Mobile mast plans for rural Scotland massively scaled back
A PROJECT to install more than 250 mobile masts in rural Scotland has been massively scaled back following pressure from business and nature groups.
But this will now be reduced to just 44 following revised plans – a reduction of around 83%.
It comes after pressure from groups including Scottish Land & Estates, the John Muir Trust, the National Trust for Scotland, and a number of community councils.
Opponents say the project would have installed masts in parts of the country that do not require them, and the scaled-down proposals will protect some of Scotland's most beautiful scenery.
READ MORE: Plans for 1500 solar panels for historic Scottish hydro power stations
Anna Gardiner, senior policy adviser at Scottish Land & Estates, said: 'We are delighted that the Government has listened to our concerns and has scaled back the number of masts to be built in areas where they simply were not needed.
'This protects some of our most spectacular and beautiful landscapes and will alleviate pressure on planning authorities in rural areas.
'The original plan was totally flawed as it was based on covering an arbitrary percentage of the UK's geography, but in fact it did not benefit many of the rural communities and businesses which are currently in Total Not Spot Areas – where there is no 4G coverage from any provider.
'These areas are still crying out for a mobile network and in many cases community councils have been ignored.
'We would urge the UK Government to redirect the considerable sum of money that has been saved in order to prioritise these communities.'
Thomas Widrow, head of campaigns for the John Muir Trust, said: 'This is great news for the amazing landscapes and biodiversity of Scotland.
'Some of the proposed locations for a mast were completely inappropriate.
READ MORE: Faslane nuclear base radioactive secrets to be released after FoI battle
'We need to ensure there is connectivity where people live and work, not in our most fragile and remote wild places.'
Telecoms minister Chris Bryant said: 'The Shared Rural Network has been a lifeline for rural areas, helping bring fast and reliable mobile internet to over 95% of the UK a year ahead of schedule.
'Our updated plans with telecoms operators will ensure new coverage is focused on those rural areas in Scotland where people actually live, work or travel, including popular walking routes.
'This important step will ensure masts are only built where they are most needed.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
36 minutes ago
- Leader Live
High Court judge refuses to temporarily block Palestine Action terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is set to come into force at midnight after a High Court judge refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Lawyers for Ms Ammori were also refused permission to appeal and were told to go to the Court of Appeal itself. Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.' In a 26-page judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that 'some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated'. He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' The proposal was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing due around July 21. Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect. She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton. Four people were charged in connection with the incident.
Leader Live
36 minutes ago
- Leader Live
What is a proscribed organisation?
On Thursday the House of Lords backed proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 without a vote. But what is proscription and what does it mean for an organisation to be proscribed? – What is a proscribed organisation? According to the Government website, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Under the law this means the organisation commits or takes part in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism), or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed it is illegal to join or show support for it. – What does terrorism mean when talking about proscription? As defined in the Act, terrorism means the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life (other than that of the person committing the act), creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The definition also sets out that the use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Additionally, it must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. – What factors are taken into consideration when determining whether proscription is proportionate? According to the Government website, the Home Secretary will take into account the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the country, and the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas. The Home Secretary will also consider the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. – Which other groups have been designated as proscribed organisations? There are currently 81 international terrorist groups proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. The most recent proscription orders concerned Hamas, the Wagner Group, Hizb ut Tahrir and Terrorgram. Other organisations on the list include Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), and various aliases, and al Qaida. – Once an organisation is proscribed, what becomes illegal? It becomes a criminal offence to belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas, or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also illegal to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation, express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation. Other offences include arranging, managing or assisting in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances. – Once proscribed, will an organisation remain banned forever? No. The Home Secretary will consider deproscription on application only. The law allows any organisation or any person affected by a proscription to submit a signed, written application to the Home Secretary requesting that they consider whether a specified organisation should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations.
Leader Live
36 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' Commenting on the campaigners' letter, Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'The SNP Government must stop dragging its heels. 'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. 'Indeed, their failure to do so is leaving the Scottish Government and its public bodies open to the legal challenge Sex Matters are threatening.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Scottish Government has made clear it accepts the Supreme Court ruling and since April has been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the ruling. That work is ongoing.'
