Green gains

As the TV referendum debates moved away from Salmond v Darling and opened up the floor to other members of the Yes and No campaigns, the subject of Trident came up.
Patrick Harvie, co-convener of the Scottish Green Party, let rip on the nuclear deterrent housed at Faslane and said the money should be reinvested in the “real threats to human security in the 21st century” – land, water, energy and climate.
With the days counting down to polling day, it was one of the first times the environment had surfaced amid the barrage back and forth on issues like currency.
Yet behind the public face of the TV debates the environment has not been ignored and while the long lead-in time may have faced criticism from some who wanted the decision to be made quickly, it has allowed time for consideration as to how independence would impact all areas of life.
Renewable energy and its progress in Scotland; the importance of the food sector; and the fishing and farming industries; and even the country’s role in halting climate change, have all been added into the mix as people try to make up their minds.
“You could, if you just looked through the television debates, say the environment’s not really had its space,” says Lang Banks, director of WWF Scotland. “But I think the good thing that’s happened in this independence referendum is the mobilisation of people and communities getting together and having conversations. It hasn’t manifested itself in the set piece debates – but they have been happening.”
The 2014 Matters programme, which has included WWF, Friends of the Earth, Stop Climate Chaos, People and Planet and World Development Movement as its organisers has been hosting workshops and discussions about what place the environment, poverty and global justice have in the debate over Scotland’s future.
“One of the most interesting and exciting things for me is those conversations happening,” adds Banks, “and they have gone up a level because of the independence discussion.”
“You’ve had some really great discussions going on from energy and climate, even through to food and marine issues.
“If the politicians are paying attention then this referendum has inspired people. It is, I hope, going to be a stonkingly good turnout, and that shows people care about politics, in the conversations in places I’ve been there’s a genuine interest in social justice and poverty.”
The Scottish Government set out in its White Paper, Scotland’s Future, how it intended to help the environment flourish – and re-emphasised this again when Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead set out the ‘five green gains’ of independence.
Much of this official line on how a Yes vote would help is the promise of including protection of the environment in a written constitution and a voice in the European Union on the important issues such as agriculture and fishing.
But on the flipside, No campaigners have argued that independence could have a negative impact on areas like farming.
While Lochhead has said a vote for Yes would mean farmers getting a better deal from the Common Agricultural Policy, whereas they currently are the lowest funded per head across Europe, speaking to Holyrood last year, the Conservative rural affairs spokesman, Alex Fergusson, warned that these arguments were entirely predicated on immediate re-entry into Europe and being able to claim the exact same rebates and terms as the UK Government. He said: “I think it is becoming increasingly clear neither of those can be taken for granted – I would argue they are becoming increasingly unlikely.”
While the Scottish Green Party has officially backed a Yes vote after a vote by its members, taking up a position on the Yes Scotland board, there has not been a huge number of public figures backing either side.
Stan Blackley, the former chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, had a role at Yes Scotland setting up the grassroots campaign. Richard Dixon, the current director of the charity, has said he will vote Yes.
However, organisations themselves have not taken a stance and have decided instead to focus on ensuring their interests are represented in the debate.
Banks says: “Things like having the environment in a constitution, absolutely, who wouldn’t have that, but the challenge is to look at the policies you then put in place to deliver that. That’s the challenge for both sides. It’s whoever you elect. I’d like to think there would be lots of people who care about the environment in the next parliament – but that’s not guaranteed.
“I think there’s still a job for organisations like WWF post-referendum to ensure as many of our politicians and government aspire to the same future that we would like to see for Scotland. I know that’s not guaranteed but it won’t stop me doing my damndest to make sure the policies we are proposing get adopted.”