Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Environment

What if Scottish Ministers were as ambitious as the Welsh?

May 9

Posted by James in Environment, Transport, Wales | 10 Comments

When the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were set up, there was a substantial gap in their powers in Scotland’s favour. The Welsh administration couldn’t pass primary legislation before last March’s referendum, and even the Assembly name was second-tier, akin to the second-tier devolution Scotland voted for in 1979.

And yet there are issues where this notionally weaker body has forged ahead of the Scottish Government. In 2000 a Lab/Lib Dem coalition banned GM crops, but two years later a Scottish Executive of the same colour ignored a vote at Lib Dem conference and went ahead with plantings.

Today sees the now Labour-only Welsh Government take another step ahead of Scotland with what looks potentially like a massive switch in transport policy in favour of walking and cycling, just as Scottish Ministers plan to head in the opposite direction by spending billions on duplicate road capacity.

As a supporter of independence I’d like to see Scottish Ministers flexing every muscle they have to improve this country using the powers devolved already: that’s the best way to demonstrate the need for the full powers of an independent nation. So why are Welsh Ministers better at doing that than Scottish ones?

Devolution Beached

Mar 23

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Environment, Holyrood, Westminster | 1 Comment

On Monday, the Scottish Affairs Committee published its report into the Crown Estate in Scotland, recommending the devolution of Crown Estates Commission’s responsibilities for and ancient rights over Scotland’s coastline, firstly to Holyrood with the intention of further devolution to local communities.

Gaining control over Scotland’s foreshore and seabed is certainly not a trifle: this move gives Scotland powers over a vital economic sector. Currently, the Crown Estates Commission holds gems like mineral and salmon fishing rights, while renewable energy projects like wind farms and offshore gas storage facilities on Scottish Crown Estate is projected to generate an annual sum of £49m by the end of the decade. Meanwhile, it acts like an absentee landlord or tax collector, doing little to re-invest to any significant extent in the sectors and communities from which it derives income.

Interesting then, that Ian Davidson, Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, dismissed the Scottish Government’s demand for the devolution of powers over the Scottish Crown Estate back in November as “entirely vacuous”, telling Linda Rosborough, the acting director of Scottish Government agency Marine Scotland, that “Asking for power over the Crown Estate without having any idea of what you do with it is a position that seems entirely vacuous.”

According to The Scotsman, Rosborough advised that the Scottish Government would only bring forward detailed proposals for its Crown Estate plans and hold a consultation if Westminster agreed to devolve the powers. Pretty standard, and Davidson should know that. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the new powers devolved to Scotland in this week’s Scotland Bill, like tax and borrowing powers, air weapons, drink driving and speed limits needed extensive consultation in Scotland prior to the agreement being made.

Land reform is one of the best things to come out of Scottish devolution, especially local measures like community right-to-buy. I think it will hopefully be improved under this Scottish Government, with Roseanna Cunningham announcing an intention to review and improve the legislation within the year. It’s abysmal that the Crown Estate has failed Scotland since devolution: failing to account for Scottish rights and assets. It is entirely right that these powers are devolved to Scottish communities, but it should not have taken Westminster more than a decade to give Scotland’s coastline back to Scotland.

Davidson might have had to conclude that the Crown Estate Commission should no longer be the body responsible in this case, but for proponents of devolution as Labour MPs should be, the transfer of these powers should be both obvious and necessary. It’s disappointing that Westminster appears to be begrudging handing Scotland powers, just because they fear it might in some way help the independence campaign. If you really want to oppose independence, diminishing devolution which Scottish communities need and from which the economy benefits is certainly not the way to win.

SNP insists rUK Green Investment Bank should be located in independent Scotland

Feb 5

Posted by Jeff in Environment, Ideology | 25 Comments

A contender for the hollowest of arguments coming out of Holyrood, possibly not just in this current term but in the Parliament’s history, must surely be the SNP’s calls for the UK to locate its Green Investment Bank in Edinburgh. Marco Biagi, MSP for Edinburgh Central, has reiterated those calls over the weekend.

What makes the argument particularly empty is the seeming unwillingness on the part of the SNP to directly address the elephant in the room about this decision, the fact that Scotland may well not be a part of the UK in a few years time.

I enjoyed a bit of Twitter back and forth on the matter on Saturday evening with Marco as follows:

https://twitter.com/#!/EdinburghBiagi/status/165944908161613824

https://twitter.com/#!/EdinburghBiagi/status/165952118732226561

Stepping back for a moment to consider what this Green Investment’s Bank’s purpose is, we have the following statement from the main Government site on the institution:

The UK is to set up the world’s first investment bank solely dedicated to greening the economy.

The initiative is part of the Government’s commitment to setting the UK firmly on course towards a green and growing economy, while also delivering long-term sustainable growth.

This transition to a green economy presents significant growth opportunities for UK-based businesses, both at home and abroad.

So it’s pretty clear that this is a UK bank then and not an international or EU body.

Timelines:

The Green Investment Bank project will evolve over three phases:

UK Green Investments – From 2012 until state aid approval for GIB is granted, BIS’s UK Green Investments project will make direct investments in green infrastructure projects
Establishment – GIB will be established as a as a stand-alone institution following state-aid approval. It is expected that state aid approval will be granted in spring 2013.
Full borrowing GIB – From April 2015, the GIB will be given full powers to borrow, subject to public sector net debt falling as a percentage of GDP and further state aid approval being granted.

So investments/establishment and full borrowing will straddle the date of the independence referendum and there is no way of knowing, at the time when the bank is getting up and running, whether Scotland will be a part of the UK or not by the time the Green Investment Bank gets going. Who in their right mind would start to build such a bank north of the border?

Marco’s argument seems to be that the Prime Minister of rUK should hire foreign Scottish bankers to run an rUK bank, just because a significant amount of local green energy potential happens to be in Scotland. By this same logic, Cairn Energy shouldn’t be based on Lothian Road in Edinburgh but should be hiring Indian and Greenland accountants to run its finances and head office operations outside of Scotland.

It is at best fanciful and at worst hypocritical to argue for a UK institution to sit within Scotland while simultaneously arguing for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom and be a separate country.

Granted, as pointed out on Twitter above, it is possible for the Green Investment Bank to be adapted into an IGO if Scottish independence was to go ahead but that is such an awkward argument to make against the backdrop of the coming referendum that it surely won’t carry much, if any, water. ‘Say no to UK’s nuclear weapons (but Yes to their Green Bank)’ does not a catchy slogan make.

When this approach is compared and contrasted with the Scottish Lib Dem argument that Scotland is stronger within the UK and that this Green Investment Bank should be in Edinburgh, with its £3bn+ of investment, it is clear that there is a distinct lack of cohesion. It is also, incidentally, a shame that party differences and looming elections seem to be preventing the SNP and Lib Dems from working together on this one.

Marco’s been sent out to bat on this one and he’s doing so manfully despite a very sticky wicket indeed. Fair play to him but I’m afraid I am not buying this approach from the SNP at all and far from it being a case of standing up for Scotland, it strikes me as being a quick way of undermining one’s argument in favour of independence and appearing really quite dishearteningly disingenuous in the process.

I guess disingenuous trumps irrelevant when it comes to fighting to get involved in such a key UK decision that affects the important Scottish areas of environment, banking and employment.

Scottish independence and a UK Green Investment Bank based in Edinburgh are an either/or situation that may even end up proving to be neither/nor. If the SNP was serious about having this bank in Scotland, it would be holding its referendum sooner rather than later.

Bagging a panda

Nov 8

Posted by Guest Blog in Environment, Holyrood | 15 Comments

Another lovely wee guest post today, from John Nichol, aka @cowrin, who blogs at Suitably Despairing.

A panda at Holyrood yesterday

In a few weeks time, Edinburgh Zoo will take delivery of a couple of Giant Pandas, a gift from China. Actually, they’re not a gift, they’re a loan, bestowed by the country on any other nation which tickles it’s fancy. And to get them, Britain has done an awful lot of fancy-tickling.

There’s something faintly queasy about China’s use of this sad creature as a diplomatic tool. Not only do they demand that the country receiving the “gift” bends over backwards to please the Chinese, but they then have to pay China $1 million a year for the privilege of keeping the pandas for a maximum of ten years.

No animal should be used as a commodity in this way, bestowing favours on countries that please you, and I’m ashamed that Scotland and the UK is a party to this. It feels even worse when the poor creature being transported halfway around the planet is so endangered.

It was Chris Packham of Springwatch fame (and, to those of us of a certain age, Really Wild Show fame) who suggested a couple of years ago that we should let Giant Pandas die out. They’re an evolutionary dead-end, a picky eater which barely moves and barely mates. I have some sympathy with the idea that we’re only throwing money at the Panda because they look damn cute. After all, other species have come and gone without us giving much of a damn. But I also feel that if we have the means to save a species then we should.

What we shouldn’t be doing is saving a species just to use it as a diplomatic tool. Pandas are not trophies, to be paraded around to the citizens while the First Minister gushes about how much China really, really likes us. Animals that aren’t part of our food system should not be trade-able commodities between countries, to be exploited by politicians as some sort of coup that the creatures are in the country in the first place, or to be used to curry favour with previous enemies. If you really want to bestow gifts on a foreign country, then give them a statue.

Whether zoos themselves should exist or not is a whole other topic, but needless to say Edinburgh Zoo will not be shy about commercially exploiting their new residents, just another way that the pandas will be used for the benefit of others and not themselves.

It’s too late to stop the pandas from coming to this country, but I would urge the Scottish Government to have nothing to do with this shameful modern-day trophy-hunting.

EXCLUSIVE: Greens urge Italians to vote Si on Sunday against nuclear energy

Jun 8

Posted by The Burd in Environment, Europe | 5 Comments

Green MEPs, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (France) and Rebecca Harms (Germany), today urged the Italian population to vote ‘si’ in Sunday’s referendum on nuclear energy, claiming that a yes vote rejecting nuclear power as an energy option for Italy, would start a “snowball effect” across the rest of Europe.

Cohn-Bendit pointed out that the referendum was the first in Europe on this issue and urged the Italian people to vote in order to give all European citizens a better future.

Harms outlined how a majority of European citizens now opposed nuclear energy – a view that had grown since the Fukishima tragedy in Japan earlier this year.  And she listed all the countries rejecting nuclear power.  It was not only Germany who had recently moved to phase out nuclear power but a whole host of countries had never chosen the nuclear route, including Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland and Belgium.

Poland is also due to hold a referendum and France is debating the issue afresh.  With elections due in France, Germany and Italy in the next three years, the Green MEPs argued that we could shortly reach a position where there are three governments “at the heart of Europe” adopting an anti-nuclear stance and that this would send a “strong message” to nations around the world.

The MEPs suggested there were sound fiscal reasons to reject nuclear power.  It would cost Italy at least 700 million Euros to earthquake “proof” any nuclear installations.  Fundamentally, the country’s topological and geological make up made it inherently unsuitable for nuclear power plants.

Moreover, Cohn-Bendit highlighted the “inherent contradiction” at the heart of UK policy on nuclear energy.  Its position of including nuclear power in the mix for future energy provision was predicated on such development being privately funded and not involving public funding.  The Green MEP claimed this was impossible to do.  Experience in Japan showed that even with private investors, public funding was still required and frankly, the UK Government did not have the money to do this in the current financial climate.

While the fiscal issue is a key one, it is also clear that the UK is travelling in the wrong direction on this important issue from its fellow EU members.  The future is bright, it would appear, and it does not include nuclear.

So long as the Italians do indeed vote si on Sunday.

- blogged from the European Parliament in Strasbourg -

Tags: , ,