Siobhán Sarelle 🏳️⚧️
@siobhansarelle.com
50 year old multi instrumentalist musician, singer, improviser.
Trans, queer, AuDHD, vegan.
Green, Anarcho Emotionalist, antifascist
Lived experience with trauma, intensive therapy.
Working class background.
She/her
Trans, queer, AuDHD, vegan.
Green, Anarcho Emotionalist, antifascist
Lived experience with trauma, intensive therapy.
Working class background.
She/her
Pinned
I feel it fair to call you a minor annoyance at this point for telling me what I think.
February 12, 2026 at 1:23 PM
I feel it fair to call you a minor annoyance at this point for telling me what I think.
Counter argument:
It may be cheaper and more efficient not to have local hospitals.
It may be cheaper and more efficient not to have local hospitals.
February 12, 2026 at 12:16 PM
Counter argument:
It may be cheaper and more efficient not to have local hospitals.
It may be cheaper and more efficient not to have local hospitals.
Pro hospitals, but wanting to consider more local hospitals instead of travelling by helicopter to a centralised hospital miles away.
February 12, 2026 at 12:13 PM
Pro hospitals, but wanting to consider more local hospitals instead of travelling by helicopter to a centralised hospital miles away.
The pylons in question would be part of a solution to distribute green energy (but also just to distribute electricity in general).
They aren’t necessarily the only solution to that stage of the infrastructure.
Maybe they are, but the point is to have a proper conversation about it.
They aren’t necessarily the only solution to that stage of the infrastructure.
Maybe they are, but the point is to have a proper conversation about it.
February 12, 2026 at 10:02 AM
The pylons in question would be part of a solution to distribute green energy (but also just to distribute electricity in general).
They aren’t necessarily the only solution to that stage of the infrastructure.
Maybe they are, but the point is to have a proper conversation about it.
They aren’t necessarily the only solution to that stage of the infrastructure.
Maybe they are, but the point is to have a proper conversation about it.
Current conclusion:
It was inaccurate, and a political point, not an point of economics, to say that the Green councillor was against green infrastructure.
There are good points about economics being made, but it’s not simple.
It was inaccurate, and a political point, not an point of economics, to say that the Green councillor was against green infrastructure.
There are good points about economics being made, but it’s not simple.
February 12, 2026 at 10:00 AM
Current conclusion:
It was inaccurate, and a political point, not an point of economics, to say that the Green councillor was against green infrastructure.
There are good points about economics being made, but it’s not simple.
It was inaccurate, and a political point, not an point of economics, to say that the Green councillor was against green infrastructure.
There are good points about economics being made, but it’s not simple.
Yes. A wind turbine in the west or north of Scotland, may produce 1.5 - 2 times the amount of power of one elsewhere in the UK.
But also the amount it costs to create the wind farm may be significantly more. Then there’s the infrastructure over distance to consider.
But also the amount it costs to create the wind farm may be significantly more. Then there’s the infrastructure over distance to consider.
February 12, 2026 at 9:58 AM
Yes. A wind turbine in the west or north of Scotland, may produce 1.5 - 2 times the amount of power of one elsewhere in the UK.
But also the amount it costs to create the wind farm may be significantly more. Then there’s the infrastructure over distance to consider.
But also the amount it costs to create the wind farm may be significantly more. Then there’s the infrastructure over distance to consider.
Just reminding myself that this didn’t start with you making a point about economics. It started with you making a political point which misrepresented a position on green energy.
You have reasonable points, but on economics, not politics.
You have reasonable points, but on economics, not politics.
February 12, 2026 at 12:43 AM
Just reminding myself that this didn’t start with you making a point about economics. It started with you making a political point which misrepresented a position on green energy.
You have reasonable points, but on economics, not politics.
You have reasonable points, but on economics, not politics.
Though theoretically that would be the cost since Scotland already has the capacity? Therefore it’s mainly the infrastructure costs that are additional?
February 12, 2026 at 12:37 AM
Though theoretically that would be the cost since Scotland already has the capacity? Therefore it’s mainly the infrastructure costs that are additional?
Ok, fair points here.
So CAPEX for a Rampion equivalent in Scotland, would be about £11 million higher, but the cost per MWh would be lower?
So CAPEX for a Rampion equivalent in Scotland, would be about £11 million higher, but the cost per MWh would be lower?
February 12, 2026 at 12:36 AM
Ok, fair points here.
So CAPEX for a Rampion equivalent in Scotland, would be about £11 million higher, but the cost per MWh would be lower?
So CAPEX for a Rampion equivalent in Scotland, would be about £11 million higher, but the cost per MWh would be lower?
The other reason, is that wind speeds are higher off shore.
Rampion generates about 1,400 GWh a year I think.
Rampion generates about 1,400 GWh a year I think.
February 12, 2026 at 12:17 AM
The other reason, is that wind speeds are higher off shore.
Rampion generates about 1,400 GWh a year I think.
Rampion generates about 1,400 GWh a year I think.
You didn’t really think I actually meant in someone’s actual backyard, given I would replying to a point about NIMBYism where the BY stands for Back Yard, and doesn’t always mean, actually in someone’s back yard, did you?
February 12, 2026 at 12:07 AM
You didn’t really think I actually meant in someone’s actual backyard, given I would replying to a point about NIMBYism where the BY stands for Back Yard, and doesn’t always mean, actually in someone’s back yard, did you?
Making the country more dependent on one region for power generation, sounds a bit risky, and not cheap.
February 12, 2026 at 12:05 AM
Making the country more dependent on one region for power generation, sounds a bit risky, and not cheap.
Where are you getting 150% from?
February 12, 2026 at 12:02 AM
Where are you getting 150% from?
Except the better solution here, would be to build more wind turbines, in more backyards, then feed that into the grid, which would be technically more efficient and provide more communities with infrastructure upgrades.
February 12, 2026 at 12:00 AM
Except the better solution here, would be to build more wind turbines, in more backyards, then feed that into the grid, which would be technically more efficient and provide more communities with infrastructure upgrades.
*sits on Brighton beach and waves at Scotland*
Sure.
Dirt cheap. Undersea cables from poundland.
Sure.
Dirt cheap. Undersea cables from poundland.
February 11, 2026 at 11:57 PM
*sits on Brighton beach and waves at Scotland*
Sure.
Dirt cheap. Undersea cables from poundland.
Sure.
Dirt cheap. Undersea cables from poundland.
It’s a misrepresentation to sat simply that Greens are against Green Infrastructure.
That isn’t what’s happening here.
The issue is systemic coordination around infrastructure, how to create an efficient energy distribution network, and not have developers dictating how things are done.
That isn’t what’s happening here.
The issue is systemic coordination around infrastructure, how to create an efficient energy distribution network, and not have developers dictating how things are done.
February 11, 2026 at 11:30 PM
It’s a misrepresentation to sat simply that Greens are against Green Infrastructure.
That isn’t what’s happening here.
The issue is systemic coordination around infrastructure, how to create an efficient energy distribution network, and not have developers dictating how things are done.
That isn’t what’s happening here.
The issue is systemic coordination around infrastructure, how to create an efficient energy distribution network, and not have developers dictating how things are done.
Developers built power generation knowing that it would exceed the needs of the surrounding area, and knowing the problems of distributing any excess power to the rest of the grid.
They knew planning would be problematic, and they went ahead.
They knew planning would be problematic, and they went ahead.
February 11, 2026 at 11:27 PM
Developers built power generation knowing that it would exceed the needs of the surrounding area, and knowing the problems of distributing any excess power to the rest of the grid.
They knew planning would be problematic, and they went ahead.
They knew planning would be problematic, and they went ahead.
Well done on your powerful social media messaging.
February 11, 2026 at 11:05 PM
Well done on your powerful social media messaging.
Stopping *the Jews*?
Reeeeeeally?!
Reeeeeeally?!
February 11, 2026 at 11:04 PM
Stopping *the Jews*?
Reeeeeeally?!
Reeeeeeally?!
Probably less of a failure than it is now, and there may not be a better option at this point.
February 11, 2026 at 11:00 PM
Probably less of a failure than it is now, and there may not be a better option at this point.
Very likely nothing that wouldn’t have happened anyway.
February 11, 2026 at 10:58 PM
Very likely nothing that wouldn’t have happened anyway.
Also, for clarity - the letter between Starmer and Lord Beamish (Chair of the ISC), is the Prime Minister stating he will co-operate with investigations by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and Intelligence Services.
Public information will be summarised (or not given at all).
Public information will be summarised (or not given at all).
February 11, 2026 at 8:46 AM
Also, for clarity - the letter between Starmer and Lord Beamish (Chair of the ISC), is the Prime Minister stating he will co-operate with investigations by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and Intelligence Services.
Public information will be summarised (or not given at all).
Public information will be summarised (or not given at all).
I don’t think this is correct. I think Jones was appointed by King Charles in August 2024, therefore would have been appointed under Rishi Sunak.
Jones has been in the ISC since 2017, first nominated by Theresa May with consultation from Jeremy Corbyn, then re-appointed by each PM.
Jones has been in the ISC since 2017, first nominated by Theresa May with consultation from Jeremy Corbyn, then re-appointed by each PM.
February 11, 2026 at 8:39 AM
I don’t think this is correct. I think Jones was appointed by King Charles in August 2024, therefore would have been appointed under Rishi Sunak.
Jones has been in the ISC since 2017, first nominated by Theresa May with consultation from Jeremy Corbyn, then re-appointed by each PM.
Jones has been in the ISC since 2017, first nominated by Theresa May with consultation from Jeremy Corbyn, then re-appointed by each PM.
Bumbling Boris Johnson and Liz ‘I couldn’t outlast a lettuce’ Truss?
Yes, you were right weren’t you.
Yes, you were right weren’t you.
February 6, 2026 at 7:46 PM
Bumbling Boris Johnson and Liz ‘I couldn’t outlast a lettuce’ Truss?
Yes, you were right weren’t you.
Yes, you were right weren’t you.