Tag Archives: Scottish Government

Britain, Economic, Energy, Environment, Government, Politics, Scotland

The development of hydro-electric power in the Scottish Highlands was a revolution…

A SECOND REVOLUTION?

Intro: An investment appraisal and feasibility study is currently underway between the Scottish Government and Scottish Power for a new development of hydro-electric storage at Cruachan, beside Loch Awe

The development of hydro-electric power in the Scottish Highlands was seen as a revolution. It provided for a big leap in living standards, not just because residents in northern Scotland could have a reliable and dependable supply of electricity to light and heat their homes, but also because it became an engine of growth for industry and commerce.

The First Minister in Scotland, Alex Salmond, has announced a second expansion of hydro power. In conjunction with a feasibility study being carried out by Scottish Power, a major utility company, the aims are to more than double the current generation of electricity. Some suggest this could amount to a second revolution.

The technical feasibility is investigating the costs involved in doubling the generating capacity of Scottish Power’s Cruachan pumped storage plant located beside Loch Awe.

In principle, an expansion of pumped storage would be hugely beneficial, because it is regarded as the only reliable means of storing wind energy – which gets generated at times when there is no demand for it. Increasing the storage capacity would help to make wind a far more reliable source of energy supply, and also by reducing carbon emissions.

However, we should not dismiss the fact that this is a feasibility study that will take up to two years to complete. The associated costs and employment creation potential of the project are, at this early stage, a rough guesstimate. It may turn out that the Cruachan expansion plans, like Scottish Power’s schemes for carbon capture and storage at Longannet, and its proposals for the Argyll Array offshore wind farm, are too technically difficult or too costly for it to go ahead.

For it to work (effectively) as a 1,000 megawatt storage battery for wind power, there is the additional problem that the reservoir halfway up Ben Cruachan will have to be increased in size quite dramatically. The obstacles in overcoming resistance from environmental campaigners should not be overlooked, either.

The Scottish Government appears to regard the project as one that is more likely than not to come to fruition. But, notwithstanding whether the project ever goes ahead or not, this will become an investment decision that will serve a valuable political purpose. That decision is to be made after the referendum for Scottish independence in September.

In this context, energy is a problematic issue for Mr Salmond. Expansion of Scottish renewables – which, undoubtedly, the Scottish Government will see as a major source for employment as well as cutting the country’s carbon footprint – is largely dependent on a subsidy which is mostly financed by energy consumers in England and Wales.

Implicit in the First Minister’s arguments is that, such will be England’s needs, the people and businesses south of the Border will be willing to continue paying their ‘foreign’ neighbour the subsidy in maintaining continuity of supply. That’s a difficult assumption to make and certainly holds no guarantee.

History may be tempted to record that if the hydro revolution being envisaged fails to materialise, Mr Salmond has cleverly waved a diversionary red flag for political purposes. We can only hope, though, that the project investment at Cruachan gets the green light.

Under an independent Scotland, energy policy would be under the direct control of the Scottish Government.

Standard
Government, Legal, Scotland

Abolishing the law of corroboration in Scotland?

CORROBORATION

Corroboration has been a central tenet of Scots Law for centuries. This invokes the necessity that evidence in criminal trials from one source must be backed by evidence from another source.

Just because the legal principle is old, should not necessarily mean that it no longer serves a modern purpose or, indeed, that it must be preserved. What matters more is whether changing the requirement for evidence in criminal trials would produce more benefit than loss to the judicial process.

Related:

On this criterion alone, the debate on abolishing the corroboration requirement in Scotland looks less clear cut the more it continues. The contribution put forward by Professor Peter Duff of Aberdeen University is timely – and also well known – when he says that abandoning the need for corroboration may well yield much more information in criminal cases, but may also, less helpfully, muddy the waters.

For instance, in rape and sexual assault cases there are usually only two witnesses – the victim and perpetrator of the crime. Finding and bringing forward a corroborating witness is, therefore, often not possible. Because of that, it is argued, many potential prosecutions do not get to court – to the great anguish of the victim who is denied seeing justice being served. Abolishing the corroboration requirement would likely see more prosecutions.

But Professor Duff questions whether more convictions would be the result of changes to the law. A problem with sexual assault cases, he says, is that many victims at the time of the alleged assault may have been drinking, or have taken drugs, or have mental health problems. And, as is frequently common in criminal trials of this nature, the alleged perpetrator’s usual defence is that the supposed victim consented to sexual activity. Assuming that the corroboration requirement had been abolished, then the credibility of the victim and their denial of consent is pretty much all that is left to the jury as the basis for reaching a verdict. Prof Duff describes this as a ‘he said, she said’ scenario in which, he suggests, juries are reluctant to convict.

For some legal practitioners and advocates, the insertion of the drink, drugs and mental illness circumstances will be a misnomer. Women in these conditions may be more vulnerable to being sexually assaulted, but why should that make them less credible in their evidence, especially when the accused may also have been under the influence of drink or drugs?

Prosecutions in England are not based on the need for corroboration, and proceed on the basis of there being a reasonable chance of a conviction. Whilst this is a relevant point borne out by Prof Duff, the anecdotal evidence suggests that the conviction rate is no higher than in Scotland.

Abandoning the corroboration requirement, which the Scottish Government seeks to do, will simply shift the chances of a successful prosecution on to another equally intractable problem, that of the complainant’s credibility. This might offer the victim an opportunity in court in bringing to light the alleged crimes of the assailant more openly, but this is not the purpose of the Scottish Government’s proposed legislation, which is to increase the rape conviction rate.

Abandonment of a centuries-old legal principle in Scotland that has otherwise served the ends of justice well should only be done when the potential gain is overwhelming. It is extremely doubtful whether this will ever be the case.

Standard
Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Frontline policing in Scotland…

POLICE SCOTLAND

To the man or woman in the street, ‘frontline policing’ would probably be best summed up as the visible-presence of police officers in our communities, and one which affords a tangible sense of reassurance that our safety and security is being looked after.

On 1 April of this year, the unitary Scottish police force, Police Scotland, was created. Prior to the amalgamation of all police forces in Scotland the assurances given by government ministers and senior police officers was that there would be no diminution of frontline policing.

Of course, a rationalisation programme of this kind was always going to lead to backroom functions being merged and one which would produce savings for the public purse. But the clear message emanated was that wholesale changes to the way we are policed would be largely positive, in the form of more highly specialised centralised units dealing with specific types of crime. This, it was argued, would be more effective in dealing with various forms of crime-fighting.

Given that backdrop, what are we to make, then, of the announcement that a vast swathe of police stations around Scotland are to close, and many others seeing a reduction in their hours?

The police say they have carried out extensive research of how the front- counter service in police stations is used, and state that the new set-up is based on results of when and where the service is used and will provide greater value for money.

When the single force came into being, the government made it absolutely clear that it expected there to be savings from the police budget. Police Scotland’s Chief Constable, Sir Stephen House, is looking to remove £60 million from his budget. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that these service changes are primarily driven by that need to cut costs.

At the heart of this is a fundamental question, which is: Are these cuts a reduction in frontline policing, or does the freeing up of officers give them more time to spend (actually) tackling crime on the streets? To answer that will depend on where you think the front line is.

As we have seen in Scotland over recent days and weeks there is good news to be celebrated on the policing front. Recently published figures have revealed that homicides are at a historic low and that the general trend of crime has been dropping in recent years.

Safety is important to the public and it will be reassuring for many to know that when experts within the police service believe safety might be compromised, then they make their views known, as they have done, to Scottish ministers. MSPs must be ready to consider those views carefully.

Yet one of the question marks about the single national force was how (and to whom) it would be accountable. Accountability is still difficult to discern, despite the force having been operational for several months. Time will eventually tell.

However, ultimately the police force is not accountable to politicians but the public. It is the public the police serve, who often do a difficult and dangerous job. A criticism in the past has been the withdrawal of police officers because of their low visibility in the community. That one of the first contractions the new force makes is an important interface with the public is bound to raise concern.

As the police know, perception is vital.

Related:

Standard