Land Reform

Good to see these comments lads. I thought I was a bit of a voice in the wilderness telling people to watch what Soapy, maybe Slimy, and his pals are up to. Also watch McAskill, the man who put the "M" in muppet, and his devious plans. Very dangerous people and I am delighted that others are on the case.

I think it's safe to say that the biggest danger to Scotland is the SNP and their current leadership .These numpties want to own Scotland and all that's in it for themselves in perpetuity.
I don't profess to know the answer but I know Emperor Alex isn't it and Mckaskill needs locking up in Carstairs.

:old:
 
The Glib and funny retorts to this debate are fine but and please realise this is a huge but. Scotlands sporting future is at risk if this independance goes ahead.
We all have heard about DMG's and how even they sometimes can find it hard to come to common ground re wildlife management. Just imagine what it would be like if the ground was spilt up, there would never be any agreement and more than likely the DMGs as they are now would be gone and it would be following rules laid out By Soapy and his pals.
On here it appears the vast majority of folk are anti independance, which from my personal point of view is great! But make no mistake, we whether we like it or not WE are in the minority in thinking what we do is good. We currently moan about there being not enough land to shoot on, this will only become worse if there are land reforms in the future. Soapy doesn't want us to be shooting. It would be done by a select few, chosen by them. The vast majority of poeple voting later this year (school kids included), have not a clue about countrysports or even the countryside as a whole, our future sporting activities, whether we like it or not are in their hands.....
So perhaps less funnies on this type of thread would be more appropriate - Folks this is serious, VERY serious.
 
The Glib and funny retorts to more appropriate - Folks this is serious, VERY serious.

Just how bad/serious would it be (for the ordinary man) if the continental model was adopted ... and that seems the most likely outcome to me.

ie. An overarching wildlife authority (government department) surveying numbers, welfare issues, damage etc and then setting quotas, which they then police. With a regional hunt authority (quasi governmental) providing training and competence testing and organising hunters (and their permits/tags) to meet the quota, set from above, with a final tier of folks with guns in local hunting groups actually out doing the shooting.... Oh dear, not much room for private profiteering and/or random taking of game, unsupervised... it all sounds very co-ordinated and rational... what a shock! :eek:

The thing is, much of the rest of the world operates this way... we're the oddity.
 
May be the governemt could test it out first to see if it could work .They could split up RSPB ground and Nainatioal trust ground .These are the biggest drain on public resources at the moment. Then cut all the silly grant schemes for planting trees lol .
 
Just how bad/serious would it be (for the ordinary man) if the continental model was adopted ... and that seems the most likely outcome to me.

ie. An overarching wildlife authority (government department) surveying numbers, welfare issues, damage etc and then setting quotas, which they then police. With a regional hunt authority (quasi governmental) providing training and competence testing and organising hunters (and their permits/tags) to meet the quota, set from above, with a final tier of folks with guns in local hunting groups actually out doing the shooting.... Oh dear, not much room for private profiteering and/or random taking of game, unsupervised... it all sounds very co-ordinated and rational... what a shock! :eek:

The thing is, much of the rest of the world operates this way... we're the oddity.

Brave words, there. Speaking as an ordinary continental man, the advantage it has as an approach is that it officialises the role of fieldsports and their participants in the management of the natural realm. It makes the "antis" task that much harder. On the other hand, it is no guarantee of the quality of the fieldsports that everyone enjoys, it still comes down to how people on the ground implement it.

The current system of land-ownership and access in Scotland is to a large extent a result of expropriation, clearances, a certain amount of turning the Highlands into a playground for wealthy Sounterners, etc. Essentially, the interests of the ordinary man didn't come into it much. Not that I'm saying that anyone much wants to go back to subsistence farming on borderline tundra of course.

Scotland's not my country, I don't own any of it or indeed spend much time there are all, so I'm going to leave it to the interested parties. I'm just saying that it's a quasi-feudal abnormality from an external perspective, independently of whether that works well or not.
 
So perhaps less funnies on this type of thread would be more appropriate - Folks this is serious, VERY serious.

Your right, but as Tamus said in a previous post on this thread "What they aim at and what they hit rarely coincide." As a potential member of an EU state in an independent Scotland or indeed still as the UK, how could such a shift in redistribution of land wealth be permitted or even occur given that it's blatantly obvious that none of the major players are going to just hand over the keys? It just highlights the level (or lack of) aptitude currently residing at Holyrood.

I think a cull is in order...
 
Just how bad/serious would it be (for the ordinary man) if the continental model was adopted ... and that seems the most likely outcome to me.

ie. An overarching wildlife authority (government department) surveying numbers, welfare issues, damage etc and then setting quotas, which they then police. With a regional hunt authority (quasi governmental) providing training and competence testing and organising hunters (and their permits/tags) to meet the quota, set from above, with a final tier of folks with guns in local hunting groups actually out doing the shooting.... Oh dear, not much room for private profiteering and/or random taking of game, unsupervised... it all sounds very co-ordinated and rational... what a shock! :eek:

The thing is, much of the rest of the world operates this way... we're the oddity.

We may well be the oddity, but its strange with all these countries that have that set up that so many come over here to do there shooting.
We currently get up in arms that the current government (scottish) are allready imposing culls which people on the ground are saying are ridiculous. So your happy for those folks running the shooting here.... I'm not. We know already the SNP want to reduce the amount of firearms in the public domain - Do you really think they'll set up "local hunting clubs" that would allow even more people to become invollved in shooting sports!!
I think your looking at this through Rose coloured specs. If what you say were to come off, it may well be a good thing but I just cant ever see that happening. As for private profiteering, in the stalking world I'd think the number of people actually making a profit from it at all would be very small, and most of those would not be the large land owners they'd be agents who've managed to get ground - owned or leased but cheaply then charge to get clients out as often as possible. If we were to get a look at the running costs of most large highland estates simply on the sporting front I'd be surprised if many were making much of a profit at all.
Your utopia does sound good I'll give you that but is it likely to happen with Soapy and his pals.....Not a chance!
 
Furthermore aliS, I think that it will appeal to the masses and the bunny huggers as they are forgetting to mention that the deer population will still have to be managed and the gov't will have to employ stalkers the whole estate system would crumble and the millions of pounds that come to Scotland through sporting tourism such as fishing and grouse shooting from foreigners who want to shoot on prestigious estate will be I think defunct!! Views if you please gents??

Clum.........
 
We may well be the oddity, but its strange with all these countries that have that set up that so many come over here to do there shooting.
We currently get up in arms that the current government (scottish) are allready imposing culls which people on the ground are saying are ridiculous. So your happy for those folks running the shooting here.... I'm not. We know already the SNP want to reduce the amount of firearms in the public domain - Do you really think they'll set up "local hunting clubs" that would allow even more people to become invollved in shooting sports!!
I think your looking at this through Rose coloured specs. If what you say were to come off, it may well be a good thing but I just cant ever see that happening. As for private profiteering, in the stalking world I'd think the number of people actually making a profit from it at all would be very small, and most of those would not be the large land owners they'd be agents who've managed to get ground - owned or leased but cheaply then charge to get clients out as often as possible. If we were to get a look at the running costs of most large highland estates simply on the sporting front I'd be surprised if many were making much of a profit at all.
Your utopia does sound good I'll give you that but is it likely to happen with Soapy and his pals.....Not a chance!

For starters... NOT my Utopia. However, it is the direction that some within government would love to see things go. Personally, I could live with it. I've been abroad, sometimes to shoot, and I know it is workable.

The "big shift" that is taking (has taken) place, with a fair bit of unwitting support from this site's membership too (it seems to me) is the move from "wild life belonging to no man until lawfully taken" to "wildlife a national asset"(read the SNH publications, those are exactly the words they use) Curiously, there is also a hugely proprietorial mind-set that regards "wild life on my ground" as "mine"... which is why the wool is able to be draped so easily. It is only a short step from where we actually are now to legislation which finally makes all "wild" life property of the state... thereafter it truly will be a "national asset" and the sort of controls I outlined above then follow with little effort and it's hard to see how there could be effective opposition when/if such legislative shift gather momentum.

As for; who makes the money? Yes, that too will shift... hence a' the greetin'.

Will there be fewer guns? ... Maybe's aye, maybe's naw. Every attempt, so far, at reducing numbers of guns possessed seems to have failed. My dad owned a .22 rimfire and a 12b, he was a farmer living on his own land. Even my son, who doesn't own any land, owns several times more guns than that now and he lives in the middle of Edinburgh.

Speakin' fur mi-sell... I could manage fine with just one gun... a nice double rifle with interchangeable combination and shotgun barrels would meet all my needs.

They say, "there are many ways to skin a cat" :D
 
Of course there is always the scenario that some of, if not all of these wealthy landowners may not take land grabs in what ever shape or form lying down , these are extremely wealthy people we are talking about some indeed are multi national corporations with myriads of lawyers working for them , they could tie the new Scottish authorities in court for decades maybe even bringing it to the European court if indeed Scotland are still part of the EU after the event .
 
Of course there is always the scenario that some of, if not all of these wealthy landowners may not take land grabs in what ever shape or form lying down , these are extremely wealthy people we are talking about some indeed are multi national corporations with myriads of lawyers working for them , they could tie the new Scottish authorities in court for decades maybe even bringing it to the European court if indeed Scotland are still part of the EU after the event .

Oh Christ!... Where to start.

Ok... "Scotland" is not part of the EU.... the UK is. We are talking of leaving the UK. The UK signed all those agreements... Not Scotland.... We'd be outside of the UK (if we split the union) ergo outside of those agreements signed in our name as things currently stand. Consequently we'd have to apply to join the EU and meet their criteria... "Europe" has already said so.

Those "extremely wealthy" people have not stopped any wildlife legislation in the past. Take fox hunting as an example. What makes you think they can either tie anything up for decades or get the outcome they want? and... especially if in a Scotland that is being dictated to by a Europe that it needs to be part of... I think that, in a separate Scotland, the "wealthy" will be far more concerned about how they are going to stay wealthy than merely worried about how to play on their estates.

The European court? ... which one? Might "European" tendencies rule, whichever court you are talking about?... I think yes... back to the European model, in that case... yes/no?
 
The "big shift" that is taking (has taken) place, with a fair bit of unwitting support from this site's membership too (it seems to me) is the move from "wild life belonging to no man until lawfully taken" to "wildlife a national asset"(read the SNH publications, those are exactly the words they use) Curiously, there is also a hugely proprietorial mind-set that regards "wild life on my ground" as "mine"... which is why the wool is able to be draped so easily. It is only a short step from where we actually are now to legislation which finally makes all "wild" life property of the state... thereafter it truly will be a "national asset" and the sort of controls I outlined above then follow with little effort and it's hard to see how there could be effective opposition when/if such legislative shift gather momentum.

As for; who makes the money? Yes, that too will shift... hence a' the greetin'.

Will there be fewer guns? ... Maybe's aye, maybe's naw. Every attempt, so far, at reducing numbers of guns possessed seems to have failed. My dad owned a .22 rimfire and a 12b, he was a farmer living on his own land. Even my son, who doesn't own any land, owns several times more guns than that now and he lives in the middle of Edinburgh.

Speakin' fur mi-sell... I could manage fine with just one gun... a nice double rifle with interchangeable combination and shotgun barrels would meet all my needs.

They say, "there are many ways to skin a cat" :D


Firstly by the looks of it I doubt you and I would ever be able to agree here. I dont mind our current system, you obviously do and want it radically changed.

Wildlife is now and I'd say always has been a national asset, but that does not mean it has to be owned by the government. You mentioned the wool being pulled over our eyes. I dont think it is. If your land marches with mine and the deer are on your land currently they are yours, fairly striaght forward I thought, no wool pulling there. If they happen to nip onto mine then great they are mine. So as for the short step from being a national asset to it being owned by the government, I'm not so sure that step is as short as you think.
As for "a the greetin" Are you surprised. Whether you like it or not. These folk whoever they are currently own the land, whether it dates back hundreds of years or recently purchased it doesn't matter they own it now. Do you think they'll just turn round and say - oh thats a good idea here you go! Of course they'll greet just as I would or you if we were in that position.
Fewer guns - your not convinced, you say maybe. The government has already said they want fewer. Nothing too difficult to understand there.
Dont get me wrong Tamus, I too want more availabilty of Stalking but I dont think land reform is the way to go about it - certainly not with the SNP running the show. They dont want blood sports.
 
for the simple reason that they would be fighting to retain something that at present they own .Not wildlife legislation which only affects pastime not ownership having a few thousand of their estates pilfered won't sit well with any of them ,can you see the Duke of Buccleuch giving up a chuck of his property or the royals Balmoral
 
Salmo Salar... You just confirmed everything I think but still you haven't understood me at all.

I own land... I do not own the wild life on it... until and unless I take it lawfully... and if you neighbour me, the law allows that I might lawfully take it on your land too.

Frankly, I like our laws as they are. It just so happens that I accept that things change.
 
Salmo Salar... You just confirmed everything I think but still you haven't understood me at all.

I own land... I do not own the wild life on it... until and unless I take it lawfully... and if you neighbour me, the law allows that I might lawfully take it on your land too.

Frankly, I like our laws as they are. It just so happens that I accept that things change.

You've lost me completely here. I was always under the impression that if I shot something on someone elses ground without permission then that was an offence?
As for not owning it until you have killed it fine I'll agree but I just assumed you'd get the jist of what I was trying to say.
I too can accept change, but will only back it if it is for the better.
 
You've lost me completely here. I was always under the impression that if I shot something on someone elses ground without permission then that was an offence?

Correct! ... Of course the Deer act Scotland 1996 specifically and explicitly gives me permsission in certain circumstances. section 25.


As for not owning it until you have killed it fine I'll agree but I just assumed you'd get the jist of what I was trying to say.

Unfortunately you already fell into the trap of saying/evidently thinking a live deer may currently "belong" to someone/anyone purely by dint of which piece of land it stands on... not so... it must be lawfully taken. In Scotland, at least.

They are no-ones property, in the eyes of the law, including "the nation's" until they are lawfully taken. And yet, we have SNH proclaiming deer a "National Asset". I imagine it is only a question of time before the legal niceties will be rewritten to fit with such rhetoric.


I too can accept change, but will only back it if it is for the better.

I did not "back" the anti fox hunting legislation, did you? ....

My point is, we get law whether or not we support it.

On the bright side, many past governments, during my lifetime, have variously spoken of and implemented firearms control legislation with a sub-text of reducing numbers of firearms held... it hasn't worked.
 
So Highland estates are the playground of the rich and privileged are they? The result of the last land reform act means they are now open for all sorts of public activity even if it gets in the way of the owners lawful business. Go out onto the hill to stalk now and you are liable to meet campers , ramblers , dog walkers and pony-Trekkers , often paying a guide for the privilege of using your land. The poster who called upland Scotland ' tundra' was maybe scientifically incorrect but if he ment that the land was only fit for grouse and red deer he was maybe nearer the mark. As I have written before , several Royal Commissions were set up in the 1920s to see if the hills of Scotland could be economically managed by a resident population. Even with the lower expectations of comforts in that era it was deemed impossible without massive taxpayer subsidy. I often hear the term ' redistribution of wealth' being used in relation to the big estates. I think at the moment local communities have this at no risk as money filters in from the absent owners to the locals as they spend with local businesses frequently.

David
 
Back
Top