Wind is regularly supplying 40% of UK energy and more. In the last week it hit 66% for a couple of hours, but that was in the middle of the night, so not really as impressive as the daytime figures. We're pushing towards 20GW of generation from an installed base of 25GW (there's always going to be some towers down for maintenance, and some where it just isn't windy today), with a national target of 40GW of generation by 2030. This means we're spending longer and longer without needing to fire up any of the remaining coal-fired stations, with at least one almost two month period of leaving them idle.
I found a breakdown for January 2020 with wind supplying 24%, biomass 7.7%, hydro 2.07%, solar 1.16%, nuclear 19.75%, gas 32%, coal 5% and imports* 8.22%. Wind generation is split about 55% onshore, 45% offshore at the moment (there was a fairly stupid ban on further onshore development from 2016 to 2020, which was the Tories trying to attract the NIMBY vote).
* Cables across the Channel.
Obviously a distributed generation capacity and a mixed generation capacity are important for national resilience, as is a network capable of exploiting that (not necessarily the case in parts of the US I realise), and wind is dependent on local weather patterns. But if you have a shoreline you're pretty much guaranteed a regular wind pattern due to differential heating of land and sea. That means energy generation needing only upfront investment and ongoing maintenance, no continuing fuel bills, and which, outside of huge windfarms, can potentially be exploited with incremental investment in a tower here and a tower there.
If the potential is there, and increases national resilience, then what viable reasons are there not to exploit it?