Environment:
1.
The First Minister has been shown holding a copy of Scotland's Economic Strategy ("Sturgeon scraps Salmond's vow to slash corporation tax", The Herald, March 4). The title page of that document's executive summary features a picture of a group of wind turbines; appropriate, perhaps, as these are now such a prominent feature in our landscape as well as in the SNP's policies.
The photograph is captioned Aikengall Community Windfarm, implying that this development supports the SNP's aim for community involvement in renewable energy projects. Presumably it would then also meet the aspiration in the summary that "the benefits of economic growth are shared more equally".
However, the only 'community' aspect of Aikengall lies in the name of its operator, a Cheshire-company registered in England with the name of Community Windpower Limited. Although based in England, all the company's 14 operating or proposed wind developments appear to be in Scotland and, despite their actual ownership, are described in the company's publicity material as "community wind farms".
The Scottish Government has stated that it expects wind developers to pay communities £5,000 per installed megawatt. The company's recently consented extension to Aikengall with a capacity of 68.4MW should thus pay £342,000. A total of no more than £100,000 has been offered and, as with all such "community benefit", this would in practice only be paid at the company's discretion.
The company was "proud to be the sole sponsors" of the SNP's St Andrew's Night dinner last November.
John Williams,
Chairman, Borders Network of Conservation Groups,
Crookston Old Mill,
Scottish Borders.
2.
Dave Morris is right that some land uses continue to degrade the quality of our wild land (Letters, March 5). Much of this damage has followed in the wake of public policy linked to subsidies, such as headage payments for sheep, forestry plantations on peatlands and drainage of wetlands.
Fortunately, some of the worst examples have ceased but the natural capital of our uplands continues to be degraded by unsustainable land management practices and chief among them is the mismanagement of our wild red deer population.
We cannot rely on the current voluntary system of management to deliver the change needed to reduce populations to sustainable levels. That includes using public funds to erect more fences to exclude these animals from the food and shelter they need. Our fragile uplands carry the scars of poor public funding decisions.
We have to move to a position where our landowners and managers are incentivised to conserve our landscapes, the carbon in our soils and the wildlife that should be thriving in our countryside. Agriculture, commercial forestry and sport have their place but they shouldn't be supported if they continue to degrade the environment we all rely on.
However, all of this will be pointless if we continue to industrialise our wild land at the rate and scale we have seen in the last ten years. We already have the policies in place that should protect our National Scenic Areas, National Parks and Wild Land Areas from further proliferation of wind farms.
There are several key proposals in Wild Land Areas for which a refusal should be an easy decision for the Scottish Government. If ministers are not prepared to follow their own policies, there is a good case to be made for introducing more independent scrutiny into our planning process. Let us hope that isn't necessary and our elected politicians take decisions that benefit all of us for the long term, rather than a few in the here and now.
Stuart Brooks,
Chief Executive,
John Muir Trust,
Station Road,
Pitlochry.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article