| |
Dear Editor,
Contrary to statements made on radio and in the West
Highland Free Press, I have never consulted
Alastair Morrison, MSP, about anything to do with
the agreement to transfer Estate of Barra crofting
land to SEERAD, much less anything to do with
“proposed strategy”.
Ian R Macneil of Barra.
|
|
|
In
this cynical age, it takes a remarkable man to
give away 9,000 acres of crofting estate without
seeking a single penny in compensation.
Fortunately for the people of Barra and Vatersay,
Iain MacNeil is just such a man. His decision a
few days ago to pass ownership to the Scottish
Executive speaks volumes for his concern for, and
interest in, the communities with which he has had
such a warm and positive relationship. But his
decision also allows us to redress the imbalance
in the debate on land-ownership in Scotland.
The
Land Reform (Scotland) Act of 2003 was one of the
most complex and keenly debated pieces of
legislation in the last parliament. As a former
MSP and member of the Justice 2 Committee charged
with analysing the bill, I have a shared
responsibility for that legislation. The fact that
its passage became unnecessarily bitter was due to
the irreconcilable differences between the fervent
champions of the bill and the landowners'
representatives. Where advocates of reform sought
to set right historical wrongs, landowners saw
only class prejudice and social engineering. I
can't deny that, for some of my colleagues, there
was a degree of "class warfare" about
the desire for change, but I can honestly say that
the vast majority were more focused on creating
the possibility of local communities taking
control of their own destiny.
When
the bill was passed, the Justice 2 Committee and,
indeed, the parliament, was vilified by opponents
of reform. To listen to some of more hysterical
reactions, you might have thought that every
landowner in Scotland was to be stripped of his or
her title. That was always a deliberate and
damaging distortion. The truth is that the
legislation was a decent attempt at clarifying and
reforming a complex area of law. It will doubtless
have flaws, and those will need to be rectified
over time. But at its core it was a positive
attempt to create a remedy for communities which
felt retarded by the action or inaction of those
who stood in the way of wealth creation and
sustainability.
Which
brings us back to MacNeil of Barra. During the
campaign to save the Barra air link, I worked
closely with the MacNeil family and the community.
I saw at first hand how seriously the MacNeils
took their responsibilities
and how energetically they fought for the
local people. They were model landowners, in touch
with local sentiment and eager to support any
initiative which might secure the future of the
island. In fact, they were precisely the opposite
of the type of landowner targeted by the Land
Reform Act. That, of course, is precisely why
there was no desire on Barra to utilise the option of community ownership under the act. And it is
also a perfect
illustration of why the opponents of land reform
were so wrong to overreact.
The
simple fact is that, where a landowner takes that
responsibility seriously and works with the local
community, there is nothing whatsoever to fear.
Those who croft or use the land are not idiots -
they know that land management costs money and can
be a liability. They will not seek community
ownership unless there is a perceived injustice or
unless the landowner displays a pattern of
behaviour which supports the view that the
community would be better to go it alone. For all
the academic debate which properly informed the
passage of the bill, economic reality dictates
that a shift in the pattern of land ownership will
happen slowly and only where there is an
identified benefit to the community.
In fact, precisely such a test of
sustainable development is built into the act.
So
what are the lessons of the Barra hand-over?
First, those who portray all landowners as
unprincipled rogues determined to squeeze every
personal advantage from downtrodden communities do
this debate a severe injustice. There are many
like MacNeil of Barra who can point to generations
of investment and development and who have a
strong bond with their local communities.
Perverting that debate to create an "us and
them" mentality does no justice to such
people and it is vital that MSPs who will be
responsible for future legislation in this area
understand the dangers of law made on the back of
class prejudice. Second, we must have an end to
the predictions of doom from those who oppose any
widening of the pattern of land-ownership in
Scotland. All change is not evil, and good
landowners have little to fear. The argument that
there will be widespread Mugabe-style "land
grabs", as some Tory MSPs have claimed, is a
crude and pathetic untruth. What the legislation
provides is a remedy where communities are unduly restricted. That isn't social
engineering – it is common sense.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Barra
transfer will happen voluntarily, with a
generosity of spirit and with a shared sense of
excitement about the future of the island. None of
that involved compulsion or legislation - just a
decent man doing the decent thing.
DUNCAN
HAMILTON
|
|
