19 ms·
Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)
- daedalus_f 4y agoI truly wish we had this south of the border. The public footpaths in the English Midlands seem hedged in by one Private Land No Trespassing sign after another.
- ghusto 4y agoWe don't? I always thought we did. You can put up a sign, but that doesn't change the law. It's like when people put up "Your car will be towed if you park here" signs where they'd _like_ you not to park, doesn't change my right to park there (does increase my chances of doing so though, because they couldn't just ask politely).
- lmm 4y agoThere's no right to roam in England & Wales in general; there are specific rights of way, but most land is privately owned and trespassing on it is illegal.
- Lio 4y agoNo it isn’t. Trespassing in England and Wales is NOT illegal. If you’re asked to leave you have to but trespass itself is not a crime, it’s purely a civil matter. See the opening sentence from the CPS website: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-land https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-...
- 082349872349872 4y agoThe point of right to roam is it isn't even a civil matter: one can roam private land, and can't be asked to leave solely on that basis.
- Lio 4y agoThat’s true and it would be much better but we still have more rights than many people would tell you. E.g. you have the right to “rest” on land adjacent to the side of a footpath or bridalway. Now the definition of “rest” is undefined because that’s how common law works. So you can probably make the argument resting includes camping over night (when leaving no trace) until someone proves in court that it doesn’t. Here’s another fun fact: you can also legally ride a bike on a “footpath” so long as you discount when you come to pedestrians. That one was clarified in Hansard but people blindly assume that they don’t have that right without checking. The point is, things are usually legal unless there’s a law and legal precedent to say otherwise.
- egeozcan 4y ago> If you’re asked to leave you have to Really asking: Wouldn't a "no trespassing" sign be considered an ask to leave?
- DonaldFisk 4y agoWhat if the trespassers just ignore the sign, and walk on/over the privately owned land without the landowner ever becoming aware of it? How could the landowner sue the unknown trespassers when there wasn't even any evidence of their trespassing?
- ttymck 4y agoWhat about a security camera?
- DonaldFisk 4y agoWhat about a security camera? What can the landowner do if they've already left the private land without committing any crimes?
- ttymck 4y agoYes, that's what I was asking. Your previous comment indicated the homeowner needed evidence in order to sue for trespassing. But it seems there was no crime committed after all.
- lmm 4y ago"Not criminal" doesn't mean "not illegal". Breach of contract is a civil matter (in general) but it's still normally described and understood as illegal.
- 082349872349872 4y agoWe also have freedom to roam; is this a civil vs common law thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
- est31 4y agoIt's more a nordic country thing (plus some other european countries). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam France, the home of civil law, does not have it.
- pmezard 4y agoOn the other hand, we have a recent but strong law ensure coastal paths along the sea or ocean. Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GR_34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GR_34 We take it for granted and the restrictions when traveling abroad are always surprising.
- aetherson 4y agoWho is "we" in your comment?
- 082349872349872 4y agoPeople in my country, one of {Austria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland}.
- 867-5309 4y agoeasy on the PII there
- 082349872349872 4y agosays a handle whose birth year is likely in the range 1961-1975? :P cf https://youtu.be/L8pKkpxD7ws?t=36 https://youtu.be/L8pKkpxD7ws?t=36 Bonus track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVZJYtq-jYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVZJYtq-jYs
- xcambar 4y agoTo clear out the possible confusion: it's not about cellular network roaming. It's about the freedom to navigate freely on private land because most of Scotland is privately owned.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ilyt 4y agoI doubt anyone was confused....
- xcambar 4y agoI don't speak English natively, I am much more used to roaming when referred to telco usage abroad than when referred to its original meaning. I doubt it's just me, but I'll be quite happy it is.
- WhackyIdeas 4y agoYou are right. I just read it…
- sprite 4y agoNorway also has this. “Allemannsretten”
- guerrilla 4y agoAs does Sweden.
- m2fkxy 4y agoAs does Finland.
- bjornsing 4y agoIt’s been customary law in Sweden since pretty much forever. But interestingly it had no explicit foundation in written law until 1994, when a short passage was added to the Swedish constitution: “Everyone shall have access to nature in accordance with ‘allemansrätten’” (“Alla ska ha tillgång till naturen enligt allemansrätten”).
- vidarh 4y agoSimilar in Norway (though not added to the constitution) - it was for very long considered so obvious as to be unnecessary to codify, as pretty much the only area of Norwegian law treated similarly as in common law jurisdictions.
- tephra 4y agoWhich becomes even more interesting when you find out that allemansrätten is never defined in law.
- ggm 4y agoA reminder the seashore below high tideline has always (as far as I know) been public land, and remains so under this code. Dunes and bird nest area and SSSI have restrictions as do airports, military and nuclear installations (the latter may have imposed restrictions out to open water) Some places in Scotland like Gruinard island were restricted due to Germ warfare experiments until comparatively recently.
- maccard 4y agoI live in Scotland, but grew up in Ireland (where there is no such right). The value of this cannot be understated, IMO. It's not _just_ the right, the fact that it exists forces landowners to consider access routes. Very rarely have I found myself crossing fields full of livestock or someone's front garden, because in most places the landowners have maintained or signalled a preferred walking route. It really is wonderful. Compare this to Ireland, where one of the most spectacular and celebrated natural rock formations [0], which has been used by the government as promotional material for visiting Ireland, is borderline inaccessible [1], and you are met with signs warning you of trespassing, and when I went last year, there was another sign warning of a bull in the field. [0] https://www.thewildatlanticway.com/waw/great-pollet-arch/ https://www.thewildatlanticway.com/waw/great-pollet-arch/ [1] https://www.bengoesplaces.com/how-to-access-great-pollet-sea-arch-in-county-donegal-ireland/ https://www.bengoesplaces.com/how-to-access-great-pollet-sea...
- haspok 4y agoInterestingly, in Yorkshire, where there is the Rights of Way, which gives you the right to pass through private land on a specific path, I had the opposite experience. I can't count how many times I had to pass through ploughed fields, the arrow sign pointing roughly in the direction of the other side of the field, and in between there is... nothing. If it is a popular path then others might have created a faint footpath, so you don't have to tread on the wheat or corn. Maybe this is how the owner wants to discourage wanderers?
- maccard 4y agoI don't spend much time in the area so I can't really comment on it, but it's definitely (in my experience) the exception rather than the norm. It's happened to me twice in 10 years of living here, both in the same general area (black isle) on two different trips. We are very regular walkers, but we're not "explorers", looking for new or untrodden paths.
- lebski88 4y agoIt usually depends a lot on both the culture of the area and how often the paths are used. Where I am in Somerset there are an incredible number of paths, there's barely a field without a path through it. The routes are well marked and have good gates or styles for walkers. They are well used which helps keep the weeds down. Most of the Forrest also goes above the required footpaths and rights of way and keep a lot of permissive paths open too. Land owners have a responsibility to keep the routes accessible and I think they are paid a small amount for it. Grants are available for gates etc. That said they are rough routes so are fairly muddy at this time of year. I love them and base most of my running around them.
- _xnmw 4y agoLast summer we hiked the Bruce Trail in Ontario, Canada, and discovered for myself that the local laws are NOT so free and permitting. You can't just set up camp anywhere you want, only on predefined campsites and trails. Without that freedom camping is -much- less fun.
- Lio 4y agoIn England we have this weird legal gray area around wild camping. It’s not strictly speaking legally protected but it’s not illegal either. Trespass in England is definitely not yet a crime[1]. Apart from a few specific areas like Dartmoor where wild camping is specifically legal it amounts to, you can camp where you like but you can’t damage anything doing so and if you get asked to leave you have to. If you don’t leave when asked to by the land owner only then it becomes a criminal matter. The whole process becomes even murkier because it’s often hard to know who actually owns the land. A random member of the public can’t ask you to leave. It turns out that land owners don’t often want to admit they own the land. The whole thing is a bloody mess but can be summed up as, it’s easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission so leave no trace. 1. I say not yet because several wealthy Tory party donors have campaigned for years to change the law. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-land https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-...
- lebski88 4y agoI would love the right to wild camp in England. That said I do wonder how well it would stand up to our much higher population density. The current system does kind of work despite its lack of rules or clarity. I think our trespass rules are a good compromise.
- DonaldFisk 4y agoI've heard this argument before but there are plenty of remote, sparsely populated places in England (e.g. Dartmoor, the Peak District). Yes, wild camping in more densely populated areas might be a problem, and England has more of those due to its higher population density, but similar places would in practice be off-limits in Scotland too.
- rzwitserloot 4y agoIn the US it gets a little crazy: Land is separated out into square plots in quite a few places, especially the later-colonized west, think 'chessboard'. Companies buy all the white squares, leaving the black squares as public land. Which is now entirely inaccessible from anywhere except their private land. Lots of shady duderanch companies do this. There's an interesting legal dispute: Is crossing diagonally from one 'black square' to the next 'black square' tresspass? Technically unless you are infinitely tiny, your bulk does theoretically pass over white square.
- walthamstow 4y agoSomething has always fascinated me about New World borders of different kinds being so square. Iowa is divided so neatly into 99 square counties (apart from the 99th, a rectangle with a funny story), Wyoming itself is literally a four-sided shape the size of Britain. This kind of thing is so mind-blowing to a European.
- 082349872349872 4y agoYet somehow, despite the general tendency to squareness in political boundaries, electoral boundaries wind up with bizarre shapes...
- paraselene_ 4y agoOn that note, what's the squarest country in the world?
- Fissionary 4y agoEgypt probably looks the closest to one. Switzerland gets a honorary mention - the country might not be, but the people are total squares.
- another2another 4y agoThats' a bit unfair. And back on topic, Switzerland's Wanderweg paths are numerous, very well signposted with bright yellow signs, and excellently maintained as well as clearly described in numerous guidebooks. Walking the countryside in Switzerland is a joy.
- carschno 4y agoTangentially related, Spain's coasts are public domain and therefore do not require freedom to roam: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_Costas_de_Espa%C3%B1a https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_Costas_de_Espa%C3%B1a (Unfortunately, English Wikipedia does not have a translation)
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoCalifornia’s coasts as well!
- hutzlibu 4y agoThis is interesting, because I definitely encountered beaches, that were private, but it has been before 2018, until a transition period changed, so maybe that changed? And otherwise I found spanish land (around Huelva) to be strictly divided by barbed wire fences with no clear way of knowing whether I entered private property or not, by following public (dirt) roads, when hiking. Not so nice for wildlife as well.
- walrus01 4y agoOne of the interesting comparisons between public land and private in the US I recently encountered was on a forum about long range target shooting. One person posted a fairly blunt statement that Texas was a modern gun owners paradise. People concurred from many perspectives (very few limits on what you can own, etc), but also pointed out there is VERY little public land in Texas where you can go shooting independently. Everywhere you can shoot legitimately is an established range on private land, or a range of a private club, or similar. Or you have to know somebody who owns or controls a large chunk of private ranch land and will let you set up targets. Texas is almost entirely made up of private land. As compared to California, which has famously very restrictive laws, but also has vast areas of public land (both state and federal govt owned) in some very sparsely populated rural areas, where target shooting is officially permitted as long as you meet some basic safety and no-littering standards. In California you can totally drive out into the desert and DIY your own temporary range on what will likely be BLM land. Not possible at all in Texas. Same with public lands in WA, OR, ID in many counties.
- unixhero 4y agoSame in Norway
- alkonaut 4y agoThis should be the norm everywhere assuming non-landowners are fewer than landowners shouldn’t it? Failure to have freedom to roam/freedom of access either means a lapse in democracy (wildly popular thing never politically proposed for some reason) or some weird constitutional quirk making it hard to legislate.
- alistairSH 4y agoDo you mean the opposite? In Scotland, something like 400 people own 50% of the land. 16 of them own 10% of the total land area.
- alkonaut 4y agoYes - too late to edit that one lol.
- balderdash 4y ago“You have to respect the interests of other people, care for the environment and take responsibility for your own actions.” My experience is the (few) individuals that struggle with this (leaving litter, leaving gates open, trampling crops, letting dogs into animal pastures, interfering with other peoples recreation) really do spoil it for everyone and irreparably damages relations with landowners
- matsemann 4y agoIt's often easy to avoid the worst offenders, though. Place a few trash bins close to popular camping spots, and then more people will clean after themselves. Have a spring in the gate so it always closes itself. Make a marked path that is easy to follow that avoids crops. Etc. etc. Most people behave if you make it the most convenient thing.
- nmstoker 4y agoOut of interest, where are you commenting on? I agree it's true there's always a risk of these "tragedy of the commons" style issues with bad individuals, but this kind of access is a fairly long established tradition in Scotland and it seems to work reasonably well (although other commenters have mentioned a few exceptions where by-laws were put in place for trouble spots, but thankfully those are targeted in location and time of year)
- alistairSH 4y agoSeems there’s a bit of this happening in the most remote northern section of Scotland (where the NC500 route was established). I’m sure some of the complaints are just NIMBYs who don’t want any change at all, but given the state of some of my local parks (DC suburbs, USA - trash heaps and poo piles all over in 2020/2021), I’m not surprised careless tourists are mucking up the Highlands. https://gailantheabrown.com/2021/08/12/poo-potholes-and-park-ups-why-highlanders-are-tired-of-scotlands-north-coast-500-route/ https://gailantheabrown.com/2021/08/12/poo-potholes-and-park...
- trgn 4y agoThe absence of this, at least in the US, is that there's essentially no country side properly understood. A bucolic permeable area that a city person can integrate in their daily life. The only way to enjoy the outdoors in America is as an activity. Drive there, park there. Do your thing. Come back. There's no osmosis or liminal space between urban and wilderness. It's either mechanized space for cars, or fenced off space for outdoor activity on the other (and even that you'll often end up sharing with off-road motorsports enthusiasts). It shocked me for example, living in western europe, how easy it was to leave a bustling city center and enjoy rural serenity, and integrate this day2day. A bicycle commute through farmfields; a longer weekend hiking trip between cities; a trainride to a neighboring town; ... Whereas, I live in a state now that's by all measures a lot more rustic, access to the outdoors is completely packaged. It feels as if it is a product (even though access could be free). I try to explain this difference here, and it is as if people genuinely cannot comprehend. There's this veil, a mist between us, I cannot articulate this difference. When my compatriots drive on the highways, they see mountains and vistas, and to them, that alone, is the experience (and definition) of rural life. But then, that nature is not integrated at all in daily experience. only as part of a movie playing through a windshield. I guess I need a better way of explaining this integration of town and rural life, I haven't found a way to characterize it. Muir for example was very much of the escape-to-wilderness variety. I guess I'm talking more about Jane Eyre walking country paths to deliver a letter in town. If anyone has good literature on the topic that gets at this difference, how it is possible that a much denser populated area in western-europe end up feeling more serene and bucolic than sparsely populated woodlands in the US, would love to hear it.
- whycome 4y agoI don’t have words or additional literature to share but you’ve eloquently shared a lot of what I’ve been trying to articulate forever. The idea of the outdoors having become a “packaged experience”… to be experienced during daylight hours set by some municipal corporation…
- pricklybear 4y agoThe book Wanderlust by Rebecca Solnit digs into this -- I'd recommend it