LAND REFORM IN SCOTLAND?
Don't Hold Your Breath!
We continue our series on the land.
The new Scottish Parliament is full of rhetoric about how it's going to make substantial changes to the landowning system in Scotland. Land reform is one of the main pieces of legislation which is to be put to Parliament in the coming session. However, despite the fighting talk, it is clear that the actual intention is very mild indeed, and once the politicians succumb to the usual pressure from landowners, then even the very modest proposals will be watered down such that the power of the landowners remains.
It is not surprising that land reform is on the agenda. The facts speak for themselves. Scotland has the most unequal distribution of land in western Europe and it is even more unequal than Brazil which is well-known for its land injustices. In a country of over 19 million acres, over 16 million acres is privately owned rural land. Two-thirds of this land is owned by 1252 landowners, (0.025% of the population). And these estates are extremely large. One quarter of the privately owned rural land is in estates of 30,700 acres and larger, owned by just 66 landowners (Wightman: 1999). Part of the reason for the large size of estates is the law of primogeniture where it is the eldest son who inherits the whole estate. Not only is the distribution unequal, land ownership is still based on feudal laws, a system that dates back to the 11th century. This means that the land still officially belongs to the 'Crown' and the landowner is a vassal. However, this vassal can become a 'superior' by 'feuing' land to someone else who then becomes his vassal. Even though the owner has sold the land, feuing means that the superior still has a say in how that land is developed. This has of course caused many problems when people have bought a house and then have to get the permission of the 'superior' before they can do anything. And of course there are many landowners who are ready to take advantage of this situation by asking for money in return for permission.
Another impetus for land reform has come media coverage of what are called 'bad' landowners . There was the recent case in Knoydart were this very large estate had changed hands many times in a few years, leaving the local community in an insecure position. The landowners were usually absentee who came a few times a year for a dose of killing animals for fun. Things came to a head, however, when the latest owners were done for fraud, one is now in a German jail. The community ended up making a much-publicised buy-out. The same thing happened on the island of Eigg where the owner had been a German artist who had made only two visits in two years. The spotlight has usually focused on foreign landowners, fuelled by the increase in nationalist sentiment. it is these landowners who are seen to not have the best interest of the community at heart. This is compounded by the fact that land ownership is shrouded in secrecy, with land often owned by faceless offshore companies and private trusts.
Bloodsports
Even the traditional live-in laird has come under attack because of the way estates are managed without any regard to the wider economic and environmental issues. Some estates have managed to diversify but many are still run solely for the purpose of blood sports. Many people have begun to question whether this is a good use of land on a number of grounds. First, some argue that the amount of jobs created and income generated is not as great as the estates claim. Despite the existence of quite a few trigger-happy German, Italian and American rich who come to do what they can't do in their own country, more income and more jobs come from other forms of tourism that are often in direct conflict with the closed nature of the sporting estate. Environmentalists and conservationists have also attacked the problems caused by too many red deer for the regeneration of natural woodland and the eyesore caused by all the bull-dozed tracks that carry landrovers full of gun-toting tourists to within a few steps of their target. There have also been cases where gamekeepers are known to have deliberately shot birds of prey because they eat the young grouse. Recently, a gamekeeper in the central Highlands killed a nest of golden eagles as a result of leaving out a poisoned carcass. He claims he did not intend to do this, but such stories only add to anti-laird feeling.
But basically there is just general discontent and hostility from the urban and rural working class for a situation where a few own so much and have so much power- a discontent that has been brewing for centuries, remembered vividly in the Highland Clearances. The wealth of the landowners is contrasted with the low wages of their employees. Two-thirds of households in rural Scotland have income below the Low Pay Unit Poverty Threshold.
Illusions
Unfortunately, like the illusions in a Labour government, the Scottish Parliament is seen as the means to achieve the long-awaited goal of land reform. Lack of progress before was blamed on the 'English' Parliament with its landowner-dominated House of Lords. Now that this obstacle is removed, land reform is thought it be possible. However, these illusions will soon be shattered. A state is a state no matter what nationality it calls itself and the Scottish Parliament will do what all parliaments do best: manage the country in the interests of the ruling class.
This can be seen already by examining the proposals of the Land Reform Policy group which was set up to make recommendations on land reform. Their proposals were published in January 1999 and are to be the basis for new legislation. When they were first published there was the usual media scare of revolution around the corner, but landowners can rest easy. Andy Wightman in his just published book, Land and Power, has exposed the reforms for what they are.
The main plank of the recommendations is the abolition of feudalism. Now this is positive in that there will no longer be vassals and superiors and people who buy a house are free from obligations to the previous landowner, but it mainly means that landowners, instead of being seen as vassals of the Crown, are outright owners of the land. This gives them even more right to do whatever they want on their land. So it is not surprising that the landowners, acting like they have just made a major concession, are quite in favour of this reform. There are no proposals for legislation on absentee landowners or for forcing landowners to register their land and making public the terms of any sale of land. This is all for "further study" or for action without legislation. This means, if the landowner wants to do it he can. Landowners will be 'encouraged' to consult with the community and to pursue policies on their land which don't harm the environment. In other words, there is no effective land reform at all. A few landowners can continue to own most of Scotland, and this in secrecy. They can continue the practice of doing what they want with the land, disregarding the local community and environmental concerns.
Community Right to Buy
The other part of the proposals is to give communities the "right to buy". However, they will only be able to do so when the land comes on the market. There is no provision for compulsory purchase and it is not that often that a suitable property comes on the market. Many of the estates don't have many people living on them anyway and have been developed in such a way that a community would have to put in a lot of investment to make it something that could give them a living. And even if a suitable property did come on the market, the community would have to be very well-organised and would still have to raise a considerable amount of money.
Andy Wightman has correctly pointed out the Emperor's New Clothes aspect of the land reform proposals. However, his own proposals, written in conjunction with a member of the Democratic Left,(the "EuroCommunists") are not much more radical. Yes, he is in favour of getting rid of absentee landowners, regulating the land market and having a tax on land which would make a bit of a dent in the landowners' power, but he doesn't question the very nature of land ownership. He seems to favour the break-up of land into smaller parcels to create a rural society of petit-bourgeois farmers. Looking at countries like France where this is the case, small farmers can be just as reactionary as their larger counterparts. What he fails to realise is that the root of the issue is not who owns the land but the fact that it is owned at all! In addition, he seems naive about the term 'community', which masks class divisions and reinforces the idea of 'ownership' of the land. In any 'community' there will be some with more power than others and any community take-over, therefore, will not mean that everyone has an equal say in how the estate would be run. Also, local communities should not be able to do anything they want with the land anymore than a private landowner. What happens if the local community decides to rent land for a nuclear power plant or to ban black people from walking on the land? In Knoydart, the community is continuing with bloodsports so not much has changed there in terms of how the land is being used.
Shift
It is clear how much the so-called Left has shifted to the right when even they do not call for the 'nationalisation of the land'. Now as anarchists we would also not be in favour of this, but for different reasons having to do with our analysis of the state. But the fact that no one is even putting this forward as an idea is indicative of the mildness of the Scottish Parliament and the political scene. However, amongst the urban and rural working class, there remains a hatred of the landowners that will not be satisfied with the pathetic efforts of their new Parliament. Perhaps then, they will realise that if they want to seriously challenge landowners in Scotland, they will have to do it themselves, keeping in mind that the same struggle is going on in the rest of Britain and the world.