NatureScot board must not surrender to the bullies

Protestors have targeted the offices and staff of Nature Scot - and their bullying antics appear to have paid dividends, with officers now recommending to the board the harvest be outlawed, ending centuries of tradition.

placeholder image — Protestors have targeted the offices and staff of Nature Scot - and their bullying antics appear to have paid dividends, with officers now recommending to the board the harvest be outlawed, ending centuries of tradition.

When the name of Scotland’s conservation quango was trendified to “NatureScot”, the word “Heritage” dropped out. At least that had been a nod in the direction of people, communities and tradition as components of “Scotland’s natural heritage”.

Next Monday, the board of NatureScot will determine the fate of the annual guga harvest which has survived for a thousand years. They have allotted one hour to the task. The outcome will confirm how inclusively or narrowly “NatureScot” now define the “heritage” they exist to defend.

The dice have been heavily loaded. Since the bird population offers no justification for banning the harvest, a far wider environmental designation has been invoked. It has been available since 1994 but never previously presented a barrier to licensing the expedition, up to and including last year.

Then we have the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, another quango, which has never until now concerned itself with the guga harvest, presumably because it has much bigger issues to address. Suddenly, it feels moved to intervene “following correspondence from stakeholders”.

All this will doubtless shape the recommendation that the NatureScot board will be asked to rubber stamp. Yet everyone knows this flurry of negativity has not been generated by any change in scientific evidence or objective circumstances.

The “stakeholders” who have driven it are these self-righteous individuals who have slandered the people of Ness, intimidated the staff of NatureScot, engaged in ludicrous publicity stunts and run a ruthless campaign to bully the board of NatureScot into submission.

As is the way with bullies, these people pick on weak targets against whom to stir up prejudice and hatred. Like so much else, the guga tradition will struggle to survive for reasons unrelated to vandals on roofs or exhibitionists in fancy dress. The more fundamental threat to heritage, in all its aspects, comes from the cruel realities of depopulation and demographic change.

NatureScot is under no obligation to accelerate that process. There are six professors and three academic doctors on its board while it is axiomatic that there are no islanders or Gaels. So who will define “heritage” on Monday? Who will speak for the rights of people and communities?

The alternative is not to follow science but to take the course of least resistance and surrender to vile tactics of bullying and harassment. That is the choice the board of NatureScot has to make – and they know it. They must reject the easy option.