It seems to be a 'given' that Mr Trump's proposed development in Aberdeenshire will deliver economic benefits for Scotland as a whole, particularly in terms of golf tourism. Me, I'm not so sure, at least on the extent of those benefits.
The crucial issue is not whether the Donald will deliver a flock of American golfers to Aberdeenshire, but how many extra golfers would be coming to Scotland. There is no significant economic benefit at the Scotland level if we are merely diverting golfers to Aberdeenshire who would otherwise have gone to St Andrews, or Carnoustie, or Troon, or Royal Dornoch. Of course, Aberdeenshire would benefit - but this would be offset by disbenefits elsewhere in Scotland. And why should we encourage US-owned golf courses in Scotland to the detriment of our domestic golfing entrepreneurs? It all depends on whether you think there is a pool of American golfers who would not be interested in playing Muirfield or Turnberry but who would leap at the chance to swing a club in Aberdeenshire. I doubt it.
But, hey, I always thought that a round of golf spoiled a nice walk.
2 comments:
Fully agree. This is a case that is not being presented. You refer to the American golfers.
As a medium term development, if an increasing response to climate change makes it unethical to fly across the world, there will not be the golfers. We then have increasing competition among Scotland's existing courses. Perhaps rendering one or more uneconomic, hence job losses.
Very few seem to be looking at the Scotland wide cost/benefit analysis across economic, social and ecological factors.
Scotland had a near perfect image to maximises on global ecological development trends, and now seems willing to throw that away for as you say 'disbenefits'.
Just Googled Trump and this appeared tonight, don't remember seeing it before. Check it out!
http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/intro.asp
major shot in a PR battle
Post a Comment