/ Some tips on buying a Scottish country estate

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Douglas Griffin - on 10 Oct 2013
Genuinely nauseating stuff. Not a parody, though it almost could be:
http://www.primelocation.com/homes-news/scottish-country-estates-living-the-dream/
malky_c - on 10 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
>"The passion for an estate really takes hold when you're up in the Highlands, says Goldsmith. "You're walking the hills and you think 'God I want to own a chunk of this, and roam free'. That's the dream side of it. Then you just need to get to the position where you can afford it."

You don't really need to read it all. That bit is enough.
Lusk - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Makes one want to take up poaching.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to malky_c:

I thought this bit was particularly fine. Someone should send a link to one of the more rabid commentators at the Guardian just for a laugh.

> Along with the tales of royalty and landed aristocracy comes a wealth of sporting anecdote. A former Duke of Westminster, knowing that the best fishing on one of his lochs was in a strong north-easterly gale, would require eight ghillies to row his boat to keep it steady enough for him to fish. Scottish country sportsmen dream of achieving a 'McNab' – catching a salmon, shooting a brace of grouse and stalking a stag in the same day. "And if you sleep with the housekeeper it's a Royal McNab," says Jacoby.
Robert Durran - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> Genuinely nauseating stuff.

No. Genuinely entertaining stuff.
I'm off to look for a Duke's daughter to marry.
Lusk - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Me too.

I wonder how many Ghillies are required to steady the housekeeper?
Bimble on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Charlie Jacoby showing you how to do said McNab here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDIIUhwMUS8
Hayden Carr - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: be interesting to see how long non-resident landlords hold onto their estates post-independence...
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Lusk:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
>
> Me too.
>
> I wonder how many Ghillies are required to steady the housekeeper?

For the Bullingdon set the more likely challenge is Salmon, Grouse, Deer and sleeping with the Ghillie - the "Eaton McNob".
Rob Exile Ward on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: A few years ago I was cycling in to Ben Alder with my tent and as I passed that big castle there that was being refurbished I remember reflexively thinking how I would rather be in my tent and walking wherever I wanted than having to look after all that nonsense. What does 'owning' a chunk of land like that actually mean, when we can walk, climb, ski and bike on it anyway?
Robert Durran - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> What does 'owning' a chunk of land like that actually mean, when we can walk, climb, ski and bike on it anyway?

It means you can also fish, shoot, and shag the housekeeper.

Snoweider - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The man who owns Ben Alder owns half of London too I believe... I think he's Swiss if I remember rightly.

You've reminded me of a time I was walking out from Culra- the head keeper gave us a lift - he said he makes a point of offering lifts to hill walkers and they are welcome on the land. Apparently he doesn't extend this to people who cycle in as they damage the paths he's put in for stalking. (His words not mine).
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: It means that after sleeping the house-keeper you can drive a penis extension up a bulldozed track and blast away at a blizzard of grouse being driven towards you before guzzling whisky and venison at lunch.

Some people like paying £xx million for this.
Fat Bumbly2 - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Snoweider: Mr G Oswald - Legend. I too have enjoyed the use of his taxi service.

Long before the James Bond Baddie HQ was built.


BTW before the current owners of Ben Alder there was a shortlived tenure. Someone bought the estate but his missus did not like the rain (or proximity of the housekeeper)


As for the Bullingdons and ghillies :
http://www.miramax.com/movie/her-majesty-mrs-brown
In reply to Hayden Carr: Were independence to happen it'd be business as usual I've no doubt. At present the Scottish govt seem just as inclined to suck up to big money as any other, and what'd change after a yes vote? What's needed is a far more radical change than tinkering with flags and borders.
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
>
just as inclined to suck up to big money as any other,



No, more. Far more. The word I'm groping for is "Trump".

"Been a while since we had any clearances," said Eck to himself, "I know, let's suck up to a mad spoilt-brat American for a bit and watch and egg him on while he evicts Scottish people from their Aberdeenshire homes in order to build his own vanity project."
Fat Bumbly2 - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey
It all depends who is elected in the post independance general election.

What happens next September is a referendum, not electing a government. No guarentees that Trumplicker Salmond would get in, and post independence, will there be a broad church SNP anymore?
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:


There won't be a post-independence general election, because we in Scotland are not daft enough to vote for independence.
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: This thread is coming together nicely - class war, scottish independence, sex. Can we get religion and tax in somehow?
Flashy - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to MG: Post-independence, my tax money had better not get spent on putting bishops in a bloody Scottish House of Lords. And what's with us still having a House of Lords in the UK?

'Ave it.
Enty - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Hayden Carr:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin) be interesting to see how long non-resident landlords hold onto their estates post-independence...

Yeah the next Zimbabwe and Salmond is the next Mugabe!

E
In reply to Fat Bumbly2: Of course, the future shape of an independent Scotland would depend on who was elected post-referendum. But as no one knows for sure who that'd be (though we can guess for the first couple of terms) any talk of independence ushering in some social democratic redistributive rich-bashing paradise seems to be no more than an optimistic assumption.

Why would a future fully fledged Scottish govt be necessarily any more left-leaning than the present devolved administration? It'd be the same lot of politicians after all, very few of whom look particularly great to me. Indications are that we'd either have to cut spending or raise tax, and the direction Salmond for one wants to take seems clear (low corporation tax, sucking up to any rich bully that comes along). If his party is supposedly the best (leftest) we can manage now then forgive me for not being massively inspired.

Besides which, while it should in theory be just a simple referendum we all know in practise it'll be massively swayed by an SNP vs Tory popularity contest. Yes seem to be relying on this. It is after all their best asset.
Robert Durran - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

The more I think about it, the more utterly absurd the idea of anyone (not just the rich) actually owning land seems.
Fat Bumbly2 - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: This is a country that likes to be run by another, so we are all in hypothetical territory here it is going to be no, but total agreement with the idea that there would not be some Mugabe style big changes in the early days. Land reform is largely in the gift of the current partial government (passed by a Labour/Lib Dem admin) and we have seen some of its fruit already. Hence this thread.

I do object though to the referendum being constantly presented as a vote for The Dear Leader and an SNP administration. We would not know how the post independence elections would go or who would or would not come home to strengthen the current weak brew of politicians here. Likewise we do not know how a post 2015 GBNI government will treat Scotland; lots of talk of devo max etc... but who's to say that direct rule will not again be on the agenda? Don't know.

I think we can be sure that land confiscation is not about to happen, but I do wish they would get a grip on the road building.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Stage by Stage Dan. The Land Reform Act is already light years ahead of where we used to be but I think we have reached the limitations of that right now and need to go further. The history of these sorts of things in Scotland is gradualism.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

You make a bit of a fool our yourself when you make up conversations in your head to justify your beliefs.
Just a bhoy - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to MG:
> Can we get religion and tax in somehow?

It's all owned by proddy tax evaders.... glad to be of help ;)
Just a bhoy - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Hayden Carr)
> [...]
>
> Yeah the next Zimbabwe and Salmond is the next Mugabe!

Land reform is a devolved matter and hasn't been tackled by any of the three parties that have been in power. I'm not holding my breath before or after a referendum.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
> (In reply to Fat Bumbly2) Of course, the future shape of an independent Scotland would depend on who was elected post-referendum. But as no one knows for sure who that'd be (though we can guess for the first couple of terms) any talk of independence ushering in some social democratic redistributive rich-bashing paradise seems to be no more than an optimistic assumption.
>

Yes if you are in complete denial about the multiple initiatives taking place across a broad range of organisations and political views. The view you have expressed above can only be the result of total ignorance (I don't think it is) or a head in the sand mentality as you find the conclusion difficult so would prefer to deny the basis of the argument.


> Why would a future fully fledged Scottish govt be necessarily any more left-leaning than the present devolved administration? It'd be the same lot of politicians after all, very few of whom look particularly great to me. Indications are that we'd either have to cut spending or raise tax, and the direction Salmond for one wants to take seems clear (low corporation tax, sucking up to any rich bully that comes along). If his party is supposedly the best (leftest) we can manage now then forgive me for not being massively inspired.
>
Because as almost every Scottish, local government and general election since 1945 has produced hard evidence that the Scottish electorate are more left leaning. This is a truism and undeniable fact.

Anyone saying otherwise is just pretending there isn't some kind of centre left majority in Scotland. There clearly is.

Your comment about sucking up to "any" rich bully is again evidence either that you haven't understood the conversation or would like to paint it in a different way to avoid the reality.

> Besides which, while it should in theory be just a simple referendum we all know in practise it'll be massively swayed by an SNP vs Tory popularity contest. Yes seem to be relying on this. It is after all their best asset.

No we don't know that. In fact the reality is the polar opposite is true. It's Labour who are leading the No campaign charge in Scotland and are heading it up. They even have their own campaign as well.

Again, it may "seem" this way to you but I think you have avoided actually looking at this. The arguments you are putting forward were left behind by Yes a long time ago and have no basis in reality.
In reply to Saor Alba: Amazing how often people who disagree with you are ignorant or misunderstanding 'reality' Saor ;-)

Which initiatives?
Where's the irrefutable indication of an inevitable leftwards move, when we go from devolution (which already achieves the same sort of social benefit that independence could deliver anyway) to independence?
Whose conversation am i misunderstanding and what are they saying that's so bleeding convincing?
How have Yes 'left behind' any of the arguments (in the sense of repudiation, rather than simply ignoring any question they don't really have a good answer to)?

On second thoughts, I've not got time to tit for tat all day and I doubt you've anything to say at this stage that you've not already tried to convince me with. So perhaps we'd best just agree to disagree on massive fundamental levels, and hope for the best next year?
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The more I think about it, the more utterly absurd the idea of anyone (not just the rich) actually owning land seems.

Have you read "A Man in Assynt" by Norman MacCaig?
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Just a bhoy:

> Land reform is a devolved matter and hasn't been tackled by any of the three parties that have been in power.

What about the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003?
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

You have completely ignored the evidence and fact though Dan and then extrapolated your un-evidenced view to make a series of assumptions which hold no water.

Tell you what, I'll get a wee spread sheet going which allocates votes to right or left wing. It might be a bit crude but I'll allocate votes to Labour, SNP and Lib dems to left and to the tories, UKIP etc to the right. Happy with that?

Even before I do that, there is clear evidence of centre left politics. Policies such as council tax freeze, opposition to trident, free prescriptions, resistance to privitisation, investment in the railways depsite the "economic case" not being as strong, land reform, resistance to benefit changes.

All this on top of the voting pattern.

You are plain wrong to think there is not a centre left consensus in Scotland and has been for some time.

The arguments you are putting forward are so fanciful they don't warrant investigation.

There are multiple organisations, SCVO, Reform Scotland, the Greens, Yes Scotland, SNP, many artists, the Jimmy Reid foundation etc.

Are you utterly unaware of all this?
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> You make a bit of a fool our yourself when you make up conversations in your head to justify your beliefs.



So--all that stuff about Scots being legally harassed and evicted from their homes by a crackpot American millionaire while the so-called Scottish Nationalist government sat back and encouraged him--did I just make it up?

"Scotland's party looking after Scotland's interests." Yeah, right.
999thAndy on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Hayden Carr:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin) be interesting to see how long non-resident landlords hold onto their estates post-independence...

Do you think that that policy will be in the white paper? Or is it more likely that if you own a piece of land before independence, you'll continue to own it afterwards?
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

"We in Scotland..." - Now where have I heard that before?
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

Gradualism is the way. Just make the 'sporting estate' business model impossible by clamping down on inheritance tax, having a compulsory multi-week training course and license for anyone who wants to shoot deer or grouse and a few police operations against cocaine and hookers on the 'shooting parties' and people drunk when carrying a firearm.

Simultaneously upgrade the roads to reduce journey times, loosen planning restrictions to favour housing on small parcels of land and put down fibre broadband so knowledge businesses can locate in the highlands and the sporting estates will break up and the highlands repopulate gradually.
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> "We in Scotland..." - Now where have I heard that before?



Well, you might have heard it lots of places, from those of us who are in Scotland. (I've been here for 16 years, plus another 2 before that.)
In reply to Saor Alba: OK, so here I am again. Spare yourself the spread sheeting. You've completely misunderstood. Where have I said there's not a weight of centre left opinion in Scotland? I haven't. It's perfectly evident in devolved policy and voting patterns. My question is why assume there's likely to be a significant further leftwards move post independence? Where's the popular will? And what will the economic reality actually be likely to dictate anyway, policy-wise? (clue: not a lot of wiggle room; result - business as usual thank you)

A few self-appointed talking shops don't constitute much at all; for likely direction of travel I'd be more inclined to look to government policy, what politicians and parties say, the mainstream media etc. From which I can't help concluding that progressive nationalism is a bunch of wishful thinking, and there'll be rather more centre than left in any independent Scotland.

For me the likely result of splitting the country is simply not worth the bother and I'd rather devote my energy to improving what we have. Gradualism; it's how we've always done it in Britain.
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Yes, but someone else said it very famously. Thought you'd have known that - never mind.
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:


I don't take kindly to being linked in any way with You Know Who. I was attempting to ignore your allusion, because I thought it was probably best ignored.

Just for the record, are you suggesting that I'm a White Settler? Or that the views of English people who live in Scotland don't count? Or that the English are all Thatcherites?

I do hope not.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

That is not what I am referring to. I am referring to your imaginary conversation above. Yes, you did make that up.

Let me get this 100% clear - you are equating the actions of Trump with the principle of self-determination for Scotland?
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Let me get this 100% clear - you are equating the actions of Trump with the principle of self-determination for Scotland?


You won't get anything clear if you ask questions like that one... No, I'm saying that the way the SNP acted over Trump's proposal was scandalous, and leaves me (along with plenty of other things) with no confidence whatever in their ability to run an independent country.
tony on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> That is not what I am referring to. I am referring to your imaginary conversation above. Yes, you did make that up.
>
> Let me get this 100% clear - you are equating the actions of Trump with the principle of self-determination for Scotland?

Is stupidity going to be compulsory in an independent Scotland?
Jim Fraser - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

"The Danes are now very keen."

That'll be because being rich in their own country doesn't turn heads and the grandiosity aspect of their psychosis has emerged now that they are pished so often that they forget to take their tablets.
Sir Chasm - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to tony: Dunno, but going by this "That'll be because being rich in their own country doesn't turn heads and the grandiosity aspect of their psychosis has emerged now that they are pished so often that they forget to take their tablets" xenophobia looks like it'll be popular among some.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

No you have misunderstood me! Of course it's going to be more left wing as more powers, and hence policies such as defence, foreign policy, dealing with the EU, forming alliances economic policy etc, will all be under the control of a centre left government. This isn't currently the case.

I'm not saying it's going to be more left. I am saying that more powers will be under control of parties which are already on the left.

It's way more than tinkering with flags and borders. In fact to suggest so is quite insulting for the people who are trying to get some real change.

Everything you are saying is based upon vague assumptions.

On one thing you are right, gradualism is the way and I think the lesson of devolution is that gradually people want more.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> [...]
>
>
> You won't get anything clear if you ask questions like that one... No, I'm saying that the way the SNP acted over Trump's proposal was scandalous, and leaves me (along with plenty of other things) with no confidence whatever in their ability to run an independent country.

Ok, do you have confidence in Labour to run an independent Scotland? If not, which party do you have confidence in?

Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
> [...]
>
> Ok, do you have confidence in Labour to run an independent Scotland? If not, which party do you have confidence in?



Blimey. Has it occurred to you that I might not want an independent Scotland? Or do you go around asking having-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions anyway?

If you're going for "Labour are no better", that's particularly feeble in this context. Because Labour aren't the ones stepping up saying "We think we've got what it takes to run Scotland as an independent country"--that's the SNP. And Labour aren't the ones following up this kind of statement by backing foreign plutocrats like Trump against their own people--again, that's the SNP.

If the SNP want to convince us that they're fit to run an independent Scotland, I think it's reasonable to ask them to meet higher standards than other parties that aren't claiming to be able to do that. But they fail to convince. Miserably.
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
But they fail to convince. Miserably.

Something tells me that about this point which party governs Scotland becomes irrelevant and you are an ignorant fool to think the referendum is anything to do with it.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Yes it has :-) but I am keen to find out your views on this. Given that the Trump fiasco happened in the UK, which you support,

The SNP aren't trying to convince anyone they are fit to run an independent Scotland. They are trying, with others, to convince us that Scotland should be an independent country and choose its own government with the full array of sovereign powers.

The difference is quite big.

There is the small problem in your argument that Trump is now one of the SNP's most outspoken critics.

It was a planning decision. I didn't support it either but I do understand that there is a huge difference between a planning decision and the principle of independence. Maybe you don't.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to MG:

Remind me Martin, I just remembered right now, we had a bet on for £10? Was it £10 for a no vote for you and £10 for a yes vote for me?
Scomuir on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
> No, I'm saying that the way the SNP acted over Trump's proposal was scandalous, and leaves me (along with plenty of other things) with no confidence whatever in their ability to run an independent country.

I agree that the way Trump was welcomed with open arms was atrocious. It showed a shockingly poor sense of judgement. This was initiated by Labour, and perpetuated by the SNP. The reality is, no political party could be seen to look the alleged gift horse in the mouth. Thing is, lots of people could see through it, but the politicians couldn't, or wouldn't, and now the gift has become a kick, as Salmond has found out. Whether this type of scenario gets worse or better assuming independence, who knows.

Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (

> Yes it has :-) but I am keen to find out your views on this. Given that the Trump fiasco happened in the UK, which you support,

???? It also happened in the EU, which I also support. But so what? It was a Holyrood decision, not a UK or an EU decision. Specifically, so far as I can tell, it was Alex Salmond's personal decision.

>
> There is the small problem in your argument that Trump is now one of the SNP's most outspoken critics.


??? Completely irrelevant. Trump turned on the hand that was feeding him. That doesn't mean it was right to feed him.

> It was a planning decision. I didn't support it either but I do understand that there is a huge difference between a planning decision and the principle of independence. Maybe you don't.

??? Obviously I do. But the way the SNP handled it made it perfectly clear that they're not fit to run a tap, never mind a country.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Feeding him what? Salmond has nothing but grief over this from day 1.

They aren't saying vote for independence and we will run the country. They are saying vote for independence and then choose who you want to run the country. There is a huge difference.
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: As I recall, Donnie, yes.
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to MG: Sterling.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Back on topic, if you look at the figures and then how much you could win on the Euromillions then you can see that £100 million could buy you a lot.

If I win £100 million I'll buy a few and then give them to the community. You have my word :-)
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to MG:

Happy with that. Good, onwards and sideways then!
In reply to Saor Alba: 'Of course it's going to be more left wing as more powers, and hence policies such as defence, foreign policy, dealing with the EU, forming alliances economic policy etc, will all be under the control of a centre left government.'

Aren't you assuming a bit here? What if it's a Lab/Lib coalition government? If so then we'd be doing rather better than a possible Tory rUK on some counts but things like defence, f.policy, dealing with the EU, forming alliances etc are likely to look pretty similar to how they looked under Labour UK or even through the eyes of the Lib Dem bit of the UK Coalition, aren't they? Unless you're saying that a vote for independence is a vote for the more progressive elements in the SNP; but I took it that you were very keen not to be saying that.

With the economic/fiscal squeeze pretty much certain to seriously hamper any post-vote Scottish government's room for movement, assuming independence is more likely to result in a nicer country than any other scenario - Devo Max say, or even the status quo - looks a lot like a 'vague assumption' to me.

Hate to insult anyone, but tinkering is exactly what it is. Care about 5 million more than 60 million? Really think nation states are still relevant in the globalising world? Sorry, but it all looks small, inward-looking and lacking in wider ambition to me.
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to Saor Alba: Ah we agree at last! If I win that £100million I'll be sure to buy a prime estate or three, and happily give them away... Now just the small matter of never buying a ticket.
In reply to Saor Alba: Forgive me if I'm wrong but something tells me you don't vote Labour in Westminster elections. But if not then why not, if it's a (OK, more or less) centre-left government you desire?

Damn it I got sucked in again. Sorry don't feel obliged to answer that one as I'm signing off now. Got hills to climb tomorrow

Nothing personal, as ever.
Just a bhoy - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Is that the one that deals with access Doug? I was thinking more specifically about ownership and the rights of tenants to buy.
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
>
> Charlie Jacoby showing you how to do said McNab here
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDIIUhwMUS8


I really, really want to believe he is a parody of someone but I know he's not. Anyway, if he enjoys it...
tony on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Just a bhoy:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
>
> Is that the one that deals with access Doug? I was thinking more specifically about ownership and the rights of tenants to buy.

In addition to access, the Land Reform Act also deals with community buy-outs and crofting buy-outs.
Just a bhoy - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to tony:

Cheers.
nufkin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The more I think about it, the more utterly absurd the idea of anyone (not just the rich) actually owning land seems

You're probably right, but the concept of 'mine' seems pretty deeply ingrained in the human psyche, be it in regard to cutlery, countries or any point in between, and you have to think about it pretty hard to overcome what seems to be an automatic attitude

Bimble on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to nufkin:

'Property is theft'?
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Yes but we wouldn't have the opposite 50% (this is "rare" according to Martin) of the time. Look at my figures on another thread.

Put it this way, the eighties should be enough.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I voted for them in 1993 and 1997 but the Iraw war changed a lot of that. When I realised that the Westminster system will always award peerages regardless of who is in power and stand for pointless nuclear weapons etc, then you realise it's the system itself that doesn't work, not which party gets in.

On my estate I am going to break the link between tied houses and jobs. In other words your house doesn't depend on doing what the Laird wants you to.

I'll release land for housing.

I am also going to massively reduce deer numbers so that trees can grow and without fences thus drawing in deer from other estates. There is some question though if this does happen if you look at Creag Meagaidh.
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com)
>
> Yes but we wouldn't have the opposite 50% (this is "rare" according to Martin) of the time. Look at my figures on another thread.
>


Why the dishonesty? You know perectly well that's not what I said.

Incidentally, the Scottish system has so far *never* produced a government that 50% voted for, so by your measure is an even worse system.
Simon Caldwell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> because as almost every Scottish, local government and general election since 1945 has produced hard evidence that the Scottish electorate are more left leaning.

Glad you put in that "almost", as there was a centre-right majority in 1951, 1955 and 1959. It was only when the Unionists merged with the Conservatives in the 60s that their fortunates began to suffer. Not as simplistic as that of course, religion & sectarianism were involved as well.

If Scotland becomes independent, I'd put money on a centre-right Scottish Government within 20 years.
The New NickB - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

I thought you were giving it away! You now seem to be some benign Laird of 'your' Estate.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

Yes I am. But I need to make some changes to the place first. E.g. the Assynt Estate can never be sold to a private landlord again with a clause they have put in.

Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> Just for the record, are you suggesting that I'm a White Settler? Or that the views of English people who live in Scotland don't count?

I'm already on record, on many occasions on UKC, as saying that people in Scotland should have a vote in the referendum irrespective of their nationality.

As to why I brought the "We in Scotland..." remark up: I don't believe Thatcher spoke for the people of Scotland, and I don't believe you do. For that matter, I don't think I do either, but then I'm not in the habit of starting sentences with "We in Scotland..." - honestly, just what makes you presume that you speak for anyone other than yourself?
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Scomuir:

The Trump fiasco was profoundly disappointing and really shook my faith (and probably that of a lot of other people) in Salmond's judgement. However, it's irrelevant to the Referendum. As I said to Andy Nisbet on the thread about Wind Turnbines, the Referendum is about who elects the government of Scotland, not which party will be in power. Salmond was able to "call in" the planning decision under the current constitutional arrangements - I don't see how a repeat of something similar in the future would be any more, or any less, likely in the event of Independence.

However, since some people are determined to make it a party-political issue, this:
> The reality is, no political party could be seen to look the alleged gift horse in the mouth
is an excellent point.
Andy Wightman (yes, him again) has been pursuing the Trump affair from the start - from well before the recent publicity generated by 'You've Been Trumped'. As long ago as 2006 he submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Scottish Office regarding discussions between Donald Trump and the then First Minister, Jack (now Lord) McConnell.
Here's what he got back:
http://www.andywightman.com/docs/mcconnell_letter_jun2006.pdf
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Well, the sentence in question was a prediction of how we, the Scottish electorate, you me and the other five million, will vote in the referendum. I think I'm entitled to make predictions about that. A prediction is all it was. Bet you it was a correct one, though.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

How much?
Eric9Points - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> Genuinely nauseating stuff. Not a parody, though it almost could be:
> http://www.primelocation.com/homes-news/scottish-country-estates-living-the-dream/

So how did you some across this article Doug, have you just won the lottery and are now looking for your own "grice more"?

Strangely enough if I won Donald's £100 M my plan (I hatched this 18 years ago while on holiday) would be to buy the two estates in the North of Jura. I'd the let the tennants buy the farmable land off me under very favourable terms which would probably leave the Western half of the estate in my ownershp. I'd try to develop an eco tourism business there maybe reintroducing beavers and stuff, employing the estate workers previously employed as gamekeepers etc as tourist guides and wardens. That sort of thing. So much the same as Donald there.

The point I'm finally getting around to though is that there's one phuq of a lot of estate land in Scotland which will never make money as far as I can see and seems to be borne out by the numbers presented in that article. What do you do with it if? The people currently employed to keep it as playground for the rich, which we also get to play on, need to be paid by someone and that someone is either a rich person or the state. So, at the moment I'd rather some Russian sunk half a million quid a year into a beautiful bit barren bit of Scotland than us tax payers, while keping it in a fairly wild condition. I do think though that when it comes to the people who live and work on those estates the above mentioned rich people should not be allowed to interfere with their lives any more than an employer in the Central belt can influence the lives of the workers they pay to work in their offices, shops and factories. Perhaps here there's a place for example, for estate houses to be purchased by the Scottish Government or the local authority and rented to the workers independently of the landowners. Council houses if you wish, perhaps with some option to buy thrown in.
Eric9Points - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Sorry Doug, I completely missed the point of my post.

What is your view on highland sporting estates? I presume it's a bit more considered than "they're all owned by rich basturts who should be shot".
ads.ukclimbing.com
andyathome - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I've got about £15k in the bank. Wonder how long it would take me to save up and save up and save up to enable me to buy a chunk of Scotland.

As opposed to a caravan.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Great ideas there Eric. As it happens I was just trying to play the lottery there but it's shut right now.

There surely must be some better way to run these vast barren areas. It will be a staged process to get to that though.

A great idea regarding purchasing houses. I recently heard of an old bodach on Atholl Estates being asked to move out of his house after retiring from the estate. Disgraceful I think.

The case of Strathconnon is interesting where there aren't enough people to take control of the land even if they had the chance.
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

I saw the article in a Tweet!

> What is your view on highland sporting estates? I presume it's a bit more considered than "they're all owned by rich basturts who should be shot".

Just a bit, aye.

Not really got time to reply in depth, Eric - and I'll be off-line for a couple of weeks - but I will try to reply when I am back. One thing I would say now is that I think the issue of Land Reform is (or should be) a completely separate one from the Independence question. There are powers to make changes under the existing arrangements - though the present Scottish government seems to think that Land Reform begins and ends with the issue of Community Ownership.
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> The case of Strathconnon is interesting where there aren't enough people to take control of the land even if they had the chance.

...and that, in a nutshell, is why Land Reform has to be about more than Community Ownership.

Dave - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)

Got to agree with E9P there.
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Tim Chappell)
>
> How much?



About 68:32, if the polls are to be believed.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Ok you willing to bet that? Loser sends that sum to a MRT of their choice?
lynx3555 - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I'm quite happy to refer to my self as being a "White settler" in the Lochalsh area, I have been now for 30 years after moving away from my home City of Edinburgh......
The first time I became aware of the Estates being owned by None UK residence was when the Arabs bought the estate at Inverinate near Kintail. It's never been confirmed officially if it was Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum who owns the estate but as far as I know it is, why he won't confirm his ownership is a complete mystery.
During my early years living and working in the area I found a lot of the locals to be angry towards the estate management and the owners. After hearing some of the complaints my sympathy grow for the locals and this is why...
The owners had very little respect for the local culture and "Freedom to roam" laws, they planned and began to build a big fence around the estate; they employed as a game keeper an X copper from down south who had been dismissed from the force, the man was an idiot!;
Some of the locals had been classed as poachers and they were targeted by the estate management, who in turn failed to recognise that these people had been at it for there whole lives and so had there fathers and Grandfathers.
As a result, the most notorious of these characters one Tommy "Mahog" MacKenzie, wrote a poem about the game Keeper and the estate owners, which was then published in the Scotsman Newspaper. Tommy was a local Bard whose family had worked and poached on these lands for centuries.
Due to the poem being written and published combined with local resentment, the estate decided it was all out war, making it even harder for the locals to carry out there tradition, cutting down the tree along the banks of one river and recruiting in further assistance to make it difficult for the locals to poach.
Eventually it became impossible for the locals to win and sadly Tommy "Mahog" Mackenzie died....some considered his death to be suspicious.
Tommy's wake was held at Kintail lodge, a brilliant send off with good local music and a real eye opener for a white settler like me....As I was a bit drunk, I stood outside to get some fresh air, feeling quite emotional as what appeared to be a boat was being launched out to sea and set ablaze, I think Tommy's ashes were on the boat but right now I can't confirm that.
Away across the loch, in front of the lodge at Inverinate, was the Arabs big expensive Boat...being a bit pished, I could personally see it but it was there at that time....
....little did we know at that time, two young lads were rowing out to the Arabs boat armed with a chainsaw, they boarded the boat and proceeded to sink it..!
The lads were jailed for their act but the statement that they made brought slightly more positive changes to the estate, the Arabs invested more cash in the area and a load of Arab women even bought loads of toys from the toy shop in Kyle and handed them out to the local kids!
The game keeper was no more either.....
A lot of the locals in that area are Nationalists like myself, proud and rightly very protective of their culture, language, music, Bards and history and this I respect immensely.
I'm sick of hearing Scottish nationalism associated with Alex Salmond at every opportunity by some people, personally I don't mind the man, but I doubt I'll vote for him when Scotland "Does" become independent.
For all you haters of Alex Salmond, he has been mentioned in this wee article about the game keeper in Inverinate being accused of killing birds of prey....... But he's not the only MP who has been guilty of this, that is if he did have an influence over the trial.
http://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/tag/inverinate-estate/
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:


The only gambling I do is in the form of jelly-babies.

Do you think the MRT will want jelly-babies?
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

I'm talking cash dear boy, £68.32 to be exact. You up for it?
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
>
> I'm sick of hearing Scottish nationalism associated with Alex Salmond at every opportunity by some people


It's odd, isn't it, how people insist on doing this? Similarly, they're forever banging on about Nick Clegg when you mention the Lib Dems, and David Cameron if it's the Conservatives. As for the Ed Miliband fixation when Labour comes up! Extraordinary.

Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:


The only gambling I do is in the form of jelly-babies. And I don't think you've understood what I meant by 68: 32.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Maybe I didn't. What did you mean then?
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

I was reminding you by how much the polls say the No campaign will win the referendum. Though myself, I doubt we'll win quite that easily.

(Note to Douglas: "we" here means the Better Together campaign. I'm signed up for it, at www.bettertogether.net, which is why I say "we"--OK?)
lynx3555 - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: Nick Clegg - Liberal Democrats; David Cameron - Conservatives;
God sole mouth piece on earth wasn't just Jesus F*cking Christ either, as I'm sure the Muslims and Jews would confirm......so how is it that people think that Scottish Nationalism should be linked solely to Alex Salmond? People perusing Independence have a variety of political opinions, some of which aren't shared by Salmond.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Are you campaigning, I mean in real life, not on the net? I genuinely havent seen anything from BT apart from one or your colleagues, a right wing Tory who runs the post office in Portnahaven.
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:


Depends what you mean by campaigning. I doubt I'll be doorstepping people, given that I'm English :-)
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Surely that is a strength of BT. The whole point of it I would have thought?

There is a lot happening with Yes Scotland and it will ramp up as we get closer to the date.
lynx3555 - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: 68% of 1003 people...big deal, I bet that those thousand people polled didn't include many from hard core nationalist areas....
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

I don't actually believe many of these polls, for and against. They simply don't play out in communities. I reckon it's closer to 50/50 right now.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:


I think the last US election was a very good illustration of what can happen when pundits trust their gut feels against the science of psephology.

In a curious piece of coincidence, one of these gutsy pundits was our very own Lord Trump of Menie :-)
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: Happy to our stake. 500pounds?
lynx3555 - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: I agree, and it would seem to be the case that those true figures are being denied by that relentless bias coming from the majority of the media sources.
The march back in September was just one of the many examples of this...they, the better together mob, say 8000 but the reality is it was at least 20000....this has now been confirmed by the police but it was too late to reach the press in the first few days after the march.
I don't doubt that the dirty tricks coming from the Unionists will become more under handed and devious as the time draws nearer.....
Tim Chappell - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

I'm interested by the story you tell about the Inverinate Estate and the Al-Maktoums. As you'll have gathered from me banging on about Trump, I'm not mad keen either on the idea of outsiders with absolutely no understanding of the local culture buying it up simply because they're rich enough to do so. I worry that an Edinburgh government would, frankly, need these rich outsiders' cash, in a way that a Westminster government doesn't. I thought that was partly what was going on with Trump. Whether it was going on with Inverinate, I have no idea.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to MG:

I don't have enough money like that to lose! Do you? If I was rich I would jump for it but I think sense would say there is a fair chance of losing it so £10 will do me right now.

PS I am thinking your money should go to Torridon MRT.
drmarten on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
Thanks for posting that, I wasn't aware of those events. It would seem from this article in 2009 (I googled after reading your account) that the Sheikhs confirmation or not of his ownership is neither here nor there.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/billionaire-sheikh-wins-fight-to-build-his-oasis-of-luxury-in-the-highl...

Interesting as well is the original Inverinate House was built by a Matheson of the Jardine Matheson company, money from China, money from Dubai, there's something familiar about it all. Has the new house been built? I've drove past and have stayed at the Kintail Lodge twice this year and never noticed.
Cuthbert on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Dear oh dear Tim. Westminster needs the landowners more than any body. Surely history has taught you that. Hardly anyone in Scotland owns land. It's mostly owned by those outside of Scotland.

Land ownership is one of the under pinning factors of the British state.
MG - on 11 Oct 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: no but I didn't need it.
lynx3555 - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell:
The example made by the community on the Isle of Eigg should be the way forward for a lot of the estates that have thriving small communities.
"After decades of problems with absentee landlords in the 20th century, the island was bought in 1997 by the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, a partnership between the residents of Eigg, the Highland Council, and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The story of this community buy-out is told in Alastair McIntosh's book Soil and Soul"
The final straw for the locals came when Keith Schellenberg, A man of Liechtenstein descent, Schellenberg was an Olympic bobsleigh champion and a millionaire. As laird, he treated the place like a millionaire's playground - rescuing Kaiser Wilhelm's yacht, and steaming it across the North Sea wearing the uniform of an Imperial German Admiral; reconstructing clan battles on Eigg, where the Hanoverians invariably triumphed over Jacobites; and driving his 1927 Rolls Royce Phantom across the island, with screaming yahs waving champagne bottles out the window. His Rolls Royce was touched, most likely, as he suggested, by the locals :-)
Personally I think it would be better for Scotland to run its own affairs, this would be a benefit for you in some ways as the Scots would no longer need to blame either the English or Westminster for the wrongs committed in the Highlands and Islands today....
Tim Chappell - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> as the Scots would no longer need to blame either the English or Westminster for the wrongs committed in the Highlands and Islands today...


You have hardly ever *needed* to blame either the English or Westminster for those wrongs.

The case of wrongs that you cite involves a Liechtensteiner, you say. I'm not aware that being from Liechtenstein is the same thing as being from England.



lynx3555 - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to drmarten: I know about the proposal but to be honest I haven't heard of the place being built yet. The main house is out of sight from the main road but I'm sure if it had been built I would have noticed or heard about it....but then, they keep them selves to them selves as well...some of the other older buildings on the estate were taken down over the past 25 years. One nice big house on the Inverinate estate, just to the north of Kintail, was burned down and this was blamed on the local kids! Coincidently, it had just been announced at that time that the council was considering compulsory purchase of houses not in use on highland estates!
lynx3555 - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to Tim Chappell: Actually he claims to be English of Liechtenstein decent....but really my point is, some English consider that the Scots blame them for the wrongs of the past and present in the highlands.....in some cases this may be true but what they really mean is Westminster....at least if it's the Scottish Parliament that is failing Scotland then we will be able to deal with the issue in house, Westminster is unfairly just a tad too far for the Northern portion of Scotland's voice to be heard.
Dr.S at work - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> some English consider that the Scots blame them for the wrongs of the past and present in the highlands.....in some cases this may be true but what they really mean is Westminster....at least if it's the Scottish Parliament that is failing Scotland then we will be able to deal with the issue in house, Westminster is unfairly just a tad too far for the Northern portion of Scotland's voice to be heard.

I'd say MOST english people consider that the scots blame them for the wrongs of the past and present in the Highlands.

If the Scots mean westminster they should say so (as some on this thread do - tips hat to SA)

Some might say that most of the past and present wrongs in the highlands were imposed by the lowland scots and the seperation of traditional lairds from their folk, not the english or westminster. (or at least thats my take from reading 'last of the free')
lynx3555 - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work: The vast amount of atrocities committed on the Highlands and Islands began after 1707 and the act of union....this was directed the government in London as Scotland no longer had a government. Scottish Loyalists to the Hanoverian Royals did have a big influence on the demise of the highlands I agree..incidentally, my family most likely fought as loyalist but then the present move towards independence should have nothing to do with Jacobites and Hanoverians.....that was then and this is now, now the reason for independence has a whole new meaning and we don't have to fear invasion from England like we did back in 1707.
Incidentally, Scotland has been invaded by many English figures, Henry the Vlll, Cromwell and many more....
Dr.S at work - on 12 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

> Incidentally, Scotland has been invaded by many English figures, Henry the Vlll, Cromwell and many more....
And England by many Scots.... however the bulk of the players from either direction had a certain Norman something about them....
Cuthbert on 13 Oct 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

I was up Gleann Canaich (Glen Cannich) last night and this morning. I actually think massive change is needed and control needs to be wrestled from landowners.

There can't be more than 15 people living in the whole glen and the sam must be true for Strathfarrar and Affric. The houses that are there are low quality doran type things which get very damp. There is a big house for people on holiday and the landscape is quite frankly in a shocking state due to massive over grazing by deer.

The should be a legal obligation to implement a community and biodiversity plan. This would strongly discourage people who want to buy these places as a playground and tax benefit scheme - the majority).

This is no way to run such massive areas of land.
Postmanpat on 13 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to Dr.S at work)
> Incidentally, Scotland has been invaded by many English figures, Henry the Vlll, Cromwell and many more....

Point of order : Henry V111 did not invade Scotland. His army resisted an attempted invasion of England by the Scots.
lynx3555 - on 14 Oct 2013
In reply to Postmanpat: The Rough Wooing (December 1543 – March 1550) was a conflict between Scotland and England. War was declared by Henry VIII of England, in an attempt to force the Scots to agree to a marriage between his son Edward and the infant Mary, Queen of Scots.
England also declared war on France and as Scotland and France had an Alliance, Scotland was obliged to invade England....
Henry was responsible for the pilaging and burning of virtually all the monasteries and cathederals through out southern Scotland.
Postmanpat on 14 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

All of which were pursuant to James 1V's attempted invasion of England in 1513 and James V's in 1541. Each time Scotland renewed its alliance with France and then attacked England. Expecting the same post the renewal of the auld alliance in 1544 Henry V111 decided to preempt the inevitable.
Postmanpat on 14 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> England also declared war on France and as Scotland and France had an Alliance, Scotland was obliged to invade England....
>
All of which were pursuant to James 1V's attempted invasion of England in 1513 and James V's in 1541. Each time Scotland renewed its alliance with France and then attacked England. Expecting the same post the renewal of the auld alliance in 1544 Henry V111 decided to preempt the (as your description acknowledges) the inevitable.

ads.ukclimbing.com

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.