Camping ban plot thickens

[Bishop]

On the subject of condemning rubbish and eyesores around Loch Lomond, doesn't this pyramid blend into the background just perfectly.

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so it must be me, definitely something wrong with my view point , because the good people on the board of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park committee are proud of this one.

After a few years the wood darkening with weathering should make it less intrusive, assuming nobody sets fire to it first but my first thought was an old Star Trek episode...

Clearly the work of an advanced civilisation Capitan It says "No hot ashes"

 

[Goatboy]

Yes, thats what I meant boatman. I thought it was obvious, obviously not.

It has to be the Scots who do something about Land, before it even gets considered down here.
Not meant as an insult, but I think Scotland is the most feudalistic nation on the planet? [And of course full of the greatest people :notworthy]

Its very funny when Andy Wightman, twitters something, like trying to push a Land Value Tax bill through Holyrod, and you see the twiiter responses from the Lords, such as Buccleuch, respond in block capitals, obviously outraged, on their twitter accounts;

MUGABEISM!

Even though all his land is nicked from normal Scots.

Sorry Dave but His Grace is my old boss. Well his father was. And being perfectly honest I can't think of a better run set of estates and a better steward of the land. Through continuous ownership and understanding of what they have they've made the ground productive, jobs and stability for the people on it and looked after the different environments better than a lot of supposed wildlife charities do. I may be slightly biased but I sought out going to them as they were so good and I'm very proud of my time there.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[Toddy]

Yeah, Buccleuch gets a good rep, whereas some others (particularly those who feel they've bought the land 'and' the people) really need to realise that it's a different country.
Good estates, well run estates, are really giant businesses these days. Thing is though, not everyone's a good businessman/woman.

M

 

[Dave]

Sorry Dave but His Grace is my old boss. Well his father was. And being perfectly honest I can't think of a better run set of estates and a better steward of the land. Through continuous ownership and understanding of what they have they've made the ground productive, jobs and stability for the people on it and looked after the different environments better than a lot of supposed wildlife charities do. I may be slightly biased but I sought out going to them as they were so good and I'm very proud of my time there.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

Well Colin, it would be interesting if you read the book, and told us what you thought of it. I mean the biggest landowners in Scotland benefit from an outdated form of feudalism, and are basically benefit cheats. They receive hundreds of millions of pounds, to prop up land which is unprofitable. That cannot pay its own way. Which takes money from real farmers. They then drip feed parcels of that land onto developers, and the urban housing market, receiving millions more. If they're land was profitable, why do they need the agricultural subsidies? Normally its the case that small parts of it are profitable, whilst the rest is not.

A Land Value tax would just tax land which is unprofitable, and replace our existing council taxes. In facts if done correectly we should all be paying a lot less council tax. It would help real farmers. And it would destroy rich titled toffs, whose ancestors stole the land, and now, steal hundreds of millions from the poorest taxpayers. They would have to sell the land which is unprofitable if a tax was brought upon it. The fact that it has not happened yet, shows how much power these 'landowners' still have.
It would also stop some of the UK's largest housebuilders, from 'landbanking' land, keeping land prices sky high. They would be forced to sell it. So people could afford houses again.

With rare exceptions, ownership dictates how land is used. Those who now "hold" the bulk of the acreage of the UK are extremely hard to identify, almost entirely because of the defects in the land registries. But they are for the most part the descendants - the so-called cousinhood - of the great landowners of 1873. Among them are the current Duke of Buccleuch, with his 240,000 acres, the Duke of Northumberland, with 131,000 acres, the Duke of Westminster, with 129,000 acres, and the Prince of Wales, with 141,000 acres.

What the land registries do is record the freehold titles of the domestic dwellings of the UK, and they do that in an exemplary way. This is to damn with faint praise, however, given that domestic dwellings cover three million acres in the UK at most. Those may be the most valuable parts, but they still constitute only 5 per cent of the country's land mass.

The 60 million acres of the UK are broadly comprised of 42 million acres of "agricultural" land, 12 million acres of what is called natural waste (mountains, bog, moor and so on) and six million acres of the urban plot (houses, shops, businesses). When it comes to our homes and the taxes we pay, only two of the three sectors are significant. These are the taxed land where most of our homes and businesses are, and agricultural land, which is untaxed and subsidised.

Many businesses are subsidised by the taxpayer, for various reasons - to retain jobs, to improve technology, to keep businesses in the market. But the agricultural subsidy is strange. Pared down to its essentials, it is a permanent and unaudited gift from the taxpayer to the owners of rural land. Introduced in Britain after the Second World War subsidies were intended to keep the agricultural sector viable and food supplies secure. In practice, the agriculture subsidy appears instead to have become a permanent prop to an unprofitable business as well as a free handout to the rich.

If the business [of farming] is profitable, why does it need the subvention?

Andy Wightman, quoting figures from the Scottish government: "During the ten years from 2000 to 2009, the top 50 recipients of agricultural subsidy received £168m - an average of over £3.3m per farmer. Among the top 50 are some of Scotland's wealthiest landowners, including the Earl of Moray, Leon Litchfield, the Earl of Seafield, Lord Inchcape, the Earl of Southesk, the Duke of Buccleuch, the Earl of Rosebery and the Duke of Roxburghe."

The crucial point is that the subsidy ultimately winds up with landowners, giving them greater flexibility in relation to the release of land for building homes. Wightman cites the case of Frank A Smart & Son Ltd, a company that owns 39 farms in Speyside. In 2009 it received over £1.2m in single farm subsidy, the largest payment in Scotland.

The same company sold 18 building plots and six building properties on one of its farms, bought for £300,000 in 1991, for £1.3m. It made a profit of over £3.1m in 2008, and in March 2009 sold 24 plots of land with planning consent for more than £2.9m.

This pattern is repeated throughout the UK. A subsidy originally intended to help poor farmers winds up padding the profits of rich landowners while keeping poor farmers in the developing countries out of the market altogether. Is this the worst case ever of unintended consequences?

 

[Toddy]

Compare it to the publically owned Forestry Commission…..how many jobs ? how much access is actually given ? how many people live and work on the estates ? how many apprenticeships ? then contrast that with how much public funding is supplied one way or t'other…..and how much planning for the future, not the next three or five year plan underpins much of the decision making ?

M

 

[Dave]

I dont have those figures to hand Toddy...Sorry.

Ie got mixed feeling about the forestry commission from what Ive read.

My own grandparents on my mothers side, spent their lives in service in a small village in North Yorkshire to very powerful titled landowners. And their parents, parents, going back about 6 generations at least are all in the same graveyard, having been serfs, tenant farmers, gamekeepers, and servants, cleaners, to the same titled family, direct descendants of royalty, who own tens of thousands of acres of this country and Ireland.

Im just saying that I think a Land Value Tax is a very good idea, and its time has come. But 'they' wont implement it.

Thats all. Who really runs the country eh?

 

[Toddy]

Aye, kind of my own feelings on it, Dave. Need to mind the 'no politics', but I wonder about this land tax. I reckon that if the big estates are businesses, then they ought to pay business taxes.
How does land tax then affect small hill farmers ? Huge acerage, but very little return for many.
In the past land quality was the defining bit on the tax 'band'. Do folks like me pay a few pennies for my garden ? or does someone like BR have to cough up more because he's made his land productive ?

I don't think there are any easy answers to it really.

cheers,
M

 

[Dave]

I reckon that if the big estates are businesses, then they ought to pay business taxes.

Yeh, I agree. Thats all it is really.

How does land tax then affect small hill farmers ? Huge acerage, but very little return for many.

Well, there seems to be a debate about the definiton of what ' a fairer distribution of land' actually means in Scotland at the moment. You know in the 19thC, only Landowners, had the right to vote?
Small farmers pay business rates, on their wee incomes, whilst sporting estates are exempt.
I guess 'fairer would mean a distribution of land, that gives the greatest benefit to the greatest amont of people
Crofters who earn next to nothing included

 

[Goatboy]

Dave I'll have a read of the book and get back to you. Having worked for the F.C., various forest companies & private estates I'd rather work on a private estate. More sense of continuity with the land and people. Maybe I'm just a sad old believer in the sense of fealty that it brings but it does work.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[Dave]

Heck, If you land on your feet in a good job, which you enjoy I can understand that perfectly.
[But its all gone way too far and the countrys in a right old mess...humph! :bluThinki]

I could post examples of how the aristocratic Landlords have managed to completely control all aspects of land management in the UK, just in the 20thC by running the committees who make all the decisions, but it would be touching on politics.

 

[Tengu]

Well, I for one would not want to own much of Scotland, as its unproductive

 

[Toddy]

Productivity is not a necessity for existence though.

There's a living to be made almost anywhere if one chooses. Those empty areas you visited supported thousands in the days before the UK became the forerunner of the Industrial Revolution and urbanisation became the norm.
Productivity comes in many guises.

M

 

[Tengu]

Your right there, its suprising to us how busy it was in the past.

 

[boatman]

Productive maybe but sub-division and lack of capital meant over reliance on lazy beds and potatoes and they had their own potato famine in the Highlands round about the same time as in Ireland.

 

[Tengu]

Yes, there was the very big issue of viability

 

[dewi]

Well, I for one would not want to own much of Scotland, as its unproductive

Unproductive? I take it you don't drink scotch, eat salmon or enjoy wild mushrooms?

What about the variety of berries grown in Scotland, or the range of game meats common up there?

Back to seafoods... mussels, oysters, langoustines and fresh fish caught daily?

Unproductive are they?

 

[tiger stacker]

Dewi there is a perception that remote rural Scotland is miles and miles of bu££er all...

 

[Tengu]

Dewi, I cannot afford those products.

I have indeed traveled though Scotland and the impression I get is indeed B all.

(There are exceptions!)

Lewis, aside from their wonderful tweed I saw very little economicaly going on, just miles and miles of sad moorland with a few sad sheep.

There were a few plantations, I suggested a few more trees would liven the place up, but I was told that the soil was not suitable.

Has anyone ever been to Tresco Abbey Garden, in the Isle of Scilly? Its touted as a tropical paradise due to no frost.

But actually that miracle could not have happened if massive shelter belts had not been planted. The islands, like Lewis and many places are very windy and the natural land is rough grazing, gorse, bracken and rocks.

There are trees suited to harsh conditions, and I think a few more plantations would liven up the place, provide fuel (in place of peat which though it smells attractive is poor burning, and of limited sustanability) and wood, sympathetic planting would encourage wildlife...Behind we could have birch and possibly fruiting trees, maybe improved grazing and allotments?

But only ignorant incomers plant trees on Lewis (Easy to recognise their houses...)

Heres an Island I `do` like, in case you think I am a downer on all Scotland. (I love Scotland as you know)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luing

What do those big strong cattle live on? Rough grazing and fresh air, in the main.

 

[boatman]

Some friends of mine have started crofting near Ullapool. They hope to develop a forest garden, the deer fence is up!

 

[Toddy]

Tengu, there is a limited amount of good sheltered arable land on the islands. Those same good sheltered arable lands are the only ones suitable for growing trees. The incomers don't grow crops to support themselves, so they can plant trees on what is the good arable land. The machair is fertile and productive, but it is too exposed for any but the dwarf willow which is native to the islands.
Wood is too valuable a commodity to use for fuel on most islands, and traditional peat fires are very suitable for traditional homes. It's not a hot, hot heat, it's a good cooking heat, it's a good gentle slow heat in the homes of people who really mostly lived outdoors…..as did most of our ancestors in the past.
It burns clean, and it leaves very, very, little ash, and good peat hags regenerate year after year after year. It's a renewable energy source without the pollution of fossil fuels.

You forget that it was 'easy' for you to travel to and around the islands, it was not always so. All transport was by water; there's a reason that one of the titles of the King of Scots is Lord of the Isles and that standard shows a birlinn.

There are good crops grown on the islands, and both cattle and sheep are reared, and were reared in sufficient quantity, and quality, in the past that the black cattle were routinely swum to the mainland and then driven south to the Marts at Perth, Edinburgh, Stirling and Glasgow.

The biggest difference then and now is the lack of population and modern economics. People want more of everything that modern society offers; island life takes a lot of work if you're not retired and funded by pensions.

M