From the Highlands to the Lowlands, in future it's going to be anybody's lands

Magnus Linklater

The Times
23 January 2003

Imagine a Bill whose aim was to break up the great estates of England and hand them over to local communities. The rolling acres of Longleat, say, or the Duke of Westminster’s Lancashire moors, would become the property of the people, with access guaranteed to anyone who wanted to stroll over them at any time, day or night.

Imagine a Bill that would forbid anyone owning land to sell it on the open market, or even to their own children, without first giving nearby villagers the opportunity to raise the money and buy it for themselves. Imagine a Bill that simply abolished the laws of trespass and gave everyone the right to roam wherever they pleased. There would, I dare say, be a raised eyebrow or two, the odd crusty leader in The Daily Telegraph.

It is, of course, an unlikely concept. Yet that, or something very close to it, is about to happen in Scotland. Later today the final stages of a land reform Bill, whose aims are almost exactly those outlined above, will pass through the Scottish Parliament. It will require anyone selling land to offer it first to a local community, who will be given time to raise the money, and will be helped to do so by lottery funds. It will give crofters in the Highlands an absolute right to buy their own land and any rivers running through it, whether the owner wants to sell or not. It will insist that everyone has the right to walk, ride, cycle or sail over any stretch of land or water up to the immediate surroundings of a house.

What is, perhaps, the most remarkable thing about this Bill — by far the most radical piece of legislation since devolution — is that it has raised so little comment, north as well as south of the border. Yesterday’s Scotsman newspaper carried one small inside page story, and a commentary on the agricultural page. There was a small demonstration by 50 river workers outside the Parliament.

The reasons for the reticence are not hard to find. The average Scot has little sympathy for the “laird” and is more than content to see him taken down a peg or two. A dim sense of ancient wrongs is embedded in the Scottish character, and this includes reference to the 19th century “Highland Clearances”, when crofters were allegedly driven off their land by rapacious landowners, in order to turn it over to more profitable sheep.

The fact that this is largely myth — most crofters were forced out by rural poverty, rather than greedy lairds — has done little to dislodge the notion it has instilled of inequality and injustice. To challenge it is to invite ridicule or contempt.

Against this background, drawing up laws to force a fairer distribution of land is a thoroughly popular measure. The fact that it is spectacularly bad law is neither here nor there. The committee which has been taking evidence has paid little heed to the practical implications of the Bill or to representations from the landowners, and has steamrollered it through, strengthening rather than modifying its provisions.

It is bad law because it will do nothing for Scotland’s fragile rural economy. Land values will be driven down, investment will fall, and, most ironic of all, very little land will actually be distributed. Who would willingly put their estate up for sale in the present climate?

Meanwhile, the plan for open access has outraged farmers, who will have no redress against those who walk across their fields. Managing land for grouse or deer will become increasingly difficult. Even hotel proprietors, such as Peter de Savary, will be affected. He points out that his business depends on guaranteeing his well-heeled guests the privacy of Skibo Castle and its grounds. That privacy will henceforth be against the law.

The late Donald Dewar famously promised that “good landowners have nothing to fear” from the Bill. He may have spoken too soon. What the legislators have failed to grasp is that managing large estates is an expensive business. Because they consist largely of unproductive heather and rock, rather than agricultural land, they require substantial resources to maintain them. Rural employment, in the form of gamekeepers and ghillies, depends on the kind of investment that wealthy landowners have hitherto been prepared to make. They have also shouldered substantial losses. How local communities will find equivalent resources has not been explained. It is one thing to buy land, quite another to run it.

None of these arguments cut any ice with MSPs who are determined that the measure will be pushed through, whatever the consequences. Thus, later today, land reform becomes a reality. It will, however, come in the form of an ineffective, unfair and ill-considered Bill which will do nothing to improve the reputation of Scotland’s Parliament.

Magnus Linklater

MENU

23 January 2003

From the Highlands to the Lowlands, in future it's going to be anybody's lands

Magnus Linklater

The Times
23 January 2003

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

MENU

23 January 2003

From the Highlands to the Lowlands, in future it's going to be anybody's lands

Magnus Linklater

The Times 23 January 2003

Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care

The Times
23 January 2003