Talk:Spiggie Loch

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia

There's a lot more to the story of Spiggie Loch, so some research required ;-)
Such as, any idea when the Canal Burn was created?? Before that I believe the loch emptied via a burn to the Scousburgh Sand, and the water level was much lower than it is today. Evidence of this is the old loch edge, which is now submerged, perhaps 200m(guess) south of the north end of the loch. I also remember my Uncle telling me that Sinclair of Spiggie used to have a copy of the old title deeds to the loch, with details of it's original size. (That info came to me when I was accused of fishing illegally in the loch, but my uncle claimed that I was actually fishing on, and over, land which originally belonged to his croft, as the title deeds to the loch (ground rights), on which the original purchase of the loch were based, didn't include the extended loch size.)
Am I right in thinking that the RSPB own the ground rights to the loch, and the Anglers association the water rights???
I also think that the current bridge over the canal burn was built about 1907. There's a picture in some Dunrossness book of the old bridge, and the beach with a pile of shingle on it which was for the construction of the new bridge.
Can't remember which book that's in, but I got George Henderson to paint a picture of the old scene using that picture as reference. It showed a lot of boats on the beach, the old Red Booth was still standing, (only the found of that is left now just to the north of the existing booth), and it was pre 1907 because the Spiggie Hotel was in 'old configuration'.
Also, the dyke which runs between the current booth, and the northwest corner of the loch, is called the 'Pailin Daek'(sp?), any ideas where that name came from, or what it meant??
Sadly a lot of my books which may have given me info are still in Shetland,,,damned freight costs,,, so I can't do much digging myself.
All info greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Robbie 22:00, 2 January 2008 (MST)

@Robbie:
Am I right in thinking that the RSPB own the ground rights to the loch, and the Anglers association the water rights???
The whole area goes under Lochs of Spiggie and Brow UK UK9002651 with Most of the site is managed for its nature conservation interest by RSPB. as stated in the NATURA 2000 STANDARD DATA FORM see here and with the RSPB-Reserve covering the whole of Loch of Spiggie (water surface !!! with minor extensions to the shore in the extreme north west corner) and the northern half of Loch of Brow only; for mapped details go to the Multi Agency Graphic Information for the Countryside MAGIC website.
From that I would guess that - as usual in such cases - the angling rights are subject to the RSPB land management scheme ... but the local RSPB/SNH officers should know better ;-) Islandhopper 11:01, 3 January 2008 (MST)

Many thanks for the links IH.
That'll be my reading for the weekend sorted ;-)
As you say, there is a minor extension at the north west corner, it's signposted 'no fishing between signs'. That's the area where they tried to create a special waterfowl area in recent years... All they did was destroy the natural habitat of the Moorhens which were such a pleasure to watch there. Another example of "experts" knowing more than locals.. ;-)
I must remember to take a picture of that 'wetland' balls-up, in case we make a page about the RSPB :-))))))
Robbie 11:20, 3 January 2008 (MST)

Yes, the loch is one of probably several "local" features that has a far bigger story attached that deserves to be recorded. It will take a bit of time and digging though, as I would imagine it'll be a case of taking scraps from here and there and piecing them all together.

I've never heard an exact date given for digging the canal, grandmidder was good at re-telling stories of a lot of this older stuff, but she was lacking in actually dating much of it unless there was some other happening like a birth, marriage or death close by to reference it to. I always got the impression it had to have been earlier rather than later through the 19th century, if not before, but that's based purely on circumstantial assumptions. Tom, and his ancestors though did write down basic details of a certain amount of significant happenings at a time when knowledge was more readily available, so with luck it may well be recorded somewhere.

The original natural loch outfall, I've always been led to believe followed the bottom of the Daals and ran in to the sea next the banks on the east end of the sand. The blowing sand I've always understood was the problem in that it kept on silting up the burn, and it was thought cutting and maintaining a canal in a place where little of the blown sand ended up made more sense than try and keep up with the unending job of keeping a burn clear that silted right up again behind them. I'm not entirely sure, but I would gather that as long as the burn ran out on the sand, the Scousburgh/Mill Burn never actually fed in to the loch, but went straight in the sea having joined the loch outfall. The creating of the canal assumedly caused a reversal of flow in the section of burn from the bottom of the Daals to the loch by the burn having to find it's new route to the sea. That burn too as it is today has man made aspects, the last two parks it crosses before the loch being the most obvious as it's as straight as a die. The original route apparently ran westward parallel to the now road for quite a bit before it actually joined the loch, proof of which we found when that piece was first ploughed some years back, there's a tractor width slight dip in the ground that's entirely different soil, very fine silt like, and had high water retention qualities. It slowly merged with the line of the existing road and finally disappeared under it about 100-150 yards west of where the current burn goes under the road, there was no sign of it reappearing on the south side of the road though when that was ploughed, so assumedly the actual point that burn originally naturally met the loch was even further west still.

The "auld brug" I've always been told ran more or less straight across from around Firva to around where the canal exits the loch now. The increase in depth is said to be considerable and immediate. If you bring up Google's satellite pictures of the north end of the loch and zoom in a certain amount, but not all the way as too much magnification blurs it, you can see a sudden and pronounced change in the water colour along where that brug is supposed to be, it's not really obvious right in on the west side at Spiggie, but the further east you come the clearer it gets. North of the line is a lighter brown with lighter still streaks through it, south of it it's a uniform dark brown, same as the rest of the loch. You can also see in the vicinity of Firva was could possibly be the shapes of the remains of old submerged yard dykes or the like, but it's far to vague to try to identify with any certainty. There is something in that area though, as since more and more reeds etc have grown in the north end there's been in summer when the growth was maximum and water level minimum, and the wind was above certain strengths from the east, you can see from around wirris the thick outline of square defined by slightly calmer water suggesting there's something there closer to the surface than surrounding putting drag of the wind driven surface.

It was the popularly held belief that once the loch passed out of Henderson hands, that the next owner leased the fishing rights to the Anglers Assoc. When it came up again and the RSPB bought it, I suppose mostly due to the fact all involved were "outsiders" in some way, as far as I'm aware at least, it's never become common knowledge whether the Anglers then got ownership of the rights, or whether they got a continued lease from the then new owner. The area of ground is owned by the RSPB, of that there is little doubt, however just what that area is is a whole different issue. The loch has increased in size steadily for a very long time, that much isn't in doubt either, but even back in the times of Henderson they were quite happy to see it growing, and it's not much of a secret that they took certain active measures to ensure that once it had, it didn't shrink again.

I think it would be fair to say that when the loch was sold out of Henderson hands it was offered for sale "as is", and the buyer believed he had bought what was there and the area it covered circa 1970. Although with much else of what he believed he'd bought at the same time, he came to find as he was challenged by various as time went on, that it was not exactly as it seemed, as far as I am aware he was never Seriously challenged as regards the loch. So I would imagine he sold it on on the same basis as he bought it, which leaves it in a very uncertain situation as to what constitutes the area of ground owned by the loch owner. Much has vanished beneath it as time has passed which belonged to others, and continues to, and it would probably take a long court case now to establish who exactly is the owner of what. Those who border the loch, and have actively tried to do something about the rising levels would probably know best just what the current legal view is though. Mebbe time ta hae a yarn wi een ur twa neebir folk. ;-)

1907 would sound about right for the new canal brig, I know I've seen pictures in some book too of both the old, and the new shortly after completion. I'll have a hock and see if I can find that again. The Palin Dyke is maybe going to be a more difficult one, it's a pity Sinclair isn't still around he'd have been the man to ask. It's something I've heard very little about, but just going by the obvious, it's very likely had a certain importance in it's day, it's no muckle wirt noo, but if you take a good look at what of the original is still standing, it's pretty clear that it's highly unlikely to have been built as a crofters dyke. The original has been built to a better standard than most folks houses of the day were, it's pointed and properly finished. In fact, it looks identical to the dykes, walls and so on Stewart of Bigton had built at Vederick for his dam and mill.

Just stepping back and taking an overall look at things, plus reading between the lines of some of these old document transcripts that are online, I have wondered is in fact the dyke wasn't originally built as a division between two lairds. The boundary between Symbister and Sumburgh today, not that it has much relevance any longer, is of course the Baxter Burn, but it wasn't always there from what I've been told, in the high days of Quendale it actually split Foraness in two somewhere in the regions of the Wirlie burn, crossed the loch and followed up the Burn Dyke putting the Mires and so on on a different estate than us further north. A demarcation that the remanants of existed to in to our memory with Longfield and so on being served by the Boddam postman, and us that bit north the Scousburgh one.

I doubt all the answers to some of these old features will be found, if they can be found at all, without digging in to all the shenanigans and buyings and sellings of the old lairds. The history of the loch hits a bit of a brick wall about 150 years ago. Whillygarth and assumedly it came in to the hands on the Hendersons in the mid nineteenth century, but who had previously owned any of it I've never heard. Whillygarth was, in it's original state seems highly likely to have been a "muckle man's" place, back in the day it was extensive, between the Burn Dyke and the Scousburgh/Mill burn, east of the loch there were two, possible three proper self-contained crofts plus the old toon of Southerhouse at Firva with whatever bits and pieces they had around then there, everything else was part of Whillygarth. They even had all of the Vederick park on both sides of the road to themslves, plus the Hich Holm, although I don't know if the latter was owned or just rented.

It's known that Neven was the "Scousburgh" laird who in turn transferred his rights to Stewart, and we also know the the Brew Sinclairs came as far north as meet with Neven. What would need to be established is, if it can be, where their boundaries lay. Was Whillygarth actually the lairds (Neven's) place, or someone else's, did Neven own all of Scousburgh, both north and south, or just one of them for that matter? There's a very clear and intentional demarcation line between north and south, the boundary runs straight as a die from one end to the other, makes you wonder why so fussy if both belonged to one laird. There's also a record of I think old Olaf Sinclair the first old boy of Brew transferring a portion of land "adjoining Neven to the north" in to the ownership of one of his sons during the latter part of the 16th century, but no record of what became of it thereafter. Makes you wonder, could that portion have been South Scousburgh, of would it have more likely been Longfield etc. *If* there ever was a lairds boundary between north and south Scousburgh, it places the Palin dyke in an excellent position to complete it, even with the known boundary of the Burn Dyke it makes a significant amount of sense. Splitting Foraness in two was not a natural division, things always followed known obvious features, mostly burns, it has all the hallmarks of something which came about thorough some trade between lairds, which also tends to lend weight to the suspicion that the original may be have been either further north or south.

To address the Spiggie Hotel for a minute, I would have added a little more, but I hit a problem with the 1907 date for the demolition of the original west facing section. There's a photo on the Museum site taken, supposedly taken by Bertie 'a Claval of R & T's sale, dated 1920, which would tally reasonably well with his age, and the fact my grandmidder always held she could remember the sale, she'd have been 16 in '20. However, the photo clearly shows the original west facting portion still standing. If asked when it was demolished I'd have tended to have opted for a date before 1920 as well, but that would only have been based on anecdotal evidence of how my grandfolk spoke of it in relation to their own age, I've never heard an exact date given before that I can recall. The 1920 picture leaves a bit of a problem though in making the numbers add up, the original section was there for some time during the 00's, and it was gone not much after '20, as I've always been led to believe it was away and the remainder of the building concrete clad, as we know it today sometime between the wars.

I'm spokin far ower muckle, I'll geen an hock trow a fusty auld book ur twa an see whit I can fin.

Ghostrider 12:01, 3 January 2008 (MST)

My understanding is that Spiggie loch was a voe until a few hundred years ago. I think there is even a hanseatic chart showing this.

EM

I think that's probably right about the Spiggie Loch being a voe, I've always thought that about the Clickimin Loch too.
As to the date 1920 on the Museum pic, not all their dates are accurate, so grandmidder may be correct in her statement.
Heimdal 16:35, 3 January 2008 (MST)

It would seem very likely it was a voe of sorts at least, the original bridge that crossed the then north running outlet burn being known as the 'Vaadil Tree' probably got it's name as a last legacy of that. Much of the length of the dunes at the Scousburgh Sand though sit on bedrock that's only breachable by the sea at it's current levels in heavy winter weather, it's only a relatively small bit near the middle that could potentially have been deep enough to have been a permanent sea channel. Which opens up the possibility that there was once a tombolo there that grew to what is dry land today as the blowing sand fed it. It would have been no different than the St Ninians isle one, much of it sits on bedrock higher that the highest high water, but it has a mid channel that if all the sand was removed would be permanently sea.

The potential that the sea could have occasionally also come in via Spiggie also exists, in the early 80's there was some unusually persistant heavy winter seas that cut back in to the land by several feet over a couple of years and motivated the council to armour the back of the beach. The level of the bedrock being unearthed at that time would have been easily breached had it not been for the 8 feet deep or so of earth on top of it. That earth though as it eroded back was continually exposing a lot of beach pebbles and sea shells embedded in it at all levels, which would seem to be a pretty good indication that it itself had been banked up there, at least partly by sea action in the first place.

Ghostrider 17:04, 3 January 2008 (MST)

@Ghostrider:
Risk a look at the 1880 OS map at "oldmaps" and the whole situation becomes a lot more clearer than it is possible from modern maps. There is a contour line running through the Sands of Scousburgh. As far as I remember the site it must follow the 2 or 3 ft mark above the high water mark showing the outline of the former landscape: North of Loch Spiggie there was an ayre running NW-SE from The Orms leaving a channel linking the northeastern edge of the loch with the open sea which was also fed by the Burn of Scoughsburgh.
As far as I do remember my bits of Shetland geology it is all due to postglacial coastal deposits / sedimentation within an area where we don't have clear evidence for substantial sea level changes in the whole postglacial area ... may be that sites like fettes.com show more information ... ;-) Islandhopper 14:38, 4 January 2008 (MST)

This may be the map EM was referring to
http://northmavine.com/images/maps/Blaeu-Shetland-(1654).jpg
Heimdal 16:10, 4 January 2008 (MST)