SKYE CUILLIN -
A STRANGE ANNOUNCEMENT
News releases from the Scottish Executive (SEx) and Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) on 9 July 2003 announced that John MacLeod of MacLeod 'could' gift the Cuillin Mountains on Skye to the nation.
HIE release
SEx release
Indeed, the SEx news release claimed: “First Minister Jack McConnell has welcomed the 'prospect' of the Cuillin in Skye being gifted to the Scottish people, and the related 'prospect' of Dunvegan Castle being transferred to a charitable trust.”
So, what was going on? The government and its agent were announcing that they welcomed the prospect that the mountains could be gifted. Nothing has actually happened, but they thought it was worth telling us that it might happen. Since these news releases came out there has been no further word from official sources, but quite a bit of press coverage to the effect that MacLeod does not actually own these mountains.
This “Cuillin For Sale” saga has gone on for over three years now and throughout this time there has been nothing but secrecy and an unwillingness to engage with the recreational visitors to the Cuillin Mountains. Whilst mountaineers have been excluded from the process, we have been able to witness a botched and failed attempt to sell this mountain range. If the announcements on 9 July tell us anything, it is that John MacLeod is making a public admission of changing tactics and seeking some form of exit strategy.
In looking for reasons why MacLeod failed to sell the Cuillin there are a number of instant answers that have been obvious to us all along, and no doubt also instantly apparent to any potential buyer. Firstly, and most obviously, the asking price of £10M was just way over the top, and even allowing for “iconic value” or a “conservation premium” this price still included something in the order of a 400% over-valuation.
Then there was the fear of the community right to buy section of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act, whereby someone could have bought the estate for £10M in 2002, then needed to sell it in 2004, only to find that the local community register an interest in it and the district valuer values it at £2M, and the community has first refusal at that price. It is unlikely that someone with £10M of disposable income would regard that as a sound investment.
Then there was the issue of whether the potential buyer was dealing with the rightful owner or not. The research carried out by mountaineer and historian Alan Blackshaw showed that MacLeod's claim to ownership of the Cuillin was at least challengeable, and probably very suspect. Although the Crown Estate Commissioners would not challenge by judicial process MacLeod's claim of ownership, Blackshaw's work had created a widespread belief that MacLeod's title was invalid, and most of the letters in the press following the announcements of the “gifting of the Cuillin” have centred on the dodgy ownership aspect of the story.
Despite all of these factors acting against him, in the early part of 2002 MacLeod was still claiming that a potential American buyer was showing strong interest, but had asked a number (66) legal questions. On 30 June 2002 Muriel Gray wrote a passionate article in the Sunday Herald claiming that an anonymous American had bought the Cuillin, but it appears that an American news agency had released the false news that set this particular story running.
Feeling that news of the anger being expressed in Scotland should be crossing the Atlantic in the other direction, the MCofS was responsible for instigating an article that appeared in the New York Times on 22 July 2002. This article compared the possible purchase of the Cuillin by an American, to the sale of Mount McKinley or Yosemite. We received letters of support from the USA following the publication of this article, but of much greater significance was the lack of any further news from MacLeod until the announcement on 9 July 2003.
The potential American buyer may or may not have existed. One theory is that he was an imaginary entity being deployed to cause panic and make the John Muir Trust, National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the National Lottery, and anyone else with funds to spare, to form a consortium and beat him to the Cuillin. Real or imagined, the news of the American buyer never led to a sale, and we may never know the truth behind this part of the tale.
Meanwhile the estimate for the roof repair appears to have risen, but so would your roof if you left it in a sad state for three years! Whilst this failed sale story has been playing out it is not surprising that the roof has been getting steadily worse and that the £6M estimate is now nearer to £10M. The size of the estimates still draws disbelief, but the percentage rise could well be accurate. After all, a stitch in time saves nine, and the mismanagement and lack of pre-emptive action on this roof must surely be cause to question why the roof got into such a bad state in the first place. We cannot just throw public money at it, whatever the source of that cash, without good reason to do so.
As for retaining the link between the off-loading of the Cuillin and the roof repair, we are still highly concerned that the government is going to end up purchasing the Cuillin for the nation, when a great many people believe that the nation already owns it. Whatever the arguments are for public finance support for the castle roof, they are surely beyond the genuine interests of mountaineers. The important point for us is that MacLeod should relinquish his claim to ownership of the Cuillin. So far, however, there appears to be very little evidence that the mountains are being relinquished or gifted to the nation, and the July 2003 announcements seem to be more about improving MacLeod's public image after he has spent three years of being accused of holding the nation to ransom. The news releases give an impression that he has been reformed and come over all altruistic, but without the detail to back it up the public are likely to remain highly sceptical.
Whilst confirmation of public ownership of the Cuillin should be welcomed, there is concern that the government agency at the centre of talks over the future of the Cuillin is HIE. Their mismanagement of Cairn Gorm and Orbost (Skye) is hardly a ringing endorsement for their involvement in the future management of the Cuillin. It is also alarming that SNH has been excluded from the negotiations, so there has to be a concern that the conservation of the mountains is not necessarily being taken fully into consideration in these talks. We do not think that a mad-cap scheme like helicopter flights is likely to emerge from a change of ownership or management, but we are concerned that Glen Brittle might be the scene of some kind of inappropriate development. MacLeod has made at least two failed attempts to develop a large visitor facility in Glen Brittle, and if this had ever succeeded the next step would have been a widening of the road to service the centre. This beautiful glen is the wrong place to interpret the Cuillin, and the wrong place for welcoming visitors to the area. Glen Brittle should be protected from any kind of inappropriate development of this kind, and we are highly concerned that negotiations to “gift”, “sell”, relinquish” or “whatever” the Cuillin to the people of Scotland, could come with strings attached, and these strings might not be in the best interests of what is best for Glen Brittle.
Sooner or later there is going to be a change of land manager in the Skye Cuillin, and the important issue for mountaineering is that the change is for the better. We must end up with management that is sensitive to the spectacular nature of the area, and has concern for the quality of the wildlife habitats and importance for quiet recreation. Whatever the management system, it is important that mountaineers are involved from the earliest stage possible. That does not mean being brought in when the objectives and plans have been made, but in working with others to develop and agree those objectives and plans.
A final thought on MacLeod's attempt to sell the Cuillin. He has no doubt paid some pretty hefty fees to his estate agent, FPD Savills, who produced a glossy brochure for waving under the noses of potential buyers of whatever nationality. That was perhaps to be expected, but why did it have to contain the stupid line “Viewing strictly by appointment only”? Such nonsense just makes it obvious that they are out of touch with reality.
22 July 2003
The original sale offer
|
