The Black Cuillin
We now move on to members' business, which is a debate on motion S1M-769, in the name of John Munro, on the Black Cuillin. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes, without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the unique position of the Cuillins in Scotland's natural heritage; further notes the public debate about the legitimacy of the title and believes that it would be in the public interest to put the sale on hold until matters have been fully investigated.
I apologise for not being present to speak to my members' business debate yesterday. I was unable to attend due to a close family bereavement. I express my sincere thanks to members of the Parliament and to David Davidson of the Conservative party who willingly agreed to bring his debate forward by a day, which allowed this debate to occupy this slot today.
Presiding Officer, I do not know whether you are a man of means—whether you have a few pounds in your sporran or a few million in the bank. If you had £10 million to spare, your eyes might have been drawn to the Cuillin mountains on the Isle of Skye in my constituency. I do not need to enthuse about the grandeur of the mountains—the selling agents have done a good enough job. They describe the area in glowing terms as Scotland's most famous mountain ridge and an area of international importance. They point out that it has 11 Munros, two salmon and sea trout rivers, salmon-netting rights, a camp site for climbers and 14 miles of glorious coastline. Only in Scotland, however, would it be possible for the jewel in our Highland crown to be sold off to the highest bidder without regard to what the community thinks. [Interruption.]
Order. A phone is ringing incessantly and it should be turned off.
It appears to be my phone. [Laughter.] I never get a moment's peace.
The people of the Isle of Skye never believed that the Cuillin mountains belonged to any individual. They have always said that the mountains are part of the heritage of their forefathers and must remain as such.
I understand the heartache of John MacLeod, the landowner, at the sale of the Cuillin range. He has assured us that any money that he raises will be spent on the redevelopment of Dunvegan Castle and that he will invest as far as possible in local businesses and the local economy. I am sure that he will do that but I do not know why the clan chief does not send "The Fiery Cross" around his international clansmen. I am sure that that would raise sufficient money to repair his ancestral home and enable him to put some thatch on his little bothan.
I want this debate to raise the validity of the ownership of the Cuillins. I and Charles Kennedy, the local MP, have written to Jim Wallace and John Reid, the minister responsible in this matter. We need an immediate public investigation to allow the validity of the MacLeod title to be examined thoroughly. The claim to the Cuillins is founded on the Dunvegan charter—a royal charter of 1611—which returned ownership of the lands to the clan chief. The royal charter refers only to the parish of Minginish, without a clear delineation of boundary. It does not mention the Cuillins. Subsequent documents relating to the charter, published in 1931 and 1966, have compounded that omission by again failing to refer to the Cuillins.
Incidentally, a condition in the charter was that the clan chief had to supply three galleys crewed by clansmen. I do not think that that condition has ever been fulfilled, so the clan chief is in default—he has not paid his rent, and we know what happens to people who do not pay their rent.
Ministers and the Crown Estate should take a lead role in investigating this title. We have asked them to do that and very little has happened; in fact, the Crown Estate has refused even to consider the request. There is undoubtedly an historic question mark hanging over the ownership of the range. If there is any chance that the Crown may have a legitimate claim on any of these lands, it is incumbent on it to represent the public interest and come forward.
This Parliament may not have the power to halt the sale of the Cuillins, but the Crown Estate could, if it chose to intervene to contest the validity of the title, ensure that our questions are answered before any sale goes ahead. If the officer of the state, on behalf of the Crown, does not make representations on this matter, a neglect of responsibility will have taken place.
I call on the Crown Estate to reinvestigate whether it has a valid claim on the title of the Cuillins. If it has any basis for a claim, it must immediately pursue it—if necessary, through the courts. Court action may cost money, but it would be a good use of some of the millions of pounds that the Crown Estate has taken from the west Highlands salmon farming industry—to mention just one industry—over the years. For years, it has taken; now it can give something back.
If, on the other hand, the Crown Estate's exhaustive investigation leads it to believe that it does not have a claim, it must make public its full reasons so that the investigation can be subject to public scrutiny. The Crown Estate would hold the land in trust for us all and we are entitled to ask it to prove that, by denying any claim, it is not giving away our land.
Our wilderness and mountains should be held by the nation for the benefit of local communities and local economies. Such sentiments are in the spirit of the historic land reform legislation that is being passed by this Parliament. Whoever owns the Cuillins in future, we must continue to call for assurances that access to these priceless national treasures will continue. Charles Kennedy and I, and the local community, will continue to fight against any inappropriate actions by future owners.
Whoever the ultimate owner of the Cuillins may be, we must unite behind the people of Skye to ensure that future generations enjoy the unhindered and responsible access to this wild, rugged and beautiful range of mountains that people have enjoyed for generations past.
The sale of the Black Cuillins has rightly created much comment in local organisations, by politicians and by members of the public. I am pleased that the press has also contributed to the discussion. It is fitting that the Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to debate the issue formally. I congratulate John Farquhar Munro on securing the debate and I believe that his motion hits the right note.
Although we all have our own opinions on this issue, there are certain common questions on the ownership of the Cuillins, which is not clear cut. It is clear from the briefings that I and other members have received from Alan Blackshaw and Andy Wightman that there is at best a degree of ambiguity over the ownership. A time for reflection is needed: it is essential that there is a sufficient pause in the debate for a proper investigation to take place.
There are two issues. The first is the need to improve and renovate Dunvegan Castle. I believe that solutions can be found, without involving the sale of the Cuillins, to ensure that the castle is upgraded. The second issue is the ownership of the Cuillins.
John MacLeod has linked the sale of the Cuillins to the improvements to the castle. While that is an attractive option for him we should make it clear that the improvements to the castle can be made without the need to sell the Cuillins. There are several bodies that could be involved, including Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skye and Lochalsh Enterprise and the Heritage Lottery Fund. Some of them have an interest in ensuring that Dunvegan Castle is maintained. Dunvegan Castle brings people to Skye and is important to the local economy. Tourism is worth a great deal to the Highlands and Islands.
I hope that John MacLeod has investigated those avenues. If not, many people will come to the inescapable conclusion that his decision has less to do with improvements to the castle than with holding interest groups to ransom and forcing them to pay the inflated and at best opportunistic price of £10 million.
The sale of the Cuillins is controversial on two counts. First, does John MacLeod actually own them—are they his to sell? I urge the Executive to do all in its power to ensure that the appropriate bodies investigate the title. In the meantime, the sale should be put on hold. The second issue is long standing and quite difficult to put into words: what rights do the people who live in Skye have if their heritage can be put up for sale to the highest bidder? That issue will not go away and should be addressed in the land reform legislation.
The debate has highlighted the need for proper investigation into the issues that have arisen. As the motion notes, there is considerable public debate about the title—as there is about the asking price and whether the sale is in the public interest. I believe that improvements can be made to the castle without that drastic measure.
I urge John MacLeod to take on board public concern and to act appropriately. I am sure that he does not want his place in history to be part of the long list of discredited landowners, uncaring, unconcerned and deaf to the pleas of the people who live on the land. There are too many unanswered questions and there must be time to investigate the issues that have been raised. I hope that there will be time for reflection.
I congratulate John Farquhar on securing the debate. Ben Nevis was sold recently and now the Black Cuillins, including many Munros, are on the market. I am sure John Farquhar is one Munro that is not for sale.
The professed owner of the Black Cuillins is a man called Mr Wolrige-Gordon who, possibly because he is related to a former Conservative MP, changed his name to MacLeod of MacLeod. It is unclear whether he has a legal title to the Black Cuillins, as John Farquhar Munro and Rhoda Grant have said. For that reason, more than a month ago—in a written question on 7 April—I asked the Executive to investigate the ownership issue and obtain copies of all the relevant title deeds. The question has not yet been answered. I presume that Angus MacKay, with his characteristic candour, will reveal all at the end of this debate.
I also ask the Presiding Officer whether it is possible to go further than that and instruct the district valuer to carry out a valuation of the Black Cuillins. Either they are priceless or they are worthless. It is not possible to make a living out of the Cuillins. Access cannot be restricted; it is not possible to develop the land or build a factory on it. If the normal principles of commercial valuation apply I suggest that the Black Cuillins could be bought for around a tenner—we could have a whip round in the chamber now.
Yes.
I offer £15.
A capitalist as ever!
Alasdair Morrison described the Cuillins as a gift from God. It is risible—ridiculous—that any individual could own the Black Cuillins. That is something to which we would all subscribe, even those who want to enter into an impromptu auction for the Cuillins.
Tomorrow, Christine Grahame and I will introduce a member's bill to deal with the problem of who owns Scotland and answer the call made by Andy Wightman, John McEwan, Robin Callendar and Auslan Cramb to make it compulsory not just to register land on the course of sale, but to register land full stop so that we know who owns Scotland and so that MacLeod of MacLeod—or Wolrige-Gordon or whatever he will be called next week—will have to register his title as of law.
The land reform movement in Scotland has waited a long time for this moment. That bill, which is reasonable, practicable and sensible, can become law. It would grant and meet all the aspirations of the people of the Highlands and the people of Scotland.
Anyone who has sped like a bird on the wing over the bridge to Skye will tell you that there is nothing quite like the Cuillins. They epitomise the jagged history of the Highlands in timeless fashion, and short of there being a superquarry, as might happen over the water on the Isle of Harris, there is absolutely no chance of our losing them. They will remain the great guardians of Scotland's north-west approaches, links with man's prehistoric past, witnesses of countless generations that have melted back into the earth, stoical, steadfast bastions that dwarf human vanity and delusion.
"beyond hardship, wrong, tyranny, distress,
beyond misery, despair, hatred, treachery,
beyond guilt and defilement; watchful,
heroic, the Cuillin is seen
rising on the other side of sorrow."
That was what Sorley MacLean said about them. They were there before man's existence and they will be there long after man has gone.
So why all the fuss about who owns these monoliths? The deeds should be investigated, but it is not the business of any individual or group of individuals in a free, democratic country to tell anyone what they should do with the land that they own and what they should do with the money once they have it and once the Treasury has taken its share.
No one needs to prop up the Cuillins. What matters is that the public have reasonable access to them. Those who preach that the Cuillins should be bought for the nation should tell us whence the money will come to buy them.
Will Mr McGrigor give way?
I do not have time to give way.
Presumably the money that would be needed would come from the same purse that provides for schools and hospitals. Is it really a good idea to use taxpayers' money to buy exotic mountain ranges? Perhaps those people believe that all property is theft, in which case they should stand up now and tell us their alternative plans to the property-owning democracy in which we live. Do they think that land should simply be confiscated, Mugabe-style and, if so, where does the appropriation stop?
I am astonished by the tack that Jamie McGrigor is taking. We all understand that anyone who owns property has to abide by certain regulations. If we alter our houses, we have to seek planning permission. Why should the responsibilities of owning the Cuillin be different from those of owning a home?
I am not talking about planning permission. I am talking about title deeds of ownership. It would be a ridiculous waste of public funds if £10 million or even £1 million were spent buying for Scotland what is already Scotland's. It would not change the lives of the Sgitheanaichs, the tourists, the walkers or the climbers.
Plenty of things need to be done in the Highlands for which funding is really needed. Jobs and livelihoods are what matter to the people who live there, not who nominally owns great tracts of rock, peat and heather. A European subsidy based on hectarage, rather than the old livestock headage-based system, would bring new ideas and more employment back to islands such as Skye. Then we would fill village schools and rural post offices again. That is what matters most, and whoever owns the Cuillins is insignificant—as long as it is not a MacDonald, of course.
I congratulate John Munro on securing the debate; I am glad to see so many people present. It shows that this is not a local issue to the west Highlands, but one that is of importance to the whole of Scotland.
It is an absolute disgrace that the Black Cuillins have been put up for sale with a price tag of £10 million. It is a cynical attempt by MacLeod, or Mr Wolrige-Gordon as he should probably be better known, to extort money from the public purse for his own business ventures. The land has little intrinsic value, but these spectacularly rugged mountains are an icon for all those who love the great wildernesses of Scotland and for the people of Skye in particular. They have shown their disgust at MacLeod's plans at packed public meetings in Skye.
These mountains have never been on the market before—no one ever expected them to be. It is a moot point whether Mr Wolrige-Gordon actually owns them. I agree with the motion that we need time to investigate the ownership of the mountains. As Rhoda Grant said, many commentators believe that the mountains themselves might not have been included in the grant of land to some ancient MacLeod in the 17th century. Therefore, surely no sale should go ahead until ownership is verified.
I say to potential buyers out there that the £10 million that they would pay for the Cuillins will give them no powers over the hills whatever, except those that we in the Scottish Parliament give them or that Highland Council allows them. Planning laws are stringent, the Cuillins are in an area that has been designated a site of special scientific interest, and the right of access legislation that is soon to be passed will, by law, keep the mountains open to all those who use them responsibly. I say to buyers, "Keep your money in your pocket, and put a photo of the Cuillins on your mantelpiece instead."
If MacLeod needs to fix his roof, he should apply for a grant, as other people do—and he should let us see the builders' estimates. If he wants to develop his business, he should submit his business plan to Highlands and Islands Enterprise and have it scrutinised, as other people do. He should stop playing with people's emotions over these hills. Doubtless, he thought that there would be such an outpouring of public feeling—especially if it were hinted that there might be a foreign buyer—that the public purse would be opened for him. Perhaps he thought that loyal Sgitheanaichs everywhere would start up a fund to buy the Cuillins for Skye. But the Cuillins already belong to Skye—they always will, no matter who owns the title deeds.
MacLeod has now alienated himself from Skye. To put it politely, he has soiled his own nest and now he must sit in it. I hope that the experience proves as uncomfortable as possible, and that history will have a word for him.
I was minded to be mild-mannered and fairly even-handed about this matter, until I heard the name Wolrige-Gordon. I did not realise that MacLeod was also Mr Wolrige-Gordon. A man called Wolrige-Gordon was once very rude to me, so I will fire up my speech a bit. [Laughter.] Such is the way of politics.
I must admit that the glossy brochures seemed a bit much—selling the Black Cuillin is like trying to sell the heavens, the sky, the clouds or the winds of the Highlands. It would have been better if MacLeod could have kept them.
Let us rattle the fear drum a bit. Do we really want Mohamed Al Fayed, Terry Wogan or Ben Wallace to own the Black Cuillin? My answer is no.
I congratulate John Farquhar on initiating the debate. I am not an expert on the Cuillin. I have never been up one—it would kill me; my heart would stop working halfway up. I know the Cuillin well from the view through the windows of the Sligachan Hotel, when I have been partaking of refreshments.
John Farquhar made a good point about "The Fiery Cross". MacLeod of MacLeod, or Wolrige-Gordon of Wolrige-Gordon, or whatever his name is, could quite easily do up his castle if he got the word out to all the MacLeods around the world. I have examples of similar initiatives.
The Duke of Argyll rebuilt most of Inverary by appealing to the clan Campbell. John Mackenzie, the Earl of Cromartie, who has no land left, is a popular lad. He gave away all his land to the crofters, which is why his father was never voted out of the local district council. John Mackenzie is doing up his castle by putting letters around all the Mackenzies. Hector Munro of Foulis is another good lad, who has not much land left. He went round the Yanks—I am sorry; that was unparliamentary language. He went round our brethren across the big pond.
Jamie McGrigor should tone down his Robert Mugabe approach, as it was a bit strong. I advise him that his pal Malcolm Caithness, who is of not many means at all, is planning to do up his old pile—to coin a phrase—on the north coast through the Sinclairs.
My final example is that of a couple in Easter Ross who have just finished restoring a castle. Peter Peacock will know that I am talking about Lachie and Annie Stewart. I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Highlands and Islands and Gaelic, Alasdair Morrison, will also know them. They are also great friends of Brian Wilson—no, I am sorry. They are great friends of Donnie Munro. They put together the money to restore their fine old ruin by weaving rugs, carpets and so on. It was a hard bit of work, but they did it.
Therefore, it is rubbish to say that MacLeod of MacLeod is selling the Cuillin to repair the holes in his roof. He should put an e-mail round all his clansmen and get the funds that way. However, it is too late, as I fear that we have gone past that point.
I was in the House of Commons with Wolrige-Gordon, and I do not think that anyone remembers that he was there, for all the impact that he ever made. I dined in Dunvegan Castle with Dame MacLeod. Fergus Ewing's younger brother spilt his lemonade all over the beautiful lace cloth, which was probably my fault.
The far Cuillins pull the heartstrings not only of most of us, but of the whole world. They belong not just to Scotland, but to the world. They are a training ground for expert mountaineers, who are concerned with many things such as safety, apart from the pleasure of enjoying the mountains. Paratroopers trained there during the war. People might be aware that I am old enough to remember that.
Who owns the Alps? Nobody. Who owns the Himalayas? Nobody. It is obscene to think that our internationally famous mountain range can be owned by anybody. It reminds me of a story of a fellow who was on a landlord's land, and the landlord objected. I think that the fellow was a Glaswegian like me—we will say that he was—and he said, "How did you get to own this land?" The landlord said, "My ancestors fought for it." The man said, "Well, jackets off then." That story shows the absurdity of this ridiculous situation.
We heard about the charter in depth from John Farquhar Munro, who has done a wonderful job. I like the idea of the three galleys. Cannot we insist that John MacLeod produce the three galleys at Loch Coruisk right now, and if they do not turn up, the charter is broken—if it was worth anything in the first place? There seem to be considerable doubts over the charter. We demand an investigation by either the Executive or the Crown Estate or both.
MacLeod can sell some of the treasures that I saw when I visited Dunvegan Castle. He has plenty of treasures. There are quite a lot of valuable paintings. He could surely do with a few less. He could appeal to the enormous clan MacLeod, members of which visit Skye regularly. I have been there during one of their enormous visits. He can find a solution, as the crofters of Assynt did, by rolling up his sleeves and launching an appeal to restore Dunvegan Castle. It is interesting that the area is land of special scenic beauty, which is a special category of land, so he pays no rates for the Cuillins, if he has any claim to them.
Does MacLeod, or Wolrige-Gordon, want to go down in history as one of the most hated men of this new century, because assuredly that is what will happen? The sale of the Cuillins is an obscenity, and everyone must know that it must be stopped.
I have enjoyed the debate. I particularly enjoyed watching Duncan Hamilton's face, and some of the looks of bewilderment that passed across it as the various comments, insults and observations were made about Highlands and Islands individuals, and Christian names were passed back and forward in ways that were often bewildering to the rest of us. This is clearly an issue that generates tremendous passion, and I am happy to respond today, flanked by my colleagues who have a close interest in the Highlands and Islands and who, I assure members, are not here as minders.
I welcome the debate, which was instigated by John Farquhar Munro, because it has given members the opportunity to express the facts surrounding the issue, but also to express the depth of feeling in relation to the proposed sale of the MacLeod estate. It is important to start by saying that, in natural heritage terms, the importance of the Cuillin mountain range is undeniable. It is a site of special scientific interest, and the unique geology of the area, combined with the rich biodiversity that is evident from the existence of undisturbed peatlands, native woodlands and spectacular wildlife, is widely appreciated. It is a designated national scenic area, so the beauty of an area that is known around the world as stating the majesty of Scotland's countryside—as Winnie Ewing said—is also given proper recognition.
Because those designations bring with them statutory obligations, safeguards are in place to protect that outstanding example of our natural inheritance. Those safeguards include clear public law powers, which prevent undesirable developments in the area.
First, there is planning legislation. Planning permission would be required for any development, other than agriculture or forestry. Applications would have to be made to Highland Council in the first instance.
The Black Cuillin lie within a national scenic area. For larger developments in such an area—of more than five houses, for example—Scottish Natural Heritage must be consulted. If Scottish Natural Heritage objects, the application must be notified to Scottish ministers, who can call in the application for their own decision.
Secondly, the Cuillin site of special scientific interest includes the vast majority of the land that is currently for sale. SSSI designation would require Scottish Natural Heritage to be consulted on any proposals for development or on the way in which the land is managed, and Scottish Natural Heritage is required to make conservation interests paramount.
In addition to scrutinising planning applications, Scottish Natural Heritage has the right to list any potentially damaging operations that could threaten the conservation interest in the land. In the case of the Cuillin SSSI, 19 such operations are listed, ranging from extraction of minerals to the simple clearing of boulders.
Further protection of the natural heritage is afforded under European legislation. In particular, the Sligachan peatlands are a candidate special area of conservation under the European Council habitats directive.
In addition to all that, the Executive is introducing legislation—the land reform bill—to establish a statutory right of responsible access to land. That will ensure that if ownership of the Cuillin or any other part of Scotland changes, public access will always be protected.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment. I am coming to an important point.
The Crown Estate commissioners have been called on to investigate ownership of the Cuillin. Today, the Scottish Executive has been in contact with the Scotland Office, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has assured us that both he and Brian Wilson are aware of the situation and have asked their officials to have discussions with the Crown Estate about the possible basis for further inquiries into ownership of the Cuillin.
This is a significant issue, and I wonder whether a record of those discussions could be printed and placed in the chamber office and in the House of Commons library. It is fundamental to the whole debate, and to the issue that underpins it, that we know exactly what is happening. The minister has spoken fine words, but we want to see the black and white.
I must make some progress. I cannot give an undertaking on behalf of the secretary of state or Brian Wilson. They are a distinct legal entity, and how they conduct their business is a matter for them. I have made the position clear to the chamber, and I hope that members agree that that represents some progress on the matter.
I recognise fully the public interest and the feeling of uncertainty about the future ownership of the estate. At present, visitors are encouraged to come and take recreation on the estate, and the local economy has benefited. It is important that any prospective new owner, whether from the public or private sector, should recognise the special importance of the area and safeguard that public interest.
Concerns have also been raised about the possibility of the estate entering foreign ownership, as Maureen Macmillan stated. Owning land in rural Scotland brings responsibilities as well as rights; all landowners, and those who seek to own land in Scotland, must be very clear about that. Our code of good practice for rural land ownership, due to be launched this year, will set out those responsibilities and how we will look to landowners to play an active and positive role in the local community, safeguarding and contributing to the sustainable development of the local area. We are also studying the scope for public assistance that supports land uses being made conditional upon compliance with the code.
Can the minister tell us whether we know who owns what percentage of land in Scotland?
I will address that point in passing; I am just coming to that subject, indirectly.
We have been studying the need for better information about the ownership of Scotland's large estates, in light of the recommendations of the land reform policy group. We have decided to commission a research study at a cost of £15,000 on the possible need for improved information and on how that need could best be met. We believe that that will assist in informing the general debate about transparency of ownership.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time to take another intervention.
I have mentioned the measures in place to protect the natural heritage interests. The forthcoming land reform legislation will ensure that public access to the mountains is maintained.
John MacLeod has asserted that the reasons for the sale are centred on his need to carry out roof repairs to Dunvegan Castle. I am aware that for some time he has been in discussion with Historic Scotland about those works, which relate to a building of national importance. I assure members that Historic Scotland is prepared to continue to work with John MacLeod—as it has tried to do for the past three years—to find a solution to the problems of Dunvegan Castle.
There has been much speculation about John MacLeod's title to, and right to sell, the land. That arises mainly from the interpretation of a royal charter dating from 1611, granting the barony of Dunvegan. Given that almost 400 years have passed since then, there are bound to be a number of other deeds that affect the title to the MacLeod estate. All the relevant title deeds would need to be assessed when ascertaining the extent of John MacLeod's title. In any sale, it would be for John MacLeod to demonstrate that he is the owner of the Cuillin and for the prospective purchaser to satisfy himself that he was acquiring a valid title.
We shall continue to take a close interest in promoting and preserving the public interest for the whole of Scotland. I have set out how the public interest in the unique Cuillin estate will continue to be safeguarded by a range of robust measures, regardless of the owner. We shall look to the current or any future owner of the estate to have full regard to its special importance and to the responsibilities of rural land ownership in Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:41.