G L Borrowman's suggested amendment to the law (May 6) would not, unfortunately, cure the central problem with feudal superiorities - the sheer uncertainty of where you stand with the feudal superior. While the burden of proof would shift on to the superior there would be continuing uncertainty as to whether a challenge would be made.
At what point is the superior presumed to have become aware of the alterations? What time thereafter would he be allowed to mount a challenge? Would conveyancers readily certify a title to banks or building societies without first checking the superior's position?
It is true that the feuar can challenge the superior at the Lands Tribunal but that is a time-consuming and costly exercise. In many old superiorities it is, in any event, difficult to know exactly who is now the superior.
Many of these superiorities have changed hands many times. After the 1970 Act many superiors lost interest in the superiorities after the feu-duties were redeemed. There is now, however, a market in old superiorities for those wishing to make money from minutes of waiver and other conditions. Some feuars may find themselves faced with intransigent superiors many years after purchasing their homes. How many could really face a costly court action over a superior's contention that he could prove non-acquiescence?
The only sensible way forward is to do away with the whole system and move into a modern system of land ownership. If there is an argument that someone who, say, sells part of their garden for a house should be able to impose some conditions on use (and that is debatable) then this could be accomplished by contract restricted to the time the seller remains the owner of the adjacent property.
This seems to me to make more sense than creating a feudal superiority that lasts forever and can pass into the hands of someone who has no interest whatsover in the area.
Michael Weir,
8 Latch Road, Brechin. May 6.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article