Leader: Harsh reality demands pragmatism IN THE struggle to reduce carbon emissions and stop climate change, buildings are a key battleground. By their insulation, or lack of it, by their use of electricity and gas for lighting and heating, and in their consumption of materials during construction, various estimates suggest that buildings account for at least half of Scotland's carbon emissions. But while the Scottish Government agrees it is time for regulations to make new buildings less carbon-intensive, it has curbed its ambitions. Intentions to ensure new houses emit 30 per cent less carbon have been pared back to a 20 per cent cut, while the target for commercial property has been slimmed from a 50 per cent cut to a 40 per cent reduction. This, unsurprisingly, is a major disappointment to environmental campaigners. Ministers have responded to pressure from construction companies, much battered by recession, not to add to their woes. The key difficulty is that making buildings more carbon efficient, such as by demanding solar panels or higher specification materials, also makes construction more expensive. In these hard times, people are much more reluctant to spend more on up-front costs, even though they may make longer-term savings. Faced between competing demands for boosts to construction activity and cost-escalating energy efficiencies, ministers have leaned towards the former. It looks to be, in the short term at least, a realistic decision. Only when the economy is growing more strongly can people be expected to be more enthusiastic about spending more on de-carbonisation. It may be argued that this is short-term thinking, but it also the hard reality of current times. SNP faces tough battle to claw back ground over EU JosÉ Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has finally laid down the EU law regarding Scottish independence. In an interview with the BBC, and in a letter to the House of Lords, he has made clear what this newspaper reported last week - that an independent Scotland would have to apply for European Union membership and such membership would have to be negotiated, with all the uncertainties that entails. Responding to our original report that, after independence, Scotland would become a "third country" in respect of the EU and its treaties (ie outside the EU and having to negotiate its way in), Alex Salmond indignantly suggested this newspaper had been "duped" by unionist opponents of independence in the House of Lords. He said our original the story was "not correct" and added it would be used to as an example to judge other "scaremongering" stories in the run up to the referendum. As we openly admitted, we erred in reporting that the letter had been sent. But now it has been all can see that The Scotsman's account of its contents was accurate. The story was correct. It was not scaremongering. This puts the Scottish Government in a predicament. For years, the SNP has insisted that because Scotland is inside the EU as part of the UK, an EU member, and because there is no provision for expelling a country from the EU, it would remain inside it. It always was a threadbare argument, given that the SNP was never able to explain how a Scottish government could acquire a seats and voting rights at the European "top tables" without that being subject to a negotiation and then the agreement of all the other EU member states. President Barroso's letter exposes this as mere assertion, not supported by fact. Now the SNP's contrivances have collapsed, the unfortunate Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister, is being dispatched to Brussels to try and patch something together. She said yesterday that ministers disagree with Mr Barroso because there is no provision for revoking EU treaties and EU citizenship from people who have been in the EU for 40 years. But although he did not name any nation specifically, Mr Barroso says voting to become independent makes a territory a "third country," outside the EU. How Ms Sturgeon will square that statement with hers will be interesting, for to most reasonable observers they are contradictory. It is arguable the commission's view is unreasonable and puts it, in effect, in the unionist camp. Perhaps it is challengeable. Were Scotland to vote for independence, then politics and pragmatism might become the order of the day. But we cannot know for sure. Ms Sturgeon should have gone to Brussels to get legal chapter and verse months ago. By the failure to do so, and by maintaining a questionable assertion, Mr Salmond and the SNP have opened themselves to the accusation of trying to dupe the Scottish people.