No. We support responsible development in appropriate locations. Scotland needs investment and digital infrastructure, but that does not mean every location is suitable for industrial-scale development.

The question is not whether development happens, but WHERE it happens.

We want sustainable jobs and sustainable communities. Large data centres can involve substantial construction activity, but often create relatively limited long-term employment once operational.

The environmental impacts, however, can last for generations.

Planning decisions should consider both economic and environmental costs.

No. This is about protecting a nationally significant landscape, not protecting private interests.

People across Scotland care about biodiversity, peatlands, wildlife, water resources, and the future of our countryside.

These are public interests, not private ones.

Not at all. Technology is important and data centres have a role to play. But supporting technology does not require sacrificing sensitive natural landscapes.

We can have both digital infrastructure and environmental protection if developments are located appropriately.

Quite the opposite. We are asking for careful scrutiny of the evidence and a full assessment of environmental impacts.

Once habitats are damaged or landscapes industrialised, the consequences can be difficult or impossible to reverse.

Precaution is sensible when dealing with irreplaceable natural assets.

Climate action and nature protection must go hand in hand. Protecting peatlands, natural habitats, and biodiversity is itself an important part of addressing climate change.

We should not be forced to choose between digital infrastructure and environmental protection.

Existing industrial sites, brownfield land, and locations with established infrastructure should always be considered before developing sensitive rural landscapes.

The burden should be on The Duke of Roxburghe and his development company Sunlaws to demonstrate why this particular location is necessary.

Healthy ecosystems support people. Clean water, healthy soils, carbon storage, tourism, recreation, and quality of life all depend on a thriving natural environment.

Protecting nature is not separate from protecting communities, it’s part of it.

That does not mean every additional industrial development is appropriate. Planning decisions should consider cumulative impacts.

The question is how much pressure a landscape can absorb before its character and ecological value are fundamentally changed.

No. Rural Scotland needs homes, services, infrastructure, and investment. But development should respect landscape character, biodiversity and community interests.

Industrial-scale facilities should only be located where impacts can be properly accommodated.

It is driven by both evidence and values. The evidence relates to landscape, biodiversity, ecology, water resources, and long-term land use.

The values are about what kind of Scotland we want to leave to future generations. Good planning requires both.

The Duke of Roxburghe is naturally trying to present his project in the best possible light. That is why independent scrutiny and a robust planning process are essential.

We believe the environmental implications deserve careful examination before any decision is made.

This is about much more than scenery. It is about habitats, biodiversity, peatlands, water resources, rural character, community wellbeing and Scotland’s natural heritage.

The visual impact is only one part of a much wider concern.

Real progress means balancing economic development with environmental responsibility.

Destroying or degrading valuable natural landscapes is not progress.

The most successful societies are those that can achieve growth while safeguarding their natural assets.