Trump not used to being trumped?

Alex Salmond is furious! The SNP Government have called in Donald Trump's planning application after it was rejected by a local infrastructure committee. Now just to be clear, the SNP is the party committed to independence, and when it suits, becomes vocal about Scotland's beauty, its capacity to be self-sustaining, and the Scottish character trait of independence of mind.

How dare a local authority committee thwart corporate America? Sure the planned site up at Balmedie (see photo) is an area of outstanding beauty. And yes it is recognised as an area of special scientific interest on a world scale. Oh, and yes, it is the stopping point for thousands and thousands of migrating birds. And then, it's surely too much to ask Mr Trump and his corporate executive go-getters to adjust the plans, to make concessions to local concerns. And then again, having failed to get planning permission because of a casting vote by a single committee convener, Mr Trump magnanimously declines to appeal, leaving the next move to a Scottish Government as independent as a struggling cash-strapped business afraid of losing the big contract.

But a Government isn't a business - it is an elected body accountable to the people, and required to respect the decisions of democratically elected and locally devolved expressions of government. But Mr Salmond is furious! So let's move the goalposts and change their dimensions; and let's add on as much extra time as it takes; and we could show a couple of red cards to the opposition for something or other; oh, and what about ensuring the referee knows who's paying his match fee. In other words, let's call this decision in, even if it isn't appealed, and since Mr Salmond is sidelined cos the proposed development is in his constituency, let's have an impartial discussion that gets the decision right this time so that Mr Salmond can stop being furious.

If independence means anything other than defining ourselves by who we are not, then there is a serious political and moral-philosophical problem here. The political problem is who owns the word independence and who has the right to define its content and meaning? Is local government allowed to act independently and reflect the local concerns and context in their decision-making; or should every local committee now see its more significant decisions as provisional, hanging on the approval or say-so of Ministers more influenced by dollar-toting developers than local opinion, ecological concerns, or matters of Scottish heritage? Can local committees be treated in such a way that Martin Ford, convener of the offending committee, says unequivocally that members of the committee have been bullied? Will there be a public enquiry we wonder, where wider questions, local voices, and informed discussion can take place? And if there is, will Mr Trump's spokes-people do the courtesy of attending, listening, and perhaps even modifying plans as requested previously? Or is it a case of money talking, one of the most powerful weapons of economic imperialism, and best resisted with that Scottish character trait - independence, of mind and nation.

The moral-philosophical problem arises when the interests of economic development conflict with the interests of natural heritage and ecological concern. That will always be a complex and contested discussion - as it should be. What is not so clear is whether the SNP Government have any interest, at least in this particular debate, in giving any serious consideration to what such a development would do to a significant and beautiful part of Scotland's natural heritage. What chance tern colonies, visiting waders, unique ferns and mosses, 4,000 year old sand dunes, long windswept white sanded beaches and some of the most attractive coastline in Scotland? Just what price would we put on natural beauty?

Then of course there is the question of footprints. I don't mean the intriguingly lingering prints of beach walkers who have walked these beaches in their thousands for centuries without worrying about yells of 'four'. I mean the carbon footprints of thousands of golfers jetting in, playing golf and jetting off. I mean the cost in energy and materials of building the project, maintaining it, creating the infrastructure. Again all complex stuff. But how much weight will such issues carry in discussions and decisions once the Ministers 'call in' the decision?

Mr Salmond is furious. I'm not too pleased myself.