On this page:

Test

Authors:Posts: owner-occupiers
bogachPosts: 4owner-occupiersNewPosted: 05 Dec 07 10:46 PM
 
The spirit of the act of 1976 was to allow a crofter to 'go it alone'. Often families have had a croft for generations, and this was the logical culmination of something which they regarded as 'theirs'. It certainly did not mean that a crofter had bought 'landlord's rights' over the croft and nothing more. I think the WHFP is ludicrous when they suggest this. If people want to step outside of dependency why shouldn't they?
StoneheadPosts: 3Re: owner-occupiersNewPosted: 06 Dec 07 12:14 PM
 
Can you give a precis of the Free Press position? I allowed my subscription to lapse to save money.
bogachPosts: 4Re: owner-occupiersNewPosted: 06 Dec 07 6:48 PM
 
Just that the crofters' right-to-buy is a hollow right. You only buy Landlord's rights. IE. you are meant to let it out to a tenant. I think the Act offers crofters the opportunity to become independent and do with the land as they will. Dare I say I don't think crofting is sustainable as it was originally conceived. In the past crofts were handed on to family or people known to the community. Also, they were essential to survival, which ensured they were worked. Nowadays anyone can come along with a plan, but will it be fulfilled? The WHFP is asking us to subscribe to a vision where people we hand our crofts on to, can be trusted to carry on crofting traditions, or failing that be compelled by the Commission to honour these traditions. The latter is not going to happen given the Commission's lack of resources. Let's face reality.
If people want crofts - there's plenty of land - make new ones. Get rid of the dead hand of landlordism - don't punish the individual!
meJanePosts: 10Re: owner-occupiersNewPosted: 06 Oct 08 9:39 PM
 
Any Agricultural land- the law is the law and if it isn't in the law the law will make a way to ensure it's existence in some precedence or other, archaic or otherwise.
gimmerPosts: 1Re: owner-occupiersNewPosted: 12 Aug 09 12:36 AM
 
I am an owner-occupier/ crofter - crofter is simpler, yes. Owner occupier is just jargon - its still fences and land.

I am deeply concerned about the ssuckhmith report's presumption of a burden on all crofters - owner occupiers and tenants. Then we are the
only people in britain who are chained to our houses, and others are free like normal people in the free world. If we walk too far from
our houses for too long, our corrupt neighbors will take them away to give to themselves. I feel like i'm watching a film about communist
russia, but no, its the shucksmith report. My croft-house will be the only dwelling in a villiage of 30 houses to be burdened and devalued
to council flat rents no matter my investment in my own property.

I believe that history will show crofting died with shucksmith. Its a law designed to create poverty by not setting crofters up as cooperatives
farming collectives. I see no difference between a croft field and any other agricultural field in europe... mine is deep peet bog and its only
good for grazing, and a bit of hay.
Page 1 of 1

Page updated: Monday, June 11, 2007