Scotland's rural areas will provide some of the most controversial challenges for the new Parliament. Gordon King, head of surveyor's DM Hall's country department, says MSPs have a real opportunity to change the way we own, manage, enjoy, develop or sell land
THIS spring up to 250,000 country people, Scots among them, exercised their right to roam over the city of London. Though the Government promised a U-turn, the movement in the South has grown legs of its own, and marches onward and forward.
It's a different story for the marchers from Scotland who have a long road yet to travel towards rural harmony. And - particularly for the landowner - there are many challenges along the way. The new Parliament presents a real opportunity for change in the way we own, manage, enjoy, develop or sell land in Scotland.
Land reformers have already been rewarded with the Land Reform Policy Group review. The anti-field sports lobby, environmental campaigners, rural housing pressure groups, food safety campaigners and others are (in many cases rightly) having their causes recognised though not yet acted upon.
For those who own land in Scotland, however, it's a different matter. Will their view be heard and understood? Will their Parliament have a department of rural affairs - as is possible in England - to listen to them?
What are the most pressing issues?
For some, the answer is to go where others fear to tread: over their own hills, mountains, pastures, fields and shores. This is where they will find the Ramblers Association and other public access groups preparing to put their case to the new residents of Holyrood. The public access movement hasbeen arguing its case for over 100 years, but only the present Government has promised substantial action.
In England and Wales, the Minister for the Environment has made it clear that if his recent consultation initiative doesn't lead to change toward voluntary access agreements, he will turn them into a statutory right.
In 1996 the Country Landowners Association calculated that 0.59% of the land area in England and Wales was covered by voluntary agreements. It may be difficult to appease the lobbyists, and a statutory right could be looming.
In Scotland, the culture and the law are, always, different. Historically, Scots have a sense of communal interest (perhaps misplaced) in ''the land''. There is less of the possessiveness shown by landowners south of the Border, driven by the greater population density and fear of being outnumbered and threatened.
Our law of trespass (it does exist in Scots law) is different. It doesn't permit forcible ejection of the trespasser unless he or she is clearly intent on violence or damage. The desire, or need, of Scottish landowners to keep intruders off their land may be quite a recent development.
The exclusion is visible in various ways: the signboards, the management style, and the developing attitude of the landowner. Yet there is still a chance of avoiding the sort of statutory intervention which may happen in England and Wales. Modifications in management and attitude would help.
The reality in Scotland is that it isn't the walker who needs statutory protection. Owners should have the right of permanently excluding people from sensitive areas (or temporarily, during sensitive times) and a right of action for punitive damages against anyone damaging their property or exceeding their rights.
Owners might reasonably seek protection from liability, and the right to assume people are aware of access restrictions. They might possibly expect to have the right to use reasonable persuasion to encourage people to leave sensitive areas, or during sensitive times.
But protection like this carries a purchase price. Landowners must show a willingness to welcome the public, and to cater for and encourage their understanding of the countryside and the land.
There may be more challenges to come with this Parliament, and the landowner may need their understanding.
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