|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Homepage
Our Countryside - We live here
Paper given at Conservative Rural Action Group
Scotland
2005 Campaign Rally, Perth, 26th February 2005
Kirsty Macleod
Founder, People TOO
Filed 01 Mar 05
©www.land-care.org.uk
Thank you for the opportunity to come here today
and speak about people in rural Scotland. For my part, I’m
delighted to hear about the existence of the Conservative Rural
Action Group in Scotland.
I share your view that action is required because
I don’t think life in general is going particularly well for
the people of rural Scotland. You will find commentators who disagree,
who will point to land reform, the new freedom to farm subsidies,
sustainable development opportunities and all the strategies and
partnerships that have been created since 1997. And you will always
find people who buck the trend by going with the flow or who get
the timing right when it comes to making money.
So, why is the population of Scotland falling?
Why are people voting with their feet and leaving this paradise
of opportunities, this unopened oyster shell? Today I would like
to suggest why some people in rural Scotland who have not yet taken
this drastic step are nevertheless very concerned about their future.
I want to talk about basic rural issues.
Deception, incompetence and lack of democratic
remedy:
put these together and you have a fair description of
how some people view government in rural Scotland
The Chairman has said a few words about myself
and People Too. I’d like to add a bit more detail. My interest
in rural politics with a small “p” started with a personal
experience. In 1992 my father’s croft was designated a Site
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) by Scottish Natural Heritage
(SNH) with powers conveyed to them by a Conservative government
through two acts, the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the
1991 Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act. My father was told that the
land he owned and tenanted was having restrictions put on it and
powers over its use conveyed to a quango to protect the natural
heritage. In fact, the land went on to be further designated as
a European Special Protection Area (SPA) for wild birds and as an
international Ramsar site for wildfowl and wetlands, all on the
basis of scientific assessments which were not notified to him during
the process leading up to the formal designations, nor with any
consideration given to his future plans or his livelihood. All this
was in perfect accordance with the law.
I view the manner in which the designations were
made as grossly insulting to people of reasonable intelligence,
education and skill such as you will find throughout rural Scotland
and I have subsequently narrowed down my key objections to them
as follows :
1. The designations were based upon DECEPTION - the landowner/tenant
had no idea his land was being surveyed nor what the consequences
would be.
2. The designations and management recommendations were based
on INCOMPETENCE – a small clique of environmentalists
could not have and did not have (we now know) a full inventory
of the habitats and wildlife in Scotland. And it was inconceivable
that complete strangers to the land could have a fully rounded
and historic view of where best to apply this legal and practical
protection.
3. Thirdly, there was and still is NO DEMOCRATIC REMEDY
to oppose or remove these controls. Only scientific argument can
overturn a designation.
Put these together – DECEPTION, INCOMPETENCE
and LACK OF DEMOCRATIC REMEDY – and you have a fair description
of how some people view government in rural Scotland. And this is
where People Too comes in, as an attempt to give voice to this view.
It is already evident that one dominant, centrally-controlled
policy is
emerging that favours the protection of the natural heritage and
the promotion of its bedfellow, sustainable development -
whatever that means.
I have referred to SNH but feelings are also aroused
by the Deer Commission for Scotland, the Forestry Commission, the
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Water,
the Local Enterprise network and VisitScotland. And there are many
more quangos, increasingly controlling and affecting the lives and
livelihoods of rural Scots. And let us not forget that these quangos
remain in place, irrespective of the political party in power.
With the appointment of mostly Labour and Liberal
Democrat sympathisers or people in receipt of government funding
to all these quangos, the checks and balances that we like to think
guide their operations are fast disappearing. It is already evident
that one dominant, centrally-controlled policy is emerging in the
strategies of the main rural quangos and that is a policy that favours
the protection of the natural heritage and the promotion of its
bedfellow, sustainable development – whatever that means.
And could I dispel the myth that says when government
departments operate from local offices in rural Scotland, we benefit
from bottom-up administration and policy? The reverse is true. With
a local presence and a higher local profile, bureaucrats find it
easier to get their message across and bring about top-down policies
and regulations. The idea that moving them out into remote areas
will make their regulations more in tune with local views is flawed,
so long as the power and policy-making remain centrally controlled.
Which they are.
And what happens when an individual dares to oppose
this top-down dictatorship? Here’s an example of the power
of local authorities. Once upon a time, a County Council compulsorily
purchased, for about £5, a strip of land alongside a public
road with the good intention of widening said road. The improvement
never took place. Now a pensioner has been granted planning permission
for houses on land adjacent to this road. The pensioner is potentially
facing a demand for £100,000 from the local authority simply
for a right of access over this strip. Yes, £100,000 or 50%
of the development value of the land before tax. The law allows
the local authority to set these terms, terms which are not always
enforced, it seems, depending on whether your face fits. What can
be done to remedy a clearly unjust situation? The pensioner’s
MP at Westminster has said there is nothing he can do. The pensioner’s
MSP at Holyrood advises the pensioner to go to the media. So, it
would appear that elected representatives who pass laws over us
or approve the imposition of regulations and guidelines are nevertheless
powerless in the face of an injustice.
This is why people have become so disillusioned
with politicians and the political process. We elect people to govern
us but the message we get back is that our representatives are powerless
to intervene in the process of government, a process that is becoming
more and more complex and intrusive. But you know all this. You
also know that people throughout rural Scotland, some of whom lend
their support to People Too, are concerned with how we are governed.
The question still to be answered is : what can be done to halt
this slide towards rule by diktat? I ask you : what can the Conservative
party do to offer realistic cures to this growing sickness?
A battle will have to be waged against centralised
bureaucracy
which will not let go of that power very willingly
I have just referred to the complexity of modern
government. It seems to me that policies which promise to throw
more money at problems or to save money by slashing bureaucracy
are not enough. People instinctively have grasped the fact that
this is too simplistic an approach. Cutting SNH staff numbers in
half or stuffing its regional boards with Conservatives will not
alone make matters better.
I have given an example of power being exercised
at local government level. Let me give another example of power
to illustrate the sort of battle that will have to be waged against
the centralised bureaucracy which holds sway in rural areas and
which will not, I suspect, let go of that power very willingly.
I apologise for harping on about SNH but it is an extremely powerful
quango and one that should figure largely in any serious assessment
of what is wrong with rural Scotland.
The roots of People Too were put down at a meeting
I organised in October 2001. I was certain there were other people
who shared my views on government by DECEPTION, INCOMPETENCE and
LACK OF DEMOCRATIC REMEDY and who also felt little was being done
to question the growing influence of SNH and bodies like the RSPB.
I hired a hall in Perth, sent out invitations
and waited. On the day, nearly 200 people had an interesting time
freely discussing the theme, “People : the forgotten species”.
Whatever we may or may not have achieved, I think it was a good
example of democracy in action.
We got media coverage both before and after the
event. Prior to the conference, an article appeared explaining the
views of myself and like-minded people. SNH’s spokesman, George
Anderson, also gave his views on our proposed meeting in Perth. He
said :
“I am sure there will be some well-meaning people involved
with genuine concerns, but the danger is that they will be viewed
as part of some crackpot coalition.”(1)
My MSP took issue with SNH’s chairman, John
Markland, over the use of the phrase “crackpot coalition”.
Markland rejected any criticism and ended his letter as follows
:
“..if individuals repeatedly misrepresent the facts regarding
this organisation to the media, or make inaccurate and sometimes
offensive remarks about our staff or board members, then we must
reserve the right to respond in an appropriate manner” (2).
After the conference, to which SNH had been invited
but declined to attend, the same George Anderson was quoted as referring
to us as a
“fringe group” (3)
and
“an unrepresentative ‘greetin’ faction'' who
are fundamentally against any form of conservation” (4).
He said,
“We are not going to put up with it” (5).
One of the speakers at the conference had his
speech savaged in the press by SNH who described it as “elaborate
claims”, “fairytale” and “largely fictitious”
without anyone at SNH having seen a copy of the actual speech in
question. The Chairman of SNH’s North Areas Board wrote a lengthy,
vicious and at times inaccurate critique of the speech which was
published in a Labour-controlled local newspaper – again, without
having first seen a copy of the actual speech (6).
Environmental restrictions, promoted through the
concept of
the ‘wider public interest’ are the simplest way to
wrest control over private land
Still on the theme of the media, two strange stories
involving SNH have been written in recent years by the same journalist
and printed in the same Sunday newspaper in Scotland. The first
smeared a landowner for holding racist views. These views had been
expressed in a private letter from him to SNH in the course of a
dispute over land management issues. His letter was leaked to the
press (7). The second concerned an apparently secretive and
foreign landowner who had banned SNH scientists from surveying his
land with the result that the matter was going to court. And how
was this landowner portrayed by the journalist?
“The dispute ..highlights the mounting problems posed by
anonymous landowners who wield power over large areas of Scotland”.
Mr Dave Morris of the Ramblers, himself a former
employee of the Nature Conservancy Council (SNH’s predecessor
body) was quoted as saying :
"It’s essential that SNH staff have a statutory right
of access to all land and water without having to seek permission
from obstructive landowners” (8).
How convenient for SNH that these troublesome
landowners were publicly denounced in this way and that it has an
annual budget in excess of £1.5m to spend on “Publicity,
Information and Training” (9).
My next question to you now is whether you feel
the use of such language and, indeed, tactics is appropriate in
a government agency? And can you think of any other quango which
attacks criticism of it or attempts to challenge its power in this
way and with such financial resources behind it? I can’t and
that reinforces my belief that SNH plays a key role in enforcing
the present government’s will on rural Scotland. My own view
is that the Labour government sees environmental restrictions, promoted
through the concept of the “wider public interest”, as
the simplest way to wrest control over private land in Scotland.
This is happening right now but let us not imagine that the imposition
of this control is being limited to racist or foreign and absentee
landowners of vast estates. The right to decide what happens to
land is being taken away by the State right across the board, from
the smallest crofter to the biggest laird.
I have used the word “State” here but
even this needs qualification. Is it really the Scottish Executive
that is virtually nationalising Scotland’s resources or is
it Westminster? Or, is it ultimately the European Union if its directives
are behind so many of the new controls? Or is it the powerful environmental
charities and big corporations that lobby Europe who will ultimately
decide what we do and don’t do with our land?
SNH has produced a management statement for Rockall
Before leaving this subject, I would like to run
through some of the mechanisms by which this State control is imposed
and consolidated. Again, SNH is my starting point. The SSSI designation
covers about 13% of Scotland. These sites will usually overlap with
the European Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection
Area designations. When the former are ratified by the EU, they
become “Sites of Community Interest”, whatever that means.
There are National Scenic Areas which cover about 14%, not all of
which corresponds with the SSSIs and for which SNH has been exploring
the concept of management plans (10). The new Nature Conservation
(Scotland) Act, moreover, makes clear that SNH’s remit is not
confined to designated sites but has force wherever species of natural
heritage interest occur.
Move now to the Deer Commission for Scotland which
has draconian powers wherever deer are found and which increasingly
works to a conservation of habitats agenda. What about the Forestry
Commission? Add another 1m acres under direct government ownership
and a further 2m acres under trees which are either technically
or directly through funding schemes under its jurisdiction. In the
farming world, 13% of our land is under Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
which originate, like the SPAs and SACs, from European Union directives,
in this case to control pollution from activities on intensively
used ground. Add the Water Framework Directive which aims to manage
(if that is the right word) the entire natural water system, from
mountaintop to sea level. In the pipeline is Coastal Zone Management
and a raft of marine regulations, controls and management structures
possibly in anticipation of replacing the Common Fisheries Policy?
And if there’s any land still not designated or liable to state
interference through these regulations (and I haven’t even
mentioned planning controls!), then there are rumblings for a “Wild
Land” designation which will presumably mop up any cliffs,
mountaintops and moors which have escaped the attention of the bureaucrats
so far. If you have any doubts at all about how deeply these people
feel committed to micro-managing every square inch of Scotland they
can get their hands on, it will surely be dispelled when I tell
you that SNH has produced a management statement for Rockall (11).
Finally, we have the new Single Farm Payment,
a masterstroke of potential control freakery, whether by the UK
government or the EU I leave you to decide. In shifting agricultural
support from crops and animals to the actual land on which activity
takes place, control also shifts from the mere commodities to the
use of the natural resources themselves supposedly belonging to
the EU member state. The emphasis has also swung towards conservation
and environmental goals, goals which are the exclusive preserve,
in practice, of that small clique of scientists to which I referred
at the beginning.
Because from what I can see, conservation policy
in Scotland is not the result of open, national-delegates-thrashing-out-deals-round-the-table
EU-style such as we have grown used to with the CAP and CFP. No,
environmental regulation seems to materialise out of thin air in
the form of directives, all supposedly based on unquestionable science.
These directives cannot be overturned without the unanimous or majority
support of the other EU states. The idea that Scotland should go
it alone and have her own tailor-made environmental policies is
utterly impossible under the present system.
The St Kilda virus is now sweeping the land
So, we are now living in a land where everything
that is done must be done with permission, in order to avoid being
penalised. This is a total reversal of the traditions and way of
life we used to enjoy a generation ago
People are unable to comply with every single
requirement and we therefore live with the knowledge that we are
probably breaking the law every day of our lives. Is this the kind
of rural Scotland we want and deserve?
Is it any wonder that rural dwellers increasingly
feel disillusioned and helpless? I have suggested that at least
part of the reason for this is because of the growing complexity
and power of modern government in all its forms in rural Scotland.
This disillusionment needs to be tackled with urgency because what
I will call the “St Kilda Virus” is now sweeping the land.
If infected, an individual or family or entire community can be
destroyed by a loss of critical mass and an irreversible pessimism.
St Kilda, if you recall the story, was a tiny
island community west of the Hebrides evacuated in 1930. Many books
have been written about this event and it is generally accepted
that the islanders chose to leave because of poor transport and
a fall in the number of able-bodied men leading to economic and
social collapse. An over-reliance on tourism and outside money -
some of it raised through press funding-raising drives - had developed
and problems over health, education and community leadership were
exacerbated by religion, the sheer isolation of the place and the
relative attractions of the outside world. The islanders voted with
their feet and left, convinced that their way of life was no longer
viable.
Rural Scotland and its smaller components, like
islands,
should be seen as ‘indicators’ of the well-being
of the nation as a whole
Does any of this sound familiar? My sense of urgency
about what is happening to us as a nation stems from my belief that
many individuals and communities, like the St Kildans, are beginning
to give up the struggle and abandoning the field. Nobody seriously
believes, for instance, in Jack McConnell’s “Smart Successful
Scotland”, do they? Ross Finnie may intone all he likes about
his Forward Strategy for Agriculture and the new opportunities in
diversification that have to be grasped, but young people in my
district, brought up to a life of farming and keepering, are emigrating
to Australia and New Zealand. How many employers in rural Scotland
have resolved to cut back on their investments and plans for the
future? You may have read or heard about Alex Murray’s small
hydro-electric scheme at his farm down the road in Aberfeldy? He
was quoted in the farming press a couple of years ago as saying
his modest scheme had taken 10 years to negotiate and construct.
“This is not for the faint-hearted”, I seem to remember
him saying. Others, anticipating all the hassle and cost, just don’t
bother. Can you blame them? And how galling it is to have the Rural
Minister tell you that you lack initiative and the belly for risk-taking.
The St Kilda story has two lessons for modern-day
Scotland and not just rural Scotland. Firstly, consider the possibility
that if an island or small community cannot be persuaded to feel
good about its future, then a small, distinctive nation on the fringe
of Western Europe can be equally capable of willing itself into
a decline and no amount of vision statements and strategies will
change that. Many communities are struggling already to find the
money to implement the standards of bureaucracy that are rigidly
foisted on them. With a decline in services and the lack of certainty
as regards housing and medical attention, many of these places are
failing to hold on to their people, never mind attract and keep
new arrivals. Gloom sets in and no wonder.
Secondly, rural Scotland and its smaller components,
like islands, should be seen as “indicators” of the wellbeing
of the nation as a whole. What is happening in rural Scotland is
not a peripheral, minority or remote issue. 1930 and a tiny far-flung
island may seem a long way away in time and space but history is
repeating itself and let me remind you that although public money
could not be found at the time to build a proper pier to link St
Kilda with a regular steamer service, vast sums were later found
and poured into when it was taken over by the military and by the
National Trust for Scotland. Today it is most widely known as a
wildlife sanctuary.
Profligate funding of jobs wholly dependent on
state subsidy
The trends that we now detect in islands and the
remoter parts of rural Scotland, as regards bureaucracy, the not-for-profit
creed, the exaltation of nature and wildlife at the expense of human
needs, the profligate funding of jobs wholly dependent on state
subsidy – these are illustrations of trends at work throughout
the whole nation.
So our message should be : get it wrong in the
countryside and you are getting it wrong in the country as a whole.
Once you accept that rural Scotland is at the heart, then you accept
that it is not the plaything of scientists or of rich men who have
been to Africa and want to introduce wolves and bears. Instead,
it needs to have policies that work and which create prosperity
and, above all, human optimism.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat partners in the
Scottish Executive already recognise the symbolic importance of
rural Scotland, if nothing else. Why else have they expended so
much energy in passing rural legislation since 1999? Because they
know that the countryside is important to all the people of Scotland.
But have they got their policies and legislation right? Have they
been listening to the right advisers?
On that note, I have just learned that the Environment
and Rural Development Committee is going to tour rural Scotland
“to conduct an inquiry on rural development issues”. This
inquiry will be called, “Securing a future for rural communities”.
Three years ago the then Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish
Parliament also toured rural Scotland taking evidence on our views
on sustainable development. Alex Fergusson, MSP, if memory serves
me right, told me that one of the key criticisms from all quarters
was the obstructive power of Scottish Natural Heritage. The net
result of that consultation was a massive increase in power being
given to SNH through the passing of the Scottish Executive’s
Nature Conservation Act.
Government agencies with a huge amount of money,
producing nothing
So what sort of views might the Committee hear
this time round? Here’s a couple I have randomly plucked from
the press recently. The first one was taken two weeks ago from a
newspaper letter from Fr Michael MacDonald , parish priest in South
Uist : “..priority ought to be given to the maintenance and
further development of the integrated drainage system which is essential
to the sustainability of the way of life on the Uists and....environmental
considerations/legislation should always be secondary to that. Currently
the situation is the reverse. I think that it is a measure of the
present priorities in our area that during the period of our recovery
from tragedy and destruction Scottish Natural Heritage and its partners
announced the success of the first stage of the mink eradication
programme on the Uists at a cost of £1.65m over the past five
years. During the same period £40,000 had been spent by the
Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department on the drainage system
in South Uist! I don’t have figures on the amount spent so
far on the elimination of hedgehogs!” (12).
A second view appeared a month ago in a newspaper
article and comes from Mr Allan MacRae, chairman of the Assynt Crofters
Trust, in which he comments on a proposed community buyout of private
estates in the northwest. He said : “I’m afraid that what
is going to happen here at Assynt in this present buyout is much
the same as what happened with the Little Assynt Estate buyout.
It was taken into community ownership and has resulted in no benefit
to the community. It is being run, more or less, by government agencies
with a huge amount of money being pumped into it and, really, it
is producing nothing” (13).
So, first off is a suggestion for the government
to get its priorities right by putting rural people at the top of
its list and, secondly, we have an insider’s view of how government
money, even when it is apparently being spent on rural people, is
wasted through bureaucracy and misguided policy (aka “sustainable
development”). Taken together, these two examples point to
the strong possibility that despite all its rhetoric, the government
is not getting it right.
This is surely an ideal opportunity to step up
the pressure. Grassroots people are beginning to speak out against
the sacred cows of environmentalism and a state-run rural economy.
Why wait for the Environment Committee’s final report (whenever
that will be?) There are oodles of examples of incompetence and
waste of taxpayers’ money on feel-good schemes that do nothing
to address rural employment and which sometimes don’t even
improve the environment just waiting to be highlighted. It shouldn’t
be too difficult to draw some simple conclusions that will ring
true with the public.
Return the welfare of the people to the heart of
politics
An authoritative investigation is, I’m afraid,
beyond the capabilities of People Too but I offer some recommendations
for close study. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for example, which has
handed out £32m over the last 10 years, much of it to already
wealthy environmental groups to help them buy up more land (14).
The London-based Hebridean Trust, for instance, which aims to “preserve
the Hebridean way of life” got over £200,000 to buy the
uninhabited Treshnish Isles. What about the state-owned, multi-million£-debt-ridden
Forestry Commission which has been reduced to majoring in picnic
sites and advertising itself as a great place to walk off the nation’s
obesity problems? Then there are countless examples of “astro-turfing”
all over the countryside. What is astro-turfing? According to a
recent newspaper article, this is a new technique by “corporations
who use morally dubious practices” and means “the creation
of fake grassroots groups to champion their causes” (15).
Like the Southern Uplands Partnership, for instance, established
in 1999 and which I believe is corefunded by SNH whose staff have
chaired its Internal Steering Group. SNH’s West Areas Board
were pleased to note in the minutes of their meeting of 17th June,
2003 “the close relationship between the work of the SUP and
the themes and priorities contained within SNH’s Corporate
Strategy”, these themes being the now inevitable “new
approaches to sustainable community development”. Think about
it. What on earth does SNH know about socio-economic development?
They couldn’t even run a hill farm at Cairnsmore-of-Fleet in
Galloway without turning it into a failure and what about the moribund
community on the isle of Rum which is SNH-owned?
I think many people in rural Scotland are prepared
to speak out and in return hope to see some rigorous scrutiny of
and opposition to the policies that are squeezing the life out of
our communities and once highly respected rural industries. I myself
am a nationalist with a small “n” by inclination but,
like many country people, I am also conservative with a small “c”
in outlook. Devolution is here to stay but does that mean that we
will never again see Conservative Party policies tailor-made for
rural Scotland? Surely we will. Radical and profoundly different
policies which I hope will return the welfare of the people themselves
to the heart of politics.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
(1) The Herald, 23rd June 2001.
(2) John Markland, SNH, to Fergus Ewing, MSP,
22nd October, 2001.
(3) The Dundee Courier, 13th October, 2001.
(4) Sunday Herald, 2nd December, 2001.
(5) Ibid.
(6) West Highland Free Press, Open Letter from
Simon Fraser, SNH, to Donald Manford, Isle of Barra, 9th November,
2001.
(7) Sunday Herald, 13th October, 2002.
(8) Sunday Herald, 3rd May, 2002.
(9) Total to year ending 31st March, 2003, SNH
Annual Report.
(10) See various statistics in SNH Facts and Figures,
2002/3.
(11) Available from SNH’s Western Isles Office,
2 Francis Street, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, Western Isles HS1 2ND
(12) West Highland Free Press, 18th February,
2005.
(13) Press and Journal, 27th January, 2005.
(14) Wild life, Heritage Lottery Fund report,
May 2004.
(15) Sunday Herald, book review by Valerie Darroch
on Talespin : Public Relations Disasters by Gerry McCusker, 9th
January, 2005.
Finis
|
