Enterprise and Culture Committee, 31 Oct 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Petition

---

National Bird (PE783)

Item 2 concerns petition PE783 on a national bird for Scotland. We have three witnesses for the petition, which has been referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee. I welcome James Reynolds and Duncan Orr-Ewing, who represent RSPB Scotland, and David Lee, who is assistant editor of The Scotsman. It would be helpful for you to explain the background of the petition. We have a paper before us, but it would be helpful if you could tell us why the golden eagle should be the national bird of Scotland.

I understand that members know some of the particulars about how the golden eagle came to be chosen as the candidate for the national bird, following the poll that The Scotsman newspaper conducted.

There is something undeniably special about birds and how they connect people to nature. They help lift human life with their general presence. Knowing that they are there, going about their business in spite of all the chaos of modern human life, somehow elevates the spirits.

In Scotland, there is a long history of birds in our culture. That includes Gaelic poems and songs, Pictish stone carvings and more modern writing and poetry, including the works of Burns, which include references to about 40 species of bird. As national symbols, birds undoubtedly engender a sense of pride in one's nation. They can have many positive spin-offs, particularly for tourism.

Of the 12 species that were in the running for the position of Scotland's national bird in the poll that was run by The Scotsman, the golden eagle was top. The species is already an unofficial emblem of Scotland. It captures much of what we believe to the very best aspects of the country: it is a majestic, proud and confident species that chooses to live among the grandeur of the rugged mountains, craggy glens and beautiful lochs that make up the wilder places of Scotland. It has, using its natural resilience, intelligence and supremely adapted senses, survived in that environment in spite of us, through periods of persecution and hardship, and has won international regard. Hundreds of people come to Scotland specifically to see this beautiful bird soaring at the heads of our glens and heather-clad hills. The sight never fails to astound one.

That has not gone unnoticed throughout the centuries. In Gaelic, the word for golden eagle is "iolaire". Although the etymology of the word is uncertain, the legacy of the Gaels' wonderment at the golden eagle remains in many place names. Many crags and hills in the Highlands go by the name of Creag na h-Iolaire—Crag of the Eagle. At least some of them are occupied by golden eagles even today.

Highland chiefs, as a mark of their rank on occasions of ceremony, carried in their bonnets three flight feathers of the golden eagle. The Highland chieftain had two flight feathers, and the Highland gentleman had one. In his seminal book, "Days with the Golden Eagle", Seton Gordon notes:

"In 1951 a great clan gathering was staged in Edinburgh. A number of chiefs then wore Eagle feathers in their bonnets, but I noticed that some of them were tail feathers, and not the flight feathers which should have correctly been carried. Although the wind reached the force of a gale, not one feather came adrift on that great day."

I also point out that between 80 and 90 countries around the world currently have a bird as a national symbol. Some of the choices are duplicated among countries, but it is pertinent to note that no country currently has the golden eagle as its national symbol. This is an opportune time for us to seize the chance to adopt that symbol.

It is also pertinent to note that the golden eagle is a species that is found the length and breadth of Scotland, from Dumfries and Galloway in the south out to the Western Isles, where it has some of its best strongholds, and up to Caithness and Sutherland, so it represents all of the country.

When The Scotsman embarked on its campaign, we had noticed an interest in environmental issues, and particularly in species issues. We did it as a litmus test and, as you will see from your papers, the voting numbers were not terribly high, but we had set out to start a debate on whether it was a relevant way to progress. The petition has been through various committees and has gone to the Executive and back, although I believe that the Executive does not have a view on the matter. It seems to be a tremendous opportunity to adopt the golden eagle because, as James Reynolds has said eloquently, the symbol of the eagle runs through the whole of Scottish history, from the distant past to the present and into the future.

I presume that it is not a reserved matter for Westminster and that we can decide what our own national bird is. Are there any questions? I think that Murdo Fraser is interested in the petition.

I am very fond of birds, but not as fond as my cat.

I enjoyed listening to what James Reynolds had to say about the crags that are inhabited by golden eagles. I remember making my way gingerly along the ridge of An Teallach in Wester Ross a number of years ago and coming face to face with a golden eagle. I am not sure which of us was more surprised but, fortunately, I was clinging on more firmly than he was, and he took to his wings and flew away.

If we are to have a national bird, the golden eagle is absolutely the right choice, but I have to ask the witnesses why they think we should have a national bird. Did you think about a national animal, such as the red squirrel, or a national fish? Why did you decide to promote a national bird?

It is a personal thing. As I said in my opening speech, birds have a special quality that somehow connects with people. Throughout history, people have looked to birds for inspiration, more so perhaps than to mammals. I think that that is why more countries have a national bird than a national mammal. Of course, there are some national mammals; I can think of the springbok in South Africa, and I am sure that there are other examples, although none immediately springs to mind. There seems to be more of a connection with birds, however, so for that reason I believe that a bird would be more appropriate.

It was the centenary of the RSPB Scotland when we held the vote in 2004, which was another reason for doing it then.

We have a national flower in the thistle, and a national animal in the lion.

We do not have a national anthem yet, do we? Maybe that is something that we will discuss at another time. Why should Parliament decide on the issue now? The petition was drawn up in 2004.

Two years have gone by since the petition was lodged, so it would be a fitting end to the present session of Parliament if it were to grasp the nettle and act on it now. If that does not happen, an opportunity will have been missed, as there is soon to be an election. That would be a great shame.

I am a wee bit concerned about the fairly small number of people who responded to the petition. To what extent do you feel that the view that the golden eagle is Scotland's favourite bird is replicated throughout Scotland?

I think that the view is pretty well substantiated, although some of the evidence is anecdotal. Under the recent Scottish biodiversity strategy, a poll of the general public was conducted—again, I am not sure of the numbers—to find out what is the favourite bird of Scotland. It emerged that it is the golden eagle.

I have brought a publication to show members. It is entitled "Wildlife Scotland" and was produced by VisitScotland in 2004. Naturally, VisitScotland relied on the symbol of the golden eagle to represent all that is wild in Scotland. The publication was used to promote Scotland as Europe's leading wildlife destination. It is no coincidence that VisitScotland chose that image for the front of the publication—it encapsulates everything that we have been talking about today.

As I represent Caithness and Easter Ross, I would favour the golden eagle for purely personal reasons. Indeed, there are eagles living in and around Struie hill, which is the nearest hill to where I live in a converted croft house.

I have a couple of questions. The golden eagle is currently the property of the Highland chiefs, who may wear its feathers—that is absolutely correct. The feathers are sometimes worn mistakenly by lowlanders who think that they are Highland chiefs, but the eagle is properly the property of Highland chiefs. Has anyone checked with the Highland chiefs as to what their view would be? Secondly, is not the unicorn the heraldic beast of Scotland? The lion and the unicorn appear on the arms of the Crown. We may need to check that. Does the Lord Lyon have a say or a role in that?

Finally, although I support the adoption of the golden eagle as Scotland's national bird, I share Shiona Baird's concern about the size of the sample in the survey.

I am not sure whether the symbol of the golden eagle is the property of the Highland clans. They have not been contacted or consulted on the issue. I am afraid that I am not able to answer the question about the unicorn. What was the other part of the question?

It was about the role of the Lord Lyon.

He is an animal as well.

Strike that from the record.

Again, I am afraid that I cannot answer the question.

Can I comment on the level of consultation?

Yes.

The matter was ventilated quite significantly during RSPB Scotland's centenary year, not least through The Scotsman and also through the wider media—the BBC and others covered the story. Although the number of people who voted was relatively low, the issue had pretty wide coverage at the time, as I remember it. People had the chance to vote if they were so inclined.

The poll ran only over three or four weeks. If we had our time again, we would open it up over a much longer period. It was a litmus test. To be honest, all the questions that have been asked here about the size of the sample and so on were asked previously at the Public Petitions Committee. When we had the idea that there should be a national bird for Scotland, it was a kind of litmus test as to what the public thought. As Duncan Orr-Ewing said, the matter was more widely discussed throughout RSPB Scotland's centenary year.

It has taken us two years to get back to the point at which we started, and the same questions are being asked again. That is no fault of the members of the committee but, as James Reynolds said, if the petition falls now it will be a missed opportunity that will not return. Many suggestions were made at the Public Petitions Committee about further soundings being taken. I do not know whether that has been done, but it appears to me that no further research has been undertaken on the back of that committee's work. We put the issue in the public domain and hoped that more work would be done on it after we had raised it.

Do you have any other questions, Jamie?

No. I am okay for the moment. I am interested in other members' comments. I have put my cards on the table.

I am keen on the golden eagle as a candidate, because I think that it would send out a good message. In the region that I represent, there is concern about raptors being targeted by landowners and gamekeepers. There is a serious message that adoption of the golden eagle as Scotland's national bird would help to spread.

I take the points that David Lee made about The Scotsman starting the process and not wanting the petition to fall at this stage. I think that what is suggested is, in principle, a good idea. Is there any way in which we can instigate more of a process while not losing the petition? Only 1,666 people responded to the poll in The Scotsman, but the RSPB has many members—probably more members than the Scottish National Party—and I am sure that it could get a big indication of support from those people.

We have had international examples given to us. One province in Canada consulted all its schools first. Are you wedded to the idea that the symbol has to be the golden eagle? We could say that there should be a process at the end of which there would be a national bird. That could be carried through after the election as well.

I do not see any reason why that could not be so. My only concern is that the process would not be carried through, but would stop because of the election, which would be a great shame. If it could be guaranteed that the process would continue and that the consultation would go forward, that would not be unreasonable.

I declare an interest as I am a member of the RSPB, as is my husband. The straw poll that I took this morning—which was very unscientific—of people whom I met on the train, my family and some colleagues produced the view that the golden eagle is a nice bird that should be protected from predatory landowners, but that was it. Nobody was aware that there had been a campaign or any sort of petition or vote. Certainly, there was no sense that this was something that Parliament should be doing.

I listened to what you said about what had happened and I read what the Public Petitions Committee said originally. Your response that you expected somebody else to do something was a little weak. I put it to you that if you had been really serious about this, you would not have waited for Parliament to look for additional support; you would have gone out there and—I think it was John Scott who suggested this—at the very least encouraged another daily newspaper, perhaps in the west of Scotland, to support your idea. None of the Public Petitions Committee's suggestions were taken up. The RSPB ran a very good campaign on ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Forth: that issue was not left for others to deal with. I have to say that there is an element of the publicity stunt about this, rather than it being something particularly serious, so on that basis I am not inclined to recommend that we take the matter further.

Do you want to comment on any of that?

Yes. When we started the process, I was working for The Scotsman. The idea was driven by The Scotsman and the petition was lodged after that. It certainly would not have been in The Scotsman's interest to try to get another paper on board to get more of a response, which is why it was driven forward straight after the results of The Scotsman's poll came in. We could not really have done more than was done when I was working at The Scotsman. We expected the processes of the Public Petitions Committee to help to progress the matter and gain the momentum that we saw had come through the poll.

I refer to the Official Report of the Public Petitions Committee. The convener of that committee asked whether it

"should go to the Executive, get a lead from it … and then contact wider organisations".—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 10 Nov 2004; c 1190.]

It is not a matter of leaving this to Parliament and not doing anything. As far as The Scotsman was concerned, we got involved, started it off and the RSPB has picked the issue up. The Official Report clearly states that some wider soundings were going to be taken before either a committee reached a decision or Parliament reached a view on the matter. It is unjust to say that we should have been going on and doing other things. The approach that was outlined in the Official Report has not been followed through—it is two years since we brought the petition to Parliament. All we are looking for is an opinion, but we have not managed to get one in two years. If the answer is no, we would sooner hear that than keep coming back again and again.

Once we have finished asking questions, I will go round the committee to get members' opinions on how we should take the matter forward—if, indeed, we should.

There is a danger of understating the amount of public canvassing that took place. We have 75,000 members in Scotland, who were aware that the process was under way. I remember from the time that the issue received a lot of coverage in the press, not only from The Scotsman, which led the polling process, if you like—

A considerable amount of the coverage came after voting closed.

As I remember it, when the golden eagle formally won the poll there was wide coverage elsewhere.

I am not averse to the golden eagle being designated Scotland's national bird, but you will forgive me if I am slightly concerned that we should be embarking on a consultation, given the kickings that Parliament has taken from papers such as your own when other consultations that we have embarked on in the past have been described as a waste of public money.

I am more than willing to gauge the opinions of my constituents through my column in the local newspaper, and we can gauge people's opinions in other ways. It would be interesting to see where this could go, but I am not sure what the point of it is other than to designate a bird: what does that do? However, I am not opposed to our considering whether there are ways in which we can take the matter forward.

The point of such a designation is to engender national pride. There are plenty of indications from throughout the world that species of bird can have a national status: examples include the kiwi in New Zealand and the cockerel in France. Those are national symbols that engender pride among the population and are widely recognised the world over.

I think that we have a national symbol in that we have the lion rampant, which I see as the national symbol in Scotland, or there is the thistle. What role would another national symbol play other than to confuse people?

When I think of the French rugby team I see a cockerel, but when I think about the Scottish rugby team I see a yellow flag with a red lion rampant on it. How would having a golden eagle enhance national pride? I am very proud to be Scottish: how would such a designation enhance my pride in being Scottish?

James Reynolds perhaps encapsulated the issue in his opening comments. It is a symbol of what Scotland is about, of our wild places and of our attraction as a tourism destination. Wildlife tourism is a growing sector and the link that would be provided by having a potent symbol such as the golden eagle for such a destination is quite strong. There is also a strong link to the cultural identity of the country, which again attracts tourists to the country. Such a symbol could also be an economic asset.

People do not and cannot come to Scotland to see the lion rampant, other than to see a drawing or representation of it on a piece of paper or another image of it. I am sure that people can come to Scotland to see a thistle, but they can see those elsewhere. People cannot see a golden eagle anywhere in the United Kingdom other than in Scotland. I do not know whether you have ever seen one, but it truly is a bewitching experience. Many people come to Scotland specifically for that purpose. It is tangible: people can see the golden eagle and experience the emotion that goes with it. That is why I believe that it is a good idea to designate the golden eagle as the national bird.

You are not suggesting that we get rid of the other symbols.

Absolutely not.

I am slightly concerned about the road that you are going down. If you ask people the world over what are the symbols of Scotland it would be easy for them to come up with the two that we have talked about, which I think that you belittle, just because you cannot see them. They are clearly identifiable as symbols of Scotland. I would not necessarily see a kiwi if I went to New Zealand. You are in danger of talking yourself out of quite a good story.

The intention was in no way to belittle the existing symbols of Scotland. We are arguing for something that I believe is an experience as well as a symbol. Establishing the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland is a good idea because it would promote inward investment through tourism, which can only be of benefit to Scotland.

It seems that the practical benefit of the proposal is that it would encourage tourism. My understanding is that tourism that is related to bird-watching and similar activities is growing exponentially in Scotland. If we decide that we should have a national bird and that it should be the golden eagle, which can be seen only in Scotland, would you anticipate that having a significant impact on bird-watching tourism, which we should not underestimate?

I do not know whether the impact is quantifiable.

I am not asking you to quantify it. In general, do you think that it would help to promote Scotland through tourism?

Indeed. I think that it would cement in people's minds the association between Scotland and the golden eagle, which I think would be beneficial.

We are running short of time. Thank you for answering our questions.

I seek members' views. My view is that Christine May is right: making the golden eagle Scotland's national bird is a publicity stunt, but it might be something that Scotland could do itself, as a country. I am sure that the story would get loads of publicity all over the world, which would help to sell Scotland as a tourist destination, particularly for bird watching. Such a publicity stunt could be beneficial.

One of the things that we need to clarify is whose decision it would be to make the golden eagle Scotland's national bird. Jamie Stone asked whether the Lord Lyon, Parliament or the Executive would make the decision. I suggest that we clarify, presumably through the Parliament's lawyers or by writing to the Lord Lyon or whoever—I do not know whether we have to ask the Lord Advocate for her opinion—whose decision it would be.

I am happy with that. Given the discussions that we have had, I suggest that we also write to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and VisitScotland, to ask them what they think are the potential benefits to Scottish tourism of the designation of the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland.

As has been wisely pointed out, we do not have an awful lot of lions and unicorns in the straths and glens of the Highlands. I have eagles in my constituency, so I am an eagle man. If the designation encourages people to come to my constituency to spend money looking at eagles, I say "Amen" to that, with the proviso that we check the legalities. It might be a stunt, but it would do Scotland no harm. I say that in the context that "God Save the Queen" should remain our national anthem. If Mr Salmond decides to grab the eagle as something to do with Banff and Buchan, I will point out to him that there are none in Banff and Buchan.

He can put the feathers on his hat.

It is now about 4 o'clock. I suggest that we seek clarification, through the channels that we have discussed, on whose decision it is and whether it is a decision that Parliament or the Executive can make. We should take up Karen Gillon's suggestion and write to VisitScotland and the minister to get their opinions on whether the designation would help boost tourism in Scotland. I do not think that it would do anything for inward investment—we are talking about tourism. We could also write to any other appropriate bodies.

Thirdly, if we get a positive response I could ask the Parliamentary Bureau to schedule a short debate on the subject, to get the view of Parliament as a whole. The committee does not want to take a decision unilaterally. If the feeling is that we should agree to the proposal, it will be up to the powers that be to take the necessary action.

I do not wish to be a wet blanket or to give the impression that I am against symbols. The RSPB's campaign to preserve and protect the golden eagle and many other birds that were endangered has been superb. Last week, there were two golden eagles over the Lomond hills, which was wonderful. However, I am very concerned about the level of support for and recognition of the proposal that exists in the wider community. It would be worth our writing to the various bodies concerned, but I would like the issue to come back to the committee before we decide what happens next. I am loth to take up Parliament's time with another debate that may be more about symbolism and stunts than anything else.

I suggest that we agree to the first two action items. First, we will try to clarify whose decision it is. Secondly, we will write to VisitScotland, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport and anyone else to whom it would be wise to write to get an assessment of the potential impact on Scottish tourism of a positive decision on the proposal. When the committee has received answers to both of those questions, it can revisit the matter and decide whether it wants to progress it.

From our discussion, it appears that the committee's view is that at least two criteria will need to be met. The first is whether deciding to designate the golden eagle as a national bird would provide some practical benefit to Scotland. Secondly, there must be evidence of widespread support for having a national bird and for that bird being the golden eagle. We must be satisfied on both points. However, the approach that I have outlined will allow us to progress the matter and to conclude the petition. The witnesses have indicated that, even if we answer no, they would at least know where they stood and that would be the end of the matter.

I would not go to the barricades on the issue but, if the responses to our questions are positive, there may be practical reasons for our supporting the petition. We need to get answers to our inquiries first. We can look at the responses early in the next year and decide what to recommend to Parliament. In the months immediately ahead of us we will be inundated with stage 3 debates on bills—some have still to go through stages 1 and 2—so the chances are that the issue would be debated in the new session. However, at least there would be a sense of direction. If the replies are negative, it would be better for us to say that that is the end of the matter as far as we are concerned, instead of kicking it into the long grass with no conclusion either for or against.

Given that we have talked about a lack of responses, I plead with the witnesses not to start an e-mail campaign that will cause our system to collapse, as has happened in the past. Can you find a different way of conveying responses to members? During stage 1 consideration of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill, there was a problem with the system that presented members with serious difficulties.

It might be worth while for The Scotsman to take a vote among its readers and for the RSPB to take a vote among its members on whether there should be a national bird and whether that bird should be the golden eagle. If you can present firm evidence that there is widespread support for the proposal, it will enable us to progress the matter more effectively.

I am a bit concerned about the use of the word "stunt", because this is a really serious issue. We have a Parliament; there is no reason that we should not also have a national bird. It is important to encourage people to think about wildlife, because it is the indicator of what is happening in respect of climate change. The proposal is positive if it raises awareness and increases understanding of what the golden eagle looks like. When I was in the tourism business, it was wonderful as the buzzards flew across to hear the cry "There are two golden eagles."

The quid pro quo is that something should be done to save the racing pigeon. The RSPB has not been very good at that.

We have universal agreement to progress the matter. We will talk to you again in the next couple of months.

Meeting closed at 16:06.