In reply to mondite:
Thanks for responding.
I think you possibly took some of my points as in favour of the current use. This was not my intent, rather to try from an on the fence perspective to establish if there were eaily obainable facts (with a commercial / financial bias as noted). As such the points you raise are useful in clarifying some of the areas for me.
In answer to specific points:
Yes I meant independent of percieved conficts of interest i.e. linked to shooting or other lobbying groups.
By desired use, I meant converting from current into whatever is different to current. I assume this would not be the same use, therefore would there be cost/time/effort involved in this change?
"You are also missing the current economic cost of supporting the grouse moors", I agree I am not clear on this, this was the reason for asking if this was currently quantified and visiible?
"A commercial benefit to whom?" I was thinking commercial benifit generally, mainly to the public purse, but this could also be a wider added value i.e. recreational benifit, carbon capture, air quality, flooding improvements etc. As most things have tangible or intangible benifits and it is difficult to implement change to someting unless the benifits of this are known. In my simple minded way my gist was who pays for the use and maintenance currently and who would pay for change and maintance if different, are the current/revised use benifits sufficent to offset this cost? Pros and cons etc etc.
Yes I think the raptor points and the flooding points are very valid as they have both a significant environmental value, but also a genuine monetary value as you note. Its these sorts of things that to me seem to be missing a full comparison in most of the argument pieces for and against I have seen.
Again thanks for the info and taking the time to respond, all good food for thought