Does Scotland not have an equivalent of the Agricultural Land Classification scheme used in England and Wales, which brings a strong presumption against non-agricultural use for good to excellent (Grade 1-3a) land?
Or is the Carse, in fact, only moderate grade ("capable of producing moderate yields of a narrow range of crops or lower yields of a wider range of crops, or high yields of grass") or below?
I actually walked around 3 sides of the Cleve Hill site mentioned in the article a few weeks ago. The land there was also moderate grade - drained salt marsh, previously used for grass and grazing - and, if anything, the solar park helps form a protective barrier between the nature reserves towards the coast and the much more intrusive greenhouses and water treatment works further inland. It certainly didn't feel any less remote than the area did when I was last there a decade ago.
Given this is the same guy who wrote an article about "Why Ed Miliband is the most dangerous British politician" because he's opposed to Net-Zero this seems likely just another old person radicalised by decades of propaganda rather than factual reporting on the issue.
EDIT: As reader mode gives me access to the full text of both articles, I see my guess was correct and they are often unintentionally hilarious.
The big danger of solar farms being sheepdogs running into the support poles! How did they ever cope with fences?
Quote: 'Scotland is a wee country with only 15% of its land capable of growing arable crops. Our land is too strategically precious to be covered in solar panels'
(ALL of the UK's projected solar PV generation needs could be fitted into existing gold courses with plenty left over, AFAIK. I do not know if that holds for Scotland by itself, but there was no shortage of golfing close to where I used to live...)
Depends on the golf course but traditional links courses tend to be on sandy soil which isn't easy to cultivate either. They can easily be converted into farmland (and vice versa) in many cases since they do not have much built on them. (The UK as a whole varies a lot. Most of Scotland (and Wales) was never arable but most of England is– at least its south–because it's much flatter. In England, golf tends to be played by a narrower band of the population than Scotland too.)
I have mixed feelings about golf. I have never been able to play myself, but it keeps a lot of people happy, so I see it as an intangible like libraries or public parks. Golf courses are a lot easier on the eye than some alternatives, and function as green lungs in cities, and open spaces where people can exercise. One of my local golf courses has a healthy population of badgers and another has deer on it, so I don't see them as completely destructive. But like I say, it is not my thing, so on that level I feel shut out of it.
I think the main threat to arable land in Scotland right now is actually housing. We tend to build on the best land here, especially in areas such as East Lothian or the lower Clyde. We have miles of bland suburbia now. What some people have termed "slums of the mind".
Golf courses are a nice spot for frogs apparently! According to a frog-interested person i met.
We have a golf course that is located very close to the city centre (when it was built it was on the outskirts etc.). And it is from time to time the subject of debate i.e. we should build houses there instead..
At the same time we have footballfields, a huge graveyard, parks etc. that doesn't get the same "scrutiny".
The golf course is used for crosscountry skiiing in the winter, provides a buffer towards a major road etc. And of course there are a couple of thousand members that use it for golf and the green-fee visitors etc.
I dont play golf but i often get a sense of "only the rich uses it" which... Well rings a bit hollow!
Does Scotland not have an equivalent of the Agricultural Land Classification scheme used in England and Wales, which brings a strong presumption against non-agricultural use for good to excellent (Grade 1-3a) land?
Or is the Carse, in fact, only moderate grade ("capable of producing moderate yields of a narrow range of crops or lower yields of a wider range of crops, or high yields of grass") or below?
I actually walked around 3 sides of the Cleve Hill site mentioned in the article a few weeks ago. The land there was also moderate grade - drained salt marsh, previously used for grass and grazing - and, if anything, the solar park helps form a protective barrier between the nature reserves towards the coast and the much more intrusive greenhouses and water treatment works further inland. It certainly didn't feel any less remote than the area did when I was last there a decade ago.
Given this is the same guy who wrote an article about "Why Ed Miliband is the most dangerous British politician" because he's opposed to Net-Zero this seems likely just another old person radicalised by decades of propaganda rather than factual reporting on the issue.
EDIT: As reader mode gives me access to the full text of both articles, I see my guess was correct and they are often unintentionally hilarious.
The big danger of solar farms being sheepdogs running into the support poles! How did they ever cope with fences?
Quote: 'Scotland is a wee country with only 15% of its land capable of growing arable crops. Our land is too strategically precious to be covered in solar panels'
But golf clubs are apparently OK.
(ALL of the UK's projected solar PV generation needs could be fitted into existing gold courses with plenty left over, AFAIK. I do not know if that holds for Scotland by itself, but there was no shortage of golfing close to where I used to live...)
Depends on the golf course but traditional links courses tend to be on sandy soil which isn't easy to cultivate either. They can easily be converted into farmland (and vice versa) in many cases since they do not have much built on them. (The UK as a whole varies a lot. Most of Scotland (and Wales) was never arable but most of England is– at least its south–because it's much flatter. In England, golf tends to be played by a narrower band of the population than Scotland too.)
I have mixed feelings about golf. I have never been able to play myself, but it keeps a lot of people happy, so I see it as an intangible like libraries or public parks. Golf courses are a lot easier on the eye than some alternatives, and function as green lungs in cities, and open spaces where people can exercise. One of my local golf courses has a healthy population of badgers and another has deer on it, so I don't see them as completely destructive. But like I say, it is not my thing, so on that level I feel shut out of it.
I think the main threat to arable land in Scotland right now is actually housing. We tend to build on the best land here, especially in areas such as East Lothian or the lower Clyde. We have miles of bland suburbia now. What some people have termed "slums of the mind".
Golf courses are a nice spot for frogs apparently! According to a frog-interested person i met.
We have a golf course that is located very close to the city centre (when it was built it was on the outskirts etc.). And it is from time to time the subject of debate i.e. we should build houses there instead..
At the same time we have footballfields, a huge graveyard, parks etc. that doesn't get the same "scrutiny".
The golf course is used for crosscountry skiiing in the winter, provides a buffer towards a major road etc. And of course there are a couple of thousand members that use it for golf and the green-fee visitors etc.
I dont play golf but i often get a sense of "only the rich uses it" which... Well rings a bit hollow!