Under the existing Scottish Parliament, land reform is already on the agenda (and has been since inception). Here’s an article about upcoming stuff
It seems unlikely that a fully independent Scotland will serve to bolster the landholders position.
To be fair, many of the big landowners are fairly happy to encourage tenant buyouts, and in any case the likes of the Duke of Buccleuch aren’t worrying about their perceived position in ponds of any size.
A lot of them may want to move below Hadrian’s Wall in the event of Scottish independence, given what seem likely to be higher taxes and land reform thereafter.
Well, the land reform initiative is irrespective of the independence vote (it doesn’t go away if people vote No) and was only put forward after people pestered the SNP for some years to do something (article). I really don’t see much connection between land reform and independence.
As an aside, given the history of land reform initiatives, I think the chance of it actually succeeding in any meaningful way is somewhere between “unlikely” and “snowball’s chance in hell”.
Hadrian’s Wall being the border would be a fair old land-grab for Scotland!
So is this you walking back your previous position? The one about landowners being bigger fish in a small pond post-independence?
And yet, land reforms, or at least codifications of custom, have happened. Your next topics for frantic googling should be “Scottish Land Fund” and going back a bit further “Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust”. Hope this helps!
My statement above meant to say, “I really don’t see much connection between improvements in land distribution and independence.” As I said, for all we know, independence could simply give the largest landowners even more free rein to further consolidate their influence.
“frantic googling”? I’m stealing that line. 
I’ve been following the issue on and off for a few years, and yes there have been some small victories, but the overall picture is still rather dismal.
Independence could, but it would really rather be going against trend.
The victories, such as they have been, have been against delinquent landowners. I think that state support for viable communities in the wilder parts to buy out tenancies is a good thing.
Well, I would agree with that. Another issue is that the inheritance laws, etc. are geared toward keeping estates in one piece and shielded from creditors. From reading a lot of the correspondence published by the Scottish government on this issue, the big landowners appear highly motivated and ready for a fight to maintain the status quo, and they have powerful allies/resources in their corner… which is why I’m cynical about any major change.
You seem to have moved your position the full 180 degrees:
Argh, you are switching topics on me. I’m saying that they want to maintain the status quo when it comes to their land holdings, not on the independence vote. In my humble opinion.
So the landowners have no strong position on independence, is that what you’re saying? Because it isn’t the same as saying they would “love an independent Scotland.”
Well, I’m speculating that they could really run amok in an independent Scotland - it would instantly put them at the top of the nation’s social pyramid with a massive percentage of the country’s resources at their disposal (not to mention political contacts, lawyers, etc.) - which would make it even more difficult for people to go up against them than it is now. Having said that, I’m sure they are resourceful enough to do well no matter which way the vote goes.
I don’t think the large land-owners have huge support in the Scottish Parliament to be honest, and I doubt very many of them expect to. It kind of comes with the territory - the custom, and now law, means that they can’t enclose the wild lands in any meaningful way. They can make money from grouse moors and fishing beats I suppose, and there’s a certain prestige that comes with owning a Highland getaway, but there’s little they can do to stop me walking and camping on their land.
The thing is, it still creates a feudaleqsue “landowning class”, and forces the rest of the population into crowded narrow corridors with inflated property values. In Canada, there’s a somewhat similar issue except that 90% of the country is government-owned. Meanwhile in neighboring countries, ordinary people can go on their merry way owning land at much more reasonable prices. It negatively affects the lives and behaviors of ordinary people (IMHO, including forcing many young people to emigrate) and I don’t like it!
In the UK there is a housing landlord class that basically just lucked out with a housing boom and a crash or two. I’m not saying they should all be shot at dawn though, just some of them.
Well, I suppose I was being a wee bit, er, metaphorical…
Maybe if we vote Yes, England will claim southern Scotland up to the Antonine Wall
What I want to know is: Why the fuck are they allowing 16 and 17-yr-olds to vote in this? Don’t they know that boys that age are the most useless, most stupid, and most likely to vote the way they think will piss off the most people, tossers on the planet? When the US allowed 18-yr-olds to vote I thought it was ill-advised, and I was 18 at the time.
Well, at 16 they’re old enough to work and pay income tax. And join the army. And marry and have kids.
Extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds has long been an SNP policy, so it would be a bit sneaky not to do it when the opportunity arose.
It is also, I think, a long-standing policy of the Green Party, and of the LibDems. It also featured in the Labour Party’s 2010 manifesto. I think the Tories are not in favour of it, but as you can see, it’s not an idea just picked out of the air all of a sudden.
If YES wins, will the English remove St Andrew’s Cross from their flag? If so, that could be the break the Australian Republican campaign has been waiting for …