Comments for Land Matters

Comment on Machrihanish II by Sean Watters

Sean Watters — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:09:06 +0000

The analogy may be striking but I’m not convinced it’s warranted.

Comment on Machrihanish II by Malcolm Combe

Malcolm Combe — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:04 +0000

Andy, on your point about the LR(S)A 2003 being silent as to what happens to a community’s registration in a situation other than failure to meet the specified period (section 56), look to section 52(2) [right to buy extinguished if ballot not conducted as prescribed] and section 54(3) [notice from community body to ministers that community body is not to excercise right to buy land extinguishes right to buy]. I think these two provisions prevent the limping title your post worries about. Happy to discuss if you want to get in touch.

Malcolm

Comment on Machrihanish II by Malcolm Combe

Malcolm Combe — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:39:28 +0000

Interesting post, Andy, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I’m not sure if you’ve stumbled across it yet, but I had a piece in this year’s Edinburgh Law Review (”Access to Land and to Landownership”, (2010) 14 Edinburgh Law Review 106) which focussed on the experience at Kinghorm Loch, with a bit of access rights discussion thrown in for good measure. Hopefully you will find something of interest in there.

I’m not particularly au fait with the ins and outs of this ballot, but the analogy with the recent trade union ballots seems striking. A lack of strict compliance can be quickly seized upon, but compare the recent general election where voter disenfranchisement in certain English constituencies did not affect the validity of the ballot.

Comment on Machrihanish II by Sean Watters

Sean Watters — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:11:16 +0000

From my reading of the Refusal Notice there were some rather substantial problems with the buy out bid, beyond simply a few technicalities.

Comment on Machrihanish I by HUGH SINCLAIR

HUGH SINCLAIR — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:23:56 +0000

What a load of red tape in the Refusal Notice. A person on the voters roll who is balloted is not going to change his/her decision on the way they vote by receiving the ballot documents either 1 day early or one day late. Bureaucracy gone mad here!!!!

Comment on Ordnance Survey - victory at last (well nearly) by EricM

EricM — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:55:57 +0000

I’m not sure quite what you’re looking for, but I hope the release of VectorMap District next month will be of some help. The OS claims that it can fill the void left in the free line up by their omission of Landranger and Explorer.

Its 1:15,000 to 1:30,000 by the way.

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/vectormap/district/techinfo.html

Comment on Justice was served by the release of Mr Al Megrahi by Donald MacLeod

Donald MacLeod — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:17:22 +0000

Very good letter which I first read in The Herald.

Comment on Community Right to Buy 13 May 2009 by Frazer Scott

Frazer Scott — Wed, 20 May 2009 12:12:20 +0000

Looks like Land Reform is another one of those areas of manifesto committment that can all too easily be over taken by more seductive policy areas.

Yet, the public’s assets are all too important to sidelined by this or any other government.

The disjointed policy arena that encompasses Land Reform, The Disposal of Public Assets, Long Term Leases and the Common Good is crying out for a strategic review. Instead we get piecemeal approaches that do nothing to make it more open and transparent.

There is a clamour for communities to own assets and in the right circumstances the outcomes will undoubtedly be better than if left to private or public bodies. But it is difficult and fraught with responsibilities.

From insurance, to utilities and compliance with legislation to additional costs to the community through VAT. A recent survey suggested that voluntary boards were ill prepared to take on these responsibilities and that support mechanisms were weak.

You are right..there is no forum and until it is in the interest of politicians, maybe when an election is more iminent, the cynic in me says..no progress. I hope to be wrong.

Comment on King’s Park, Stirling by Dr Lindsay Neil

Dr Lindsay Neil — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:03:16 +0000

Good Afternoon,
Thanks for the email drawing attention to the King’s Park scam; I had read about it with interest.
My understanding of Scottish Constitutional Law is that so-called Crown Property is in fact beneficially owned by the People of Scotland. The CEC is merely the administrator of property held in title by the Crown on behalf of the People of Scotland. The Crown does not own King’s Park, the people of Scotland do. The Crown therefore cannot sell what it doesn’t own.
As the law stands, the trustees of the Stirling Common Good Fund, being all the elected Councillors in the unitary authority area, can simply refuse to approve CG funds to be used to purchase property which is already owned by both the Stirling people and the rest of the Scottish people.
I also have grave misgivings about a trust being formed as it las a lesser degree of scrutiny than CG funds do. The next step would be to form a charity which would effectively obscure scrutiny further.
It seems therefore that I entirely agree with your observations and from my own experience of dealings with the CEC they will behave with arrogant intransigence, claiming that they are only conforming to their remit of maximising value of ‘crown property’. Bah, Humbug!
LN

Comment on My new blog by Tom Lockie

Tom Lockie — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:29:40 +0000

Andy - good to see you are keeping up your work in Ethiopia. The software looks fine.