Whoa….10,000 posts! 🙁

a “f*** you then” attitude to people telling us we can’t do something

yep….I’d agree with that, which is why its probably all going to end in tears!

Ending primogeniture would be a very good start, that would naturally lead to the breakup of the big estates

I don’t understand this point. Privately-owned land is going to be distributed however the owners wants it to, surely? I think I’m missing something.

I don’t know if relaxing planning laws in rural Scotland and privatizing the Forestry Commission is going to have quite the effect of making Scotland a more equitable place to live.

You did’t get Salmond, we did because we voted for him. We got Farage because you voted for him. And Cameron. Not sure what we did to deserve those two

How exactly does that work? Farage is an MEP for SE England. How did Scottish voters “get him” any more or less than English voters got another provincial politician, Alex Salmond?

An increasing number of us disagree.

You haven’t had the bitter aftertaste yet ducky, by definition.

…and since you missed the opportunity:

In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they’re things really only for the wealthiest

No they’re not; I do all of those things either free or for a very small cost when I visit Scotland. Free fishing in particular is easy to find.

It’s my experience (from family and friends) that people in Scotland (and the rest of the UK) don’t fish and hunt because they don’t want to. The North Uist angling club is £80 a year not really into the realm of the “wealthiest”

How exactly does that work? Farage is an MEP for SE England. How did Scottish voters “get him” any more or less than English voters got another provincial politician, Alex Salmond?

Well I suppose in the same sense that they (and we) get Marie-Christine Arnautu, who we didn’t vote for. There does seem to be a bit of a misunderstanding of how democracy works amongst those suggesting Scottish Independence will result in more of it (but not for voters in Shetland).

(but not for voters in Shetland).

Not sure what you mean?

irelanst – Member

In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they’re things really only for the wealthiest

No they’re not; I do all of those things either free or for a very small cost when I visit Scotland. Free fishing in particular is easy to find.

It’s my experience (from family and friends) that people in Scotland (and the rest of the UK) don’t fish and hunt because they don’t want to. The North Uist angling club is £80 a year not really into the realm of the “wealthiest”[/quote]

Got to agree here, any and all of these activities are enjoyed by many people regardless of wealth and our access laws make them even easier to enjoy. The fact that many others do not take up the opportunity is down to other reasons than affordability and access.

aracer – Member

You haven’t had the bitter aftertaste yet ducky, by definition

Fair enough,but at least we will have plenty lovely fresh water to wash the taste away.

Eggy Justice
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/kirkcaldy-yes-supporter-sentenced-for-egging-jim-murphy-1.558970

To be fair I think he should have got more for being such an abysmal shot.

Reform of land ownership is about a lot more than fishing or sailing or even building huts. It is about security of tenure for ordinary people living on country estates and about allowing communities to a say in managing the land around them appropriately. It is also a major issue in towns and cities.
The Herald on land ownership
Recommendations of the land reform review group

Okay, it isn’t. But I think there is a shared sense of something – community, a certain sense of humour, a “f*** you then” attitude to people telling us we can’t do something.

I see it more as a “can’t do” attitude. I will not defend UK government policy, but still regard people in the UK as my countrymen and women regardless of political persuasion, ethnic background or social standing. I understand many don’t feel that way, but I have always thought my vote counts. Wealth inequality occurs throughout the UK and is probably most prevalent in London itself. The people that should be most ashamed of themselves and are primary candidates for this “can’t do” attitude are some of our SNP MP’s that see this everyday.

I have been asked if I will turn my back on Scotland on Sept 18. My reply is that I will not turn my back on those using food banks in Hull, or a family requiring NHS care in London, or someone long term unemployed in Liverpool.

If the result is Yes, I reckon history will look unfavouably on No voters. I am sure there are plenty that feel the way I do that are not in the Orange Order, have never voted BNP and do not support WMD.

but I have always thought my vote counts

The only time I’ve felt my voted counted was at Scottish Parliament elections due to the element of PR. My first ever vote in a general election was in a constituency where the incumbent’s majority was bigger than all the other votes put together.

athgray – Member
I have been asked if I will turn my back on Scotland on Sept 18. My reply is that I will not turn my back on those using food banks in Hull, or a family requiring NHS care in London, or someone long term unemployed in Liverpool.

Your logic there is a loggerheads with most of the no camp though, apparently scotland will fall into a financial black hole and rUK will barely even notice us leaving financially as we are all on benefits and dependent on handouts.

So really, you should be thanking us, as there’ll be more to go around for the poor of liverpool and london…

Eggy Justice
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/kirkcaldy-yes-supporter-sentenced-for-egging-jim-murphy-1.558970

To be fair I think he should have got more for being such an abysmal shot.

And after all that energy that went into those Yes conspiracy theories that it was an inside job with a guy with an earpiece being choreographed.

In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they’re things really only for the wealthiest

Complete rubbish, I sailed dinghies as a schoolkid on pocket money and have fished all my life for very little money, plenty of free/dirt cheap fishing here and sailing can be very cheap. I know plenty ‘normal’ people that hunt too and I doubt it costs them very much.

I think this utopian dream that we’re all going to own yachts and go salmon fishing when we are all oil millionaires has gone to your head

I may well be at loggerheads with the no camp. I think the no camp campaign has been particularly poor. Don’t believe for a minute though that all people that vote no, are doing it based on the official no campaign line.

Take currency union for example. We have no right to expect one, and I currently believe AD, however he is leaving himself open in the result of a yes vote. I don’t think his stance of not wanting one will not have many takers. The ones that back him then will more than likely be yes voters.

The no campaign has allowed yes to claim the moral highground when that should not have been the case. They have simply not inspired.

In all honesty I thought both of the main debates were really poor however I agree Salmond won the second. I just feel we all deserve better.

athgray – Member
I may well be at loggerheads with the no camp. I think the no camp campaign has been particularly poor. Don’t believe for a minute though that all people that vote no, are doing it based on the official no campaign line.

Take currency union for example. We have no right to expect one, and I currently believe AD, however he is leaving himself open in the result of a yes vote. I don’t think his stance of not wanting one will not have many takers. The ones that back him then will more than likely be yes voters.

The no campaign has allowed yes to claim the moral highground when that should not have been the case. They have simply not inspired.

In all honesty I thought both of the main debates were really poor however I agree Salmond won the second. I just feel we all deserve better.

I agree myself the debate has be pretty poor, but I personally feel the debate is framed in the context of UK politics. The debate will always be framed in that context if we stay.

I’m looking forward to the debate opening up considerably if there is a Yes vote.

Come and join us. 🙂

Reform of land ownership is about a lot more than fishing or sailing or even building huts. It is about security of tenure for ordinary people living on country estates and about allowing communities to a say in managing the land around them appropriately

Its an interesting idea, and not one that I’m opposed to in theory, however it delivers some problems

i) You can’t just transfer the ownership of the land, the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation, and you’re bound on this by first protocol ECHR, The values involved here would be colossal, and the land unlikely to produce a return on investment (most of it being barely productive) so who would pay for it? The only realistic option becomes the public purse, so the government would have to borrow more money (already an issue) and hand countless billions to private landowners and multinational corporations.

ii) The land management priorities and funding are difficult to balance, community partnerships have already been tried in some areas, for example deer management, with mixed success, and not always making a profit, so who underwrites them? The local taxpayer? – and this is before we enter the problem of clashes in land management, a good example being the independent report on the running of Mar Lodge by NTS, which showed that even an integrated and powerful organisation found it almost impossible to balance, and they didn’t have to turn a profit.

Westminster too can have coalitions…

@aracer, yes indeed but only occasionally. I personally think PR is a good thing as you should get more consistent and centerist policies and thus avoid left/right swings which are counter productive however there is significant scope for small vested interests to carry undue influence.

The house of lords has plenty of appointments from Labour although I suppose the nay-sayers here would suggest they become the aristocracy by being appointed. @ninfan thanks for those links, bastards indeed !

As for the land ownership/forestry discussion I do see an irony in those who wish for less private land ownership but at he same time point out all the unused school buildings in Glasgow which “private developers are not interested in”, so you want private ownership and development cash when it suits you ? The real solution to the issue for the government to re-develop those sites. You have a government that cannot/won’t do that but you want the same government to own more of the countryside ? Surely it would benefit more Scots and your architectural heritage to have these school buildings protected and utilized by the urban population than a few extra 1000 acres in the highlands.

EDIT: Just read @ninfan’s post. So the Scots government has 10 million (
Scottish pounds or euros of course 😉 ). Does it buy a wood from a private owner or redevelop some great old buildings ?

As for the land ownership/forestry discussion I do see an irony in those who wish for less private land ownership but at he same time point out all the unused school buildings in Glasgow which “private developers are not interested in”, so you want private ownership and development cash when it suits you ? The real solution to the issue for the government to re-develop those sites. You have a government that cannot/won’t do that but you want the same government to own more of the countryside ?

Glasgow is run by Glasgow City Council, not the Scottish Government – GCC are terrible at looking after heritage, have been for many decades. I think it’d be great if more development money went into fixing up old buildings, and equally it’d be great if more architects considered that instead of demolishing and building new.

I don’t object to private land ownership per se, though I prefer stewardship to ownership – the problem is huge highland estates owned (and receiving big tax breaks for) very wealthy landowners while squeezing locals into the margins. It’s really a continuation of the crofting acts which took the best land for the landowners and moved the poor onto less productive land, in crofts deliberately too small to be self-sufficient.

Sure, you don’t have to be rich to sail or fish – the Norwegian model shows that – but the statistics show that in Scotland the people who do usually are. There’s a lot more to it than just land ownership – a lot needs to be done to tackle the very poor health of some areas and very low aspirations of many people. But the hills and mountains were an escape route for many in the past, I think they can be again.

You can’t just transfer the ownership of the land, the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation, and you’re bound on this by first protocol ECHR, The values involved here would be colossal, and the land unlikely to produce a return on investment (most of it being barely productive) so who would pay for it?

I don’t quite understand this – surely a land’s value is what it’s worth, so how can a fair compensation be so much more than the land will return? If land only produces, say, £100 per acre, then you value it based on that.

Glasgow is run by Glasgow City Council, not the Scottish Government

😆

So much for all the blather about Westminster!

Oh, good grief – it’s early in the morning, I forgot I had to annotate and footnote and caveat every statement made on here.

Okay, here goes: Glasgow is run by GCC in respect of things like planning, city design, commissioning of new public buildings, disposal of council property, consultation with local communities etc., which is what matters when we’re talking about a derelict school. Glasgow is not run by GCC when it comes to other things that are the responsibility of the Scottish Government.

There, is that better?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-5-reasons-yes-winning-polls

surely a land’s value is what it’s worth, so how can a fair compensation be so much more than the land will return? If land only produces, say, £100 per acre, then you value it based on that.

😀

Ben, I reckon you ought to nip down to an estate agents and see if you can buy a few acres of farmland based upon a calculated productive output.

Takes a deep breath and says Ninfan has a point

the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation,

There is an established process for independent valuation of land for community buy outs.
Community but out valuations
the relevant section is on page 4.
Imo the point of a community buy out is to bring land ownership under local control a distant public landowner can be just as bad as a distant or absentee private landowner.
I note that the documents refer to purchase of land and not buildings. This might reflect the misconception that Land ownership is a rural issue.
Community buy outs are only one way of bringing land ownership under local control.You could also consider housing co-ops
West Whitlawburn

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32126754.html

You do have to wonder why we want away from this insanity? 😆

No housing bubble here proping up the economy, move along swiftly!

Ben, I reckon you ought to nip down to an estate agents and see if you can buy a few acres of farmland based upon a calculated productive output.

All you’re saying with that is that the current way of valuing land is wrong 😉

Perhaps the sale price should also reflect the buyer’s intended use? If it’s being sold for strip mining, it costs £10M per acre, if it’s being sold to turn into a wildlife habitat it’s £1 per acre.

I think we need to think differently about what it actually means to own land. Maybe a concept along the lines of the living wage idea works – everyone is allowed some land, say 1/4 acre or something – anything over that is the property of no-one, looked after by everyone.

Just thinking aloud here, which is dangerous I know 😉

Perhaps the sale price should also reflect the buyer’s intended use? If it’s being sold for strip mining, it costs £10M per acre, if it’s being sold to turn into a wildlife habitat it’s £1 per acre.

I seem to remember that thats been done before, and the biggest abusers were local authorities who bought at a very low price (or were even given) land under extensive caveats and after giving very clear guarantees on future use… you can guess the rest!

The land was stolen originally, so confiscation seems appropriate.

You are Robert Mugabe AICM£5

I don’t quite understand this – surely a land’s value is what it’s worth, so how can a fair compensation be so much more than the land will return?

Because the value of the land is more than just what it’s worth as agricultural/production land (which, in the case of the massive estates, is bugger all – which is partly why they ended up with such sprawling estates in the first place – it wasn’t worth much because you can’t grow much on it).

The land was stolen originally, so confiscation seems appropriate.

Well, if you want to go way back….We all need to start to learn old Welsh.

If you want to go way back duckman, perhaps the referendum should be decided on the field of battle. At least ben is being sensible and pragmatic.

At least ben is being sensible and pragmatic.

That’s the first time I’ve been called that 😀

The only time I’ve felt my voted counted was at Scottish Parliament elections due to the element of PR. My first ever vote in a general election was in a constituency where the incumbent’s majority was bigger than all the other votes put together.

So in the Scottish parliamentary election, if you hadn’t voted would it have made any difference to who got in? If not, did your vote really count?

ninfan – Member
…i) You can’t just transfer the ownership of the land, the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation, and you’re bound on this by first protocol ECHR…

That’s great. We can start with historic cases where the record is clear.

So the stolen lands can be returned without compensating the thieves.

Meanwhile, back on the currency question, the £ is still tanking because of the threats by BT

Well, if you want to go way back….We all need to start to learn old Welsh.

Yes. Piss off back to Denmark, Germany and Norway the lot of you.

The land rights issue WAS settled on the field of battle Molgrips – that’s why the dominant language of Britain is English. 😛

Stewardship, is that where its privately owned but state run/controlled, doesn’t sound so compelling to me.