General Musings

[Walter Sobchak]

In the mid 1700s, 25 to 30 per cent of the Scottish population of 900,000 spoke Gaelic.

By the start of the 19th Century, the proportion was around one-fifth of the population.

By 1881, it had dropped to 6.2 per cent.

By 1921, the number of Gaelic speakers had fallen to 158,779 (3.3 per cent of the national population) with just 9.829 Gaelic speakers recorded, according to McLeod and Jones.

Gaelic, by this time, had become a minority language in most Highland parishes, with the lowest rate in Black Isle and Highland Perthshire (around 10 per cent).

“On the other hand, most of the mainland to the north and west of the Great Glen, to say nothing of the islands, remained well over 75 per cent Gaelic speaking.

“Ten Parishes, mostly in Skye and the Western Isles, stood at over 90 per cent, with Applecross, at 91 per cent, being the strongest Gaelic area on the mainland,” McLeod and Jones added.

The publication of a Bible in vernacular Scottish Gaelic in 1801 and the activities of the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge (SSPCK), which ran 300 schools by 1795, eventually increased Gaelic literacy rates in the first half of the 19th Century, Jones and McLeod said.

While the society had originally sought to rid the “Irish tongue” its position later altered and Gaelic dictionaries were produced.

However, the Education Act of 1872, which introduced a system of state schools where Gaelic was completely excluded, was a “disaster” for the Gaelic language, the professors said.

Teaching of the language remained marginal in the state system until the 1960s, when some Gaelic-medium initiatives were introduced in Inverness-shire.

[Nive la France]

Nope, because there was an invasion. So are you saying there wasn't an invasion?

Also, I mentioned that it was only in the early 1900s that some (minimal) efforts were made to reform clearance legislation and the effects of the clearances are felt hugely today. All those highlands villages and town of a few thousand would now be 10,000s of inhabitants. All gone. Our landscape has been changed irreversibly with no legal means to repopulate the land. It was hugely relevant to the 20th century, therefore it counteracts your point that the institutional and economic levers put in place were then reversed "hundreds of years ago"

I used the phrase "social invasion" I think - it's not the best, but I clearly wasn't referring to a particular physical battle. I also didn't say anything was reversed, just that the causes were hundreds of years ago. Didn't really go into enough detail to merit a th/iamverysmart.scott. Just to summarise my position: man in video = annoying; clearances = bad; Scotland = good.

[2MatoFish]

The clearances really weren't that bad; the vast majority of evictees were not only given relief of their debts but money to resettle elsewhere. The Lochaber No More sentiment isn't the experience of most people cleared.

I don't doubt it wasn't pleasant for many, but in terms of massive social upheavals it was relatively painless and is only thought of in such as way due to literature, song and grievance. Lovely, lovely grievance.

[CritchSmile]

The clearances really weren't that bad; the vast majority of evictees were not only given relief of their debts but money to resettle elsewhere. The Lochaber No More sentiment isn't the experience of most people cleared.

I don't doubt it wasn't pleasant for many, but in terms of massive social upheavals it was relatively painless and is only thought of in such as way due to literature, song and grievance. Lovely, lovely grievance.

I couldn't disagree with you more regarding the effect the clearances has had on Scotland. Regarding how individuals were treated, I agree it was relatively “painless” in the narrow sense to u describe, but you need to delve into place-based literature to recognise the sociological effects. The wider institutional effects on land ownership and crofting -well that can't be argued that the effect was radical and completely changes the future of Scotland, it's culture and language.  Literature and song shouldn't be disregarded also, this is often one of the few outlets whereby the emotional effects on a psyche could be expressed.

Of course for some of these communities they are happy that they get paid off to leave, because like today, some people don't want to stay in one place their whole life, the other half it was probably traumatic and removed their livelihood and place connections that they had built over generations. It's classic divide and rule strategy. There's a similar gentrification strategy on Rotterdam today, whereby those who live in inner city social housing are given subsidies to leave their place to a suburban town, so they can flatten the neighbourhood and build something more fashionable in its place under the banner of“urban regeneration”. Some of these people are delighted they are leaving a shithole, some people are completely traumatised that their memories of their lives are being lost/paid off.

Those who won't face up to the land ownership issue in Scotland rooted in the clearances and dismiss it as “grievance” are a huge problem to the possibility of an independent Scotland.

[Mr A]

I couldn't disagree with you more regarding the effect the clearances has had on Scotland. Regarding how individuals were treated, I agree it was relatively “painless” in the narrow sense to u describe, but you need to delve into place-based literature to recognise the sociological effects. The wider institutional effects on land ownership and crofting -well that can't be argued that the effect was radical and completely changes the future of Scotland, it's culture and language.  Literature and song shouldn't be disregarded also, this is often one of the few outlets whereby the emotional effects on a psyche could be expressed.

Of course for some of these communities they are happy that they get paid off to leave, because like today, some people don't want to stay in one place their whole life, the other half it was probably traumatic and removed their livelihood and place connections that they had built over generations. It's classic divide and rule strategy. There's a similar gentrification strategy on Rotterdam today, whereby those who live in inner city social housing are given subsidies to leave their place to a suburban town, so they can flatten the neighbourhood and build something more fashionable in its place under the banner of“urban regeneration”. Some of these people are delighted they are leaving a shithole, some people are completely traumatised that their memories of their lives are being lost/paid off.

Those who won't face up to the land ownership issue in Scotland rooted in the clearances and dismiss it as “grievance” are a huge problem to the possibility of an independent Scotland.

What do you want done about land ownership in Scotland, Grumblebum?

There already is legislation that allows land owners to have their property forcibly removed from them if certain criteria is met. Do you think it should go further?

It is a very powerful grievance tool to moan about the vast majority of Scotland being owned by a few individuals/families. A lot of that land is just shit, though. Good for deer, wind turbines and forestry but not much else.

Let's pretend Scotland votes to be independent (lol) and The Grumblebum Party has a massive majority in the first elections post-freedom– what would you be doing in relation to land ownership?

[CritchSmile]

What do you want done about land ownership in Scotland, Grumblebum?

There already is legislation that allows land owners to have their property forcibly removed from them if certain criteria is met. Do you think it should go further?

It is a very powerful grievance tool to moan about the vast majority of Scotland being owned by a few individuals/families.  A lot of that land is just shit, though. Good for deer, wind turbines and forestry but not much else.

Let's pretend Scotland votes to be independent (lol) and The Grumblebum Party has a massive majority in the first elections post-freedom– what would you be doing in relation to land ownership?

What you're asking from me above would require me to write a thesis in it, but lets deal with things as succintly as possible.

Firstly, the relevant legislation (primarily the Land Reform (scotland) Act 2003, the land Reform (scotland) Act 2016 and the community empowerment bill 2015 and secondly, elements of the recent forestry and highlands and islands bill and the recent local planning bill), these gains on issues - predominantly, community right to buy, and the mandatory right to buy based on sustainable development have all came post-devolution of powers. the social and political movements pre-devolution to put these issues onto the agenda at various points in the 20th century were all blocked institutionally whether that be democratically by successive Conservative governments of which Scotland did not vote for or by the unelected House of Lords whenever legislation reached that far a stage.

For the first time, thanks to Scotland achieving more autonomy over it's own future it has powers to put land back in the hands of Scottish communities. Some of these powers have only been available since 2003, whereby one of my biggest criticisms of the SNP is not devolving power from the state to local government to facilitate more opportunities to buy land and alter land use. However, the stronger powers have only really been available in the last three years, we now have an issue that the ECHR are finding in favour of billionaire absentee landlords who can afford the best lawyers to fight for their right to maintain security over their land even when communities can demonstrate a social good that can come from the land. See Wightmans "the poor have no lawyers" for more details.

As you mentioned Scotland has the highest concentration of land ownership in europe. Just over 400 people own 90% of the land in Scotland, many of these are from inherited weelth that have made use of the land through deer and grouse shooting, but many are also foreign absentee landlords. In both cases there are often major issues with suggesting alternative land use as you have to ask a private landlord if you can lease 1 or 2 acres of their 10,000 acres of land, usually on a 5 or 10 year lease which means that (if they are charitable enough to let you use the land) any enterprise that you set up on that peice of land there is an inherent insecurity over the legacy of what you create on that land, you are essentially at the whim of a very small number of private landlords for nearly all of Scotland's land.

You say vast swathes of our land are only suitable for deer, grouse shooting and forestry. This is untrue. A huge issue is the out of control deer management which is limiting the re-foresting and re-wilding of Scotland. Deer is the cause of the land being unsuitable for anything other than deer. It's mad that such a skewed conclusion can come from this. Deer are a menace. We also need to be re-planting indigenous trees, a lot of our re-foresting is purely for short term economic output rather than to build vibrant ecosystems that can cater for different paths of land use such as the return of transhumance practices. Rural repopulation is a future for Scotland, as more people work remotely and want to live away from over populated cities - look at Scottish land - yes some of it is a little boggy, but we have the perfect weather for a vibrant eco-system, the highlands of Scotland does not have to cater purely for the Chinese and Saudi Arabians who want to shoot animals and birds.

What would my party do? This is very simple. There is a huge democratic deficit in Scotland. For example the Highland Council is the size of Belgium and there are 89 local councils in Norway for the same area of land - we have one. Our community councils are under-resourced and are barely statutory and non are democratically elected, in fact they are scraping for volunteers. If I ran a political party I would concentrate on creating the conditions to improve local democratic structures so that we can foster a sense of empowerment that we can envisage a different future for Scottish land, we should hear these local voices and ideas and we can discuss repopulating parts of the land after securing them through a framework of sustainable agrecological principles, either fully scrapping crofting legislation or actually making the lease of farmland profitable for small to medium sized farmers.

As you said, thanks to Scotland gaining more and more autonomy we now have the legislative conditions to start to secure the land back and right some historical wrongs that have only not been fixed because they have been allowed to fester in the bins of Westminster for centuries. Now is the time to psychologically ask Scots to think different about their relationship with the land and to start to lever legislative power to make this a reality.

This isn't about grievance at all, this is about quietly acknowledging the facts of the past, reflecting on how that has shaped our relationship with our land and getting on with creating a new future for Scotland making sure those with path dependent minds are firmly placed on the sidelines while we get on the hard work.

[Johnny]

What do you want done about land ownership in Scotland, Grumblebum?

There already is legislation that allows land owners to have their property forcibly removed from them if certain criteria is met. Do you think it should go further?

It is a very powerful grievance tool to moan about the vast majority of Scotland being owned by a few individuals/families.  A lot of that land is just shit, though. Good for deer, wind turbines and forestry but not much else.

Let's pretend Scotland votes to be independent (lol) and The Grumblebum Party has a massive majority in the first elections post-freedom– what would you be doing in relation to land ownership?

Mugabe style land grabs, Unionists, Royalists and Tories burnt at the steak

[Shteve]

What you're asking from me above would require me to write a thesis in it, but lets deal with things as succintly as possible.

Firstly, the relevant legislation (primarily the Land Reform (scotland) Act 2003, the land Reform (scotland) Act 2016 and the community empowerment bill 2015 and secondly, elements of the recent forestry and highlands and islands bill and the recent local planning bill), these gains on issues - predominantly, community right to buy, and the mandatory right to buy based on sustainable development have all came post-devolution of powers. the social and political movements pre-devolution to put these issues onto the agenda at various points in the 20th century were all blocked institutionally whether that be democratically by successive Conservative governments of which Scotland did not vote for or by the unelected House of Lords whenever legislation reached that far a stage.

For the first time, thanks to Scotland achieving more autonomy over it's own future it has powers to put land back in the hands of Scottish communities. Some of these powers have only been available since 2003, whereby one of my biggest criticisms of the SNP is not devolving power from the state to local government to facilitate more opportunities to buy land and alter land use. However, the stronger powers have only really been available in the last three years, we now have an issue that the ECHR are finding in favour of billionaire absentee landlords who can afford the best lawyers to fight for their right to maintain security over their land even when communities can demonstrate a social good that can come from the land. See Wightmans "the poor have no lawyers" for more details.

As you mentioned Scotland has the highest concentration of land ownership in europe. Just over 400 people own 90% of the land in Scotland, many of these are from inherited weelth that have made use of the land through deer and grouse shooting, but many are also foreign absentee landlords. In both cases there are often major issues with suggesting alternative land use as you have to ask a private landlord if you can lease 1 or 2 acres of their 10,000 acres of land, usually on a 5 or 10 year lease which means that (if they are charitable enough to let you use the land) any enterprise that you set up on that peice of land there is an inherent insecurity over the legacy of what you create on that land, you are essentially at the whim of a very small number of private landlords for nearly all of Scotland's land.

You say vast swathes of our land are only suitable for deer, grouse shooting and forestry. This is untrue. A huge issue is the out of control deer management which is limiting the re-foresting and re-wilding of Scotland. Deer is the cause of the land being unsuitable for anything other than deer. It's mad that such a skewed conclusion can come from this. Deer are a menace. We also need to be re-planting indigenous trees, a lot of our re-foresting is purely for short term economic output rather than to build vibrant ecosystems that can cater for different paths of land use such as the return of transhumance practices. Rural repopulation is a future for Scotland, as more people work remotely and want to live away from over populated cities - look at Scottish land - yes some of it is a little boggy, but we have the perfect weather for a vibrant eco-system, the highlands of Scotland does not have to cater purely for the Chinese and Saudi Arabians who want to shoot animals and birds.

What would my party do? This is very simple. There is a huge democratic deficit in Scotland. For example the Highland Council is the size of Belgium and there are 89 local councils in Norway for the same area of land - we have one. Our community councils are under-resourced and are barely statutory and non are democratically elected, in fact they are scraping for volunteers. If I ran a political party I would concentrate on creating the conditions to improve local democratic structures so that we can foster a sense of empowerment that we can envisage a different future for Scottish land, we should hear these local voices and ideas and we can discuss repopulating parts of the land after securing them through a framework of sustainable agrecological principles, either fully scrapping crofting legislation or actually making the lease of farmland profitable for small to medium sized farmers.

As you said, thanks to Scotland gaining more and more autonomy we now have the legislative conditions to start to secure the land back and right some historical wrongs that have only not been fixed because they have been allowed to fester in the bins of Westminster for centuries. Now is the time to psychologically ask Scots to think different about their relationship with the land and to start to lever legislative power to make this a reality.

This isn't about grievance at all, this is about quietly acknowledging the facts of the past, reflecting on how that has shaped our relationship with our land and getting on with creating a new future for Scotland making sure those with path dependent minds are firmly placed on the sidelines while we get on the hard work.

Decent copy and paste effort mate.

[CritchSmile]

Decent copy and paste effort mate.

Thanks bud.

[Mr A]

Good response Grumble.

fully agree about devolving more powers to local councils and better funding them. Though their budgets have consistently been cut by the SNP

Not sure I agree about the land use - huge swathes if it is just miles & miles of shit coloured fuck all. It's good for very little.

As it happens I'll be on the estate of one of these absentee foreign landlords later this year - shooting his deer - fighting the good fight

[CritchSmile]

huge swathes if it is just miles & miles of shit coloured fuck all. It's good for very little.

The damaging narrative that Scotland is a desolate, barren wasteland is false. Next time you see a piece of land like that, check in the higher ground areas where the grass might be growing longer than the rest, often that means that there was a Shieling there. Research the local area and find out whether people used to live there, often the answer is yes.

Just trust me that I'm correct and your estate owner telling you that his land is worthless while you shoot deer on it is wrong.

[Mr A]

The damaging narrative that Scotland is a desolate, barren wasteland is false. Next time you see a piece of land like that, check in the higher ground areas where the grass might be growing longer than the rest, often that means that there was a Shieling there. Research the local area and find out whether people used to live there, often the answer is yes.

Just trust me that I'm correct and your estate owner telling you that his land is worthless while you shoot deer on it is wrong.

I don't know the estate owner. Just a guy who works on the estate - whose father is a crofter and stalker as was his grandfather & has lived his entire life in the highlands.

He couldn't put an exact figure on it but estimated that well in excess of 50% of the land in the highlands is useless apart from what I described.

Nobody is saying it's a desolate waste ground - but a lot of it is pretty useless.

I'm not sure you'd get people queuing up to move up there either tbh. Great place to visit but can get pretty dull.

[Shuto Makino]

I broadly support the preservation of Scots, but with some reservations - I don't think there's any one version of Scots, given how many regional dialects there are across Scotland, and what tends to end up being used as 'Scots' is either a bastardised form of Glaswegian or a weird mish mash of different local dialects that, by trying to include everyone, ends up 'preserving' a weird hybrid language that no-one ever spoke.

Not sure if that's negative - it might be central to the 'preservation' of anything that, by choosing what you do and don't want to preserve, you end up actually contributing to its evolution.

[CritchSmile]

I don't know the estate owner. Just a guy who works on the estate - whose father is a crofter and stalker as was his grandfather & has lived his entire life in the highlands.

He couldn't put an exact figure on it but estimated that well in excess of 50% of the land in the highlands is useless apart from what I described.

Nobody is saying it's a desolate waste ground - but a lot of it is pretty useless.

I'm not sure you'd get people queuing up to move up there either tbh. Great place to visit but can get pretty dull.

There will be land use that your man cant envisage because he sees only deer/grouse shooting and industrialised farming as land use in Scotland.

I'll give him his good faith in the sense that I'm sure he believes what he says, but again it's path dependent thinking and needs disrupted. I know quite a few projects going on, on exactly the land you describe. They also are suffering from insecure tenancy.

This is a legacy of centuries, we are looking at changes over the next 100-200 years to bring back some normality in line with most other democratic countries. This includes a psychological shifts from private estate owners who claim their land is worthless but also do not relinquish the land either for sale or tenancy.

[Mr A]

There will be land use that your man cant envisage because he sees only deer/grouse shooting and industrialised farming as land use in Scotland.

I'll give him his good faith in the sense that I'm sure he believes what he says, but again it's path dependent thinking and needs disrupted. I know quite a few projects going on, on exactly the land you describe. They also are suffering from insecure tenancy.

I'm sure you do know of quite a few projects going on in the highlands. But I'll take the view of the guy who was raised on, and whose family has lived and worked on, the type of land you describe for generations. He doesn't just deal with deer - he's put wind and hydro schemes in as well.

I'll give you your good faith though.

Take your point re lack of secure tenancies though. The SG tried to do something about it but then Salvesen happened and saw many tenant farmers evicted

[CritchSmile]

I'm sure you do know of quite a few projects going on in the highlands. But I'll take the view of the guy who was raised on, and whose family has lived and worked on, the type of land you describe for generations. He doesn't just deal with deer - he's put wind and hydro schemes in as well.

I'll give you your good faith though.

Take your point re lack of secure tenancies though. The SG tried to do something about it but then Salvesen happened and saw many tenant farmers evicted  

Ok. Fuck your good faith. He's saying it in bad faith and gets subsidies for the wind farms. He's a cunt

I've probably spoken to more people in depth that work that land in the last 12 months than you have in your life.

[Mr A]

Ok. Fuck your good faith. He's saying it in bad faith and gets subsidies for the wind farms. He's a cunt

I've probably spoken to more people in depth that work that land in the last 12 months than you have in your life.

Weird flex but ok

[CritchSmile]

Weird flex but ok

I was being civil but then you started flexing your shite anecdote and being wide

[Mr A]

I was being civil but then you started flexing your  shite anecdote and being wide

I'm sure in your head you thought you were being civil - but you were doing that incredibly patronising mansplaining thing that you do.

[CritchSmile]

I'm sure in your head you thought you were being civil - but you were doing that incredibly patronising mansplaining thing that you do.

Nah, I made the mistake of actually engaging with you and answering things sincerely which is always a complete waste of time.