Lou,
I’m not so sure the home of golf really needed this development on a macro level though? Surely what defines (or defined) the home of golf was simple, affordable golf for all at a local club. Scotland was perhaps the only country where golf was as much a game for the working class everyman as it was for the middle classes and gentry. Coul Links had nothing to do with why “the home of golf” was named the home of golf... it would have been great to see though. I for one was interested to see what C&C would do with a virgin links site.
Am I the only who is bothered when some people think that they are qualified to deem others' "needs"? I might understand this line of thinking if Coul Links was to be built of public land and the principals were seeking government incentives. CL was to be on private property, a site which is degraded in many respects and declining due to neglect and the passage of time. The funds for the project were coming from outside the area (American money does spend in Scotland, not?), normally a good thing given that investment capital is tight locally.
As to what makes Scotland the home of golf, it is much more than the £180 green fee at TOC or the £200+ annual dues at Golspie and Brora. The game remains largely affordable for the locals, but what really feeds the kitty are the many thousands of visitor rounds at the much higher rates. For me, when I think of Scotland as the home of golf, it is a combination of many things: history, tradition, wide variety of courses, the uniqueness of the links, the people, how the game is played, even enduring the ever-changing weather.
We do seem to suffer on this site from poor memory or an inclination to rewrite history. Trump Balmedie had wide local support but was turned down by a local government entity on the strength and activism of Martin Ford, the chairman of the relevant committee who cast the tie-breaking vote against the project. The feds had every right to review the decision, and, in my opinion acted responsibly.
Jon W is incorrect in his assessment that the CL decision was consistent as the feds this time rejected strong local support including the government's. In effect, in CL, the feds overruled local preferences wheres in Balmedie it prevented a small group of local government officials (8 to 7) from disenfranchising its constituents to the detriment not only of the local economy, but of the nation as well.
No doubt in my mind that the CL decision was influenced by the political fallout played out in the media over the Trump course. Ian is on point on his comments. The aging population in Dornoch will bear the consequences of political cowardice. B & B owners who are seeking to sell and retire more peacefully will either have to hold on to their properties or incur a large discount. Young people who might wish to remain in the village will have fewer opportunities. As the diaspora to larger cities continues here like in many parts of Spain, much of the vitality will go with it. A community of services-intensive retirees with a marked propensity toward thrift does not suggest a bright future.
Last but not least, that some of us think it is desirable for government to disallow the use of someone's property without compensation for the sake of doing nothing/let nature take its toll is discouraging. How much of a leap is there for the same government to say to doctors: "you must provide x number of hours each month without pay to the local clinic as a means to retain your license"? To golf operators: "you must provide x rounds free to 'needy' golfers". To local home owners: "you must provide your spare room rent free to a 'needy' tenant". Your straight A son or daughter: "you must give 15 points on your test score to a kid with a D or C average".
Me, I hope that the CL property owners import a very large herd of goats to the site. Whatever little "scientific interest" exits there would be enhanced as a result.
And while on the topic of shooting oneself in the foot, how about the Highland Council withdrawing the consultation on the proposed RDGC clubhouse over a public complaint on the use of the term "fair market rent"? Does Pogo's "we have met the enemy and he is us" apply?