Crofting Inquiry - Rannsachadh Croitearchd

PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE DEEMED TO BE DEFAMATORY, LIBELLOUS OR INAPPROPRIATE FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY WILL BE DELETED FROM THE FORUM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Crofting could help to encourage population retention or growth in an area, but only if access to existing, affordable housing/crofts and better grant schemes were available.

Some respondents were concerned that incomers to crofting counties might price locals out of the housing market and not understand the community ethos of crofting.

A majority thought that crofting could have a positive impact on the landscape and on nature, while a minority argued that poor crofting practice could have a negative impact on the landscape through changing agricultural practices or neglect of crofts.

There were mixed feelings about agri-environment schemes, and some anxiety about them coming to an end.

There are many aspects to Population retention and I have mentioned a few of them in my submission which is no 283

• Improving economic vitality. Crofting is not necessary to improve economic vitality. Low-cost housing is an issue for young workers but crofting legislation is inappropriate to tackle this problem, which is attributable to a number of other factors including the planning system.
• Safeguarding the landscape and biodiversity. Landscape and biodiversity are the focus of a great many incentive schemes throughout agriculture, whilst new developments also need to take into account environmental impacts. Crofting legislation is not necessary in order to improve and safeguard landscape and biodiversity. There are a number of initiatives already in place to protect the landscape and biodiversity of these areas. The requirement to maintain land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition is already secured through the Single Farm Payment system and the requirements of Cross Compliance and there is no evidence that crofting would in any way enhance this already secure position.
Over-grazing of land can have an adverse impact on certain rare species of bird and further crofting could thus be of detriment to wildlife. In the report entitled “Trends Patterns and the Environmental Consequences of Land Use Across the Crofting Counties” commissioned by the Committee, the researchers noted that soil carbon reserves may lead to reduced grazing on peatlands in the future, with further subsidies being paid to the owner / occupier. This does not support the view that further crofts would safeguard the landscape and biodiversity.
• Sustaining cultural diversity. Extending crofting into otherwise non-crofting areas will not “sustain” cultural diversity, as it will be a completely new form of land tenure and will, if anything, create a new form of cultural diversity rather than sustain one. Where there is no “culture” of crofting present, its introduction may or may not change the local traditions and interaction of the local population. Sustaining the tradition of crofting can only be done where there is already the tradition of crofting in existence, to be sustained. Otherwise, some other element of cultural diversity will be lost.

Directed to "CFforde"... in response to all your criticisms... would you care to add some more detail?
I don't think necessity was implied; desirability perhaps. The issue is how you croft; not why.

This is not a binary argument (a dilemma), where presence or absence of crofting is the problem or solution.
We get you loud and clear that you want to destroy crofting; but why, and what replaces it is a mystery.

Assertions - no matter how confident - need supporting evidence, and good reasoning. You present a list of unsupported generalisations & other logical fallacies. You're just tailoring evidence to suit your argument; rather than deducing from evidence.