[Closed] anyone on here voted SNP. why?

Wee Willie Rennie > @acarmichaelmp

epicyclo - Member
It would however require a mass participation of citizens.

bencooper - Member
Anyway, I read that link

"[url= http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6858 ]Analysis[/url] we published last year shows this is not a new pattern. Between 2002–03 and 2009–10 – years of plenty for public services rather than cuts – [b]real-terms health spending per person grew by 29% in Scotland compared with a 43% increase across the UK as a whole.[/b] This was despite overall public service spending per person growing by a very similar amount in Scotland (26%) and the UK as a whole (28%).
So it seems that historically, at least, Scottish Governments in Holyrood have placed less priority on funding the NHS in Scotland (and more on funding other services) than governments in Westminster have for England."

"I [s]have two ears[/s] am deaf to any criticism of my ideology" is a fact.
"[s]An independent[/s] Scotland [s]would[/s] has struggled to maintain NHS funding" is also a fact .

FTFY

Well, not really. I said I wanted "no commercial involvement in the NHS".

You then said: "Unfortunately the SNP don't share your concerns about the health service - read all about it here."

I read the link you provided. Nowhere does it say that the SNP want any commercial involvement in the NHS. It says various other things, but nothing about what I as talking about.

Now, you were saying that some people are blinded by ideology?

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

Also, I think you'll find that fewer people in Scotland would have voted for the SNP if if it hadn't been for Blue Labour.

bencooper - Member
It says various other things, but nothing about what I as talking about.

Also are you really TJ?

Ah, good distraction tactic - ignore that your link wasn't about commercial involvement in the NHS by suggesting I don't care about the health service.

Also, no, it doesn't say that the NHS is worse under a SNP government - it says that spending per head will have a slight fall in Scotland compared to England. But funding at the moment is currently higher per head, so a good unionist would just say that it's reblancing, surely?

"Analysis we published last year shows this is not a new pattern. Between 2002–03 and 2009–10 – years of plenty for public services rather than cuts – real-terms health spending per person grew by 29% in Scotland compared with a 43% increase across the UK as a whole. This was despite overall public service spending per person growing by a very similar amount in Scotland (26%) and the UK as a whole (28%).
So it seems that historically, at least, Scottish Governments in Holyrood have placed less priority on funding the NHS in Scotland (and more on funding other services) than governments in Westminster have for England."

This interested me - it is, when given as percentages like this, quite a difference. Even more so when you learn that the difference adds up to £900M over the period. So I had a deeper look, just to make sure the Scottish Government wasn't blowing it all on drugs and hookers.

Turns out the Scottish Government didn't spend it all on drugs and hookers. Half of it - £450M - was spent on providing free personal and nursing care for people over 65. That doesn't count as NHS funding, but most people would agree that it's pretty much the same thing - in fact it's actually a good example of joined-up thinking, meaning older people can spend more time at home, not taking up expensive hospital beds.

Some interesting reading about the differences between the health systems of the UK:

SNP playing silly b*ggers again with Commons seating after the Queens speech, sounds like they are trying to sit behind Labour front bench and even claiming on BBC coverage that they where the legitimate opposition. Parliaments sits from 2:15 so will be interesting to see how this plays out, does make them look rather petty.

Interesting that the speech also contained references to material powers to be devolved to Wales and Northern Ireland alongside the implementation of the Smith Commission. Of course one side effect to all of this will be stronger equivalent powers to England and also the amount of Parliamentary time which will be absorbed.

That doesn't count as NHS funding, but most people would agree that it's pretty much the same thing - in fact it's actually a good example of joined-up thinking, meaning older people can spend more time at home, not taking up expensive hospital beds.

[url= http://myhomelife.co.uk/ ]My Home Life[/url]

[img] https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvFvMAZDrGaVqX_DCiiceHblHIZbdgo0pRaTmEBuazXOisGz9_6A [/img]

I was enjoying watching the State Opening of Parliament, listening to the Queen's speech and the topic came up on the BBC panel. All done whilst eating my lunch, now downloading some natural rides a "friend" on endomondo and STWer did in Wales. A useful lunch break I'd say 8)

I was enjoying watching the State Opening of Parliament

[img] [/img]

😆

Those SNP radicals are now showing how they are shaking things up at Westminster by clapping. Gosh. Petty Gestures 1 : Common Sense 0

FYI clapping is regarded as too time consuming and open to abuse hence "hear hear" is the accepted responce.

About the seats thing:

[img] [/img]

Absolute total nonsense. The Labour party are very happy for the SNP to sit in the spaces vacated by the Lib Dems. It is inappropriate for them to sit on the opposition benches opposite the PM as the Labour party are the official opposition (based upon numbers of MPs). Thereafter we have the seat traditionally occupied by Dennis Skinner.

The SNP are free to sit behind Skinner or indeed on some of the seats next to him.

When the chamber is full the extra MPs stand

I notice the juvenile clapping behaviour got some airtime on the main news last night.

So clapping is juvenile but shouting over each other is not. Aye right.

I didn't say that did I? The shouting is nonsense too and the speaker works to try and keep that under control.

Luddism also an SNP trait?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958

Considering that Scotland has some cutting edge scientific research institutes, this seems rather ridiculous

Or a way of protecting a food and drink industry that's all about clean mountain water, wild ingredients etc. Even if that's not really true.

Some more quotes from both sides:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13583644.Scotland_bans_GM_crops_to_protect_the_nation_s__clean__green__brand/

Personally, I think it's a good thing. And not because I'm anti-science or think that GM crops themselves are harmful, but because I think that they're often used not for real advantage but because they tie farmers into pesticides from particular manufacturers. Just look who's objecting - BASF, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta.

Yeah its a sad fact that because of a poor understanding of the science many governments (and I think Scotland )won't invest in GM crops, leaving it all in the hands of multinational corporations
Which reinforces public option that GM = bad therefore may harm sales of etc
Its as feedback loop of ignorance

I agree with bencooper. I just wish they would apply the same protection to wild places with regard to wind farms and similar developments...

I wish the real science could be debated rather than the look at the supporters argument etc. As for windfarms we have a choice, more coal, more gas, more pollution or more renewable,

Personally, I think it's a good thing. And not because I'm anti-science or think that GM crops themselves are harmful, but because I think that they're often used not for real advantage but because they tie farmers into pesticides from particular manufacturers. Just look who's objecting - BASF, Bayer, Dow, Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta.

This! Well said Ben.

^^^ sounds like scotlands days of leading the world in genetic engineering are well and truly over

seems like its all about, haggis, smoked salmon, whiskey and kilts these days

does no one remember...
[img] [/img]

It's perfectly possible to lead the world in genetic engineering while not allowing GM crops. Dolly wasn't produced in Scotland because we had a lax attitude to releasing GM sheep into the wild or anything.

Luddism also an SNP trait?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33833958

Considering that Scotland has some cutting edge scientific research institutes, this seems rather ridiculous

I think it's rather ridiculous to suggest that this is some sort of issue specific to the SNP and therefore appropriate for a "anyone on here voted SNP" thread.

The only political party mentioned in the link is the Scottish Greens and the article claims [i]"The move has also been broadly welcomed by environment groups".[/i]

And is there any evidence that this policy is in defiance of the wishes of Scots? The rural affairs secretary according to the article said, [i]"There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers"[/i], is this not true?

Who else runs the show in scotland??

The SNP rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead announced that he would be requesting an opt-out for Scotland from EU-wide consent for GM crops

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scotland-to-ban-all-gm-crops-over-fears-for-green-brand-angers-farmers-and-scientists-10447146.html

if Scotland really wants to hamper its own scientific research just as genome editing has become a viable reality in the lab, it can go ahead.

at least theyll still be king of the deep fried mars bar eh, no one will out do em in that!

Well done the SNP on this GM crop ban. The next step and harder to do is to either ensure all foodstuffs contains GM modified crops are labelled as such or ideally banned (impossible sadly I imagine). In any case I applaud the ban.

if Scotland really wants to hamper its own scientific research just as genome editing has become a viable reality in the lab, it can go ahead.

at least theyll still be king of the deep fried mars bar eh, no one will out do em in that!

Well make your mind up...........is this a petty attack on Scots or a petty attack on the SNP?

http://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120062/crop_and_soils_systems

still going to try and claim it was just them pesky greens ernie?

is this a petty attack on Scots or a petty attack on the SNP?

nope just a petty attack on the scientifically illiterate,

I can imagine that the scientists at Roslin will be pretty sadened by all of this, they are after all pioneering the use of CRISPR and other GM technologies

I suppose the James Hutton Institute in Dundee will have to close down, too
wonder how many uni departments will be forced to stop research as well

All of our food has been modified since humans have existed. To ban GM crops in Scotland is, indeed, luddism. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/scotland-is-banning-gm-crops-what-is-it-thinking/

still going to try and claim it was just them pesky greens ernie?

Eh ?

The point I was making was that opposition to GM crops is not a uniquely SNP issue, your linked article doesn't even mention the SNP, it does though mention the Scottish Greens, environment groups, and Scottish consumers, so as well as the SNP there doesn't appear to be wholehearted support for GM crops in Scotland.

Which therefore begs the question is the issue really appropriate for a "anyone on here voted SNP" thread ?

I think the answer is probably no but as this comment [i]"at least theyll still be king of the deep fried mars bar eh, no one will out do em in that!"[/i] shows, you presumably felt it gave the opportunity for a cheap shot.

All of our food has been modified since humans have existed. To ban GM crops in Scotland is, indeed, luddism.

Erm ..... if all the crops/food in Scotland has "been modified since humans have existed" as you claim, then it proves the complete reverse - Scots are clearly not Luddites.

come on ernie are you still trying to make out that this proposal to be put b4 the EU by the SNPs rural affairs minister is infact nothing to do with the SNP

keep trying

Erm ..... if all the crops/food in Scotland have "been modified since humans have existed" as you claim, then it proves the complete reverse - Scots are clearly not Luddites.

🙄

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2004/may/swinney-publishes-euro-environment-manifesto-make-scotland-gm-free-snp

It was, after all, in the SNP manifesto for the 2015 GE. You know - the one where they wiped the floor with the other parties? I get that some folk might be surprised at the very notion of politicians standing by the manifesto upon which they were elected.....

Presumably the organic farmer buys insecticides from the same suppliers as the gm guys? And the same herbicides to kill the crop at the right time for harvest? I see no problems with either. The consumers will decide,however terrible they are at science and farming.

is infact nothing to do with the SNP

Because of course I haven't said that it has "nothing to do with the SNP".

I just don't think it has anything to do with this thread.

I very much doubt that many people voted SNP purely because of its policy on GM food, they could have voted Green if that was what was really important to them.

BTW well done for your clever use of the rolling eyes emoticon, along with your cheap shot about deep fried mars bars you are really showing how capable you are of having an intelligent and sensible discussion.

cheers for the link scottroutes

a GM free Scotland is central to our vision of a free Scotland.

luddism nicely summed up

I suppose theyll be booting out the multi £million, Roslin institute then

seeing as its entire purpose is erm GM farming

For every £1 of public funding, The Roslin Institute generates £12.87 GVA for the UK economy

was that in their manifesto?

Its OK, Im sure any university in any city in Emgland would take it

Ah - because it makes money it must be right?

scotroutes - Member
Ah - because it makes money it must be right?

erm no , because its one of the greatest institutes from one of the best universities in the world

its benefits to science are imho much greater

[quote=kimbers ]

scotroutes - Member
Ah - because it makes money it must be right?

because the direct returns from that institute alone is a £300 million bonus in a country that fancies independence and just happens to be hugely dependent on the price of oil.....

its a bad idea on so many levels,not just financially, itll be bad for universities, research institutes, industry, it sends out a ridiculous message to the public ,it would have knock on consequences in other areas of genetic and medical research, it will harm scotlands scientific reputation, not to mention unless they can set up some kind of pollen filter accross the entire country its laughably unenforceable

One of the problems with the GM debate is that it is the rhetoric of fear and ideology (from both sides), served to a largely ignorant public (note - not the same as stupid).

Not all GM crops are the same. GM crops that are herbicide resistant to allow easy weed control for yield are in all likelihood bad for ecological diversity, water and soil contamination with unknown effects on human health from the herbicide (not the GM part).

On the other hand crop varieties that have been engineered to be resistant to a pathogen ([i]Phytopthora[/i] on potato or [i]Mycosphaerella[/i] on wheat) by the transfer of a resistance gene from another wheat or potato variety require less spraying/chemical control agents, have no negative effects on human health beyond that of the parental varieties and reduce harvest yield uncertainty.

Each case must be judged on it's individual scientific merits, but with the current baseline of ignorance apparently being acceptable who knows how long it will be until we can have a sensible debate on the matter.

And it is rather ironic that the Scottish government fund and encourage GM research directly through their research institutes but won't allow them to be tested here. Double standards?

It was, after all, in the SNP manifesto for the 2015 GE

To counter the cynicism on the point above about it making money so its OK, the 2011 manifesto comments on Universities include increasing their economic contribution and on food & drink economics is a key point. The politicians know the money matters.

I say that despite not being a fan of GM, just like I'm not a fan of battery farmed chicken, but blanket exclusion of a technology rather than reviewing any output from it on a case by case basis just seems wrong.

Ah - because it makes money it must be right?

Like the O&G industry that the SNP/Scottish Government are so keen on? Makes stacks of cash. Awful for the environment. When's that going to be banned for the negative impact it will have on our clean and green country?

I think the ban makes a lot of sense, on three fronts.

Firstly: lets not forget the most important thing in all of this, discarding all of the agri-business arguments for a wee minute....

Food.

This is also about growing crops to feed people and industries, and to export elsewhere.

Scotland has decided that GM crops are not needed for growing crops- and certainly, from what I know of this, they aren't. So no need to plant them here.

Secondly: Scotland as a brand. Scotland exports vast amounts of goods abroad, and the notion that anything produced here is non-GM is attractive to importers.

Thirdly: there's no ban on research into GM crops, they just can't be used in Scotland. Nothing hypocritical about that as far as I can see, and also: see point 1.

Scotland has decided that GM crops are not needed for growing crops- and certainly, from what I know of this, they aren't. So no need to plant them here.

Right now, this instant, could go either way depending on where your desired yield/environmental impact/profit sliders are set so long as you are prepared to import the majority of the food that we consume.

With climate change and other factors putting food security further up the "we are all going to die" agenda we need crops that give good consistent yield, minimise environmental impact, are compatible with current and incoming EU/national chemical/pesticide/fungicide/herbicide usage regs, can fight off pests and diseases more efficiently or last longer in storage.

Conventional breeding takes 20-30 years to get a single variety out to farmers, GM can do it in under 10, even less if appropriate germplasms and trait loci are already identified and prepared (as is currently underway). GM would allow for forward planning and, when optimised, would allow for much more rapid response to needs than breeding of any form could provide.

Secondly: Scotland as a brand. Scotland exports vast amounts of goods abroad, and the notion that anything produced here is non-GM is attractive to importers.

Much of Scotlands brand consists of selling whisky. From barley. Currently Scotland can't produce enough high quality barley to satisfy malting requirements so imports it from Scandinavia and England. In bad years over 2/3 of barley for whisky is imported. In good years it is only 25%. As the success of brand Scotland increases so does its need for non-scottish barley (from Europe with those GMO regs that brand Scotland doesn't like). Almost the dictionary definition of ironic. I wonder if French wine could be made with Spanish grapes and still sold as French without any reference to Spain? Obviously the French would never do this unless they wanted to sell the wine to England but my general point holds.

Oats and tweed. Now here are things Scotland can claim to produce all of that itself. All we need to do is make oatcakes, porridge and itchy fabric as popular as whisky 😉

Thirdly: there's no ban on research into GM crops, they just can't be used in Scotland. Nothing hypocritical about that as far as I can see, and also: see point 1.

So nothing hypocritical about commercialising GM crops (as is happening right now using SG funded research in SG institutes where the money goes back into the public purse) for use in other countries but not in our own? I'd say hypocritical and morally questionable!

I could go on and on and on. As you can probably tell I work in this general area. I have no particular pro/anti-GM leaning beyond not wanting anyone to starve to death (see earlier comments about each case on its merits). I go to conferences about global and national food security and feel sick from looking at the (best case) food shortage projections. Then I go home and see farmland being bulldozed for houses and watch ill-informed "political" debates by our glorious numpty leaders where science and forward planning beyond the next sound bite doesn't get a look in.

I would have voted SNP had I not seen the type of people who were voting for them.

I would have voted SNP had I not seen the type of people who were voting for them.

What type are 50% of Scottish voters?

bencooper - Member
What type are 50% of Scottish voters?

Not my type! Seriously though I wish King Alex would join a proper political party. He would make a great leader for the UK, instead of wasting his time fannying around trying to split it up.

Yeah, he's mad, what's he doing messing about in the most popular political party by head of population in the UK by far?

I think his popularity can be likened to the fact that 'The Sun' is the most widely read 'newspaper' in the UK.

The Sun explains SNP popularity? 😆

So why did everyone start voting SNP after he resigned and Nicola Sturgeon took over?

Sorry I should have said SNP popularity Mr B. In actual fact I know bugger all about politics. I just drove past a few SNP election offices at campaign time. And cringed. Having said that at least they do have election offices.

My main whinge against the GM lobby is that ieven if every crop was replaced with drought/ pest resistant gm strains, we still have a long way to go in supplying fresh drinking water for our current population.

greatbeardedone - Member
My main whinge against the GM lobby is that ieven if every crop was replaced with drought/ pest resistant gm strains, we still have a long way to go in supplying fresh drinking water for our current population.

Eh? How is it the responsibility of the GM lobby to supply fresh drinking water? Given that Scottish Water typically want to charge between £1,000 and £1,500 to install a water meter it can't be that much of a pressing concern...

There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers

This is the bit that really wound me up, perhaps there's no evidence because consumers aren't aware of what produce is GM and what isn't? It's easy to say there's no evidence for demand if you don;t measure it.

The GM lobby has no responsibility to supply clean water for the worlds population, BUT if they use the argument that GM crops are necessary to feed an ever increasing population without acknowledging the major problems with global water supply or even the ability for farmers to actually pay for these crops then they're kind of putting the cart before the horse...
And that's before we consider how to clothe or house an ever increasing population...

Water for crop use has nothing specifically to do with GM though, any crop needs water. Any group who ignores the water issue in the context of either GM or conventional agriculture are either idiots or deliberately misleading people.

GM does offer the prospect of reducing water use/tonne crop through the introduction of increased respiratory efficiency (long term) or stress tolerance (short term). Even pest/fungus/bacteria resistant varieties offer reduced average water use/tonne crop as you don't need to plant as much land for a given yield.

World wide water shortages could be reduced dramatically if we grew the right crop in the right place at the right time. Barley and tatties in scotland now are good but potatoes are thirsty. If we have reduced rainfall (hah!) in the future due to climate change we may have to swap potato for something more drought tolerant or at least less thirsty. Look at the situation with Almonds in california or green veg/salad crops in Kenya. Madness. And Why? Because they are cash crops, nothing to do with sustainably feeding people locally or globally, neither crop is a staple and the bulk is exported. Maybe capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be..... 🙄

As an aside this is a particularly interesting method of producing fresh food in hot environments, could be very useful in the future for protecting fresh water supplies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse

The problem is there are good and bad uses of GM technology - there needs to be a better way to distinguish between GM that's truly helpful for humanity from that which is for the benefit of the large multinationals.

Shackleton - Member

So nothing hypocritical about commercialising GM crops (as is happening right now using SG funded research in SG institutes where the money goes back into the public purse) for use in other countries but not in our own? I'd say hypocritical and morally questionable!

Why? Genuine question. We research loads of stuff in Scotland that doesn't have any direct application here. If the government line was "GM is evil and must be stopped" then yes, it'd be hypocritical. But despite attempts to paint them as luddites, that's not the case is it? They've been very clear what the rationale is and it's not anti-science or even anti-GM in general.

Personally, I don't agree with it but I think there's a legitimate concern on consumer perception. Some folks in the thread have rightly point out that it's bollocks- frinstance as above we import barley for whiskey. But that's missing the point, this is image/perception. And you can say "educate the public" but we export worldwide.

Personally banning GM crops is not something I would support - for many of the same reasons that Shackleton has explained.

But I'm also not naive enough to think that a political party that i support must be in 100% agreement with my own views.

Let me know when they start abstaining on government welfare bills.

Northwind - OK, I take your point about the "evil" side but I still think it is hypocritical to profit from selling GM crops to others while saying "we won't grow them because it makes us look bad to consumers". To me it is a bit like a drug dealer not wanting people pushing on his own street to maintain respectability. Or a catholic country exporting condoms. I think there is a difference between not being able to use something we create and not being willing but still selling it to others.

I still don't get why the green lobby are anti-GM. Given the potential for GM to reduce water, pesticide, herbicide use and the concomitant reduced carbon footprint and soil compaction over the industrialised farming we currently have I'm surprised. Particularly as GM crops could offer the opportunity to be more "organic" than currently possible. I'm starting to think that they could be politically rather than rationally motivated.................

I still don't get why the green lobby are anti-GM.

because science is scary.

I think you are probably right. The politics of fear and ignorance.

You only have to look at the previous policies of the Green Party (which I accept is not the same thing as the green lobby) to see that many part of the movement are anti science.

Argh, random, delayed double post!

I am in favour of the ban. Some of the debate over gm crops may be academic though if TTIP goes ahead. John Hilary Chief executive of WAR ON WANT said in his 2015 update on TTIP chapter 4 "restrictions on genetically modified organisms ,hormone treated beef,and growth promoters are among the principal targets that business groups have identified for removal in the TTIP negotiations " Don't have a link to the booklet but
http://www.waronwant.org/say-no-ttip

The big question, and one that didn't yet get answered to my satisfaction, is: why does Scotland need it?

Not the world- just Scotland.

I've not seen anything to convince me of this, and as some have stated already, we're at a crossroads where we can end up in lock-step with agri-business, or not. I'd rather we didn't- not because I'm anti-science, but because I'm troubled by the practices of large, shareholder-beholden organisations.

Just saying "trust me, I know more about this than you do", or claiming that anyone against this is living in fearful ignorance will not change my mind.

GM has a place, but according to all I've read has a high cost- socially, environmentally, legally, and the companies are not run by benevolent individuals.

gordimhor - could I ask why you are in favour of a total ban? FWIW I agree with blocking TTIP and one of my reasons is the potential threat of being unable to stop the growing of certain GM crops.

Shackleton - Member

Northwind - OK, I take your point about the "evil" side but I still think it is hypocritical to profit from selling GM crops to others while saying "we won't grow them because it makes us look bad to consumers".

"But you may feel differently, it is your decision". Or "Your local situation is different to ours and you may get more benefits". Or in many cases "This strain is resistant to a pest we don't have". There's nothing unusual about offering people a choice you didn't take yourself!

There's nothing unusual about offering people a choice you didn't take yourself!

Yes, but by having a ban, you're not giving farmers in Scotland a choice about what they want to use. The reaction of farmers to this would appear, on the surface anyway, to show that they weren't consulted or listened to. By declaring that this is about image, the Government are not making it about relevance to farming or what we need or what the science says. Opinion over fact. Slippery slope.

we're at a crossroads where we can end up in lock-step with agri-business

really, who do you think makes all of the fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides currently sold to scotland's farmers?

according to all I've read has a high cost- socially, environmentally, legally, and the companies are not run by benevolent individuals

I think thats the problem, 90s scare stories about 'Frankenfoods' in the Sun and Daily Mail, despite being obviously bollox have left a lasting impression, while a well organised PR savvy antiGM lobby has emerged quite happy to capitalise on these fears

The fact that 'GM Free' is considered to be a positive marketing slogan speaks volumes about societies failure to understand the science

analysis of GM crop growth show that they lead to an increase in yield a [u]decrease in pesticide use[/u] and a big increase in profits for farmers.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Theres only a handful of GM cops approved for use in Europe and these crops have been studied assessed and analysed more than any other plants in the world!

Currently Im not sure that theres much that can benefit scottish crops, but the GM techniques have improved so significantly recently that the potential is huge, a blanket ban is simply shortsighted and naive

[s]GM[/s]Agriculture has a place, but according to all I've read has a high cost- socially, environmentally, legally, and the companies are not run by benevolent individuals.

Fixed that for you.

EDIT - cross post with Kimbers

We are already in lockstep with agribusiness. The same companies that are developing GM are the ones who currently supply seed, etc. and supply the chemicals for pest and weed control as well. Most of the crops under development are not round-up ready varieties that tie you to a herbicide (bad GM in my opinion) but contain engineered resistance to late blight, wilts, rusts, etc. (possibly very useful GM). Please stop assuming that both types are the same.

Why does Scotland need it?
As I have already said, right now it possibly doesn't. 20 years down the line with the effects of climate change, chemical control legislation, expanding populations, housing pressures, water use issues, emerging pathogens (exacerbated by climate change), etc. things may be very different. Breeding a new crop takes a long time, and needs to be suited to the local growing environment. GM allows a much more rapid response than conventional breeding ever would. How long do you wait before taking some kind of positive action to safeguard national food security? (FWIW growing barley isn't part of it).

Ironically, Scotland's green image could be even greener with the right use of GM plants as the environmental impact of agriculture could be reduced (see earlier comments). But this would rely on placing science fact before political and marketing fiction.

"But you may feel differently, it is your decision". Or "Your local situation is different to ours and you may get more benefits". Or in many cases "This strain is resistant to a pest we don't have". There's nothing unusual about offering people a choice you didn't take yourself!

+1 to what Kit said. The Scottish people haven't been given the choice. Most scottish GM focuses on potato, specifically resistance to late blight. Not 100 yards from where I'm sat is a glasshouse full of GM potato plants resistant to late blight pathogen that I can already see affecting potatoes growing behind my house. But those GM potatoes are destined for Europe, the US and China as we wouldn't be allowed to grow them. Between 2017 and 2020 the only effective chemical control agents for late blight are being withdrawn due to environmental and health concerns. It's going to be interesting to see what happens to the Scottish potato crop over the next 10 years.

Thanks Shackleton- you make some thought-provoking points, I'll have a think- cheers.

Shackleton - Member

The Scottish people haven't been given the choice.

Oh comei]on[/i]. Elected government delivers on longstanding pledge and you say "we didn't get a choice!" What level of choice would satisfy you?

Shackleton - Member

Why does Scotland need it?
As I have already said, right now it possibly doesn't. 20 years down the line with the effects of climate change, chemical control legislation, expanding populations, housing pressures, water use issues, emerging pathogens (exacerbated by climate change), etc. things may be very different.

And future governments will be free to change policies should it prove wise.

Kit says "farmers aren't getting a choice" but this isn't a matter that individuals can choose- the question is a national one, you can't sell the image of Scotland as green and natural just by having [i]some[/i] farmers not use GM. So that also takes away choice.

(whether that's an important choice is open for debate; it basically depends on whether you believe that the non-GM thing is a worthwhile selling point. It could very well all be bollocks. But ironically nobody seems to be tackling this, the one key point of the entire debate.)

The major difference there is permanence; this decision today can be revoked. A decision to allow GM crops today isn't so easily reversed.

As a slight aside, and since TTIP was mentioned, AFAIK the SNP support TTIP and would only defend intrusion into NHS services. That's at odds with protecting our cherished environment, since TTIP may/will allow multinationals to sue governments over environmental protection laws which don't suit them.