It’s hard to believe that it’s been 10 years since Winnie Ewing declared the Scottish Parliament, ‘hereby re-convened.’ While this momentous occasion did not mark an end to Westminster’s hegemony north of the Border, it clearly did herald a dramatic shift in the balance of power. Perhaps the biggest issue that surrounded the whole debate on devolution was whether it would strengthen or weaken the case for an independent Scotland.

Yet, post-devolution, this concern was quickly replaced by the dayto- day business of passing legislation. To rural people, much of this early legislation appeared to embody an urban majority riding roughshod over their rights and traditions. Most famous, perhaps, were the Protection of Wild Mammals Bill and the Land Reform Bill. Both were radical, both polarised public opinion, but – with the benefit of hindsight – it is clear that neither created the severe upheaval feared in some quarters.

THE CASE FOR

The increased accessibility of our politicians is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental differences made by the creation of the Scottish Parliament. As Jamie McGrigor, Conservative MSP for the Highlands & Islands, reflects: ‘Many more rural affairs issues get aired at Holyrood and many constituents would argue it is easier to raise a problem with your MSP,’ Such sentiments are echoed by interest groups such as the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association (SGA). Chairman Alex Hogg enjoys ‘the ability to talk directly, almost on a personal level, with MSPs and even Ministers, whereas Westminster was both too big and too far away to effectively lobby.’ As well as issues of political access, it is also felt that Holyrood has under mined the elitism once prevalent in Scotland, in particular the fact that so much of the countryside was held in so few hands.

As Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham phrased it: Holyrood has ‘abolished feudal tenure’ through the far-reaching effects of the Land Reform Act legislation which allowed crofters the right to buy their farmlands, gave communities the first refusal on land put up for sale and enshrined the ‘right to roam’. Cunningham observes, ‘Thousands now own the land on which they live thanks to our funding and legislation.’ Agriculture is another area which seems to be largely satisfied with life after Westminster. ‘We have tackled foot and mouth twice, and now bluetongue, and won mostly praise,’ claims Cunningham, and the National Farmers’ Union for Scotland (NFUS) seems to agree. As an NFUS spokesman observes: ‘In the context of Scottish agriculture and the rural economy as a whole, devolution has been a success.’

Such endorsements have, Cunningham believes, paved the way for Holyrood to wield greater power. ‘Obviously we want to go further’, she reflects. ‘And we’re holding a National Conversation on the constitutional future of Scotland because we believe Scotland can achieve more with greater powers. The last 10 years have demonstrated that when we have more powers to improve rural Scotland, we do it, but we still can’t do all that we need.’

AGAINST

Although the first decade of devolution has been met with many positives, most of these are tempered with reservations. Jamie McGrigor, for one, is cautious of welcoming the more radical changes, as ‘concerns remain about the central belt dominating the Parliament.’ While the current cabinet features figures such as John Swinney, Mike Russell and Alex Salmond, who all represent rural constituencies, there is a real fear that misguided legislation has not necessarily been consigned to the past. ‘The Protection of Wild Mammals Bill’, reminds McGrigor, ‘saw an enormous amount of Parliamentary time wasted on a bill which if anything has had a negative effect on foxes.’

Equally, the Highlands and Islands MSP argues that, although the establishment of Scotland’s first two national parks have been hailed as a great success by those living outside them, ‘concerns are often raised with me by constituents living within the parks that they feel they have in some ways stifled healthy development and therefore job creation and income.’ This was clearly reflected by local opposition to Ross Finnie’s proposed Coastal and Marine National Park, and by complaints relating to the rise in factors such as anti-social behaviour within the established parks. McGrigor is also concerned by a number of issues that have largely been ignored: ‘The condition of the roads in many parts of rural Scotland, as well as the state of our primary industries,’ he says, ‘suggest that government is still failing to respond adequately to countryside concerns.’

The NFUS are also not yet satisfied, although – perhaps surprisingly – they are arguing for greater powers to be given north of the Border. ‘There some aspects that could be improved,’ claims their spokesman. ‘For, although agriculture is theoretically devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it is dominated by decisions taken at an EU level; decisions which are reached through negotiation with the UK government. As a result,’ they continue, ‘Scottish farming would benefit from further devolution of some powers; especially in the case of animal health, where policy is devolved, but the budget is not.’

Conclusions

A spokesman for the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association (SRPBA) points out that while ‘some people thought the end of the world was coming with devolution, Holyrood has in fact proved to be a fairly benign institution regarding rural concerns. However,’ he adds, ‘it has not been a huge leap forward either.’

Nonetheless, ‘what most rural people are looking for,’ he continues, ‘is a government that seeks to contribute to the wealth of the nation, rather than righting perceived wrongs over the apparent injustice of landownership.’ And now that the rash of radical legislation of its early years is over, Holyrood thankfully seems to be showing increasing political maturity.

fieldfacts

The Scottish Parliament, Tel: 0131 348 5000 or 0800 092 7500, www.scottish.parliament.uk