I have the 18th September marked off in my diary. A reminder to go and vote, not that I'll need any reminder.
I want to mark off the 19th as well, to take a day off and, hopefully, enjoy the biggest party Scotland has seen for 300 years. But then it might be the most depressing day ever, depending on your view. It could be a day for escaping to the hills.
I’m all too aware that for many hill-goers politics and the hills don’t mix. I respect that view. For most of us the hills represent a release from the everyday concerns and tensions that bind our modern society, including the ya-boo politics that have made much of the referendum debate so niggly and negative.
But for others it’s important to at least take an interest in the politics of the outdoors whether those politics are to do with access, wild land protection, wildlife protection or any one of a thousand other issues that crop up every year.
During my 20-year editorship of The Great Outdoors magazine I was regularly criticised for allowing political thought to creep into my editorials and for giving column inches to others to make their political points.
It was fair criticism, but I have always felt strongly that one of the roles of an outdoor magazine is to help campaign for walkers’ rights. Too few of them do.
Thankfully we have Non Government Organisations (NGO’s) like Ramblers Scotland and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, and in more recent times, the John Muir Trust, to campaign on our behalf, but we can’t leave it all up to them.
The access legislation we enjoy in Scotland today wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for individuals like Rennie McOwan of Stirling, who had campaigned tirelessly for our traditional freedom-to-roam to become law.
We should be thankful that people like Dave Morris of Ramblers Scotland was given an enormous amount of help and support by the late Alan Blackshaw, who spent huge amounts of time researching the facts and lobbying politicians of all parties. We have much to thank them for.
But the McOwans, the Morris’, the Blackshaws and all the other outdoor political campaigners couldn’t have succeeded without the backing of thousands of outdoor folk. Politics is about numbers. If there is a groundswell of opinion politicians will listen to you. If there isn’t, you’ll be ignored.
Over a hundred years ago John Muir worked on the same thesis. He was eager to popularise places like Yosemite Valley in the knowledge that the more people who loved a place the better it’s protection would be.
It’s partly why the RSPB has been so successful. It’s difficult for a politician to ignore a membership of over a million!
Most of us who are involved in mountaineering, hill-walking or backpacking have a strong desire to see the wild places of this country protected. After all it’s in such wild places that we enjoy our recreation, re-connect with the land and ourselves, and go home afterwards inspired and renewed.
But never have our wild places been under so much threat, particularly by renewable energy companies; never has it been so important for all of us who love such places to make our voices heard.
Let me give you an example.
In an early meeting with Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, he told me he wouldn’t be averse to setting aside some of the best of Scotland’s wild lands as “turbine-free areas.”
It was, I admit, something of a compromise, but well worth discussing further. I’m a pragmatist when it comes to politics and I knew it was pointless trying to argue for a complete moratorium on onshore windfarms. That is simply not going to happen, no matter which political party is in power.
Eventually it was suggested that Scotland’s 40 National Scenic Areas, with their outstanding scenery, areas that represent Scotland’s finest landscapes, could be set aside as “turbine-free” zones.
The NSA’s include spectacular mountain areas such as the Skye Cuillin, Ben Nevis and Glencoe, and dramatic island landscapes within the Hebrides and the Northern Isles. They also include some of the more gentle landscapes of Perthshire, the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway.
In addition, it was suggested those areas of core wild land that SNH had defined on their Wild Land Map should get further protection. In such areas there wouldn’t be an outright ban on turbines, as in NSAs, but a planning presumption against unsuitable development.
These proposals were included in the Government’s National Planning Framework and draft Scottish Planning Policy and put out for consultation but were immediately strongly criticised by energy companies who put “enormous” pressure on the Scottish Government to have them removed.
A further consultation was carried out by SNH on their proposed Wild Land Map and attracted a total of 410 responses. 73% of those responses were very supportive of the map and 21% (mostly renewable energy companies) objected to it or raised substantial concerns regarding the map or its preparation.
According to the John Muir Trust four of the “Big Six” energy companies – Scottish Power, SSE, EDF and E.ON – “hit out at proposed safeguards for unspoiled beauty spots” advising First Minister Alex Salmond to abandon changes which would make it harder for them to build windfarms on wild land, warning it would seriously damage his chances of meeting his green energy targets.”
The JMT’s Helen McDade told me: “We have been urging MSPs from across all parties to stand up for Scotland’s wild land against powerful financial interests who see it as a commodity to be exploited for money, rather than a national treasure to be protected.
“Over the past year, the Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage have come under pressure from energy companies and some private landowners to scrap or diminish the core areas of the wild land map.
“They demanded that the wild land map be put out to public consultation. That consultation has now been completed and the results underline the fact that the energy companies are in a small minority in their opposition to a wild land map of Scotland.”
In effect, the positive response to that consultation from hillwalkers has given the JMT the ammunition to press the Government not to abandon its proposals, and I’m positive about the eventual outcome.
I believe that when the new planning Framework is published, possibly in June, it will contain the protection for over 30% of Scotland’s land mass, including the finest of Scotland’s wild land areas, that we have been seeking.
I believe it will be a big step forward in balancing wild land protection with the energy needs of the future, whilst allowing the Scottish Government to continue its campaign against climate change.
But what about the referendum? Will a Yes vote or a No vote ensure further protection for Scotland’s wild lands?
Being wholly pragmatic I don’t think things will change very much in the immediate future. Scotland will still be governed by the SNP no matter which way the referendum vote goes. And remember, Labour is also committed to renewable energy so even if they win the next Scottish elections not much will change in terms of wild land protection.
That makes it even more crucial for Scotland’s hill-going community to involve itself as much as possible in the politics of the outdoors, even if only by supporting our mountain NGOs like the Ramblers, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland and the John Muir Trust. They need all the help we can give them.