|
|
|
Letters to the Press - from Autumn 1999 Chronological Order - Most Recent First
Click Here to Return to Letters Index
Click here for letters 2001 - 2003 or 2004 onwards
Published in The Scotsman, 7 November 2000, under the heading, "Superquarry ruling..."
Letters to the Editor The Scotsman Dear Sir Your track record for responsible environmental reporting has
done more than most to raise awareness of the complex issues that surrounded the
Harris superquarry proposal. However, your report (4 November) gives the wrong impression
in suggesting that the quarry pitted “conservationists against an isolated
community” (November 4). In 1995, 68% of that community voted against the
quarry after the public inquiry. Conservationists, therefore, comprised the
majority of the community itself. People have lived sustainably on Harris for several thousands
of years, by integrating economy, community and a spiritually-informed respect
for place that points the way for a wider world under threat from global
warming. Yours faithfully Alastair
McIntosh
Published in The Herald, 6-11-00, p. 14, under the heading, "Harris Quarry Decision."
Letters to the Editor The Herald Dear Sir You rightly say that Sam Graham “is to be commended” for
his decisiveness over the Harris superquarry, but let it never be forgotten that
the really costly stance on this was taken by a principled woman – Sarah
Boyack. In fairness, let it also be noted that the SNP never
significantly swerved from their anti-quarry stance. Such refusal to turn
Scotland’s environment into a political football doubtless made it politically
easier for the Scottish Executive to take their courageous decision. Whilst speaking of commendation, let it be said that whilst
the editorial stance of this newspaper was pro-quarry, you usually made it
possible (at least in my own experience) for dissenting voices to be heard, and
to be so without undue restraint. This is more than just a free press. It is a press that
ensures the freedom of its readers. Yours faithfully Alastair McIntosh
Published in the West Highland Free Press, 27-10-00, p. 15, under the heading, "Bid to Privatise the Seabed "Unnacceptable."
Letters to the Editor WHFP Dear Sir John Edmondson and Jenny Twelves speak of “bringing
democratic procedures into disrepute” in relation to their effort to privatise,
for personal enrichment, part of the South Uist seabed (letters, 20 October). Democracy, however, is a multi-layered process. And if
incomers are to be welcomed and integrated, it is vital for them to realise that
in the Highlands and Islands democracy starts by honouring the discerned wishes
of the local community. Often these are expressed in subtle, traditional ways,
which it is incumbent upon any incomer to develop sensitivity towards. It is a
bottom-up rather than a top-down democratic process, and one that is grounded,
ultimately, in a spiritual understanding of what gives community cohesion. (The
recent publication by Four Courts Press of Michael Newton’s outstanding work, A
Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World, means there can no longer be any
excuse for not understanding the fundamental principles of Highland society). It is the local community, and not the Crown Estates, that
has moral authority over the seabed. Under the theological origins of the
Scottish Crown’s legal position, the Crown should serve merely as a wise
administrator on behalf of the Community of the Realm. It is time for the
ramifications of such largely-neglected constitutional principles to be better
understood, and to be so in terms of the human rights of indigenous peoples.
Indeed, the expertise of Commonwealth lawyers who have specialised in native
people’s post-imperial rights over the land and sea should perhaps be brought
to bear here in Scotland. In a Highland community, a person belongs inasmuch as they
are willing to cherish, and be cherished, by a place and its peoples. Violation
of this principle leads to withdrawal of the community’s blessing, without
which no individual or enterprise can expect lasting happiness and prosperity.
Highland communities have amply demonstrated that they are open to warm
integration of the incomer. But that person must demonstrate respect, and help
to build community rather than suck away selfishly at its lifeblood. In the
absence of respect, our communities are merely subjected to the same old
imperial process of internal colonisation. That is why the behaviour of people
like John Edmondson and Jenny Twelves is no longer acceptable in 21st
century Highland Scotland. Yours faithfully Alastair
McIntosh
Nb. Further to this letter's publication, the following was also published in the WHFP, 3-11-00, p. 11, under the heading, "Community Control of Seabed."
Letters
to the Editor West
Highland Free Press Dear
Sir Last
week you kindly published a letter of mine about the move by John Edmonson and
Jenny Twelves effectively to "privatise" part of the seabed in the
face of various press reports of local opposition. This
would be of little public interest were it not that the principles under
consideration have profound implications far beyond Loch Eynort, which is why
they are highly charged. As your editorial of 6 October said: "This is not
just a planning issue but a political one of the future ownership and control of
sea lochs. The guiding principle should be that local communities have some
power ... on their doorstep." In
the past week, however, it has been put to me by a member of the couple's family
that their business plans may enjoy more local support than has so far been
evident in the public domain. In the absence of an objective community ballot it
is not easy to test this assertion, but were it to be the case then it would, of
course, put matters in a different light. Not least it would call for shifting
the focus of the debate away from the people who have precipitated it and onto
the wider underlying issues. It
may well be appropriate for a business to be given exclusive use of part of the
seabed so that they can operate with security in the same way as, for example, a
croft gives limited exclusive rights of usage of the land. However, the point is
that this should happen under the local community's control, for the community's
overall benefit and within a wider conceptual framework that retains the
cultural principle that sea lochs are a community commons. Yours
sincerely Alastair McIntosh
Published in The Scotsman, 25-10-00, under heading, "Super-quarry Delays." Letters to the Editor The Scotsman
Dear Sir
Lord
Hardie rightly calls the years of delay in deciding the Harris super-quarry
issue "scandalous" (your report, 19 October), but no less disturbing
is the judicial basis used by Lafarge Redland Aggregates to advance its case. By
appealing to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it has
effectively imported to Scotland the bizarre American legal principle that a
corporation enjoys constitutional protection as a "person" in law.
Published in the Stornoway Gazette, 21-9-00. By the way, the "leading businessman" mentioned in paragraph two was Mr Ian Wilson, "father of the superquarry concept" and a principal mineral-rights holder at Lingerabay. I avoided reference to his name in the newspaper published version of the letter as this might have raised legal issues for them.
Letters to the Editor Stornoway Gazette Dear Sir I have been following the correspondence between Mike MacLeod
of Stornoway and John Lievers, a director of Lafarge Redland Aggregates,
regarding whether the proposed and opposed Lingerbay superquarry could be used
as a nuclear dump. In June 1991, when I was lecturing in the Faculty of Science
and Engineering at the University of Edinburgh, I was introduced to one of the
leading businessmen behind the superquarry who was seeking support for his
ideas. At that time I had few strong feelings either way about the
proposal, but having published research into the civil war caused by the Rio
Tinto copper mine on Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea, I was acutely aware
of the impact of large mining corporations on small island life. I was also aware that efforts were being made to dump various
types of industrial and municipal waste on small Pacific islands, and that often
a hole suitable for dumping is worth more than the rock that was taken out. In the presence of three colleagues, I asked the businessman
about the prospects of this happening on Harris. He told me that “relatively
unpolluted” sludge dredged from European rivers could profitably be brought to
Harris and mixed with the soil. This, he assured us, would be an
“environmental improvement.” I told him that over the previous five years there had been
some 2,000 applications to dump wastes, mainly from the USA, in Pacific island
lagoons. I asked whether this possibility had been considered to enhance the
long-term profitability (and to finance reclamation costs) of Lingerbay. He
replied that this was not an immediate objective. The issue, he said, would be
“too emotive” to raise at this stage in the planning process. I must say that I was left wondering how much else might have
been left on the back burner because it would be “too emotive.” One wonders
whether Mike MacLeod might be spot on in concluding (Letters, 7 September) that
a potential time-bomb may have been introduced by Redland’s last-minute change
to the Section 50 agreement about site restoration. I wonder if I might also comment on Mr Liever’s remarkable
letter to the Gazette of 24 August? He said that the quarry would create
“many opportunities for biodiversity, environment creation and overall greater
environment benefit.” Well, last week I happened to be a keynote speaker at an
international conference of 400 scientists and professionals organised by the
Society for Ecological Restoration. I asked some of the world’s foremost restoration scientists
and industry consultants what they thought of Mr Liever’s remarks. They
laughed. They said that his words would be valid in locations where, for
example, you had a flat landscape despoiled by industrial farming which could
have variety added to it by digging a few holes. But to make such a claim for a
pristine mountain is to abuse the science of restoration ecology. Finally, today as I write (Monday 11 September), Lafarge
Redland opened their court case against the Scottish Executive. Whilst I have
every sympathy with their view that the Executive have dragged their feet for
too long, one part of the reported basis of the company’s legal challenge is
disturbing in ways that could have legal implications far beyond the
superquarry. According
to The Herald of August 3, the company will be arguing that the
Executive’s foot-dragging is in “contravention of the company’s rights
under Article Six of the European Convention of Human Rights”. This says,
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal
charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by
law…” Corporations,
of course, have their own rights and obligations within law. But the idea that
they can be defended as “persons” within the law is a bizarre view
introduced by corrupt oligarchs during the American Supreme Court case of Santa
Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 1886. However, as
corporations become globalised and want more power everywhere, efforts are being
made to extend the American position worldwide. Unlike American law, the British constitution and Scots law does not entertain a sharp separation between Church and State. Human personhood in Scots law is therefore rooted in theological understandings about the nature of God. If Lafarge Redland succeed in claiming “human” rights for themselves as a “corporate person,” the outcome would be blasphemous and idolatrous. It would have profoundly worrying legal implications for Scotland and for Europe as a whole. It would represent, indeed, an assault on the very notion in law of what it means to be a human being. We always knew the corporation were out to get our environment. Who would have believed they might also challenge our humanity? Yours sincerely Alastair
McIntosh
*****
Published in The Herald, 18-9-00, p. 14, under heading, "Profoundly disturbing," with the letters page's banner headline quoting, "Seeking a ruling implying 'personhood' can be man-made as well as God-given, the Lafarge Redland lawsuit is idolatrous and blasphemous." Click here to view Stornoway Gazette essay on the historical origin of corporations, the East India Company and the Santa Clara County Supreme Court case establishing corporate "personhood."
September
12, 2000
Letters to the Editor The Herald Dear Sir Your report today confirms that a primary allegation in the
Court of Session case being brought by Lafarge Redland Aggregates this week is
that the Scottish Environment Minister, Sarah Boyack, has acted in a manner
“incompatible with [the corporation’s] rights under Article 6 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.” Using such a basis for a corporate case
is profoundly disturbing and could have implications for European law far beyond
Scotland. If the court finds that a corporation is possessed of
“human rights,” a multinational will have succeeded in importing a bizarre
and dangerous Supreme Court ruling from America: namely, that “corporate
persons” enjoy the same constitutional protection as human persons (Santa
Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 1886). However, there is a vital difference between the American
constitution and ours. They separate church and state. We don’t, the Royal
Titles Act 1953 being the most recent to affirm this. Whilst our constitution is
arguably anachronistic in a secular world, it nevertheless contains powerful
safeguards, if understood to its theological roots, for what it means to be a
human person. By seeking a ruling implying that “personhood” can be
man-made as well as God-given, Lafarge Redland’s lawsuit is both idolatrous
and blasphemous. It is one thing for the corporate Golem – the man-made man
who runs amok - to assault our National Scenic Areas in trying to superquarry
Mount Roineabhal; quite another for it to challenge, in Scots law, our very
personhood through the attempted appropriation of human rights. Yours faithfully Alastair McIntosh
*****
Published in The Herald, Glasgow, 3-8-00, p. 18, under heading, "Quarry supporters wide open to manipulation." (Nb. in a letter to me of 23 August 2000, John Lievers, director of Lafarge Redland Aggregates Ltd., confirmed that they fund the CQLSN but said that "the total amount reimbursed over the years is the concern oly of this company and the CQLSN..." He also acknowledged sponsorship of the Harris football team, the Leverburgh show, and a student bursary.)
Letters
to the Editor The
Herald Dear
Sir Donald
Macdonald, the secretary of the Coastal Quarry Local Supporters Group, claims
“overwhelming support … particularly from those who live in South Harris,
the area closest to the quarry site” (Letters, August 1). But this is
substantially based on a non-confidential petition organised by his own group,
which as I shall demonstrate here, was in significant degree established
seemingly as a corporate front. The
only two secret ballots to have been conducted, by recognised impartial bodies
representative of the whole community, showed the people of the South Harris (Obbe
constituency) voting 50.4% against the quarry in 1993, and 71.5% against in 1995
(see “Massive swing of opinion against superquarry”, West Highland Free
Press, May 26 1995, p. 1). It
may be true of people like Mr Macdonald, as individuals, that, “Not one of us
has received a penny from Lafarge Redland”. I never said they had. What I have
repeatedly done is to cite an uncontested Stornoway Gazette article of
April 10 1997 (p. 11) headed, “Redland admits payments”. This reports that,
following questions raised by Calum MacDonald MP and local quarry opponents, a
Redland director, Mr John Lievers, issued a statement saying: “In his recent
TV interview on Eorpa, Capt. John Archie Mackenzie was completely correct in
saying that Redland Aggregates Limited has met the costs of the CQLSN’s
mailshots to the people of Harris. The company will continue to meet other
reasonable expenses where appropriate and when requested to do so by the
Network…” The
following week the Stornoway Gazette (p. 16) published a CQLSN statement
aimed at heading-off growing suggestions that the CQLSN was merely a corporate
front puppet organisation. Vice-chair John Macleod asserted, “Redland are not
involved in the drafting of the constitution. It has absolutely nothing to do
with Redland. We are doing this off our own back.” However,
the newspaper report continued: “But the Gazette has come into
possession of a fax from Burness to Redland Aggregates director, Mr John Lievers,
which indicates the quarry developers were very closely involved with the
detailed drafting of the Network company’s constitution. In the fax, dated
January 8, 1997, Burness solicitor, Mr Paul Pia, tells Mr Lievers, ‘I trust
that you duly received my first draft of a ‘Constitution’ – a Memorandum
and Articles of Association – for the Local Supporters Network… I have
provisionally called the proposed company ‘CQLSN Limited’ but this is
provisional only and should, following your discussion with the supporters, be
replaced with your chosen name.’” Now,
I do not doubt that there are many people of sincerity involved with the CQLSN
including, one trusts, Mr Donald Macdonald himself. They have their own ideas
and interests to represent, which is fair enough. However, this does not alter
the fact that the CQLSN has proven wide open to manipulation by those who stand
to become exceptionally rich if this proposed wrecking of a National Scenic
Area, and its potentially adverse impact on other job sectors like fishing and
tourism, is not halted by the Scottish Executive once they receive scientific
advice from SNH – and that a body which, I am interested to see from his
favourable reference to Magnus Magnusson, Mr Macdonald seems prepared to
consider as potentially authoritative and capable of articulating even a
pro-quarry case. Yours faithfully
Alastair
McIntosh
*****
Published in the West Highland Free Press, Skye, 28 July 2000, p. 11 under heading, "Lingerabay: Boyack 'Was on Horns of Dilemma.'"
Letters
to the Editor West
Highland Free Press Dear
Sir It
seems that far from “dithering” or taking “a coward’s way out,” Sarah
Boyack was impaled on the horns of a dilemma landed on the Scottish Parliament
from a botched pre-devolution approach. Informed
sources in the Scottish Executive suggest that if she’d decided either way on
the basis of the Inquiry Report, she would have been open to judicial review.
The whole process would then have dragged out even longer. The
issue facing Harris now is how can high-grade jobs – not quarrying or even
fish processing – be created for the remarkable level of university graduates
that Harris produces from its young. This is where organisations like Harris
Development Ltd. must continue taking the strategic approach to job creation,
which is already paying more dividends than the quarry would have done. It
is imperative that if designation as a Special Area of Conservation goes ahead,
the people of Harris get themselves into the driving seat. Just as Harris set up
a “Quarry Benefit Group” to consider what the island might gain if the
quarry was to go ahead, so too consideration should be given to something like a
“Conservation Benefit Group.” Here
is an opportunity for SNH to show that it can strengthen crofting and rural
communities. The fact that Eigg has now created virtually full employment
suggests that people and conservation really can work together for economic
benefit. However, such “conservation” must be equally about people and
nature – it must be nothing short of all-round “sustainable development.” Yours faithfully
Alastair McIntosh
*****
Published in The Herald, 25 July 2000, p. 16 under heading, "Social cohesion and silence on superquarry."
Letters
to the Editor The
Herald Dear
Sir If
Ian Mitchell is going to direct his attentions towards me (letters, July 22), I
should be obliged if he would do so with scrupulous attention to accuracy. The
eagles that nest just 400 metres from the proposed superquarry site on Harris
are not reintroduced Sea Eagles, but fully native Golden Eagles. This may
be confirmed both by observation, and by reference to Chapter 19 of the1998
draft public inquiry report. As
for Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish listing recent letter writers to the Herald
and pointing out that, “none of their addresses was in the islands…”, I
wonder why he omitted my name from his list? Whilst my address may not be from
the islands, I grew up and was educated in Lewis in a family that has island
connections going back to the early twentieth century when my great uncle
established surgical services in the Lewis hospital. Lord MacKay’s omission of
my name was perhaps an oversight, but had it been included it would arguably
have sat uncomfortably with his argument. That
said, Lord MacKay’s question is a valid one. It has been telling that, apart
from letters from the Redland Aggregates-funded Coastal Quarry Local
Supporters’ Network such as that from Donald Macdonald today, there have
been few letters, either for or against, from residents of Harris. The
reason is that any massive proposed development in a small community acts like
the force field of a magnet. It pulls things into a new shape and creates
opposing north and south poles that were not there before. Through no will of
its own the community becomes polarised. Because
island people value social cohesion, most keep their heads low. But those of us
standing on the edge of the community are less vulnerable. We have the
often-uncomfortable duty of advocacy, and this goes for voices on both sides of
any major debate. Lord
MacKay should know this well. His is one such voice. Yours
faithfully Alastair McIntosh *****
Letter to the Sunday Herald, published 23 July 2000, p. 8, as "Harris can be special."
Dear Sir If
the proposal to make Harris a European designated Special Area of Conservation
goes ahead, it is imperative that local people are in control of the process and
draw longterm economic benefit from it. Scottish
Natural Heritage have not, in the past, had a good press in crofting
communities. Too often there has been a culture clash with an old-guard British
establishment that perhaps understood nature conservation but failed miserably
to understand social development. However, that is now changing within SNH… On
Eigg it is being abundantly demonstrated that local people will pull towards the
restoration of both social and the natural environments when they are empowered
so to do. As one long-term unemployed Eigg resident said recently when he went
to sign off the dole after 19 years, "Ahh, the scourge of full employment
has returned to Eigg!" Understanding
conservation as being about both people and environment is the way forward for
Harris. Just as a "Quarry Benefit Group" was formed by the Harris
Council for Social Services to ensure maximum advantage if the quarry was
to have gone ahead, so there is now a need for a something like a
"Conservation Benefit Group" to ensure true sustainable development on
Harris - that is, development sustaining of both a peoples and their place. If
this can be achieved, the pattern and example that Harris sets will be not just
for Scotland, but a light to the world. Alastair McIntosh *****
Published in The Scotsman on Monday 17 July as the lead letter under the heading, “Big majority voted against superquarry scheme” (p. 15). The first paragraph had the mention of share prices edited out of it. Also, an ambiguity in my wording was compounded by editing cuts, thus the clarification letter that follows. Note that my original missed out the two words shown below in square brackets, which had the effect of understating my case. My mind was blitzed that day with the news having just broken ... OK ... not good enough! Clicking the hyperlink in this letter will take you to full details of the Hiroshima calculation to demonstrate that it is a valid point.
13
July 2000 Letters
to the Editor The
Scotsman Dear
Sir On
9th September 1992 this newspaper launched the first major
investigation of the proposed Harris superquarry scheme. Within a day of
publication, perhaps by sheer coincidence, £160 million had been knocked off
the market value of Redland Aggregates’ shares. This
was the start of what many Harris residents now describe as a “gradual process
of education.” The proposed quarry was to be 50 times larger than existing
large British quarries. It would leave an opencast scar 6 times the height of
the White Cliffs of Dover. And the 36 tonnes of explosive [per week] it would use
over 60 years would be equivalent to dropping on Harris the
equivalent of 6 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs. Little wonder, therefore, that
in 1995, with arguments both for and against fresh in their minds, fully 83% of
the Harris population voted in an independently organised secret ballot against
the quarry and did so by a margin of 68%. Environment
minister Sarah Boyack has, as you report (July 13), been “blasted”” for her decision to refer Harris for consideration as a
European Special Area of Conservation – a designation that would scupper the
quarry. However, had she not done this the matter might have gone to judicial
review and taken even longer to determine. The
1998 draft enquiry report concludes that Harris would benefit by only 33 direct
and 10 indirect jobs (13:279). Already, more jobs than this are about to be
created by Harris’ new fish processing factory, which had to conduct a survey
to ensure that 40-80 suitable employees could be found. The
inquiry report confirms that the proposed development would have had, “a very
disruptive effect on the character of the area affecting local residents [by
introducing] a form of industrial activity incompatible with an area of scenic
beauty [and] the underlying objectives of the National Scenic Area” (14:296e).
That is why, far from being “dithering,” Miss Boyack’s move may be
astutely intelligent. Golden Eagles nest just 400 metres from the proposed
quarry site. May they remain as icons of conservation that integrates the beauty
of place with the wellbeing of its people. Yours
sincerely Alastair
McIntosh Correction to published version of the above, appeared in The Scotsman 18 July 2000 under heading, "Quarry."
Letters
to the Editor The
Scotsman 17
July 2000 Dear Sir My
apologies - an ambiguity in my letter published July 17 was understandably
compounded by your editing process. May I clarify that it was not 83% of the
people of Harris who voted against the superquarry in 1995. Rather, it was 68%
against, on an astoundingly high 83% participation rate. Yours
faithfully Alastair
McIntosh *****
13
July 2000 Letters
to the Editor The
Herald Dear
Sir Far
from dithering, Sarah Boyack may have played a highly intelligent card in asking
that Harris be designated a European Special Area of Conservation. She may
therefore have good reason for being, as you report, “angered at being held
responsible for this further delay” (July 12). Here
is a minister who inherited a nightmare from the regime in place before we got
our own Parliament. Informed sources suggest that the 1998-99 inquiry
reporter’s draft report contains deficiencies that could have left the
Scottish Executive open to judicial review whichever way it decided on the
matter. Had Miss Boyack come down decisively one way or another the decision
might not have stuck. The agonising wait for Harris would have been even longer. One
of the key areas weaknesses in the draft 1998 report is section 15:134, which
blandly states, “On the basis of the evidence at the inquiry, it is not clear
whether Roineabhal warrants Special Area of Conservation status.” And yet, the
mountain is a breeding ground for Golden Plover, protected otters inhabit the
foreshore, and Golden Eagles nest just 400 metres from the quarry boundary. Miss
Pain, the inquiry reporter, makes a “finding of fact” that “it would be
many years before the upper edge of the workings reached the slopes closest to
the eyrie.” Astonishingly she concludes, “I find no conclusive evidence that
the pair of Golden Eagles concerned would necessarily abandon the nesting
sites,” therefore, “I do not find these to be considerations which should be
given a great deal of weight in the overall assessment of the application”
(19:100-6). One wonders whether, in so concluding, Miss Pain found herself
persuaded by the argument of Redland Aggregates that, since a pair of Peregrine
Falcons had been undisturbed by one of their Welsh quarries, Scottish eagles
which are “just as sensitive to disturbance” would be similarly
accommodating(19:1)! To
her credit, Miss Pain did find that whilst the quarry would probably only create
33 direct and 10 indirect jobs for Harris people out of an overall conservative
estimate of 110 jobs if full production were ever reached (13:279-80), this
“very substantial benefit to the local economy” would “have a very
disruptive effect on the character of the area affecting local residents [by
introducing] a form of industrial activity incompatible with an area of scenic
beauty.” She adds: “The inevitable scale and characteristics in terms of
industrialisation of the superquarry will be so significant that the underlying
objectives of the National Scenic Area in terms of scenic beauty and the
landscape characteristics will be materially affected by virtue of the change
from a small scale landscape of detailed variety to a large scale industrial
area… I find that the impact cannot be described as minimal – on the
contrary, it would be locally severe.” Miss
Pain may have been powerless, within the strictures of old-guard British
planning law, to give due weight to such considerations. Hopefully, strengthened
by Europe’s and the Scottish Parliament’s evolving commitment to development
that sustains both people and the environment, Miss Boyack is now in a position
to do better. Scotland
needs to hold on to its remaining natural beauty. The human cultural wealth for
which we are famous is rooted in this, and that is the true wealth of Harris -
the real meaning of “conservation.” Without beauty, our nation would
haemorrhage vision. We would become a mere doormat for passing multinational
corporations. That is not what our Scottish Parliament stands for. Yours
sincerely Alastair
McIntosh
Published in The Herald, 12-7-00, p. 18 under heading, "Does Crown Office not want justice to be seen?"
11 July 2000
Letters
to the Editor The
Herald Dear
Sir What
is going on in Scottish justice? You report that the Scottish Criminal Cases
Review Commission uniquely has to take the Crown Office to the High Court in an
effort to force release of documents relevant to the “Glasgow Two” (Plea to
release Ice Cream Wars files, July11)? Does
the Crown Office not want justice to be seen to be done?
What interests can be served by concealing possibly vital information
while two men, who have protested their innocence for 16 years, fester in jail? So
far the only senior politician to have advanced their case was a former Scottish
Secretary who entertained sufficient doubt as to let them out in 1997 on remand
for a year. Do we need to bring back Michael Forsyth for justice in Scotland? Silence
is the voice of complicity. It should have no place except in the explicit
public interest in an open society. The longer that gatekeepers to the corridors
of power furtively block access to the full facts, the more the evidence stacks
in favour of Tommy “TC” Campbell’s chilling assertion: namely, that
“This is not a miscarriage of justice, but a conspiracy to pervert the course
of justice.” Yours
faithfully Alastair McIntosh
*****
Published in The Herald, Glasgow, 6-6-00, p. 16 as “The most credible Harris quarry ballot." No reply has appeared refuting these points. 5 June 2000
Dear
Sir In
1995, 68% of the people of Harris voted against the proposed and manifestly
opposed superquarry. This was a secret postal ballot, organised by the
independent Electoral Reform Society. It took place immediately following the
public inquiry when all arguments – both for and against - were still fresh in
people’s minds. A phenomenal 83% of eligible residents voted. Such a turnout
reflected the sense that a decisive statement was being made about the
island’s future. This
ballot therefore holds a credibility that has been replicated by neither of the
two subsequent polls which, presumably, inform the remark in your June 3 leader
that the community, “has been in favour, then against, and now, apparently,
supports the project again”. One
of these subsequent polls was commissioned by a TV company and based upon a
telephone sample. It was therefore hardly comprehensive and would certainly, by
local standards, have been deficient in both authority and anonymity. The other
was mailed out by the so-called Coastal Quarry Local Supporters’ Network.
As the Stornoway
Gazette revealed on 10 and 17 April 1997, this group received expenses from
the corporation, including the costs of mailshots to the people of Harris. A
leaked fax suggested that the corporation also undertook the legal work setting
the Network up and even came up with its name! Redland director, Mr John Leivers
admitted to the Gazette that, “The company will continue to meet
other reasonable expenses where appropriate and when requested to do so by the
Network.” Little wonder that a West Highland Free Press
cartoon later quipped that Redland Lafarge would carry on organising polls
“until it got the result it wanted”! Recent
reports in the Highland press state that, because of the BBC Castaways
series, tourism companies are now taking an unprecedented interest in Harris.
More immediately, a new fish processing factory is expected to employ 80 people
when it opens later this year. This is similar to the level of locally-sourced
direct employment that the quarry would have provided; indeed, it is of such
scale that a survey had to be conducted to ensure that sufficient local staff
could be found. Such
developments show that the fortunes of Harris have the potential to revive
without dropping the equivalent of six Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs on a
National Scenic Area. But as most corporate PR consultants are well aware, the
best way to wear down local opposition is simply to wait until campaigning
resources, sense of scale, memory of gaffes and hope has corroded away. Because
of this, any further delay cannot be viewed as politically neutral. Good
governance requires that the Scottish Executive acts promptly. Failure so to do
will, as your leader suggests, make the distinction between industrial blight
and planning blight only a matter of degree. Yours
faithfully Alastair McIntosh
*****
Published in The Herald, 1-6-00, p. 18.
Centre
for Human Ecology 12
Roseneath Place Edinburgh 31
May 2000 Letters
to the Editor The
Herald Dear
Sir Mary
Rolls challenges the Rev Ron Ferguson’s biblical knowledge, maintaining “the
sole reference to usury in the New Testament is Jesus’ use of the parable of
the talents” (Usury, homosexuality and erroneous columnists, Letters, May 22).
She
is in error. Luke 6:34-35 (NRSV) has Jesus saying, “If you lend to those from
whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to
sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend,
expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children
of the Most High…” Most
major world religions have, at formative times in their history, condemned the
lending of money for interest. An academic study of this may be found in my
paper, A Short Review of the Historical Critique of Usury, written with
Wayne Visser of KPMG South Africa in issue 8:2 of Accounting, Business and
Financial History, Routledge, July 1998. Usury corrupts social relationships
because it changes money from being a simple accounting system of mutual rights
and obligations to a self-perpetuating mechanism that makes money out of money
itself. In
contemporary thought, only Islamic economics adequately appreciates the idolatry
intrinsic to this. However, Keynes had some inkling of the problem. His
biographer, Lord Skidelsky, remarks upon, “Keynses’s sense that, at some
level too deep to be captured by mathematics, ‘love of money’ as an end, not
a means, is at the root of the world’s economic problem” (1992, p. 454). Yours
faithfully Alastair McIntosh Fellow
of the Centre for Human Ecology
***** Published in The Herald, 4-5-00, p. 18 under heading, "If it's a taboo subject at school."
3 May 2000
Letters
to the Editor The
Herald Dear
Sir My
18-year old daughter, Catriona (heterosexual, I am given to understand), has
just written to me from abroad about the “Section 28” debate. I believe
that, based upon her first-hand observation, she would warmly endorse your
leader today maintaining that it is the existing legislation that warps
children’s minds and is “deliberately discriminatory.” I think she would
feel that it is not the place for schools to “promote” sexuality of any
kind, but they should certainly educate openly and honestly about it, and
the Scottish Executive is courageous in the principled stance that it is taking.
I know that she would be happy for me to quote from her letter as follows: “I wish that they would hurry up and get rid of Clause 28. I remember in school that because of it, our teacher wasn’t allowed to answer children’s questions on gays. It was not allowed to be discussed. It also reminds me of the problems that my gay friend had at school. One time we were having lunch and a bunch of boys ran in and bombarded him with gritty ice balls. He dropped out of school not long after. How many fears would be reduced if it could be discussed! What sort of impression do children get if it is presented as a taboo subject in school? Oooh ... what a nasty piece of work Clause 28 is!” Yours faithfully
Alastair McIntosh
Published in The Herald, 17-4-00, p. 14 under the heading, "A good biblical prophet uses satire, ridicule, and irony."
15 April 2000
Letters
to the Editor The
Herald Dear
Sir I
am neither gay nor lesbian, but I sometimes use the Bible in your columns and as
a Quaker and a sinner, I want to be able to carry on doing so without feeling
tarred with the homophobic brush of an unreformed Judaism, Paulianity or even
Churchianity. I therefore wish to defend Ron Ferguson’s “Stone a Poof for
Jesus” satire given today’s letters of attack. Far
from ridiculing the Bible, the Rev. Ferguson follows in a tradition that Jesus
himself established where he pushed sanctimonious upholders of religious law to
the point where their strictures strangulated in the vacuum of their own
hypocrisy. For
example, in Matthew 5 Jesus affirms the law’s teaching about adultery. But he
then adds the impossibly stringent injunction that even to look on a woman
lustfully is to commit adultery in the heart. This makes sexual sinners of
nearly all of us except, perhaps, gays who might lack the interest. Little
wonder that in John 8 there was nobody left to cast the first stone. In
Luke 7 Jesus allows a “fallen” woman sensually to wash, kiss and massage his
feet. Legally this would have rendered him ritually unclean, which is why the
guardians of religious probity speculated that he was a false prophet. But this
wonderful man dismissed them with the words: “Her sins, which are many, are
forgiven; for she loveth much.” Christ
said much about Mammon that might apply to those who have disproportionate
resources with which to fund the perversion of democracy, but nothing about
homosexuality. The “law” that he advanced was a new covenant, written not as
an objective code on heartless tablets of stone – cold, rigid and cruel as we
can see, for example, in parts of Deuteronomy 20-25 – but etched on the human
heart – living, flexible and compassionate. As such Jesus taught not a moral
code, but love. His use of scripture was, like ours must be, selective, but
always consistent with the maxim of 1 John 4 that “God is love.” Before
deciding whether to condemn a homosexual couple, Jesus would probably have made
a point of getting to know their lives from the inside out. That is what
spiritual discernment requires. If we are to be any better than the reactionary
neighbour in American Beauty we might follow suit. I believe this is
called Christianity. Yours faithfully
Alastair
McIntosh
***** Published in The Herald, 4-4-00, p. 18, under heading, "Public interest in feudal land." For full exploration of these arguments see Carbeth Hutters paper. See also letters below of 8th and 30th November 1999, and of 23 October on the constitutional status of foxhunting.
3
April 2000
The
Herald Dear
Sir It
is instructive to juxtapose your leader today about the Cuillins (MacLeods
should prove ownership) with last weeks report from the Scottish Crofters’
Union conference (£10.8m Land Fund may be used for crofters’ purchase, April
1). Was this an April Fool’s joke, or is Rural Affairs Minister Ross Finnie
missing the point that there is actually no need to compensate crofting
landowners under existing Scots law? All
that is required to return croft land to the communities from whence it
originally came is a slight amendment to the 1976 act that already gives
individual crofters the right to buy for 15 times their annual rental. This act
has widely been considered a failure. It requires that a crofter
“privatises” his or her place in the community, thereby going against the
deep instinct that land ought not be “owned.” It also means that the crofter
loses certain rights. However, if the 1976 act were to be amended so that
existing crofting rights were retained, and if the crofting community were to be
allowed to act in concert by taking control on a community-wide trust basis –
such as in Eigg, Assynt or Stornoway – then the property loss implications for
landlords would be no different than if everybody simply decided simultaneously
to exercise their rights under the 1976 act. Pushing
this argument deeper, in various letters last year (e.g. Rights that the lairds
may not have, October 22) I pointed out that perhaps the only good thing about
our existing feudal law is that, within its legal theory, God owns the land, the
Crown delegates land on behalf of God to the people as the “Community of the
Realm,” and therefore in principle, land ought to be used in accordance with
the social and ecological justice that God wants. So far, not one landowner,
lawyer or constitutionalist has had a letter published in your newspaper
refuting these arguments. The Scottish Landowners’ Federation have been
outspoken in their silence. The
Cuillins sale, however, places such arguments centrestage because it will
require that goodness of title is explored right to its medieval roots. As
Professor Donald MacLeod said in the West Highland Free Press last week,
“Some even argue that the divine claim is not merely a matter of
technicalities of feudal land tenure, but a matter of natural justice. They
point out that God actually made the Cuillins and that that gives him all the
usual proprietorial rights of an artist... To buy them would be [to] purchase
stolen goods.” Neither
is this argument confined to theologians and land reformers. In non-theological
language what it means is that there is a public interest, expressed through the
Crown, in all feudal Scots land. On 15 December last year Counsel’s opinion on
this in relation to the present feudal reform bill was expressed by Sir Crispin
Agnew of Lochnaw Bt, QC, acting for Scottish Environment Link. He
opined, “The present bill … would appear to have the effect of severing all
connection between the land and any other rights, privileges, benefits of or
derived the [Crown’s] paramount superiority…
If the courts held that the Act had lost appropriate rights, then they
could only be reintroduced at the risk of having to pay compensation.” Ross
Finnie’s talk of compensating crofting landowners is not only worth of a
rethink in the light of the 1976 act; it is also premature until the full
interests of the Scottish people in the land of this nation have been examined
with more rigour than our civil servants have so-far accorded it. May the
Cuillins debate to advance us in this matter, may the Parliamentary committee
handling feudal reform take careful note, and may Scotland’s finest legal
brains not miss the opportunity. Yours
faithfully Alastair
McIntosh
[Retrospective p.s. ... well folks, actually, they did miss it. SNP attempts to get some of these points taken seriously were dismissed as irrelevant by the Executive's Jim Wallace during the passage of the feudal reform bill in May 2000.]</ |