MONDAY morning’s report of the current land ownership shows a worrying contraction in the ownership of Scotland’s land (Half of rural land in private hands is owned by just 408 people, report finds). How true is it for us to sing “ for these are my mountains and these are my glens”? Sadly only so if you are one of the small minority of landowners. Sadly also that this contraction has occurred while the SNP have led our devolved government. Arguably as a direct result of their policies.
Compare the latest figures of land ownership with 2012, when the number of people owning 50% of Scotland’s land was 440, the number owning 60% was 989 (compared to 877 now) and the number owning 70% was 3161 (compared with 2413 now).
READ MORE: Half of Scotland's rural land is owned by 408 people, report finds
The disgusting figures from 2012 are bad enough but now it’s even worse! Only 408 people own half of Scotland! The 70% figures show a 23% concentration of private landowners as the SNP has passed toothless land reform legislation.
This is one very good example of why the SNP alone cannot built the essential levels of support required to win our independence. They have a record of many other positive actions which have improved our lives relative to the rUK but land ownership, meaningful land reforms, council tax reform and community empowerment are not among them. They have a tartan Tory element amongst their leadership which is putting off many working-class would-be voters from supporting our cause for independence. This is why I argue for as broad a range of independence-supporting parties or individuals as possible within our parliament.
Independence is less attractive if we face the prospect of continuing to doff our caps to our lairds as we try to build our new country.
Campbell Anderson
Edinburgh
IN his letter of February 24, Campbell Anderson does not answer the question I asked in my letter of February 21.
The thresholds which I gave are calculated in the following way:
Upper Threshold = 100% divided by M [7] = 14.29%,
Lower Threshold = 100% divided by 2M [14] = 7.14%.
(M is the number of regional list seats in a region).
My source for these formulae is the book Electoral Systems and Party Systems by Arend Lijphart.
Applying these thresholds to the total regional figure before the first allocation gives for the upper threshold the regional figure above which a seat will (subject to the requirements of the Scotland Act 1998) be allocated, and for the lower threshold the regional figure above which a seat might be allocated.
When regional list seats are allocated they are done so depending on which party has the highest regional figure.
Michael Follon
Glenrothes
REGARDING the remarks made by William Hague, that British people in their sixties must accept they are the “luckiest generation” in history, his hypocrisy enrages me.
He is a representative of that mistress of craponomics, Margaret Thatcher, who SOLD OFF social housing, in order to buy votes. The houses were sold at a knock-down price, and they were never replaced in the housing stock. The working people who bought those houses had to take out mortgages, and Thatcher’s dream of killing the trade unions came to pass. Because a working man with a mortgage could not afford to go on strike.
READ MORE: Labour reported to police over Gorton and Denton 'attack ad van'
Hague says it’s my generation’s fault young people can’t afford to buy a house. When my fiancé and I bought a house in the 1970s we had to pay 17% interest on our mortgage, So we could not afford to have children, but the main problem was Thatcher selling off council houses at a knock-down price to buy votes.
I was brought up in a two-roomed tenement house with no bath or hot water, so if William Hague thinks I am taking responsibility or blame for young people not getting on the housing ladder he is up shit creek without a paddle. It is HIS party’s fault for buggering up Britain.
Margaret Forbes
Blanefield
I WAS glad to see last week a letter from the President of EIS-ULA on the need to cap the salaries of university principals. If it wasn’t already overdue, it is certainly an idea whose time has come.
The University of Dundee is incontrovertible proof that high remuneration is no guarantee of competence. Former principal Iain Gillespie was paid £300,000 a year – and took £150,000 whilst resigning in disgrace – to leave a legacy of massive job cuts and reputational damage to Dundee.
READ MORE: University staff to hold strike ballot over 'biggest cuts ever'
Students at Dundee have provided a valuable opportunity for the tertiary education sector as a whole. Our student council voted unanimously for the next permanent principal to have their salary set using the Scottish Government’s Public Sector Pay Policy for Chief Executives. While a small line in the overall budget of a university, it has been called a “totemic” issue for good reason.
By setting a more appropriate salary level for principals, universities can protect public consent for mass higher education. University leaders must set a proper example. It would be a shame for all the good education, research and social benefit universities provide to be outweighed in the public consciousness by executive pay.
In the circumstances, there really is no alternative to capping the salaries of principals’ salaries. Can universities really afford otherwise?
Tánaiste Custance
President, Dundee University Students’ Association
Share