Landowners’ rights to use their property as they wish are to be watered down for the public good, a senior SNP minister has warned as she unveiled a Left-wing agenda to create a socialist society over the next century.
Aileen McLeod, the Scottish Land Reform Minister, told a conference in Edinburgh that the “core of my approach” is to shift the balance of the law so that the “public interest” is given greater precedence at the expense of “individual’s rights.”
Property rights are the foundation of a functioning economy. No, this isn’t the beginning of a classically liberal diatribe: rather, an observation from some history I’ve been reading. We have had societies where ownership was vested, sa a perk of the job, only for a generation and not then inherited. This isn’t exactly what is being said here but it’s closer to it than the current situation.
And those societies failed. Badly.
I know, Can we start with the Scottish Parliament? The porridge wogs are sitting in Westminster so they might as well knock down the Scottish excrescence and use the land for something more useful to the community. Allotments perhaps.
Which societies are those?
Landowners already don’t have the right to use their property as they wish. Or does Scotland not have planning permission?
How long before we have to rebuild Hadrian’s Wall to keep out those trying to flee the Socialist Paradise..?
More about it at the ASI tomorrow
There are plenty of societies which still exist where enjoyment of one’s property is contingent on not pissing off the chief / goverment people (parts of Africa, some Indian reservations in the US). Also see most of the Soviet block before the wall came down.
No incentive to improve “your” property, cos if it starts to look nice, or if your plot starts to produce lots of crops, it risks being taken off you.
No incentive to fix your leaky roof when the local party chief’s cousin’s also leaks, and as soon as you fix yours it risks being “redistributed” to the cousin.
JuliaM,
“How long before we have to rebuild Hadrian’s Wall to keep out those trying to flee the Socialist Paradise..?”
Based on prior history of socialism, it won’t be us building the wall.
“Based on prior history of socialism, it won’t be us building the wall.”
No, but you can be guaranteed the English will be paying for its construction.
Well, I’ll need to rebuild the Antonine Wall to keep the central belt metro-socialists trapped between the two. It’s going to take a bit of redevelopment for “Cumbernauld International Airport” to support my work trips to London and Birmingham, though.
Trains can go through sealed like they used to do from West Germany to West Berlin, perhaps?
Matthew L – “Which societies are those?”
It is a long standing critique of Mughal India. Or the Ottoman Empire.
There was an article a few years ago that argued that every Big Man in Africa actively opposed genuine property rights because it impeded their ability to redistribute all the land every few years.
If we leave the EU and Scotland becomes a separate and failed state, we can get the Israelis to build up Hadrian’s wall. Air exclusion not too hard, although keeping the seas policed will be a bit trickier.
But if we stay in the EU, there’ll be no stopping the DPWs.
If BlueRinse had balls larger than need-an-electron-microscope-to -see-them size he would inform the Caviar-faced Hag that Westminster will not pay the Scottish subsidy until everyone of their tinpot tyranny “policies” is dropped. No kiddie commissars, no ID database, none of the above land bollocks and all those jailed for terrace chanting to be released and receive heavy compensation taken directly from the wages of Scottish MSPs and coppers. And the North British police force to be broken up and decentralised as it formerly was. Pointing out to the Scots that the SNP = East Germany with extra drizzle will help to deflate Sturgeon nicely. Socialism NOT allowed.
Leaving them to carry on with their antics will also destroy them in the end but the subsidy cost will be dreadful and we need to be sure we won’t be having to pay for re-unification costs as well.
Remember – withdrawal of a benefit is a “tax”. Taxing something at a lower rate than something else is a “subsidy”.
Anything else is neoliberal sophistry.
Whenever a politician says “public”interest they mean “my” interest.
Really, Dave needs to teach these nutcases a lesson. Full fiscal autonomy and no support from the English. If you gave these idiots true independence they’d shit themselves.
John Miller +1 No cheque book with the Bank of England name on it. Not in my Name, to use a cliché.
The Scots need to learn the consequences of voting for loonies. This is lesson one. Many more to follow.
Classical “Land Reform” is taking property from those who have it, ostensibly to give it to those who don’t.
In the long term, the policy will morph to the politicians taking land from those who have it, and keeping it for themselves. It is inevitable.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” – Gerald Ford
There are plenty of societies which still exist where enjoyment of one’s property is contingent on not pissing off the chief / goverment people (parts of Africa, some Indian reservations in the US).
Not just Indian reservations: see eminent domain.
Bit of pendantry here. Hadrian’s Wall is in Northumberland, miles away from the Scottish border. Probably be better to mine the Tweedand build a wall at Berwick.
It seems the Scots are determined to repeat not just the mistakes of the UK in the 70’s, but also those of the Soviet Union in the 20’s.
Some people just never learn, do they?
I wouldn’t care in the least if I didn’t have to live here.
Current focus of the brave “56” is land reform of the Commons, as they fight over seating with Labour MPs.
Meanwhile the adults get on with their lives……
Can’t help but wonder that there might be some good for the common people in land reform – depends what they intend to do. Right to roam etc can be a good thing.
What is the ‘public interest’ exactly? Whatever the elected party deems it to be. It is a rationale for tyranny and to hell with the freedom of the individual. Citizens become serfs.