Scottish Land Reform, Jen Stout, Scottish Land
Action Movement
Scottish Land Action Movement is an organisation
set up with the aim of creating a country-wide network of land reform activists
and campaigners, and to provide a source of information and space for
discussion on all things land reform.
Our website contains a library of resources and
a blog which publishes articles and stories from people and organisations
across the country who are working on furthering land reform in Scotland.
Land reform is a process that has been
long overdue - most people are now aware of the figure of 432 landowners owning
half of Scotland’s private land, and I think we can all agree that this is very
rarely beneficial to anyone except to the owners themselves.
Without an up to date land register, finding out
who owns what is completely hit and miss, and the disconnect from not owning
the land that they live on means that the vast majority of Scots feel powerless
when it comes to decisions on things like development or land use change. Local
voices are not being heard, and are often completely left out of decisions that
will affect the way they live their lives.
Our common good land is being sold off without
our knowledge - just recently ago it was revealed that Parliament House, an
area of common good land in Edinburgh just off the royal mile, had been allowed
to be sold off to the faculty of advocates by the government with barely a
whisper. If not for Andy Wightman, it’s unlikely any of us would have known.
And this theft of our land is not an uncommon occurrence - and it’s happening
because we don’t know about it. It’s happening because we’ve felt removed from
the land for such a long time.
On Radio Scotland recently they asked listeners
to phone in with their views on the planning system. They were inundated with
calls - stories of frustration, disempowerment and anger.
In Argyll a sprawling castle and estate lie
empty, costing the taxpayer thousands in maintenance, despite an impressive and
detailed community buyout bid which would have seen the property turned into a
job-creating, community-boosting hub of activity. But the local council
refused to sell for less than £1m over the asking price.
In Glasgow, the last remaining bits of public
space in the increasingly gentrified city centre are being systematically removed,
replaced by glass-plated private space where you can be a shopper - but not a ,
not a protester, not a busker. Or heaven forbid, a ‘loiterer’.
The outcry when Glasgow City Council proposed
demolishing the Buchanan St steps, a popular social gathering point, was
enormous. But 16,000 signatures, 300 hand-written objections, and a big
rally were insufficient, and the council voted to demolish anyway.
Yet again, public consultation was minimal -
nobody would have known if a few young campaigners hadn’t started to shout
about it. The council, seemingly, didn’t really want consultation, and
this seems to the be story the country over.
What real power did people have to object?
For such a huge campaign to make no difference leaves people with a bitter
taste in their mouth and a very cynical view of their local authority.
‘People make Glasgow’? It seems not.
Land is at the heart of these
controversies. Ownership is important because it tends to dictate use -
and fundamentally, the issue is what the land (and the buildings upon it) is
used for. Private profit, or social gain? Communities all across
Scotland are full of talented, imaginative people with big ideas about what
they could do with the local land and resources - it’s insane that they
find it so hard, sometimes impossible, to implement even the most small-scale
and commonsense ideas.
At the heart of these problems is land use and
ownership. Whose rights matter most? Why do people walk away from
‘consultations’ feeling so frustrated and disempowered? Is the planning
system even remotely fit for purpose?
When I was growing up the mantra was often
‘don’t try to change anything; you’ll not win’. Now that ingrained
powerlessness, that comes from centuries of injustice, is lifting. A
notable aspect of the referendum campaign for me was seeing people get this
‘spark’, starting to question and plan and imagine. You see this all
across the country, especially among young people.
But they’re hitting brick walls - our democratic
structures are flawed, our legislation weak. This is why collective
action matters; why land has to be highlighted as the key issue not just in
rural areas but in discussions of housing shortages, urban blight, food
security and fuel poverty.
The legislation proposed in the Scottish
government has sparked a debate. So far the loudest voices have been
organisations such as Scottish Land and Estates, who represent landowners in
Scotland. Newspapers, especially in rural areas, have gleefully
churned out warnings from such organisations about the total devastation facing
rural communities if changes to land use and ownership start to be
implemented.
Nationally too, the tone is hysterical - the
Telegraph and Spectator both made comparisons between the Scottish Government’s
land reform agenda, and Robert Mugabe’s brutal regime in Zimbabwe.
One specific area of reform has caused the most
over-reaction - proposed changes to succession law. This is the most
boring-sounding, but one of the most vital, aspects of land reform
- the survival of the distinction between heritable and moveable assets
in Scots law of succession is one of the anomalies that have made the legal
structure so advantageous to those with considerable tracts of land. This
much-needed modernisation has been opposed over the past century by those whose
interests and wealth it protects - no change there then.
Similarly the proposed restoration of business
tax rates on sporting estates is causing “outrage”. Warnings of job
losses and bankruptcy fill the pages of the Scotsman & Courier. It’s
actually pretty hard to find out how many of the great sporting estates that
take up 50% of the privately-owned land in the Highlands do actually run at a
profit - it is perhaps instead their prestige & status that are
valued.
The justification often heard is that they
provide rural jobs and ‘stewardship’ - but recently environmental experts and
campaigners once again issued warnings that the frantic drive to boost the
numbers of red grouse and deer has a ‘significant environmental cost’. From our
point of view, there’s nothing glorious about the “Glorious Twelfth”. But
as happens so often, arguments for modernisation and equality are drowned out
by dire, unfounded warnings of job losses and financial gloom. This does
not foster a democratic, productive debate. It is blackmail.
The Scottish Environment Minister launched the
SG’s land reform agenda last year by stating that no one would design a system
of such stark inequality. It’s ludicrous that such a structure still
exists. If the sporting estates aren’t profitable, but merely a relic of
a bygone era of balmorality and excess, why should they remain the dominant
form of land use in the Highlands? Why, too, do tenant farmers in
Scotland suffer some of the most insecure conditions in Europe? There are many
many questions that need to be asked.
This push for land reform is not about pursuing
vendettas against individuals. It’s about bringing our country into the
21st century; creating a structure of land use and ownership under which people
can flourish, and fragile ecologies thrive. Just because the current
situation has managed to persist for so long does not make it natural or
normal. Campaigner Aileen McKay said recently that the various movements to
democratise Scotland, whether focused on economy, politics or land, are not
‘extreme’ demands, but merely long overdue.
Landed and business elites have an interest in
preventing this sort of change. They know how to influence the political
process. This is ever the problem; who gets in the press, whose voices
get heard. Social media has changed this to an extent; we’re lucky to
have a new media movement in Scotland with digital platforms like Commonspace,
and a few decent newspapers from the Herald. We want to use these
outlets, and reach more, with accounts and realities that don’t usually make it
to the public - stories that explain just why land reform is important beyond
Eigg.
The proposed legislation has certainly pushed
the debate to a prominent position, no bad thing, but in terms of really
changing things it falls flat. The most radical bits have been
omitted. For another day? Who knows.
It took decades for the SNP to decide they were
in favour of land reform, and we certainly can’t sit back and wait for them to
inch forwards.
In terms of actual redistribution - as with
other forms of wealth and power - they fall short. Where is the cap on
scale of ownership? Where is the restriction on offshore-registered
companies owning land? As with the battles tenant farmers have faced in
the courts, much of it comes down to interpretations of the sanctity (or
otherwise) of property rights. Mutterings about the ECHR have scared the
Scottish government, and they’re seemingly unwilling to put up a fight.
The elements of the bill that would permit
intervention in certain situations are so heavily qualified as to be almost
meaningless. The burden of proof is not only entirely on the community to
provide, but has four strict conditions. Little, I think, will come of
this at all. So why lairds are actually that worried is a bit of a
mystery; perhaps it is just the public condemnation they aren’t pleased
with. There is, of course, the removal of one of the many benefits they
get - tax breaks on sporting estates - but that’s it.
So the key thing now is to keep land reform at
the top of the agenda. It is one of the key social justice issues of our
times, and is particularly important in that, unlike issues relating to
macro-economic policy, the Scottish parliament does have the powers to change
things. Our key messages are: this is an urban issue as much as a
rural one; this is not about individuals but about the legal and economic
structure which has failed people for so long; this is about modernisation and
looking forward, not back.
Discussion
Lyn asked about the Succession Law
Jen said that in Scots law there is a division between moveable and immoveable
property. When it came to inheritance there was no legal obligation to divide
up estates between the inheritors, in the way that moveable property would be
divided up in the absence of wills specifically covering this. This contributed
to the maintenance of very large estates.
Willy said that Salmond had said that he wanted to seethe transfer of 1 million
acres out of exiting large property owners' hands. What does this mean?
Jen said that there was still a long way to go. Community buy-outs are still
very difficult to arrange. A major problem is the over valuation of land, due
to it being bought for speculative and status purposes.
Charlotte (SLAM) thought Salmond had come up with the 1 million acres on the backof
a fag packet.
Nick asked about the urban side of land reform.
Jen said that in urban areas it wad the high price of land that contributed to
the high price of new housing. Again, land was often being bought for
speculative reasons not to meet people's needs.
Allan said that from his knowledge of attempted crofter buy-outs in Skye, it
wasn't the cost of the land that was the main issue there, but the enormous
legal costs involved whenever crofter attempted to buy their croft. However,
crofters were in the unique position of having their land valued for rental in
the 1880's, and this rental level had been maintained.
Furthermore, in his recent experience of the
campaign for a community-type buyout of Boroughmuir High School, the Out of the
Blue Centre (OotB) bid was rejected because it would not provide the council
immediately with the money offered in the considerably larger bid made by Cala
Housing. In the long run, however, the OotB bid might have provided greater
economic and social benefit for the community, but local councils are under
great pressure to raise money now, because of the cuts in spending that have
been imposed.
Ian said that although the issue of land reform is very important, it can not
be separated form the need for far more democratic and accountable planning
laws. There is also he issue of who builds and provides housing.
Jen said that the need for more housing was not just an urban need. She
questioned the moves by people like the John Muir Society and George Monbiot to
'rewild' the countryside. The Highlands had not been some pristine wild area,
but had been cleared of its population. People still live there.
Willy said he had been involved in Pilton and Muirhouse in campaigns to
challenge the local council to provide land for the community. This had
involved the use of guerilla tactics, such as seizing small unused plots and
planting vegetables or flowers there, and then getting the council to accept
this.
The Granton Improvement Society )GIS) had the
aim of getting land, which could have a variety of uses, with the aim of
providing an income for the local community.
However, this involved drawing up business plans
and making lottery claims.
Edinburgh Council had an arms-length Development
Group, which acted as a law unto themselves, despite the fat that the council
still owned the land at this group's disposal, they left it to this
unaccountable group to make decisions, which meant that pressuring the councillors
had little effect.
Ownership of land is important, for power goes
with ownership. GIS is currently getting a grant from the council to map the
ownership of land in north Edinburgh.
Jen agreed that the issue of ownership of land is important, but there are a
variety of forms this can take, from land nationalisation to local
cooperatives. With regard to public bodies like the Forestry Commission and the
National Trust, these have sometimes proved to be hostile to local residents
too.
Barbara said that a land asset always needs services too. There is a danger of
councils agreeing to local communities having the land but then making them
responsible for providing the services too, particularly in the current climate
of cuts.
Jen said that land would be an issue of political conflict. There was also the
important issue of land value tax, which
could provide another source of income for local councils.
Gil asked if the issue of land could not be politically reframed a human rights
issue, say of the right to shelter.
Jen agreed.
Sally asked what issues would SLAM prioritise?
Jen said that registering land ownership, the legal issue around tenancies and
succession law, getting a land value tax in place, and extending local
democracy to cover planning.
Charlotte said that if land costs could be reduced this opened up the possibilities
for self-building too.
Willy said that divisions could sometimes open up between those in privately
owned those in and publicly owned housing. Furthermore, the planning process is
deliberately designed to piss people off.
Sally asked how the Community Empowerment Act would affect this.
Jen said that it was difficult to say at this stage.
Sophia (with a question coming in from Live Stream). Where can more information be
found?
Jen replied:-
Scottish Land Action Movement
@ScotLandAction
No comments:
Post a Comment