This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I haven't copied the link but it is on the BBC website. Sounds good to me. One proposal is to make the estates start paying business rates again. Can't believe they were given special dispensation by John Major. They say it may make them unprofitable and put gamekeepers out of work. I'm only a punter but it sounds like progress.
2
1
In reply to Phil1919:
.... They say it may make them unprofitable and put gamekeepers out of work. I'm only a punter but it sounds like progress.
Sounds like the scare stories about the minimum wage that was going to cause huge job losses. Now widely supported.
(if not yet the living wage)
.... They say it may make them unprofitable and put gamekeepers out of work. I'm only a punter but it sounds like progress.
Sounds like the scare stories about the minimum wage that was going to cause huge job losses. Now widely supported.
(if not yet the living wage)
1
1
In reply to Phil1919:
This link --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33226303
This link --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33226303
In reply to Jim C:
"landowners have claimed re-introducing the rates could make some sporting estates unprofitable and force gamekeepers out of work."
Show us yer figures - how a minute little tax will bankrupt you.
"force the sale of land if owners are blocking economic development. "
This is interesting and not something I would necessarily agree with, without seeing the original wording. It could just be a form of eminent domain, or it could be more sinister - or more benign.
It's also very interesting that both parties are claiming (with authority) - that it will have opposite effects. Personally I can only see it being a good sign, and that it will eventually have a net increase in the number of jobs.
"landowners have claimed re-introducing the rates could make some sporting estates unprofitable and force gamekeepers out of work."
Show us yer figures - how a minute little tax will bankrupt you.
"force the sale of land if owners are blocking economic development. "
This is interesting and not something I would necessarily agree with, without seeing the original wording. It could just be a form of eminent domain, or it could be more sinister - or more benign.
It's also very interesting that both parties are claiming (with authority) - that it will have opposite effects. Personally I can only see it being a good sign, and that it will eventually have a net increase in the number of jobs.
In reply to SenzuBean:
What I've been told (over phone by mate whose job is to read it) is that the wording right now is irrelevant, as it has to change - it allows for forced reclamation of land (note, not sale, simply removal without compensation) if deemed to be blocking sustainable development, but doesn't define how, why or scope. The phrase used was that it could come from FIFA's rulebook. Theoretically possible that if landowner refuses to allow a small development (say a wind turbine) be sited on his land, the entire estate could be forfeit.
What I've been told (over phone by mate whose job is to read it) is that the wording right now is irrelevant, as it has to change - it allows for forced reclamation of land (note, not sale, simply removal without compensation) if deemed to be blocking sustainable development, but doesn't define how, why or scope. The phrase used was that it could come from FIFA's rulebook. Theoretically possible that if landowner refuses to allow a small development (say a wind turbine) be sited on his land, the entire estate could be forfeit.
In reply to SenzuBean:
It's also very interesting that both parties are claiming (with authority) - that it will have opposite effects. Personally I can only see it being a good sign, and that it will eventually have a net increase in the number of jobs.
...I am hoping for a net increase in the number of trees.
It's also very interesting that both parties are claiming (with authority) - that it will have opposite effects. Personally I can only see it being a good sign, and that it will eventually have a net increase in the number of jobs.
...I am hoping for a net increase in the number of trees.
3
In reply to Phil1919:
Let's hope for a net increase in trees, hen harriers and happy fulfilling people-lives!
> It's also very interesting that both parties are claiming (with authority) - that it will have opposite effects. Personally I can only see it being a good sign, and that it will eventually have a net increase in the number of jobs.
> ...I am hoping for a net increase in the number of trees.
Let's hope for a net increase in trees, hen harriers and happy fulfilling people-lives!
4
In reply to mav:
Thereby opening the door for Scotland to be plastered with wind farms so that the SNP can fulfill their 100% renewable energy pledge by 2020!
> Theoretically possible that if landowner refuses to allow a small development (say a wind turbine) be sited on his land, the entire estate could be forfeit.
Thereby opening the door for Scotland to be plastered with wind farms so that the SNP can fulfill their 100% renewable energy pledge by 2020!
1
In reply to Lusk:
This is something that bothers me too
"force the sale of land if owners are blocking economic development. " Sound like a way in to persecute those looking after wild land who don't like bird blenders. While agreeing that the current pattern of landownership is unsatisfactory, I fear abuse of this policy. It will not be used just against the likes of Raasay's Dr No of the 1970s.
This is something that bothers me too
"force the sale of land if owners are blocking economic development. " Sound like a way in to persecute those looking after wild land who don't like bird blenders. While agreeing that the current pattern of landownership is unsatisfactory, I fear abuse of this policy. It will not be used just against the likes of Raasay's Dr No of the 1970s.
Post edited at 19:08
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
A minute tax? What will it be?
I think this could be good and bad.. very much wait and see. I worry it will encourage more intensive land use and forestry operations.
> "landowners have claimed re-introducing the rates could make some sporting estates unprofitable and force gamekeepers out of work."
> Show us yer figures - how a minute little tax will bankrupt you.
> "force the sale of land if owners are blocking economic development. "
> This is interesting and not something I would necessarily agree with, without seeing the original wording. It could just be a form of eminent domain, or it could be more sinister - or more benign.
> It's also very interesting that both parties are claiming (with authority) - that it will have opposite effects. Personally I can only see it being a good sign, and that it will eventually have a net increase in the number of jobs.
A minute tax? What will it be?
I think this could be good and bad.. very much wait and see. I worry it will encourage more intensive land use and forestry operations.
In reply to Lusk:
That door is already well and truly open
> Thereby opening the door for Scotland to be plastered with wind farms so that the SNP can fulfill their 100% renewable energy pledge by 2020!
That door is already well and truly open
In reply to Lusk:
But how many applications are there going to be, now that the subsidy gravy train has been stopped by the Tories.
> (In reply to mav)
>
> [...]
>
> Thereby opening the door for Scotland to be plastered with wind farms so that the SNP can fulfill their 100% renewable energy pledge by 2020!
>
> [...]
>
> Thereby opening the door for Scotland to be plastered with wind farms so that the SNP can fulfill their 100% renewable energy pledge by 2020!
But how many applications are there going to be, now that the subsidy gravy train has been stopped by the Tories.
In reply to Phil1919:
Are there any suggestions for estates that anyone thinks are candidates for such a law,and why?
I seem to recall some complaints about an estate up in Torriden that are less than helpful.
Are there any suggestions for estates that anyone thinks are candidates for such a law,and why?
I seem to recall some complaints about an estate up in Torriden that are less than helpful.
In reply to Jim C:
I was wondering that. I know there are estates that are distinctly unfriendly to walkers, but I'd be interested to know of estates which inhibit economic development. Given that many estates are run on shoe-string profits, I wonder how much of this is SNP bluster.
> Are there any suggestions for estates that anyone thinks are candidates for such a law,and why?
I was wondering that. I know there are estates that are distinctly unfriendly to walkers, but I'd be interested to know of estates which inhibit economic development. Given that many estates are run on shoe-string profits, I wonder how much of this is SNP bluster.
3
In reply to tony:
The fact that the estates can't make any money out of their massive land holdings but manage to survive indefinitely is actually an argument for giving them a push over the edge. All that is needed is to remove the tax loopholes that allow them to survive. The estate model is not a success and is not worth preserving. If the estates are split up creating a supply of land for housing and there is investment in transport and communications infrastructure it might attract people and knowledge based business to the area.
If the mountainous land was owned by environmental charities rather than run as a deer farm the increase in biodiversity could well result in increased tourism and housing demand from people who are attracted by the natural beauty and contribute far more to the economy than the deer hunting ever would.
> Given that many estates are run on shoe-string profits, I wonder how much of this is SNP bluster.
The fact that the estates can't make any money out of their massive land holdings but manage to survive indefinitely is actually an argument for giving them a push over the edge. All that is needed is to remove the tax loopholes that allow them to survive. The estate model is not a success and is not worth preserving. If the estates are split up creating a supply of land for housing and there is investment in transport and communications infrastructure it might attract people and knowledge based business to the area.
If the mountainous land was owned by environmental charities rather than run as a deer farm the increase in biodiversity could well result in increased tourism and housing demand from people who are attracted by the natural beauty and contribute far more to the economy than the deer hunting ever would.
2
In reply to Phil1919:
Quite wary of this and the language used. I assume this applies to crofters or any landowner? Something fundamentally wrong with just taking someones land. One thing removing tax breaks or creating / enforcing legislation on how land must/should be used, thus giving landowners/potential landowners an idea of expectations and obligations, quite another just forcibly taking ownership. Also, one mans idea of progress and development is another's nightmare - e.g. fracking, windfarms, e.t.c
Quite wary of this and the language used. I assume this applies to crofters or any landowner? Something fundamentally wrong with just taking someones land. One thing removing tax breaks or creating / enforcing legislation on how land must/should be used, thus giving landowners/potential landowners an idea of expectations and obligations, quite another just forcibly taking ownership. Also, one mans idea of progress and development is another's nightmare - e.g. fracking, windfarms, e.t.c
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Is it? Might it not also be a fact that many estates are in very remote areas, with little intrinsic value and poor opportunities for economic development. I spent the weekend in Morven and Ardnamurchan. There's nothing there of note, apart from beautiful landscapes and seascapes. It's always going to be on the edge, physically and economically, and trying to pretend otherwise is fantasy.
I do love an optimist.
> The fact that the estates can't make any money out of their massive land holdings but manage to survive indefinitely is actually an argument for giving them a push over the edge.
Is it? Might it not also be a fact that many estates are in very remote areas, with little intrinsic value and poor opportunities for economic development. I spent the weekend in Morven and Ardnamurchan. There's nothing there of note, apart from beautiful landscapes and seascapes. It's always going to be on the edge, physically and economically, and trying to pretend otherwise is fantasy.
> All that is needed is to remove the tax loopholes that allow them to survive. The estate model is not a success and is not worth preserving. If the estates are split up creating a supply of land for housing and there is investment in transport and communications infrastructure it might attract people and knowledge based business to the area.
I do love an optimist.
In reply to tony:
Apart from a rather large quarry (Glensanda). Pretty well hidden actually but possibly not the sort of thing some people on this thread had in mind as a way to boost the local economy!
> Is it? Might it not also be a fact that many estates are in very remote areas, with little intrinsic value and poor opportunities for economic development. I spent the weekend in Morven and Ardnamurchan. There's nothing there of note, apart from beautiful landscapes and seascapes. It's always going to be on the edge, physically and economically, and trying to pretend otherwise is fantasy.
Apart from a rather large quarry (Glensanda). Pretty well hidden actually but possibly not the sort of thing some people on this thread had in mind as a way to boost the local economy!
In reply to tony:
I've not visited the locations you state, but if they are typical of much of the highlands, you will find that there are communities and people living there, and the same statement could be said the same for many parts of our towns and cities that have undergone economic and social decline. However the social costs get to a point that some of these urban areas are lucky enough to receive investment and regeneration.
There are many examples of estates in Scotland (of all types of ownership) that show good levels of sustainable management and regards to the local community. However there are many that don't, such is the current conditions surrounding landownership and land use and the concentration of land ownership and dominant forms of land management geared to traditional pursuits that only support a limited range of business and occupations, thus stifling other opportunities.
'Nothing annoys local people more here than to hear North-West Sutherland being described as a last great wilderness...its a mismanaged landscape and it looks the way it does because of what we did to it....everywhere you look you see evidence of a history of people being here...it's not a wilderness' Director from a Community Ownership trust, taken from (Glass et al,.2013 p152)
Its important that the foremost voices in land reform have to be from those informed and who actually live there. The current Bill is I understand builds on the back of the previous land reform act in 2003 and subsequent consultations with various bodies, NGO's, estate owners and local people, not just in the highlands but also urban areas too. So the argument given by those wanting to maintain the status quo that its ideologically driven, is on the face of it baseless.
I
> It's always going to be on the edge, physically and economically, and trying to pretend otherwise is fantasy.
> I do love a pessimist. Not
I've not visited the locations you state, but if they are typical of much of the highlands, you will find that there are communities and people living there, and the same statement could be said the same for many parts of our towns and cities that have undergone economic and social decline. However the social costs get to a point that some of these urban areas are lucky enough to receive investment and regeneration.
There are many examples of estates in Scotland (of all types of ownership) that show good levels of sustainable management and regards to the local community. However there are many that don't, such is the current conditions surrounding landownership and land use and the concentration of land ownership and dominant forms of land management geared to traditional pursuits that only support a limited range of business and occupations, thus stifling other opportunities.
'Nothing annoys local people more here than to hear North-West Sutherland being described as a last great wilderness...its a mismanaged landscape and it looks the way it does because of what we did to it....everywhere you look you see evidence of a history of people being here...it's not a wilderness' Director from a Community Ownership trust, taken from (Glass et al,.2013 p152)
Its important that the foremost voices in land reform have to be from those informed and who actually live there. The current Bill is I understand builds on the back of the previous land reform act in 2003 and subsequent consultations with various bodies, NGO's, estate owners and local people, not just in the highlands but also urban areas too. So the argument given by those wanting to maintain the status quo that its ideologically driven, is on the face of it baseless.
I
2
1
In reply to tony:
So if estates are so economically fragile, why do they cost millions of pounds, and why has estate value increased year on year out performing any other type of investment for decades. I don't believe that estate buyers have 'more money than sense'.
Might it not be due to the fact they are tax exempt, and you can allegedly cross subsidise from other revenue, might it not be possible that the subsidies you can play the system for are pretty dam good, might it be that with not that difficult to set up schemes you can pass them on without paying inheritance tax. Might it also be that since they don't currently pay tax we don't actually know even half the financial story.
Might it be that they are actually deliberately run I some cases not to make money.
There are good and bad estates with regard to communities within their boundaries, and ecological restoration, but one things for sure there are one set of tax rules for you and I and another set for those with money, hold land, and surprise surprise are en mass very close to the law makers.
I suggest you have bought into the landowners spin that they don't make money, and should be left to their own devices.
The question however is not is there great inequality, because there obviously is in all walks of life, addressing inequality for just for the sake of it is just spite, but how will changing this inequality be for the greater good?
That is the question the land reformers have to conclusively answer before I will follow their band wagon, even though I no fan of many estates.
In the mean time they can start paying their taxes, and justify their subsidies because, it would definitely be for the greater good.
While at this point I'm happy their not so little tax schemes will be scrutinised, I'm undecided on the implied redistribution of land.
So if estates are so economically fragile, why do they cost millions of pounds, and why has estate value increased year on year out performing any other type of investment for decades. I don't believe that estate buyers have 'more money than sense'.
Might it not be due to the fact they are tax exempt, and you can allegedly cross subsidise from other revenue, might it not be possible that the subsidies you can play the system for are pretty dam good, might it be that with not that difficult to set up schemes you can pass them on without paying inheritance tax. Might it also be that since they don't currently pay tax we don't actually know even half the financial story.
Might it be that they are actually deliberately run I some cases not to make money.
There are good and bad estates with regard to communities within their boundaries, and ecological restoration, but one things for sure there are one set of tax rules for you and I and another set for those with money, hold land, and surprise surprise are en mass very close to the law makers.
I suggest you have bought into the landowners spin that they don't make money, and should be left to their own devices.
The question however is not is there great inequality, because there obviously is in all walks of life, addressing inequality for just for the sake of it is just spite, but how will changing this inequality be for the greater good?
That is the question the land reformers have to conclusively answer before I will follow their band wagon, even though I no fan of many estates.
In the mean time they can start paying their taxes, and justify their subsidies because, it would definitely be for the greater good.
While at this point I'm happy their not so little tax schemes will be scrutinised, I'm undecided on the implied redistribution of land.
Post edited at 18:18
1
1
In reply to tony:
There are reasons for the barriers for development (whether economic or otherwise), and in many (though not all) cases there are strong connections between barriers and ownership. Not many places more remote and poorly connected than Knoydart, yet look at the development they've enjoyed since the Foundation took over. Similar stories to be told about many other estates.
This report for the UK Parliament Scottish Affairs Committee is very worth reading. It's not long. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/scottish-affairs/432-...
cheers
There are reasons for the barriers for development (whether economic or otherwise), and in many (though not all) cases there are strong connections between barriers and ownership. Not many places more remote and poorly connected than Knoydart, yet look at the development they've enjoyed since the Foundation took over. Similar stories to be told about many other estates.
This report for the UK Parliament Scottish Affairs Committee is very worth reading. It's not long. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/scottish-affairs/432-...
cheers
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...