PROTECT THE WILD & ROB POWNALL ARE IN THE PAPERS TO STOP THE GUGA — A DELICACY THAT IS PAST ITS SELL BY DATE

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Is it “cultural imperialism” to want an end to the Guga hunt? ROB POWNALL APR 14 READ IN APP On Sunday, I was featured in The National, one of the most widely read papers in Scotland, in an article covering the growing row over the Guga hunt. Much of my position was included in that piece. But as is often the case with newspaper coverage, there were important points that did not make it in. So this is a chance to set them out clearly. Over the past few days, I’ve been accused of “cultural imperialism” for one simple reason: I’m standing as an MSP candidate on a single policy, to end the Guga hunt. That is my position. One issue. One ask. For that, former MP Angus MacNeil has said I “don’t understand”, criticised me for not visiting Sula Sgeir, and defended the hunt as a “prized delicacy” rooted in tradition. So let’s be clear about what is actually being defended here. Time Is Running Out to Stop the Guga Hunt Every year, a group of men travel to Sula Sgeir, a remote, uninhabited island and a designated protected site, where they kill thousands of gannet chicks. These are juvenile birds. They cannot fly. They are taken from their nests and killed for consumption. This is the last seabird hunt in the UK. It continues not because it is necessary, but because it is allowed under a specific legal exemption. I am standing in this election to end that exemption. In response, I’ve been told I “don’t understand” because I haven’t been to Sula Sgeir. But that argument falls apart immediately. The island is protected. Access is restricted. It would be unlawful for me to go there without permission. So we are left with a strange reality. It would be illegal for me to visit and observe these birds, but perfectly legal for others to kill thousands of their chicks every year. That contradiction alone should raise serious questions. Then comes the word that is being used to shut this conversation down. Tradition. We are told this has been happening for generations. That it is part of island life. That demand even outstrips supply. But tradition is not a moral argument. If it were, we would never have progressed beyond some of the worst practices in our history. The fact something has happened for a long time does not make it right. It just means it has not been challenged enough. And when it is challenged, the response is not to engage with the substance, but to dismiss it. Take public opinion. When people are actually asked, the picture is very different. Independent polling by Find Out Now, commissioned by Protect the Wild, found that 69 percent of those with a view want to see the Guga hunt banned. That is not a fringe position. That is a clear majority. Funnily enough, that central point has been completely ignored by those defending the practice. It is much easier to talk about tradition than it is to confront the fact that most people, when presented with the reality, do not support it. I have also heard the claim that the killing is “as humane as any slaughterhouse”. But that does not defend the hunt. It reinforces the concern. If the strongest argument is that killing wild seabird chicks is comparable to industrial animal slaughter, then we are not talking about something beyond criticism. We are talking about something that fits into a much wider problem, our willingness to normalise animal suffering when it suits us. And let’s be honest about what is happening. These are wild birds, taken from their nests, killed in front of other birds, on a protected island. No amount of language about delicacies or heritage changes that reality. Supporters also claim the hunt has no impact on the gannet population. But documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request suggest otherwise. They show that Sula Sgeir is the only comparable gannet colony in Scotland where the population has declined over the long term, while others have grown. At the very least, that should prompt scrutiny. Instead, we are told not to question it at all. Because culture. Because tradition. Because it has always been done. Let me be clear. This is not about attacking communities in the Western Isles. It is not about dismissing history or identity. It is about whether modern Scotland is comfortable allowing the killing of thousands of wild seabird chicks in a protected area, for the sake of a delicacy. Because if we cannot question that, what exactly are our wildlife protections for? And if standing in an election on a single issue to end that practice is labelled “cultural imperialism”, then the term has lost all meaning. This is not about imposing anything from the outside. It is about reflecting where the public already is. A majority of people do not support this. They simply have not been given a voice on it. I am trying my best to help give them one. So the real question is not whether I understand the Guga hunt. It is whether those defending it understand where society is now heading. Because I think the answer is clear. Want to get involved with the campaign to end the Guga hunt? There are a few ways you can help! Sign our petition calling on all major Scottish parties to commit to a policy of ending the Guga hunt Join 137,000 others in asking NatureScot, the Government agency who licence the hunt each year, to permanently end the licensing Donate to Protect the Wild and help fund our work fighting for British wildlife SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing