Land Reform and it's Impact On Stalking and the countryside

[NigelM]

It appears to be pretty simple maths to me.

No estate that I know makes money. The owners pump cash in every year to maintain to infrastructure, improve the habitat and maintain the traditions of stalking and fishing.

Take those land owners out of the equation and who is going to pump in the same amount of cash to maintain the same level of investment? Not the government for sure (read taxpayer). The new "owners"? I doubt it somehow.

As sauer says, it's going to end up in a loss of jobs in the Highlands and a loss of revenue for the local populations which will end up in more businesses going to the wall and the Highland economy going downhill.

A scheme conceived by a bunch of militant lefties who will do anything to **** off the "rich" no matter what damage it's likely to do to the people they are paid to represent.

And no, I don't own a Scottish Estate.

There, that should get the argument sparked up again!

 

[Hayduke]

the land would be abandoned in the name of 're-wilding'...

unlikely, the biggest / most advanced example in the UK is in private ownership. And like all Scottish landowners he's probably wondering what the hell the future holds under the SNumpteeParty and how much they will fleece him.

 

[slider]

Isn't the FC a state run concern ? ( I don't know)
Yet only a few who jump thru hoops get to shoot , but mountain bikers galore ?

Fcs is actual the Government grants and regulations body. Along side that sits Forest Enterprise Sotland. Which is a Govt agency charged with managing the National Forest Estate. This management is not only timber production but also protection of the environment and heritage plus promoting public access.

Deer in the NFE are not culled to provide sport but to protect trees and the environment. It is important to understand that reasoning and the promotion of access. Biker pose little risk to other. Stalker need to have the potential risk they pose managed. Professional stalkers are seen has managing risk better thar recreation stalkers

 

[ChesterP]

It appears to be pretty simple maths to me.

No estate that I know makes money. The owners pump cash in every year to maintain to infrastructure, improve the habitat and maintain the traditions of stalking and fishing.

Take those land owners out of the equation and who is going to pump in the same amount of cash to maintain the same level of investment? Not the government for sure (read taxpayer). The new "owners"? I doubt it somehow.

As sauer says, it's going to end up in a loss of jobs in the Highlands and a loss of revenue for the local populations which will end up in more businesses going to the wall and the Highland economy going downhill.

A scheme conceived by a bunch of militant lefties who will do anything to **** off the "rich" no matter what damage it's likely to do to the people they are paid to represent.

And no, I don't own a Scottish Estate.

There, that should get the argument sparked up again!

The whole SNP debacle smacks of pre-50's era state communism which simply put didn't (and doesn't) work! All it did was to make the poor poorer, keep the corrupt and evil in power and take away even a basic healthy living for those most in need. What the SNP are proposing will, long term, have much the same effect and it could take decades to undo their damage.

I'm just amazed that those voting haven't thought through the consequences of their party politicking. There may be people who own vast estates, but they also employ a large number of people and it pays them to be conservation minded, usually something they deliver very well. So, we all can't afford (me included) to shoot or fish on Scottish estates, so what? Even if it were opened up, I'll bet most of those doing the moaning wouldn't shoot or fish them anyway. For those that do, it would be less for meat on the table I suspect and more for unregulated rape & pillage of the rivers and hillsides with little or no concern over conservation management, and for personal gain with nothing going back into conservation. Poachers would run amock because sadly in the current UK society, given an inch, the criminal minded will take a mile...and usually get away with it. Point is, whatever controls were put in place, they'd not be enough because the SNP really don't have the knowledge to do so, nor the funds. Much of that knowledge resides with he current estates.

Leftist Marxist madness.

 

[mchughcb]

That's too bad ChesterP. You think nobody could be trusted in Scotland, the UK is one of the most regulated places in the world yet somehow you believe you can't organise regulation for public land hunting nor that the majority of hunters would do the right thing or report those that aren't like the rest of the civilised world?

I just wonder how much of the UK hunter mindset has been institutionalised yet complain about Marxism Madness?

 

[ChesterP]

It's not the "common good" aspect I don't trust or like mchughcb, far from it. It's just that their whole premise is one based on assumption and Marxist ideology which simply doesn't work...history has taught us that. Where you get the notion that I or anyone else think that no-one can be trusted in Scotland is beyond me...that's just plain assumption on your part and seems to be the usual response to anyone with anti-left wing feelings. For the record, I distrust most political parties and am A-political; it's just that I distrust the far left more than most parties and with good reason.

I don't believe for a second that the SNP can be trusted or should be trusted. That's my personal opinion and only history can be their true judge They have an open anti-shooting policy which is obvious for anyone with eyes to see and read about. There's no such thing as true freedom, that's simply naive, as we all have to bear responsibility and live in some sort of regulated society, but if you can't see the dangers of SNP and what they will do to the land, and shooting if they get their way, then it's a free country, and I respect your right to support them (which I assume from your response that you do). Personally, it doesn't take much consideration to see the long term damage that their proposals will do for the Scottish economy, for shooting conservation, land management and employment.

 

[Sinistral]

So far this thread has exercised only the Scottish forum members, but it appears that the wider UK membership are now beginning to horn in. I really don't have the right to an opinion or a vote on this issue, so have left it to those who do.

I have been following Scottish politics closely via the Official Report & Parliament TV every week since 2011, and am impressed by the SNP social democratic agenda. It is by no means ‘marxist’.

For the record the SNP have not accepted one of the Land Reform Review Body recommendations which was to impose an absolute limit on the amount of land owned by one individual or entity. … but I’m making a point out of context.

The Review Group considers that there should be an upper limit on the total amount of land in Scotland that can be held by a private land owner or single beneficial interest. The Group recommends that the Scottish Government should develop proposals to establish such a limit in law.

Read the full report before you comment. The main problem is that no-one really knows who owns what land in Scotland so the first step is to find out the facts. Until this fog of disinformation and secrecy is stripped away it’s impossible to make any proposals for change whether for good or ill. To me the Land Reform Bill is a logical and modest first step in a process to review an outdated system of feudal tenure, and one which is long overdue.

http://www.gov.scot/About/Review/land-reform/events/FinalReport23May2014

If it will help dispel some of the wrong notions posted, this is a summary of the Bill's provisions from the Scottish Executive website:-


Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

A Bill for an An Act of the Scottish Parliament

to make provision for a land rights and responsibilities statement;

to establish the Scottish Land Commission, provide for its functions and the functions of the Land Commissioners and the Tenant Farming Commissioner;

to make provision about access to, and provision of, information about owners and controllers of land;

to make provision about engaging communities in decisions relating to land;

to enable certain persons to buy land to further sustainable development;

to make provision for non-domestic rates to be levied on shootings and deer forests;

to make provision about the change of use of common good land;

to make provision about the management of deer on land;

to make provision about access rights to land;

to amend the law on agricultural holdings to provide for a new form of agricultural tenancy,

to remove the requirement to register before tenants of certain holdings can exercise a right to buy,

to provide a new power of sale where a landlord is in breach of certain obligations,

to provide about rent reviews,

to expand the list of the persons to whom holdings can be assigned or bequeathed and to whom holdings can be transferred on intestacy and to make provision about landlords’ objections to such successor tenants,

to provide for a 2 year amnesty period in relation to certain improvements carried out by tenants, and to provide for notice of certain improvements proposed by landlords; and for connected purposes


Current Status of the Bill

This Scottish Government Bill was introduced on 22 June 2015.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/90675.aspx

 

[Southern]

It is one thing for the goverments ( county, state/provincial, or national ) to own land in new country, like America, Canada, or Australia, and keep some for reasonable public use. But it is an entirely different matter for the government to just proclaim that private lands, which have paid taxes for years and centuries, will be taken from its rightful owners for some nebulous scheme. If they want to buy an estate for market value, and the owners want to sell, and they have a detailed plan, in advance of how and who shall use the land, then perhaps that may work out well. So test that on a small scale for a decade or two. But any time you hear proposals for sweeping changes of an entire country, entire industry, entire way of life, with no detailed thought put on paper, look out for fraud.

 

[Mungo]

It is one thing for the goverments ( county, state/provincial, or national ) to own land in new country, like America, Canada, or Australia, and keep some for reasonable public use.

Not forgetting, of coursem that someone DID actually own that land in these 'new' countries...

If they want to buy an estate for market value, and the owners want to sell, and they have a detailed plan, in advance of how and who shall use the land, then perhaps that may work out well.

Despite my prediliction for deliberately inflammatory far left rhetoric, I think that's probably entirely the right approach. Purchase at market value with clear and transparent plan. Test on small scale, get it it to work, and if it does, roll it out over time as more land becomes available.

Of course, since that's slow, sensible and open to scrutiny, there's no way it would ever happen like that.

 

[Southern]

Yes, honest leaders would be quite happy to explain in detail in advance, test their ideas on a small scale, and roll things back if they proved unworkable or unfair.

 

[Sellars]

Sinistral, Perhaps like many such items of legislation it appears reasonable. I think it is a thin end of the wedge position and the issue will be how it is implemented and how the various "to make provision" and "to provide" items are applied.

You say, "The main problem is that no-one really knows who owns what land in Scotland so the first step is to find out the facts." If that is true then it would be relatively easy to establish, at least for the majority, without any new legislation. An estate factor I spoke to was able to tell me that all of the land he manages is already mapped precisely and tenants and owners details are provided for farming payments, forestry purposes, rents, deer management, tax matters etc. To establish ownership, the land register would only have to speak to other government departments and connected bodies and join the dots. Any estates that are not involved in farming, forestry or similar will, I suspect, be very few and easily identified by default from the surrounding land.

I accept that some land may be owned by companies registered abroad or similar and ownership may appear obscure. So what, they can't take the land away or prevent reasonable access and what is done with the land is already heavily controlled by government bodies. The who owns the land question is in my view a red herring.

The report (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00451597.pdf) leads on; Enable more people in rural and urban Scotland to have a stake • in the ownership,governance, management and use of land. The public already have a stake in land through the access rights and various Planning, farming, forestry and other government controls that are applied on our behalf by politicians and public servants.

Another report aim is to; "Assist with the acquisition and management of land" To me that translates as an ability to force someone to release his property to others and just doesn't seem right. More like state authorised stealing. We already have legal provision for compulsory purchase of land and buildings for the greater good. I'm not convinced we need more.

It appears to me that there are a high number of estates on the market and perhaps owners are already bailing out and taking their money out of Scotland to spend elsewhere before the land reform act is enforced.

PS Glad to see some agreement on the route of gradual purchase at market value.

 

[ChesterP]

Sinistral, Perhaps like many such items of legislation it appears reasonable. I think it is a thin end of the wedge position and the issue will be how it is implemented and how the various "to make provision" and "to provide" items are applied.

You say, "The main problem is that no-one really knows who owns what land in Scotland so the first step is to find out the facts." If that is true then it would be relatively easy to establish, at least for the majority, without any new legislation. An estate factor I spoke to was able to tell me that all of the land he manages is already mapped precisely and tenants and owners details are provided for farming payments, forestry purposes, rents, deer management, tax matters etc. To establish ownership, the land register would only have to speak to other government departments and connected bodies and join the dots. Any estates that are not involved in farming, forestry or similar will, I suspect, be very few and easily identified by default from the surrounding land.

I accept that some land may be owned by companies registered abroad or similar and ownership may appear obscure. So what, they can't take the land away or prevent reasonable access and what is done with the land is already heavily controlled by government bodies. The who owns the land question is in my view a red herring.

The report (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00451597.pdf) leads on; Enable more people in rural and urban Scotland to have a stake • in the ownership,governance, management and use of land. The public already have a stake in land through the access rights and various Planning, farming, forestry and other government controls that are applied on our behalf by politicians and public servants.

Another report aim is to; "Assist with the acquisition and management of land" To me that translates as an ability to force someone to release his property to others and just doesn't seem right. More like state authorised stealing. We already have legal provision for compulsory purchase of land and buildings for the greater good. I'm not convinced we need more.

It appears to me that there are a high number of estates on the market and perhaps owners are already bailing out and taking their money out of Scotland to spend elsewhere before the land reform act is enforced.

PS Glad to see some agreement on the route of gradual purchase at market value.

An eminently sensible post, well said.

 

[David Brown]

It is no wonder we distrust what politicians say when behind the trumpet calling and flag waving there are often hidden agendas which only come to light when the minutiae of legislation is published. I give an example here. The Scottish Govt has said it wants to reinstate business rates on shooting estates, this was removed by the Tories,(always a good dig to get in to raise a cheer) ,when in fact they want to levy a non domestic rate on all shooting activity. Under the old rules it was the perceived value of sport on land that was rated even if no shooting was currently undertaken. My father in law paid a sporting rate on his farmland.
Also how can they continually trumpet that only several hundred people own more than half of Scotland when they also say they don't know who owns the land? Utter tosh.
Sinistral are you by any chance a relation of Wee Eck?

David

 

[JabaliHunter]

unlikely, the biggest / most advanced example in the UK is in private ownership. And like all Scottish landowners he's probably wondering what the hell the future holds under the SNumpteeParty and how much they will fleece him.

What other management practice would be an option? No management for deer or grouse; not enough money and too much concern about overgrazing for sheep; commercial forestry doesn't generally meet amenity or access goals... Too much uncertainty to do anything much except re-wilding (but not the planned kind which still requires investment from a landowner...).

 

[mchughcb]

Where you get the notion that I or anyone else think that no-one can be trusted in Scotland is beyond me...that's just plain assumption on your part and seems to be the usual response to anyone with anti-left wing feelings. For the record, I distrust most political parties and am A-political; it's just that I distrust the far left more than most parties and with good reason.
.

Well I got the notion before that somehow that people can't be trusted to the do the right thing and the country side will be raped and little concern for the environment from your comments below.

Less meat on the table? You mean a guy that "culls 200+ estate deer a year" would somehow eat less deer than 200 guys shooting one deer a year?

Even if it were opened up, I'll bet most of those doing the moaning wouldn't shoot or fish them anyway. For those that do, it would be less for meat on the table I suspect and more for unregulated rape & pillage of the rivers and hillsides with little or no concern over conservation management, and for personal gain with nothing going back into conservation. Poachers would run amock because sadly in the current UK society, given an inch, the criminal minded will take a mile...and usually get away with it. Point is, whatever controls were put in place, they'd not be enough because the SNP really don't have the knowledge to do so, nor the funds. Much of that knowledge resides with he current estates.

Leftist Marxist madness.

Are you saying that somehow the current stalkers and fisherman will turn their back on any new laws introduced about widespread game management or there will be a big influx of new people who create the above scenario?

You sound like chicken little and I can tell you having hunted for the last 15 years on public land including marginal farms that were bought by the hunting organisations and the state government and turned into game reserves. Sure we get the people that don't do the right thing but the majority do the right thing and are very keen to stamp out the wrong thing, lest they bring the whole hunting/fishing into disrepute.

 

[Southern]

The deer hunting groups - and all the hunting groups - should put it squarely in the lap of these socialists, and the other naive supporters of land grabs ( let's not call it "reform"), by proposing how to implement it. Tell them you want them to buy a piece of land and here is how it should be used to open up opportunities for hunting and firearms ownership to more people. I am not being facetious; there is safety in numbers. You need more hunters and participants in shooting sports. Turn this to that end. Make them show their hands.

 

[mchughcb]

That's how it was done.

 

[Mick9abf]

That's how it was done.

Yes there's a great thing in Scotland called 'right to roam', it has a great set of guidelines too...... Which no one except the fieldsports persons appear to stick to!!

Scottish Outdoor Access Code

The Scottish Government don't want people to have firearms and dislike fieldsports pure and simple; they haven't hid the fact.

There is more at play here than just a good honest interest in the countryside and it's use and benefits. Once the political pawn has been played with and exercised to its full potential it will be discarded - particularly when it costs more to maintain than it brings in.

 

[ChesterP]

Well I got the notion before that somehow that people can't be trusted to the do the right thing and the country side will be raped and little concern for the environment from your comments below.

Less meat on the table? You mean a guy that "culls 200+ estate deer a year" would somehow eat less deer than 200 guys shooting one deer a year?




Are you saying that somehow the current stalkers and fisherman will turn their back on any new laws introduced about widespread game management or there will be a big influx of new people who create the above scenario?

You sound like chicken little and I can tell you having hunted for the last 15 years on public land including marginal farms that were bought by the hunting organisations and the state government and turned into game reserves. Sure we get the people that don't do the right thing but the majority do the right thing and are very keen to stamp out the wrong thing, lest they bring the whole hunting/fishing into disrepute.

Lets just agree to disagree because your opinion of me is wrong on every count (way out in fact) plus it is not my background we're debating so why turn things personal? As for what I was suggesting, yes, it had less to do with the law abiding shooting community and more to suggest that numbers of the un-law abiding may increase as the land in question is opened "to all" however that might work. The problem is we that don't know how the land would be managed in such a situation, and I don't really trust or take much store in various reports floating about, because, they are just that at the minute, reports and may not flesh out accurately how things might actually be. It would be naive to predict the outcome based on any report floating around the halls of the Scottish Parliament at present.

You also have it wrong that I am somehow against farms bought up by hunting organisations and turned into game reserves. That, to my mind, seems sensible providing that local communities are on board, so I can see your point of view clearly and am on the same page as you regarding that as a good thing. However, that does not translate to support for a generalised land grab off the "rich toffs" by the SNP which I am against. In a civilised society, legalising theft is never right, however well dressed up and if those estates are marginal, so what? It should be up to the owners what to do with THEIR own land, not some socialist government raising issues which they KNOW cause bitter divides dragging up the past from history. Look what that's done for N Ireland...it's dragged the hatred, and distrust along for decades when younger generations just want peace. I talk from personal experience here before you go off making more unnecessary personal insults, having lived through the troubles there. I also lived in NE Scotland for many years, so do have more than a passing interest and understanding of the current situation there too.

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge this land grab for what it is. The SNP publicly declared their hand at the election on this matter. My sympathies lie squarely with the shooting communities in Scotland and those employed in the countryside for shooting and fishing.

 

[Mick9abf]

Land Reform being debated now in Holyrood, apparently progress on deer management has been 'alarmingly slow'....

Holyrood Live: 16 March 2016 - BBC News

Quelle surprise it has been passed......