The immediate reactions to the Scottish Government’s announcement yesterday of the introduction of a licensing system for grouse moors have been fairly predictable.

Angus Hogg (Scottish Gamekeepers Association) has thrown the few toys he had left out of the pram, Andrew Gillruth (Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust) has said the science is against it, and Scottish Land and Estates have issued a humming and hawing statement that says little and means even less. Those virulently opposed to hunting in any form have decried the cowardice of the Scottish Government in failing to introduce a complete ban and questioned whether this is another attempt to kick the problem into the long grass. This blog takes a middle view. We understand the anger of law abiding hunters who see their ‘sport’ being destroyed by ‘a few bad apples’. We also understand the frustration of those who oppose any killing of sentient creatures that this is still allowed to continue.

Politics is the art of the possible. The Minister has gone as far as she reasonably can at this point. The Scottish Parliament is not a Sovereign Parliament in that its powers are given to it by Westminster under The Scotland Act 1998. Under that act all laws passed by the Scottish Parliament must be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Any attempt to set a complete ban on driven grouse shooting would almost certainly fall foul of the HRA and would be declared null and void and possibly be followed by actions for compensation. A licensing system is the best that can be done right now IF it is properly set up. The Devil, as always, will be in the detail.

We will watch with interest how the licensing system develops. Who will be responsible for issuing the licenses and the fiscal and human resources to be placed at their disposal. The procedure for suspending or withdrawing licenses and the burden of proof required, which should be civil rather than criminal. It will be necessary to ensure that licenses are issued in such a way that changes of corporate identity or changes of agent or employee can be used to avoid suspension or withdrawal. There are already moves afoot in the shooting industry to push for representation on the body issuing the licenses. This will need to be strongly resisted. License issuing and regulation must be kept within the public service and be completely independent of moorland owners, their employees or customers on the one hand and campaigners against shooting on the other.

Many shooters are angry about the introduction of licensing following the continued persecution of raptors. Many fox hunters are angry about the suspension of their licenses following the revelations on the The Hunting Office’s leaked Zoom conferences. Perhaps rather than lashing out on social media and elsewhere they might consider that what was required to avoid all this was the basic requirement of any democratic society:simple obedience to the law.