But if anyone in the community wanted the land they could simply buy the land themselves. Land's no different from any other commodity, if you want it you buy it, if you don't want it you don't buy it. Just because someone else owns a lot of something doesn't give the State the right to steal it.
Does anyone seriously think you going to be able to improve a business by taking it out of the hands of someone who has been running it for the last however many years and then giving it to a bunch of people who have never managed that business before? Would you do that with a hospital?
Answered in post 56 almost an hour ago and still waiting to be pointed to your exchange with nomad2king...though I'm starting to detect an odd smell...like socks.
So SamCams stepfather is fair game, but "Miliband father, who loved Britain so much he wanted to change every single aspect" is not?
Hypocrisy from the left, for a change.
He's given an interview or statement on mugabe -Ed Miliband's father by definition has given no interviews on contemporary issues?
Why should his statements on contemporary issues be exempt from scrutiny particularly when he's throwing accusations around at others?
Hunting, shooting and fishing doesn't bring in much for the area of land used.
Better off buidling golf courses.
And if they have highly specialised well-paid skills specifically related to hunting, shooting and fishing but not much cop for golf caddying? Tough luck on them, they have to lose their livelihoods so that a gang of ignorant nationalist bigots can strut and pose at Westminster and Holyrood.
What? As opposed to stirring things up? Where's the fun in that?
Mmm So reacting to a controversial and inflammatory statement comparing somebody to Mugabe is stirring things up but making the initial controversial and highly inflammatory statement isn't stirring things up?
And if they have highly specialised well-paid skills specifically related to hunting, shooting and fishing but not much cop for golf caddying? Tough luck on them, they have to lose their livelihoods so that a gang of ignorant nationalist bigots can strut and pose at Westminster and Holyrood.
Those poor toffs. Won't someone think of the children.
it would be a community buy out . It would not be stealing
The Land reform might not be as easy as was once thought.
It might end up costing the Scottish Govt millions and theres a good article on it here. Seems like it might even infringe the Landowners Human Rights.
The whole plan begs the question - would the state (for when left leaning governments talk of community and society that what they really mean is the state).
Would the state be better at managing those resources than the current owners. The evidence of history would prove otherwise.
That is before you get to the people who work on this land - many of whom are not going to be wealthy.
The Land reform might not be as easy as was once thought.
It might end up costing the Scottish Govt millions and theres a good article on it here. Seems like it might even infringe the Landowners Human Rights.
But one landowner argued that 60 per cent of the rural wealth she said was too concentrated was tied up in land that was “cash flow negative year on year on year” and questioned how communities could afford to buy and run it.
So the land owners are pretty useless then. Time to give someone else a chance?
Comments
Don't agree with a with a word you are saying.
Read my original exchange with nomad2king.
Maybe you could point us to that exchange
Maybe you could point me to that exchange? .com
Why would they be unemployed?
My exchange with nomad2king was in posts 41/42/48 of this thread.
Now can you point me to the ones you claimed to have had him with him in your post number 52?
I'm not the one bringing Mugabe's name into it.
Answered in post 56 almost an hour ago and still waiting to be pointed to your exchange with nomad2king...though I'm starting to detect an odd smell...like socks.
Because the businesses on which they depend - hunting, shooting, fishing, forestry management, tourism - would be bankrupt.
Why would they?
If the Viscount sold up would they all go out of business?
Would there be legislation to ensure a change of usage?
Hunting, shooting and fishing doesn't bring in much for the area of land used.
Better off buidling golf courses.
He's given an interview or statement on mugabe -Ed Miliband's father by definition has given no interviews on contemporary issues?
Why should his statements on contemporary issues be exempt from scrutiny particularly when he's throwing accusations around at others?
And if they have highly specialised well-paid skills specifically related to hunting, shooting and fishing but not much cop for golf caddying? Tough luck on them, they have to lose their livelihoods so that a gang of ignorant nationalist bigots can strut and pose at Westminster and Holyrood.
Mmm So reacting to a controversial and inflammatory statement comparing somebody to Mugabe is stirring things up but making the initial controversial and highly inflammatory statement isn't stirring things up?
Why would it be bankrupt?
Here's a hint. What happened to Scottish steel making, coal mining, ship building and car manufacturing after they were nationalised?
Those poor toffs. Won't someone think of the children.
Who is talking about nationalising anything. It would be a community led buyout
My exchange with nomad2king was in posts 412/422/482 of this thread.
Now can you point me to the ones you claimed to have had him with him in your post number 352?
Um thatcher destroyed the lot.
The Land reform might not be as easy as was once thought.
It might end up costing the Scottish Govt millions and theres a good article on it here. Seems like it might even infringe the Landowners Human Rights.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11616876/SNP-to-target-landowners-property-rights-for-public-good.html
Gamekeepers, groundkeepers, gardeners, ghillies and guides are toffs?
Who gets to define "community"? Community in this context would mean "the gang of corrupt chancers who paid for the SNP election campaign"
They were bankrupt long before Thatcher turned up. The Clyde built 370 ships in 1913, but only single figures in 1978.
Would the state be better at managing those resources than the current owners. The evidence of history would prove otherwise.
That is before you get to the people who work on this land - many of whom are not going to be wealthy.
But one landowner argued that 60 per cent of the rural wealth she said was too concentrated was tied up in land that was “cash flow negative year on year on year” and questioned how communities could afford to buy and run it.
So the land owners are pretty useless then. Time to give someone else a chance?