5 ms·
> The figures for Scotland are even more striking. Nearly half the land is in the hands of 432 private individuals and companies. More than a quarter of all Sco
by keenerd 9y ago
> The figures for Scotland are even more striking. Nearly half the land is in the hands of 432 private individuals and companies. More than a quarter of all Scottish estates of more than 5,000 acres are held by a list of aristocratic families. In total they hold some 2.24m acres, largely in the Lowlands.
This is balanced by their Right to Roam. For those in the US, this will sound completely insane: there is no concept of trespassing provided you act responsibly when on other's land. Access to the country is a common right, and the owners are stewards to it.
~~Arguably, the most practical way for such a law to come into existence is for the bulk of the land to be owned by a tiny minority, and for a democratic majority to create the law.~~ Strike that, didn't research. Sorry.
- pjc50 9y agoEdit: thankyou for amending your comment about this being a good way to achieve right to roam. It's a rare thing from anyone on the internet to admit any kind of inaccuracy. This view ignores all the history and has it exactly backwards. A full description would require at least one book, although I'd suggest starting with http://www.andywightman.com/poor-had-no-lawyers http://www.andywightman.com/poor-had-no-lawyers A few things which must be taken into account: - pre-feudal common ownership - confiscation of land during the 1700s Jacobite rebellions. "More than a quarter of all Scottish estates of more than 5,000 acres are held by a list of aristocratic families" is not at all surprising when you consider that those families were given the land from its original owners and occupants at gunpoint by the government. - the Highland Clearances In short, the right to roam pre-existed; it was only removed by extremely questionable action; and the minority who owned the land fought access to it. (For the situation in England&Wales, start at the Kinder Scout mass trespass)
- onetimeusename 9y agoThe Jacobites were themselves aristocrats and were violently rebelling against the monarchy. Also, the Highland Clearances were not acts of theft, the landowners already owned the land at that point. edit: I should also state that the Highland Clearances were complex but get retold as: "rich people stole land from poor people" often.
- pjc50 9y ago> "rich people stole land from poor people" Is that or is that not a fair summary, though? If the mass eviction happened to be legal, is that sufficient to make it morally OK? What about the enclosure of genuinely commonly-owned land at the time?
- SteveJones37 9y agoThe rich people owned that land already. The poor leased it.
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y agoIt looks like the rich only owned it because it was gifted to them by the crown - and the crown only owned it because they took it by force. Maybe all this was legal but only because the laws were bad.
- arethuza 9y agoActually, in lots of areas of Scotland local chiefs willingly became feudal lords gaining "official" title for their lands.
- mcguire 9y ago...became feudal lords gaining "official" personal title to their clans' lands, IIUC.
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoaka rich people stealing land from poor people.
- arethuza 9y agoExactly - what was communal became personal. Which if not legally theft was certainly the moral equivalent.
- jacobush 9y agoI don't know... democrat-ish ideals maybe. It's the same law in Sweden and arguably the Scots got it from when the Danes ruled the land. (In these matters, you can rather safely lump together Danes, Swedes etc into a generic "Norse" category.)
- rsync 9y ago"This is balanced by their Right to Roam. For those in the US, this will sound completely insane ..." Actually it sounds very familiar as we have a (somewhat) similar tradition in the western US that continues to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_range