Forced communism

And the benefit is... It's fine at moment so why change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
So, unless I missed it, what would happen to the land if it was 'Community' owned, and would the community actually have the final say as to what happens to the land?
 
ST4 said:
Hopefully not lots of housing development.
Click to expand...

This is what im thinking. It sounds to me like a very sneaky way of trying to get the go ahead for more of those awful Barret Homes type of developments.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
This is what im thinking. It sounds to me like a very sneaky way of trying to get the go ahead for more of those awful Barret Homes type of developments.
Click to expand...

Thats one of my fears, get the land off the owners forceably by law, buildings grease the hands of local councillors for planning permission and yet more awful housing developments appear under the guise of social housing
 
ST4 said:
Thats one of my fears, get the land off the owners forceably by law, buildings grease the hands of local councillors for planning permission and yet more awful housing developments appear under the guise of social housing
Click to expand...

All for the 'Community', of course ;)
 
Amazing what a bit of imagination and zero effort to find out the facts can produce on a forum.
 
Steep said:
Amazing what a bit of imagination and zero effort to find out the facts can produce on a forum.
Click to expand...

Just going by the article, and adding the experience of vast pessimism ;)

Feel free to educate us all.
 
More hippy nonsense:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Steep said:
Amazing what a bit of imagination and zero effort to find out the facts can produce on a forum.
Click to expand...

Fracking ? Aliens landing zone? New motorsport circuit? Robbie Burns theme park?

I have a great imagination
 
Last edited:
Perhaps its so they can eradicate a class of person despised by the ruck, the well off land owner. Or maybe its to build barratt schemes at every possible bit of land they can to give us Livingston town en mass, or maybe so they can plonk bears and wolves on it.

Right to roam was one thing, and not a bad thing, this is not on.
 
This isn't a new thing and on Harris - the North Harris Trust (where I've spent time of late) has been a breath of fresh air................

http://www.north-harris.org/the-trust/trust-intro/

For centuries the northern portion of Harris in the Outer Hebrides was Amhuinnsuidhe and North Harris estate and privately owned.

In 2003, the Amhuinnsuidhe and North Harris estate was purchased by the residents of North Harris in the form of a community buyout under the terms of the Land Reform ( Scotland ) Act in conjunction with Mr Ian Scarr-Hall, who acquired Amhuinnsuidhe Castle and the associated fishing rights as part of the deal.

Mr Scarr-Hall now operates Amhuinnsuidhe Castle itself offering stalking and fishing facilities and providing a unique venue for weddings and other events, while the North Harris Trust manage the larger areas of the estate on behalf of the community and are actively involved in a number of long term projects beneficial to the property, including the provision of social housing, the promotion of tourism and public access and the development of renewable energy.

Having met a few residents as well as employees of Mr SH I can say it's harmony at it's best and brings everybody together for the benefit of the land and the people.
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
So, unless I missed it, what would happen to the land if it was 'Community' owned, and would the community actually have the final say as to what happens to the land?
Click to expand...

One thing to remember is that this is a report, not legislation being enacted, there's lots of work to be done yet.

Community buy out is not new but it's not an easy thing to accomplish currently and hasn't happened a whole lot yet. That said every single community buy out has been a huge success for those involved. The first major estate buy out and the shining star is the Island of Eigg, the islanders were living in medieval conditions because the owner was an ar** and he sold on to a conman, refusing out of spite to sell to the islanders. Their houses were falling down because if anyone repaired anything the owner classed it as an improvement and raised the rent - search for "Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust" for more info.

It's not just big country estates it happens on, in Glasgow residents have bought their housing estates from the council and are running them themselves, doing a far better job of it too.

Nobody is suggesting that communities should be able to force owners to sell to them without real cause but situations like that on Eigg are too common with absentee landlords, land that could be used but isn't for whatever reason and no-one can argue that that is 'fine as it is"

Another part of the report says that estates which are run currently as businesses should pay business tax, I can't see anything wrong with that, every other business has to pay it.
 
Read my example above.
 
"It said the responsibilities of the Crown Estate Commissioners in Scotland should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament."

So they want to take control of crown land, presumably to further separate from the remainder of the UK and increase 'Scottish-owned' land. Nations have gone to war over that kind of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top