Rich
I am not in a position to believe one side or the other. Rather, I form my opinion based on a few points of view. First, if a need can't be shown, I don't think the status of the land as that of significant scientific interest should be compromised. It is a pity that the enviros have not done a good job with publicizing why the land is so valuable. Fully explaining the issues would go a long way to either the conservation of the site or possibly its development. At the moment, we are in a limbo where it seems to me that a guy has waved a pile of cash and promises in front of politicians who have little vested interest in the area other than to look good in poll. Second, the elected members of the Council for the area have made a decision which backs earlier government decisions to make this area a site of significant scientific interest (yet another case of the government wasting our money by revisiting previous decisions?). To overturn these decisions there must be, imo, compelling evidence that the site will not be compromised by the development. So far as I can tell, no such evidence is available.
However, as Scots politicians are no different from others (ie can be bought cheaply), I do believe the development will go ahead. Sure, some sort of compromise will be brokered which will "ensure" the sanctity of the site, but we all know the truth of the matter; its an either or situation. I am not buying any line about compromise. I also believe that this case will make it more difficult for others to build courses on sites which make more sense for golf. Folks will become entrenched as anti-golf and that is a great pity because golf courses don't have to be damaging to the environment.
Ciao