLOGY

Lamont also visited Torness Nuclear Power Station and contrasted the clean, reliable and land-efficient nature of nuclear with the vast land grabs taking place for renewables and data centres.

But the Scottish Government remains ideologically opposed to nuclear — despite its proven track record. Instead, they are driving through wind and solar projects that consume huge areas of agricultural land while creating minimal permanent jobs and long-term local benefit.

SHANKS’ REPLY: THE OLD MANTRA, REPEATED

To his credit, Shanks agreed with Lamont on two points:

Nuclear must be part of the energy mix.

Rooftop solar should be expanded.


But beyond that, his response followed the tired government script:

“It has to be built somewhere.”

“Cheap and clean power.”

“Decades of under-investment.”


He admitted consultations may not be effective and offered to meet. But crucially, he defended the model, not the people.

The grid may need modernising — but what’s being delivered now is not modernisation, it’s the rapid industrialisation of the countryside without consent.

OFGEM UNDER FIRE

One MP asked outright whether Ofgem’s rules are fit for purpose.
This is a critical point.

Ofgem’s regulatory framework incentivises:

Building as much new infrastructure as possible, not making best use of what already exists.

Prioritising developers over communities.

Minimising cost on paper, while maximising environmental and social cost in reality.


Reforming or replacing Ofgem may become the next major political battleground in energy policy.

A TIPPING POINT

Lamont summed it up perfectly:

> “The tipping point has been reached. People are saying ‘enough is enough’.”



He highlighted how community groups are organising — like Action Against Pylons in the Borders — and how developers and ministers alike are underestimating the national scale of opposition.

This isn’t nimbyism.
This is a democratic revolt against top-down control.

WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY — OR DO WE?”

Lamont’s most memorable line landed because it was true.

> “We live in a democracy, not in China.”



But as he made clear — and as many MPs nodded in agreement — the British public currently have about as much say in energy infrastructure as ordinary Chinese citizens do under a centralised state.

That’s not democracy. That’s a rubber stamp.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Expect more MPs to join the chorus as rural anger spreads.

Expect calls for NESO and Ofgem to be hauled in front of committees.

Expect more legal and community action against reckless, uncoordinated projects.

And expect the line between Net Zero targets and rural land grabs to become politically explosive.


This debate was too short to cover the full scale of the problem — but it was a watershed moment.

It revealed a truth many in Westminster have tried to ignore:

> Britain is sleepwalking into an infrastructure dictatorship, with pylons, BESS and solar sprawling across farmland and landscapes — and the public shut out of the process.



It doesn’t have to be this way.

We can build a modern, resilient grid without destroying the countryside and without silencing communities. But that requires a complete rethink of how energy infrastructure is planned, regulated and delivered.

Watch the full debate here: Parliament TV link

📢 Join the conversation. Share this. Speak up. Because if we don’t — someone else will build over our countryside for us.