Climate Breakdown - Gathering pace as people sleep

It is now exactly two years since I wrote my last blog post entitled "Politics will not save us from abrupt climate change because we don't want to be saved", now viewed over 6,500 times and which was seen by some as a bit pessimistic.

So, two years on, how are events unfolding against the timelines I set out in that blog?

<<The three warmest years on record globally have been 2014, 2015 and 2016 (with 2017 set to join them).>>

The three warmest years are now 2015, 2016, and 2017. 2018 is in fourth position, while 2019 is expected to beat them all, in part due to a weak El Nino. However, CO2 levels continue to rise - the average level measured at Mauna Loa for October 2017 was 403.63 ppm. For October 2018 it was 406.00 ppm and last month 408.53. The current annual increase is around 2.5 ppm with no signs of even the rate of increase decreasing.

<<Within five to ten years I expect to see food prices rising well above inflation - perhaps by as much as 50% to 100% with some empty shelves appearing in supermarkets as specific crops are devastated>>

[This is the science bit] What drives the timelines I used regarding the impact of climate change on food production is crucially the state of the Arctic. The really significant event will be what's called a 'Blue Ocean Event' - where sea ice extent is below 1 million square kilometres at the annual minimum (in September each year). The 1 million figure is used as it represents largely open water, with residual ice remaining between islands and in fjords. The presence of sea ice keeps surface air and water temperature around or below zero Celsius. Without it, the water will warm up quickly, leading within a few years to an ice free ocean for much or all of the year.

Blue water absorbs much more solar radiation than white ice, and the next stage is for sea surface temperatures to gradually rise to several degrees above zero - about 30 degrees warmer than currently in the winter and several degrees above normal in summer.

Why is this important? Because it drives the jet stream, the fast flowing ribbon of air flowing at high altitude, normally at mid-latitudes. How the temperature differential affects the jet stream is explained in this video. This is crucial. It is also starting to happen on a startling scale. We are already seeing weak, wavy and stalling jet stream patterns even with most of the sea ice still present.

While sea ice extent is erratically trending down, the volume - i.e. the thickness of the ice - is steadily reducing. The problem is that measuring ice thickness is difficult and, even with the most advanced satellite technology, is far from totally accurate. However, the summer of 2019 has been characterised by more 'fluid' behaviour of the ice in the Central Arctic Basin, with more ice flowing towards the Atlantic side, indicating a thinner and more broken structure. The timing of a Blue Ocean Event is very uncertain, dependent on both the thickness of the ice overall and quite simply the weather experienced in any one summer, but it does look likely to occur by 2025.

The next crucial link is that between jet stream behaviour and crop production. A stalling jet stream gives rise to drought and floods, a weak and wavy jet allows 'heat domes' and 'beast from the east' type events, while allowing incursions of warm and moist air into the Arctic, exacerbating the situation [... end of the science bit].

The impact on food production so far has been through increasingly severe weather events over the last two years - most notable in the US mid-west, the main crop growing area of the United States, but also in Europe in 2018 and 2019 and even in the UK. In the southern hemisphere, Australia had its lowest wheat production in a decade, forcing it to move from being an exporter to an importer of wheat. However, we will probably not see an abrupt change to food production until after the expected Blue Ocean Event.

<<Wildfires are already becoming uncontrollable>>

Wildfires in Brazil have been in the news this year. But they've also been very bad in Siberia, Africa, Alaska, Australia, and as is becoming a worsening annual event, in California.

<<Hurricanes are becoming stronger and appearing in unusual places >>

Again we are seeing hurricanes forming further north and east in the Atlantic. Also similar storms are turning up in odd places in other parts of the world. As sea surface temperatures increase, these are reaching hurricane force and strengthening where in the past they may have dissipated.

<<Over the next decade, super hurricanes, flooding and drought will cause insurance companies to collapse.>>

In California this is already happening and where companies are surviving, they are either increasing premiums or cancelling policies completely.

On top of all this we have ocean acidification, the decimation of insects and vertebrates, deforestation and many other pressures on our fragile ecosystem.

Every week I see articles proclaiming that climate change is happening 'faster than expected'. If there's one thing I would change in the article I wrote two years ago, it would be my prediction that abrupt climate change will lead to the breakdown of society within 30 years. Now I would be inclined to say 20 years maximum. This is not linear, it's exponential. For example, if something doubles every year, it reaches a million in 20 years. Five years ago, BBC news reports included one or two climate related events each month. Now it's two or three a week. In five years' time it will be two or three new events a day with the heatwaves hotter, the hurricanes stronger, the floods more damaging and more widespread. When collapse happens, by definition it's fast and takes everyone by surprise.

The collapse of industrial society will bring its own specific problem - namely the removal of aerosol masking (the so-called 'global dimming effect'). This alone will increase global temperatures by several degrees. So we're damned with what we do and damned when we stop. But this must not be an excuse to continue what we are doing. Industrial society will soon collapse - no ifs, no buts - so the question is, do we manage it ourselves or let nature do it for us?

And I've not even mentioned the impact of a potentially huge methane blowout from under the rapidly melting Arctic permafrost ...

All of this leads to the conclusion that climate change is irreversible. But say it out loud and you're told that's 'giving up hope' and we can't do that or people will simply give up and not make any changes. In 1989, a full 30 years ago, the UN said that governments had a 10 year window to solve the climate crisis before it goes beyond human control. Since then we've seen numerous such warnings but still nothing has been done. So why keep trying with a failed method? To people who say we must not give up hope, I ask; "At what point would you openly agree that climate change is irreversible?". If they say "Never", then that is simply immoral (A doctor who refused to tell a patient their condition is terminal would be struck off for doing so) and one wonders if they may already have privately accepted it. On the other hand, if they admit they may one day reach that point, my response is that, having researched the science closely, I have already reached it and perhaps if they did the research I have, they too will accept the reality of the situation.

The reason we accept science is to use the information to decide best what to do in future. Only when we do that can we move on and start to prepare for what's coming our way. Hoping it won't be so bad, hoping we can fix the unfixable, only delays the point at which we start to make useful decisions. Accepting the inevitable isn't the same as giving up (someone given a terminal diagnosis doesn't just give up - after going through the five stages of grief as I have, they finally reach Acceptance and look for ways to prolong their life and make it more fulfilling). Acceptance allows us to focus on building resilience, slowing down the extinction process, and most importantly building the kind of communities that will help themselves and each other.

And we can do that by making drastic lifestyle changes to minimise the damage we are doing - no flying, removing vast numbers of cars from the roads, changing diets. Planting trees won't work, Green New Deals won't work, electric cars won't work. In short, Green capitalism simply replaces one set of problems with another, and simply feeds the consumerist habit with the belief things can just carry on as they are.

We also need to start growing food - everywhere - because that will be the new money. Community orchards, fruit and veg growing in all our public parks and spaces, allotments and back gardens, wherever space allows (think Leningrad during the siege). We need to plan for this now, building skills and infrastructure and a community spirit that will reap its own rewards.

Or we can just keep saying we've got ten years to fix the problem and wait for the next ten years to pass just like the last.

Politics will not save us from abrupt climate change because we don't want to be saved

Forty years ago I was studying for a Physics degree at Edinburgh University. I chose Edinburgh because it offered a course which included Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, interests which have stayed with me since.

When I came across articles about the Greenhouse Effect, this intrigued me as a scientist, but also worried me as a human being, and although it was only a theory at the time, I felt the implications if true were so severe that at the very least, we should adopt the precautionary principle and take immediate action to prevent it.

It was this that led me to join the Ecology Party in 1979 and since then, politics for me has always been about climate change and the need to address it before it became unstoppable. In the seventies and eighties, the threat of an impending nuclear war was on everyone's minds, but here was another existential threat to humanity that although distant, required no less attention to defuse or at least to quantify.

Then it was a theory and if proven, we still had time to do something about it. Forty years on and the Greenhouse Effect is now known as Global Warming or Climate Change. The effects predicted are not only happening, but they are happening much faster than predicted and events over the last three years have led me to believe that this is not only irreversible, but we are now entering a period of what is known as 'abrupt climate change', which will lead to the breakdown of society within 30 years and near human extinction by the end of the century.

To understand how this will happen so quickly, we need to appreciate that climate change is not linear. We are on an exponential curve. The three warmest years on record globally have been 2014, 2015 and 2016 (with 2017 set to join them).  Floods, droughts, wildfires and storms are this year setting records and records are not only being broken, but they are starting to be broken by some margin. We're on an curve where not only will events happen more often and be more severe, but the rate at which they increase will itself be increasing. That's what exponential means.

We also need to appreciate some of the deficiencies in climate modelling. Specifically, climate scientists (in common with nearly all scientists) are experts in their own fields only. Looking at a specific aspect of science in isolation is fine if nothing else is changing, but if everything else is changing, you need to take that into account if you're predicting what will happen in the future.

There are around 70 feedback effects now kicking in, and few if any models are taking these into account. For example, scientists studying the Arctic sea ice may take into account higher sea surface temperatures, but not the incursion of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) into the Arctic resulting from a distorted jet stream, or the impact of soot on ice albedo from increased wildfires thousands of miles away.

A recent example is the speed with which this year's Atlantic hurricanes strengthened from tropical storms to Category 5 hurricanes due to higher sea surface temperatures. This surprised meteorologists as the computer models were only forecasting Cat 2 or 3 at most. Only now are they recognising that the models are underestimating the effect of warmer sea surfaces and the additional energy and water vapour they provide.

As Peter Wadhams writes in his recent book 'A farewell to ice', to reverse the effects of man made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would demand a switch in global focus on the scale of the post war Marshall plan. We would need not only to stop producing CO2 but also turn over many of our factories to producing carbon capture and storage machines, and we would need to start right now. The cost to the world economies would be huge, possibly running to over $100 Trillion.

If, and it's still an if, we are capable of reversing the trajectory we're on, there are no signs of a willingness to do so - neither from politicians nor people in general. CO2 takes over a decade to become fully effective as a greenhouse gas, and lingers in the atmosphere for decades. Methane (CH4) is 130 times as effective as a greenhouse gas in the first 3 years after release and due largely to melting permafrost is starting to rise rapidly in global concentration (another feedback).

So what are we actually doing about it? 'Emissions' as measured by countries themselves levelled out over the past three years - but are now rising once again. Leaving aside allegations that the figures have been doctored anyway, the extra CO2 from increasing wildfires is not included (as an example, the CO2 from those in British Columbia, just one Canadian province, this year equated to the annual emissions from 40 million cars on the road). The litmus test is the actual measure of CO2 in the atmosphere - now reaching a peak of around 410 ppm and rising at a record annual rate of around 2.5 ppm per year.

In 1989, the UN issued a warning that we had only ten years to address global warming before irreversible tipping points start kicking in. That was 30 years ago. Similar warnings have appeared since, none of them heeded. Instead of issuing warnings, more and more scientists are now coming round to the view that it really is too late. What I have witnessed over the last three years has led me to believe the same. We really are too late and are now entering the sixth mass extinction.

Too many articles on climate change contain the phrase "By 2100..." or "By the end of the century...". That really is too far away for most people to treat as urgent. While it's difficult to make predictions, it should be made clear that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will affect us well before then.

Within five to ten years I expect to see food prices rising well above inflation - perhaps by as much as 50% to 100% with some empty shelves appearing in supermarkets as specific crops are devastated (we already had a 'taste' of this earlier this year with courgettes and lettuce crops hit by unusual weather in Spain; world wine production is now at a 50 year low due to extreme weather events).

Wildfires are already becoming uncontrollable. Portugal has seen six times its average this year. There have been fires in Greenland and in Australia during its winter, not to mention the devastation in California, Canada and Siberia. Hurricanes are becoming stronger and appearing in unusual places (Ophelia was the strongest on record in the east Atlantic and Greece is currently being hit by what is called a 'Medicane'). Sea surface temperatures need to be over 28.5 C for a hurricane to strengthen. The Mediterranean off Italy's coast reached 30 degrees this year. With the right conditions, it would only take one stray east Atlantic hurricane to head into the Med to cause widespread devastation. I can easily see this happening within ten years. Elsewhere we will see hurricanes and typhoons strong enough to flatten cities within the next decade.

The economic implications will be immense. The impact of hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in the US is expected to be around $400 Billion this year, not counting the wildfires in California and drought in Montana. Over the next decade, super hurricanes, flooding and drought will cause insurance companies to collapse. Banks will follow and pension funds will start to come under pressure. With food prices increasing way ahead of wages, disposable incomes will be hit hard, leading to worldwide economic depression.

And that's not taking into account the hundreds of millions of climate refugees (already begun in the Caribbean). With the jet stream already getting seriously messed up, or if the Hadley cells become severely disrupted, it's not out of the question that the Indian monsoon could fail permanently and within a year we have a billion people starving.

There's a saying that if something is unsustainable it will not be sustained. Obvious, perhaps, but we have been living well beyond the sustainability of the planet for decades and continue to believe that somehow we can do so increasingly and indefinitely. That will not be sustained.

So for forty years I tried to warn people. Now I tell them it's too late and we're f***ed, they say I'm being too negative need to give people a positive message. OK then, will "We're positively f***ed" do?, because when we could save ourselves nobody listened, and even now when they think we still can, there is absolutely no will to do so.

For a long time, we have needed to change our lifestyles and that, for most people, is a red line area. There are no quick fixes. We cannot continue with mass air transport - the only non polluting alternative to fossil fuels requires huge areas of land to be removed from food production, which is already coming under pressure due to climate change and increasing population. We need to stop owning cars (not just leaving them in the driveways) - the resource requirements and human rights implications of even switching to electric cars present largely insurmountable problems. And even if these problems can be fixed, the solution needs to come first, rather than assuming as always that the next generation will somehow pick up the bill and sort out the mess we are creating by our profligate lifestyles.

And so we continue to build more runways and roads, drill for more oil, burn more forests for palm oil plantations and clear the rainforests for agriculture and logging, despite the fact that these massive environmental problems are no longer a theory but are staring us in the face. But we keep on driving and keep on flying and keep on buying things we don't need from halfway across the globe without the slightest thought that all this will kill our children.

I was perhaps naive to believe that politics would solve the problem. If the bottom line is that people will not change their lifestyles, then they will not vote for politicians who say we need to. So politicians will not tell people the truth and tell them instead that we can get by with replacing petrol cars with electric ones by some decade well in the future and convince people we're all 'doing our bit' for the planet by planting a few wind turbines. They talk vaguely about carbon capture and how air transport is important for economic growth and without that we cannot tackle climate change. As a councillor I was the only one even vaguely interested in the council's climate change plan (including both councillors and officers).

And people believe them because they want to. I've long maintained that people get the politicians they deserve (good and bad) and they certainly don't want politicians to tell them they can't have their cheap holidays in Spain. I joined the Ecology Party (which became the Green Party) because it was, and still is, the only party to come anywhere close to telling people the truth on climate change. That people are generally not in the least interested in the environment that keeps them alive is borne out by the derisory vote Greens get - around 2% support except where they campaign strongly on non-environmental issues.

And Green Party activists have also realised this. So they focus on being more user friendly and campaigning on issues that 'matter to people' like independence or austerity, rather than lose votes by telling people it's about time they faced the harsh truth.

I've been accused of being too Utopian, that before we address climate change we need an independent Scotland, or a Socialist Republic, or something else. And those arguments were rational thirty years ago - after all, it's the free market Capitalist system that brought us to this position. However, thirty years ago is not now - when your house is on fire, you don't try and get ownership of the keys, you reach for the hose. When I attend a climate rally and see it attracts less than a tenth of the numbers at a Scottish independence rally, it brings home how insane our politics has become. What planet do these people expect an independent Scotland to exist on? Venus by the look of it.

So we might be f***ed, but should we give up? No, I don't think so. We may not be able to stop the process, but we can slow it down and offer the next generation at least some kind of palliative care. I have not flown or owned a car for around 20 years and will continue that way. Because very soon my children's generation will become angry with mine, and will ask why, in the face of so many warnings from scientists for decades, we did nothing about it.

It will be little consolation, but at least I will be able to say I tried.

Shining a light on political distortion

An online petition is currently doing the rounds in Midlothian. It states "Midlothian's SNP and Green Councillors have voted to withdraw funding for the erection, dismantling, insurance and maintenance of Christmas lights across our communities", with the emotive strapline "Make the most of your lights ... they'll be your last".

To give some background, a budget was agreed last week between myself and the SNP on which not only were both parties comfortable, given the severe financial constraints, but which also contained significant overlap with Labour's proposals.

However, one line in a long list of officials' proposals which Labour wanted removed was  entitled 'Review Christmas light funding'. Note the word 'Review'. During the budget debate, this item was not raised as a priority by Labour, so its importance to them now would appear to be more by virtue of its being an emotive issue at this time of year than anything else.

However, that did not stop the Bonnyrigg Events Committee from setting up and wildly promoting a petition to 'name and shame' councillors who heartlessly voted to get rid of our lights.

That the Bonnyrigg Events Committee is run by two people who will be the Labour candidates in May should be lost on no-one, and the straying into what may be seen as party political activity by a community group is, well, unusual.

The actual budget proposal "seeks to review all funding for the provision, erection and dismantling of Christmas lights, trees, etc. This will require a specific focus on promoting greater community involvement for the erection, maintenance and dismantling of the lights, etc. The alternative is where the local community provide funding to allow this to continue to be carried out by the service".

My own view is that the review should focus on other forms of external funding - sponsorship or advertising, perhaps by companies which specialise in this kind of thing, for whom the costs would be substantially less than those incurred by the council, and would benefit from the publicity.

Because those costs are now significant - £60,000 a year, or the equivalent of about 3 learning assistants in our schools, and growing as more lights are purchased by community groups. Buying the lights is the easy part, but who pays to then check them, put them up and then take them down every year? Bonnyrigg alone costs around £20,000 a year.

As it's a review, there will be no decision to stop erecting or dismantling them until the review is complete. We do, however, have a responsibility to council taxpayers to review this escalating cost and reduce it if at all possible. If a petition is to be launched, surely the time to do that is after the review is completed and a final decision about to be taken. And yes, if there is strong feeling amongst the population that they agree with the Labour Party that this is one of the highest priorities council taxpayers hold, then the funding will be no doubt be kept.

But let me ask this of those signing the petition. Do you have any idea about the financial problems our council faces? Where do you think the £60,000 should come from? Social care? Education? Children's services? Closing libraries? Road maintenance? 

If you really are getting so animated about a £60,000 cut to a non essential service, how will you feel when the full £40,000,000 of cuts start to hit over the next five years? Yes, you read that right, £40 million.

The Labour budget proposals offered no solution. Although they, rightly in my opinion, called for a more thorough analysis of staffing costs across the council, their savings proposals were vague, involving the bringing forward of staff cuts which are far from even being identified, and assume cutting more back room staff will have no impact on front line services. I'm sorry, but all the low hanging fruit has been plucked and further cuts will hurt, no matter where they are taken from.

That's why my own budget proposals sought to bring in more income, rather than spending less, with a major investment in council owned renewable energy. And I believe we need to start looking for other income streams too.

I'm disappointed that Labour has yet again taken a confrontational position, especially when there was significant agreement across all parties during the budget debate. By working with other parties as I did, they would undoubtedly have achieved some of their aims - probably including this one if it really such a high priority for them. But this is an election year and it seems that some things will never change.

Council Budget decision and how nothing changes in Midlothian

With the ink not even dry on yesterday's council budget decision, I have already been publicly accused by one Labour councillor of "political point scoring". So here's my take on the proceedings.

Council was presented with the officers' proposals which we were asked to consider and approve. The SNP proposed a couple of amendments - to remove the proposed 15p rise in school meal charges and to delete the removal of the capital element of councillors' environmental allowances (£10k per councillor per annum - although the impact on the Revenue account is minimal). This has the effect of increasing slightly the amount required to be transferred from Reserves from the £2.6 million proposed.

Taking any funds from Reserves to balance the books is something to be avoided - as it simply puts the problem off to next year. However, as Labour points out, Reserves are currently quite healthy by historical standards and due to John Swinney's very late decision to cut 3.5% from grants to councils, in this instance I believe it is justified.

Let's be clear. It would be in Labour's interest to put off the biggest cuts to next year - to be announced as we head into a local election campaign, and that, I'm sure, was at the forefront of their minds as they argued that cuts right now are 'unnecessary'.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, the Labour Group on Midlothian Council does not speak to me. It lives in a world where it thinks it's one by-election from taking back power, where the national opinion polls don't apply and one day very soon, their boat will come in. Indeed, I am convinced it much prefers to lose every vote in the chamber than seek out my support and at least have a chance of winning one or two.

However, I do keep trying to open a dialogue. In previous years, there has been significant overlap between Labour's and my budget proposals. So I suggested to the Labour Group Leader, Cllr Derek Milligan, that perhaps we should set up a meeting and explore the options. Yet again, no-one came back to me, and depressingly, Labour played out its time-honoured charade of tabling its amendments by handing round a sheet of paper in the middle of the council meeting.

I described this at yesterday's meeting as 'neither professional nor adult' as a way to proceed. By contrast, when I last produced a formal budget proposal, I emailed it to all councillors 48 hours before the meeting. So why do Labour continue to behave like this?

I listened to Labour's proposals and agreed with them that the cut to community policing is a step too far. I expressed disappointment that they did not see fit to discuss their other proposals with me (it would have been in confidence) in advance, but I was not prepared to react to a gun placed against my head at the council meeting. Cllr Milligan's response was that they had only received information from officials at short notice so didn't have time. Which is pretty weak, considering I had been sitting in my office the previous day and Derek has my mobile number. What important information they had received on the afternoon before the meeting to prevent this they didn't say.

So in the light of the information presented, I proposed a removal of the cut to Community Policing, funded from Reserves (in addition to the SNP amendments), to allow a year to examine the alternatives. I may have supported more of Labour's proposals had they bothered to speak to me in advance, but I wasn't going to be intimidated into doing so. I asked for a seconder to my proposal, which (as expected) was not forthcoming, and then abstained on the full motion.

The critical point for me was that Labour highlighted the Community Policing cut as their overriding concern, with an impassioned speech on how bad it will be. I offered them a clear opportunity to get my backing on that, which they rejected in favour of their usual entrenched isolationist position.

So while I agree there is political point scoring, it's pretty clear to me who is doing it.

Bizarre planning decisions and who benefits

Hot on the heels of my last post, on a hotel application approved in the Pentlands Regional Park, comes another bizarre and worrying decision by Midlothian councillors.

A site referred as to the the 'Former Arniston Gas Works' sounds like it's an old industrial site which would benefit from being cleaned up and turned over to something prettier and more useful like housing, but a site visit reveals something very different.

Viewed here on Google Maps (it's just to the left of the A7, adjacent to the track and Borders Rail line), it's clearly only about 20% brownfield, comprising some hard standing, holding a few skips and containers. The rest is woodland and open ground with shrubs and bushes. It's also very much in what would be called a rural location.

The proposal for ten luxury houses (full details here - Item 7a) was rejected by planning officials as it contravened the current and proposed Local Plans and was inadequately served by public transport.

When an application determined by officers under delegated powers, as with this one, is refused, the developer has a right to appeal. The appeal is heard by the Local Review Body which comprises ten of Midlothian's 18 councillors. Also, only those members of LRB who attend a site visit prior to determination are allowed to vote on the appeal.

In this instance the following councillors were eligible to vote - Cllrs Baxter, Bennett, Bryant (chair), Constable, de Vink, Imrie, Milligan and Montgomery.

As far as I recall, only two arguments were presented in favour of upholding the appeal - that this is a Brownfield site and that it is adjacent to the area known as Redheughs, designated for some 700 houses in the proposed Local Development Plan.

The first, as I've said, is simply not true - and was backed by the Forestry Commission, which has stated that if planning permission were to be refused, it wanted to return the whole site to natural woodland. The Forestry Commission had also complained that illegal tree felling had already taken place at the site.

The second is, well utterly bizarre - we have a local plan process to designate areas for housing and boundaries are boundaries. That process involved wide consultation with the public, community councils and others. It decided the boundary for housing, but councillors in this case and without good reason overruled it.

I proposed that we support our planning officials and reject the application. All other councillors present (except Cllr Milligan who declared an interest) decided otherwise and I could not find a seconder.

This is where the story gets interesting.

Getting planning permission for a site not in the local plan for development - particularly in the countryside - can be a highly lucrative business. Without permission, the land value is quite low. With permission it can go sky high.

The developer for the Arniston site is a company called Pegasus Flooring, based at Dalhousie Business Park in Bonnyrigg. A little investigation (e.g. here) identifies a director and, as far as I understand, its owner, to be none other than James McHale (aka Seamus).

Those with long memories will recognise this name from the scandal surrounding the council's missing £37,500, meant to pay for a new car park at Bonnyrigg Rose Football Club but as far as we are aware, still missing (reminders here and here).

Now I don't know if anything untoward has been happening, and certainly have no hard evidence, but I doubt if I'm the only one who is puzzled by it all. And this is not the first time I have complained that applications for housing contrary to the local plan have been successful (see reference to Fordel application here), and they are far from isolated cases. So what on earth is going on?

Building a reputation for destruction

At yesterday's Planning committee meeting of Midlothian Council, the contentious item was supposed to be the proposal for two small wind turbines at Springfield Farm near Leadburn (voted down, in the main by SNP councillors, despite my pleas for Midlothian to step up to the plate on our - and the SNP government's - carbon reduction targets).

However, it was an application for a hotel in the Pentland Hills Regional Park which troubled me more. Within the boundary of Hillend Country Park and in an area designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value, the site is also in the Pentland Hills Special Landscape Area in the proposed MLDP, "assessed as being of high value in terms of scenic quality, enjoyment and naturalness". The site includes a large number of mature trees and shrubs.

So on an elevated site, viewed from much of the Damhead area, what currently looks like a small woodland will be replaced by a three storey hotel and holiday chalets.

The response from the Scottish Wildlife Trust, referring to the woodland, is littered with phrases such as "should as much as possible be left intact" and "if possible, continuous strips of woodland should be retained". I won't be holding my breath.

Edinburgh Council's response asks what alternative sites had been assessed and discounted to justify the location in a sensitive site (none as far as I know), pointing out that the tree removal "will impact adversely on the character of the landscape", suggesting any tree replacement would be "a long term prospect" and highlighted the site's prominence, with concern about lighting from within the site. You could argue that Edinburgh Council is unlikely to welcome new hotels just across the border, but you can't argue that the points they make are not valid.

It seems that the rationale behind Planning officials recommending approval is that the hotel would 'complement' the adjacent Snowsports centre. In what way? It suggests there is a need for people to be accommodated close to the centre - despite it lying beside the terminus of the number 4 bus which takes all of 25 minutes to arrive from Haymarket.

At the Planning meeting, councillors repeatedly referred to 'demand' for a hotel. The original application included four houses on part of the site (since amended to holiday chalets). If the project is expected to be profitable, why the need to boost its income with spinoff houses? More importantly, if there is clear demand for a hotel close to the Snowsports centre, whatever happened to applications 09/00614/PPP (hotel and restaurant/bar, approved 19 June 2012) and 10/00529/DPP (hotel, approved February 2011)? Both sites are a matter of yards from this one, in one case directly across the road. Both, it should be said, are in much less sensitive sites and, crucially, neither development has been progressed.

During the debate, one Labour councillor said he was "absolutely amazed that anyone would oppose this application". The SNP, with one notable exception, fell in to line, bleating about how this was needed to boost the local economy. As I pointed out when I voted against adopting the proposed Midlothian Local Development Plan, the council is fond of using the term 'sustainable development' while either not knowing what it means, or willingly setting out to deceive. It is only when applications like this come forward that it gets found out.

When it came to the vote, I proposed rejection of the application. To his credit, SNP councillor Andrew Coventry seconded my proposal. Every other councillor, Labour, SNP and Independent, voted for approval.

Whether it's small scale wind turbines or building in sensitive areas, someone needs to explain to Midlothian's Planning Department and its councillors either what sustainable development means, or remind them they should be adhering to it.

Return of the one party state?

As I've often reminded people, Midlothian used to be called "the one party state". A legacy from its mining community days, for a while Labour had 17 of the 18 councillors, held on to its Westminster constituency - solidly - since its inception in 1955 and likewise the Holyrood constituency before it was split in 2011.

All that started to change in 2011, when both the 'Midlothian North and Musselburgh' and 'Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale' Holyrood constituencies went SNP. Labour then lost control of the council in 2012 and now this.

Just two General Elections ago in 2005, Labour and the Liberal Democrats picked up over 70% of the Midlothian vote between them. Ten years later it was just 32.5%. Who knows where we'll be ten years from now.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The political landscape in Midlothian is changing so fast, and unless those lessons are quickly learned, history will indeed repeat itself, but not in the way many people think.

Midlothian is in danger of becoming a one-party state once again, this time in the colours of the SNP, but would that be good for democracy, or for the people of Midlothian?

In November of last year, it did look like a Labour revival might be on the cards when Kenny Young won the Midlothian East by-election, but as I wrote in a previous blog that particular campaign was unusual. The result this month seems to confirm it's business as usual for Labour's decline in one of its heartlands.

In an article in today's Scotland on Sunday, former Labour MP Ian Davidson put Scottish Labour's decline down to the four 'C's - complacency, conservatism, cronyism and careerism. Is that also true in Midlothian? I don't know for sure, but I would certainly say complacency has played a big part.

I still fail to grasp why the Labour group on the council continues to boycott two committees after three years. The Business Transformation Steering Group (comprising 2 SNP, 2 Labour, 1 Green) was set up to oversee a programme of change to address the budget gap over the next few years. So that committee now sits with only three councillors, and the official opposition intends to play no part in addressing how we provide much needed services with greatly reduced income and rising costs.

The Safer Communities Board (previously Police & Fire liaison) also sits without its two Labour representatives. Why? Apparently because they don't agree with those services being restructured by the Scottish Government. For the record, neither do I agree with it, but we have to play with the cards we're dealt, I'm afraid.

Instead of building trust and acting like a potential ruling administration, Labour continues to act with a 'Labour good, Nats bad' rhetoric which does nothing for politics, and it does nothing for the people of Midlothian, whose interests we're all here to represent.

I had hoped for better from Kenny Young. Kenny is bright, he's young and he's articulate. He has potential. However, he too has adopted the tribal mentality of his peers with relish.

I don't know what Kenny learned from the bubble he worked in beside Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown, but deleting Facebook comments and blocking people on Twitter just because they challenge your views is not the stuff of grown-up politics.

I am particularly disappointed that he hasn't apologised for going into a Twitter frenzy over the Nicola Sturgeon/French consul alleged conversation when this has now been found to be a fabrication. Sometimes we screw up, Kenny. When we do, admit it, apologise and move on. Saying nothing and blocking people who challenge you doesn't look good.

I certainly don't want to go back to the days of the one-party state, of whatever colour, where all parliamentary representatives belong to one party - with huge majorities; where that party runs the council with a significant overall majority; and where huge numbers of voters feel there's no-one there to represent them.

What's clear from this month's election result - across the UK - is that people want change. And people want politicians to change too. What they don't want is to replace one lot of complacent politicians with another.

A wake-up call to the SNP in Midlothian East

So why did Labour win the Midlothian East by-election? More to the point, why did the SNP lose it?

Technically, this was a Labour hold, but Labour hold it wasn't - it was a Labour gain, with significant implications.

The by-election was held under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. The only problem that exists with STV is that it doesn't retain proportionality in a by-election. So although the 2012 election resulted in 1 SNP, 1 Labour and 1 Independent, and that's the way it is now, if we look at the underlying figures, this is a seat the SNP should have won, and won easily.

For simplicity, if we just look at total first preference votes, in 2012 the SNP received 1,777 votes compared to Labour's 1,478. In rough percentage terms, the SNP were at 43% and Labour 36%. Given the anti-Labour sentiment nationally since 18th September, not to mention the SNP's membership surge (and therefore potential activity level), the cards were stacked firmly in the SNP's favour. So what went wrong for them?

Before answering this, let's look first at the idiosyncrasies of this seat. In 2012 we had Independent candidate Peter de Vink, a pro-independence ex-Tory (though most voters didn't know this at the time) who was elected on 461 (11.1)% of first preference votes, and in this by-election we have Robert Hogg (community activist, Labour leaning and well known in Mayfield/Easthouses), who received 780 (19.9%) first preferences. There were other candidates too. So I'd like first to examine their influence in reverse order of votes.

Euan Davidson was the Lib Dem candidate. I have known Euan for a good few years and have a lot of respect for him, particularly as his Green credentials far outweigh those of most non-Green candidates out there.  Although Euan isn't well known in the ward, in 2007 Midlothian East elected a Lib Dem councillor, so for them to get less than 2% of first preferences (68 votes) it must have been pretty devastating. We all know that the Lib Dems are toast nationally. Locally, this result has set off the smoke detector. Second preference transfers from Euan were very evenly spread across the remaining candidates.

Bill Kerr-Smith was a great candidate for the Greens. Yes, I know you'd expect me to say that, but he was. Born in Dalkeith, brought up in Mayfield, lives in Eskbank and active on the local community council he ticks all the boxes. We put out an excellent leaflet, concentrating on support for communities, anti-fracking and other things we'd been doing locally (downloadable here - http://midlothiangreens.org.uk/?page_id=57) and managed to do some canvassing. Bill got 197 (5%) of first preferences; respectable for a first attempt at contesting the ward but hardly ground-breaking. It still only matched the percentage we got in Penicuik and Midlothian West in 2012, where we fielded candidates with no leaflets or canvassing. Clearly we need to do a lot more if we are to have any chance of winning a seat here in 2017.

About half of Bill's transferable lower preferences (87) went to SNP, with only 33 going to Labour. This could be an Indyref thing.

Andrew Hardie is a veteran of elections for the Tories, although he didn't stand in the ward in the previous two. With Eskbank and the rural areas fertile ground for them, this is one of their better performing wards and in 2007 gave them their best result at 14.1%. In 2012 that declined to 9.1% and this time 8.4%. Given that Peter de Vink would have attracted a good few of their first preferences in 2012, their decline appears to be continuing at pace.

The remarkable thing about Andrew's transfers was that nearly half (100) went to Labour, 83 to Robert Hogg and only 27 to the SNP. Naturally the SNP are linking this to Indyref and saying that as the extra 73 votes Labour received as a result of this is greater than the 69 votes by which Labour eventually won, the Blue Tories ensured the Red Tories won the seat. However, even in 2012, twice as many Tory transfers went to Labour than to SNP, so I suspect much of it reflects a long standing anti-Nationalist sentiment amongst the Tories.

Robert Hogg is chair of Mayfield and Easthouses Community Council, covering about half the ward's voters. He has also been heavily involved in M & E Development Trust and chairs the Midlothian Federation of Community Councils. Robert's near 20% of first preferences would, on these figures, suggest he will be elected in 2017 should he decide to stand again. His 468 transfers went more or less equally to Labour and SNP, suggesting his impact on the SNP/Labour first preference split was minimal.

In summary therefore, the overall impact of having different non-SNP/Labour candidates between 2012 and 2014 is not material. There must be something else happening.

I believe there were two factors at play. The most significant was that Labour ran a smart campaign. They brought people in, knocked on a lot of doors and in short, worked hard to win the seat. On polling day they had someone outside all the polling stations all day, unlike the SNP who seemed pretty lazy about even getting A-boards out. Labour wanted badly to win the seat, SNP were complacent.

Another factor may have been the SNP's incumbent councillor in the ward, Lisa Beattie, who due to health problems has had a very low profile, certainly on the council and presumably in the ward over the last year.

And finally, where does this leave the council? Overall, we're back where we started - 8 Labour, 8 SNP, Independent Peter de Vink (in coalition with SNP) and myself as Green councillor. However, unless Lisa Beattie returns to normal duties soon, this could present the SNP/Independent coalition with a few headaches and if the Labour group has any sense, it might want to start talking to me for a change.

Solution to skatepark problems lies a few yards away

A brand new skate park has recently opened in King George V Park, Bonnyrigg and it's a fantastic facility. If I were a few years younger or could get away with no-one seeing me (difficult as it's always packed), I'd be trying a few kickflips myself.

Unfortunately, its popularity also appears to extend to a minority who are making life a misery for those who want to enjoy themselves. There are stories of bullying, drug taking and general anti-social behaviour as well as evidence of some quite unpleasant graffiti. This culminated in a well attended community council meeting this week where we were told that a young girl had attempted suicide as a result of alleged bullying. Serious stuff, and something which clearly needs urgent action.

Discussion at the meeting centred on the need for some sort of supervision. The police cannot be expected to be there all the time, although they are making regular calls which is appreciated. Council workers likewise are helping, but again there will be long spells when they won't be there. The problems, as is to be expected, are more prevalent after dark. The main problem it seems is that the location is largely out of sight and, particularly after dark, with few passing adults, mainly the occasional folk walking their dogs.

For me, however, the solution is staring us in the face, and has been for some time. When the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT) put forward its plans to take over the former Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre, its case included two powerful arguments.

Firstly, the overarching objective of community ownership was the improved social inclusion that the growing town would benefit from. If the older kids got to know the younger kids through working together in the proposed bicycle/skateboard repair shop, or recognised them, their parents and grandparents from the cafe, wouldn't that reduce the risk of bullying?

But secondly, and on a more practical level, there would be supervision - or more accurately, a presence close by. A building lit up till ten at night, toilets, a busy cafe, people coming and going, a refuge if problems did start up - or as someone succinctly put it, there'd be a buzz about the place.

Instead, we now have a reactive approach which risks alienating those who could so easily have been part of the solution; we have extra costs and pressures placed on police and council resources; the council faces extra costs in clearing up graffiti and repairing damage; in short, we're developing a bunker mentality, desperate to avoid a wonderful new asset from becoming a social liability. This is particularly sad as the risk of costs to the council were stated as the sole reason for turning down the community bid.

This is not a debate about who should get the building - it's about why the obvious solution isn't even being looked at. The building is thankfully still standing, and so long as it is, there is hope.

It's been clear to most people that there's room enough for all interested groups to have a stake. As Bright Sparks currently plans to have part of the building open to the public for soft play and a cafe, any concerns about security appear to have been overcome. It has also been suggested that part of the building may need to be demolished to provide outdoor space for Bright Sparks, yet there is plenty of space to the side (alongside, or in place of the five-a-side pitches). Sufficient boundaries between the Bright Sparks area and the community space can easily be constructed to resolve any remaining fears over security - we have these issues in all our schools.

We know that most of the community wants a solution which accommodates Bright Sparks, Bonnyrigg Centre Trust and Bonnyrigg & Sherwood Development Trust within the building. We also know there are no logistical problems with sharing the building and no need to demolish part of it to fulfil Bright Sparks' needs. Most importantly, we all know the long term benefits shared use would bring.

So why ignore the solution which fulfils everyone's needs and aspirations? Why ignore the solution which could give our more vulnerable youngsters their skatepark back? Most of all, why are so many of our councillors ignoring the voices of those who elected them?

Midlothian's failures shown up in one decision

Anyone wanting to analyse what is wrong with Midlothian, its council and its politics, need only look at how it has dealt with the former Bonnyrigg Leisure Centre (BLC) for some pretty stark answers.

When the new Lasswade Centre opened last year the council decided the building, along with others deemed surplus to requirements, was to be 'disposed of'. Restrictions due to its being in a public park meant  that if retained it could only be for community use and up until a couple of years ago had attracted little interest. Although the council recognises the building has over 20 years' life, it considered the cost of bringing it up to a useable state to be of the order of £200,000. Demolition seemed the most likely fate for the building and the one the council favoured. This is all well documented in my earlier posts.

When a community group, later to become the Bonnyrigg Centre Trust (BCT), decided the building would be ideal as a community centre, and with the Scottish Government's Community Renewal and Empowerment Bill being steered through parliament, the time seemed right to explore the possibility of community asset transfer (CAT) - particularly as Bonnyrigg has been growing at a phenomenal rate and is now the largest town in Midlothian. Although the new Lasswade Centre is recognised as an excellent new resource in the town, the group looked at the facilities being provided and saw there were many gaps - and as many community groups wanting to fill them (over 20 at the last count). Also, since the BLC and Public Hall had both closed, Bonnyrigg now lacks a focal point in the heart of the town centre.

From the start the council was sceptical. There was an understandable fear that the building would remain empty for a long period of time, vulnerable to vandalism, and until transferred would be a drain on the council's resources.

Instead of working with the community to help it either to draw up a viable business plan or to understand one was not possible, it treated the whole process as a commercial transaction, seeking to minimise financial risks to itself with minimal community engagement. It sought no advice from the third sector, relying on its own expertise - extensive, but only in asset disposal, not community asset transfer. It also paid little attention to the enormous long term benefits in terms of both quality of life for its citizens or indeed financial returns the improved social cohesion would eventually bring to the council.

There have been four or five 'final decisions' on this building, and each time the BCT's Business Plan has become stronger, culminating in the report to council on 24th June stating that its case was 'the only bid worthy of further consideration', and was described by Council Leader Owen Thompson as 'very strong'.

So what went wrong? In the absence of a CAT policy, the council put in place a rigid process for dealing with formal bids, insisted everyone follow that process, then when it realised that the BCT Business Plan was likely to be accepted, changed the rules and invited councillors to consider the option of accepting an alternative proposal which had never been formally submitted. Confused?

Why there isn't a CAT policy in place is a moot point. An excellent draft policy was put before councillors several months ago but was kicked into the long grass - the leader of the opposition said it needed further discussion, consultation and a seminar first. The draft policy was comprehensive and based on Best Practice. I have only been a councillor for two years and I understood it. Why did the Labour Group, with decades of experience between them find it so difficult to understand?

So we ended up with a process open to political manipulation. And behind it I believe there was a surreptitious Labour inspired campaign designed to stop the BCT getting its hands on the building. The BCT has no connections with any political party and in Bonnyrigg that's not how things are done. The leader of the BCT group was demonised.  I can't go into much detail as it would compromise the position of people involved in some community groups (which may indeed be unaware of how they were being exploited). Suffice it to say that anyone close to what goes on in Bonnyrigg knows exactly what I mean.

As there was no CAT policy, the council had to tread warily. I tried hard to bring the different groups bidding for the building together to form a single group. This was strongly resisted (not by BCT who were as keen as I was). I met with representatives of the Bonnyrigg and Sherwood Development Trust and Bright Sparks and in both cases given a firm No. I was told by council officials that as different groups were in competition it was safer for them to work with none.

The Bonnyrigg and Poltonhall Neighbourhood Plan process, running over the last year, was an ideal opportunity to identify the needs of the community and how the BLC could help fulfil many of them. Again due to political pressure, any BLC solution was 'de-coupled' from the process  - the official reason was that we needed to look at the wider picture rather than focussing on the BLC, so everyone was told to officially ignore the elephant in the room. Various community groups participating in the process were perplexed and asked it be reinstated, but were ignored.

Let me make one thing clear; I am very pleased for Bright Sparks - the charity does a tremendous job and if it is given the go-ahead to use the building it will be a great boost for the valuable work it does and for the community. But why can it not be part of a bigger solution? It's a big building which can accommodate everyone's needs. Why have their needs been presented as being in opposition to the community's when they are complementary and in many ways overlap? The Bright Sparks petition was signed by many people who thought it was indeed part of the BCT bid - a petition which notably did not make any mention of the need to demolish three quarters of the building. The petition was the only one publicised widely on social media and distributed personally by local Labour Party members. Those supporting the BCT bid were invariably criticised for attacking Bright Sparks, despite universal denials (see the comments on Midlothian Council's Facebook page). In the Midlothian Advertiser of 19 June I said' "Whilst I very much support the work of Bright Sparks, demolishing most of the building would be a betrayal of the community's expectations",  to which Cllr Derek Milligan responded, "Councillor Baxter should be ashamed of his attack on Bright Sparks".  What on earth is going on?

At least with the Labour Party I know where I stand. With the SNP it's not that simple. The Midlothian SNP Group has been gripped by its own Project Fear. Never mind the fantastic long term opportunities this could bring, let's look at the risks. Alex Salmond would be mortified.

Bonnyrigg SNP Councillor Bob Constable had previously told the BCT that if council officials came up with a recommendation which said their proposals were viable then he would support them. So what changed, Bob?

Council Leader Owen Thompson told me a couple of weeks ago that he thought giving the BCT six months to prove they could get sufficient funding was something he could support. So why didn't you, Owen. When I asked Owen why his group were backing the Bright Sparks proposal he said 'We've looked at both options and that one seems the better of the two". This was also the only argument he presented at the full council meeting.

Other SNP councillors were very reluctant to provide council funding to the venture - none was asked for (and an awful lot has been given to other similar projects elsewhere in Midlothian - one significantly into six figures). Now we have the real possibility of the council sinking more money into a building (who knows how much more), three quarters of which the council will also have to pay to have demolished.

One SNP councillor told me privately, months ago, that he could not understand why his group were not backing the community on this. Three months ago, SNP councillor Lisa Beattie bravely voted with me on a proposal to give the BCT six months to prove itself. A zero risk option for the council which, if it failed would have committed me to agreeing to demolishing the building. She voted against her group and now faces disciplinary measures from her own party. Is this what the SNP in Midlothian is reduced to? Its major selling point in Midlothian used to be that it wasn't Labour. What is it now?

There is only one other councillor who has consistently looked beyond the politics on this issue, has been prepared to put his faith in the community and to take some risks and that has been Independent Peter de Vink. Ironic isn't it? The one councillor I am furthest from politically, and will never agree with on some issues, is the only one I can say I have any confidence in.

How Planning works in Midlothian

I sometimes wonder why Midlothian Council bothers with a Local Development Plan. Perhaps it's because it has to, I imagine. Because whenever the sniff of development appears before our councillors, it might as well not exist.

The most worrying example was Planning Committee's decision on Cauldhall Opencast mine, where even Planning Officers recommended acceptance, even though the area concerned was not designated for mineral exploration or extraction in the plan (though the exact boundaries of the proposed mine curiously appear in the draft plan, at the time still at the consultation stage). When I asked why officials were recommending something which contravened the Local Plan, I was criticised by fellow councillors for suggesting officials were not doing their job. Surely they should have been asking the same question as I.

Despite coal mining not being one of the seven key economic sectors identified in the Midlothian Economic Development Framework, councillors argued for acceptance on the basis of the jobs Cauldhall would bring (which is not a Planning consideration, and anyway something I disputed, given the number of workers laid off by Scottish Coal when it went into administration). Tourism, however, is one of the key sectors, yet Cauldhall will be seen from many vantage points across the county! So perhaps I should also be asking why we have an Economic Development Framework when councillors seem so keen to ignore that as well.

In two days' time, the Scottish Government is expected to announce that its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be missed for the third year running - so why did the SNP Council Leader (of all people) propose the motion that Cauldhall should be approved?

At the most recent Planning Committee meeting on 27 May, we considered an outline application for up to 60 houses at Fordel, outside Dalkeith. Officers this time recommended refusal as the area was not included for development on the current or draft plan. It is also nearly a mile from the nearest bus route, along an unlit track (councillors argued "if we build the houses, buses will come" - yes, and on what planet?). The site was described as Brownfield (on the site visit, I would say half the site is very much Greenfield with hedgerows and trees in evidence). I proposed refusal but as usual I lost the vote.

When a Planning application is refused, an appeal may be lodged by the applicant. This is determined by the Local Review Body (LRB), on which I sit. Usually, a site visit takes place prior to the meeting and only those councillors attending the site visit are allowed to take part in the decision.

Some degree of flexibility from the strict regulations regarding planning decisions can be expected at LRB and in general, common sense prevails. For example, I've often found myself supporting appeals against refusal to install double glazing units in conservation areas, provided they look reasonable in the context of their surroundings.

At last week's LRB meeting, however, the 'Development at all costs' mantra reared its head again amongst my fellow councillors. This resulted in a decision to bulldoze around 500 square metres of maturing woodland beside the Butlerfield Industrial Estate, despite advice from Planning officials that it would 'detract materially from the character and amenity of the area, contrary to the adopted Midlothian Local Plan Policy'.

Further, I queried why councillors were not advised of the Biodiversity impact of losing this. As usual, I was greeted with blank looks.

Probably because Midlothian no longer has a Biodiversity officer, and as we heard at the following day's Special Performance, Review and Scrutiny Committee, when I asked, the person now responsible for biodiversity has other more pressing priorities.

The Main Issues Report for the draft local plan went out to consultation last year. It will be interesting to see how the council reacts to the overwhelming opposition to its proposals to effectively duplicate the A701 and give the green light to massive development in Straiton and that area of the Green Belt. Given Midlothian's past record, I expect that opposition to be ignored, and even if it's not, councillors will ensure that tarmac and concrete are the order of the day. And when I object, I'll lose the vote; and when I ask why, I'll get blank looks.

It's not about flags, labels or the past. A Yes vote is about the future.

A poll in today's Scotland on Sunday suggests that English born Scots currently intend to vote 2:1 against independence.

I was born in England and I will once again be supporting England in this summer's World Cup finals. Having moved to Scotland 38 years ago, I think of myself as neither English nor Scottish, defaulting to 'British' when asked my nationality.

But independence is not about flags, labels or the past. It's about the future of the country I call home and below is a transcript of a speech I gave at a recent public meeting organised by Yes Midlothian spelling out why I am passionate about independence and will be voting Yes on September 18th.

- - - - - -

It is now less than six months to the referendum. Looking back to six months ago, I was to say the least, lukewarm towards Independence.

Yes, I felt it would put Scotland in a place it belonged and one day it would happen anyway - it just seemed to be the direction we were heading.

I was never in doubt that we could manage economically and surviving as an independent nation was never an issue for me. Now that even David Cameron has said the same, it is no longer an issue for anyone.

Six months ago, while I supported Independence, I was not passionate about it, simply because I had other priorities. 

However, it was only when listening to Robin McAlpine, who gave a presentation to the Scottish Greens’ conference in October, that I began to realise that the changes I want to see can only happen in an independent Scotland.

That’s not to say they definitely will happen but that as things stand, they definitely won’t as part of the UK.

So what priorities do the Greens have?

We live in a world with finite resources. If humanity is to survive, we need to manage those resources better.

The pie isn’t getting any bigger and if anything it will need to get smaller if catastrophic destruction of the planet is to be avoided.

Importantly, we need to look at how we share out what we already have rather than relying on a fragile model of exploitation of resources and people to fuel a wasteful and consumer obsessed world.

And this can only be achieved by reducing inequality.

 Reducing inequality also brings many other benefits.

Anyone who has read ‘The Spirit Level’ by Wilkinson and Pickett, will be convinced that reducing inequality is also the key to reducing many of the social problems we face - their study looked at 

Level of Trust

Mental Illness including drug & alcohol addiction

Life expectancy & infant mortality

Obesity

Children's educational performance

Teenage pregnancies

Homicides

Imprisonment rates

And social mobility

They looked at all of these across over 20 countries and across each of the states in the US (to show it’s inequality, not the wealth of a country which is the problem). In all cases there was a close co-relation between all of these problems and inequality. Reduce inequality and each of these problems diminishes. 

We’ve heard a lot about the Nordic countries in the independence debate and how countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland have lower levels of inequality, and as the Spirit Level shows, these countries display lower levels of social problems like those I’ve described.

That surely must be what we aspire to.

The UK is the fourth most unequal country in the world.

The top fifth of people in the UK earn around 14 times that of the bottom fifth.

Where the five richest families are now wealthier than the bottom 20% combined.

London is the most unequal city in the developed world.

So I ask myself, is a more equal society more likely in an independent Scotland or is it more likely to come from Westminster?

In the UK, inequality has steadily risen over the last few decades - even under Labour governments.

Witness the rise of the food bank.

Westminster MPs voted last month to cap the total Welfare bill in a race to prove to likely Tory or UKIP voters that their party will continue to bring down the deficit by austerity.

At Westminster, the debate on taxation revolves around whether the richest pay 45 or 50 pence in the pound on their income. Commitments on the Minimum Wage revolve around whether or not it should be increased in line with inflation.

 The Bedroom Tax, like the Poll Tax before it, was imposed by a Westminster government against the will of the vast majority of Scots.

Surely we can do better than this.

In Scotland, the emphasis is different.

Here, we were the first to oppose the Poll Tax. We seek to extend the Living Wage and abolish the Bedroom Tax.

We introduced the Right to Roam, we’re giving more rights to communities in land reform and we embraced proportional representation for both our parliament and local councils.

Yes, the emphasis is different here.

Voters and politicians in many political parties in Scotland share my desire to reduce inequality.

Independence would give us the chance to work together to do that.

The most exciting change politically is that the Labour Party would be re-invigorated and could once again become the force for change it once was.

No longer shackled to following the opinion polls of Middle England, it would be freed to work with all of us in this country who want to see the benefits of a more equal society.

 But it’s more than a more equal society that we could work together for.

We’ve heard of Devo Max, Devo Plus, Devo Nano. Whatever powers are promised, they will not enable us to do other things that I, and I believe, the majority of Scots want to see.

It would not remove the obscenity of nuclear weapons from our shores.

 While we can regulate for home insulation but we cannot regulate our energy companies.

We would have greater control over the levers of our economy.

But we are told that if we use Sterling, we might not have any control over monetary policy.

Ten years ago, the debate in Scotland was that interest rates were too high and were hurting the Scottish economy. The Bank of England told us they had to be high to dampen the housing boom in the south east of England.

And we are told that Scotland is too small to bail out failing banks.

Is Scotland too small, or the banks too big?

If we fix the bank problem, then the country problem goes away.

We can regulate rail fares, but cannot bring the railways back into public ownership where they belong.

Our cherished postal service has just been sold off cheaply to the delight of City of London investors.

I, and I believe most of Scotland, want it back.

We have no written constitution and an unelected House of Lords

I would like a head of state not chosen by God, but elected by the people.

Of the four elections we vote in, only one is not by a fairer proportional system - yes, the one to Westminster.

Then we’re told that an independent Scotland’s status would be diminished on the world stage.

Conservative minister Kenneth Clark recently told the Scottish Tory conference that an independent Scotland would have the same influence as Malta.

Malta, with a population less than Edinburgh, has five Members of the European Parliament.

As part of the UK, Scotland currently has six.

Finland, Denmark and Slovakia, on the other hand, with populations roughly the same as Scotland, each have thirteen.

Six months ago I was lukewarm about Scottish independence because I didn’t see it as a priority. Now I am passionate about Scottish independence because all my priorities depend on it.