The Scottish Government

Michael Russell, Minister for Environment

Friday, November 30, 2007

One of the best places to view Scotland - literally and metaphorically - is at the top of a hill.

Recently I was in the Lammermuirs, learning from members of the Moorland Forum about heather, game birds, biodiversity, and a host of other things whilst all around there were the sounds and sights of natural Scotland, including the glimpse of a white mountain hare, running away from this large group of booted men and women, tramping over its habitat.

Heather is, according to those who know, not only iconically Scottish, but botanically well suited to us too.

That is hardly a surprise, except that it might not be so in a couple of generations unless we take the actions needed. Some 25 per cent of heather cover has been lost since the second world war - as a result of afforestation, the decline in traditional patterns of agriculture and also because of changes in land management and land use.

Other things have changed too. Rivers are running higher and longer, seasons for muirburn are out of step with the legislation , and the need for carbon capture - in peatlands as much as anywhere else - is greater than every before.

All these things point to a need for appropriate policies for our particular landscape and our special type of land use but developing these appropriate policies for an era of unprecedented natural change - with all that means in terms of human change too - is a massive task.

We will need to focus on our own priorities, on the levers which we alone can pull and the resources we alone can command. Yet it is clear that our nation also needs to undertake those tasks in the full knowledge of best practice elsewhere and in full and equal partnership with other countries.

Much of the power to make a difference is devolved but not that final and crucial element - the element of working with, learning from and plugging into the wider world. After six months as Scotland's Environment Minister it seems to me that one of the strongest current arguments for independence is just that - gaining the vital ability for Scotland to seek its answers, not second hand and at arms length via DEFRA in London, but directly within the EU in Brussels and at the UN in New York as well as in consort with a range of other nations in a wide variety of other settings.

Working in that way would not be cutting ourselves off - it is in fact the ultimate in joining in. The prospect of sending Richard Lochhead to negotiate for our fishing industry at the top table, rather than making him haggle with English ministers before being allowed to sit somewhere behind them, is one that should be an obvious argument for constitutional change. Similarly choosing to let our excellent land mangers and natural heritage organisations participate effectively at every level in every forum should be a no brainer.

I am often astonished at the perverse energy and imagination used by those who argue against independence. They seem capable of almost any mental gymnastics in their slavish defence of the status quo.

Yet in the end their arguments are sterile because they always leave us outside the conference room and distant from where decisions are made - decisions that are of central importance in terms of who we are and what we may become.

The fresh air of the lowland hills blows unionist sophistry away. Scotland's landscape and all within it would be better off with independence.

This blog is now closed to further comments.

Comments

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

• 1. Tessa Ransford - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, December 5, 2007 09:21

  Environment versus tourism, as in the Trump case, is a ridiculous either/or argument. Tourism is precarious according to any given political situation, so shouldn't be seen as the only economic answer for Scotland. There is also no point expecting tourists to come to a country which is destroying the very landscape the tourists wish to experience. People investing themselves, rather than their money alone, by coming to live here and contributing ecologically/ecomically, is what we should encourage. We can lead the world in this kind of approach.
  Yes, we have excellent environmentalists among us and they think long term. Let's listen to them.
  Tessa
  

• 2. nigel - borders

  Wednesday, December 5, 2007 09:38

  Rather a tricky blog this one is! Statement "25% of heather lost" juxtaposed with "result of afforestation, decline in traditional agriculture" giving implication that reduction of cover is adverse, that the activities associated in the same paragraph are to blame. It is a blog not a policy statement but it is too loose to be meaningful. Next "that final and crucial element... plugging into the wider world" you do not need independence to do that. Again the statement is too loose more smoke and mirrors than substance. I agree Scotland should be able to negotiate directly, not haggle with the Westminster Government. This is a specific validated argument. Emotion and passion for your cause is the way it should be but supported by close, well reasoned argument not loose woolly hard to pin down expressions purporting as fact that turn people from politics and politicians

• 3. Anthony Rush - Renfrewshire

  Wednesday, December 5, 2007 11:00

  It is gratifying to learn that the Minister of Environment is learning from groups of people who have a particular interest in conserving open space. Well done Michael Russell.
  
  However I am not following his logic on why the lack Independence should prevent SEPA and for that matter other interested parties obtaining information on best practice. It does not do environmentalists justice either. Can the Minister give any examples as to how Scotland’s environment is being harmed or how it would be improved by Independence? Can he identify individual experts in the environmental field who believe it to be the case?
  
  Whatever the argument is for and against Independence it does no justice to answering the environmental problems by trying to use them to support a political cause. If there is an urgent need for Scotland to have more direct involvement the problems are too important and the Minister is I trust trying to find an early solution rather than use his ideas of perversity to support what will in any event be a long time coming.
  
  It is worrying to note that at the same time his fellow Planning Minister, Stewart Stevenson, is reported as saying “Locally determined open-space strategies rather than nationally imposed standards are the best way of ensuring the provision of open space across is sensitive to local circumstances”. Open-space covers a wide range of environments and bio-diversity. It covers for example the SSI on which local people have decided that Donald Trump should not build a golf course. It covers many local parcels of land which are owned by local authorities, including but not only playing fields. What Stewart Stevenson says is OK – provided it isn’t a green light to SNP councils to sell off open space to make up budget deficits.
  
  Achieving sustainability requires a balance between best use of resources and constancy of purpose. Time will tell whether this SNP administration is leaning too much towards its goal of achieving Independence by taking decisions which will be popular in the short term and regretted in the long term.
  
  At the end of the day the electorat will decide whether Scotland should be Indepedent. To say that Independence would ruin the environment would clearly be sophism and I am not aware of any popular view that it would. Maybe the Minister may be able to explain where he gets the idea that there is. I have my own views about Independence and about retaining open space. I believe that I am more energised by the latter issue and that this is common attitude amongst the electorat.
  

• 4. Kevin - Glasgow

  Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:24

  Picking up on the last part of comment 3.
  At the end of which day will the electorate of Scotland for the first time in over 300 years decided on independence?
  
  I believe that Scotland would be far better of as an independent nation, therefore as the environment is such an integral part of any country, not just Scotland. The environment would also benefit from independence too.

• 5. Jeremy - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, December 5, 2007 17:43

  I dispair. Another politician claiming the the enviroment is safe with him. Havn't we got enough of these.
  
  However at the Micro level the people of Scotland can help keep the environment safe by considering their own impact and altering their lifestyles to minimise this. We do not need politicians of any party to tell us to do this.
  
  At the Macro level I am afraid that what ever ones view on independance Scotland is irrelevant. Whether we are part of the UK or our own nation our influence is negligable. The decisions are made by much larger entities like USA, China, Europe etc etc. Even within Europe decisions are made to suit the overall entity not the individual nations within it. If anyone really believes that Scotland could influence enviromental events an as independant nation any more than it can as part of the UK then they are naive.
  
  So lets have the political parties stop peddaling their so called solutions to the state of the enviroment and concentrate those parts of the ecomony that thay can have an impact on. We as individuals can do far more enmasse than they ever could and we just have to hope that the real powers in this world make the right decisions so that our efforts are worthwhile.
  
  As a last point I refer to Tessa(Comment 3). Firstly the Trump case has little to do with tourism, it is all about making money, tourism is a side issue. Secondly tourism is important to Scotland, yes it is precarious, but then the past 30 years have shown us that all industries are precarious. However as the biggest employer in the country (apart form the government) it needs our protection as if we ever become an independant nation we are going to need this export industry to survive. Every person in this country should support this industry whole heartedly.

• 6. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

  Wednesday, December 5, 2007 20:26

  I would say that Michael Russell has an interersting and challenging time ahead with respect to the calling in of the Trump plan for a golf course complex under section 46(1) the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
  On the one hand, the chief executive of Aberdeenshire council is in favour, on the other, the infrastructure services committee have turned it down. The benefits to the economy, versus the detriment to the environment, and indeed the amenity of the area for local residents and visitors.
  
  This seems in a way to reflect the current Conversation. With the Trump appplication, the "superior" body (Scottish government) will have to consider making a decision that may go against the wishes of the local area, Aberdeenshire. And indeed, what is the wish of Aberdeenshire as a whole, and how is that determined? With Independence, it's Westminster over Holyrood, and what indeed is the wish of us in Scotland, and how should that be determined?
  
  Can the present Scottish government can be judged on its future handling of this difficult affair, and make sure it navigates through the hazards?

• 7. Gordon Murray - Livingston

  Thursday, December 6, 2007 01:44

  #3. Anthony Rush - Renfrewshire
  Wednesday, December 5, 2007 11:00
  
  >>>Can the Minister give any examples as to how Scotland’s environment is being harmed or how it would be improved by Independence?<<<
  
  I can:
  ""...24 May 2007
  BP cancels Peterhead clean power plant project.
  
  BP has canceled plans for its Peterhead carbon capture power plant, it has been reported. The company has said that a UK government competition on funding would come too late to support the project.
  
  The UK-based oil company said it would drop the project after the UK government's energy white paper, published on Wednesday, stated that selection of plants to receive support would start in November 2007.
  
  A BP spokesman said the company understood the government wouldn't come to a decision within 18 months, while the oil field in the project was at the end of its life.
  
  The news comes after last week's announcement that BP and Rio Tinto are creating a clean energy joint-venture that would have included Peterhead. BP was reported to have spent two years developing an industrial-scale, 475- megawatt power plant in Peterhead, Scotland, that uses natural gas as a feedstock.
  The plant would have separated hydrogen for clean power, while the resulting carbon dioxide would have been piped to the North Sea and buried in an oil field 2.5 miles below the seabed...""
  
  Source: Fuel Cell Today
  
  BP had announced the plans for the hydrogen power plant at Peterhead in 2005.
  BP together with Scottish and Southern Energy had planned to build the 475MW hydrogen fired power plant based on natural gas ie Methane or its constituent Hydrogen and Carbon.
  
  That would've I understand been enough to power the homes of two cities the size of Glasgow.
  
  It would've captured 1.8 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of 400,000 car exhausts, 4,000 metres below the seabed in the Miller oil field where the carbon dioxide acting like a huge sparklet bulb would enable the production of some 40 million extra barrels of oil that would not otherwise have been recoverable, extending the life of the Miller field by some 20 years,rendering the project largely self financing and creating enormous amounts of carbon credits.
  
  A final investment decision was due in early 2007 so the plant could've been in commercial operation by 2010.
  
  Now can you explain the sense in killing a project which would have had the same effect as at a stroke of taking 400,000 cars off the road and powering central Scotland with just water as he only by product.
  
  That's one environmental 'Union Dividend'.
  
  The UK government permitted the lead in a crucial world beating new technology to be thrown away to the USA and Australia.
  
  paraphrasing:
  ""The world in future is going to be powered by hydrogen.
  The one who comes up with the way to make it competitive with fossil fuels will put the Saudis out of business, it's that big"" BBC Top Gear.
  
  btw: Howsabout creating hydrogen from water using electrolysis, utilising free wind and wave/tidal power?
  
  Could there be a role in this for redundant Miller field production platforms?

• 8. Gordon Masterton - edinburgh

  Thursday, December 6, 2007 12:46

  The question of the environment versus the tourism industry rears its head with the Trump golf course.It is difficult to see how the building of an elitist golf course with houses for the rich and wealthy time share tourists can benefit Scotland in the long term. All this at the cost of losing another piece of eco wilderness...future generations of Scots will not thank the SNP govt if they allow this to go ahead.

• 9. Propaganda - Funchal

  Thursday, December 6, 2007 18:04

  I thought you were the Minister for the Environment, not the Minister for PROPOGANDA.
  
  How do you propose to save the environment?
  
  Do you support Aberdeen´s stance in rejecting the Trump proposal?
  
  If so why?
  
  What measures do you propose to replace nuclear power and control co2 emissions?
  
  If all your going to do is cry in our beer about how much better it would be to be independent, rather than demonstrate how you are going to improve the state of the country, then is there any point to this blog?

• 10. Phil Gosling - Edinburgh

  Thursday, December 6, 2007 19:02

  First Minister’s Question Time 6 Dec 07
  
  Never mind an independent Scotland why cannot we have honest polite politics in our own Parliament. Why must it be like Westminster?
  
  I was very surprised at listening to the First Minister's Question Time podcast today 6 Dec 07 for the first and last time that not only did he not give a straight answer to any of the questions he was rude and disparaging about the leaders of the parties asking the questions.
  
  No wonder he probably felt guilty at the display of the SNP workers and MSPs apparently (so it was said and not denied by the First Minister in the actual questions) ordered out to drown out the student carol singers outside Parliament this week. Good wheeze that bullying students and using publicly funded SNP MSPs and staff. Most people give a donation to carol singers not abuse and disrespect.
  
  The people of Scotland may not be ready for independence yet (judging not by You Gov Polls selectively quoted by the First Minister but by the election in May 07) but they do want a grown up debating chamber where the first minister has the intelligence and manners to be polite to the representatives of the Scottish people.
  
  Shame on you for today's efforts - respect starts at the top not just in school.
  

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]