According to the Tatler the Scottish aristocracy are none to keen on independence. One is reported as saying 'The buggers are out to get us'.
The truth is though that about 800 or so people own most of Scotland's land in what even the Tatler calls a feudal system. Put it like that and Scotland has no choice but expect a massive return from them in exchange for the enormous privileges and advantages they enjoy.
What's the return? Well, land value tax would be a good one. Paid in land in lieu if necessary. That would be a good start.
But no one is out to get anyone. There is however an expectation in society, that some seem to have real difficulty in comprehending, that each will play their part in accordance with their ability to do so. And what's the problem with that?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Although it is true that “most” of Scotland owned by a handful of feudal toffs & foreign bankers/businessmen this is a slightly misleading point. The issue is that much of this land is barren moors, which may be very pretty but effectively worthless from an economic point of view. There’s scope for bird watching or walking but the sheer scale of Scotland’s wilderness far outweighs the demand for recreational use. Estates that have been given back to the local community (such as Assynt in Sutherland) find it very difficult to generate any more economic activity than when it was owned & used by the previous owners.
So I’m not sure how much of an impact a land value tax will have. Take a look at a few estate agents websites. Non-agricultural land is pretty much being given away.
And the land that is occupied by housing or agricultural already pays the normal taxes that these activities customarily generate.
Of course much of this land is moor etc (although if in public ownership some more hen harriers might survive, and other wildlife).
But equally, many of the landholdings are also urban as well
I do not buy the generalisation
First you need to define what a moor is. It may be that on some ‘moors’ you could allow certain livestock to feed, on others you could reclaim it for cultivation, and others can be left as so-called wilderness. The last term is controversial. People have a habit of colonizing wildernesses, then other people de-colonize the first and you get your wilderness.
From Wikipedia (though I do have the book this is taken from…):
“There is uncertainty about how many moors were created by human activity. Rackham writes that pollen analysis shows that some moorland, such as in the islands and extreme north of Scotland, are clearly natural, never having had trees; whereas much of the Pennine moorland area was forested in Mesolithic times. How much the destruction of this forest was caused by climatic changes and how much by human activity is uncertain.”
I think much of your argument is pure ideology because what the people of Assynt might want is mere control of their daily lives. Not everyone wants the latest gadgets or any gadgets at all. I have personal experience of the heavy-handedness of landowners and it can make you feel pretty worthless.
Shall we call them ‘the commons’?
That adds a certain piquancy
I was being particularly non-ideological and just commenting on the economic impact.
I’m sure the locals do enjoy having control over the land but the job situation in these areas isn’t essentially changed by ownership. Whether the Duke of XYZ rents out his land & rivers for trout fishing, pheasant shooting or stalking or whether the local community does, the number of people paying to do this doesn’t change. And the likes of the Assynt community haven’t found that there is much demand for “writers’ retreats” in the big house as they had hoped.
So I’m not sure what issue an LVT will solve for dealing with the “problem” of the Duke of Buccleuch having 130,000 acres. And it runs the risk of further economic weakness in rural communities, which would be good for hen harriers, less good for those locally employed.
(I’m wholly in favour of an LVT in regard to residential property).
I was not being ideological either
These landscapes are man made
They are preserved in a state at least in part as part of a power structure
Such things are capable of being rethought
Strange then that a nice little Lake District mountain, on sale to offset Inheritance Tax (bit of negligent planning there) could not be afforded by the locals who wanted it and it went to a higher bidder.
And what about all those grouse moors and salmon rivers? Don’t they have any market value?
Exactly
As for Assynt, it was NOT ‘given back to the community’. They had to raise £300k to buy the damn thing.
It might just act as a recovery mechanism for (largely undeserved) CAP payments.