- I teach part time at the University of the Highlands and Islands Centre for History on their BA Hons Scottish History... moreI teach part time at the University of the Highlands and Islands Centre for History on their BA Hons Scottish History and the new M Litt History of the Highlands and Islands. Do take a look at the website - a very fine hard working team. It is exciting to see this long awaited university taking shape and creating publications.
Last year I was delighted to be in receipt of an 18 month Wingate scholarship to look at the question - What and where is ‘tradition’ – and what is its’ role in current social movements? This forms part of my current interest in the role of cultures in development.
I continue my links with The Geography Dept at Glasgow University as an Honorary Research Fellow. This allows us to muck in on various matters of mutual interest. I was delighted to be able to attend the recent symposium there last winter - 'Excursions: Telling Stories and Journeys'.
I created ARC - Assynt Research and Consultancy - in 2002 and have been involved in all manner of rural development projects ranging from research training to archive creation and events programmes derived from archive materials ever since. In most cases this has involved new original research as a basis for action and capacity building in order to pass on research skills whenever possible.
The results of some of this work is provided as pdf reports under 'paper's here.edit
The ‘assets ’ over which social movements in the Scottish Highlands and Islands have most famously acted in the past two hundred years are usually summed up in one word: land. In recent years however this conceptualisation has been... more
The ‘assets ’ over which social movements in the Scottish Highlands and Islands have most famously acted in the past two hundred years are usually summed up in one word: land. In recent years however this conceptualisation has been broadened to include concern over ‘intangible ’ assets too. These are things
Research Interests:
The ‘assets’ over which social movements in the Scottish Highlands and Islands have most famously acted in the past two hundred years are usually summed up in one word: land. In recent years however this conceptualisation has been... more
The ‘assets’ over which social movements in the Scottish Highlands and Islands have most famously acted in the past two hundred years are usually summed up in one word: land. In recent years however this conceptualisation has been broadened to include concern over ‘intangible’ assets too. These are things which cannot be bought and sold such as language, poetry, the aesthetics of land and sea, stories, histories, songs and even ‘heritage’ (Braunholtz-Speight et al. 2011) [1] . This intervention provides a brief history of one social movement which emerged a decade ago in the north west mainland of Scotland: The Mackay Country Community Trust Ltd (MCCT). Their events sub-group is called Family MacBough. I begin by describing MCCT’s emergence and purpose, and then develop a vignette of the cultural and economic conditions which these people are confronting. This serves to tell the story of how and why Family MacBough went ‘to town’ to participate in the Civic Geographies session, and ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The ‘Gillie Mor’ – Hamish Henderson – drew on his intimate knowledge of Gramsci whose ‘Prison Letters’ he had translated for English language readers in developing his own conceptualisation of cultural production. The Gillie Mor called... more
The ‘Gillie Mor’ – Hamish Henderson – drew on his intimate knowledge of Gramsci whose ‘Prison Letters’ he had translated for English language readers in developing his own conceptualisation of cultural production. The Gillie Mor called it ‘the carrying stream’.
Massey illustrates ways in which space is as concrete as place and resists a romaticisation of ‘local’ coupled with a positing of ‘global’ as the abstract universal. This tendency underpins an insistent underexamined dualism ‘between Emotion (place/local) and Reason (space/global)’. The carrying stream is not just etched out by those we might choose to label as artists and seannachaidh (tradition bearers). Everyone affects and is effecting that stream. The idea of the carrying stream has underpinned work within the Mackay Country group for a long number of years.
The proposal for Civic Geographies focuses on our Mackay Country work and material about the Ceardannan – Summer Walkers – their bough tent, tinsmithing and itinerant storytelling. This team has informally become a Mackay Country sub-group since 2008 and on account of their annual events and education programme and their deep run commitment to each other and what they do, they have in recent years become commonly known as Family MacBough.
Hamish Henderson said that the travellers were the settled population’s libidinous alterego. In north west Sutherland the Ceardannan were and are considered part of ‘the community’ and were generally accorded respect in that capacity whilst also being ‘othered’ – perhaps ‘the other’ within to some extent, the regular travelling routes forming pulsing veins through intractable territories. Today’s activities by Family MacBough have rather unwittingly re-etched those trajectories with new and different functions in terms of goods and services – but again (or still?) embedding people in an area with less than one person per square kilometre into networks of conversation and belonging-ness. In terms of civic geographies does this mesh place, space and selves – dynamically conjuring boundaries through these perambulations punctuated by carnivalesque events? The securities which are sought by these activities are regional economic betterment; strengthening ties between and within the disparate remote communities of place; an altered sense of place in place and looking in from ‘the outside’ and an inclusive, opt-in set of local identities.
In a 2004 draft research brief titled Ebb and Flow Mackay Country stated ‘The history of the Gaidhealtachd is a history of movement’ and went on to state ‘As a research topic migration is uniquely inclusive. Everyone either has family who emigrated out of Mackay Country or family who emigrated into Mackay Country. Some families have both. This makes it an ideal topic for a community based research and heritage project.’ In the context of dominant loss based accounts of Highland history which revolve around Clearance and equate migration with disaster, asserting that in fact movement is the constant has the power to gradually rework everything from the ground up and may be understood as being an innovative long term manoeuvre in the bid to secure a better future in and for this area.
Massey illustrates ways in which space is as concrete as place and resists a romaticisation of ‘local’ coupled with a positing of ‘global’ as the abstract universal. This tendency underpins an insistent underexamined dualism ‘between Emotion (place/local) and Reason (space/global)’. The carrying stream is not just etched out by those we might choose to label as artists and seannachaidh (tradition bearers). Everyone affects and is effecting that stream. The idea of the carrying stream has underpinned work within the Mackay Country group for a long number of years.
The proposal for Civic Geographies focuses on our Mackay Country work and material about the Ceardannan – Summer Walkers – their bough tent, tinsmithing and itinerant storytelling. This team has informally become a Mackay Country sub-group since 2008 and on account of their annual events and education programme and their deep run commitment to each other and what they do, they have in recent years become commonly known as Family MacBough.
Hamish Henderson said that the travellers were the settled population’s libidinous alterego. In north west Sutherland the Ceardannan were and are considered part of ‘the community’ and were generally accorded respect in that capacity whilst also being ‘othered’ – perhaps ‘the other’ within to some extent, the regular travelling routes forming pulsing veins through intractable territories. Today’s activities by Family MacBough have rather unwittingly re-etched those trajectories with new and different functions in terms of goods and services – but again (or still?) embedding people in an area with less than one person per square kilometre into networks of conversation and belonging-ness. In terms of civic geographies does this mesh place, space and selves – dynamically conjuring boundaries through these perambulations punctuated by carnivalesque events? The securities which are sought by these activities are regional economic betterment; strengthening ties between and within the disparate remote communities of place; an altered sense of place in place and looking in from ‘the outside’ and an inclusive, opt-in set of local identities.
In a 2004 draft research brief titled Ebb and Flow Mackay Country stated ‘The history of the Gaidhealtachd is a history of movement’ and went on to state ‘As a research topic migration is uniquely inclusive. Everyone either has family who emigrated out of Mackay Country or family who emigrated into Mackay Country. Some families have both. This makes it an ideal topic for a community based research and heritage project.’ In the context of dominant loss based accounts of Highland history which revolve around Clearance and equate migration with disaster, asserting that in fact movement is the constant has the power to gradually rework everything from the ground up and may be understood as being an innovative long term manoeuvre in the bid to secure a better future in and for this area.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Issie conducted he research and wrote the play - performed as a rehearsed reading at the event. A Sprinkling of Salt, A Sprinkling of Pride was produced on behalf Scottish Union Learning in the Highlands and Islands by Dr Issie MacPhail... more
Issie conducted he research and wrote the play - performed as a rehearsed reading at the event. A Sprinkling of Salt, A Sprinkling of Pride was produced on behalf Scottish Union Learning in the Highlands and Islands by Dr Issie MacPhail and Open Book PW Ltd.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The UHI Centre for Remote and Rural Studies convened a roundtable event in November 2010 that brought together practitioners, policymakers and academics from Scotland, the UK and internationally. The aims were: (i) to explore the... more
The UHI Centre for Remote and Rural Studies convened a roundtable event in November 2010 that brought
together practitioners, policymakers and academics from Scotland, the UK and internationally. The aims were:
(i) to explore the implications of existing Scottish, UK and international research for the ownership of assets
by communities; and (ii) identify regional research priorities and the key players in taking a potential research agenda forward.
This paper provides an overview of key areas of discussion and debate.
Keywords:
Community assets; renewable energy; social justice; learning partnerships; regional policy; politics of community.
together practitioners, policymakers and academics from Scotland, the UK and internationally. The aims were:
(i) to explore the implications of existing Scottish, UK and international research for the ownership of assets
by communities; and (ii) identify regional research priorities and the key players in taking a potential research agenda forward.
This paper provides an overview of key areas of discussion and debate.
Keywords:
Community assets; renewable energy; social justice; learning partnerships; regional policy; politics of community.
Research Interests:
Written and compiled by Issie MacPhail from the reports and work carried out by a range of researchers for this project. Individual reports are incorporated as indicated in the contents which lists authors. The GUARD report is summarised... more
Written and compiled by Issie MacPhail from the reports and work carried out by a range of researchers for this project. Individual reports are incorporated as indicated in the contents which lists authors. The GUARD report is summarised briefly. The Timeline was created at the start of the project as a basic tool to help orientate research work.
December 2010.
December 2010.
Research Interests:
1. Introduction The aim of the study is to examine implementation of the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (LRSA) relating to access rights in Part One of the Act, the community right to buy in Part Two of the Act and the... more
1. Introduction
The aim of the study is to examine implementation of the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (LRSA) relating to access rights in Part One of the Act, the community right to buy in Part Two of the Act and the crofting community right to buy in Part Three of the Act. Its objectives are to:
• Determine the extent of use of provisions in Parts One, Two and Three;
• Review the evidence of any additional wider impact of the LRSA on recreational access to land, the community right to buy and the crofting community right to buy;
• Identify views on implementation of the provisions;
• Examine stakeholders‟ experiences of community land buyouts and crofting land buyouts outwith the provisions of the Act;
• Identify any barriers to greater use of the provisions;
• Identify options for change to the provisions themselves or their implementation which could encourage greater use.
2. Methodological Approach
The study combined reviews of relevant academic and non-academic literature with primary research involving electronically-administered surveys and semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with selected access, community ownership and crofting community ownership stakeholders to address the above objectives.
3. Key Findings for Access Rights
3.1 Extent of Use of the Provisions
It is not possible to quantify the extent to which statutory access rights are being exercised by recreational and other access-takers due to a lack of available and readily comparable data. However, Access Authorities have been active in fulfilling their statutory remits. There has been slippage in some Access Authorities‟ progress in drawing up their Core Paths Plans as required in Part One of the Act. Access Authorities have made limited use of their enforcement powers under the Act and there is currently very little case law relating to statutory access rights.
3.2 Additional Wider Impact of the LRSA on Recreational Access to Land
Clarification of statutory access rights is viewed as increasing the confidence and assertiveness of access-takers in relation to exercising these rights. However, there are concerns that a minority of access-takers are emphasising their statutory rights over their responsibilities when taking access.
3.3 Views on Implementation of the Access Provisions
There are concerns amongst many stakeholders that Access Authorities are reluctant to purse court action to resolve access disputes, partly because of the potentially adverse financial implications of losing a case. There is a perception that the legislation has gradually improved relations between access-takers and land managers. Core paths planning is considered to have raised the profile of access issues within Local Authorities and encouraged community engagement and constructive dialogue between stakeholders. However, there are concerns that core paths planning will be a „missed opportunity‟ if Access Authorities have insufficient funding to maintain and manage core paths networks.
3.4 Barriers to Greater Use of the Access Provisions
Barriers to greater use of access provisions as they relate to enforcement of access rights are mainly financial and cultural (linked to the Act‟s enabling ethos). These barriers are arguably exacerbated by the definitional vagueness associated with concepts such as „privacy‟ and „curtilage‟ in relation to access rights and a perceived reluctance by Access Authorities to test these definitions in court.
3.5 Stakeholders’ Proposals for Change
Stakeholders‟ proposals for change focus on amendments to specific provisions in the Act to make it a duty for Local Authorities to maintain core paths, to enable Access Officers to have specific powers of entry onto land, and to clarify section 14 of Part One (dealing with prohibition signs, obstructions, dangerous impediments etc.). Other proposals focus on funding issues; clearer guidance on particular issues such as control of dogs and wild camping; enforcement and other mechanisms for resolving access disputes; and educational measures such as integrating the highly regarded Scottish Outdoor Access Code into the Curriculum for Excellence at primary and secondary school levels.
4. Key Findings for the Community Right to Buy
4.1 Extent of Use of the Provisions
To date, seven Community Bodies have purchased land using the community right to buy provisions. Two more Community Bodies are currently in the process of doing so and one has an application to purchase under consideration. Ten Community Bodies have reached purchase stage but failed to complete within the timetable set out by the Act. 55 registrations of interest in land remain outstanding.
4.2 Additional Wider Impacts of the LRSA on the Community Right to Buy
Literature suggests that the very existence of the Act may inspire community action towards the control of local assets and make landowners more receptive to local communities‟ developmental aspirations. Research participants indicated that while the Act had stimulated general awareness of land reform in their community, it had not been directly useful as a bargaining tool with landowners. The extent to which the community right to buy has empowered community groups appears variable. Some groups have disbanded after unsuccessful applications to register interest. However, others have continued to pursue community-based initiatives.
4.3 Views on Implementation of the Community Right to Buy Provisions
Research findings highlighted the complexity of using the community right to buy. Specific issues were raised concerning access to the electoral register, community body definitions, ballot turnout requirements and the definition of „community‟. “Late” registrations are seen as a key “emergency” tool by community groups, and the majority of successful purchases to date have been “late”. Scottish Government Community Assets Branch officials were widely commended for their accessibility and responsiveness in dealing with Community Bodies.
4.4 Barriers to Greater Use of the Community Right to Buy Provisions
The legislation’s complex and resource-intensive administrative requirements and a lack of available funding to support community purchases of land are viewed as significant barriers to greater use of the provisions. Research findings suggest that reluctance to provoke community conflict and damage relations with locally-based landowners are also significant factors in explaining why groups avoided using the community right to buy to purchase land.
4.5 Stakeholders’ Experiences of Community Land Acquisition outwith the Act
The literature and our primary research findings indicate that mechanisms such as the National Forest Land Scheme are viewed as less complex to use than the LRSA‟s community right to buy provisions. Our research found that, in general, community groups believe that they have greater flexibility in purchase negotiations and more amicable relationships with landowners if purchases can be concluded outwith the Act.
4.6 Stakeholders’ Proposals for Change
Proposals for change mainly focus on specific issues relating to the implementation of the community right to buy. They include more time and flexibility for Community Bodies to meet their obligations under the community right to buy provisions, similar criteria for late registrations as for timeous registrations and a wider definition of community membership. More general proposals are also made in relation to further promoting the Act and making funding available to support community purchase and ownership of land.
5. Key Findings for the Crofting Community Right to Buy
5.1 Extent of Use of the Provisions
Current use of the crofting community right to buy is very limited. Only the Galson Trust and the Pairc Trust, both located in the Isle of Lewis, have registered to use these provisions. In the case of the Galson Trust, registration brought the landowner‟s representative to the negotiating table and, although the registration was „active‟, the sale was negotiated privately. In the case of the Pairc Trust, the landlord has systematically explored a range of legal means to avoid or delay sale. The case is still unresolved and awaiting a Court of Session hearing.
5.2 Views on Implementation of the Crofting Community Right to Buy Provisions
To date, the crofting community right to buy has never been implemented to the point where a crofting community body has used it to purchase eligible land and associated rights. However, it is viewed as extremely onerous, complex and resource-intensive by commentators and the two community groups with experience of formally engaging with Part Three of the Act.
5.3 Barriers to Greater Use of the Crofting Community Right to Buy Provisions
The complexity of the crofting community right to buy process, together with concerns that it may be unworkable in practice represent the key barriers to greater use of the provisions. More generally, changes to the funding environment and support sources for community land ownership are also viewed as barriers in this regard. There are also potential tensions between the crofting community right to buy and recent reforms to crofting law and policy, in terms of individual versus community ownership, which may further preclude use of the provisions in practice.
5.4 Additional Wider Impacts of the LRSA on the Crofting Community Right to Buy
Six community groups have purchased land under crofting tenure, either immediately prior to the passing of the LRSA or thereafter. A number of these groups cite the Act in general, and the crofting community right to buy in particular, as significant in helping to bring about a successful conclusion to purchase negotiations with the relevant landowner.
5.5 Stakeholder’s Experiences of Crofting Land Buyouts outwith the Act
All of the community purchases of land under crofting tenure since 2002 have occurred in the islands (the Small Isles, the Western Isles and Skye). Despite differing significantly in scale and scope, all of these initiatives share a focus on utilising local assets to maximise opportunities for sustainable development in the communities in which land is under community ownership. In all of these instances, the purchase process has had a less protracted timescale and been characterised by more amicable negotiations than experienced in the one case where an application to exercise the crofting community right to buy is currently being pursued.
5.6 Stakeholders’ Proposals for Change
Proposals for change mainly relate to reducing the onerous nature of the mapping requirements when applying to exercise the crofting community right to buy and enabling more flexibility in the definition of a Crofting Community Body and crofting community. More generally, it is proposed that the Register of the Crofting Community Right to Buy should be made available on-line so that relevant documents and registrations can be easily accessed. There are also calls to make further funding available to assist in achieving crofting community buyouts using the Act and outwith the legislation.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Access Rights
For the most part the enabling ethos underpinning the statutory access rights contained in the LRSA appears to be working well. The Act has clarified access rights and responsibilities and while our primary research findings suggest some concern regarding seemingly emboldened access-takers placing emphasis on their rights over an appreciation of their responsibilities, on the whole such behaviour appears to be a minority activity. There remain „hotspot‟ access issues such as irresponsible wild camping, fire-lighting and perceived inadequate control of dogs, particularly near livestock or wildlife habitats. However, as a number of research participants pointed out, these issues pre-date the introduction of statutory access rights. There appears to be relatively little appetite amongst access stakeholders for significant changes to specific provisions in the Act or in relation to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
6.2 The Community Right to Buy
The community right to buy was seen as the centre-piece of the LRSA in the period prior to its enactment. Arguably that perception remains despite the fact that it has had little direct use in purchasing land or other assets for community ownership. There was widespread support amongst community groups participating in this research project for the community right to buy, and its democratising ethos of aiming to place land in community as opposed to private ownership when the opportunity arose was commended. Simplification of administrative processes is favoured by many research participants. More generally, calls for greater promotion of the community right to buy, together with more accessible funding to support community purchase and ownership are a constant refrain from within the community land ownership sector.
6.3 The Crofting Community Right to Buy
Many of the above observations in relation to the community right to buy are equally applicable to the crofting community right to buy. In particular the administrative challenges confronting a Crofting Community Body wishing to use Part Three of the LRSA make the crofting community right to buy an even more daunting process to embark upon than the community right to buy. All the more so given that its use risks an accelerating deterioration in „crofting community-landowner‟ relations.
7. Concluding Observations
The research findings contained in this report indicate that there is widespread support amongst many stakeholders within Scotland for the objectives of the LRSA as they pertain to statutory access rights, community land ownership and crofting community land ownership. Findings from this study also raise fundamental questions which are of relevance to the community right to buy and crofting community right to buy provisions in particular. Specifically, what is the Act for in these regards? Is it to be the catalyst for directly facilitating community and crofting community ownership in line with the original vision of the Land Reform Policy Group? Or is it intended to have an indirect influence on these ambitions? If it is to be the former, there is merit in considering whether amendments to the legislation might better equip it to fulfil this role. More generally, further political consideration might also usefully be given to how community land ownership can be effectively resourced and otherwise supported outwith the auspices of the LRSA.
The aim of the study is to examine implementation of the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (LRSA) relating to access rights in Part One of the Act, the community right to buy in Part Two of the Act and the crofting community right to buy in Part Three of the Act. Its objectives are to:
• Determine the extent of use of provisions in Parts One, Two and Three;
• Review the evidence of any additional wider impact of the LRSA on recreational access to land, the community right to buy and the crofting community right to buy;
• Identify views on implementation of the provisions;
• Examine stakeholders‟ experiences of community land buyouts and crofting land buyouts outwith the provisions of the Act;
• Identify any barriers to greater use of the provisions;
• Identify options for change to the provisions themselves or their implementation which could encourage greater use.
2. Methodological Approach
The study combined reviews of relevant academic and non-academic literature with primary research involving electronically-administered surveys and semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with selected access, community ownership and crofting community ownership stakeholders to address the above objectives.
3. Key Findings for Access Rights
3.1 Extent of Use of the Provisions
It is not possible to quantify the extent to which statutory access rights are being exercised by recreational and other access-takers due to a lack of available and readily comparable data. However, Access Authorities have been active in fulfilling their statutory remits. There has been slippage in some Access Authorities‟ progress in drawing up their Core Paths Plans as required in Part One of the Act. Access Authorities have made limited use of their enforcement powers under the Act and there is currently very little case law relating to statutory access rights.
3.2 Additional Wider Impact of the LRSA on Recreational Access to Land
Clarification of statutory access rights is viewed as increasing the confidence and assertiveness of access-takers in relation to exercising these rights. However, there are concerns that a minority of access-takers are emphasising their statutory rights over their responsibilities when taking access.
3.3 Views on Implementation of the Access Provisions
There are concerns amongst many stakeholders that Access Authorities are reluctant to purse court action to resolve access disputes, partly because of the potentially adverse financial implications of losing a case. There is a perception that the legislation has gradually improved relations between access-takers and land managers. Core paths planning is considered to have raised the profile of access issues within Local Authorities and encouraged community engagement and constructive dialogue between stakeholders. However, there are concerns that core paths planning will be a „missed opportunity‟ if Access Authorities have insufficient funding to maintain and manage core paths networks.
3.4 Barriers to Greater Use of the Access Provisions
Barriers to greater use of access provisions as they relate to enforcement of access rights are mainly financial and cultural (linked to the Act‟s enabling ethos). These barriers are arguably exacerbated by the definitional vagueness associated with concepts such as „privacy‟ and „curtilage‟ in relation to access rights and a perceived reluctance by Access Authorities to test these definitions in court.
3.5 Stakeholders’ Proposals for Change
Stakeholders‟ proposals for change focus on amendments to specific provisions in the Act to make it a duty for Local Authorities to maintain core paths, to enable Access Officers to have specific powers of entry onto land, and to clarify section 14 of Part One (dealing with prohibition signs, obstructions, dangerous impediments etc.). Other proposals focus on funding issues; clearer guidance on particular issues such as control of dogs and wild camping; enforcement and other mechanisms for resolving access disputes; and educational measures such as integrating the highly regarded Scottish Outdoor Access Code into the Curriculum for Excellence at primary and secondary school levels.
4. Key Findings for the Community Right to Buy
4.1 Extent of Use of the Provisions
To date, seven Community Bodies have purchased land using the community right to buy provisions. Two more Community Bodies are currently in the process of doing so and one has an application to purchase under consideration. Ten Community Bodies have reached purchase stage but failed to complete within the timetable set out by the Act. 55 registrations of interest in land remain outstanding.
4.2 Additional Wider Impacts of the LRSA on the Community Right to Buy
Literature suggests that the very existence of the Act may inspire community action towards the control of local assets and make landowners more receptive to local communities‟ developmental aspirations. Research participants indicated that while the Act had stimulated general awareness of land reform in their community, it had not been directly useful as a bargaining tool with landowners. The extent to which the community right to buy has empowered community groups appears variable. Some groups have disbanded after unsuccessful applications to register interest. However, others have continued to pursue community-based initiatives.
4.3 Views on Implementation of the Community Right to Buy Provisions
Research findings highlighted the complexity of using the community right to buy. Specific issues were raised concerning access to the electoral register, community body definitions, ballot turnout requirements and the definition of „community‟. “Late” registrations are seen as a key “emergency” tool by community groups, and the majority of successful purchases to date have been “late”. Scottish Government Community Assets Branch officials were widely commended for their accessibility and responsiveness in dealing with Community Bodies.
4.4 Barriers to Greater Use of the Community Right to Buy Provisions
The legislation’s complex and resource-intensive administrative requirements and a lack of available funding to support community purchases of land are viewed as significant barriers to greater use of the provisions. Research findings suggest that reluctance to provoke community conflict and damage relations with locally-based landowners are also significant factors in explaining why groups avoided using the community right to buy to purchase land.
4.5 Stakeholders’ Experiences of Community Land Acquisition outwith the Act
The literature and our primary research findings indicate that mechanisms such as the National Forest Land Scheme are viewed as less complex to use than the LRSA‟s community right to buy provisions. Our research found that, in general, community groups believe that they have greater flexibility in purchase negotiations and more amicable relationships with landowners if purchases can be concluded outwith the Act.
4.6 Stakeholders’ Proposals for Change
Proposals for change mainly focus on specific issues relating to the implementation of the community right to buy. They include more time and flexibility for Community Bodies to meet their obligations under the community right to buy provisions, similar criteria for late registrations as for timeous registrations and a wider definition of community membership. More general proposals are also made in relation to further promoting the Act and making funding available to support community purchase and ownership of land.
5. Key Findings for the Crofting Community Right to Buy
5.1 Extent of Use of the Provisions
Current use of the crofting community right to buy is very limited. Only the Galson Trust and the Pairc Trust, both located in the Isle of Lewis, have registered to use these provisions. In the case of the Galson Trust, registration brought the landowner‟s representative to the negotiating table and, although the registration was „active‟, the sale was negotiated privately. In the case of the Pairc Trust, the landlord has systematically explored a range of legal means to avoid or delay sale. The case is still unresolved and awaiting a Court of Session hearing.
5.2 Views on Implementation of the Crofting Community Right to Buy Provisions
To date, the crofting community right to buy has never been implemented to the point where a crofting community body has used it to purchase eligible land and associated rights. However, it is viewed as extremely onerous, complex and resource-intensive by commentators and the two community groups with experience of formally engaging with Part Three of the Act.
5.3 Barriers to Greater Use of the Crofting Community Right to Buy Provisions
The complexity of the crofting community right to buy process, together with concerns that it may be unworkable in practice represent the key barriers to greater use of the provisions. More generally, changes to the funding environment and support sources for community land ownership are also viewed as barriers in this regard. There are also potential tensions between the crofting community right to buy and recent reforms to crofting law and policy, in terms of individual versus community ownership, which may further preclude use of the provisions in practice.
5.4 Additional Wider Impacts of the LRSA on the Crofting Community Right to Buy
Six community groups have purchased land under crofting tenure, either immediately prior to the passing of the LRSA or thereafter. A number of these groups cite the Act in general, and the crofting community right to buy in particular, as significant in helping to bring about a successful conclusion to purchase negotiations with the relevant landowner.
5.5 Stakeholder’s Experiences of Crofting Land Buyouts outwith the Act
All of the community purchases of land under crofting tenure since 2002 have occurred in the islands (the Small Isles, the Western Isles and Skye). Despite differing significantly in scale and scope, all of these initiatives share a focus on utilising local assets to maximise opportunities for sustainable development in the communities in which land is under community ownership. In all of these instances, the purchase process has had a less protracted timescale and been characterised by more amicable negotiations than experienced in the one case where an application to exercise the crofting community right to buy is currently being pursued.
5.6 Stakeholders’ Proposals for Change
Proposals for change mainly relate to reducing the onerous nature of the mapping requirements when applying to exercise the crofting community right to buy and enabling more flexibility in the definition of a Crofting Community Body and crofting community. More generally, it is proposed that the Register of the Crofting Community Right to Buy should be made available on-line so that relevant documents and registrations can be easily accessed. There are also calls to make further funding available to assist in achieving crofting community buyouts using the Act and outwith the legislation.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Access Rights
For the most part the enabling ethos underpinning the statutory access rights contained in the LRSA appears to be working well. The Act has clarified access rights and responsibilities and while our primary research findings suggest some concern regarding seemingly emboldened access-takers placing emphasis on their rights over an appreciation of their responsibilities, on the whole such behaviour appears to be a minority activity. There remain „hotspot‟ access issues such as irresponsible wild camping, fire-lighting and perceived inadequate control of dogs, particularly near livestock or wildlife habitats. However, as a number of research participants pointed out, these issues pre-date the introduction of statutory access rights. There appears to be relatively little appetite amongst access stakeholders for significant changes to specific provisions in the Act or in relation to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
6.2 The Community Right to Buy
The community right to buy was seen as the centre-piece of the LRSA in the period prior to its enactment. Arguably that perception remains despite the fact that it has had little direct use in purchasing land or other assets for community ownership. There was widespread support amongst community groups participating in this research project for the community right to buy, and its democratising ethos of aiming to place land in community as opposed to private ownership when the opportunity arose was commended. Simplification of administrative processes is favoured by many research participants. More generally, calls for greater promotion of the community right to buy, together with more accessible funding to support community purchase and ownership are a constant refrain from within the community land ownership sector.
6.3 The Crofting Community Right to Buy
Many of the above observations in relation to the community right to buy are equally applicable to the crofting community right to buy. In particular the administrative challenges confronting a Crofting Community Body wishing to use Part Three of the LRSA make the crofting community right to buy an even more daunting process to embark upon than the community right to buy. All the more so given that its use risks an accelerating deterioration in „crofting community-landowner‟ relations.
7. Concluding Observations
The research findings contained in this report indicate that there is widespread support amongst many stakeholders within Scotland for the objectives of the LRSA as they pertain to statutory access rights, community land ownership and crofting community land ownership. Findings from this study also raise fundamental questions which are of relevance to the community right to buy and crofting community right to buy provisions in particular. Specifically, what is the Act for in these regards? Is it to be the catalyst for directly facilitating community and crofting community ownership in line with the original vision of the Land Reform Policy Group? Or is it intended to have an indirect influence on these ambitions? If it is to be the former, there is merit in considering whether amendments to the legislation might better equip it to fulfil this role. More generally, further political consideration might also usefully be given to how community land ownership can be effectively resourced and otherwise supported outwith the auspices of the LRSA.
Research Interests: Land reform and Crofting
Executive Summary Caithness and Sutherland enjoy an enormously active local history sector boasting at least 47 groups carrying out research, events and exhibitions of different sorts. The nature of these groups varies a great deal from... more
Executive Summary
Caithness and Sutherland enjoy an enormously active local history sector boasting at least 47 groups carrying out research, events and exhibitions of different sorts. The nature of these groups varies a great deal from modest but hugely active and energetic parish level organisations, with no staff and almost no money, to large operations managing buildings, staff and outreach programmes. In the 2007/08 financial year the following jobs and spend were achieved:
• 32.9 FTEs
• 161,963 visits/ trips1
• direct revenue spend in the local economy by these groups in 2007/08 of £1,194,958.24
• if Caithness Horizons’ capital costs are included it is a direct spend in that financial year of £5,194,958.242
• 41,837 voluntary hours, most of them in skilled work, which if costed at a very modest £10/hour, is an ‘in-kind’ contribution of £418,370.00 in that year
It should be noted that significant building and renovation work tends to be ongoing within this sector. Caithness Horizons opened in December 2008 after a £4 million redevelopment. In spring 2009 Timespan reopened after a full ‘refit’. Many groups are seeking to re-use or care for old buildings and so are constantly engaged in repairs, dyke work, path building, stonework, painting, rethatch, grass cutting and general maintenance which generates considerable work for the construction sector in the area. The levels of direct spend indicate the significant leverage this sector achieves in bringing money into the area.
The mode of operation varies widely:
• 10 of these groups have no building but 17 have at least one rented or owned and in some cases several buildings
• 5 have Museums, Libraries, Archive (MLA) accreditation
• 12 have no staff and no short contract workers and rely 100% on voluntary input
• 4 organisations have created jobs, contract work, residencies or workspace which as resulted in 8 graduate in-migrants and/or return migrants in recent years (there may be more which have not been reported) plus 3 small business start-ups and 1 new facility run by AOC Archaeology (2 full-time jobs there and expansion is likely)3
The history sector in Caithness and Sutherland makes an enormous and pivotal contribution to the tourism product and also generates significant economic impacts for the local area through this work. As in the rest of Scotland it is very difficult to quantify and track the full extent of those impacts but some illustrative examples are possible. For instance conferences organised by Caithness Archaeological Trust between 2003 and 2008 generated direct spend in the local economy of £317,698.00. The development of The UHI Centre for History in Dornoch has generated further in-migration and economic impacts:
• 6.8 FTEs created in Dornoch, bringing 4 new people to live there and
• ‘bringing home’ 2 return migrants – all to graduate jobs
• a further 1.8 FTEs and 7 part-time contracts outwith the study area
• 5 students moved into the area to study from Canada, USA, Italy and
• England in combination with the development of The North Highland Hospitality and Tourism Centre in Dornoch this represents a total spend of £7.2 million
The history sector in this area makes a very important contribution to cultural and social life too and creates opportunities to learn new skills. The work of the history sector is important for health, well-being and preventative medicine. The substantial contribution made by museums, events, exhibitions and research to the tourism product and economy is often undervalued and overlooked and it is to be hoped that this will become better understood.
Groups and individuals working and volunteering to work on historical and archaeological topics also work very closely with the region’s arts and crafts workers. Work of this type tends to stem from a fascination with the stories and puzzles of the local area, be they set in stone or in words. This adds to the dynamism and quality of what this sector can achieve and offer to both locals and visitors. A very high percentage of visitors to museums and participants in activities are local residents but no data is currently collected on this aspect via the standard Scottish level visitor attraction monitoring.
This impressive capacity and experience would make it possible to develop the tourism product, including Summer Schools, far more in the future. The first need though is to achieve improved profile beyond the local area. This can best be achieved collaboratively, for the entire area rather than one or two groups, in order to avoid duplication of effort and as a way of minimising costs.
1 These are 2008 attendance figures except for Caithness Horizons for which figures for Dec
2008 till Nov 2009 have been used since this facility only opened in December 2008. It’s two
busiest months in terms of attendance figures were December and August.
2 Accounts for the year ending March 2008 were used.
3 These 2 jobs are counted in the total of 8.
Caithness and Sutherland enjoy an enormously active local history sector boasting at least 47 groups carrying out research, events and exhibitions of different sorts. The nature of these groups varies a great deal from modest but hugely active and energetic parish level organisations, with no staff and almost no money, to large operations managing buildings, staff and outreach programmes. In the 2007/08 financial year the following jobs and spend were achieved:
• 32.9 FTEs
• 161,963 visits/ trips1
• direct revenue spend in the local economy by these groups in 2007/08 of £1,194,958.24
• if Caithness Horizons’ capital costs are included it is a direct spend in that financial year of £5,194,958.242
• 41,837 voluntary hours, most of them in skilled work, which if costed at a very modest £10/hour, is an ‘in-kind’ contribution of £418,370.00 in that year
It should be noted that significant building and renovation work tends to be ongoing within this sector. Caithness Horizons opened in December 2008 after a £4 million redevelopment. In spring 2009 Timespan reopened after a full ‘refit’. Many groups are seeking to re-use or care for old buildings and so are constantly engaged in repairs, dyke work, path building, stonework, painting, rethatch, grass cutting and general maintenance which generates considerable work for the construction sector in the area. The levels of direct spend indicate the significant leverage this sector achieves in bringing money into the area.
The mode of operation varies widely:
• 10 of these groups have no building but 17 have at least one rented or owned and in some cases several buildings
• 5 have Museums, Libraries, Archive (MLA) accreditation
• 12 have no staff and no short contract workers and rely 100% on voluntary input
• 4 organisations have created jobs, contract work, residencies or workspace which as resulted in 8 graduate in-migrants and/or return migrants in recent years (there may be more which have not been reported) plus 3 small business start-ups and 1 new facility run by AOC Archaeology (2 full-time jobs there and expansion is likely)3
The history sector in Caithness and Sutherland makes an enormous and pivotal contribution to the tourism product and also generates significant economic impacts for the local area through this work. As in the rest of Scotland it is very difficult to quantify and track the full extent of those impacts but some illustrative examples are possible. For instance conferences organised by Caithness Archaeological Trust between 2003 and 2008 generated direct spend in the local economy of £317,698.00. The development of The UHI Centre for History in Dornoch has generated further in-migration and economic impacts:
• 6.8 FTEs created in Dornoch, bringing 4 new people to live there and
• ‘bringing home’ 2 return migrants – all to graduate jobs
• a further 1.8 FTEs and 7 part-time contracts outwith the study area
• 5 students moved into the area to study from Canada, USA, Italy and
• England in combination with the development of The North Highland Hospitality and Tourism Centre in Dornoch this represents a total spend of £7.2 million
The history sector in this area makes a very important contribution to cultural and social life too and creates opportunities to learn new skills. The work of the history sector is important for health, well-being and preventative medicine. The substantial contribution made by museums, events, exhibitions and research to the tourism product and economy is often undervalued and overlooked and it is to be hoped that this will become better understood.
Groups and individuals working and volunteering to work on historical and archaeological topics also work very closely with the region’s arts and crafts workers. Work of this type tends to stem from a fascination with the stories and puzzles of the local area, be they set in stone or in words. This adds to the dynamism and quality of what this sector can achieve and offer to both locals and visitors. A very high percentage of visitors to museums and participants in activities are local residents but no data is currently collected on this aspect via the standard Scottish level visitor attraction monitoring.
This impressive capacity and experience would make it possible to develop the tourism product, including Summer Schools, far more in the future. The first need though is to achieve improved profile beyond the local area. This can best be achieved collaboratively, for the entire area rather than one or two groups, in order to avoid duplication of effort and as a way of minimising costs.
1 These are 2008 attendance figures except for Caithness Horizons for which figures for Dec
2008 till Nov 2009 have been used since this facility only opened in December 2008. It’s two
busiest months in terms of attendance figures were December and August.
2 Accounts for the year ending March 2008 were used.
3 These 2 jobs are counted in the total of 8.
Research Interests:
Executive Summary This research has revealed a far higher level of interest in Gaelic revitalisation in the north west than was anticipated. It has also revealed that there is a latent ability for Gaelic amongst ‘lapsed native speakers’... more
Executive Summary
This research has revealed a far higher level of interest in Gaelic revitalisation in the north west than was anticipated. It has also revealed that there is a latent ability for Gaelic amongst ‘lapsed native speakers’ and those who grew up hearing a great deal of Gaelic but have never used it to any great extent. Demand for access to Gaelic learning opportunities has been expressed by parents for their children but equally by the older generation keen to speak to each other or their grandchildren. Interest in using Gaelic for singing and exploring local poetry such as the work of Rob Donn was also mentioned frequently.
The questionnaire results showed that:
22 people in households and businesses were described as people
who can ‘speak, read or write Gaelic’
12 ‘native speakers’ were reported
34 individuals were reported as wanting to learn
9 were reported as being basic learners already
4 were reported as learners at a moderate level and 1 at an advanced level
The main fear was for inappropriate pressure on scare financial resources and concerns that since school rolls are falling considerably, working towards establishment of a Gaelic Medium Unit for the three western parishes might endanger existing school provision and teacher numbers. On balance the research locally shows that even amongst those who do value
Gaelic and bilingualism there is little sense of possibility and a generally low awareness of the wider benefits of any sort of level of bilingualism. As the quote below illustrates most people therefore have mixed feelings and little sense of potential:
“Gaelic language is finished - that’s a fact. You cannot retrieve the language. I believe that for those going through GMU, that bilingualism is a positive element in their lives. Makes you cry when you think what we have lost.”1
In spite of this the research does illustrate:
An appropriate critical mass of people who would like to do more and learn more
A hope, even amongst those who fear it is hopeless - that the profile, use and status of Gaelic locally can be improved – and should be improved
A constant statement that Gaelic needs to be taught from pre-school stage through till the end of secondary school – for some people that is specified as Gaelic Medium education while others describe this as Gaelic being available as a subject in its own right.
specified as Gaelic Medium education while others describe this as
Gaelic being available as a subject in its own right
This research has revealed a far higher level of interest in Gaelic revitalisation in the north west than was anticipated. It has also revealed that there is a latent ability for Gaelic amongst ‘lapsed native speakers’ and those who grew up hearing a great deal of Gaelic but have never used it to any great extent. Demand for access to Gaelic learning opportunities has been expressed by parents for their children but equally by the older generation keen to speak to each other or their grandchildren. Interest in using Gaelic for singing and exploring local poetry such as the work of Rob Donn was also mentioned frequently.
The questionnaire results showed that:
22 people in households and businesses were described as people
who can ‘speak, read or write Gaelic’
12 ‘native speakers’ were reported
34 individuals were reported as wanting to learn
9 were reported as being basic learners already
4 were reported as learners at a moderate level and 1 at an advanced level
The main fear was for inappropriate pressure on scare financial resources and concerns that since school rolls are falling considerably, working towards establishment of a Gaelic Medium Unit for the three western parishes might endanger existing school provision and teacher numbers. On balance the research locally shows that even amongst those who do value
Gaelic and bilingualism there is little sense of possibility and a generally low awareness of the wider benefits of any sort of level of bilingualism. As the quote below illustrates most people therefore have mixed feelings and little sense of potential:
“Gaelic language is finished - that’s a fact. You cannot retrieve the language. I believe that for those going through GMU, that bilingualism is a positive element in their lives. Makes you cry when you think what we have lost.”1
In spite of this the research does illustrate:
An appropriate critical mass of people who would like to do more and learn more
A hope, even amongst those who fear it is hopeless - that the profile, use and status of Gaelic locally can be improved – and should be improved
A constant statement that Gaelic needs to be taught from pre-school stage through till the end of secondary school – for some people that is specified as Gaelic Medium education while others describe this as Gaelic being available as a subject in its own right.
specified as Gaelic Medium education while others describe this as
Gaelic being available as a subject in its own right
Research Interests:
In the last decade of the 20th century ‘The Land Question’ in Scotland was transformed through the actions of a number of Highland community groups. This thesis focuses on one of those community groups – The Assynt Crofters Trust. Using... more
In the last decade of the 20th century ‘The Land Question’ in Scotland was transformed through the actions of a number of Highland community groups. This thesis focuses on one of those community groups – The Assynt Crofters Trust. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, this research tracks the motivations and tactics of the campaigning crofting group which created the Assynt Crofters Trust. The community action is situated and critically examined through post-colonial approaches. This work follows the Assynt Crofters Trust’s transformation from a campaigning organisation to becoming part of the social landownership movement. The achievements of the Assynt Crofters Trust are detailed and an assessment made of the organisation’s early impacts.
Research Interests:
Community Assets – Delivering on the Potential? Third sector groups pursuing local development through the ownership and management of ‘community assets’ have become central to local development within and outwith Scotland. Current... more
Community Assets – Delivering on the Potential?
Third sector groups pursuing local development through the ownership and management of ‘community assets’ have become central to local development within and outwith Scotland. Current discourses on assets have tended to privilege infrastructure and land. However, a broader definition of ‘assets’ may also include, for example, extractable minerals, energy, skills in communities, culture, and the natural and built environment. Many of these assets may not necessarily be communally owned in a strictly legal sense, either simply being present within it, or belonging to particular members, or to those resident outside it.
A key challenge is to understand and describe the latent and current ‘value’ of such varied ‘assets’ and asset management. For the creation of successful eco-economies, communities and other kinds of ‘investors’ need to be informed by locally embedded descriptions of ‘value’, understand the potential for development of assets and impacts which go beyond narrow financial considerations. Ownership may not be always be the central issue but setting a ‘value’ or a potential ‘return’ may still be a useful exercise for communities that actively plan their development.
The aim is to explore theoretically and practically the potential to establish ‘eco-economies’ where surplus value circulates locally and/or is reinvested locally.
In partnership with a range of researchers active within the UHI network, CRRS is seeking to explore the current opportunities and barriers encountered by community groups pursuing local development through asset ownership and management. Together we seek to build a capacity within UHI for meeting the needs of the third sector and public agencies active in this field. UHI can build a multi-disciplinary resource to support this local level development work and explore the potential for collaborative research with practitioners instead of about practitioners.
Third sector groups pursuing local development through the ownership and management of ‘community assets’ have become central to local development within and outwith Scotland. Current discourses on assets have tended to privilege infrastructure and land. However, a broader definition of ‘assets’ may also include, for example, extractable minerals, energy, skills in communities, culture, and the natural and built environment. Many of these assets may not necessarily be communally owned in a strictly legal sense, either simply being present within it, or belonging to particular members, or to those resident outside it.
A key challenge is to understand and describe the latent and current ‘value’ of such varied ‘assets’ and asset management. For the creation of successful eco-economies, communities and other kinds of ‘investors’ need to be informed by locally embedded descriptions of ‘value’, understand the potential for development of assets and impacts which go beyond narrow financial considerations. Ownership may not be always be the central issue but setting a ‘value’ or a potential ‘return’ may still be a useful exercise for communities that actively plan their development.
The aim is to explore theoretically and practically the potential to establish ‘eco-economies’ where surplus value circulates locally and/or is reinvested locally.
In partnership with a range of researchers active within the UHI network, CRRS is seeking to explore the current opportunities and barriers encountered by community groups pursuing local development through asset ownership and management. Together we seek to build a capacity within UHI for meeting the needs of the third sector and public agencies active in this field. UHI can build a multi-disciplinary resource to support this local level development work and explore the potential for collaborative research with practitioners instead of about practitioners.