THIS isn’t the kind of column in which I hand out relationship advice but imagine for a minute that it was. Imagine too that a man called Harry (former soldier/former party boy) has just written in to ask for advice about his wife Meghan. Harry is worried by the fact Meghan doesn’t want to spend Boxing Day with his family because she doesn’t like what they get up to. Normally, I’d say to someone like Harry that changing who you are for a partner is a bad idea, but on this occasion, I’m not so sure. If I were you Harry, I’d listen to your wife. It looks like Meghan knows what she’s talking about.
The specific issue causing trouble for Harry is hunting, namely pheasant shooting, which the Royal Family have traditionally done every Boxing Day at Sandringham. Prince Harry has taken part in the event for more than 20 years but, according to reports at the weekend, he will not attend this year.
Harry also, you may remember, failed to appear at the summer grouse shoot at Balmoral this year, reportedly because he doesn’t want to upset Meghan, who opposes blood sports. This is quite a moment: suddenly, at the heart of the Royal Family we have someone who objects to one of the things they love doing most: killing animals.
The obvious question is whether Meghan’s opposition will change anything and we should probably admit that, in the short term, it won’t – the Royals aren’t about to put down their guns because of the new American member of the family.
However, longer term, Meghan’s personal stand is part of a wider trend that’s starting to put pressure on shooting, particularly driven grouse shooting. In the last few days, we’ve had a think-tank report that challenges some of the economic claims made for grouse moors. A Scottish Government inquiry is also going on into the environmental impact of grouse moor practices and whether they can be made sustainable. There is a long way to go, but maybe, at last, the first hawks are starting to circle above the shooters.
The shooters themselves normally defend what they do by claiming that shooting provides jobs and is a good economic use of the land but the report from the Common Weal think-tank has exposed that as untrue. The report compares grouse shooting to forestry, renewable energy, horticulture and tourism and concludes grouse shooting is the least economically effective. It also tackles the job claims: it takes 330 hectares to provide one job on a grouse moor, it says, compared to just 42 for forestry and three for horticulture. When you consider grouse moors cover 18 per cent of Scotland, that’s a lot of land not being used to its full potential.
However, the economic arguments – powerful as they are – are only part of the story. As everyone knows, the ideal grouse moor from the point of view of landowners and gamekeepers is one that is pretty much devoid of any predator, which leads to predator control on a mass scale – legal and illegal.
The them-and-us atmosphere in shooting is also unpleasant – for months now, I’ve been speaking to people within shooting who are concerned about the cruel and brutal way that some gun dogs are trained, but they are too afraid to go public because they know they will be shunned and their careers will effectively be over.
There is also a disturbing imbalance at the heart of shooting, which I saw for myself at the Scottish Game Fair in Scone. Everyone at the event kept saying how shooting was for everyone and I remember one gundog trainer telling me how he had trained a dog for a Russian oligarch and a postie from Dundee.
However, my impression I have to say was that the shooters were made up of two distinct groups: the aristocrats, the wannabe aristocrats and the well-off at one end and, at the other end, the people who work for them: men, and it’s mostly men, who work as keepers or beaters for not very much money. This class-ridden problem with shooting is just another reason to dislike it – and I rather relish the idea that it could be a duchess who helps draw attention to it.
I’m also hopeful that Meghan Markle’s opposition to shooting may help to change the narrative in Scotland and in particular help the Scottish Government to stop waffling and actually do something about grouse moors. The Government’s inquiry into the moors, chaired by Professor Alan Werritty, is a good start, but it’s based on a flawed premise that the Glorious 12th can actually be glorious and that grouse shooting can be made acceptable. Professor Werritty is explicitly looking for ways in which grouse moors can continue to be a part of the rural economy instead of questioning the idea of the grouse moor itself and whether something that harms the countryside should be part of the countryside.
I’m also not entirely convinced that the Scottish Government really gets the argument on animal welfare. A few weeks ago, I accused the Government of hypocrisy for condemning Larysa Switlyk, the American photographed with a goat she’d killed on Islay, while also supporting the culling of goats, seals, hares and other animals and failing to act on grouse moors, and the response I got from Roseanna Cunningham, the minister in charge of animal welfare, was disappointing. Ms Cunningham cited the Werritty Group and said it would be examining how grouse moors could be made sustainable and compliant with the law, but she obviously isn’t willing to look at the issue at a deeper level and ask whether we should question the very existence of grouse moors.
Which leaves us in a curious situation in which the Duchess of Sussex appears to be making a better stand on grouse shooting than the minister in charge of the issue in Scotland. I don’t want to exaggerate what Meghan Markle has done of course, but the Royal Family can, and often does, reflect wider social changes and the hope must be that it has started – in a very small way – to do the same on hunting. My advice to Harry would be to listen to what his wife is saying – she talks a lot of sense. My advice to the Scottish Government is to listen to the growing unease about hunting – and do something about it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel