Keep it Wild

[Peedee]

Leaving aside the arguments about lining the pockets of wealthy landowners and foreign multinationals, Scotland has room for windfarms AND Wild Areas. It's not a binary choice.

The argument that the land isn't truly 'wild' because it's been trashed for generations by landowners is specious. (The same logic says why bother trying to clean up the air in our cities - I remember how bad Glasgow used to be, certainly not a 'dear green place'.) One of my MSPs used it with me, which says something about how ignorant some of these decision-makers are in such matters.

And for me, it's not about the view, it's about being in a place apart, even though I'm not an "urbanite" but live in the country.

[jupe1407]

The JMT view that formerly economically productive areas should remain economically unproductive because it might spoil the view of middle class urbanites indulging in a wilderness fantasy shouldn't play any part in the planning process.

Yup. Neatly encapsulates pretty much 90% of social media posts I've seem moaning about windfarms.

[Paul Webster]

Scotland has room for windfarms AND Wild Areas. It's not a binary choice.

The argument that the land isn't truly 'wild' because it's been trashed for generations by landowners is specious. (The same logic says why bother trying to clean up the air in our cities - I remember how bad Glasgow used to be, certainly not a 'dear green place'.)

This - it's perfectly reasonable to support both. There are right places and wrong places for all the things we need.

Also worth noting that not only is there overwhelming support for protection of wild land areas (80% across Scotland) - support for having wild land areas is actually highest amongst people actually living in the Highlands - where most of this land is - and at its lowest amongst people living in the cities and central belt - by some margin. It's also (slightly) higher amongst the working class (C2DE) than middle or upper (ABC1). So although every group supports there being protection for wild land, the evidence is hardly that it's about 'middle class urbanites'.

The planning process is there to protect and balance all kinds of interests, which includes recreation and tourism. Wild land protects one particular element, just as SSSIs or whatever designation protect another. And SNH is based in Inverness

[yokehead]

The "so called" wild areas are the scars of clearance, deliberate depopulation and Scotland's outrageous land ownership system.

Along with historic over-population, failing crops and industry, and lack of opportunities. Perhaps the Scottish Government should take a radical step in changing the land ownership system, promote and support real opportunities for folk in the Highlands. Hamish Brown, in his Groat's End Walk, commented that he preferred the populated landscape of Ireland as seen from mountain tops, to the sterile landscape viewed from Scottish peaks.

There is absolutely a need for the planning system to recognise areas of ecological or environmental importance that should be protected from inappropriate development.

Of course, that depends upon one's view of inappropriate and how the planning system is operated. I recommend reading the informative interview by Helen Webster, with Claire Mack, head of Scottish Renewables, on walkhighlands:
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/interview-with-claire-mack-head-of-scottish-renewables/0018683/

I find it rather sobering to read the scripted, hypocritical answers viewed alongside the photographs. The key question and answer relates to the original poster's point:

Q: "Scottish Renewables argued against the need for protection for Wild Land Areas. Do you feel that Scotland’s remaining areas of wild land are worth protecting from development? If so, how do you think this should be done?"

A: "More than 20% of Scotland – our National Parks and National Scenic Areas – is already off limits to wind farm developments, with the full support of the renewables industry. Outwith these large areas are other areas identified by SNH as ‘wild land’, which have significant protection in planning policy. Any proposed developments in these areas are required to meet strict regulations if they are to gain approval in the planning process, to ensure that only good, sustainable projects get built."


So, 80% of Scotland is in fact open to windfarm development and the 'Wild Land' designation really means nothing should the planning process be geared accordingly, as it will in most cases. And do you really think the 20% will remain ring-fenced against development? Every landscape view in Scotland will soon have its windfarm or hydro scars.

If John Muir saw the dangers years ago, how much greater the case is today. There is surely room for windfarms and other schemes in a balanced way, but Scotland is fast moving to blanket industrialisation.