Common Ground: lessons from land reform in Scotland
The dramatic scenery of the Scottish Highlands to many seems tranquil and unspoilt. However, with such a strong concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few individuals, the reality is a tense, deeply political environment.
UK Politics
By Megan Bente Bishop
____________________
Land ownership has always been a political issue; who has what resources, and what or whom, landowners are accountable for being among the most contentious. No place illustrates this better than Scotland. 83.1 per cent of Scotland is privately owned, and of the privately-owned land, 60 per cent is owned by just 963 individuals, or 0.018 per cent of the population. Landowners are crucial in promoting sustainable local development and the supporting of communities. However, often we find that the scale and pattern of land ownership, and the decisions of the landowners can be a barrier to sustainable development in the area.
In the BBC Scotland documentary ‘The Men who own Scotland’, we repeatedly see the stereotypical Laird, or Lord, dressed in Harris Tweed alongside his trusty Labrador, admiring the tens-of-thousands of acres they have inherited through the generations. The charismatic John Mackenzie, who owns 53,000 acres in the Highlands of which most is sporting estate, is asked is such a concentration of wealth and power is fair? He simply jokes in return: ‘Well, is it fair that your wife is prettier than mine?’.
However, it is not just the vast concentration of wealth which proves to be challenging, but the way in which this influences the development and justice debate prevalent in the detached rural communities scattered across the country. Scotland is often seen as the playground for the aristocracy, with one-quarter of all land in the country being dedicated to hunting, shooting or fishing. With sport being such a lucrative industry, this leaves little room for other enterprises to establish themselves and potentially benefit more people. In many instances, when communities have considered development, they have found the planner to also be the landlord. The clientelism which sweeps the country undermines the social capital necessary for development. Stores, community centres, homes are abandoned when they are no longer profitable, young people leave as there are no opportunities for them, pushing these rural areas in to a spiral of decline.
The picture appears glum. But the Scottish Government have been on the case. Since 2003, legislation has been ratcheted up which gives new powers to communities to purchase land for development, now so that communities, if it is in an obvious plan for development, may purchase even if the seller does not want to sell. The Scottish National Party (SNP) has established the Scottish Land Fund alongside the Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), a lottery fund which may be used by communities to purchase land from the Lairds, part of a large drive to break up these large estates and democratise land reform.
There have been some success stories, such as on the Isle of Eigg, where the Eigg Heritage trust, a partnership between the local community of 65 people, the Highland Council and the Scottish Wildlife Fund, bought out their absentee landlord in 1997. Since then, the population has increased to over 100 in for the first time in the islands recent history. Most of the new residents are young people who grew up on the Island and have moved back, setting up local businesses such as a breweries and micro hydro, solar and wind power schemes which now provide the island with 24-hour electricity, rather than having to transport diesel from the mainland.
Things are moving in the right direction; under the SNP and with a cross-party push for democratisation in rural Scotland, we are seeing cases like that of Eigg appear across the country. But there is a long way to go in breaking up the monopoly. The Scottish Land Fund is currently set at only £10 million pounds per annum, for the whole of Scotland, which on its own could not purchase a single estate on the market. Community buyouts cannot be funded by the Government and the HIE alone. The rest of the funds must come from donations, which on a small island in the Outer Hebrides with no internet could prove near-impossible to collect. Communities need to be aware of the opportunities available to them if they are to benefit. There is a danger with such limited funding that those who need development the most could be left behind.
Land is a finite and crucial resource that requires to be owned and used in the public interest. We can look to Scotland to see the consequences of a monopoly over vast swathes of the countryside which have been held for generations. There is an urgent need to push forwards a coherent policy framework which balances property and human rights. With greater levels of funding, we can ensure that the most neglected communities sustainably re-invigorate themselves for the common good.
