Forestry reorganisation puts landscape at risk ... and other Sunday Herald letters

CONSIDERABLE concern has been expressed by foresters and those who manage the countryside over the recent forestry bill (Scots woodlands under threat ... from the Forestry Commission, Environment, November 26). This bill removes functions from the Forestry Commission in Scotland and transfers them to a new Government department and a new land management agency.

The Forestry Commission over nearly 100 years has demonstrated its ability to create a forestry industry in Scotland as well as planting trees in the countryside and providing facilities for public enjoyment. Not to recognise this along with the forestry expertise which has been developed over the years gives serious concern for the future of forestry in Scotland.

Dr Jean Balfour

Former Chairman Countryside Commission for Scotland

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that ministers should listen to criticism on the planned reorganisation of the Forestry Commission (Let’s treasure our ancient forests, Sunday Herald View, November 26). The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill transfers all the Forestry Commissioners’ functions to Scottish ministers, leaving the Scottish Government to decide how to exercise those functions. The Government plans to split those functions between a new Government division and a new land management agency.

However, most respondents to last year’s consultation on the future of forestry in Scotland disagreed with this approach. As Rob Edwards points out, “FCS has won admiration for its multi-purpose forestry aimed at enhancing wildlife, amenity and other public benefits as well as growing conifers to sell”. This has required hard work by dedicated professional staff working closely with the private sector and environmental organisations. The result is a forest sector worth £1bn to the Scottish economy; extensive opportunities for outdoor recreation in woods and forests; major environmental programmes such as large-scale native woodland restoration; and imaginative new policies.

The Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee has also noted “wide-ranging concerns” about the proposal, including fears that professional expertise within the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) will be lost if the proposed split goes ahead.

The Forestry Bill itself says nothing about splitting FCS, and it will be within ministers’ powers to retain an integrated forestry body. This would make it possible to build on the strengths of FCS, avoid unnecessary costs of change, and improve accountability by appointing an agency board with non-executives from the private and third sectors to ensure a sensible balance is struck in seeking economic, social and environmental outcomes from Scottish forestry.

David Henderson-Howat

Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Foresters

HYPOCRISY CHARGE DOESN'T STICK

“THE Scottish Tories have been accused of ‘shameless’ hypocrisy over their support for the environment after a senior MP benefited from a donation from a climate change sceptic” (Hypocrisy row: Tories in hot water over donation from climate sceptic, Politics, November 26). As chairman of the local association that accepted the donation, might I be allowed to comment? The donor didn’t ask for the association’s views on climate change before sending the donation, or make it a condition of his donation that the association declare support for whatever view he holds on this matter.

How then has the association acted hypocritically? An individual sent the association a donation, presumably because he supports our position across a range of issues. Does it necessarily follow that association and donor must agree on every single issue? The association has neither given, nor been asked for, any such undertaking. Should an association only accept a donation from a donor when they agree on every single issue? Mightn’t it be possible for association and donor to agree on some matters and disagree on others without either being hypocritical?

I’m an active member of several ornithological organisations, some of which may hold different views on climate change to those espoused by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The logic of your article would dictate that I would agree with their views; yet, as chairman of an association that shares a donor with the GWPF, by that same logic, I should also presumably agree with the GWPF’s views. How can I live with myself? Or might I agree with an organisation on one issue but not on another, just as the association that I chair might agree with a donor on certain matters but not on others?

Neil Stratton, Chairman

Scottish Borders Conservative & Unionist Association

RETAILERS MUST SHOW MORAL COURAGE

Who loves asylum-seekers and migrants? Certainly not the Daily Mail when a 2015 headline screamed: “Free hotels for the Calais stowaways in soft-touch Britain.” Or the Daily Express, which indignantly cried out: “Send in army to halt migrant invasion.” The Sun let its columnist Katie Hopkins say to readers: “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants!”

So where does that leave John Lewis when it rejects the recent call by 38 degrees to stop paying for advertising space in such hate-mongering papers (Power to the people ... or mob rule, The Big Read, November 26)? Is it really good enough to justify its stance by saying: “Withdrawing advertising on the basis of editorial coverage would be inconsistent with our democratic principles, which include freedom of speech and remaining apolitical?"

The fact is that while John Lewis continues to buy advertising space in the Mail, Express or Sun it is complicit in their hate-mongering. Although it may well deserve a high reputation for the standard of its wares, that shouldn’t be allowed to hide the fact that where asylum seekers’ and migrants’ wellbeing is concerned the standard of its ethics leaves a lot to be desired. It’s time this major UK retailer showed some moral courage and heeded the call by 38 degrees.

Korstiaan Allan

Edinburgh

INSTEAD OF GIVING, TRY NOT TAKING

VAL Burns relates witnessing a woman leaving sandwiches for a sleeping man on the pavement and wonders why she had done it, given that he was oblivious to her act of generosity (Does true altruism exist, or do we only give to others to feel better about ourselves, Comment, November 26). It is likely that this was, indeed, a genuine act of kindness and is commendable. The national campaign, Giving Tuesday, is also well-meaning, but there is an even better way of “giving” and doing so 365 days of the year, which is by simply not taking.

The animal-based diet contributes towards the reasons people are starving. Foods that starving people in the “Third World”, could eat direct are imported by countries in the supposedly civilised West, including the UK, to fatten up “food animals” for supposedly civilised people to eat.

People don’t become vegetarian and vegan to feel good about themselves but if, as a consequence, they feel better, knowing they’re not contributing to animal suffering, that’s no bad thing. The method of giving that we can all do is, therefore, to stop taking foods from the starving.

Sandra Busell

Edinburgh

Some 55 years ago, the greatly lamented David Maxwell Walker, Glasgow University law professor, inscribed a glossation on my examination paper on Scottish Burgh Charters. I had used the word “boroughs” (Rotten boroughs: the scandal of sexual harassment in Scottish councils, News, November 26). Of all the words the great man addressed me over the years of my ungraduation, these stand above all others: “Cannot you even spell?” With kind thoughts to a great newspaper, I pass my Professor’s wisdom to your team

KM Campbell, Doune

Editor’s note: We remain convinced that the popular idiom is correctly spelt “rotten boroughs”. What do other readers think?