Scotland’s National Anthem (PE1541)
The next item is consideration of two new petitions. The committee will hear from the petitioner in each case.
The first petition is PE1541, by Chris Cromar, calling for “Flower of Scotland” to be officially recognised as Scotland’s national anthem. Members have a note by the clerk, the SPICe briefing and the petition. I welcome Chris Cromar and invite him to speak for around five minutes to set the context for his petition.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to present this petition here today.
Ask the majority of Scots what Scotland’s national anthem is and they will likely say “Flower of Scotland”. Despite the song being sung before the matches of our national football and rugby union teams and when Scotland wins gold at the Commonwealth games, it has no official recognition as Scotland’s national anthem, and that is why I am in front of the committee today.
The song, written by the late Roy Williamson in the 1960s, was first used by the Scottish rugby union team in 1990, by the Scottish football team in 1993 and by the Commonwealth games team in 2010. The song was also sung as part of the opening ceremony at the 2012 summer Olympics in London.
I believe that the issue of an official national anthem for Scotland has been on-going for too long, as in March 2006 former First Minister Jack McConnell said that the issue over Scotland’s national anthem may have to be resolved to strengthen Scotland’s global brand. Of course, the Scottish Parliament could support calls for a different national anthem other than “Flower of Scotland”, such as “Scots Wha Hae” or “A Man’s a Man”, but those songs would not work at national events and a lyric sheet would have to be passed round to people.
The song “Flower of Scotland” is known by the vast majority of Scots and is recognised by people across the world. There was a BBC Scotland online news article in May 2011 entitled “Will Scotland ever have a national anthem?”, and someone who responded to it in the “Comments” blog put it perfectly when he wrote:
“i think that flower of scotland is a perfect national anthem for scotland. every Scot knows it. 9 out of 10 love it and it does stir up emotions in everyone i know. i think that the song is a top class choice and should be named ‘the official national anthem of Scotland’”.
In 2006, a poll conducted by the Royal Scottish National Orchestra showed that the majority of respondents supported “Flower of Scotland” becoming Scotland’s national anthem, after it beat four other songs to finish in top spot. It has been said that the song is anti-English and stuck in the past, but it is anything but, as is shown by the lyrics:
“Those days are past now,
And in the past they must remain”.
This is an important time in Scotland’s history, and I believe that it is the perfect time for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on an official national anthem for Scotland. The song “Flower of Scotland” helps to unite the nation. Scotland football fan Ian Pow summed it up before the Scottish team’s first match after September’s referendum when he said:
“There is nothing like hearing 50,000 people sing this song. The No vote in the referendum has nothing to do with it and I read the lyrics as meaning we can rise up and be a better nation, be more successful and victorious.”
That comment shows that the song is about Scotland and that it brings people together regardless of their political beliefs or backgrounds.
The Scottish Football Association has commented on the national anthem. A spokesman for the association said:
“The Scotland fans have shown a fondness for Flower of Scotland in football, rugby and other sports and it is the established national anthem.”
Surely all of that shows that “Flower of Scotland” should be officially recognised as the national anthem of Scotland. I am not asking for “God Save the Queen” to be replaced, as it is the national anthem of the United Kingdom; all I am asking is for Scotland to have its most popular unofficial anthem officially recognised, which is backed by Scots across the nation.
Thank you. I will kick off the questions. I believe that “Flower of Scotland” is a good song about a historical event, but does that make it a good national anthem? I believe that the song has an anti-English theme—you referred to that point in your statement—and is about things that happened nearly 700 years ago. I would like to think that, some 700 years on, Scotland is a forward-looking, welcoming country and that things that happened in the past should be left in the past. Do you not think that there is a great opportunity for some of our young musicians and composers to put pen to paper and come up with a new song that could highlight the good that happens in Scotland?
I think that the passion that is shown when “Flower of Scotland” is sung before football matches at Hampden and rugby matches at Murrayfield shows that, regardless of people’s political opinions, there is support for the song. It is a brilliant song that is recognised all over the world. I go to the University of Aberdeen, and I have spoken to students there from countries across the world who always say that the national anthem of Scotland is “Flower of Scotland”. It is a song that all Scots really appreciate. Young Scottish artists, including Amy MacDonald, have sung the song before Scotland football matches at Hampden.
I do not think that the song is stuck in the past at all; I think that it celebrates Scotland’s past but looks to the future, which I think is really important in national anthems.
Good morning, Chris. I watched the debate on the television programme “Scotland Tonight” last night, which was quite interesting. The participants came up with a number of options for a Scottish national anthem and discussed the merits of each one. You mentioned a couple of them earlier. What consultation have you undertaken with your peers or the wider community to determine whether “Flower of Scotland” is the preferred option?
I was a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for Aberdeen Donside for two years, from 2011 to 2013, and I have spoken to a lot of young people about the issue. When I ask young people what they think Scotland’s national anthem is, they say that it is “Flower of Scotland”, and they are shocked when I say that it is not. The same is true when I speak to family and friends. People are surprised that it is not actually our national anthem.
Obviously, the song is recognised by the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Rugby Union. It is regarded as the anthem. In many ways, it would be controversial if we were to introduce a new national anthem, because people have a lot of passion and feeling for “Flower of Scotland”. A new song might not be as successful, because people regard “Flower of Scotland” as their national anthem.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with a national anthem being reflective. People do not criticise “Land of My Fathers” or “La Marseillaise”, despite the fact that they deal with historical events. Not all national anthems need to be prospective; some, by their very nature and inclination, are bound to be reflective.
There are some fantastic national anthems across the world. The French and Welsh national anthems are two of the most popular.
The lyrics of “Flower of Scotland” are important, as they mention a historical event, but they also look to the future. Some people say that it is an anti-English song but, with the Scotland football team, many of the players who were born in Scotland do not sing it, whereas the players who were born in England and who have Scottish ancestry sing it more.
The same is true with rugby union. Some people might think that rugby union players would be less likely to sing it than football players, because of the nature of the sport—rugby is a game from the south of Scotland, where there might be different political ideologies. However, in many ways, the rugby players sing it more passionately than the football players, which shows that it is a unanimous song for all of Scotland.
As there are no more questions, I thank Mr Cromar for his evidence.
Does the committee wish to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will consider undertaking a consultation on whether there should be an official national anthem for Scotland and, if so, which song the anthem should be, and to ask whether it should be open to musicians and composers to bring something new rather than old?
I agree with Chris Cromar’s sentiments. I admire his passion and aspiration, which are positive. At the end of the day, it is an important issue for Scotland and we should give other people an opportunity to comment. Although I am impressed with Mr Cromar’s sentiments, it is appropriate to ask the Scottish Government to undertake a full and proper consultation before a decision is made.
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Rugby Union and the Scottish Football Association, as both have decided to use “Flower of Scotland” as the anthem for international matches. Mr Cromar referred to the survey that was carried out in 2006 by the Royal Scottish National Orchestra. We should write to the RSNO to ask whether it has done any work on the issue since 2006 and to get information on how it carried out that research and reached the finding that the majority support “Flower of Scotland” as the national anthem.
Does the committee agree to the suggestions, including the additional points that John Wilson has raised?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Cromar for giving evidence.
I suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
10:44 Meeting suspended.Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1542)
The second new petition is PE1542, by Evelyn Mundell, on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Caroline Smith, on human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by the clerk, a SPICe briefing and the petition. I welcome to the committee Evelyn Mundell, the petitioner, and Ben Mundell. I also welcome Jamie McGrigor, who has a constituency interest in the petition.
I invite Mrs Mundell to speak to her petition. Mrs Mundell, you have about five minutes to set the context of what you are looking for, after which we will move to questions.
Good morning, convener and members of the Public Petitions Committee. My husband and I very much appreciate your invitation to speak to you today regarding our petition and to answer any questions that you might have.
As you will be aware, we were very disappointed when in reply to our initial petition, PE1263, the Government made a number of inaccurate statements. We were also particularly disappointed that others who had been severely affected and who had written to the PPC were not acknowledged by the PPC when the minister appeared before the committee.
This saga has both ruled and ruined our lives for more than 15 years, during which time we and others have regularly sought justice. For those affected, it has been a form of mental cruelty and financial abuse. As we have said before, all that these dairy farmers wanted to do was use their own property—their milk quota—to run their own business, just as the other 99 per cent of dairy farmers in the UK were allowed to do. My husband and others were denied the freedom to run their businesses as they saw fit.
Dairy farming by its very nature consists of long working hours, seven days a week and 365 days a year. Often the farmer works alone and even on a family farm they can feel very isolated. The fact that the farmer’s home is tied to the farm makes any decisions about the farm even more critical. These were all family farms, not large corporations. The farmers were not in a position and should not have been expected to forfeit their property in order to support the community, as the Scottish Government appears to have expected them to do. They were struggling to support themselves and their families. It was a situation in which the weakest were exploited and bullied into not fighting for their legitimate rights. It is devastating for any farmer to be forced out of their farm or to face the prospect of being forced out, through no fault of their own. They feel ashamed and guilty; very often generations of toil are at stake. Their family and social life have been totally disrupted.
It was particularly difficult post 1996 and throughout the years of the BSE crisis, when all cattle over 30 months old had to be destroyed. Although some compensation was paid, it fell well short of the cost of producing the animals, which exacerbated the problem for anyone having to give up or reduce production at that time. That was why it was so critical for the dairy farmers to have access to the UK market for selling or leasing their quota, which at the time had considerable value. They needed the full value, not to squander on holidays or fancy yachts, but to pay overdrafts, maintain their farms and put money towards diversification. I will quote from a book on human rights law:
“It is, in principle, hard to explain a situation in which an individual’s rights can be restricted in order to promote the general wealth of the community since one of the central aims of human rights is to ensure that individuals and minorities are protected as society pursues its collective interests.”
I will give you some of the facts. Government consultations were not done correctly or in accordance with Government criteria. The ring fence was introduced not in 1994, but when quotas were introduced in 1984. There was no guaranteed market for farmers’ milk, certainly post 1994, when the milk marketing boards were forced by the Government to disband.
The rights of the individual were never mentioned in any consultation, neither by the Government nor by anyone working on its behalf. Farmers were advised neither of their rights, nor of the fact that they had any rights. There was nowhere for any dairy farmer to go to assert his rights, and there was nowhere for farmers to go for help or to properly challenge what was being forced upon them.
Sometimes, the only milk buyer stopped uplifting a farmer’s milk, which obviously had a catastrophic effect on his ability to earn a living. What was the farmer supposed to do? He had no income, but he still had all the outgoings. When the milk price dropped below the cost of production, what were dairy farmers to do? When they took ill or had an accident, what were they to do?
The Government did nothing to minimise the devastating impact that was being felt by some farmers. There were several less restrictive alternatives. Only in one year out of the last 30 did the southern isles produce their full quota. That meant that there was a lot of dormant quota, which was of no benefit to farmers, the creamery or the community. Only three farmers in Arran supplied the Arran creamery, not the 30 or 35 that the minister stated at the previous meeting. The single farm payment was available to all farmers in the European Community, not just to those within the ring fence. The Government itself was confiscating quota from the island areas. Alex Salmond, the previous First Minister, told the Leveson inquiry:
“all politicians, like all citizens, have the right to correct ... factual errors”.
We think that we are entitled to have the Government acknowledge that what we have said is factually correct.
It was extremely difficult to understand and forecast contradictory Government policy. As we have said, the Government was confiscating quota from the ring-fenced area, yet producers were not allowed to lease it out, even when it would have come back at the end of the year. The Government acknowledged that producers in Islay needed the full value of their quota to allow them to diversify, yet producers in Kintyre, for example, who had no market for their milk, were deemed not to need the value of their quota.
Hardly a day passes in the Scottish Parliament when we do not hear the words “fairness”, “equality” and “justice”. In this case, we and others feel that we have not been treated fairly. We have not had equality of opportunity, for example, to diversify like the other 99 per cent of dairy farmers in the UK, and we certainly feel that so far there has been no justice.
On 11 September 2014, the previous First Minister, Alex Salmond, said that human rights are guaranteed in Scotland. That has certainly not been the case in this situation, with the result that severe sacrifices have had to be made. Some dairy farmers have been forced to give up their farms, some have been forced into impoverished retirement, some have had to be separated from their families to seek work and others have struggled to keep their farms.
I will make one final point. Despite my quoting Alex Salmond, this is not a party-political issue. There will be farmers affected from all political parties and none.
My husband and I will do our best to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs Mundell. Do members have any questions?
I have a great deal of sympathy for the predicament faced by the petitioners and other farmers, and I recognise the heartfelt plea made by Mr and Mrs Mundell today.
Having been born and brought up on a dairy farm just outside Stornoway, I know at first hand the challenges that are being experienced by dairy farmers in rural Scotland, especially on the islands. I will spare you a full history lesson, but we pulled out of the dairy side in the mid-1970s as a result of the milk-to-beef scheme, simply because of the challenges at the time—and things certainly do not seem to have got any better. There might be an argument for considering another milk-to-beef scheme in the future, but that does not help you guys at the moment.
Before I came into Parliament today, I heard on the news about the plight of dairy farmers in Islay and Gigha. The report highlighted the fact that the announcement by First Milk that payments will be delayed has exacerbated the situation to the degree that people are just not going to be able to survive. Ring fencing has clearly had a major impact on you, and it is certainly unfortunate that your earlier pleas were not picked up on. We hear that producing milk already costs dairy farmers more than they get, and presumably the situation is even worse with ring fencing.
That has been the case more or less since 1996. After the milk marketing boards were taken away, the farmers had no power in the market at all. From 1996 onwards, the price went down. That was when a lot of people were forced out, particularly in our area. We had eight or 12 farmers a year going out of business, but they had no option because they were not allowed to sell their quota outside the ring fence or to lease it out. Something like 6,000 dairy farmers in Britain leased out all of their quota in 2000. At least they were able to get in some money, but people in our area were not allowed to do that.
The situation has got worse. For various reasons, the ones who were at the top are now coming nearer the bottom. As you will understand, people might at different times in their life have invested a lot of money in land, stock, buildings and machinery; they might have put up new sheds at the time, and of course they were the first affected when the price went down. Some have survived, but only about 25 per cent of the farmers who were in business when the ring fence started are still in business. A lot have been forced out of our area.
Absolutely. I might have more to say at the summing-up stage.
Convener, I have spoken about this issue before, on 18 May 2010, 8 February 2011 and 8 March 2011, all of which is on the record, but I thank you for allowing me to make a short statement in support of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Mundell, who have also spoken to the committee previously. I share the concerns of the Mundells and other affected dairy farmers in Kintyre whom I have met that because of the ring fence they were placed in an unfair position when they were not allowed to sell their milk quota, and that neither their human rights nor the impact on their business was adequately considered when the ring fence was imposed.
The plight that those dairy farmers found themselves in contrasts with virtually all other dairy farmers in the UK, who were able to sell their milk quota. Moreover, Scottish ministers recognised the value of the quota by, for example, removing the ring fence from dairy farmers on Islay to allow them to diversify. Islay is no distance at all from Kintyre.
As Mr and Mrs Mundell and other dairy farmers in the locality live in an area that is suited only to livestock farming, their options for diversification were severely limited and, indeed, impossible without accessing the value of their milk quota. Mr and Mrs Mundell and other dairy farmers believe that, in being denied the right to sell their own property, they were treated unfairly and disproportionately, and that it appears that the Government believed that they should be prepared to sacrifice their property rights and bankrupt themselves to support the wider community.
This is not wartime but peacetime. My constituents believe that ministers have failed to respond to the concerns that they have been raising for a number of years now, and that ministers have simply not recognised that their individual human rights were not properly considered. I share the hope that committee members will agree to take forward their petition, in the hope that the petitioners might receive answers to the genuine and heartfelt questions and concerns that they have been raising for a long time now.
Thank you, Jamie.
We are about to sum up. Mrs Mundell, is there any specific action that you would like the committee to take?`
11:00
First, we would like the Government to acknowledge that the statements that we have made are factually correct and that they correct the inaccurate statements that were previously made to the Public Petitions Committee.
We are ordinary members of the public, so we are not sure about exactly what it is open to the committee to do. However, we wondered whether it could seek an opinion from a senior advocate. Is that a possibility? Can the Scottish Human Rights Commission give the committee any advice?
In 2004, I think, the Government brought out a consultation document on single farm payment entitlement trading. It was very clear in that consultation document that the Government was being very careful about human rights, the free market and competition law. We wonder why that approach was not mirrored in the milk quota consultations. We believe that the Government did not initially consider human rights in respect of ring fencing. It possibly did so at a later date but decided either that it was too late or that it did not want to do anything about the matter. However, that does not alter the fact that people were put at a severe disadvantage, because the quota at that time was worth a considerable amount of money and people had invested on the basis that they had the value of that quota, just as everybody else in the UK did. Then, of course, they were not allowed to access that value.
On the action that the committee should take, I suggest that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment on the review of ring-fencing provisions that the previous committee was told would be undertaken in 2012.
In addition, the convener may wish to consider writing directly to the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to make him aware of the drastic—for want of a better word—situation. The committee could consider, as part of its work programme, looking at the issue in the wider context of the plight of the dairy industry at the moment, which is a major issue. That is just a suggestion—it is up to the committee to decide whether that will be part of its work programme. However, I think that, if members agreed to that suggestion, that would help the situation.
We should also write to the SHRC. It is clear that Mrs Mundell feels that her human rights have been infringed, and we need an opinion. I do not know whether we should get that through the agriculture system or the committee, but when people feel that their rights have been trampled on—I use that phrase guardedly—we must ensure that there is factual evidence as to whether that is correct. That is important.
I agree with members that we need to protect our agriculture industry, including our dairy industry, which is very valuable. Jamie McGrigor has made a very good case. The fact that he has represented the interests of the industry for such a long time demonstrates its importance.
We need to look at people’s human rights, as well, regardless of whether it is too early or too late. Whether it is too early or too late is not the point; the point is that human rights need to be upheld. We need to look into that issue.
I am advised that we have already written to the SHRC, but that is not to say that we cannot do so again. I am also advised that the committee cannot seek legal advice on any individual cases. That is not our role. However, we can invite the minister back to answer questions and to put to him the points that have been raised.
Can we agree to Angus MacDonald’s suggestion that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment about the review and the other areas that have been raised?
We should also write to the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to get the matter on its radar.
We should also mention the human rights element.
Okay.
Is it possible for me to make a couple of other points? The value of the quota is now virtually nothing. Many people have gone out of milk production—
They have been forced out.
Yes. They have been forced out because of the low milk prices. The important thing is what the value was at that stage. Those people lost out because they should have had the value at that stage. Am I correct in understanding that, if the Human Rights Act 1998 was breached, the Scotland Act 1998 was also breached, as human rights are part of that? Perhaps Mr MacAskill knows more about that.
Would you like to take up that challenge, Mr MacAskill?
I think that we are here to deal with the generalities rather than the specifics, where we could come into difficulties. That is where private advice has to be taken.
All acts of the Scottish Parliament—and its ministers—are bound by the Human Rights Act 1998, and there can be challenges. However, I am certainly not qualified to discuss that, and I do not think that the committee is qualified. I agree with Angus MacDonald that we should write to the Government and, in particular, to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
On whether the SHRC will wish to become involved, I think that it might well seek to divert the matter to counsel’s opinion.
I suggest that it is not only article 1 of protocol 1 that is involved, although Mr MacAskill will know more about this than I do. The Government appears to have accepted that article 1 is involved, but I suggest that article 8 is involved as well, because of the devastating effect on the farmers and their families.
I am sure that the points that you have made will be taken into account, Mrs Mundell. They are now on the record.
Thank you.
Usually, the committee has three options: to write to various organisations to seek further information, to refer the petition to another committee of this Parliament or to close the petition.
Angus MacDonald suggests that we write to the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I suggest that, in the first instance, we write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Human Rights Commission to seek clarification on the issues that the petitioners have raised. We should take that evidence first and then pass the petition on to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. We will get into technical difficulties if we start to ask conveners of committees for their opinions on petitions that we are still considering. In theory, we are supposed to pass petitions on rather than have two committees consider them at the same time.
I take on board Mr Wilson’s point. I suggested that we write to the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee now because of the dire straits that the dairy industry is in at the moment. The issue that we are discussing is just part of that. Timing is an issue, and I am keen to get the matter addressed at all levels.
I am happy to wait until we get a further response from the Government, but the main reason why I suggested writing to that committee now is that the current state of affairs in the dairy industry needs to be addressed in the short term.
Okay. We will write to the cabinet secretary in the first instance. I can perhaps have a chat with the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee off the record, and we can take it from there.
Do members agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Mr and Mrs Mundell, I thank you again for providing evidence. It is much appreciated.
Thank you very much, convener and members of the Public Petitions Committee.
Previous
Current PetitionNext
Current Petitions