Assynt Foundation

"Faolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For the people that may be interested:

http://www.assyntfoundation.co.uk/

Was forwarded to me today, do you want to aid preservation of part of
the Scottish highlands?

Nothing to do with me, just thought it would be useful to flag it up.

They are receiving £2.1 million towards the purchase of the estate already.
The missing £900,000 between 450 families is only £2000 each.

With the right to roam I can see no benefit in it for the visitor. The
benefits seem to be for the purchasers. Not inclined to put in myself.

By the way there's a lovely place near me I'd like to buy but I can't afford
it either. Any one got a few £1000 spare?

Dave

Faolan said:

For the people that may be interested:

http://www.assyntfoundation.co.uk/

Was forwarded to me today, do you want to aid preservation of part of
the Scottish highlands?

Nothing to do with me, just thought it would be useful to flag it up.

Careful with that use of the word "preservation". Too many of these
community land deals are aimed at providing land for wind-farms in
return for a quick buck. While I'm not denying the rights of the
residents to make what they can of their lot, I certainly begrudge
subsiding their rapaciousness from the public purse.

druidh

Dave P said:

They are receiving £2.1 million towards the purchase of the estate already.
The missing £900,000 between 450 families is only £2000 each.

£2000 is not "only" to the great majority of these people. They're
not rich, and they will almost certainly continue not to be rich
even if they do get the land.

Quoted message said:

With the right to roam I can see no benefit in it for the visitor. The
benefits seem to be for the purchasers.

It goes rather beyond that: it might sound a bit touchy-feely, but
a primary benefit is returning some semblence of reason and
fairness to the distribution of rural land ownership in Scotland,
so it's owned by people that live on it rather than the people
being bought and sold along with their homes.

Quoted message said:

Not inclined to put in myself.

Fair enough, but I'd say your post gives an unfair impression that
the folk of Assynt are bunch of undeserving spongers.

Quoted message said:

By the way there's a lovely place near me I'd like to buy but I can't afford
it either. Any one got a few £1000 spare?

Do you live there? Has your family lived there for generations,
and been in thrall to whatever plans the owner has had for it?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

£2000 is not "only" to the great majority of these people. They're not
rich, and they will almost certainly continue not to be rich even if they
do get the land.

Lets not feel sorry for them too quickly! There's no reason why any of those
families couldn't have gone elsewhere to live and work. If they chose to
live there with low employment opportunities fine, but why should we bail
them out?

Quoted message said:

It goes rather beyond that: it might sound a bit touchy-feely, but a
primary benefit is returning some semblence of reason and fairness to the
distribution of rural land ownership in Scotland, so it's owned by people
that live on it rather than the people being bought and sold along with
their homes.

As I said, no-one is forced to live there.

Quoted message said:

Fair enough, but I'd say your post gives an unfair impression that the
folk of Assynt are bunch of undeserving spongers.

I think its quite accurate description. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Quoted message said:

Do you live there? Has your family lived there for generations, and been
in thrall to whatever plans the owner has had for it?

History counts for nothing. If folk want a better life go and get it. The
attitude of we live, have always lived here and its unfair that there's no
work stands for nothing. The world doesn't owe them a living.

Dave

Dave P said:

Lets not feel sorry for them too quickly! There's no reason why any of those
families couldn't have gone elsewhere to live and work.

You can give that as a get-out to anyone who's the wrong side of
comfortably off. Well done, you've just solved all the country's
economic problems, and it's not too late to get yourself elected in the
upcoming election! ;-/

Quoted message said:

If they chose to
live there with low employment opportunities fine, but why should we bail
them out?

It isn't a case of bailing out though. If it was bailing them out it
would be subsidising their continued presence in any shape or form,
which isn't what this does.

Quoted message said:

As I said, no-one is forced to live there.

As I said, you can give that as a get-out to anyone who's the wrong side
of comfortably off. So the only economic problems folk have in Scotland
are of their own making? Deary me...

Quoted message said:

I think its quite accurate description. Couldn't have put it better myself.

So you lack an imagination or much idea of what is being asked for.

Quoted message said:

History counts for nothing. If folk want a better life go and get it. The
attitude of we live, have always lived here and its unfair that there's no
work stands for nothing. The world doesn't owe them a living.

They're not asking for a living though. People in this situation are
after the right to say what is done with their own homes rather than
having diktats imposed on them by whim of (often absentee) landlords who
rarely have their interests at heart. They don't gain material wealth,
they gain a degree of freedom and independence

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dave P said:

Lets not feel sorry for them too quickly! There's no reason why any of those
families couldn't have gone elsewhere to live and work. If they chose to
live there with low employment opportunities fine, but why should we bail
them out?

There's nothing about "bailing out" in the appeal - it's simply an
attempt to raise funds so that the people who live and work the land can
also own it. If they don't raise the cash then the land will be bought
by someone else. Chances are that 'someone else' will be a business
that would like to make some profit from the land, and, therefore, the
people that live on it.

You may choose not to be sympathetic with their aims, but the issue is
not so clear cut as to warrant your blanket encouragement to readers of
URW to dismiss the appeal as 'sponging'.

Quoted message said:

History counts for nothing. If folk want a better life go and get it. The
attitude of we live, have always lived here and its unfair that there's no
work stands for nothing. The world doesn't owe them a living.

Again, nothing about the appeal indicates that (a) they thing there's
anything unfair going on, (b) there's no work, or (c) they think the
world does owe them a living.

You haven't actually read the site, have you?

Colin

Quoted message said:

You haven't actually read the site, have you?

Colin

Don't be a fool! Of course I've read the site. The facts on it speak for
themselves. A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards
buying their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

Pathetic isn't it.

Dave

Dave P said:

Don't be a fool! Of course I've read the site. The facts on it speak for
themselves. A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards
buying their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

Pathetic isn't it.

No, though your summary of their situation certainly merits that
description.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Dave P said:

Don't be a fool! Of course I've read the site. The facts on it speak for
themselves. A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds
towards buying their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for
help.

Pathetic isn't it.

Quoted message said:

No, though your summary of their situation certainly merits that
description.

They're the facts. Dispute them if you think they are wrong.

Dave

Dave P said:

They're the facts. Dispute them if you think they are wrong.

It is not a *fact* that what these people are asking is "pathetic".
That is your opinion, and certainly not one I share.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave P said:

They're the facts. Dispute them if you think they are wrong.

It is not a *fact* that what these people are asking is "pathetic". That
is your opinion, and certainly not one I share.

Pete.

Aye you're right. That's not a fact it is an oppinion. The facts I refer to
are these.

A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards the
£3million needed to
buy their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

Dave

Dave P said:

Quoted message said:

You haven't actually read the site, have you?

Colin

Don't be a fool! Of course I've read the site.

So you'll be able to quote the section where the site says:

- the people involved need bailed out;
- the people involved say that life is unfair;
- the people involved say there's not enough work;
- the people involved say that the world owes them a living.

Quoted message said:

A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards
buying their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

Well, it's slightly more than 'their homes', being 44,000 acres.

I'll admit to a degree of prejudice here; my family background gives me
plenty reason to wish misfortune on the current landowners, so I am in
favour of the buyout.

To a (very) limited degree, though, I actually share your views. The
aim of the land purchase is to stimulate economic growth in the area,
which is laudable enough, but I'd have thought a more appropriate route
to raise funds would be to invite investment into a co-operative rather
than to just ask for donations. I guess there's a degree of desperation
involved, since the deadline is the end of May.

Even so, you seem to be painting a picture of a group of moaners that
can't be bothered to put their hands in their pockets and stump up the
extra cash. You don't have any idea, though, how much of their own
money has already been put into the buyout. I doubt it's a case of
finding £2000, but rather of finding _another_ £2000 on top of what they
have already committed.

In essence, the people involved are trying to raise the capital, which
will include their own funds, to invest in the property that will enable
them to stimulate local growth, a venture that won't yield significant
reward in the short term and one that will require a great deal of work
to bring to fruition. In order to achieve this within the timescale
they are looking to increase funds by whatever means they can. You may
disagree with their aims, but to describe this as pathetic is both
short-sighted and absurd.

Colin

In message <[email hidden]>, Dave P
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave P said:

They're the facts. Dispute them if you think they are wrong.

It is not a *fact* that what these people are asking is "pathetic". That
is your opinion, and certainly not one I share.

Pete.

Aye you're right. That's not a fact it is an oppinion. The facts I refer to
are these.

A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards the
£3million needed to
buy their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

Which in the context of Assynt sounds a great idea. The land has been
owned by private landowners for far too long.

I'm very much in favour of community buyouts.

Dave P said:

Aye you're right. That's not a fact it is an oppinion. The facts I refer to
are these.

A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards the
£3million needed to
buy their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

But since it's money they're very unlikely to have, and without it they
don't get to see the 2.1 million, and in any case they don't get to lay
their hands on actual cash, what the above statement fails to reveal at
all is anything pathetic.

As I pointed out, the point is a degree of independence and freedom, not
lining their pockets. See http://www.assyntcrofters.co.uk/ and
http://www.knoydart-foundation.com/ for parallel cases in parallel
places. You also should probably look into community partnerships
worked with the John Muir Trust in various places. JMT are one of the
most respected bodies in the UK for management and conservation of wild
land, and AFAICT they view active participation with local communities
to be a vital aspect of their work (http://www.jmt.org/partners.html).

Please note the emphasis placed on management and conservation, which
/is/ of benefit to the visitor, aside from the more fundamental point of
greater social justice in who owns large tracts of Scotland.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Colin MacDonald" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave P said:

Quoted message said:

You haven't actually read the site, have you?

Colin

Don't be a fool! Of course I've read the site.

So you'll be able to quote the section where the site says:

- the people involved need bailed out;
- the people involved say that life is unfair;
- the people involved say there's not enough work;
- the people involved say that the world owes them a living.

Quoted message said:

A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards buying
their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

Well, it's slightly more than 'their homes', being 44,000 acres.

I'll admit to a degree of prejudice here; my family background gives me
plenty reason to wish misfortune on the current landowners, so I am in
favour of the buyout.

To a (very) limited degree, though, I actually share your views. The aim
of the land purchase is to stimulate economic growth in the area, which is
laudable enough, but I'd have thought a more appropriate route to raise
funds would be to invite investment into a co-operative rather than to
just ask for donations. I guess there's a degree of desperation involved,
since the deadline is the end of May.

Even so, you seem to be painting a picture of a group of moaners that
can't be bothered to put their hands in their pockets and stump up the
extra cash. You don't have any idea, though, how much of their own money
has already been put into the buyout. I doubt it's a case of finding
£2000, but rather of finding _another_ £2000 on top of what they have
already committed.

In essence, the people involved are trying to raise the capital, which
will include their own funds, to invest in the property that will enable
them to stimulate local growth, a venture that won't yield significant
reward in the short term and one that will require a great deal of work to
bring to fruition. In order to achieve this within the timescale they are
looking to increase funds by whatever means they can. You may disagree
with their aims, but to describe this as pathetic is both short-sighted
and absurd.

Colin

Thanks Colin for that. Its a well reasoned peice of writing and I take your
points on board.

Dave

"Faolan" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For the people that may be interested:

http://www.assyntfoundation.co.uk/

Was forwarded to me today, do you want to aid preservation of part of
the Scottish highlands?

Nothing to do with me, just thought it would be useful to flag it up.

I wish I had the money to buy it but I (still) don't. Would be another
"dutch landowner" bot not a GOML :-)

--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

In article <[email hidden]>,

druidh said:

Faolan said:

For the people that may be interested:
http://www.assyntfoundation.co.uk/
Was forwarded to me today, do you want to aid preservation of part
of the Scottish highlands?
Nothing to do with me, just thought it would be useful to flag it
up.

Careful with that use of the word "preservation". Too many of these
community land deals are aimed at providing land for wind-farms in
return for a quick buck. While I'm not denying the rights of the
residents to make what they can of their lot, I certainly begrudge
subsiding their rapaciousness from the public purse.

Funny that you should mention it. The Scotsman includes the following in
an article last September:-

"In the back room of his butcher’s shop, Alastair MacAskill paints a
bright picture of Lochinver’s future. As a local, he has little of the
sentimentality visitors attach to the area’s scenic beauty; he would
like to build 500 homes on the land, introduce a form of renewable
energy such as wind farms and see the shooting estate expanded into a
centre for businessmen to learn corporate team-building."

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=694&id=1072452004

According to the article, Alastair MacAskill is the driving force behind
the formation of the Assynt Foundation which doesn't appear to represent
the views of all of the inhabitants of Lochinver.

Another article in The Scotsman last March indicates that the Assynt
Foundation is now in competition with the Coigach community which also
wants to buy part of the land.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=694&id=225942005

--
David Nesbitt

N.B. Email sent to "nospam" will be rejected. Please use Reply-To address.

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Aye you're right. That's not a fact it is an oppinion. The facts I refer to
are these.

A group of 450 families being given £2.1 million pounds towards the
£3million needed to
buy their homes need to raise £2000 each and they're asking for help.

I'm glad I'm not in that situation. I'm not at all sure where
I'd find that sort of money, regardless of why I needed it. I
dare say it's a drop in the ocean to someone who's well-paid
for their job, but if I had to find that amount over and above
what I need for my day-to-day living I'd be rather worried.
--
If you can keep your head when all around are losing theirs...
then you've failed to grasp some important aspect of the
situation.

Talk about Dutch landowners... The man himself (Letterewe) is accused
in the current edition of New Scientist of being involved in
clearances in Africa.

Richard Webb