The last-minute legal challenge to four major offshore wind arrays off the Angus and Fife coasts is ill-conceived.
RSPB Scotland’s decision to pursue judicial review of consents for the Neart na Gaoithe, Inch Cape and Seagreeen Alpha and Bravo projects came as a three-month consultation period over the approvals was about to close.
For the sake of clarity, I do not doubt the good work done by this long-established charity on a day-to-day basis.
But what I do question is the logic behind a decision which will at least mean a costly, and potentially fatal, delay to plans to develop one of Scotland’s flagship green energy development zones.
In justification of its “stand for nature”, the charity issued a statement saying they only took such action where it raised “important issues of public interest surrounding the protection of the UK’s natural environment”.
They argued that if the development approvals, which were awarded by the Scottish Government in October, were allowed to stand there could be serious implications for how birds and important wildlife sites are protected across Scotland and beyond.
What was conspicuous by its absence from the RSPB Scotland statement was any site-specific data relating to the four development zones which they are now attempting to knock off-course.
There was no huge plea to save the great Scottish seabirds the gannet, the guillemot, the cormorant, shag or kittiwake nor was any identity given to the other supposedly threatened wildlife of the area.
In fact, the group actually conceded that the vast majority of renewable energy developments posed “no significant threat to birds or other wildlife”.
Bizarre.
So, if not for the protection of the wild birds that call the east coast home, what is RSPB Scotland fighting for?
As an esteemed organisation, surely they are above using such strong-arm tactics in a vainglorious bid to raise their profile.
So I have to take them at their word that their challenge is about how laws designed to protect wildlife in Scotland are applied.
If the law itself is an ass and I am a long way removed from someone qualified to decide whether it is or isn’t then it appears to me the appropriate response would be to run a concerted campaign to lobby the powers-that-be for change.
It certainly would not occur to me to make my point by mounting a legal challenge that could derail potentially billions of pounds of inward investment in the Scottish economy and thousands of skilled jobs.
Now, before you think it, I am not one who advocates just blindly bashing ahead with a development and to hell with the consequences.
Each major infrastructure project must be dealt with individually, the potential environmental impact assessed, and an appropriate mitigation plan put in place regardless of the cost or effort which that entails.
But that is a rigorous process which each of these four windfarms has already gone through, and it seems unfair that they should now be forced to justify their plans yet again at huge cost.
RSPB Scotland said they had not taken their decision to challenge lightly.
But I hope they are prepared for the consequences of that challenge to weigh just as heavily on their shoulders.
In the long run, my guess would be that the windfarms will be given the green light and go-ahead.
But in the medium term I fear this legal challenge will only serve to damage Scotland’s international reputation as a place to invest and do business.