Protesters warn Scottish Government over Flamingo Land
The official, however, added 49 conditions to the application.
The Balloch and Haldane Community Council is demanding the Scottish Government reverses its decision to recommend planning permission.
Local MSP Ross Greer said ministers stepped in to help Donald Trump build an Aberdeenshire golf course, which opened in 2012.
He told The Herald: 'Ministers have the power to reject and recall this decision but they won't do it despite having done so previously for developers like Donald Trump. They wont do it when it is Scotland's national environment that needs protecting.'
'Government ministers got directly involved to help Donald Trump build a golf course in Aberdeenshire, but they're refusing to do so here when it's about protecting Scotland's environment.
Read more:
Emergency public meeting called over Flamingo Land decision
MP demands Swinney steps in and recalls Flamingo Land recommendation | The Herald
'It looks like we have a government that is willing to stand up for American billionaires and stand up for big business but won't stand up Scotland's communities or our world famous natural environment.'
Scottish ministers granted planning permission to Mr Trump, despite the local council throwing out the application.
Ministers argued that the economic benefit would outweigh the environmental harm.
Mr Greer added: 'We want government ministers to step in and reject Flamingo Land's application. They are hiding behind a government official.
'The National Park's board unanimously rejected this plan because the evidence against them was overwhelming. They are so destructive.'
He added that Sepa, the Scottish Government's environment watchdog, also rejected the plans over flooding risks.
'Despite that, a government official has overturned that and Scottish Government ministers are allowing them to do so," he added.
Balloch residents Rae and Alison told The Herald the community is prepared to fight the decision "every step of the way".
Rae said: 'Everybody in Balloch is against this. We are all shocked that it was passed again, we didn't even know that it was coming back up to parliament.
'I don't know one person in Balloch, or Dumbarton, or in surrounding areas, that wants this. It is a unanimous no.'
A Scottish Government spokesperson also said at the time: 'An independent reporter has issued a decision intimating that he is minded to grant planning permission in principle for the proposal subject to 49 planning conditions subject to a legal agreement being reached between the national park authority and developer to secure the employment and environment issues that are set out in the Lomond Promise.
'As the appeal remains live, it would not be appropriate to comment further on the merits of the proposed development.'
As part of the conditions, the applicant will now have to reach an agreement with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority – which rejected the proposals last year – before the application can progress.
Under the £43.5 million proposals, Lomond Banks would see two hotels, more than 100 lodges, a waterpark and monorail built on the site at Balloch, West Dunbartonshire.
The development has been proposed for years, with Lomond Banks pulling out in 2019 before returning with a new application, which has proven controversial with the local community.
Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie accused First Minister John Swinney of backing "greedy developers" instead of the environment.
Mr Swinney, speaking at First Minister's Questions, said it would "not be appropriate" to comment on the ongoing issue.
However, he said he was "absolutely committed" to protecting the natural environment, but added the Scottish Government reporter was "entitled" to come to his decision based on evidence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
World equities flat, crude oil prices fall as markets await Trump-Putin talks
NEW YORK/LONDON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Global stocks were flat but still traded near record highs on Friday as investors awaited talks in Alaska between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin over Ukraine. Short-term U.S. Treasury bond yields fell with markets anticipating a Federal Reserve interest rate cut. The Dow hit a record high earlier in the session, becoming the last of Wall Street's main indexes to soar to a new peak. Benchmark S&P 500 and the Nasdaq were losing ground, dragged down by technology, utilities and financials stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI), opens new tab rose 0.09%, the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab fell 0.25% and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), opens new tab fell 0.36%. "This market continues to move higher and the story is just earnings and margins," said Talley Leger, chief market strategist at The Wealth Consulting Group in New Jersey. "The inflation numbers that we saw this week were mostly services and in a services-based economy like ours, this is good for profit margins." Data showed that U.S. retail sales increased solidly in July, rising 0.5% from the prior month, after an unexpected spike in producer price data on Thursday renewed inflation concerns and pared market expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts this year. European shares touched a near five-month high before pulling back, as investors drew support from a largely positive earnings season. The pan-European STOXX 600 (.STOXX), opens new tab index was flat at 0.08%. The MSCI All Country World Index (.MIWD00000PUS), opens new tab consolidated recent gains. It was last up 0.05% at 952.34, just shy of the record level of 954.21 set on Wednesday. The White House has said the Trump-Putin meeting will take place at 11 a.m. Alaska time (1900 GMT), with the U.S. president's hopes of a ceasefire agreement on Ukraine uncertain. Trump has said a second summit involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy could follow if the talks go well. Details and the longevity of any agreement will be key, and for now investors are on standby. Ukraine's government bonds - key indicators of the mood - in recent days have largely stalled at a still-distressed 55 cents on the dollar. "There's still a small degree of risk premium in European markets because of the war. Any type of resolution will ultimately pare that back," said Shaniel Ramjee, co-head of multi-asset at Pictet Asset Management, adding that oil and other commodity prices could also react. "But I think that the market has learnt not to expect too much from these negotiations. Ultimately, Zelenskiy and the Europeans are not invited. They will need to be involved in any final negotiation," Ramjee added. The two-year note yield, which typically moves in step with interest rate expectations for the Fed, fell 0.9 basis points to 3.73%. The yield on benchmark U.S. 10-year notes rose 0.3 basis points to 4.297%. In currency markets, the dollar weakened 0.64% to 146.82 against the Japanese yen and was down 0.35% to 0.805 against the Swiss franc . The euro was up 0.57% at $1.1712. The dollar index , which tracks the greenback against a basket of six major currencies, was last trading down 0.45% at 97.74. Japanese GDP data released on Friday showed the economy expanding by an annualised 1.0% in the April-to-June quarter, beating analyst estimates. The dollar weakened 0.6% against the yen to 146.875 . Brent crude was down 0.79% at $66.32 per barrel. U.S. crude fell 0.89% to $63.45. Spot gold rose 0.17% to $3,341.26 an ounce. U.S. gold futures rose 0.22% to $3,342.70 an ounce. Cryptocurrency markets stabilised after bitcoin touched a record $124,480.82 on Thursday. It was down 0.35% to $117,531.48.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Democrats are fighting fire with fire over redistricting – but will democracy burn?
The mid-decade redistricting war looming between Republicans and Democrats is exposing an idea that's corroding American democracy – voters may not matter that much in determining who controls the US House. After Texas Republicans unveiled a Donald Trump-fueled plan to pick up five additional US House seats last month, the California governor, Gavin Newsom, unveiled a plan on Thursday to throw out districts drawn by an independent commission and put in place new ones that would add five Democratic seats in response. Republicans are also expected to push ahead with plans to redraw maps in Ohio, Missouri, Florida and possibly Indiana, in their favor. Each of those machinations could be enormously consequential in next year's midterm elections because Republicans only hold a three-seat majority in the US House of Representatives. Republicans hold the power to redraw more districts in their favor in a redistricting war. 'Gerrymandering is bad enough once a decade,' said Richard Pildes, a law professor at New York University. 'But if we open the door to continual efforts throughout the decade to squeeze out every additional seat based on changing calculations to the parties, it's very bad for voters who have enough trouble developing connections with their representatives and it's very bad for democracy more generally because it promotes cynicism about the process.' While technological advances have made extreme partisan gerrymandering the norm for decades, rejiggering the lines in the middle of a decade is 'taking it to the next level', said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow in the political reform program at the New America thinktank. 'It makes elections seem pretty secondary to the machinations of legislators and courts, which is probably not the best for democratic legitimacy,' said Drutman, who supports democratic reforms such as proportional representation and multi-member House districts. 'It continues to undermine the idea that elections have any meaning.' The US constitution requires lawmakers to redistrict at least once every 10 years, and if lawmakers gerrymander, they face the challenge of ensuring that their map can endure across an entire decade. That allows for a sliver of competition – even if gerrymandered districts lock in a partisan advantage at the beginning of a decade, shifting demographics and political trends might make a district more competitive over time. Mid-decade redistricting takes that off the table. 'It presumably increases the potency for gerrymandering because you can do the gerrymandering based on very recent data and the map doesn't have to endure for as long,' said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an election law professor at Harvard. 'The worst case isn't just a one-off mid-decade re-redistricting it's a continuous re-redistricting. Before every election, you check out which of your side's incumbents had a closer call than you wanted last time and you make their district three or five or seven points more Democratic or Republican.' In recent years, Democrats have pushed to end extreme partisan gerrymandering, advancing efforts that require lawmakers to abide by certain fairness requirements when they draw district lines or give mapmaking power to independent commissions. The sweeping voting rights legislation that failed in the US Senate during the Biden administration would have required independent redistricting commissions in every state. But even the most ardent champions of those reforms have called for Democrats to counter Republican-led gerrymandering with their own, coming around to the idea that while long-term reform is still a worthwhile goal, the immediate danger is too grave. 'We're doing something now that is responsive to what is going on with this White House,' the former US attorney general Eric Holder, who now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said during a Sunday interview on Meet the Press. Common Cause, a watchdog group that has been one of the most prominent advocates for gerrymandering reform, announced on Tuesday that it would not stand in the way of retaliatory gerrymanders as long as they met certain fairness criteria. Others have been more critical. 'If the only way to protect democracy is to undermine it – what exactly are you protecting?' Chuck Todd, the former host of NBC's Meet the Press wrote in his newsletter this month. Alex Lee, a Democrat in the California state assembly, offered a similar argument on X last month. 'Fundamentally gerrymandering UNDERMINES democracy. The right answer is to abolish politicians picking their own voters & drawing maps nationally for good. It is dangerous to kick off a race to the bottom w/ gerrymandering.' Stephanopoulos said the current congressional map was essentially balanced between Democrats and Republicans in the aggregate. 'I'd rather have fair maps in every state aggregate into a fair US House. If we can't get that because the Congress won't require fair maps and neither will the supreme court, then the worst case, I think, is one side gerrymanders and the other side doesn't, and we get a highly distorted US House. 'That then means that the majority of Americans aren't represented by a majority of legislators, and Congress passes laws that don't reflect what the majority of Americans want and so offsetting gerrymanders at least prevents that worst-case outcome.' The mid-decade redistricting battle may also only exacerbate another escalating problem in US politics – reducing competition in the US House districts, which has been steadily decreasing. Only 27 out of 435 districts – roughly 6% – were considered competitive in the 2024 midterms. Had the proposed map in Texas been in place during the 2024 elections, neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris would have carried a district by less than 10 points (Trump would have carried 30 and Harris eight). 'Ultimately it's not a sustainable solution for anybody. It's a mockery of democracy,' Drutman said. 'At some point I think people have to realize there are better ways to do elections.'
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain loses another industry after Starmer refuses to step in
Britain's largest bioethanol plant faces closure after Sir Keir Starmer refused to step in and save the industry. On Friday, the Government announced it would not give any funding to the Vivergo Fuels business in Hull, which is losing £3m a month. Around 150 workers are expected to lose their jobs at the factory, which is expected to close by Sept 13 and is one of only two domestic bioethanol production sites. The industry had hoped for a bailout after Sir Keir Starmer's trade deal with Donald Trump, which will allow the US to supply Britain with 1.4bn litres of duty free ethanol. But on Friday afternoon, a government spokesman said: 'This Government will always take decisions in the national interest. 'That's why we negotiated a landmark deal with the US which protected hundreds of thousands of jobs in sectors like auto and aerospace.' It said it had worked to understand the challenges faced by both Vivergo and the Ensus bioethanol plant in Redcar on Teesside, which has also been refused a bailout. But the spokesman said the Government would not offer any direct funding 'as it would not provide value for the taxpayer or solve the long-term problems the industry faces'. They continued: 'We recognise this is a difficult time for the workers and their families and we will work with trade unions, local partners and the companies to support them through this process. 'We also continue to work up proposals that ensure the resilience of our CO2 supply in the long term in consultation with the sector.' Unite, Labour's biggest trade union backer, heavily criticised the Government for refusing to bail out the bioethanol industry. Sharon Graham, general secretary, said: 'This is a short-sighted decision that totally disregards the benefits the domestic bioethanol sector will bring to jobs and energy security. 'Once again, the Government's total lack of a plan to support oil and gas workers as the industry transitions is glaring.' The union noted that bioethanol was a key component of sustainable aviation fuel, which is expected to be in huge demand in the coming years. The closure of the Vivergo plant will also represent a fresh blow to thousands of British farmers who supply grain to the site. A record number of farms are already closing for good after Rachel Reeves's changes to agricultural property relief made the future of thousands of rural businesses unviable. As well as the collapse of a major domestic market, the closure will risk pushing previously profitable farms into making a loss. A spokesman for Associated British Foods (ABF), the owner of Vivergo, said: 'It is deeply regrettable that the Government has chosen not to support a key national asset. 'We have been fighting for months to keep this plant open. We initiated and led talks with the Government in good faith. 'We presented a clear plan to restore Vivergo to profitability within two years under policy levers already aligned with the Government's own green industrial strategy.' ABF accused the Government of having 'thrown away billions in potential growth' and the chance to lead the world in bioethanol. 'The loss of Vivergo will be felt most acutely by our dedicated workforce and their families and by the thousands whose livelihoods depend on our supply chain, from farmers to hauliers and engineers.' During its talks with Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, ABF had demanded ministers step in to cover 'short-term funding of Vivergo's losses' as well as striking a longer-term deal to put its plant on a profitable footing again. Investment from Vivergo is thought to support around 1,220 farming jobs across the north-east of England. The UK imports around 45 per cent of its CO2 and sources have previously warned of a supply crisis without a domestic bioethanol industry if foreign sources were disrupted. In June, The Telegraph revealed a leaked memo by industry leaders that said the bioethanol sector was a 'critical component' of British food security and energy resilience. The memo warned: 'The closure of Vivergo would damage farm incomes, increase import dependency and undermine the Government's strategic goals across multiple departments.'
