JOHN Finnie gives “credit to the Not Coul campaign who have excelled in raising awareness around the development and the many organisations opposed to another golf course in the wrong place” (The possible threat to the Coul Links must not be sidelined, The National, December 8). They have certainly done that, with objections coming in from all corners of the globe.
He also talks about people being afraid to express their opinions in public. That certainly hasn’t hindered the Not Coul campaign, who have been only too vocal at information meetings held by the developers. They have brought aggressive tactics into the village whereas most of us would be happy if we could simply ignore them.
In a village like Embo we have survived by allowing others to have their opinion even if we disagree. We are used to relying on each other for survival and know it’d be a strange place if everyone held the same opinion. It’ll be interesting if the protesters decide to stay after the Highland Council makes its decision at the end of January.
Equally I think it’s unfortunate that Finnie is happy to tar the developers with the taint of Trump and his methods. He talks of how Trump has reneged on his promises to Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and assumes all developers are the same. It’s quite insulting really.
The SNH response to Highland Council is eight pages long. The nub of their summary, for me, is the paragraph saying: “While we are unable to fully support the proposal as presented, we believe that a golf course could be progressed in this general location by using a much higher proportion of the adjacent agricultural land.” In other words they haven’t shut the door on the development, and conclude by saying: “We are keen to work with the applicant to try and reduce impacts, should this proposal receive planning permission.”
In other words this is like any other large development. SNH is willing to work with Coul Links Ltd to help them ensure the species they are concerned about are protected. Hopefully when the planning committee look at the proposals it will be the views of the local community and the potential economic impact that are paramount. There are so few folk living here in Sutherland that it’s easy to tip the balance against local opinion. I’m confident our planners can see the wider picture. Here in Sutherland the endangered species are human!
Catriona Grigg
Embo
JOHN, can I respectfully ask you if you have spoken to the locals who support the golf development? We have a very different view of the campaign being run by Not Coul and some of the tactics they are using. We have started our own campaign “Friends of Coul Links”.
Not Coul will not debate any of the issues with us and are basically trying to encourage activists and other lobby groups to get involved with an issue they know nothing about in an area they have never visited.
Can I ask if you have visited the site personally and seen the plan with the planned level of mitigation? We have repeatedly asked Not Coul to engage in a constructive dialogue and to visit the site with us but they keep refusing. Again I would suggest you might take the time to visit yourself. I have no idea where the idea of “fear” came into the equation, I would suggest the contrary is true as when a tiny community like Embo is faced with petitions of 100,000+ it feels that it is being shouted down.
Be in no doubt that Not Coul is in a tiny minority and we locals want this to go ahead to further enhance the proven impact of golf tourism to our area.This is not a question of unwanted intrusion by greedy American investors.
Ian Madeley
via thenational.scot
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here