THE DEVELOPMENT OF CROFTING LAW 1886-2019 CHAPTER CONCLUSION

This is the last of my posts serialising my chapter on crofting law which appeared in “Land Reform in Scotland” edited by Malcolm Combe, Jayne Glass and Annie Tindley and published by Edinburgh University Press in 2020. 

The first 6 posts charted the development of crofting law from 1886-2019. 

The last 5 posts discuss the challenges to crofting law.

This week I publish my conclusion I came to in that chapter. Delayed for a couple of weeks due to external factors but here just in time for you to enjoy on this sunny Friday evening!

Conclusion

The system of crofting desperately needs direction and reform. Historically, the focus has moved between agricultural production and diversification for economic development. There is no need necessarily for a focus on one to the exclusion of the other, and it is entirely possible for both to be supported and encouraged. The Shucksmith Committee felt that ‘crofting is about so much more than simply agriculture’.[i] The Committee carried out a survey which found that on average, 70% of the average crofting household income came from non-croft sources.[ii] Of course, this figure includes those who make much more than that from their crofts, and those who make nothing at all, but it does suggest that ongoing agricultural support must be coupled with wider economic development to ensure the availability of employment in crofting areas.  However, there remains a strong cultural attachment to crofting as an agricultural activity. Furthermore, as the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union, there is more of a focus on domestic food production, to which the crofting system contributes generously. Agriculture is likely therefore to remain at the heart of the crofting system, together with the many diversified uses which are now possible.

In whatever ways crofts are utilised, there is something more elemental which is a common experience amongst many crofters and their families, to do with a connection to the land and landscape, as well as a cultural, environmental and linguistic heritage. For all its focus on agriculture, the Taylor Committee recognised this too, and ‘thought it right, however, to record our unanimous conviction, founded on personal knowledge and on the evidence we have received, that in the national interest the maintenance of these communities is desirable, because they embody a free and independent way of life which is worth preserving for its own intrinsic quality.’[iii] That free and independent way of life, whether sustained by agriculture or diversification, is currently at risk as a result of the many and varied deficiencies of the legal and financial framework of the crofting system. The lack of clarity around why specifically governments should support crofting, the conflicting functions of the regulator and objectives of the legislation, the inaccessibility of crofts to all but cash purchasers; all of these factors contribute to the failure of the system, but it is the complex condition of the legislation and the failures of successive governments to properly reform it which is the greatest threat of all.  

[i] Final Report of the Committee of Enquiry on Crofting, p.41 paragraph 3.4.1.

[ii] Ibid. p.41 paragraph 3.4.1.

[iii] Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Crofting Conditions, p. 9 paragraph 12.

____________________

I’m going to be writing in the coming weeks and months about what a future crofting system could look like, what people might want from it, and the new challenges which have emerged since 2019.

In the meantime thanks for reading and as always, if you need help or wish to discuss crofting law, do get in touch.

Eilidh

____________________

Note Referred To:-

Introduction

Development of Crofting Law

1886-1911

1911-1955

1955-1976

1976-1993

1993-1997 & 1997-2019

Challenges

Crofting legislation

Crofting law v land reform

The Conflicting Priorities of the Crofting System

The Impossibility of Purchase

Conclusion