Another group member said:
What sane person
would argue that at least this is a start to cleaner air. Whilst
appreciating the fact that there is a long long way to improve, lets at
least try.
The best and most effective way to do this is to tackle the cause rather
than symptoms. That means use less power. A comprehensive upgrading of
UK buildings' insulation would probably save far more power than
windfarms produce and leave no wild land covered in towers.
Quoted message said:The Editor gives impresion that he owns Scotland-well bully for
him. Does he know we all have access now?
Yes, we all do have access, and that includes those of us that don't
particularly want large windfarms on onshore sites because there are (a)
better places to put them (i.e., offshore) and better ways to approach
the problem (i.e., better energy efficiency).
Cameron McNeish probably does have issues with the way a very
significant amount of Scottish land is in the hands of very few
individuals (some of whom don't even live here) who consequently
exercise an unrepresentative degree of control over it. They are far
more of an issue over what is done with what should be *our* land, but
one you appear to have missed. Access to it does not give any of us any
say over what is done with it.
Quoted message said:In my opinion I think Scotland is
great but a long way from where I live (approx 650) and so I want more about
elsewhere in the UK-yes home.
It is where I live, as a matter of fact.
Quoted message said:Building homes for people is a priority in
this country, does the Editor not realize Windfarms are a very minor problem
to 'his' land? Houses in their thousands would be built on all that
wasteland up north if a power in being gets to find out about it!
This shows a great deal of ignorance, not to mention rather odd syntax.
Scotland is actually /losing/ population at the moment, so there's no
point in building homes in the wild as people aren't there to move into
them, and if they did they'd have no means of earning a living.
Quoted message said:not? It is after all simply wasted land. Why does TGOs Editor shirk his
responsibility as a spoiled inmate of the UK by telling all that no person
other than the tiny minority that read TGO that the land is for them? What
would incomers feel about that when half the population of Glasgow live in
what can only be called slums?
Have you told them that? Have you visited recently? Do you really think
they'd prefer to live on a windswept hill miles from the city they call
home?
Quoted message said:TGO in my opinion should get of its lefty
bandwagon by removing a spoilt Editor for one who would write for what
readers want, and that is Outdoor equipment, Tents etc and a certain ammount
of travel stories but less of Scotlands barren lands.
I cannot understand why you are characterising any of this as left wing.
It isn't from any particular political compass point, just a
realisation that wild land doesn't look after itself and requires
proactive measures from people that care about it.
The magazine is called "The Great Outdoors". Its title is a celebration
of the greatness of (relatively) wild areas. Scotland my be a barren
wasteland to you, but to many people who appreciate the great outdoors
(note lack of capitalisation there) then Scotland is a part of the UK
that is particularly worth celebrating and investing time and effort in
preserving as wild.
I'm a terminally sad gear junkie and like to investigate All The Latest
Gear, but the fact is that without wild places to take it then it's
*worthless*. If you like to go to nice places then it makes sense to do
something positive to keep them nice, and I salute Cameron McNeish for
his commitment to doing that and raising awareness of the fact.
Quoted message said:Politics are not needed in outdoor magazines.
Trail is now my best read including its errors!
It isn't /needed/, as Trail demonstrates. However, if you're happy with
Trail then it's daft to try and turn everything else into the same
thing. Outdoor magazines may not *require* politics but the outdoors
/does/ involve politics, and if you think otherwise you're extremely
naive. Any magazine that calls itself "The Great Outdoors" is quite
reasonable in embracing elements of the outdoors that clearly affect the
arena, even if you aren't interested in keeping these places special.
Quoted message said:Please note before shouting that the above is my personal opinion and may
not be yours.
It certainly isn't mine, but if you're allowed to shout at Mr. McNeish
then I'm allowed to shout back because I think he's doing a good thing.
Please try and think how great the outdoors would be today if it
wasn't for proactive political commitment to save wild land as
exemplified in the efforts of John Muir before you sit back to read
about tent fabrics divorced from the political realities of the places
such things are used. "Do something for wildness and make the mountains
glad" is the John Muir quote that fronts Cameron McNeish's web site. If
you don't do something for wildness except just passively appreciate it
then ultimately there won't be any left to appreciate. Your loss as
well as mine.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
