Something to keep in mind; I've watched open land, farm land and ranch land get sold off over the past thirty years and develop into suburban sprawl here in the U.S. Small farming communities that were once considered to be "way out in the sticks" are now part of the Dallas Fort Worth metropolis with strip malls, big box stores, freeways and cookie cutter housing additions everywhere you look. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Well, what you say about Texas is true, but I do not think you could ever extrapolate that to Scotland. Texas has almost 30 million people in it, with quite a lot of big cities that are booming. Scotland simply doesn't have that demographic dynamism and urbanisation is not going to speed up simply because there is suddenly more land available.
@@joseba1078 the urban sprawl isnt there because of the 30 million people, The 30 million people are there because of the urban sprawl. Logically if scotland builds far more housing driving the cost down will cause more to move in.
That’s not what this is about, this film was about the aristocracy buying all the land in the 17/1800s to use for their own recreation at the same time evicting 100,000s of native Gaelic people that lived their, effectively destroying an entire culture. People think the highlands was always empty when infact it was once were the majority of the Scottish population lived. Urban sprawl happened in Scotland also with places like greater Glasgow housing nearly 2.8 million people.
Luckily in Scottish Highlands most don't want to live above Aberdeen. It's windy, bitter exposed and totally raw. Nothing but nature which puts many off living here nothing here but wide openfields, space, boggy land, rocky and wetlands. At the very top a small povpopulation ulation of 50 000 total hours away in train from actual malls. They don't want outsiders and they make their lives miserable to drive them out. I've had to live with that anti social your not local get out for a decade. It's different here in Scotland than texas. Lot more unfriendly and it keeps people from staying in rural places.
I personally have no issue with big landowning families in Scotland because from what I can tell the public are legally allowed to walk/camp pretty much anywhere so what difference does it make? I'd rather they kept it to hunt and fish than sold it to some property developer who wants to build a million dwellings as they would in England.
some are slavering at the mouth hoping to get their paws on it , leave it as it is , unspoiled , unlike culloden with housing estate and god knows what
In Germany a lot of many landowners have sold their land in recent years and they were turned into suburbs American style. I can’t talk about the whole of Germany but here in the north they are constantly building new houses. It’s especially heartbreaking when they have torn down an old building or an old farm..
I can tell you as an American I have always lived in that type of housing and long for a farm without neighbors. It's annoying looking out your window at another window that isn't family.
A lot of these landowners have probably preserved these areas of land from being polluted, ruined and destroyed. People argued heritage peers were a bad and outdated anachronism from the past, not fit for the 21st century. So they were deposed. Now we have politically appointed cronies who’s interest is money/bribes and allowances to attend the upper house. Heritage peers felt a sense of duty and could not be bought. So meddle with the status quo at your peril, beautiful Scotland could easily be ruined.
Agreed trust is the greatest economic commodity, you know the family(land owners) for years, they know the community so are usually less likely to violate that trust. It is a fortunate thing indeed, in this age of greedy globe-hopping unaccountable unknowns, ready to gain and exploit property for whatever reason, if the land owner is known to be of good character, wishes to preserve and not pollute the large land masses, and is equally generous in sharing the land with the community, also sharing the historical ties the community members have. Very fortunate situation.
Anton Clark They maintain the land for hunting shooting and fishing which means the destruction of the natural environment. The felling of ancient forests to begin with and yearly burning of Heather on moors so that upper class idiots can get a clear shot. People were also cleared from the land in order to introduce more money making sheep. The few workers which estates employ, live in tied cottages which makes them powless. Egalitarian ownership certainly hasn’t done Norway any harm. Why should ordinary people be hemmed in to small areas when so much land is empty? An upper chamber stuffed with unelected peers, is an anachronism in the 21st century.
@@kirsteneasdale5707 Finally someone mentioned destruction of habitat. The deer are also kept in high numbers for sport and mostly, because they graze on tree seedlings so that nothing grows even on tops of the hills. Also the sheep farming is not so much to make money, but to get subsidies from government for owning vast empty land. The moment it is forested, the money flow stops. So the system is actively rewarding the wildlife habitat destruction.
This is a typically BBC politically correct documentary. If you notice he mentions nothing about the foreigners who own large area's of the Highlands instead he chooses the small number of British landowners . The journo (Miller) is a right-on BBC man who should be asking if the laws can be changed to stop rich Arabs (and others) taking over Highland estates and then blocking the right to roam.
what is our culture ?. celt , roman , viking , saxon , norman . we have been conquered that many times . even the english language is a mishmash of god knows how many languages . even our royal family is german .
The reason people come to Scotland on holiday; is to see the unspoiled, open land and the castles, and the historic places. Why would you want to take the land from the people who preserve it?
What a pile of crap, nobody knows anything and nobody can change it....just goes to show, they must've been happy with it all along. If it was really bad, they'd get off their asses and do something.
Yea. They slash and burn forest and keep sheep or deer in high numbers to keep the land in "agricultural condition". The reason Scotland is a wet desert is thos 420 men who make sure nothing wild grows on barren hills they own. So that the subsidies for doing nothing, payed from working class taxes, can flow and fill their pockets.
Those who want redistribution just want to trade places. Life isnt fair. People should have better things to do than look enviously over others peoples fences
there are plenty of english and overseas landowners who simply do not know, or refuse to understand, that Scotland recognises no law of trespass, and will point a shotgun at you if you try, and if you insist, might blow your head off.
all over, and all sizes of holdings, and not here at all - big absentee and corporate landlords. There are parts of the highlands where most of the residents are not scottish. e.g. in a band from the trossachs north to the great glen, there was a big influx of southern english people in the late 80s and 90s. Also north of Inverness and along the coast east from Nairn and north of Aberdeen. I don't have a problem with resident home owners from wherever (they are doing a lot of good for the local economy, keeping the place alive) as long as they understand the law regarding walkers and trespass. It's the big guys and their gillies that decline to observe it, blocking off tracks and putting up gates and No Entry signs.
I own about 18000 acres in Iceland , it has been in my family for centuries . My grand father was a horse breeder, my father inherited the land and the horses and , and i inherited it when i turned 30 and i'm a veterinarian , i kept the horses and turned the rest of the land into an animal sanctuary . Needless to say shooting is forbidden on this land where i also breed wolves and arctic foxes , along with deer, sheep, reindeer, etc... and of course the horses . I hired highly trained activists and gave them carte blanche to shoot . If anybody trespasses on the property the person will be escorted out , but if anybody trespasses in order to hunt, this person is as good as dead , and trust me , between the ravines, the Geysers , the gigantic waterfalls lakes and rivers, the glaciers, the volcanoes and the wolves and foxes , nobody will even find a bone . There are only 350 000 people in a country that is 30,000 km2 larger than Scotland and 80% of the population lives in Reykjavik , and because of our nature which is quite violent , people go missing all the time . I don't care about the law, you shoot my animals, you're dead, and i really need half a reason to shoot a hunter . The warning signs are everywhere around the property in 5 languages , if you choose to ignore them, that's at your own risk . You are welcome to walk on my land as long as all you do is walk .
Big landowners keep away greedy developers, who'd in a heart beat turn every piece of woodland into a shopping mall or amusement park. Let's all face it, if all of us had a nice piece of land, most of us would lose it in 5 years. Most people don't know how to maintain land to make it profitable.
Too right! As I type this, there are trees falling left and right, making way for more 'McMansions'. My family has lived in this rural community for generations. It's not rural anymore. People keep coming from EVERYWHERE to buy houses in these subdivisions...I live in the Southern U.S. And this land was once mostly 'Reserves' because it was beautiful. Now those Reserves have been sold and it's a NIGHTMARE.
Why change what works, as you mentioned, Scotland is beautiful - open it up for profit, it wont stay that way. dirty great refineries and other land exploitation, We say no to that, let the toffs keep it, as it is - safe
You have a point. I hate the idea of one person owning so much but it is true that they treat the land more as their personal garden. Big business would destroy it.
@Liam As a former RSPB member, now a very keen amateur ornathologist ,why do I find far more wildlife in general on private estates and moorland,I than I ever have on the same owned by the public and RSPB. I used to think like you . The killing of raptors is practiced by a very small minority . It has been scientifically proven (in depth studies ) that keepers in general do far more good than harm ,I would suggest you spread your wings a little and visit some of these places ,it is amazing how helpful many can be . On a final note ,I lived in Coventry for many years which has many public parks where wardens used to control certain species to protect the songbird population that used to thrive . Since stopping this practice (liberal gov council ) some 20 yrs ago there has been a catastrophic loss in the number of small bird ,now every one of these parks bar none have literally swarms of corvids and little else , no longer worth visiting if you are into wild life .
@Liam you need to legalize marijuana in scotland maybe all your rich folks will grow weed on the land instead of killing all your wildlife. I'd like to go over yonder to Scotland one day and see my old ancestry homes of Riddell and macdonald clans. P.s. try to get your country to grow some trees back Scot pine is very pretty in the snow.
That’s the massive problem in Britain, the poor own nothing, the middle class own sometimes, but get hit by death tax they lose 40% of it. And the Rich have no much money and connections they can avoid these systems and keep property and money in the family forever
@@bradley7240 I agree it is a huge problem, however the sad fact is if all this land was already in poor hands they would have probs lost it all and it would have already have been developed on no doubt, it's like a catch 22.
@Truth Seeker david 1st gave lands to french nobles like wallace bruce stewart de moray etc , some for helping matidas brother in the english barons wars , yes there were a lot of terrible times of fighting but you needed kings /castles etc , never knew when you could be invaded ,
"Life is not fair, nor can you make it fair by any means." So you should just give up? The acceptance of the status quo is not how we have evolved to the generally good standard of living we have.
26:30 Do what he's proposing, and indeed the land values will fall. Because no one will want to buy that land. Who would be foolish enough to pay for land that the government just took away from someone else without compensating them the full value of what the land is worth? You might be able to buy it cheaper, but that's no guarantee that the minute you hand over your cash, the government informs you that they've just sold it again to somebody else for even less than what you paid for it. Sounds like a government legalized Ponzi scheme to me.
And BTW, we have tried community owned land in the US. They are called Indian reservations. Miserable places where the inhabitants are stuck in poverty, and no way to own a home and accrue equity.
Is the plight of the Native Americans defined by 'community owned land' or did something else affect their culture? How about the decimation of their population by European immigrants, followed by degrading their status to second class citizens in their own land. Do you reckon that had any influence?
Interesting juxtaposition between Craufurd, the hereditary landowner not afraid to get his hands dirty and class warrior MP Davidson in a blazer and club tie. A career politician who has probably never done a real days work in his life. Make sure taxation is fair, fine, but his nasty characterizations and generalizations about landowners is just not necessary nor very civil. Also Ironic is that Davidson is an avid shooter and is shoulder deep in the public trough with his 2 homes expensed to the taxpayers. This whole land owning issue is just a distraction from real issues and failures of government where the people are being screwed far worse. That some guy owns a bunch of acreage in the middle of nowhere is neither here nor there for the average Scots life.
if you broke the land blocks all up and gave them away too the many ...how much would go to big business , who would then put pressure on the government via tax revues to start developing the land at least having in sole ownerships ..keeps the land pure
DUMB REPLY - HE HAD A CHOICE OF WIFE - IF HE MARRIED UGLY,THATS HIS PROBLEM - HE WAS HANDED 53,000 ACRES - MOST FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO OWN 1 IF THEY COULD POSSIBLY AFFORD IT
If you want old rights you have old dutys. If you inherits 5 castles without maintainance either you sell it ore use your money to recover it. It looks very well maintained. You want the state to do it? Be carefull, they sell it to the highest bidder which will be China or Saudi Arabia even African leaders. You want the situation to be south Africa? Zimbabwe.? Go ahead.
If someone can own the land, have the money to maintain it, then no one else has the right to take that away from them due to "fairness". Envy and jealousy are powerful emotions that sometimes dictate rationality. It seems that people really need to understand what freedom means, not just the nostalgia of it.
Sure. However what if just one person owned all the land? The problem with your argument is that it makes no allowance for the social consequences of narrow ownership of land. The key is in your sentence " money to maintain". What does maintain mean? I also disagree with the envy and jealousy argument. The main reason for dissatisfaction is the gradual exodus of people from these lands. The emptying out of the countryside. The loss of community. There are several reasons for that but narrow ownership and poor maintenance are big ones. In Ireland we have no large landowners and the country is a lot better for it. And we will never allow large land ownership to develop. We had enough problems with landlords in the past.
@@fiachramaccana280 that is a very socialist way of looking at things. I believe in freedom. If someone has the money, the time, and can maintain it, which means keep it from turning into uninhabitable land that benefits others, nature, and future generations, then more power to them. The land is available to be purchased and they purchase it, then good enough and fair. Envy is exactly what is represented here. Just because someone doesn't have the money to purchase it themselves and keep it up, doesn't give the right for that person to say no one else can. What has happened to the Irish and Scots sense of freedom!
@@MissouriCrookedBarnHomestead well I am a Christain Socialist so no surprise there. I am also a self made entreprenuer so I assure I am not jealous or envious. However my point is for the welfare of society as a whole.
@@fiachramaccana280 That is not the way the world works unless it is a socialist paradise Fiachra, nor should it. If I buy land, and btw, I'm a self made entrepreneur as well, I have every right to do with that land what I see fit and to what I can afford giving the rights and laws of Freedom of wherever it is that I choose to purchase. Zoning regulations require property to be maintained, that means taking into consideration all of the known laws and ordinances of local and federal governments in regards to property ownership. But, I always research thoroughly before buying property. Telling someone that they cannot own more than an allotted amount of property is going right back to the land being separated by big government when they have no right to do such other than to make themselves profit and achieve a goal set forth and propagated by them. Do you enjoy being forced to comply with something that you do not see as right or will you just follow along with it because someone has decided that they want what you have?
@@MissouriCrookedBarnHomestead what nonsense. nobody is talking about a socialist paradise. Simply talking about the ills of unfettered capitalism. We all live in a hybrid economy which mixes socialism and capitalism. The mix varies by country. That is the consequence of the unfettered capitalism of the 19th century. Unregulated freedom leads to a world of anarchy and exploitation.
The concept of "crime" was introduced as a tool in the clearance of the Highlands. Before that you either broke the law or you didn't. By introducing "crimes" that it was impossible for smallholders to avoid both the Highlands of Scotland were cleared and a ready slave force created for the Australian colonies. Funny how the BBC have continuously ignored that aspect. Makes you wonder.
The reason people leave Scotland in droves is that there is no work. In the past Westminster was blamed, strangely now with the SNP in control, nothing has changed.
You enter this world with nothing and you leave with nothing, what you have in that time gap is life itself, just find happiness and love and don’t fall for greed.
What really pisses me off is the huge amounts of so called agricultural subsidies payed out of taxpayers' money to these lice and their ilk ,yet this information is unavailable to the general taxpaying public.Any others business,you get no help at all.
12:40 Oh how sad. All the peasant serfs that lived around the property in cottages have moved away. As if they thought they were independent and could chart their own courses in life. How selfish. It's so hard to find a peasant these days.
Why hasn’t this programme mentioned the top bbc executive who owns a massive estate in Scotland - The Men Who Own Scotland - I guess this lets them off the hook from mentioning the female head of Children’s bbc Scotland.
My ancestors were clearance from the western highlands,but in america,we own a farm,not huge but right size for a hundred head of cattle!but were poverty stricken in scotland,it worked out!
All land is owned by the Queen, in effect us. Land "owners" only have title, which is a map of the area of occupation on the sovereign territory and a set of rights. Andy Wightman was right. The land values should be brought down to the "economic value" and eliminate "speculation value". As the film mentioned, in Denmark they tax all land by its value. Taxing land, all land, by its "value" will do this. It will also ensure land is used to full productive use. It is clear the land in Scotland is not put to full productive use. Look at the trailers people are forced to live in scattered about the country, as planning is also a major issue. If some Lord or Laird or other wants to have 1000s of acres of land as his personal back garden, which many do, then he pays. As the film states, the land is not taxed, the reason why these people hoard land and use it unproductively. The levy is assessed by the "value" of the land. If the land value goes up the levy goes up. If the land value goes down the levy goes down. Land values are created by economic community activity, NOT the landowner. The landowners of Scotland have great clout. They influence the planning policies amongst others. The planning system ratchets up land values by creating artificial land shortages, especially in urban areas. The landowners treat Scotland's countryside as their own private estate - much the same in England. It keeps people out of their "backyard". Quoting history to keep the status quo is not good enough. The history of the rape of the people in the "Highland Clearances" in Scotland and "The enclosures" in England is history that has to be put right. These people gained land in times of great unfairness. It is unfair now, but greater then. A line has to drawn now, and Scotland, and all the UK come to that, need to gain a "fair" society. Implementing a Land Value Tax will do that painlessly. It will naturally redistribute land and put land to full production. This is in urban and rural areas. A tax on land values got rid of most of the vacant and derelict buildings in the city centre of Harrisburg in the USA, naturally revitalizing the city with little public interference.
value of anything that you are capable of buying and selling is based off 1 simple thing what someone is willing to pay for it nothing else. case in point pretty much any important paintings. the "economic value" of most paintings is barely worth a few dollars based on material cost however they are bought and sold all the time in the millions 10s of millions or even 100s of millions. if you were to say thats not fair and wanting to "redistribute" all of the valuable art because its not fair only the super rich own it and set the prices to its "economic value" what do you think will happen to these historic artifacts? people who "OWN" stuff tend to take very care of it. if you buy a painting for 100 million dollars you are going to be god dam sure it is well taken care of. what do you think would happen to the Mona Lisa if a single mother with 6 kids were to buy it for 15$? doubt it would survive a weekend.
This is disgusting when you think that these land owners were given this land for service to the crown Scottish and English but the people that actually fought and died got nothing. So these lands should be claimed back by the people for the people. But the truth of it is that the corporations will take it.
_people that actually fought and died got nothing._ What does one give the dead? _claimed back by the people for the people_ What are they going to do with it? Farming and grazing? How many want to be farmers and shepherds? Very, very few. Most people prefer the conveniences and amenities of modern urban and semi-urban life. And in the case of farming a small plot it's meaningless - it's a money and effort pit. Large farms require massive investment. Have you priced a tractor or a combine? And of course there are few homes there, so those have to be built too. And all the infrastructure to support that such as sewers, power lines, water, roads. That's a huge investment for a long-ago way of life that few really want and from which earning a living will be very difficult. Sure, there are some sentimentalists who may want to give it a crack, but after a few months of hardship most would pack it in. That the new owners of Eigg had to rely on donations to buy a £1.5m property, which is fuck all, should tell you that they couldn't even earn and save enough based on their own efforts. These are marginal communities of dim prospects to earn an income. Yes, there are some hearty souls who want to give it a go, and if they can earn an income from a source other than the land they may be able to cover their expenses, but their children will leave.
Many if not most of the Aristocracy, namely wealthy families, often lost a number of their military ages men to the same wars that the commoners fought in. The difference is that he was very likely the next in line and most experienced and capable man to take over the owenership, management and all the ongoing inter family politics... they were generally the DIRECT Employers of not just large percentage of those that lived in the surrounding area, but indirectly as well supported and was supported by and through many many generations of families and extended families... some mansions could employ 30 or more people directly...and indirectly support dozens more. The death of one of the young Aristocracy or worse two consecutive generations could lead to a whole village or more suffering, become depopulated or even entirely collapse after hundreds of not thousands of years. Can you imagine the stress of the responsibility to preserve for all time, things like a whole ancient 20 bedroom stone mansion, the grounds, the outbuildings... game animals... 1M to fix the roof, which MUST stay historically accurate... fail to do this repair and the ENORMOUS WALL AND CEILING PAINTING, who’s artistic qualities out shine even the Sistine chapel...will be gone to crumble off and water will ruin the 4 hundred old tapestry and warp the 3 years old solid oak floors... In ethnically and culturally homogenous populations the Interconnectedness can span multi hundred fat of generation and many tens of generations throughout time. Aristocracy only live in a different kind of cage, gold and sparkling, bigger... but still a cage. This commentator and a lot of his buddies are very communistic. Ugly is communism.
Once you try and 're-distrubute the wealth amongst everyone' basically everyone just ends up getting a couple of quid each. So you're basically saying lets destroying these people's lives and inheritance just so everyone gets one Dairymilk chocolate bar. Is that worth it or is it just based on jealousy.
"It may not be fair, but that's the way life is." An easy throw-away line, but we're talking about Our Earth. We cannot separate out one part of our world from another, when the crisis we're facing is so complex and daunting.
Yes, but the system can be altered. Look at the case of Eigg, allow for more community buy-outs. Beyond that, the government can impose policies that at the very least make massive landownership owners more responsible for the land they caretake for. The biggest problem with land sellouts is that land isn't sold for nearly as much as it's worth in terms of it's environmental value. This has to be factored in, especially moving forward and I don't mean for forestry commission/timber industry bs but actual natural forest and wildland which can be achieved in due time and care. More examples have to be taken from countries with sustainable resources and natural wild tourism and I'm sure in time Scotland can achieve a much better landscape than the landscape it currently sustains.
My first trip to Scotland left me very angry, amazed at the beauty and horrified by the number of private estates and golf clubs contrasting the tardy towns and cities where the populace lived.
@Mark Miller noone should own vast swathes of land and judging by their vox pop responses, they couldnt give a flying monkeys that anyone has less than them. No regard to equity and landscape responsibility.
I own 100 acres that I'm proud of. In many states in the US, a middle class guy can still buy that much property out in the country. But in the state of California, only super rich can buy 10-15 acres. I once told someone in CA I bought that much property in an eastern state...he said that's too much for 1 person, the government should confiscate it. Gosh, I'm glad that America is still a free country and the socialists haven't yet taken over. Without property rights, all other rights fall apart.
Plan to build my retirement home on it and setup some recreational activities that's conducive to the habitat. No farming. I love the beautiful forest. Also, I want to diversify natural species by planting some hard wood species. Also, in my world view, freedom is not a "need," its God given. Technically, you only need food, water, clothing, and shelter. After that, it's either a freedom or not. What country do you come from Sir?
Yes, land is taxed, but the individual does "own it" just like someone owns a car but they have to pay taxes on it. If the owner wants to sell they are free to do so. Indian reservations are controlled by the individual tribe, but there are taxes they have to pay as well. Example: Indian owned casinos, that money is taxed. Governments, state and federal so, SO DO LOVE their taxes. As far as landowners go, the one's mentioned in the video probably wouldn't crack the top 15 or even 20 here: qz.com/615048/these-are-the-10-biggest-landowners-in-the-united-states/
of course you do because your smart. you play your cards right your kids will be better off than you since you worked hard to give them a better life. if you raised them well so they do the same their kids will be better off than them continue this tradition across an entire country for 100 years you go from a 3rd world country to a first world country. you take out inheritance from the picture no one is willing to do jack shit because they can't give their children anything.
In the early part of the 20th century England used to have plenty of landowners who owned "thousands of acres" . Look at what happened once they sold, or had to sell because of crippling death duties. Where once we had elegant country houses and deer parks, we now have bypasses, motorways, office blocks and endless housing estates. The landscape has been concreted and tarmac' d over never to be returned to the natural state. Scottish people may be envious of the landowners, but I'm sure they're also proud of their beautiful countryside too. Be careful what you wish for, for within a 100 years it may be lost.
Most folk that are saying it's no fair these folk shouldnae huv aw this land stay in council housing where the grass in the garden would keep a cow going for a week
I love Scotland. My whole family was raised there, except for me. I was raised in the US. Every single one of my older brothers has body builder figures. Why? They would ROW out to catch fish and just because they could. Sounds easy enough, until you have seen the waters/current. I tried it once by myself to prove I am mighty... A motor boat came to the rescue, but nobody needs to know that insignificant detail. I was truthful here and that is enough for me :) Free Scotland!
@@kenrooney6679 oh I’m sure guy, don’t worry I bet there’s families that have lived in the highlands for thousands of years and not even known it due to not having any records kept.
The reason why there are so many Scottish people all over the world in because of these land owners. The famine in Ireland killed a million people and the result is the land question was solved. Instead of being tenants the land was given to the people and people prospered. Its mad to think that people own the loughs and rivers. In Ireland loughs are not owned by anyone and we don't pay anyone to use them.
Johnny Lynch is a superb name with an edgy, yet subtle hint of a Catholic rock n roll protest. An architect I worked for was Wille Long. Named after his father no doubt.
The country where Feudalism lives on. Playground of the world's Elite. Unlike England and Wales through the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentienth centuries virtually none of the huge estates in Scotland have been broken up for commercial farming and commercial development. They also cleared out much of the population in the Highland clearances.
In the USA, cities have Urban Growth Boundaries. Property is taxed (with taxes due to the city) inside the UGB whether it is "farm land" or a housing tract, based on it's market value. Property taxes are not a one time point of sale thing they are yearly. Your hunting preserve may then pay for a fire district, a hospital district, a school district, or for development of city services. It's like a ratchet that makes land live up to it's most productive use. I hear Scotts talking about property tax at the time of sale - that would be a sales tax here in the US. We have property tax, sales tax, and income tax. (I wish you all the very best!)
I can see one big advantage to having so much land owned by so few people by imagining what would happen if you suddenly took those 453 huge parcels and split them up into 435,000 parcels. First you would have huge damage done to the ecosystems as well as creating Sewage and water distribution problems. Personally, as long as they keep it in the country (rural) I like it the way it is.
Nobody is arguing that they split it up into 435,000 parcels. It is about the people working the land, owning the land. If you want national parks for wildlife, then make them just that. Right now they are shooting estates for the ultra-rich.
That example is completely irrelevant. Your car being broken or not broken is something you can control almost completely. Humans, however, are very difficult to control. Governments wouldn't manage to control a population if they started taking from the rich and giving to the poor in a way that annoyed the rich too much. Human greed and selfishness will always trump fairness. The rich in power will never desire to give their money away. Poor people who obtain power will become greedy and selfish most of the time. Or at least not selfless enough to want to give away their wealth/land to make other people just as wealthy.
0hypnotoad0 well if u have the money u can get ur car fixed, or have u tried walking more, its better for ur health anyway...what is explained in this document is capitalism and there is nothing u can do about it. unless u want a dictator on the throne and tell all the capitalist to give there wealth back to the government?
radiosification its not about fair its wrong straight out wrong the pervert banker's , have taken a free world given to all by the one , and sold it back to you and your stupid and indoctrinated enough to pay for it
Who should own property? (the people who bought it in a voluntary transaction) Is it fair?(As long as those people achieved their wealth through voluntary transactions it is)
Who do you think sponsors and controls the BBC? Who do you think is making noise about "That's too much land for just 432 people to own"? Who do you think would benefit most from wresting control from the individuals who currently own it? So yeah, SOME rich people, or rather, corporate entities, DO have a problem with the current state of affairs, but don't go looking for the line to wait in to get your piece.
I _think_ there is universal right of way over most of Scotland, hence you won't see it on maps. I think you'd have to look at very specific restricted areas for it to be mapped.
If they the UK Government were to do a even split of everything in Scotland,in 10 years 90% of the people who had it before would have it again! Talents and choices..
What seems to be different than in the US is that the land of the villages is also owned by the large landowners, originally the lairds. In the US, the townspeople own the land in the town or small cities. The towns are then incorporated, and have their own local town councils. There are large landowners who have the land around the towns, but they do not control the towns.
It's good to see that some owners are taking care of the land, rather than merely exploiting it. The 400+ owners of the land represent a much fairer distribution of wealth than many other places in the world.
Something to keep in mind; I've watched open land, farm land and ranch land get sold off over the past thirty years and develop into suburban sprawl here in the U.S. Small farming communities that were once considered to be "way out in the sticks" are now part of the Dallas Fort Worth metropolis with strip malls, big box stores, freeways and cookie cutter housing additions everywhere you look. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Please listen to Simon Hadley What he's telling you is very true.
Well, what you say about Texas is true, but I do not think you could ever extrapolate that to Scotland. Texas has almost 30 million people in it, with quite a lot of big cities that are booming. Scotland simply doesn't have that demographic dynamism and urbanisation is not going to speed up simply because there is suddenly more land available.
@@joseba1078 the urban sprawl isnt there because of the 30 million people, The 30 million people are there because of the urban sprawl. Logically if scotland builds far more housing driving the cost down will cause more to move in.
That’s not what this is about, this film was about the aristocracy buying all the land in the 17/1800s to use for their own recreation at the same time evicting 100,000s of native Gaelic people that lived their, effectively destroying an entire culture. People think the highlands was always empty when infact it was once were the majority of the Scottish population lived. Urban sprawl happened in Scotland also with places like greater Glasgow housing nearly 2.8 million people.
Luckily in Scottish Highlands most don't want to live above Aberdeen. It's windy, bitter exposed and totally raw. Nothing but nature which puts many off living here nothing here but wide openfields, space, boggy land, rocky and wetlands. At the very top a small povpopulation ulation of 50 000 total hours away in train from actual malls.
They don't want outsiders and they make their lives miserable to drive them out. I've had to live with that anti social your not local get out for a decade.
It's different here in Scotland than texas. Lot more unfriendly and it keeps people from staying in rural places.
I personally have no issue with big landowning families in Scotland because from what I can tell the public are legally allowed to walk/camp pretty much anywhere so what difference does it make? I'd rather they kept it to hunt and fish than sold it to some property developer who wants to build a million dwellings as they would in England.
Definitely don’t give the land to politicians
Dont think that's gonna happen BillGates already owns more than half the land in USA and in the UK it Prince Charles owns most.
some are slavering at the mouth hoping to get their paws on it , leave it as it is , unspoiled , unlike culloden with housing estate and god knows what
I'm glad they've kept Scotland open and hasn't over built like you see everywhere else.
If Scotland had good weather it would be full!
@@BOLLEFISK123 I hate good weather.
@@BOLLEFISK123 so true if Scotland had thong bikini weather largs would be a boom town.
It's because most of the land will not sustain people except in poverty. Why my ancestor left.
@Chris liv If your thinking skills were as developed as your writing skills, you could come up with a solution.
In Germany a lot of many landowners have sold their land in recent years and they were turned into suburbs American style. I can’t talk about the whole of Germany but here in the north they are constantly building new houses. It’s especially heartbreaking when they have torn down an old building or an old farm..
I can tell you as an American I have always lived in that type of housing and long for a farm without neighbors. It's annoying looking out your window at another window that isn't family.
A lot of these landowners have probably preserved these areas of land from being polluted, ruined and destroyed.
People argued heritage peers were a bad and outdated anachronism from the past, not fit for the 21st century. So they were deposed. Now we have politically appointed cronies who’s interest is money/bribes and allowances to attend the upper house. Heritage peers felt a sense of duty and could not be bought.
So meddle with the status quo at your peril, beautiful Scotland could easily be ruined.
Which source of pollution should be placed in the middle of nowhere?
Lot's of statement presented, very few facts..
Agreed trust is the greatest economic commodity, you know the family(land owners) for years, they know the community so are usually less likely to violate that trust. It is a fortunate thing indeed, in this age of greedy globe-hopping unaccountable unknowns, ready to gain and exploit property for whatever reason, if the land owner is known to be of good character, wishes to preserve and not pollute the large land masses, and is equally generous in sharing the land with the community, also sharing the historical ties the community members have. Very fortunate situation.
Anton Clark They maintain the land for hunting shooting and fishing which means the destruction of the natural environment. The felling of ancient forests to begin with and yearly burning of Heather on moors so that upper class idiots can get a clear shot. People were also cleared from the land in order to introduce more money making sheep. The few workers which estates employ, live in tied cottages which makes them powless. Egalitarian ownership certainly hasn’t done Norway any harm. Why should ordinary people be hemmed in to small areas when so much land is empty? An upper chamber stuffed with unelected peers, is an anachronism in the 21st century.
@@kirsteneasdale5707 Finally someone mentioned destruction of habitat. The deer are also kept in high numbers for sport and mostly, because they graze on tree seedlings so that nothing grows even on tops of the hills. Also the sheep farming is not so much to make money, but to get subsidies from government for owning vast empty land. The moment it is forested, the money flow stops. So the system is actively rewarding the wildlife habitat destruction.
see my comment above about the resistance of most landowners to allow reforestation to occur. Remember that Scotland was heavily forested originally.
What are we to do? Should we hand over this beautiful land to corrupt politicians to be destroyed & have vast housing schemes built?
If men like John still had the big tracks, I would not worry. The land is a treasure to him and it is safe for tomorrow
Did you go to make tea or something when the part about Christopher Moran was played?
This is a typically BBC politically correct documentary. If you notice he mentions nothing about the foreigners who own large area's of the Highlands instead he chooses the small number of British landowners . The journo (Miller) is a right-on BBC man who should be asking if the laws can be changed to stop rich Arabs (and others) taking over Highland estates and then blocking the right to roam.
You mean we should go along the same route as Switzerland and not allow foreign citizens the right to buy property in the UK?
Laura Connolly do you let strangers walk around your garden I don't.
That is the reason Switzerland remains independent and strong. They can't care less about what others think about them.
You mean the foreigners who bought it as opposed to the Aristocrats who have it because their ancestors stole it?
Switzerland have the right idea, to hell with political correctness. You look after your own first.
I won't address issues of equality, but I am perturbed by foreign ownership which undermines sovereignty and culture.
Agree . Many countries will not allow foreign ownership of land . We should do the same .
Das rayciss
@@samoday2992 At least, not allow foreign ownership of vast amounts of land.
As an American, i feel the same.
what is our culture ?. celt , roman , viking , saxon , norman . we have been conquered that many times . even the english language is a mishmash of god knows how many languages . even our royal family is german .
The reason people come to Scotland on holiday; is to see the unspoiled, open land and the castles, and the historic places. Why would you want to take the land from the people who preserve it?
Has life EVER been "FAIR"
They take the land by force and then write a law to fix it that way, along with a monopoly on the use of force. Sassenach.
Jealousy is a powerful driver
@@LeeGee 1966
What a pile of crap, nobody knows anything and nobody can change it....just goes to show, they must've been happy with it all along. If it was really bad, they'd get off their asses and do something.
@Graf von Losinj have you gotta link at all please
The 420 men who own so much seem to be preserving the land. What would be the result of a redistribution? Would it open the land to development?
Yea. They slash and burn forest and keep sheep or deer in high numbers to keep the land in "agricultural condition". The reason Scotland is a wet desert is thos 420 men who make sure nothing wild grows on barren hills they own. So that the subsidies for doing nothing, payed from working class taxes, can flow and fill their pockets.
@@sodalitia Scotland is pretty... on postcards. It's green desert. Like rest of Uk parcelled with barbed wire fences
Another perspective is, why was my family cleared off the Highlands?
Those who want redistribution just want to trade places. Life isnt fair. People should have better things to do than look enviously over others peoples fences
@@mookrage 🤣🤣🤣
I'm loving that the lack of deveopment is actually preserving the charm of the countrysides of the UK.
how much of that land was payment for selling out scotland?
william borwick probably most of it sadly
Most of the land has been owned by families for hundreds of years. When did they sell out Scotland?
Descended from German Anglo Saxon robber barons.
william borwick
@@Coupal1 ....The Clearances.
the amount of subsidy paid to keep land prices artificially high doesn't help.
EU regulations
Want land , buy it with a group of investors. Stop crying like a baby
Eh? How would you ‘subsidise’ land prices? The price, like most other things, is surely determined by the market.
@@benc640 lol. These aristorcratic landownders earn many times your families' yearly income from government subsidies.
@@weekendwet1 you think its gonna change with Brexit? lol.
But that is what keeps Scotland so outrageously beautiful...
I think you'll find that many parts of the world are beautiful if you prevent the human population from breeding like rats.
I don't care who owns the land....I walk wherever I want
there are plenty of english and overseas landowners who simply do not know, or refuse to understand, that Scotland recognises no law of trespass, and will point a shotgun at you if you try, and if you insist, might blow your head off.
and you'd go to prison for life if you did, because he is not breaking any law.
@@dickhamilton3517 where in Scotland are these land owners?
all over, and all sizes of holdings, and not here at all - big absentee and corporate landlords. There are parts of the highlands where most of the residents are not scottish. e.g. in a band from the trossachs north to the great glen, there was a big influx of southern english people in the late 80s and 90s. Also north of Inverness and along the coast east from Nairn and north of Aberdeen. I don't have a problem with resident home owners from wherever (they are doing a lot of good for the local economy, keeping the place alive) as long as they understand the law regarding walkers and trespass. It's the big guys and their gillies that decline to observe it, blocking off tracks and putting up gates and No Entry signs.
I own about 18000 acres in Iceland , it has been in my family for centuries . My grand father was a horse breeder, my father inherited the land and the horses and , and i inherited it when i turned 30 and i'm a veterinarian , i kept the horses and turned the rest of the land into an animal sanctuary . Needless to say shooting is forbidden on this land where i also breed wolves and arctic foxes , along with deer, sheep, reindeer, etc... and of course the horses . I hired highly trained activists and gave them carte blanche to shoot . If anybody trespasses on the property the person will be escorted out , but if anybody trespasses in order to hunt, this person is as good as dead , and trust me , between the ravines, the Geysers , the gigantic waterfalls lakes and rivers, the glaciers, the volcanoes and the wolves and foxes , nobody will even find a bone . There are only 350 000 people in a country that is 30,000 km2 larger than Scotland and 80% of the population lives in Reykjavik , and because of our nature which is quite violent , people go missing all the time .
I don't care about the law, you shoot my animals, you're dead, and i really need half a reason to shoot a hunter . The warning signs are everywhere around the property in 5 languages , if you choose to ignore them, that's at your own risk .
You are welcome to walk on my land as long as all you do is walk .
Big landowners keep away greedy developers, who'd in a heart beat turn every piece of woodland into a shopping mall or amusement park.
Let's all face it, if all of us had a nice piece of land, most of us would lose it in 5 years. Most people don't know how to maintain land to make it profitable.
Too right! As I type this, there are trees falling left and right, making way for more 'McMansions'. My family has lived in this rural community for generations. It's not rural anymore. People keep coming from EVERYWHERE to buy houses in these subdivisions...I live in the Southern U.S. And this land was once mostly 'Reserves' because it was beautiful. Now those Reserves have been sold and it's a NIGHTMARE.
Why change what works, as you mentioned, Scotland is beautiful - open it up for profit, it wont stay that way. dirty great refineries and other land exploitation, We say no to that, let the toffs keep it, as it is - safe
You have a point. I hate the idea of one person owning so much but it is true that they treat the land more as their personal garden. Big business would destroy it.
@Liam id argue that this not be the same issue
@Liam As a former RSPB member, now a very keen amateur ornathologist ,why do I find far more wildlife in general on private estates and moorland,I than I ever have on the same owned by the public and RSPB. I used to think like you . The killing of raptors is practiced by a very small minority . It has been scientifically proven (in depth studies ) that keepers in general do far more good than harm ,I would suggest you spread your wings a little and visit some of these places ,it is amazing how helpful many can be . On a final note ,I lived in Coventry for many years which has many public parks where wardens used to control certain species to protect the songbird population that used to thrive . Since stopping this practice (liberal gov council ) some 20 yrs ago there has been a catastrophic loss in the number of small bird ,now every one of these parks bar none have literally swarms of corvids and little else , no longer worth visiting if you are into wild life .
@Liam you need to legalize marijuana in scotland maybe all your rich folks will grow weed on the land instead of killing all your wildlife. I'd like to go over yonder to Scotland one day and see my old ancestry homes of Riddell and macdonald clans. P.s. try to get your country to grow some trees back Scot pine is very pretty in the snow.
@Liam well dammit liam that really sucks I have no idea on how to aid you now😁😂
That land looks so fertile, green, and glorious.
you were shown the good bits on purpose , there are huge areas that are rocky and barren and forget the midges
Only fit for sheep
It looked better with actual trees and forests.
We used to have a family farm until the granny passed away and her debts where so high the family lost all the land. 🤷♀️
That’s the massive problem in Britain, the poor own nothing, the middle class own sometimes, but get hit by death tax they lose 40% of it. And the Rich have no much money and connections they can avoid these systems and keep property and money in the family forever
@@bradley7240 I agree it is a huge problem, however the sad fact is if all this land was already in poor hands they would have probs lost it all and it would have already have been developed on no doubt, it's like a catch 22.
Yeah communism let’s take it all give it to the scum
@Truth Seeker a lot of land was given by kings of scotland ,
@Truth Seeker david 1st gave lands to french nobles like wallace bruce stewart de moray etc , some for helping matidas brother in the english barons wars , yes there were a lot of terrible times of fighting but you needed kings /castles etc , never knew when you could be invaded ,
Life is not fair, nor can you make it fair by any means. Just use your God given abilities to the fullest.
I like the county fair, but I agree Steve, this notion of fairness is silly do the best you can the results will sort themselves out
The big difference is that you aren't born with a gorgeous wife. These land owners never worked for it.
That’s the same thing I tell people when I rob them.
Those abilities include the ability for socialist revolution.
#HaggisTheRich
"Life is not fair, nor can you make it fair by any means."
So you should just give up?
The acceptance of the status quo is not how we have evolved to the generally good standard of living we have.
26:30 Do what he's proposing, and indeed the land values will fall. Because no one will want to buy that land.
Who would be foolish enough to pay for land that the government just took away from someone else without compensating them the full value of what the land is worth? You might be able to buy it cheaper, but that's no guarantee that the minute you hand over your cash, the government informs you that they've just sold it again to somebody else for even less than what you paid for it.
Sounds like a government legalized Ponzi scheme to me.
The politician at 5:00 minutes in should be removed from Parliament. What an embarrassment.
The fact these people own these estates etc. is why It remains so beautiful
Perhaps an even more compelling documentary would be: Who owns the BBC?
Left wing Anarchists!!... :(
you
China, we just pay for it...
its a national treasure owned by the people
The license fee payers.
And BTW, we have tried community owned land in the US. They are called Indian reservations. Miserable places where the inhabitants are stuck in poverty, and no way to own a home and accrue equity.
Is the plight of the Native Americans defined by 'community owned land' or did something else affect their culture? How about the decimation of their population by European immigrants, followed by degrading their status to second class citizens in their own land. Do you reckon that had any influence?
Interesting juxtaposition between Craufurd, the hereditary landowner not afraid to get his hands dirty and class warrior MP Davidson in a blazer and club tie. A career politician who has probably never done a real days work in his life. Make sure taxation is fair, fine, but his nasty characterizations and generalizations about landowners is just not necessary nor very civil. Also Ironic is that Davidson is an avid shooter and is shoulder deep in the public trough with his 2 homes expensed to the taxpayers. This whole land owning issue is just a distraction from real issues and failures of government where the people are being screwed far worse. That some guy owns a bunch of acreage in the middle of nowhere is neither here nor there for the average Scots life.
It's not the middle of nowhere. It is a depopulated area. Genocide.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ability to resemble an arse.
Ah yes, and name calling and insults are the epitome of polite discourse and debate.
I have no intention of being polite to someone rubbishing my home land. An arse is a arse.
Mixed up your sockpuppets there.
There's always someone who knows better than you.....and they are always best to define what "fair" is.
if you broke the land blocks all up and gave them away too the many ...how much would go to big business , who would then put pressure on the government via tax revues to start developing the land
at least having in sole ownerships ..keeps the land pure
Keep it out of the hands of the government.
By “some kind of reform” does he mean that the state will take the property from those in whose name the title sits? What’s fair about that?
the state breaks up monopolies all the time
"it may not be fair but i mean, is it fair that your wife is prettier than mine?" lmao wtf
DUMB REPLY - HE HAD A CHOICE OF WIFE - IF HE MARRIED UGLY,THATS HIS PROBLEM - HE WAS HANDED 53,000 ACRES - MOST FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO OWN 1 IF THEY COULD POSSIBLY AFFORD IT
@@SAXONWARLORD1000AD Well... looking at him I doubt many were vying to be chosen as his wife
What a dumb answer..
If you want old rights you have old dutys.
If you inherits 5 castles without maintainance either you sell it ore use your money to recover it.
It looks very well maintained. You want the state to do it?
Be carefull, they sell it to the highest bidder which will be China or Saudi Arabia even African leaders.
You want the situation to be south Africa? Zimbabwe.?
Go ahead.
Being a landowner takes a lot of money and a lot of hard work. Be careful what you wish for....
🤣🤣🤣
Many many jobs are 'a lot of hard work', many much harder, but funnily enough, don't have the same rewards.
Some people have bigger homes than others. Some will say that is unfair too.
theres a difference between having a larger house than your neighbor, and owning 50000 acres lol
If someone can own the land, have the money to maintain it, then no one else has the right to take that away from them due to "fairness". Envy and jealousy are powerful emotions that sometimes dictate rationality. It seems that people really need to understand what freedom means, not just the nostalgia of it.
Sure. However what if just one person owned all the land? The problem with your argument is that it makes no allowance for the social consequences of narrow ownership of land. The key is in your sentence " money to maintain". What does maintain mean? I also disagree with the envy and jealousy argument. The main reason for dissatisfaction is the gradual exodus of people from these lands. The emptying out of the countryside. The loss of community. There are several reasons for that but narrow ownership and poor maintenance are big ones.
In Ireland we have no large landowners and the country is a lot better for it. And we will never allow large land ownership to develop. We had enough problems with landlords in the past.
@@fiachramaccana280 that is a very socialist way of looking at things. I believe in freedom. If someone has the money, the time, and can maintain it, which means keep it from turning into uninhabitable land that benefits others, nature, and future generations, then more power to them. The land is available to be purchased and they purchase it, then good enough and fair. Envy is exactly what is represented here. Just because someone doesn't have the money to purchase it themselves and keep it up, doesn't give the right for that person to say no one else can. What has happened to the Irish and Scots sense of freedom!
@@MissouriCrookedBarnHomestead well I am a Christain Socialist so no surprise there. I am also a self made entreprenuer so I assure I am not jealous or envious. However my point is for the welfare of society as a whole.
@@fiachramaccana280 That is not the way the world works unless it is a socialist paradise Fiachra, nor should it. If I buy land, and btw, I'm a self made entrepreneur as well, I have every right to do with that land what I see fit and to what I can afford giving the rights and laws of Freedom of wherever it is that I choose to purchase. Zoning regulations require property to be maintained, that means taking into consideration all of the known laws and ordinances of local and federal governments in regards to property ownership. But, I always research thoroughly before buying property. Telling someone that they cannot own more than an allotted amount of property is going right back to the land being separated by big government when they have no right to do such other than to make themselves profit and achieve a goal set forth and propagated by them. Do you enjoy being forced to comply with something that you do not see as right or will you just follow along with it because someone has decided that they want what you have?
@@MissouriCrookedBarnHomestead what nonsense. nobody is talking about a socialist paradise. Simply talking about the ills of unfettered capitalism. We all live in a hybrid economy which mixes socialism and capitalism. The mix varies by country. That is the consequence of the unfettered capitalism of the 19th century. Unregulated freedom leads to a world of anarchy and exploitation.
Owners for 80 years, custodians that keep Scotland as it is beautiful.
Green barren desert. Unless the flow of subsidies money is the beauty you talk about.
'keep Scotland as it is'....a play park for the English aristocracy to carry out their blood sports?
Biased stereotypes-rich =bad unless you're a celebrity.
Or head of bbc Scotland children’s television - she owns a massive highland estate.
= bad unless you share that money with me....embrace the millenials agenda
im poor and even it makes me mad when people wanna tax rich, "its not fair" blah blah... life isnt fair get a better job, buy stocks, invest....
@Pa. D I know some people Inherited wealth but that's not an issue.
@@chronicawareness9986 if it's so easy for poor people to just get a better job or invest, why are you still poor?
The concept of "crime" was introduced as a tool in the clearance of the Highlands. Before that you either broke the law or you didn't. By introducing "crimes" that it was impossible for smallholders to avoid both the Highlands of Scotland were cleared and a ready slave force created for the Australian colonies. Funny how the BBC have continuously ignored that aspect. Makes you wonder.
THE PRISON SHIP LIES WAITING IN THE BAY/ IRISH WINDOW SIZE TAX/ WHICH CRIMES DO YOU SEE AS HISTORY REPEATS THE CYCLE OF IGNORANCE ???
How EXACTLY is it NOT fair that you DON'T own what you DON'T own?
People have one family that owns the ground they house is on, that not fair
Lovely Scottish accent.
Because we should be allowed to murder the landowners and take it as our own. That's what they did to acquire the land. That's fairness.
I wish they'd plant a few more trees.
Stella, signicant forested areas were used for ship building up to the 19th century.
There’s some parts of the Caledonia forests left you should go visit and there’s plenty of re wilding going on 👍🏻
The reason people leave Scotland in droves is that there is no work. In the past Westminster was blamed, strangely now with the SNP in control, nothing has changed.
You enter this world with nothing and you leave with nothing, what you have in that time gap is life itself, just find happiness and love and don’t fall for greed.
How about investigating SNP betrayal of covid rules
What really pisses me off is the huge amounts of so called agricultural subsidies payed out of taxpayers' money to these lice and their ilk ,yet this information is unavailable to the general taxpaying public.Any others business,you get no help at all.
14:43
“Is it fair to expect a landowner to resolve a century of decline”
Life’s not fair is it?
See how ridiculous it sounds now?
Especially when that landowner caused the century of decline.
“I won’t be around so I don’t care”
He’s it the nail on the head, that’s the problem mate.
12:40 Oh how sad. All the peasant serfs that lived around the property in cottages have moved away. As if they thought they were independent and could chart their own courses in life. How selfish. It's so hard to find a peasant these days.
Why hasn’t this programme mentioned the top bbc executive who owns a massive estate in Scotland - The Men Who Own Scotland - I guess this lets them off the hook from mentioning the female head of Children’s bbc Scotland.
My ancestors were clearance from the western highlands,but in america,we own a farm,not huge but right size for a hundred head of cattle!but were poverty stricken in scotland,it worked out!
All land is owned by the Queen, in effect us. Land "owners" only have title, which is a map of the area of occupation on the sovereign territory and a set of rights. Andy Wightman was right. The land values should be brought down to the "economic value" and eliminate "speculation value". As the film mentioned, in Denmark they tax all land by its value. Taxing land, all land, by its "value" will do this. It will also ensure land is used to full productive use. It is clear the land in Scotland is not put to full productive use. Look at the trailers people are forced to live in scattered about the country, as planning is also a major issue.
If some Lord or Laird or other wants to have 1000s of acres of land as his personal back garden, which many do, then he pays. As the film states, the land is not taxed, the reason why these people hoard land and use it unproductively. The levy is assessed by the "value" of the land. If the land value goes up the levy goes up. If the land value goes down the levy goes down. Land values are created by economic community activity, NOT the landowner.
The landowners of Scotland have great clout. They influence the planning policies amongst others. The planning system ratchets up land values by creating artificial land shortages, especially in urban areas. The landowners treat Scotland's countryside as their own private estate - much the same in England. It keeps people out of their "backyard".
Quoting history to keep the status quo is not good enough. The history of the rape of the people in the "Highland Clearances" in Scotland and "The enclosures" in England is history that has to be put right. These people gained land in times of great unfairness. It is unfair now, but greater then. A line has to drawn now, and Scotland, and all the UK come to that, need to gain a "fair" society. Implementing a Land Value Tax will do that painlessly. It will naturally redistribute land and put land to full production. This is in urban and rural areas. A tax on land values got rid of most of the vacant and derelict buildings in the city centre of Harrisburg in the USA, naturally revitalizing the city with little public interference.
sounds sensible Mr. jbmorgan, therefore its a good wager that it wont be done.
SafeSpace Post: Not quite. Georgism has a lot more than that simple brush off.
johnburnsmorgan who's queen
johnburnsmorgan the queen of england needs her head chopped off she doesn't own the land her ancestor stole the land and that doesn't make it hers
value of anything that you are capable of buying and selling is based off 1 simple thing what someone is willing to pay for it nothing else.
case in point pretty much any important paintings. the "economic value" of most paintings is barely worth a few dollars based on material cost however they are bought and sold all the time in the millions 10s of millions or even 100s of millions.
if you were to say thats not fair and wanting to "redistribute" all of the valuable art because its not fair only the super rich own it and set the prices to its "economic value" what do you think will happen to these historic artifacts? people who "OWN" stuff tend to take very care of it. if you buy a painting for 100 million dollars you are going to be god dam sure it is well taken care of. what do you think would happen to the Mona Lisa if a single mother with 6 kids were to buy it for 15$? doubt it would survive a weekend.
"Life is not fair", let's steal theirs!!!
This is disgusting when you think that these land owners were given this land for service to the crown Scottish and English but the people that actually fought and died got nothing.
So these lands should be claimed back by the people for the people.
But the truth of it is that the corporations will take it.
_people that actually fought and died got nothing._
What does one give the dead?
_claimed back by the people for the people_
What are they going to do with it? Farming and grazing? How many want to be farmers and shepherds? Very, very few. Most people prefer the conveniences and amenities of modern urban and semi-urban life. And in the case of farming a small plot it's meaningless - it's a money and effort pit. Large farms require massive investment. Have you priced a tractor or a combine? And of course there are few homes there, so those have to be built too. And all the infrastructure to support that such as sewers, power lines, water, roads. That's a huge investment for a long-ago way of life that few really want and from which earning a living will be very difficult. Sure, there are some sentimentalists who may want to give it a crack, but after a few months of hardship most would pack it in.
That the new owners of Eigg had to rely on donations to buy a £1.5m property, which is fuck all, should tell you that they couldn't even earn and save enough based on their own efforts. These are marginal communities of dim prospects to earn an income. Yes, there are some hearty souls who want to give it a go, and if they can earn an income from a source other than the land they may be able to cover their expenses, but their children will leave.
Sins of the father don't pass down to the son.
That's why i like the french so much .
Many if not most of the Aristocracy, namely wealthy families, often lost a number of their military ages men to the same wars that the commoners fought in. The difference is that he was very likely the next in line and most experienced and capable man to take over the owenership, management and all the ongoing inter family politics... they were generally the DIRECT Employers of not just large percentage of those that lived in the surrounding area, but indirectly as well supported and was supported by and through many many generations of families and extended families... some mansions could employ 30 or more people directly...and indirectly support dozens more. The death of one of the young Aristocracy or worse two consecutive generations could lead to a whole village or more suffering, become depopulated or even entirely collapse after hundreds of not thousands of years.
Can you imagine the stress of the responsibility to preserve for all time, things like a whole ancient 20 bedroom stone mansion, the grounds, the outbuildings... game animals... 1M to fix the roof, which MUST stay historically accurate... fail to do this repair and the ENORMOUS WALL AND CEILING PAINTING, who’s artistic qualities out shine even the Sistine chapel...will be gone to crumble off and water will ruin the 4 hundred old tapestry and warp the 3 years old solid oak floors...
In ethnically and culturally homogenous populations the Interconnectedness can span multi hundred fat of generation and many tens of generations throughout time.
Aristocracy only live in a different kind of cage, gold and sparkling, bigger... but still a cage.
This commentator and a lot of his buddies are very communistic. Ugly is communism.
Once you try and 're-distrubute the wealth amongst everyone' basically everyone just ends up getting a couple of quid each. So you're basically saying lets destroying these people's lives and inheritance just so everyone gets one Dairymilk chocolate bar. Is that worth it or is it just based on jealousy.
As a Scot it’s disgusting that foreigners who half my country we should all back independence now
Well i never the BBC advocating Zimbabwe style land redistribution
"It may not be fair, but that's the way life is."
An easy throw-away line, but we're talking about Our Earth. We cannot separate out one part of our world from another, when the crisis we're facing is so complex and daunting.
What crisis ?
@Peter Brodie This was in 2014, long before coVOID.
Fair has nothing to do with it, historical events lead to this land ownership.
Yes, but the system can be altered. Look at the case of Eigg, allow for more community buy-outs. Beyond that, the government can impose policies that at the very least make massive landownership owners more responsible for the land they caretake for. The biggest problem with land sellouts is that land isn't sold for nearly as much as it's worth in terms of it's environmental value. This has to be factored in, especially moving forward and I don't mean for forestry commission/timber industry bs but actual natural forest and wildland which can be achieved in due time and care. More examples have to be taken from countries with sustainable resources and natural wild tourism and I'm sure in time Scotland can achieve a much better landscape than the landscape it currently sustains.
@@PaulDiPlacido Thanks for that, good points.
Is there any possibility of compulsory purchase and redistribution as happened in Ireland in the late 1800s?
My first trip to Scotland left me very angry, amazed at the beauty and horrified by the number of private estates and golf clubs contrasting the tardy towns and cities where the populace lived.
@Mark Miller noone should own vast swathes of land and judging by their vox pop responses, they couldnt give a flying monkeys that anyone has less than them. No regard to equity and landscape responsibility.
So they can over develop it with malls and suburbs??!! You would throw the baby out with the bath water!!
"Redistribute the wealth," the shout of Karl Marx!
Translate: Gimme, gimme, gimme!
Since when has life been fair?
The question is: Whom put the land up for the very first sale and whom deemed it's total worth.. Who came up with this measured value?
I own 100 acres that I'm proud of. In many states in the US, a middle class guy can still buy that much property out in the country. But in the state of California, only super rich can buy 10-15 acres. I once told someone in CA I bought that much property in an eastern state...he said that's too much for 1 person, the government should confiscate it. Gosh, I'm glad that America is still a free country and the socialists haven't yet taken over. Without property rights, all other rights fall apart.
Plan to build my retirement home on it and setup some recreational activities that's conducive to the habitat. No farming. I love the beautiful forest. Also, I want to diversify natural species by planting some hard wood species. Also, in my world view, freedom is not a "need," its God given. Technically, you only need food, water, clothing, and shelter. After that, it's either a freedom or not. What country do you come from Sir?
I was told that US Citizens don't really own land outright because they have to pay land tax. It's only Indian reservations that are owned outright.
Yes, land is taxed, but the individual does "own it" just like someone owns a car but they have to pay taxes on it. If the owner wants to sell they are free to do so. Indian reservations are controlled by the individual tribe, but there are taxes they have to pay as well. Example: Indian owned casinos, that money is taxed. Governments, state and federal so, SO DO LOVE their taxes.
As far as landowners go, the one's mentioned in the video probably wouldn't crack the top 15 or even 20 here:
qz.com/615048/these-are-the-10-biggest-landowners-in-the-united-states/
There are thousands of buildings, some of them very important being left to rot and fall down with land owners doing Nothing about it.
The people who deserted the buildings and moved to the cities, left them to rot.
3:40 He owns a massive piece of Scotland, his family had for centuries and yet he hasn't got a Scottish accent? Is he even really Scottish...
No he's English as usual,
Life, Liberty, Property...John LockeThe English philosopher behind what a free society is.
I’m working class Scottish and believe you should inherit
of course you do because your smart. you play your cards right your kids will be better off than you since you worked hard to give them a better life. if you raised them well so they do the same their kids will be better off than them continue this tradition across an entire country for 100 years you go from a 3rd world country to a first world country.
you take out inheritance from the picture no one is willing to do jack shit because they can't give their children anything.
In the early part of the 20th century England used to have plenty of landowners who owned "thousands of acres" . Look at what happened once they sold, or had to sell because of crippling death duties. Where once we had elegant country houses and deer parks, we now have bypasses, motorways, office blocks and endless housing estates. The landscape has been concreted and tarmac' d over never to be returned to the natural state. Scottish people may be envious of the landowners, but I'm sure they're also proud of their beautiful countryside too. Be careful what you wish for, for within a 100 years it may be lost.
Indeed, once we had a ruling class that looked after those beneath them. We need to go back to those days.
@@squiregee1832 what s lot of shit
Is that land ownership distribution or a population that has doubled over the last 100 years?
Most folk that are saying it's no fair these folk shouldnae huv aw this land stay in council housing where the grass in the garden would keep a cow going for a week
That is what grass does. It grows. It's not natural to mow it to a centimetre length every other day. Are the Highlands mowed like bowling greens?
I love Scotland. My whole family was raised there, except for me. I was raised in the US. Every single one of my older brothers has body builder figures. Why? They would ROW out to catch fish and just because they could. Sounds easy enough, until you have seen the waters/current. I tried it once by myself to prove I am mighty... A motor boat came to the rescue, but nobody needs to know that insignificant detail. I was truthful here and that is enough for me :)
Free Scotland!
Scotland must remain in UK. Otherwise it's doomed.
If it’s someone’s ancestral grounds, it’s theirs. It belongs to them.
Unless your ancestors are the people they stole in from?
@@kenrooney6679 oh I’m sure guy, don’t worry I bet there’s families that have lived in the highlands for thousands of years and not even known it due to not having any records kept.
The reason why there are so many Scottish people all over the world in because of these land owners. The famine in Ireland killed a million people and the result is the land question was solved. Instead of being tenants the land was given to the people and people prospered. Its mad to think that people own the loughs and rivers. In Ireland loughs are not owned by anyone and we don't pay anyone to use them.
It's also true that there are no Kings, Queens, dukes, lords or Ladys in Ireland. Everyone is equal and every in the main gets the same opportunity
When you are in a musicband and you wear a tshirt from your own band on stage it's considered pretty lame.
Not to mention but what I heard of his music was pure shite.
Mick Jagger can pull it off but idk if anyone else can lol
Johnny Lynch is a superb name with an edgy, yet subtle hint of a Catholic rock n roll protest.
An architect I worked for was Wille Long. Named after his father no doubt.
anybody who argues for the seizure of farmers land is working for a corporation and has profits not his fellow mans best interests in mind.
True
The country where Feudalism lives on. Playground of the world's Elite. Unlike England and Wales through the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentienth centuries virtually none of the huge estates in Scotland have been broken up for commercial farming and commercial development. They also cleared out much of the population in the Highland clearances.
In the USA, cities have Urban Growth Boundaries. Property is taxed (with taxes due to the city) inside the UGB whether it is "farm land" or a housing tract, based on it's market value. Property taxes are not a one time point of sale thing they are yearly. Your hunting preserve may then pay for a fire district, a hospital district, a school district, or for development of city services. It's like a ratchet that makes land live up to it's most productive use. I hear Scotts talking about property tax at the time of sale - that would be a sales tax here in the US. We have property tax, sales tax, and income tax. (I wish you all the very best!)
I wonder for those who vote no, how many are land owners?
most likely not enough
Ive got 3/4 of an acre
I can see one big advantage to having so much land owned by so few people by imagining what would happen if you suddenly took those 453 huge parcels and split them up into 435,000 parcels. First you would have huge damage done to the ecosystems as well as creating Sewage and water distribution problems. Personally, as long as they keep it in the country (rural) I like it the way it is.
Nobody is arguing that they split it up into 435,000 parcels. It is about the people working the land, owning the land. If you want national parks for wildlife, then make them just that. Right now they are shooting estates for the ultra-rich.
Of course it's not fair that so few people own all the land. But nothing in life is really fair.
"My car is broken. But then again I guess a lot of cars are broken, so I guess I won't fix my car"
Seems logical
That example is completely irrelevant. Your car being broken or not broken is something you can control almost completely. Humans, however, are very difficult to control. Governments wouldn't manage to control a population if they started taking from the rich and giving to the poor in a way that annoyed the rich too much. Human greed and selfishness will always trump fairness. The rich in power will never desire to give their money away. Poor people who obtain power will become greedy and selfish most of the time. Or at least not selfless enough to want to give away their wealth/land to make other people just as wealthy.
0hypnotoad0 well if u have the money u can get ur car fixed, or have u tried walking more, its better for ur health anyway...what is explained in this document is capitalism and there is nothing u can do about it. unless u want a dictator on the throne and tell all the capitalist to give there wealth back to the government?
radiosification its not about fair its wrong straight out wrong the pervert banker's , have taken a free world given to all by the one , and sold it back to you and your stupid and indoctrinated enough to pay for it
so then do you think is wrong to try n make it a bit fairer?
17:10 That's all good and well but if they're doing a "Public Service" then they should have Open Hours to the Public.
That was a really interesting show.
Duke of Buccleuch owns most of the land between his Dalkeith estate and Newcastle.
That is correct he’s a Scott.
It belongs to the people the government works for the people. Every thing belongs to the people.
@Js Bchad No English. But I do not believe in Inbred Oligarchy's ( ;
@@jlord9638 No. I believe in we the people. You must believe in the Inbred Oligarchy's ( ;
Most of the land VALUE is concentrated in 2 cities. What should we do about it?
We also have these concerns in South Africa. Thank you. That was informative.
A better question: why is it that so few people in Scotland want to own land?
To have a buyer, you must also have a seller.....
Government Land Reform. Stalin and Mugabe spring to mind.
Exactly
this didn't work in south Africa
What percentage of Scottish land is government owned?
I'd like to know that too. Forestry Commission and Crown Estates have a good chunk.
Not to mention MOD-owned land.
Who should own property? (the people who bought it in a voluntary transaction)
Is it fair?(As long as those people achieved their wealth through voluntary transactions it is)
What, rich people don't have a problem with the current state of affairs? What a surprise!
Who do you think sponsors and controls the BBC? Who do you think is making noise about "That's too much land for just 432 people to own"? Who do you think would benefit most from wresting control from the individuals who currently own it? So yeah, SOME rich people, or rather, corporate entities, DO have a problem with the current state of affairs, but don't go looking for the line to wait in to get your piece.
The British Ordnance Survey maps show Rights-Of-Way on the England and Wales maps but they are omitted from the Scotland maps.
I _think_ there is universal right of way over most of Scotland, hence you won't see it on maps. I think you'd have to look at very specific restricted areas for it to be mapped.
If they the UK Government were to do a even split of everything in Scotland,in 10 years 90% of the people who had it before would have it again!
Talents and choices..
Exactly
What seems to be different than in the US is that the land of the villages is also owned by the large landowners, originally the lairds. In the US, the townspeople own the land in the town or small cities. The towns are then incorporated, and have their own local town councils. There are large landowners who have the land around the towns, but they do not control the towns.
They own a bit of paper the same way my dog pisses and lays claim to his daily walk, and he knows deep down I own him
It's good to see that some owners are taking care of the land, rather than merely exploiting it. The 400+ owners of the land represent a much fairer distribution of wealth than many other places in the world.
Russell Stauffer bollocks
and now in 2018 in South Africa there is the same pressure to redistribute the land in an aim to increase fairness
Politicians telling you something isn’t fair are just dangling a carrot or a sausage on a stick in front of you so you will pull their cart.