Andy Wightman is one of Scotland's most respected writers on rural development and land reform. His books Who Owns Scotland (Canongate, 1996) and Scotland: Land and Power (Luath, 1999) remain essential texts for anyone wishing to study who has control over the hills and estates north of the border.
During 1999 he delivered the sixth John McEwen Memorial Lecture, entitled Land Reform: Politics, Power and the Public Interest and he is currently a member of the Scottish Office Consultative Panel on Land Ownership. He is also an honorary research fellow at Aberdeen University and a research associate (studying Highland sporting estates) at Edinburgh University's Moray House Institute of Education. Many of his musings on the subject of land and access can be found at www.caledonia.org.uk/land
Scotland On Line's Dave Hewitt recently quizzed Wightman about how he felt the foot and mouth crisis had affected the overall access situation.
DH: While not for a minute wishing to suggest that the access restrictions arising from foot and mouth were anything other than a bad thing, would you agree that the timing was "good" in that it provided a wake-up call to walkers, climbers etc in light of the impending Scottish access bill?
AW: It certainly focused attention on the access issue at a critical time, although the mess that is the current draft access bill has had much more of an effect. It did nonetheless focus attention on two important issues. First of all it showed that folk were overwhelmingly responsible and had respect for advisory signs. Second, though, it prompted a healthy and long overdue questioning of the basis for these restrictions and hence for others that might arise in future.
DH: Have the restrictions affected your own work and hillgoing?
AW: Over the spring and summer I personally got out and about much as usual. With our young daughter we do a variety of things in the outdoors from cycling to canoeing, from walking to rock-climbing. We sneaked past some signs and generally stayed out of obvious hotspots of conflict.
What distressed me more than anything else was the attitude of tourist board staff who had plainly swallowed the whole myth of the dangers posed by walkers. On far too many occasions I came across instances of staff authoritatively advising of closures where in fact there was only unofficial advice.
DH: It was as though some localised form of political correctness suddenly sprang up. Certainly in the first two or three months of the crisis there was so much paranoia and even hysteria that a lot of walkers, cyclists etc became fearful not so much of spreading the disease but of being seen to be doing something which contravened the mood of the nation, namely having a nice relaxing time in the outdoors.
Somehow the idea had arisen that this was irredeemably frivolous, akin to cracking jokes at a funeral. I don't know about you but for me this followed on with a depressing seamlessness from other recent mass-hysteria panics - Princess Diana, paedophilia, petrol shortages.
AW: Guess so. What was just as worrying though was the way in which we returned almost to 1950s thinking about agriculture. Straight away farming was held up as a vital industry whose priorities were unquestioned. That was the really depressing thing. Where were the government champions of the outdoors, healthy living and tourism - sectors which are far more important for the country as a whole?
DH: What do you think it says about the Scottish democratic process that while the Executive made a series of increasingly bold and forthright statements about the need to restore access, various of the councils - eg Argyll and Bute - appeared to look the other way, choosing to heed farmers and landowners rather than following the guidance from higher up?
AW: The democratic process was effectively sidelined not only by local authorities but by tourist boards as I have mentioned. The real problem was one of understanding, language and local politics. Those closest to the ground appeared to be least able or willing to acknowledge the facts of the situation as they were presented by the Scottish Executive.
At the end of the day, however, our democratic process is defended and sustained by ordinary people and there was far too much compliance and timidity displayed by the outdoors community to what were, in reality, no more than advisory notices. Advisory means you take the advice and act accordingly - in most cases this should have meant going ahead and enjoying the countryside as normal.
DH: Do you think it was just coincidence that those councils which seemed least access-friendly tended to be large and predominantly rural, while Central Belt-fringe authorities such as Clackmannanshire and South Ayrshire appeared to find little difficulty in acting on the Executive's access guidelines?
AW: I'm not sure - I didn't monitor the situation that closely to be able to detect any pattern. I do however have direct experience of the extent to which local politicians can be easily put off their stride by appearing not to side with the farming and landowning lobbies. I have no doubt that this had an impact in a number of cases.
DH: My own feeling was that the NFU wielded an inordinate amount of power - for instance their having been given the final word on the Dumfries and Galloway council website, effectively refuting the Scottish Executive's advice on reopening. I can't see how that was allowed to happen - and it surely says something about the balance of power within the country. You couldn't, for instance, imagine that a government edict back in 1984 would have been published along with an "Arthur says" footnote from the NUM.
AW: Absolutely - it was part of the more general retreat into 1950s thinking. Practical politics suggested that the NFU liaises closely with government over control measures etc, but for the NFU to have weekly access to ministers and to influence policy to such an extent meant that the wider public interest was ignored for too long.
DH: What do you think the crisis has taught us about the management of land under the control of the National Trust for Scotland, the John Muir Trust, the Woodland Trust etc?
AW: That they were among the keenest to be seen to be kowtowing to the farming and landowning interests. It was remarkable - the speed and efficiency with which the public was advised to stop visiting land in the ownership of these bodies. It was clear early on that walkers posed an insignificant risk and that only those who had been in close contact with livestock could conceivably transmit the virus.
Nevertheless these organisations sought to deter the very people they seek to attract support from. In some cases they continue to fall over themselves to try and justify their stance.
For example, Nigel Hawkins, director of the John Muir Trust, wrote in their summer 2001 newsletter, "At no time did the John Muir Trust seek to close any land. We asked walkers and climbers not to visit for the time being and I must say it was remarkable how everyone took that advice and stayed away."
Except that on 9 June I visited Schiehallion to be faced with a JMT sign which said, "The footpath to Schiehallion is open. Please keep to the path. Due to the number of grazing animals in this area, all other walks and paths are closed until further notice..."
So they and other NGOs did "close" land. And they continued to do so after the Scottish Executive had asked all landowners to remove unofficial closure notices on 15 May. Why the continued misrepresentation? Perhaps because there has been a backlash from the membership but in any post-mortem we should be trying to establish the facts rather than massage the truth.
Language was clearly one of the first casualties of the crisis. Using words such as open and closed completely misrepresents the legal position and is evidence of attempts by landowning non-governmental organisations to appropriate power and influence which is not properly theirs.
I think that NGOs panicked and such was their desire to be seen to be "responsible" landowners that they went along with the prevailing climate of opinion in landowning circles. What was even more surprising was that as landowners most of these organisations were not farmers and thus had no business putting up signs and issuing advice - it was a paternalistic gesture to keep their tenants sweet. Bilateral relations with local economic interests were given greater emphasis that the interests of their own members and client groups.
DH: On the JMT/Schiehallion situation, I was at Braes of Foss the day after you, on 10 June and so I saw the same sign. What worried me here and elsewhere - the Forestry Commission and the Woodland Trust were especially guilty of this - was that the signs often spoke for agencies other than those who erected them. Hence the JMT sign told of neighbouring non-JMT land being closed, just as several Woodland Trust signs in the Ochils insisted that all land above the treeline was out of bounds.
In neither instance was this true and it's worrying that NGOs are allowing themselves to used by adjoining anti-access landowners. Surely if the latter want to try and block off their land, then they should do their own dirty work rather than relying on some pseudo-official agency next door?
AW: Indeed. In all these cases organisations not directly concerned with the disease acted as proxies for farmers rather than let those involved speak for themselves. The actions of this coalition allowed an unquestioning analysis of the crisis to go unchallenged for far too long and this has served to entrench the weight and influence of the landowning bloc.
DH: Do you fear or welcome the forthcoming national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and in the Cairngorms?
AW: I welcome them in the sense that proper consideration can be given to the value of the countryside and the fact that farming, though important, is now not the mainstay of the rural economy. Much of course will depend on the balance of skills and understanding among board members and thus it is something of an open question whether they will be robust enough in their approach to avoid being overly influenced by the land management lobby.
DH: Will those landowners who have long harboured antipathy toward walkers have felt strengthened or undermined by the events of 2001?
AW: In the short term they might have felt strengthened. However, as the consequences of the way in which the crisis has been handled become clear, I think they will be increasingly marginalised within their communities if future attempts are made to deter recreational activity in the countryside.
DH: My own feeling is that, on the whole, the various recreational outdoor communities - hillwalkers, wood-wanderers, birdwatchers etc - have been remarkably, even dangerously, compliant and complacent during the access crisis.
By and large people seem to have been turning back when faced with unofficial or even inaccurate signs and this has surely allowed the signs to remain and even to flourish. Do you see it this way, too - and, if so, does our biddability as a community suggest that we believe ourselves to be mere guests on the land? Or are we just inherently, irredeemably cautious?
AW: The signs have certainly remained in part because in the eyes of farmers and landowners they were effective. However, the experience of so much acquiescence in the face of such overwhelming pressure to stay away has given outdoors folk some credibility as a well-behaved bunch.
I don't think we are irredeemably cautious. I think we were paranoid about being perceived to misbehave and in that sense the whole episode has entrenched and bolstered landowning hegemony. What is tragic is that the simple science of the matter did not inform attitudes. As soon as it was known that walkers posed no threat unless they had been in contact with livestock, walkers and climbers should have been tearing signs down.
Indeed the signs should have said "Keep out to protect farmers' incomes" - that was what the whole issue was about. Some signs I saw in England even asked walkers to keep off the fells because of the threat that foot and mouth posed to the viability of rural communities.
We have collectively swallowed a massive myth in all of this. Foot and mouth poses no threat to rural communities - it is a livestock disease. What poses the threat to rural communities are the draconian measures pushed through by government with the connivance of farming organisations.
DH: At least the science seems much clearer now - although I wonder if some of the Executive's very clear statements - eg that no walker has ever been known to have transmitted FMD - will be quietly forgotten come any future outbreak. We certainly seem to have started from square one this time - for instance the post-1968 recommendations against the mass burning of animals were completely swept aside.
AW: That's the danger - though I feel that the experience of this crisis has given people much more confidence to address this kind of situation in future. It's clear that far more people are now knowledgeable and able to influence how any future outbreak is handled.
DH: How do you think the walking/climbing representative bodies have fared during all this - the Mountaineering Council of Scotland and the Ramblers in Scotland, the British Mountaineering Council further south?
AW: Very well I think - particularly the MCofS which has been robust, informative and insightful in its work on the topic and has not been afraid to reflect on the serious erosion of civil liberties which was quite unjustifiably imposed by landowners. I think it has enabled them to come out stronger and better able to fight the access corner in future.
DH: And what of the fabled radical spirit which allegedly infused the outdoor world in days gone by - mass trespasses, confrontations with ghillies, that kind of thing? Has it faded out, or did it even really exist at all?
AW: It has been embarrassing to observe such overwhelming acquiescence in the face of extremely thinly justified restrictions. We went to the edge, looked over and got cold feet. As I pointed out earlier, language was a victim. An advisory sign is an advisory sign. You read it, you consider the situation and in 99.9% of cases walkers and climbers should have ignored the signs - but they didn't.
What folk forgot (and this is crucial in terms of the balance between private and public interests in land) is that farmers were paranoid about the disease not so much because of the disease itself but because of the consequences - slaughter of their livestock. And this policy of eradication was in place not because of any animal or human health concerns but in order to protect the economic self-interest of farmers.
In order to protect a £500 million export market, the rest of us have had to bear costs in the billions. No other industry has the capacity or gall to so blithely pass on to society risks that would in any normal business be insured against or internalised in industry costs. If a sector of farming faces the loss of £500m as a consequence of an external factor the answer is to either insure, cover the cost yourself or accept it - don't pass it on to the rest of us!
DH: It was noticeable that several of the main access blackspots were linked with landowners from outwith Scotland - eg Auch is owned by the Welsh-based Lord Trevor, Castles at Dalmally by a woman in Tunbridge Wells (as you yourself pointed out) and the farmer at Machuim above Lawers village has moved up from the West Midlands. Is this just coincidence?
AW: Landownership is about power. But paradoxically perhaps, those who have least power often tend to exhibit the strongest tendency to abuse what little they have and it was noticeable how enthusiastically crofters and estate staff ran around erecting their home-made signs which were only ever, repeat, advisory.
In that sense there was maybe some tendency in such places for those who don't usually enjoy much power to go overboard. By and large, however, I don't think that the origin of the landowner was of any consequence.
DH: That's interesting, as back in the spring I recall Simon Blackett - the factor at Invercauld - raging about how small-scale landowners and farmers were blackening the name of the bigger estates by their actions. He'd just come back from a visit to Mull, where a couple of farmers together with the island vet had effectively made a unilateral declaration of independence and he was both furious and dismayed.
Blackett had very quickly cleared Invercauld of signs, as you'll recall and this had a tremendous domino effect among several of the other big Deeside estates (which in turn kept Braemar "alive" when centres such as Aberfeldy and Killin were really struggling). As you say, it was as though the smaller-acreage farms and estates were relishing their moment in the sun. Wanting their 15 minutes of fame - or, rather, snatching their 15 minutes of power.
AW: It's certainly worth pondering. I think it is down simply to the fact that larger estates such as Invercauld are far more plugged into the wider tourism economy (Invercauld for example takes a proportion of ticket sales at the Glenshee ski centre). Such estates will consider the wider picture far more so than smaller specialist agricultural holdings with weak linkages to the wider economy.
DH: Has the foot and mouth access crisis hastened the "anglification" of the Scottish access situation - and are we moving inevitably towards a situation of increased corridor access to our hills?
AW: No, I don't think so. The proposed access legislation, although flawed in many ways, is at least firm in the principle that we are to enjoy a legal right of responsible access to all land. What needs watching is this whole notion of restrictions for management purposes. We must not see a situation where, for example, walkers and climbers are required to suspend the exercise of their access rights in situations where "land management" is being used as a front for recreational deer stalking.
Such restrictions should be wholly necessary, vital and of strictly limited duration. Beyond that, the foot and mouth experience has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that the outdoor community is happy to observe sensible advice - but it will continue to do so in a mood of vigilance and intelligent dialogue.
5/10/2001
