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]

• 31. Anastasia Korycinska - Aberdeen

  Monday, December 17, 2007 10:39

  I strongly oppose the SNP's apparent determination to push through Trump's houses (and golf courses, they are a side issue really) at whatever cost. It will cause enormous problems for the local infrastructure: the Don crossings are already a major traffic problem. All those people in the new houses - they will also now try to come into the city and the traffic will be even worse. Then another Don crossing will have to be built, over ANOTHER SSSI, and all the traffic pollution and congestion will just ever increase.
  Environmentally, it will be a disaster - the dune system is unique because it is so large. Chopping it in half with houses and 2 golf courses does a lot more damage than just to the actual dunes built over, it affects the entire coastline.
  Economically, Aberdeen does not need any more jobs. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Trump's high-paid jobs will be taken by his brought-in people and all we'll have left is minimum wage ground-keepers once the building is finished with. Scotland may want a golf course by Trump, but Aberdeen beaches are special and not the place to put it; Aberdeen people don't need the employment and Aberdeenshire council infrastructure commitee was quite right to reject the application for the effects on the North of the city.
  The SNP should not just take away the descision from the locality; it is the locality that will be affected and so Aberdeenshire council should have the final say. The SNP is also giving every appearance of bias in the descision and that is wrong. Whatever they decide now, no-one will feel it was a descision based on the facts, but just on what they want.

• 32. Danny Paterson - Auchterarder

  Monday, December 17, 2007 16:54

  An absolutely disappointing and (worse?) utterly tenuous report. The minister clearly had to make some sort of comment about independence despite the fact that most of the preceding words made such a argument irrelavent and facile.
  What he fails to appreciate or at least mention is the non-sequitor that is natural-biodiversity and natural landscape in a heavily managed landscape such as Scotland. None of our landscape is natural, all of it is managed to a greater or lesser extent; 'loss of heather moorland' is therefore simply as a result of the current fad. People like the look of trees now- quite rightly. They are however no more or less natural than heather, they certainly are more biodiversity rich though.
  Biodiversity great word, and like sustainability generally not understood by Politicians with an political message with which to smother an unwilling public.
  When will the oil loving Salmond and his inept, innaccurate and backward thinking fighting fund managers admit that as an independant country Scotland will be waiting in the queue for EU admission with Turkey. Perhaps as rulers of a petty fiefdom this won't matter.
  
  

• 33. s.burnett - aberdeenshire

  Tuesday, December 18, 2007 07:51

  the decline started with the decline of the wolf and the bear ect you need only look to yellow stone park in america.some serious culling would not go amiss this includes the grey squirrell and the mink.this is not a policy to restore the balence for the faint hearted.and best done by scots

• 34. david - Mull

  Wednesday, December 19, 2007 16:36

  I cannot see how Mike Russell can claim that independence is somehow good for the natural environment when it was the SNP who were the ones to throw out the proposed National Park for the Hebridean islands !!!
  
  Compared with the Trump matter National Park status for these islands is urgently needed and is the only Plan A that I can think of because there is no plan B for an area that has third world country Infrastructure.
  
  I should also remind all that Scotland was the second last country in the entire world to create national parks.
  
  

• 35. David Birse - Dundee

  Thursday, December 20, 2007 00:25

  It is only my opinion but to be truly defined as British means that you are a collection made up of England, Scotland and Wales. I accept for example the definition of the British Army as it recruits from all the countries in the Union. But I have never ever thought of myself as British. I was born in Falkirk, Scotland. Therefore I am Scottish.
  
  Now should someone be born in England, Wales and Scotland - at the same time now - they can of course wear the Great British t-shirt. They will of course have a free years supply of nappies sponsored by rags that sell for 15p.
  
  It's not that long ago that people when supporting the English football team were waving the Union Jack with abandon until the movement for English national pride came from somewhere and the St George cross appeared like it had just been invented. Long may it continue. I never did understand an England fan supporting England but waving the Union Jack therefore flying the flag for England, Scotland and Wales. Especially when England plays Scotland. It's just plain daft.

• 36. Merrick - Renfrew

  Thursday, December 20, 2007 15:45

  Gordon Murray talks about the climate benefits of BP's carbon capture plant, and also of the benfits of the captured CO2 flushing out millions of barrels of oil.
  
  Do you see the contradiction? BP claim the plan is 'carbon-free', yet will be releaseing 10% of the CO2 and using the rest to give us more oil, much of it to be burned in engines that definitely won't capture and store it.
  
  Gordon asks, 'Howsabout creating hydrogen from water using electrolysis, utilising free wind and wave/tidal power?'.
  
  It's a great idea. But as it uses two-four times the energy than the hydrogen delivers, it is a waste of electricity. We'd be better using that electricity directly.
  
  If we squander half of it in the manufacturing process, it means other electricity is going to be generated elsewhere, which will be fossil or nukes.
  
  Hydrogen by electrolysis only makes sense if we've got a 100% renewable electricity supply with spare capacity.
  
  In Scotland, we're well placed to get that in a couple of decades. Until then, hydrogen causes more emissions than it saves.
  

• 37. HEN BROON - Glasgow.

  Thursday, December 20, 2007 19:38

  34. david - Mull
  Wednesday, December 19, 2007 16:36
  
  "I cannot see how Mike Russell can claim that independence is somehow good for the natural environment when it was the SNP who were the ones to throw out the proposed National Park for the Hebridean islands !!!"
  
  
  David what assumptions are you making to back up your assertion that letting SNH control these seas, islands and the people there in will contribute to the environment and the use of it. There is a large body of people who are vehemently against allowing this demented Quango any more power and influence than they already wield in Scotland. Their reputation is not good in these islands, as they appear to be drunk on power making whimsical decisions that have no proffesional or logical background.
  
  
  

• 38. Gordon Murray - Livingston

  Friday, December 21, 2007 12:22

  #36. Merrick - Renfrew
  Thursday, December 20, 2007 15:45
  
  The BP Miller field is being capped and 20+years worth of production left underground because of what I see as Whitehall red tape and short sightedness.
  
  Do you imagine that we are going to reduce our consumption of hydrocarbons by that amount just because we allow BP to shut down that oil field?
  Mr Putin in Moscow is hee-hawing and the Arab oil states laughing at us I'll bet.
  
  The potential revenue we are also throwing away with it? ach well we'd probably only spend it on carbon anyway, building schools and hospitals or housing, or trams.
  
  By the way, if you take a dander over to Grangemouth you'll discover if you ask them that oil is being used for a lot more than making just the petrol and diesel used for powering our ships, tractors, trains and buses.
  
  Amongst the new First Minister's very first public engagements was to get over to BP Peterhead to try to get the cancellation of their carbon capture project reversed, and to visit the coal burning power stations on the Forth to get this technology adapted for use there as part of achieving a very ambitious carbon reduction target.
  
  Westminster on the other hand is back-tracking as quick as you like on their undertakings to reduce UK carbon output by only 20%.
  
  That is the 'target for Europe' now, we(the UK) might be looking at something nearer 10%, inspite of our unique access to the greatest pool of renewables on the continent.
  
  I'd suggest that hydorocarbons in themselves are not bad for the environment, it is only how we choose to use them that can be bad.
  
  We could eg use the hydrogen content for clean burning fuel where water is the only exhaust.
  The carbon captured at the well head to be sent safely back underground, where it has been stored by nature for millions of years already.
  
  We can use hydrogen either to drive fuel cells or to burn diectly when eg the wind does not blow, the waves die down or the tides don't flow.
  
  I expect a combination of both, such as they are pioneering in Shetland, will be the way forward.
  
  I'd like to see combined heat and light minisystems installed on houses, farms and industrial premises alike, utilising wind/water turbines and hydrogen fuel.
  
  Scotland is also particularly favourably positioned in Europe to sell carbon credits, and in this way extend the usefull reserves/revenues under the UK continental shelf.
  
  Percentages of this income I feel should be invested in improving the technology involved in developing the efficiency and economies of hydrogen as a fuel source.
  
  We have almost unlimited supplies of hydrogen surrounding us in our waters and access to energy from our environment, in the shape of renewables, to tap into it.
  
  Contrary to the Zeppelin myth repeated in the BBC Landward piece about PURE last weekend, hydrogen is actually a much safer fuel than petrol.
  
  Would you suggest throwing away this advantage just because the technology has still to be fully optomised?
  
  Was it IMB who once famously said they could see no market for personal computers?
  
  They were right, at the time, the computer they had access to was hopeless, but in the twenty-odd years since we can hardly now imagine being able to survive without them.
  
  The examples of the car, aircraft,and personal communications industries all demonstrate how quickly technological advances feed into the market and drive on developement, bringing down costs and improving utility.
  
  Did you even have a mobile phone ten years ago, or a digital camera?
  Were you/are you now impressed by the technology in the original Star Trek?
  
  Imagine being offered a chance to go back to the founding of Microsoft, Applecorp, Nokia etc and being asked how many shares would you like?
  
  That's where the UK are now with hydrogen and carbon capture, and are we really saying: naw it'll never work let somebody else develop it, come back when you can show me, when you can prove it?
  
  The USA and Australia are not being so backward.
  http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7019791
  
  http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9013382&contentId=7034732

• 39. Stewart Gordon - Elgin

  Friday, December 21, 2007 16:08

  #38 Gordon Murray - Livingston
  
  Now that's the spirit.
  
  Whether it be the question of people - from ministers down to the less fortunate. Whether it be ideas - relating to government or the environment or immigration or nationality. Until we have the spirit that says - "we can do this!", then no amount of conversation (procrastination) will make any difference.
  
  For me, this is about education. I commented recently at a local tourism event where we discussed the need for a major "attraction" for tourists. Consider how attractive it would be if we transformed our local communities by being educated to have the right community spirit, 'the can do, I'll prove it' mentality that many of our USA and Australian friends appear to have.
  
  Scotland had this once but may have overly exported it, or it got too greedy. Let's find this spirit here in Scotland again, reward it locally and share it across the globe without necessarily having to leave our communities.
  
  The SNP say we are all sovereign. I say we are all responsible - we only have ourselves to blame.
  
  God is Sovereign and only one Spirit will make the difference.
  
  We need an education on life and how to live and to live abundantly. All things are possible. Transforming our minds is the key.
  
  Bring it on!

• 40. Propaganda 3 Now Fife - Fife

  Sunday, December 23, 2007 23:41

  #30 Gordon Murray
  
  The point being made is that you, me and everybody else who has had a planning project rejected can process an appeal through normal channels, usually with little succes. On this occasion, such was the furore raised by the local population that it was almost certainly a decision that would have been overturned on appeal.
  
  The First Minister should have used his position to speak directly to Mr Trump and reassure him that the planning procedure appeal would work, and given that the project would take 5 years to complete another few weeks would hardly be a hardship.
  
  Instead he has, with his usual ham fisted interference made the post of First Minister not statesmanlike but more akin to a beggar looking for scraps off a rich man's table!
  
  If the prospect of a £500,000,000 development over 5 years has our First Minister acting like a lapdog then perhaps he should be more circumspect about a £1,200,000,000 plannibing development at Rosyth and a £25,000,000,000 spend on replacing Trident over 25 years.
  
  If he can get upset about a £950 payment to Wendy Alexander why can't he understand that when he sayas that he is acting as a constituency MSP not First Minister when he calls a meeting with Trump's representatives without meeting the opposition, people will find it hard to believe he is acting in an appropriate manner?
  
  Bottom line is that if a billionaire developer want's to build two links courses, that we are desperately short of on the East coast of Scotland, aren't we? Especially where golfers can view the aurora borealis at the nineteenth hole, then who are we to stop him? In addition if he wants to build 1500 homes/houses/flats? in the same location, again wonderful. It's just that we should not be presenting ourselves as carpets to be walked on when a passing billionaire developer walks by.
  
  The problem should have been handled in a more dignified manner. Scotland's pride has sorely wounded by his actions.
  
  

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