The Scottish Politics Thread

[weegie01]

I know of two people that have had wood burners installed, effectively as a feature, and had absolutely no idea about the cost of wood and the issue storing it. They are barely ever used.

Apologies re spelling in my previous post. I meant to say rewilding policies. Scotland is per capita the second highest user of wood in the world behind China and unless we look at producing more usable wood of our own, the financial and environmental cost of importing what we need will be astronomical.

Are we really? How do we use so much - is it burning for fuel?

I'd be interested to know as well, but Drax on its own imports more than the entire UK timber crop.

[Blackmac]

I know of two people that have had wood burners installed, effectively as a feature, and had absolutely no idea about the cost of wood and the issue storing it. They are barely ever used.

Apologies re spelling in my previous post. I meant to say rewilding policies. Scotland is per capita the second highest user of wood in the world behind China and unless we look at producing more usable wood of our own, the financial and environmental cost of importing what we need will be astronomical.

Are we really? How do we use so much - is it burning for fuel?

I'd be interested to know as well, but Drax on its own imports more than the entire UK timber crop.

One of my gardening customers is a retired forestry economist and apparently still a leading world expert in that field. He co-authored a paper with another expert to submit to one of the Scottish Government committees trying to warn them of the future issues we face if they don't alter their policies in respect of forestry rewilding. The vast majority of our timber is imported and that is increasing as our own stocks dwindle and aren't restored. At the same time a lot of the main exporting countries are cutting back on exports due to environmental concerns. Unless we starting rebuilding our own timber resources he reckons we will have a disaster in about 2 to 3 decades.

[Blackmac]

I know of two people that have had wood burners installed, effectively as a feature, and had absolutely no idea about the cost of wood and the issue storing it. They are barely ever used.

Apologies re spelling in my previous post. I meant to say rewilding policies. Scotland is per capita the second highest user of wood in the world behind China and unless we look at producing more usable wood of our own, the financial and environmental cost of importing what we need will be astronomical.

Are we really? How do we use so much - is it burning for fuel?

It surprised me as well. All of our houses are timber framed and bizarrely we build a ridiculous amount of timber fencing and other structures, whereas other countries have moved on to composite materials a lot quicker.

[Dogbert]

Are we really? How do we use so much - is it burning for fuel?

I'd be interested to know as well, but Drax on its own imports more than the entire UK timber crop.

One of my gardening customers is a retired forestry economist and apparently still a leading world expert in that field. He co-authored a paper with another expert to submit to one of the Scottish Government committees trying to warn them of the future issues we face if they don't alter their policies in respect of forestry rewilding. The vast majority of our timber is imported and that is increasing as our own stocks dwindle and aren't restored. At the same time a lot of the main exporting countries are cutting back on exports due to environmental concerns. Unless we starting rebuilding our own timber resources he reckons we will have a disaster in about 2 to 3 decades.

And yet in Scotland we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in new Forest Planting in Scotland

Scottish Planting 2013-2023 91.05 Thousand Ha
Scottish Planting 2002-2012 63.25 Thousand Ha

Now most of this is driven by between 2013 and 2023 by private sector rather than FLS
( just as a comparison England planting fell from around 40 Thousand Ha in 2002 to 2012 to 23 Thousand Ha between 2013 to 2023

Looking at restocking between the same period.

Scottish Restocking 2013-2023 98.55 Thousand Ha
Scottish Restocking 2002-2012 93.46 Thousand Ha

However this is driven much more by FLS compared to private.

Its fine to say you want more trees to be planted - but you need the land and the commitment , and that can largely be outwith government control.

Looking at the economics in Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390m over the last decade, with roughly 80% of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.

Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100% inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.

Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.

These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73% in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.

How much more public money do you want to spend to persuade landowners to plant more trees?

[Slick]

I'd be interested to know as well, but Drax on its own imports more than the entire UK timber crop.

One of my gardening customers is a retired forestry economist and apparently still a leading world expert in that field. He co-authored a paper with another expert to submit to one of the Scottish Government committees trying to warn them of the future issues we face if they don't alter their policies in respect of forestry rewilding. The vast majority of our timber is imported and that is increasing as our own stocks dwindle and aren't restored. At the same time a lot of the main exporting countries are cutting back on exports due to environmental concerns. Unless we starting rebuilding our own timber resources he reckons we will have a disaster in about 2 to 3 decades.

And yet in Scotland we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in new Forest Planting in Scotland

Scottish Planting 2013-2023 91.05 Thousand Ha
Scottish Planting 2002-2012 63.25 Thousand Ha

Now most of this is driven by between 2013 and 2023 by private sector rather than FLS
( just as a comparison England planting fell from around 40 Thousand Ha in 2002 to 2012 to 23 Thousand Ha between 2013 to 2023

Looking at restocking between the same period.

Scottish Restocking 2013-2023 98.55 Thousand Ha
Scottish Restocking 2002-2012 93.46 Thousand Ha

However this is driven much more by FLS compared to private.

Its fine to say you want more trees to be planted - but you need the land and the commitment , and that can largely be outwith government control.

Looking at the economics in Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390m over the last decade, with roughly 80% of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.

Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100% inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.

Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.

These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73% in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.

How much more public money do you want to spend to persuade landowners to plant more trees?

Do you work for SG? Not a snarky comment on your post, just wondering generally

[Blackmac]

I'd be interested to know as well, but Drax on its own imports more than the entire UK timber crop.

One of my gardening customers is a retired forestry economist and apparently still a leading world expert in that field. He co-authored a paper with another expert to submit to one of the Scottish Government committees trying to warn them of the future issues we face if they don't alter their policies in respect of forestry rewilding. The vast majority of our timber is imported and that is increasing as our own stocks dwindle and aren't restored. At the same time a lot of the main exporting countries are cutting back on exports due to environmental concerns. Unless we starting rebuilding our own timber resources he reckons we will have a disaster in about 2 to 3 decades.

And yet in Scotland we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in new Forest Planting in Scotland

Scottish Planting 2013-2023 91.05 Thousand Ha
Scottish Planting 2002-2012 63.25 Thousand Ha

Now most of this is driven by between 2013 and 2023 by private sector rather than FLS
( just as a comparison England planting fell from around 40 Thousand Ha in 2002 to 2012 to 23 Thousand Ha between 2013 to 2023

Looking at restocking between the same period.

Scottish Restocking 2013-2023 98.55 Thousand Ha
Scottish Restocking 2002-2012 93.46 Thousand Ha

However this is driven much more by FLS compared to private.

Its fine to say you want more trees to be planted - but you need the land and the commitment , and that can largely be outwith government control.

Looking at the economics in Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390m over the last decade, with roughly 80% of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.

Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100% inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.

Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.

These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73% in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.

How much more public money do you want to spend to persuade landowners to plant more trees?

From what I understand a lot of the grants have been provided to plant native species which are not exactly best suited for our needs.

[Dogbert]

One of my gardening customers is a retired forestry economist and apparently still a leading world expert in that field. He co-authored a paper with another expert to submit to one of the Scottish Government committees trying to warn them of the future issues we face if they don't alter their policies in respect of forestry rewilding. The vast majority of our timber is imported and that is increasing as our own stocks dwindle and aren't restored. At the same time a lot of the main exporting countries are cutting back on exports due to environmental concerns. Unless we starting rebuilding our own timber resources he reckons we will have a disaster in about 2 to 3 decades.

And yet in Scotland we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in new Forest Planting in Scotland

Scottish Planting 2013-2023 91.05 Thousand Ha
Scottish Planting 2002-2012 63.25 Thousand Ha

Now most of this is driven by between 2013 and 2023 by private sector rather than FLS
( just as a comparison England planting fell from around 40 Thousand Ha in 2002 to 2012 to 23 Thousand Ha between 2013 to 2023

Looking at restocking between the same period.

Scottish Restocking 2013-2023 98.55 Thousand Ha
Scottish Restocking 2002-2012 93.46 Thousand Ha

However this is driven much more by FLS compared to private.

Its fine to say you want more trees to be planted - but you need the land and the commitment , and that can largely be outwith government control.

Looking at the economics in Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390m over the last decade, with roughly 80% of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.

Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100% inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.

Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.

These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73% in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.

How much more public money do you want to spend to persuade landowners to plant more trees?

From what I understand a lot of the grants have been provided to plant native species which are not exactly best suited for our needs.

In short No

So the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) supports (bribes ) woodland creation & woodland improvement and sustainable management of existing woodlands, which you are paying for through your taxes

For simplicity the Scheme can be split into two main parts Productive (commercial) woodland with main subsets ( there are also regional differences for Northern & Western Isles as an example

Commercial for Timber Production

Productive conifer woodland
Conifer Sitka Spruce Woodland for Timber Production

Diverse Conifer Mixed Species Conifer Woodland for Timber Production (other than Sitka Spruce)

Productive broadleaf or productive mixed conifer and broadleaf woodland

Broadleaf Woodland for Timber Production

Small or Farm Woodland* Small-Scale Mixed Broadleaf and Conifer Woodland

Non Commercial
Native woodland

Native Broadleaves- creating Native Broadleaf Woodland

Native Scots Pine- Creating Native Pinewood

Native Upland Birch - Creating Upland Birch Woodland

Generally speaking the commercial forestry attracts higher payment rates - Conifers /diverse conifers / Broadleaves all attract higher rates than Native woodlands – with Farmers for their small forest Agroforestry getting supported (bribed) with the highest rate ( excluding some regional differences )

As an example for your bog standard monoculture Sitka spruce ( your Foresters Bread & Butter tree of choice ) the initial planting payment rate £1920/ha, for your Native Upland Birch , that falls to initial planting payment rate £560/ha, - and there are annual maintenance payments on top of that – but roughly the same differential applies

Now yes , there are probably a significant number of FGS granted to your Native woodland – but the hectarage is minute compared to the commercial woodland, now these non commercial woodland is really very important for so many reasons , but not much you your tax dollar is paying for it

[Blackmac]

And yet in Scotland we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in new Forest Planting in Scotland

Scottish Planting 2013-2023 91.05 Thousand Ha
Scottish Planting 2002-2012 63.25 Thousand Ha

Now most of this is driven by between 2013 and 2023 by private sector rather than FLS
( just as a comparison England planting fell from around 40 Thousand Ha in 2002 to 2012 to 23 Thousand Ha between 2013 to 2023

Looking at restocking between the same period.

Scottish Restocking 2013-2023 98.55 Thousand Ha
Scottish Restocking 2002-2012 93.46 Thousand Ha

However this is driven much more by FLS compared to private.

Its fine to say you want more trees to be planted - but you need the land and the commitment , and that can largely be outwith government control.

Looking at the economics in Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390m over the last decade, with roughly 80% of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.

Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100% inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.

Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.

These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73% in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.

How much more public money do you want to spend to persuade landowners to plant more trees?

From what I understand a lot of the grants have been provided to plant native species which are not exactly best suited for our needs.

In short No

So the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) supports (bribes ) woodland creation & woodland improvement and sustainable management of existing woodlands, which you are paying for through your taxes

For simplicity the Scheme can be split into two main parts Productive (commercial) woodland with main subsets ( there are also regional differences for Northern & Western Isles as an example

Commercial for Timber Production

Productive conifer woodland
Conifer Sitka Spruce Woodland for Timber Production

Diverse Conifer Mixed Species Conifer Woodland for Timber Production (other than Sitka Spruce)

Productive broadleaf or productive mixed conifer and broadleaf woodland

Broadleaf Woodland for Timber Production

Small or Farm Woodland* Small-Scale Mixed Broadleaf and Conifer Woodland

Non Commercial
Native woodland

Native Broadleaves- creating Native Broadleaf Woodland

Native Scots Pine- Creating Native Pinewood

Native Upland Birch - Creating Upland Birch Woodland

Generally speaking the commercial forestry attracts higher payment rates - Conifers /diverse conifers / Broadleaves all attract higher rates than Native woodlands – with Farmers for their small forest Agroforestry getting supported (bribed) with the highest rate ( excluding some regional differences )

As an example for your bog standard monoculture Sitka spruce ( your Foresters Bread & Butter tree of choice ) the initial planting payment rate £1920/ha, for your Native Upland Birch , that falls to initial planting payment rate £560/ha, - and there are annual maintenance payments on top of that – but roughly the same differential applies

Now yes , there are probably a significant number of FGS granted to your Native woodland – but the hectarage is minute compared to the commercial woodland, now these non commercial woodland is really very important for so many reasons , but not much you your tax dollar is paying for it

A short extract from that paper.

"Growing more of our own wood is vital to reduce imports, improve the balance of payments, reduce pressure on the world’s remaining natural forests, and to create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
We are moving towards a scenario where we increasingly use our land for non-productive conservation tree planting while importing the huge quantities of wood products that we need from elsewhere in the world, itself creating a significant ‘carbon footprint’ through shipping. Growing more of our own timber would improve domestic balance of payments (imports of wood products to the UK cost £11 billion in 2022) and create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
Despite having had a policy for more than 100 years to decrease the country’s dependence on imported wood by increasing the forest area, in practice the proportion of forested land area in Scotland has only increased by about 15% in that time. For the last 40 years much of that increase has been non-commercially productive native woodland. Scotland’s Forestry Strategy provides for increasing Scotland’s forest area by 200,000 hectares by 2032. However, in 2022, 65% (4100 hectares) of the 6300 hectares of bare land planted in Scotland, were planted with native broadleaved tree species. Based on these figures, during the next nine years, 130,000 hectares will be planted with native tree species that will never produce significant quantities of usable timber...and it doesn’t stop there. Scotland’s long-established productive coniferous forests, frequently derided by conservationists, are also impacted by the rewilding paradigm. One fifth of the area of productive conifers that were felled in 2022 was replanted with predominantly unproductive broadleaved tree species further reducing our ability to produce the timber that we need in the future."

I'm far from an expert in this, but in laymen's terms that indicates that 65% of new forest is being given over to no productive species and replanting of commercial forestry is potentially being reduced by 20% year on year. That's hardly good given the issues we face.

There was actually a BBC Scotland documentary recently, possibly Labdward, which focused on exactly this issue, however from a positive point of view, and they firmly attributed the increase to SG policy encouraging these species.

[Dogbert]

From what I understand a lot of the grants have been provided to plant native species which are not exactly best suited for our needs.

In short No

So the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) supports (bribes ) woodland creation & woodland improvement and sustainable management of existing woodlands, which you are paying for through your taxes

For simplicity the Scheme can be split into two main parts Productive (commercial) woodland with main subsets ( there are also regional differences for Northern & Western Isles as an example

Commercial for Timber Production

Productive conifer woodland
Conifer Sitka Spruce Woodland for Timber Production

Diverse Conifer Mixed Species Conifer Woodland for Timber Production (other than Sitka Spruce)

Productive broadleaf or productive mixed conifer and broadleaf woodland

Broadleaf Woodland for Timber Production

Small or Farm Woodland* Small-Scale Mixed Broadleaf and Conifer Woodland

Non Commercial
Native woodland

Native Broadleaves- creating Native Broadleaf Woodland

Native Scots Pine- Creating Native Pinewood

Native Upland Birch - Creating Upland Birch Woodland

Generally speaking the commercial forestry attracts higher payment rates - Conifers /diverse conifers / Broadleaves all attract higher rates than Native woodlands – with Farmers for their small forest Agroforestry getting supported (bribed) with the highest rate ( excluding some regional differences )

As an example for your bog standard monoculture Sitka spruce ( your Foresters Bread & Butter tree of choice ) the initial planting payment rate £1920/ha, for your Native Upland Birch , that falls to initial planting payment rate £560/ha, - and there are annual maintenance payments on top of that – but roughly the same differential applies

Now yes , there are probably a significant number of FGS granted to your Native woodland – but the hectarage is minute compared to the commercial woodland, now these non commercial woodland is really very important for so many reasons , but not much you your tax dollar is paying for it

A short extract from that paper.

"Growing more of our own wood is vital to reduce imports, improve the balance of payments, reduce pressure on the world’s remaining natural forests, and to create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
We are moving towards a scenario where we increasingly use our land for non-productive conservation tree planting while importing the huge quantities of wood products that we need from elsewhere in the world, itself creating a significant ‘carbon footprint’ through shipping. Growing more of our own timber would improve domestic balance of payments (imports of wood products to the UK cost £11 billion in 2022) and create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
Despite having had a policy for more than 100 years to decrease the country’s dependence on imported wood by increasing the forest area, in practice the proportion of forested land area in Scotland has only increased by about 15% in that time. For the last 40 years much of that increase has been non-commercially productive native woodland. Scotland’s Forestry Strategy provides for increasing Scotland’s forest area by 200,000 hectares by 2032. However, in 2022, 65% (4100 hectares) of the 6300 hectares of bare land planted in Scotland, were planted with native broadleaved tree species. Based on these figures, during the next nine years, 130,000 hectares will be planted with native tree species that will never produce significant quantities of usable timber...and it doesn’t stop there. Scotland’s long-established productive coniferous forests, frequently derided by conservationists, are also impacted by the rewilding paradigm. One fifth of the area of productive conifers that were felled in 2022 was replanted with predominantly unproductive broadleaved tree species further reducing our ability to produce the timber that we need in the future."

I'm far from an expert in this, but in laymen's terms that indicates that 65% of new forest is being given over to no productive species and replanting of commercial forestry is potentially being reduced by 20% year on year. That's hardly good given the issues we face.

There was actually a BBC Scotland documentary recently, possibly Labdward, which focused on exactly this issue, however from a positive point of view, and they firmly attributed the increase to SG policy encouraging these species.

Blackmac - Can you send me a link to the paper that you have quoted

[Blackmac]

In short No

So the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) supports (bribes ) woodland creation & woodland improvement and sustainable management of existing woodlands, which you are paying for through your taxes

For simplicity the Scheme can be split into two main parts Productive (commercial) woodland with main subsets ( there are also regional differences for Northern & Western Isles as an example

Commercial for Timber Production

Productive conifer woodland
Conifer Sitka Spruce Woodland for Timber Production

Diverse Conifer Mixed Species Conifer Woodland for Timber Production (other than Sitka Spruce)

Productive broadleaf or productive mixed conifer and broadleaf woodland

Broadleaf Woodland for Timber Production

Small or Farm Woodland* Small-Scale Mixed Broadleaf and Conifer Woodland

Non Commercial
Native woodland

Native Broadleaves- creating Native Broadleaf Woodland

Native Scots Pine- Creating Native Pinewood

Native Upland Birch - Creating Upland Birch Woodland

Generally speaking the commercial forestry attracts higher payment rates - Conifers /diverse conifers / Broadleaves all attract higher rates than Native woodlands – with Farmers for their small forest Agroforestry getting supported (bribed) with the highest rate ( excluding some regional differences )

As an example for your bog standard monoculture Sitka spruce ( your Foresters Bread & Butter tree of choice ) the initial planting payment rate £1920/ha, for your Native Upland Birch , that falls to initial planting payment rate £560/ha, - and there are annual maintenance payments on top of that – but roughly the same differential applies

Now yes , there are probably a significant number of FGS granted to your Native woodland – but the hectarage is minute compared to the commercial woodland, now these non commercial woodland is really very important for so many reasons , but not much you your tax dollar is paying for it

A short extract from that paper.

"Growing more of our own wood is vital to reduce imports, improve the balance of payments, reduce pressure on the world’s remaining natural forests, and to create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
We are moving towards a scenario where we increasingly use our land for non-productive conservation tree planting while importing the huge quantities of wood products that we need from elsewhere in the world, itself creating a significant ‘carbon footprint’ through shipping. Growing more of our own timber would improve domestic balance of payments (imports of wood products to the UK cost £11 billion in 2022) and create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
Despite having had a policy for more than 100 years to decrease the country’s dependence on imported wood by increasing the forest area, in practice the proportion of forested land area in Scotland has only increased by about 15% in that time. For the last 40 years much of that increase has been non-commercially productive native woodland. Scotland’s Forestry Strategy provides for increasing Scotland’s forest area by 200,000 hectares by 2032. However, in 2022, 65% (4100 hectares) of the 6300 hectares of bare land planted in Scotland, were planted with native broadleaved tree species. Based on these figures, during the next nine years, 130,000 hectares will be planted with native tree species that will never produce significant quantities of usable timber...and it doesn’t stop there. Scotland’s long-established productive coniferous forests, frequently derided by conservationists, are also impacted by the rewilding paradigm. One fifth of the area of productive conifers that were felled in 2022 was replanted with predominantly unproductive broadleaved tree species further reducing our ability to produce the timber that we need in the future."

I'm far from an expert in this, but in laymen's terms that indicates that 65% of new forest is being given over to no productive species and replanting of commercial forestry is potentially being reduced by 20% year on year. That's hardly good given the issues we face.

There was actually a BBC Scotland documentary recently, possibly Labdward, which focused on exactly this issue, however from a positive point of view, and they firmly attributed the increase to SG policy encouraging these species.

Blackmac - Can you send me a link to the paper that you have quoted

Sorry, I don't think I have the authority for that because of how I was given it and I don't know the co- author at all.
I've possibly overstepped the mark with what I have posted here.
The author has also written a couple of reports for an anti rewilding campaign down south which has Monty Don and Alan Titchmarsh at its head.

[Dogbert]

Blackmac - OK - Can you share the authors name ?

[Blackmac]

Blackmac - OK - Can you share the authors name ?
[/quote

Again, no, probably not my place. My customer is long retired from the field but still very active in producing articles like this. The other is a professor of Forestry Ecology at a prestigious university.

[Dogbert]

From what I understand a lot of the grants have been provided to plant native species which are not exactly best suited for our needs.

In short No

So the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) supports (bribes ) woodland creation & woodland improvement and sustainable management of existing woodlands, which you are paying for through your taxes

For simplicity the Scheme can be split into two main parts Productive (commercial) woodland with main subsets ( there are also regional differences for Northern & Western Isles as an example

Commercial for Timber Production

Productive conifer woodland
Conifer Sitka Spruce Woodland for Timber Production

Diverse Conifer Mixed Species Conifer Woodland for Timber Production (other than Sitka Spruce)

Productive broadleaf or productive mixed conifer and broadleaf woodland

Broadleaf Woodland for Timber Production

Small or Farm Woodland* Small-Scale Mixed Broadleaf and Conifer Woodland

Non Commercial
Native woodland

Native Broadleaves- creating Native Broadleaf Woodland

Native Scots Pine- Creating Native Pinewood

Native Upland Birch - Creating Upland Birch Woodland

Generally speaking the commercial forestry attracts higher payment rates - Conifers /diverse conifers / Broadleaves all attract higher rates than Native woodlands – with Farmers for their small forest Agroforestry getting supported (bribed) with the highest rate ( excluding some regional differences )

As an example for your bog standard monoculture Sitka spruce ( your Foresters Bread & Butter tree of choice ) the initial planting payment rate £1920/ha, for your Native Upland Birch , that falls to initial planting payment rate £560/ha, - and there are annual maintenance payments on top of that – but roughly the same differential applies

Now yes , there are probably a significant number of FGS granted to your Native woodland – but the hectarage is minute compared to the commercial woodland, now these non commercial woodland is really very important for so many reasons , but not much you your tax dollar is paying for it

A short extract from that paper.

"Growing more of our own wood is vital to reduce imports, improve the balance of payments, reduce pressure on the world’s remaining natural forests, and to create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
We are moving towards a scenario where we increasingly use our land for non-productive conservation tree planting while importing the huge quantities of wood products that we need from elsewhere in the world, itself creating a significant ‘carbon footprint’ through shipping. Growing more of our own timber would improve domestic balance of payments (imports of wood products to the UK cost £11 billion in 2022) and create a sustainable resource that generates wealth and employment, particularly in rural areas.
Despite having had a policy for more than 100 years to decrease the country’s dependence on imported wood by increasing the forest area, in practice the proportion of forested land area in Scotland has only increased by about 15% in that time. For the last 40 years much of that increase has been non-commercially productive native woodland. Scotland’s Forestry Strategy provides for increasing Scotland’s forest area by 200,000 hectares by 2032. However, in 2022, 65% (4100 hectares) of the 6300 hectares of bare land planted in Scotland, were planted with native broadleaved tree species. Based on these figures, during the next nine years, 130,000 hectares will be planted with native tree species that will never produce significant quantities of usable timber...and it doesn’t stop there. Scotland’s long-established productive coniferous forests, frequently derided by conservationists, are also impacted by the rewilding paradigm. One fifth of the area of productive conifers that were felled in 2022 was replanted with predominantly unproductive broadleaved tree species further reducing our ability to produce the timber that we need in the future."

I'm far from an expert in this, but in laymen's terms that indicates that 65% of new forest is being given over to no productive species and replanting of commercial forestry is potentially being reduced by 20% year on year. That's hardly good given the issues we face.

There was actually a BBC Scotland documentary recently, possibly Labdward, which focused on exactly this issue, however from a positive point of view, and they firmly attributed the increase to SG policy encouraging these species.

OK - there is a lot to discuss ( if anyone is interested ) so I will attempt to tackle some of the points raised - as far as my own Knowledge extends

Yes there was indeed a pretty powder puff piece regarding the planting native Broadleaf trees in an episode of Landward ( always nice to see what chunky sweaters Dougie Vipond is modelling ) – but time is limited in these sort of programmes, so the reasons why we plant what is planted is often not explained well ( if at all) – Silviculture is very much about planting the right tree , in the right place for the right reason

Let me see if I can provide a bit more context in relation to planting in Riparian Zones in Scotland

We plant native broadleaf trees along these zones to help with climate change and biodiversity, creating robust wildlife corridors that are not felled for timber.

Shade: broadleaf trees offer just the right amount of shade over the water. This not only provides shade for the fish but also helps prevent water temperatures from increasing. The rise in water temperatures across Scotland is expected to negatively affect freshwater fish, such as salmon, as they spawn in our rivers.

Nutrients: when broadleaf trees shed their leaves in autumn, some of them will end up in the water. These leaves will eventually decompose, adding essential nutrients into the water's soils, helping to support richer aquatic invertebrate communities. Our rivers and burns typically lack nutrients, so this is key to having healthy water systems. Conifers are the worst possible option as not only do the needles provide little nutrition , they also increase the acidification within the water.

Bank stabilisation: tree roots can help provide structure to riverbanks, helping prevent erosion. Fine root biomass is 6.5 times higher in European beech than in Scots pine forests.
Carbon: while these long-lived woodlands can be slower at capturing carbon, they will become effective carbon stores over time, as both trees and the more stable soils grow.

Flooding: though conifers are the real flood management powerhouses, natural broadleaf woodland around rivers will also play its part. Trees absorb water through their leaves, roots, and bark and create grooves in the ground that slows water flow.

Freshwater fisheries and associated expenditure such as salmon angling, accommodation and tourism are worth almost £80 million a year to the Scottish economy. However, the number of adult salmon returning to Scotland is in decline, and 2018 was the lowest recorded rod catch since records began in 1952. It is therefore important that salmon habitats are protected and improved where possible.
River temperature is a critical control on Atlantic salmon populations which are adapted to live in relatively cool water. Salmon tend to prosper when temperatures are in the teens and struggle much above 20°C. Where river temperatures exceed 23°C this can cause thermal stress and behavioural change. At 33°C salmon can no longer survive, even for a few minutes.
During the summer of 2018, it is estimated that around 70% of rivers in Scotland experienced temperatures over 23°C. UK climate change projections provided by the Met Office indicate that summers like these could occur every other year by 2050, increasing concerns over the future of salmon in Scotland.

Scotland has around 108,000 km of rivers, of which only 35% are protected by any substantial tree cover.

So looking at some the issue with Atlantic Salmon

Smolt age depends on growth, which in turn depends on a number of factors including the temperature regime. The development of smolt characteristics is temperature dependent, as is the rate of loss of smolt characteristics (including the ability to make the transition to salt water) if migration is delayed or prevented. The timing of smolt migration is influenced by a number of factors including temperature. Early migration of salmon smolts in warm seasons may have consequences for marine survival.

Spawning only occurs within a limited temperature range, below 11.5°C for Atlantic salmon. Temperatures exceeding about 16°C may be associated with reduced migration in estuaries and rivers, with very little migration above about 20-23°C, but varying between rivers. Atlantic salmon delayed in estuaries in hot, dry summers may suffer significant mortality. Swimming ability (burst speed) is limited by low temperatures, resulting in reduced migration under cold conditions. The temperature experienced by adult female salmon in the months before spawning can affect gamete quality. Eggs produced by females kept at 22°C were smaller, less fertile and less viable than those produced by fish held at 18°C or below. Ovulation falters or fails in fish maintained at an elevated temperature, for example 4°C above ambient temperatures in one experiment.

Breeding with escaped farmed salmon threatens many wild populations and may weaken their ability to adapt to climate change.

Mortality due to lice from salmon farms is also of great concern. And a significant rising threat is the invasive Pacific pink salmon, which is spreading rapidly across northern Europe.
In Scottish salmon is the UK's largest single food export. Export sales for the calendar year totalled £581m, up by 5% year-or-year and equivalent to £1.6m every day. Norway is the highest exporter with eight billion U.S. dollars’ worth of salmon that year.

In short the correct trees were planted, for valid reasons – but its probably all pretty pointless in the long run as prognosis for Wild Atlantic Salmon is probably in a non-technical term is ‘Fucked’ for a myriad of reasons – not least the issues with commercial Salmon fish Farming - Might help other species like Brown Trout though

[Dogbert]

One of my gardening customers is a retired forestry economist and apparently still a leading world expert in that field. He co-authored a paper with another expert to submit to one of the Scottish Government committees trying to warn them of the future issues we face if they don't alter their policies in respect of forestry rewilding. The vast majority of our timber is imported and that is increasing as our own stocks dwindle and aren't restored. At the same time a lot of the main exporting countries are cutting back on exports due to environmental concerns. Unless we starting rebuilding our own timber resources he reckons we will have a disaster in about 2 to 3 decades.

And yet in Scotland we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in new Forest Planting in Scotland

Scottish Planting 2013-2023 91.05 Thousand Ha
Scottish Planting 2002-2012 63.25 Thousand Ha

Now most of this is driven by between 2013 and 2023 by private sector rather than FLS
( just as a comparison England planting fell from around 40 Thousand Ha in 2002 to 2012 to 23 Thousand Ha between 2013 to 2023

Looking at restocking between the same period.

Scottish Restocking 2013-2023 98.55 Thousand Ha
Scottish Restocking 2002-2012 93.46 Thousand Ha

However this is driven much more by FLS compared to private.

Its fine to say you want more trees to be planted - but you need the land and the commitment , and that can largely be outwith government control.

Looking at the economics in Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390m over the last decade, with roughly 80% of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.

Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100% inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.

Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.

These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73% in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.

How much more public money do you want to spend to persuade landowners to plant more trees?

Do you work for SG? Not a snarky comment on your post, just wondering generally

So Slick . I have no affiliation to any Scottish Government department, or any other vested interest in Forestry or land use ( deliberately so).
My second degree was in Forestry ( at Aberdeen, under the great Prof Matthews ) , and I have worked within the Forestry private sector in Scotland, initially with the EFG ( Economic Forestry Group ) and then Tillhill Forestry – but that was many decades ago – I became very disillusioned with how Forestry policy was being enacted in the 80’s , and sold my soul to the Oil & Gas Industry to support my family.

I am now in the very fortunate position to be able to no longer work, and that has left me more time to concentrate on things that are important to me, one of which is Forestry and Land use policy specifically within Scotland .

I am still am member of ICF , and I now have the time to read a lot of research / policy documents, I attend a number of conferences ( my brother was the lead UK government advisor on Forestry and Climate Change- which allows me into places that I would not normally be able to get to ), where time allows – I am very much the ‘enthusiastic’ amateur – but that does give me the independence of thought.

As with most issues these days , there tends to be a lot of heat generated – but often very little light , and it can be very difficult to separate the wood from the trees.

Let’s consider the fact that the “UK is the second largest importer of Sawn Timber & Timber products”

Actually this is no longer true – the UK is now the 3rd largest Importer of Sawn Timber & Timber products (The US overtook the UK last year )

However taking Scotland in isolation, the view is very different - each year in Scotland, we sustainably harvest around 7 million cubic metres of timber from our forests, which is roughly the same volume of timber as we use.

Forestry , like most industries these days , is extremely complex , and don’t lend themselves to simple debate in online forums – however for a lot of people this is now where they get/ and spread (dis) information, not always deliberately - but a lot of people have very entrenched opinions.

Forestry in Scotland faces huge challenges in the coming years from Climate Change –and that has the potential of changes in Silviculture

[Slick]

Dogbert, thanks. As I say, not a snarky comment, just recognised some of the language you used as being very SG.

[Blackmac]

And yet in Scotland we have seen a fairly dramatic increase in new Forest Planting in Scotland

Scottish Planting 2013-2023 91.05 Thousand Ha
Scottish Planting 2002-2012 63.25 Thousand Ha

Now most of this is driven by between 2013 and 2023 by private sector rather than FLS
( just as a comparison England planting fell from around 40 Thousand Ha in 2002 to 2012 to 23 Thousand Ha between 2013 to 2023

Looking at restocking between the same period.

Scottish Restocking 2013-2023 98.55 Thousand Ha
Scottish Restocking 2002-2012 93.46 Thousand Ha

However this is driven much more by FLS compared to private.

Its fine to say you want more trees to be planted - but you need the land and the commitment , and that can largely be outwith government control.

Looking at the economics in Scotland, ministers have subsidised forestry by more than £390m over the last decade, with roughly 80% of that spent on commercial conifer plantations, as well as extra subsidies for haulage.

Timber companies and landowners pay no corporation tax on their income from forests; profits from timber sales are tax-free; there is no capital gains tax on the value of the trees, and 100% inheritance tax relief on the forestry property.

Forest owners were also able to sell carbon credits, adding to the attractiveness of forestry as an investment.

These grants, tax breaks and carbon credits had helped to substantially drive up land prices in Scotland, up by 73% in a single year, greatly distorting the land market and pricing people out.

How much more public money do you want to spend to persuade landowners to plant more trees?

Do you work for SG? Not a snarky comment on your post, just wondering generally

So Slick . I have no affiliation to any Scottish Government department, or any other vested interest in Forestry or land use ( deliberately so).
My second degree was in Forestry ( at Aberdeen, under the great Prof Matthews ) , and I have worked within the Forestry private sector in Scotland, initially with the EFG ( Economic Forestry Group ) and then Tillhill Forestry – but that was many decades ago – I became very disillusioned with how Forestry policy was being enacted in the 80’s , and sold my soul to the Oil & Gas Industry to support my family.

I am now in the very fortunate position to be able to no longer work, and that has left me more time to concentrate on things that are important to me, one of which is Forestry and Land use policy specifically within Scotland .

I am still am member of ICF , and I now have the time to read a lot of research / policy documents, I attend a number of conferences ( my brother was the lead UK government advisor on Forestry and Climate Change- which allows me into places that I would not normally be able to get to ), where time allows – I am very much the ‘enthusiastic’ amateur – but that does give me the independence of thought.

As with most issues these days , there tends to be a lot of heat generated – but often very little light , and it can be very difficult to separate the wood from the trees.

Let’s consider the fact that the “UK is the second largest importer of Sawn Timber & Timber products”

Actually this is no longer true – the UK is now the 3rd largest Importer of Sawn Timber & Timber products (The US overtook the UK last year )

However taking Scotland in isolation, the view is very different - each year in Scotland, we sustainably harvest around 7 million cubic metres of timber from our forests, which is roughly the same volume of timber as we use.

Forestry , like most industries these days , is extremely complex , and don’t lend themselves to simple debate in online forums – however for a lot of people this is now where they get/ and spread (dis) information, not always deliberately - but a lot of people have very entrenched opinions.

Forestry in Scotland faces huge challenges in the coming years from Climate Change –and that has the potential of changes in Silviculture

That's all very informative mate, thanks. As I stated I was just passing on information given to me by my customer who had sent me that paper. Prior to that it was not something I had the slightest bit of knowledge off so I will happily bow to your very informed opinion.

[Slick]

Scottish government plans to scrap a key climate change target are a "global embarrassment", say environment campaigners.

Ministers are expected to confirm later that the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030 has been dropped.

BBC Scotland News understands the government's annual climate targets could also be ditched, although the final aim of reaching net-zero by 2045 will remain.

Friends of the Earth Scotland branded it "the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament".

The charity's Connal Hughes said: "The Scottish government has had 15 years to bring forward the transformative action that would mean warm homes, good public transport and good green jobs.

"They haven't delivered. Instead of ramping up action they're scrapping targets and breaking promises."

He said it was "very concerning" that annual targets could be dropped as well.



The charity's Jamie Livingstone said: “With the world becoming a dirtier and deadlier place every day, any decision by Scottish ministers to re-write Scotland’s climate rulebook would be an acute global embarrassment.

"It would also be the direct and damaging consequence of the Scottish government’s own dilly dallying on climate action."

Greenpeace said the Scottish government had failed to deliver policies to meet its climate promises

UK political campaigner, Ami McCarthy, said: “Legislating to reduce Scotland’s climate ambition, fresh off the back of the planet's hottest ever recorded 12-month period, is like striking a match in a petrol station.

"It might not set the whole thing ablaze immediately but it’s clearly a dangerous step to take."


Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon previously said that Scotland had the "most stretching targets in the world" for climate change.

In 2019 the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to speed up the rate of decarbonisation.

However, the most recent statistics showed that eight out of 12 annual targets had been missed.

Emissions for 2021 were 49.2% lower than the baseline year of 1990.

Former first minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that the decision to "stretch" targets was a mistake, and that it was "hugely embarrassing" for First Minister Humza Yousaf.

Scotland's international development minister Kaukab Stewart told BBC Scotland's Debate Night that she was "very disappointed" by the news.

She added: " With the measures that we are taking locally here in Glasgow with active travel, investing in hydrogen buses, we are making progress on that. I am very disappointed."


Earlier this year the Climate Change Committee - which provides independent advice to ministers - said that the 2030 target was now unreachable.

The 75% target was 5% more than experts had recommended.

In 2019 the Scottish Greens had argued for the goal to be 80% and abstained from the Climate Change Bill vote.

Green MSP Ross Greer said it was "a difficult day for the planet and Scotland".

He also argued that the Scottish Government's targets had been made on the assumption of a cooperative UK Government.

Mr Greer told BBC Scotland news that previous governments had not taken enough climate action and his party had "massively escalated" climate action since joining government.

He said people could "trust the Greens to make sure climate action is delivered in government".

Douglas Lumsden, Scottish Conservative net zero spokesperson, said the decision was an "abject humiliation" for the government.

He added: “For all the boasting about their supposed environmental credentials, the reality is a succession of missed targets – and being forced to throw in the towel on this flagship pledge represents the biggest failure of the lot."

Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP said it was a "generational betrayal" from the SNP and the Scottish Greens over climate change promises.

He said: “When it came to doing the actual hard graft of insulating homes, planting trees or cutting emissions, they have proven to be woefully incompetent."

Oh look, more boasting, bluster and failure.

[inactionman]

Murrell nicked again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68850088

[Slick]

Murrell nicked again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68850088

You would have to think that’s pretty significant. Blackmac?

[Blackmac]

Scottish government plans to scrap a key climate change target are a "global embarrassment", say environment campaigners.

Ministers are expected to confirm later that the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030 has been dropped.

BBC Scotland News understands the government's annual climate targets could also be ditched, although the final aim of reaching net-zero by 2045 will remain.

Friends of the Earth Scotland branded it "the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament".

The charity's Connal Hughes said: "The Scottish government has had 15 years to bring forward the transformative action that would mean warm homes, good public transport and good green jobs.

"They haven't delivered. Instead of ramping up action they're scrapping targets and breaking promises."

He said it was "very concerning" that annual targets could be dropped as well.



The charity's Jamie Livingstone said: “With the world becoming a dirtier and deadlier place every day, any decision by Scottish ministers to re-write Scotland’s climate rulebook would be an acute global embarrassment.

"It would also be the direct and damaging consequence of the Scottish government’s own dilly dallying on climate action."

Greenpeace said the Scottish government had failed to deliver policies to meet its climate promises

UK political campaigner, Ami McCarthy, said: “Legislating to reduce Scotland’s climate ambition, fresh off the back of the planet's hottest ever recorded 12-month period, is like striking a match in a petrol station.

"It might not set the whole thing ablaze immediately but it’s clearly a dangerous step to take."


Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon previously said that Scotland had the "most stretching targets in the world" for climate change.

In 2019 the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to speed up the rate of decarbonisation.

However, the most recent statistics showed that eight out of 12 annual targets had been missed.

Emissions for 2021 were 49.2% lower than the baseline year of 1990.

Former first minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that the decision to "stretch" targets was a mistake, and that it was "hugely embarrassing" for First Minister Humza Yousaf.

Scotland's international development minister Kaukab Stewart told BBC Scotland's Debate Night that she was "very disappointed" by the news.

She added: " With the measures that we are taking locally here in Glasgow with active travel, investing in hydrogen buses, we are making progress on that. I am very disappointed."


Earlier this year the Climate Change Committee - which provides independent advice to ministers - said that the 2030 target was now unreachable.

The 75% target was 5% more than experts had recommended.

In 2019 the Scottish Greens had argued for the goal to be 80% and abstained from the Climate Change Bill vote.

Green MSP Ross Greer said it was "a difficult day for the planet and Scotland".

He also argued that the Scottish Government's targets had been made on the assumption of a cooperative UK Government.

Mr Greer told BBC Scotland news that previous governments had not taken enough climate action and his party had "massively escalated" climate action since joining government.

He said people could "trust the Greens to make sure climate action is delivered in government".

Douglas Lumsden, Scottish Conservative net zero spokesperson, said the decision was an "abject humiliation" for the government.

He added: “For all the boasting about their supposed environmental credentials, the reality is a succession of missed targets – and being forced to throw in the towel on this flagship pledge represents the biggest failure of the lot."

Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP said it was a "generational betrayal" from the SNP and the Scottish Greens over climate change promises.

He said: “When it came to doing the actual hard graft of insulating homes, planting trees or cutting emissions, they have proven to be woefully incompetent."

Oh look, more boasting, bluster and failure.

Absolute incompetents and charlatans. How any one can consider these people a positive option for Scotland is beyond me. They are actually becoming dangerous

[Blackmac]

Murrell nicked again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68850088

You would have to think that’s pretty significant. Blackmac?

It's really difficult to be certain, especially in such a complex enquiry like this, and yes these enquiries are long winded and tedious so the length of the enquiry does not suggest anything. The level of scrutiny this must be getting from COPFS would suggest that they are still pretty confident that people will be charged.

[Blackmac]

Jesus, watching McAllan, Yousaf and Harvie flailing about today is astonishing. They are so far out of their depth it is unreal.

[Slick]

Scottish government plans to scrap a key climate change target are a "global embarrassment", say environment campaigners.

Ministers are expected to confirm later that the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030 has been dropped.

BBC Scotland News understands the government's annual climate targets could also be ditched, although the final aim of reaching net-zero by 2045 will remain.

Friends of the Earth Scotland branded it "the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament".

The charity's Connal Hughes said: "The Scottish government has had 15 years to bring forward the transformative action that would mean warm homes, good public transport and good green jobs.

"They haven't delivered. Instead of ramping up action they're scrapping targets and breaking promises."

He said it was "very concerning" that annual targets could be dropped as well.



The charity's Jamie Livingstone said: “With the world becoming a dirtier and deadlier place every day, any decision by Scottish ministers to re-write Scotland’s climate rulebook would be an acute global embarrassment.

"It would also be the direct and damaging consequence of the Scottish government’s own dilly dallying on climate action."

Greenpeace said the Scottish government had failed to deliver policies to meet its climate promises

UK political campaigner, Ami McCarthy, said: “Legislating to reduce Scotland’s climate ambition, fresh off the back of the planet's hottest ever recorded 12-month period, is like striking a match in a petrol station.

"It might not set the whole thing ablaze immediately but it’s clearly a dangerous step to take."


Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon previously said that Scotland had the "most stretching targets in the world" for climate change.

In 2019 the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to speed up the rate of decarbonisation.

However, the most recent statistics showed that eight out of 12 annual targets had been missed.

Emissions for 2021 were 49.2% lower than the baseline year of 1990.

Former first minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that the decision to "stretch" targets was a mistake, and that it was "hugely embarrassing" for First Minister Humza Yousaf.

Scotland's international development minister Kaukab Stewart told BBC Scotland's Debate Night that she was "very disappointed" by the news.

She added: " With the measures that we are taking locally here in Glasgow with active travel, investing in hydrogen buses, we are making progress on that. I am very disappointed."


Earlier this year the Climate Change Committee - which provides independent advice to ministers - said that the 2030 target was now unreachable.

The 75% target was 5% more than experts had recommended.

In 2019 the Scottish Greens had argued for the goal to be 80% and abstained from the Climate Change Bill vote.

Green MSP Ross Greer said it was "a difficult day for the planet and Scotland".

He also argued that the Scottish Government's targets had been made on the assumption of a cooperative UK Government.

Mr Greer told BBC Scotland news that previous governments had not taken enough climate action and his party had "massively escalated" climate action since joining government.

He said people could "trust the Greens to make sure climate action is delivered in government".

Douglas Lumsden, Scottish Conservative net zero spokesperson, said the decision was an "abject humiliation" for the government.

He added: “For all the boasting about their supposed environmental credentials, the reality is a succession of missed targets – and being forced to throw in the towel on this flagship pledge represents the biggest failure of the lot."

Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP said it was a "generational betrayal" from the SNP and the Scottish Greens over climate change promises.

He said: “When it came to doing the actual hard graft of insulating homes, planting trees or cutting emissions, they have proven to be woefully incompetent."

Oh look, more boasting, bluster and failure.

Absolute incompetents and charlatans. How any one can consider these people a positive option for Scotland is beyond me. They are actually becoming dangerous

Completely agree. Whilst never rating them, I was inclined to shrug my shoulders most of the time, but I'm getting increasingly angry now at the incompetence. They have, and are continuing, to make Scotland a much worse place to live in and I've had enough.

[Blackmac]

Oh look, more boasting, bluster and failure.

Absolute incompetents and charlatans. How any one can consider these people a positive option for Scotland is beyond me. They are actually becoming dangerous

Completely agree. Whilst never rating them, I was inclined to shrug my shoulders most of the time, but I'm getting increasingly angry now at the incompetence. They have, and are continuing, to make Scotland a much worse place to live in and I've had enough.

Can't even buy a cheap beer anymore. "It's shite being Scottish"

[Big D]

Scottish government plans to scrap a key climate change target are a "global embarrassment", say environment campaigners.

Ministers are expected to confirm later that the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030 has been dropped.

BBC Scotland News understands the government's annual climate targets could also be ditched, although the final aim of reaching net-zero by 2045 will remain.

Friends of the Earth Scotland branded it "the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament".

The charity's Connal Hughes said: "The Scottish government has had 15 years to bring forward the transformative action that would mean warm homes, good public transport and good green jobs.

"They haven't delivered. Instead of ramping up action they're scrapping targets and breaking promises."

He said it was "very concerning" that annual targets could be dropped as well.



The charity's Jamie Livingstone said: “With the world becoming a dirtier and deadlier place every day, any decision by Scottish ministers to re-write Scotland’s climate rulebook would be an acute global embarrassment.

"It would also be the direct and damaging consequence of the Scottish government’s own dilly dallying on climate action."

Greenpeace said the Scottish government had failed to deliver policies to meet its climate promises

UK political campaigner, Ami McCarthy, said: “Legislating to reduce Scotland’s climate ambition, fresh off the back of the planet's hottest ever recorded 12-month period, is like striking a match in a petrol station.

"It might not set the whole thing ablaze immediately but it’s clearly a dangerous step to take."


Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon previously said that Scotland had the "most stretching targets in the world" for climate change.

In 2019 the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to speed up the rate of decarbonisation.

However, the most recent statistics showed that eight out of 12 annual targets had been missed.

Emissions for 2021 were 49.2% lower than the baseline year of 1990.

Former first minister Alex Salmond told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that the decision to "stretch" targets was a mistake, and that it was "hugely embarrassing" for First Minister Humza Yousaf.

Scotland's international development minister Kaukab Stewart told BBC Scotland's Debate Night that she was "very disappointed" by the news.

She added: " With the measures that we are taking locally here in Glasgow with active travel, investing in hydrogen buses, we are making progress on that. I am very disappointed."


Earlier this year the Climate Change Committee - which provides independent advice to ministers - said that the 2030 target was now unreachable.

The 75% target was 5% more than experts had recommended.

In 2019 the Scottish Greens had argued for the goal to be 80% and abstained from the Climate Change Bill vote.

Green MSP Ross Greer said it was "a difficult day for the planet and Scotland".

He also argued that the Scottish Government's targets had been made on the assumption of a cooperative UK Government.

Mr Greer told BBC Scotland news that previous governments had not taken enough climate action and his party had "massively escalated" climate action since joining government.

He said people could "trust the Greens to make sure climate action is delivered in government".

Douglas Lumsden, Scottish Conservative net zero spokesperson, said the decision was an "abject humiliation" for the government.

He added: “For all the boasting about their supposed environmental credentials, the reality is a succession of missed targets – and being forced to throw in the towel on this flagship pledge represents the biggest failure of the lot."

Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP said it was a "generational betrayal" from the SNP and the Scottish Greens over climate change promises.

He said: “When it came to doing the actual hard graft of insulating homes, planting trees or cutting emissions, they have proven to be woefully incompetent."

Oh look, more boasting, bluster and failure.

Ah look, Ross Greer right on message "Westminster fault, the Greens are "massively escalating" action". Complete lack of any accountability.

[inactionman]

He's now been charged with embezzlement

[Tichtheid]

I've made no secret of my wish for Scottish independence, also that Scotland should imo be part of the EU (so should the rest of the UK), for me that has nothing to do with what party sits in majority in Holyrood, so with that in mind - was Labour any better in Scotland when they led the parliament and do you think they'd be better now?

I was too caught up in my life down here to pay much attention at the time.

[tc27]

Murrel charged

Holy shit..question is does it stop with him.

[Big D]

He's now been charged with embezzlement

0.0 chance other senior SNP members didn't know about it.

[tc27]

What I like most about this is it all started with a complaint by 'The Scottish Resistance' about the 'ringfenced indyref2 fund'.

[Slick]

I've made no secret of my wish for Scottish independence, also that Scotland should imo be part of the EU (so should the rest of the UK), for me that has nothing to do with what party sits in majority in Holyrood, so with that in mind - was Labour any better in Scotland when they led the parliament and do you think they'd be better now?

I was too caught up in my life down here to pay much attention at the time.

I can only comment on the 8 years I’ve been back. But I’m very confident in saying things have got progressively worse in that time both in terms of governance and society

[Tichtheid]

I've made no secret of my wish for Scottish independence, also that Scotland should imo be part of the EU (so should the rest of the UK), for me that has nothing to do with what party sits in majority in Holyrood, so with that in mind - was Labour any better in Scotland when they led the parliament and do you think they'd be better now?

I was too caught up in my life down here to pay much attention at the time.

I can only comment on the 8 years I’ve been back. But I’m very confident in saying things have got progressively worse in that time both in terms of governance and society

Would you be in a position to say that governance and the sate of society is palpably worse in Scotland than the rest of the UK?

There was an article in the Graun today about life expectancy in Scotland, but that is definitely tied to deprivation.

I can say that things here in South East England have become definitely worse over the last 14 years in almost every respect and we live in a bit of a bubble in Brighton - there is widespread corruption in Westminster, the NHS is falling apart, schools are running food banks for parents even here in affluent middle class hippiedom. I could go on.

[Big D]

I've made no secret of my wish for Scottish independence, also that Scotland should imo be part of the EU (so should the rest of the UK), for me that has nothing to do with what party sits in majority in Holyrood, so with that in mind - was Labour any better in Scotland when they led the parliament and do you think they'd be better now?

I was too caught up in my life down here to pay much attention at the time.

17 years and counting is a long time to have passed to really say they were better or worse. I was not too long out of uni when the SNP got into power. So I'm looking at it through a different lense now than I would have been back then. I don't recall the "it's Westminsters fault" being trotted out as regularly but there was a Labour government down south at the time so wouldn't have expected it.

I'm on record in my belief that all parties are pretty poor and in Scotland I believe Humza is particularly poor having failed upwards but anyone who definitively thinks it would be better or worse under a different government is giving that party too much credit.

It does feel like Scotland is now more divided than any other time in my life and that although not the only reason, the SNP and the drive for independence while not trying to bridge the gap to the "swing" voters has played a big part in that.

Some things are getting worse in Scotland IMO, schooling quality is dropping from what I can see from my experience and others (outside of two who can afford different private schools for their respective families), anti social behaviour is going unchecked because the police are stretched, drug deaths are ridiculously high and so on. It may be the same elsewhere but that still wouldn't be a reason to avoid change.

Will Labour be any better? I really don't know. I think Scotland is probably too split to truly bring it back together but I'd rather give someone else had a try because the SNP are either incapable or unwilling to try.

Westmister and Holyrood both need a change

[Blackmac]

I've made no secret of my wish for Scottish independence, also that Scotland should imo be part of the EU (so should the rest of the UK), for me that has nothing to do with what party sits in majority in Holyrood, so with that in mind - was Labour any better in Scotland when they led the parliament and do you think they'd be better now?

I was too caught up in my life down here to pay much attention at the time.

I can only comment on the 8 years I’ve been back. But I’m very confident in saying things have got progressively worse in that time both in terms of governance and society

Would you be in a position to say that governance and the sate of society is palpably worse in Scotland than the rest of the UK?

There was an article in the Graun today about life expectancy in Scotland, but that is definitely tied to deprivation.

I can say that things here in South East England have become definitely worse over the last 14 years in almost every respect and we live in a bit of a bubble in Brighton - there is widespread corruption in Westminster, the NHS is falling apart, schools are running food banks for parents even here in affluent middle class hippiedom. I could go on.

I think the UK on the whole has been on a progressively downhill ride for a couple of decades, but the biggest problem I have with the SNP is that despite all their claims to the contrary, they have done nothing to address that slide in Scotland. They parrot stuff like free prescriptions and further education but it's mostly just wind, because 98% of prescriptions in England are free and further education is funded by selling off Uni places to fee paying foreign students, meaning less and less places for Scottish kids.

They have managed to absolutely destroy the police and the criminal justice system and are close to doing the same to the NHS and education, but they always seem more intent on their own pet projects than actually doing anything to benefit the majority of Scots. The bottle return scheme, ferries, GRR, Hate Crime bill, drugs death statistics, minimum pricing for alcohol, climate targets, cancellation of all major infrastructure project like hospitals and road. I could go on but everything they touch they break or it turns to shite and costs us 100s of millions. Christ, we even got a £120 million bill for a malicious prosecution of football club officials which I know for a fact was politically motivated.

What really grinds my gears is that they refuse to be held accountable for anything, and think they are morally and intellectually superior, yet we have had the Salmond debacle, Branchform, Mackay, Matheson, Covid accountability issues and a host of other scandals, now including the First Ministers brother in law charged with dealing drugs and abducting a lad who died trying to escape. How often do we have to see a senior SNP politician lying and prevaricating on TV.

Yousaf himself seems entirely focused on issues outwith his remit, like Gaza, and anyone that disagrees with him he immediately brands an islamophobe or right wing. It's pathetic.

I actually support the idea of independence, but there is not a cat in hells chance that these morons could make a success of it and they seem incapable of producing a credible policy on it other than constantly spouting the sort of Braveheart pish we see on the party political broadcasts.

[Blackmac]

He's now been charged with embezzlement

0.0 chance other senior SNP members didn't know about it.

It will be very interesting to hear the full charges and yes, hard to see how he could be acting in isolation.

[Tichtheid]

I can only comment on the 8 years I’ve been back. But I’m very confident in saying things have got progressively worse in that time both in terms of governance and society

Would you be in a position to say that governance and the sate of society is palpably worse in Scotland than the rest of the UK?

There was an article in the Graun today about life expectancy in Scotland, but that is definitely tied to deprivation.

I can say that things here in South East England have become definitely worse over the last 14 years in almost every respect and we live in a bit of a bubble in Brighton - there is widespread corruption in Westminster, the NHS is falling apart, schools are running food banks for parents even here in affluent middle class hippiedom. I could go on.

I think the UK on the whole has been on a progressively downhill ride for a couple of decades, but the biggest problem I have with the SNP is that despite all their claims to the contrary, they have done nothing to address that slide in Scotland. They parrot stuff like free prescriptions and further education but it's mostly just wind, because 98% of prescriptions in England are free and further education is funded by selling off Uni places to fee paying foreign students, meaning less and less places for Scottish kids.

They have managed to absolutely destroy the police and the criminal justice system and are close to doing the same to the NHS and education, but they always seem more intent on their own pet projects than actually doing anything to benefit the majority of Scots. The bottle return scheme, ferries, GRR, Hate Crime bill, drugs death statistics, minimum pricing for alcohol, climate targets, cancellation of all major infrastructure project like hospitals and road. I could go on but everything they touch they break or it turns to shite and costs us 100s of millions. Christ, we even got a £120 million bill for a malicious prosecution of football club officials which I know for a fact was politically motivated.

What really grinds my gears is that they refuse to be held accountable for anything, and think they are morally and intellectually superior, yet we have had the Salmond debacle, Branchform, Mackay, Matheson, Covid accountability issues and a host of other scandals, now including the First Ministers brother in law charged with dealing drugs and abducting a lad who died trying to escape. How often do we have to see a senior SNP politician lying and prevaricating on TV.

Yousaf himself seems entirely focused on issues outwith his remit, like Gaza, and anyone that disagrees with him he immediately brands an islamophobe or right wing. It's pathetic.

I actually support the idea of independence, but there is not a cat in hells chance that these morons could make a success of it and they seem incapable of producing a credible policy on it other than constantly spouting the sort of Braveheart pish we see on the party political broadcasts.

I'd take issue with the FM's brother in law being used as a stick to beat the SG with, but other than that "I hear you" as they say.

Having said that, I think HS2 dwarfs any other infrastructure project in the UK in terms of pounds wasted. There is still a lot of accounting to be done regarding the pandemic and who made billions out of it - I see your Salmond, Mackay et al and raise you any number of Tory sex scandals, "procurement" deals and all manner of shady goings on.

On Yousaf and his approach to opposition, he hasn't yet sought to criminalise it, the Tories have. You can walk down the street here and see and smell drug taking openly, the police do not have the resources to do anything about it. Same with burglaries and assaults. Homelessness is rising in South East England, it came down under Labour, but the state of the economy under the Tories has brought it back, aggressive begging is the norm here now.

There are no NHS dentists to be had, primary schools are running fund raisers for text books and jotters.

This is not a "Westmonster is worse" post, despite appearances, I'm just trying to say that things are shite here too, in the most affluent area of the UK, let alone elsewhere.

[Slick]

I've made no secret of my wish for Scottish independence, also that Scotland should imo be part of the EU (so should the rest of the UK), for me that has nothing to do with what party sits in majority in Holyrood, so with that in mind - was Labour any better in Scotland when they led the parliament and do you think they'd be better now?

I was too caught up in my life down here to pay much attention at the time.

I can only comment on the 8 years I’ve been back. But I’m very confident in saying things have got progressively worse in that time both in terms of governance and society

Would you be in a position to say that governance and the sate of society is palpably worse in Scotland than the rest of the UK?

There was an article in the Graun today about life expectancy in Scotland, but that is definitely tied to deprivation.

I can say that things here in South East England have become definitely worse over the last 14 years in almost every respect and we live in a bit of a bubble in Brighton - there is widespread corruption in Westminster, the NHS is falling apart, schools are running food banks for parents even here in affluent middle class hippiedom. I could go on.

You asked me about Scotland. And anyway, as we are repeatedly told, we are different to them.

Actually, that’s probably not a fair answer to you, but I’m really at the stage of anger with this lot

[Tichtheid]

I can only comment on the 8 years I’ve been back. But I’m very confident in saying things have got progressively worse in that time both in terms of governance and society

Would you be in a position to say that governance and the sate of society is palpably worse in Scotland than the rest of the UK?

There was an article in the Graun today about life expectancy in Scotland, but that is definitely tied to deprivation.

I can say that things here in South East England have become definitely worse over the last 14 years in almost every respect and we live in a bit of a bubble in Brighton - there is widespread corruption in Westminster, the NHS is falling apart, schools are running food banks for parents even here in affluent middle class hippiedom. I could go on.

You asked me about Scotland. And anyway, as we are repeatedly told, we are different to them.

Actually, that’s probably not a fair answer to you, but I’m really at the stage of anger with this lot

I'm not too bothered about "fairness" here, but I'd moved on from the initial question to a second one regarding comparisons with the rest of the UK

[Big D]

Would you be in a position to say that governance and the sate of society is palpably worse in Scotland than the rest of the UK?

There was an article in the Graun today about life expectancy in Scotland, but that is definitely tied to deprivation.

I can say that things here in South East England have become definitely worse over the last 14 years in almost every respect and we live in a bit of a bubble in Brighton - there is widespread corruption in Westminster, the NHS is falling apart, schools are running food banks for parents even here in affluent middle class hippiedom. I could go on.

I think the UK on the whole has been on a progressively downhill ride for a couple of decades, but the biggest problem I have with the SNP is that despite all their claims to the contrary, they have done nothing to address that slide in Scotland. They parrot stuff like free prescriptions and further education but it's mostly just wind, because 98% of prescriptions in England are free and further education is funded by selling off Uni places to fee paying foreign students, meaning less and less places for Scottish kids.

They have managed to absolutely destroy the police and the criminal justice system and are close to doing the same to the NHS and education, but they always seem more intent on their own pet projects than actually doing anything to benefit the majority of Scots. The bottle return scheme, ferries, GRR, Hate Crime bill, drugs death statistics, minimum pricing for alcohol, climate targets, cancellation of all major infrastructure project like hospitals and road. I could go on but everything they touch they break or it turns to shite and costs us 100s of millions. Christ, we even got a £120 million bill for a malicious prosecution of football club officials which I know for a fact was politically motivated.

What really grinds my gears is that they refuse to be held accountable for anything, and think they are morally and intellectually superior, yet we have had the Salmond debacle, Branchform, Mackay, Matheson, Covid accountability issues and a host of other scandals, now including the First Ministers brother in law charged with dealing drugs and abducting a lad who died trying to escape. How often do we have to see a senior SNP politician lying and prevaricating on TV.

Yousaf himself seems entirely focused on issues outwith his remit, like Gaza, and anyone that disagrees with him he immediately brands an islamophobe or right wing. It's pathetic.

I actually support the idea of independence, but there is not a cat in hells chance that these morons could make a success of it and they seem incapable of producing a credible policy on it other than constantly spouting the sort of Braveheart pish we see on the party political broadcasts.

I'd take issue with the FM's brother in law being used as a stick to beat the SG with, but other than that "I hear you" as they say.

Having said that, I think HS2 dwarfs any other infrastructure project in the UK in terms of pounds wasted. There is still a lot of accounting to be done regarding the pandemic and who made billions out of it - I see your Salmond, Mackay et al and raise you any number of Tory sex scandals, "procurement" deals and all manner of shady goings on.

On Yousaf and his approach to opposition, he hasn't yet sought to criminalise it, the Tories have. You can walk down the street here and see and smell drug taking openly, the police do not have the resources to do anything about it. Same with burglaries and assaults. Homelessness is rising in South East England, it came down under Labour, but the state of the economy under the Tories has brought it back, aggressive begging is the norm here now.

There are no NHS dentists to be had, primary schools are running fund raisers for text books and jotters.

This is not a "Westmonster is worse" post, despite appearances, I'm just trying to say that things are shite here too, in the most affluent area of the UK, let alone elsewhere.

Aren't these posts a case for collective change?

[Tichtheid]

Aren't these posts a case for collective change?

I'd say so, yes.

What are the chances of the vast majority of the UK electorate voting for major collective change in how we approach the economy and provision for those that need it?