Twa Wrangs D'Nae Mak A Richt

|

A few centuries back, untitled farmers in Scotland were given the boot in the notorious Highland Clearances. Estate owners enlarged their properties by pushing tenant farmers to the margins of their estates or shipping them overseas. Now the new Scottish parliament intends to make up for that injustice with another one—by forcing landlords to sell portions of their estates to "crofters," or tenants.

Considering that the current big landlords include Mohammed Fayed and lyricist Tim Rice, the only real problem here may be that they won't actually be shipped off to penal colonies, but this Land Reform Bill seems to follow in a sad history of large-scale efforts at land reform. It's not really a DeSoto-style project to grant title of land to individual owners. Crofting "communities" would have to vote to make the land purchases, the value of the land would be established by an independent assessor, and the purchase can be paid for with public money. It's almost inevitable that this will boil down to expropriation, with a token compensation made to the landlord. This is a complex issue: Is there a minimum size for the estates to which this law applies? How do you get status as a "crofter" and become eligible for reparations? If you started buying land in Scotland today, and eventually amassed a large estate, could you then have portions of your property bought up by tenants? The big question, which has an echo in the debate on slavery reparations in the U.S., is what role the government can take in divvying up a private fortune that was built through government crime. (An interesting wise-use footnote: Many of the largest estates are run at a loss by environmentally conscientious landlords.)

If you are untroubled by these questions, and just want to get in on the Highlands land grab, dig the great landowners search engine from the Who Owns Scotland project.

NEXT: Spamming for America

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Looks like Democracy at work to me.

    Scotland has its own history and culture working here it seems. For instance, there’s no Trespass crimes there. They like to roam around pretty much unimpeded.

    Just don’t mess with their distilleries.

  2. And this is different than what Mugabe is doing because?

  3. Wealth is typically built and lost again within a couple of generations. If there’s anybody still ‘disadvantaged’ because of slavery or the Fed’s land grabs from the indian tribes, it would probably matter little if these people’s great-great grandparents had been treated better or owned property.

    It’s also wrong of us to try to pay reparations for wrongs done to people who have long been dead, by taking from those now living who acquired their property legitimately.

  4. You’re right Tom. Mugabe’s land seizures have a lot in common with this Scottish nonsense. Unfortunately the Zimbabwean commercial farms were the economic backbone of the country. That backbone has now been removed and the country is collapsing. More than half its people are facing famine. Land seizures in Scotland probably won’t have such a negative effect on the Scottish economy and people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.