For that dubious pleasure, the bloodsports industry shoots, poisons and traps several native mammal and bird species, burns heather to the detriment of many birds, insects and plants, and employs gamekeepers whose disregard for the law of the land is now unchallenged by the government minister supposedly there to see legal enforcement of laws protecting wildlife. There were 22 birds of prey deliberately poisoned in 2009 (“Birds of prey still killed by poison”, The Herald, August 4) to make sure the rich, usually non-Scots, have their day out on the moors.
Rog Wood (“Glorious 12th aids a fragile economy”, The Herald, August 9) demonstrates a few oft-quoted but misleading points on the bloodsports industry.
The claimed £240m value to the Scottish economy has yet to be shown by any convincing methodology. Just how is this figure concocted? If remotely true, then the shooting estates can well afford to be licensed. Similarly, the number of jobs created by the bloodsports industry appears to depend on precisely what is called a “job” and how long it lasts.
His assertion that “vermin” such as native mammals need to be “controlled” (that is, killed) to preserve not only grouse but other birds is yet another myth, when they have, in fact, lived in similar ecological niches for thousands of years.
Similarly, we are told that birds such as carrion crows eat all kinds of birds’ eggs and also must be killed, when, in fact, the taking of eggs is a tiny part of their diet, much less than, say, hedgehogs, mink or rats will take in the breeding season.
The crows eat huge numbers of insects and even peck ticks from sheep. Again the birds the crows are alleged to harm have lived in their presence since the end of the last ice age and certainly do not need shooting estates to survive.
To conclude his ornithological exposé, Rog Wood then tells us that hen harriers can destroy grouse numbers, and that trapping “surplus” hen harriers and relocating them might be the answer, since it is forbidden by law to kill them.
The Langholm inquiry to which Mr Wood refers used flawed data to finger the hen harriers on its grouse moors.
Many food items brought to nests then by hen harriers were identified by guesswork and labelled as grouse chicks, when, in fact, recent CCTV at hen harrier nests elsewhere show these to be other species, such as meadow pipits, wrens, mice and voles, and that trying to identify small items at a distance, even with binoculars or telescopes (as at Langholm), is simply not possible.
Freeze-framing CCTV pictures of some items made in prey drops at the nest at best was indeterminate.
Grouse chicks seldom figured in the hen harrier diet and their superb camouflage protects them well from predators such as the hen harrier, although burned heather tracts probably expose them more.
Unfortunately, thanks to gamekeepers, there are no “surplus” hen harriers and that suggested relocation of trapped birds is laughable for a species that has been radio-tracked up to 25 miles from its nest on a single hunting trip.
The bloodsports industry, like the tobacco industry, is something that Scotland will be better off without. If Catalonia can ban bullfighting, then Scotland can end the Victorian nonsense of slaughtering grouse and all that goes with it, simply for amusement.
Bernard Zonfrillo, Glasgow.
Very high rural fuel prices reflect costs that require to be covered by vendors
I write as chair of Applecross Community Company, which last month formally re-opened a refurbished, community-owned filling station. We installed a card reader which allows us to sell fuel 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unmanned. All management of the filling station is done by volunteers. Applecross is classed as a remote rural area, a 90-minute drive over one of the highest roads in the UK from the next nearest filling station.
I agree with the argument in your editorial (“Fuel price rises will hit rural areas hardest”, August 10) for preferential fuel duty for rural areas, and have written to Danny Alexander, the Treasury Chief Secretary, to ask what progress is being made on this policy, which the Liberal Democrats pursued enthusiastically before the election. Our MP, Charles Kennedy, supports us in this.
However, I take issue with your statement that in remote rural areas “fuel prices are higher than elsewhere because of lack of competition”. This is unfair on the small filling stations operating in remote rural areas, whether privately or community owned. Yes, our prices are high (127.9p a litre for petrol and 128.9 for diesel) but this is not because of lack of competition. We charge this so we can cover our costs.
We pay a much higher price than urban filling stations for our fuel; in July, we paid 122.2 a litre for petrol on delivery, while on the same day Tesco in Inverness was selling petrol at 114.9. While urban filling stations may sell millions of litres of fuel a year, our sales are much more limited (80,000 litres last year), and so we have to add a bigger margin to each litre sold to allow us to cover all our costs.
By installing an unmanned 24-hour service and marketing our filling station, we have done all we can to increase sales and cut our costs, but it will be a constant struggle to ensure the continued viability of the filling station while our competition in Inverness (where most local people fill up their tanks on regular visits to the supermarket) can sell fuel more than 7p a litre cheaper than we can buy it.
Alison Macleod, Applecross.
Why can’t we be like the Scandinavians and address the problem of rural fuel prices in a different way? That is, by generating fuel in these communities using the waste/by products from local industries such as farming and distilling. The Swedes have a clean fuel concept using waste to generate biogas and whole towns are now seeing public vehicles powered -- cheaply -- using waste, so that cleaning up the environment, giving local control, enables the cost of fuel to come down.
See how the rural areas around Trollotten in Sweden have sorted their problem out by doing just that: Innovatum makes biogas from the waste from farms and distilleries as well as from the waste water plants of the city. Why can they plan and make it happen and all we are concerned about is getting another handout?
John Davidson, Carnoustie.
Cardinal O’Brien demonstrates an alarming naivety in defending Megrahi’s release
Few will be discomfited at hearing a cardinal make a call in support of clemency. Yet Scots Catholics might feel some measure of unease at recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O’Brien in support of the decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to free the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
First, yet again, some sections of our media (ignorant of the tenets of Scotland’s second largest faith community) have treated Cardinal O’Brien’s remarks as though they gave some imprimatur to Mr MacAskill’s decision. But, on this issue, our cardinal is no more authoritative or reliable than any other Christian commentator. Catholics are certainly not bound to share his view and, indeed, some might question the wisdom of such commentary on matters primarily within the purview of the laity, given the likely use to be made of his words. Did the cardinal’s media advisers (incidentally, paid for by all Catholics via our Sunday parish giving) think lay Catholics were incapable of expressing the multiplicity of views held on this complex issue? More tellingly, a very valuable teaching opportunity has been lost.
Catholic social teaching on punishment and forgiveness is not just one of a rough and ready compassion. An equally important aspect is holding the perpetrators of crime accountable and to seek forgiveness and healing in a context where the primary focus is on the human rights of the most vulnerable.
Who are the vulnerable in the context of Pan Am Flight 103? A terrible victory for terrorism resides in its silencing of the victims and their families. Thus, most of us readily can identify Megrahi while struggling to recall the names of the 270 victims. Yet, while we hear forgiveness preached badly, where do we hear equally loud voices crying out for repentance, restitution and reconciliation? Not one word of remorse has been uttered by or on behalf of Megrahi, still less any reconciliation sought.
Moreover, in rushing to defend a patently badly-made political decision, the cardinal demonstrates an alarming naivety. The questions that ought to have been raised by a minister bolstered by a bevy of civil service and medical advisers about the highly dubious medical evidence were obvious at the time of the release.
Leave aside for the moment the rather odd choreography of Cardinal O’Brien’s intervention; one needs to consider the lasting effects of a decision made badly. One fruitful line of inquiry might be this:just how many other prisoners here have secured compassionate release since Megrahi was freed?
A media-assailed minister is more likely to use greater caution in his decision-making with potentially unjust results. Questioning the minister’s decision and the collective responsibility of Scottish ministers for an exercise in ministerial discretion is a wholly proper concern in the public realm.
Just because Mr MacAskill has a supporter wearing a red hat does not alter that fact -- or help him evade the questions. The key question is one of ministerial competence, not compassion.
Brian Fitzpatrick, Glasgow.
Was executive a waste of money?
The article on the apparent resignation of Mark Cooper from his £200,000 a year job as operations director with BAE raises an interesting point (“BAE chief quits after probe into sex slurs”, The Herald, August 11). The article states: “It is thought he will not be replaced and his duties will be shared by other executives.” Surely, if Mr Cooper’s responsibilities may now be shared among others, then they could have been shared during the two years he was in post. That would suggest Mr Cooper was surplus to requirement, and the company has, in effect, wasted £400,000 plus.
Would this be a good time for all organisations, in private and public sectors, to evaluate which highly-paid executives are essential, and which could go, with their workload being shared out among those who remain? I am not just trying to be mischievous when I suggest the same criteria might be applied in the world of politics -- at all levels.
Rev C Brian Ross, Motherwell.
Grist for the mill
we are told by the food industry that bread could rise in price by 10p per loaf due to the rocketing price of wheat. An average loaf of bread contains 500g of flour, worth 6.75p at the old wheat price of £130 a ton; at the current price of £180 a ton, this will be worth 9p. I smell a rat.
Jim Macfarlane, Berwickshire.
Referendum on reform is poll we cannot afford
The darling buds of May’s General Election appear to have been nipped by frost as the smugly triumphant smiles of David Cameron and Co are replaced by pained faces and worried frowns, and the looming spectre of savage cuts promises yet more doom and gloom to come.
However, there appears to be plenty of money to go round when it comes to splashing out on next year’s referendum on electoral reform, with the poor old taxpayer forking out a possible £1.2m to fund the campaign.
Furthermore, the yes camp (which is led by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg) and the no camp, (led by Prime Minister Cameron) are reported to be allowed to raise another £5m each.
Following the “moo” turn of the other day’s milkgate affair, it is time for the UK Government to declare the political silly season over, and act responsibly to ensure that the deepest cut of all is the one that slashes the costs of holding this referendum in such straitened economic times.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
Wind power is a white elephant but tidal offers an opportunity that must not be squandered
I couldn’t agree more with Dr Charles Wardrop when he says the current crop of power generating wind turbines is green tokenism (Letters, August 11).
From my living room window, I can see an array of wind turbines on Eaglesham moor, and all through the coldest winter for decades, which had few windy days, these expensive white elephants lay dormant.
The wind is fickle and cannot be relied upon to power our nation. Also in The Herald (August 11), you report a welcome piece of news regarding a tidal turbine. The tides, as opposed to the winds, can be relied upon. As long as there is a moon in the sky, we will have tides.
The Atlantic Resources Corporation is to be congratulated on the manufacture of this turbine, but where was it built? If Scotland is to benefit from the huge amounts of energy surging round our coasts, we must create a manufacturing industry that is capable of building this kind of machine, creating skilled jobs for domestic and overseas markets. This is a great opportunity that must not be squandered.
Bob MacGibbon, Clarkston, Glasgow.
The decision by the UK Government to give councils the power to sell to the National Grid electricity generated from renewable sources is to be welcomed (August 10).
This move has the potential to allow Scotland’s cash-strapped councils to raise millions of pounds from renewable energy and help the Scottish Government achieve its target of generating 50% of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020. However, unless we reform the discriminatory transmission charges regime, this will see Scottish councils face millions of pounds in grid connection fees, while those councils in the south receive a subsidy. Scottish generators currently produce 12% of UK generation, but account for 40% of the transmission costs, or about £100m a year more than their fair share.
In the current economic climate, Scottish councils will undoubtedly welcome the opportunity to raise funds from renewable sources, but for this truly to work requires the reform of the current charging regime and establishment of a level playing field that will allow Scotland to exploit fully the clean, green, renewables revolution.
Alex Orr, Edinburgh.
Warring sides should unite to help victims
With at least 14 million people affected by shortages of clean water, food and housing, now would be a good time for Nato, the Pakistan and Afghan Taliban, the Pakistan military and the Indian military, and other combatants in Kashmir to declare a ceasefire and to focus all efforts on helping victims of the floods in Pakistan, as well as those suffering due to poverty and lack of education and healthcare across the region.
Saving lives will win far more hearts and minds than taking them and won’t cost any more than supplying hundreds of thousands of combatants with fuel, ammunition and pay does already. Co-operation between the sides in these conflicts towards goals they have no disagreements on would also help build trust for peace negotiations, which will have to come sooner or later in wars that no side can win.
Fundamentalist groups in Pakistan are presently mobilising to provide aid to flood victims. If these extremist groups provide more aid than Nato or Pakistan’s government, then the latter will lose the hearts and minds of many people in the region to them.
Duncan McFarlane, Carluke.
