Bernard planterose and andy wightman, are the leading lights of 'Reforesting scotland' a charity dedicated to ecological and economic restoration - allegedly a sustainable Forest-based economy. It produces a magazine with the same title. [1] It aims to promote an understanding of scottish deforestation along with enlightened, multi-purpose Forestry and land-use practice in a global context.

Planterose is appalled by the unjust distribution of land in scotland, "Half the land mass of scotland is still in the hands of just 579 landowners." [2] He's an ecologist who obviously has a great deal of knowledge about specific local habitats - which makes a change from many greens who regard the environment as the local shopping centre and car park.

Planterose supports the creation of a new caledon Wood economy, "The core of the manifesto is a vision of a possible highland future built on a Forest economy through the recreation of a second great wood of caledon: a new economy of great diversity and richness to supply the needs of a larger population than currently exists in the region with a wide range of employment possibilities, foods, materials and energy sources." [3] He talks about a new Forest covering the whole of scotland becoming the basis of a national Wood economy.

However, planterose does not support a pure Wood economy. He also supports alternative energy, "The use of wave energy to generate electricity would play an important part in the economy of coastal townships and, increasingly, power would be generated by local wind and hydro schemes, frequently on an individually very small scale." [4]

Despite his radical ideas planterose is conventional both philosophically, e.g. in his attitude towards Forests and Animals and, economically, in promoting economic development, jobs and prosperity. He supports the integration of the new highland Wood economy into the current capitalist system. He's presenting a green model of economic growth. He wants scottish people to get richer through a more thorough exploitation of their country's ecological resources, "And so the Forest economy could be created, transforming one of europe's most severely disadvantaged regions into one of great prosperity and beauty ..." [5] It has to be asked, however, what people would do with all the money they would obtain from the increased exploitation of Forests and Animals? Wouldn't they buy cars and consumer indurables and eventually destroy their wonderful new green capitalist economy?

Planterose supports the exploitation of Animals. On the positive side he wants to reintroduce many Wildlife species which once used to roam the highlands, "Other large herbivores (besides Reindeer) might be introduced and managed as wild resources too. The once native Elk would seem to be a good candidate." [8] But he wants to do this not because he believes in Biodiversity or Animal freedom but because he wants to extend the range of meat products for ooman consumption, "In contrast to the extreme paucity of wild game taken from the land today, the great Wood would yield up a much increased range, quantity and quality of Animal products managed by local communities to supply food, in the first place, to themselves." [9] This is clearly a conventional oomanistic attitude towards Animals and Wildlife. It's a pity that murderers like planterose can't be hunted as a game ooman - after all he doesn't sound too dissimilar to a livestock with an overgrown brain. He also wants to see a vast increase in the exploitation and slaughter of livestock Animals, "Domestic stock might include Cattle .. there would be Sheep .. with breeds producing good wools for local spinning and clothes manufacture. It would include free range Pigs, Ducks, geese and other Fowl suitably combined on some small Forest-farm units." [10] Why, oh why, isn't it legal to treat such perverts in the way they treat Animals?

Fairlie is an oomano-imperialist who supports 'the land belongs to oomans'. He objects to current planning laws, "When jill delaney applied for permission to put up a shed for her free range Chickens three years ago, she was rudely rebuffed. The right to put up any agricultural building is a question of wealth: it is unconditionally available only to those who own 12 acres or more, a sizeable holding by the standards of most european countries. .. a national planning policy which could hardly have been better designed to prevent peasant farming from working efficiently in Britain. The policy of zoning, which divides rural land into two distinct zones, agricultural and development .. Agricultural land is worth about £1,500 per acre while the price of development land is 50-100 times as much .. As the policy of zoning comes under scrutiny in the next few years, so there will be questions raised about the pessimistic assumptions which lie behind it: is all human development intrinsically harmful to the environment? Is it utterly impossible to establish standards whereby people can live work and build in the countryside without degrading it? Do we really need to shepherd all but an elite into suburban estates and sunrise industries so that they may amble round a spotlessly managed country park on Sundays? The answer to these questions is, of course, "no". Recently, permission was given for a group of underground houses to be built on greenbelt land in Nottinghamshire. The project involves the planting of over 3,000 trees and the establishment of a fish-farming pond and small scale food production - and, one may imagine, a chicken-house." [11]

In the early 1990s, a group of people, including fairlie, bought/occupied?? a 40 acre site in the somerset countryside called tinkers bubble, in order to try and provide a living for themselves from the land. They have been campaigning to persuade local authorities and the department of the environment to overturn planning restrictions to allow them to construct buildings on the site. If given permission, tinkers bubble would doubtlessly expand its operations to ensure even more land is ruined and even more Animals are slaughtered. Fairlie is not merely promoting policies which would damage the Earth and exploit Animals he's actively engaged in the struggle already.

Fairlie has has been funded through the tinker's bubble trust to produce and distribute a 50,000 word report entitled 'future planning policies for low impact development in rural brutland'. He points out that, "The aim of the report is to explore ways in which a new approach to rural planning can be gently introduced into the planning system. We will suggest that there are forms of development that are not harmful to the rural environment - that have a 'low impact' - and that such schemes should be accorded some degree of planning preference, so as to allow less wealthy people to live and make a living in the countryside. We will suggest that by imposing environmental conditions upon people who seek the opportunity to live or build in open countryside, planning could, at no extra cost, bring about a radical improvement in the texture and diversity of the British landscape." [12]

The planned report takes it for granted that low impact developments will not damage the environment. Just like monbiot, fairlie has no intention of assessing the possible damage that could be caused by so-called low impact developments, "The object of the report is not to produce an utopian blueprint, but to suggest ways in which a more favourable to low impact development can infiltrate current policy without necessitating a wholesale upheaval. Changes may be best achieved by establishing a climate of opinion (sic) where enlightened authorities and inspectors set precedents which trigger a change of tune in PPG and other expressions of national policy." [13] This is one way of trying to implement controversial policies - ignore the opposition and hope that sympathetic officers in the planning authorities will allow them a free passage.

Even more amazingly is that fairlie has not shown how such developments would fit in with the need to combat global burning or how it would contribute to the creation of a sustainable society. This reveals that fairlie is not concerned so much about the Earth's climate but about the climate of opinion amongst green oomano-imperialists. What fairlie doesn't seem willing to understand is that the climate should determine policies - not the self interests of oomano-imperialists who want to invade the countryside.

Most back to the landers try to pretend that if millions of people move back into the countryside they won't cause any ecological damage whatsoever; that, at worse, nobody would notice anyone is living in the countryside and, at best, they would make the countryside look even more like the countryside than it was before.

Fairlie argues that, "In practice any precise definition of 'low impact' is difficult to arrive at. It is easier to pinpoint factors associated with low impact, for example the following:- The development is sited so as to minimize the need for motor transport. In practice this will often mean the occupants living near their work. Commuter homes, dormitory development and weekend retreats are, from a transport point of view, high impact." [14]

The prospects for minimizing the need for transport are minimal. Fairlie talks about a planning decision to allow the construction of benders so that people can live close to nature. What is so ludicrous about this is that although people want to get back to nature many of them can't do so without taking their cars with them, "The ability of planning authorities to propose and agree to conditions prior to an appeal decision, and without prejudice, is a particularly useful area to follow up. In a recent planning appeal concerning the siting of benders in a privately owned woodland, the local planning authority came to an agreement with the applicants over the implementation of a five year conservation management plan for the holding; and imposed conditions limiting the number of private cars that could be operated from the site." [15]

Fairlie is a carnivore and argues that people should be allowed to move back into the countryside to develop free range farming. He deplores the fact that people aren't given the right to exploit Animals, "When jill delaney applied for permission to put up a shed for her free range chickens three years ago, she was rudely rebuffed." [16]This confirms what was suspected above - that the real role of 'the land is ours' group is not merely to suffocate even more of the Earth's life support system with buildings and to dig up even more Wildlife habitats to feed even more oomano-imperialists, but to enable oomans to indulge in their carnivorous cravings and slaughter more and more Animals.

In august 1995, the secretary of state for the environment, john gummer, overruled an earlier decision by the planning inspector to give tinkers bubble three years' trial planning permission. Oliver tickell wrote an open letter to gummer which, not very surprisingly, was published in the guardian, criticizing his decision, "Thanks to your personal intervention in the planning process, a unique experiment in the sustainable development of the English countryside is to be brought to a premature end. I am writing of Tinkers Bubble, a 40 acre landholding on Ham Hill in Somerset, where eight adults and four children have made their home for 18 months. The land is ideal for human habitation. Three quarters of the area is wooded providing timber, fuel and shelter; and after decades of neglect the woodland is crying for sympathetic management. A start has been made on the pruning of 1,000 apple trees under which graze sheep and a Dexter cow. Higher up, rare-breed pigs live in the open air, fattening up on damaged fruit and kitchen scraps." [17]