Colstoun farmer told he must leave

beefandsleep · Aug 15, 2015

Think we will go round in circles with this one. But there is only one side being reported here. Whatever reason they have for not giving their side is theirs and you can't draw any conclusions from that. I was always taught to be automatically sceptical of anything I read that was not peer reviewed as a scientific paper would be. Newspaper articles are written to sell newspapers and it's often the salacious details that get most prominence and facts and the truth are often brushed over. You can never be sure about the journalistic integrity of articles like this or the political agenda of the writer so it's always helpful to view these kind of articles from a sideways perspective.

Wheyibuggermair · Aug 15, 2015

As you say only one side being reported, and I agree with your views regarding journalistic integrity, or lack of, but given the dodginess reported in the earlier part of the article,re the farm house, I tend to lean in the direction of the tenant and draw my own conclusions
That, and the fact if I was the one being portrayed as the villain I would want my side heard.

jhorr30 · Aug 15, 2015

Personally knowing Andrew from colstoun, the Paterson's from moonzie and unfortunately the late Andrew Riddell from Peaston, I can say they are all tremendous farmers who have maximised and improved the potentials of their farms within the limits of their situations. They are also well respected members of their local communities.
Having avoided discussing their situations with them, looking from the outside it appears that one of the problem's is the rise and greed of the corporate land agent trying to justify their existence, and create maximum short term gain for themselves and the landlord. as apposed to the local old school guy who was a buffer between the parties who could see that a stable long term agreement was more profitable for the landlord and tennant in the long term.
The other in my opinion is the fear of automatic right to buy hanging over the landlord.
I may get shot down for saying this but it's doing nothing to help the tenanted sector in Scotland. It's creating fear and distrust on both sides.
The only people gaining out of the present situations in the Scottish agricultural let and tenanted land sector are the parasites that are sucking the life blood out of the industry on both sides.... I don't think I need to point them out as they are mainly the ones with the tweed, salmon cords and letters after their names!

llamedos · Aug 15, 2015

From 2010 http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/n...10/05/06/400066-farmers-rent-battle-nears-end
From 2013 http://www.tfascotland.org.uk/tenants-10-year-rent-nightmare-finally-ends/

Wheyibuggermair · Aug 15, 2015

llamedos said:
From 2010 http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/n...10/05/06/400066-farmers-rent-battle-nears-end
From 2013 http://www.tfascotland.org.uk/tenants-10-year-rent-nightmare-finally-ends/

The Colstoun Trust declined to comment when contacted by the Courier.
No change there, then

Jump to first paragraph.

Henarar · Aug 15, 2015

@glasshouse

DrDunc · Aug 15, 2015

jhorr30 said:
Personally knowing Andrew from colstoun, the Paterson's from moonzie and unfortunately the late Andrew Riddell from Peaston, I can say they are all tremendous farmers who have maximised and improved the potentials of their farms within the limits of their situations. They are also well respected members of their local communities.
Having avoided discussing their situations with them, looking from the outside it appears that one of the problem's is the rise and greed of the corporate land agent trying to justify their existence, and create maximum short term gain for themselves and the landlord. as apposed to the local old school guy who was a buffer between the parties who could see that a stable long term agreement was more profitable for the landlord and tennant in the long term.
The other in my opinion is the fear of automatic right to buy hanging over the landlord.
I may get shot down for saying this but it's doing nothing to help the tenanted sector in Scotland. It's creating fear and distrust on both sides.
The only people gaining out of the present situations in the Scottish agricultural let and tenanted land sector are the parasites that are sucking the life blood out of the industry on both sides.... I don't think I need to point them out as they are mainly the ones with the tweed, salmon cords and letters after their names!

The absolute right to buy (artb) is an excuse put about by the tweed covered parasites to enable the removal of tenants.

The artb was only ever suggested for secure tenants on a '91 act inheritable lease. It unfortunately will not be made into law, so suggesting that it is preventing land being let is ludicrous.

The reality is that the lairds can garner a far better income by becoming the next generation of slipper farmers, taking huge area subsidy, producing nothing, employing nobody, and their only contribution to the local community being the content of the big house septic tank.

The real reason for not renewing this tenancy is the land reform act, due to become law next spring.

The act will ensure an outgoing tenant is fairly recompensed for their inward investment and tenants improvements. The current practice of right down will be abolished, so the laird can no longer legally pay a tenant a pound for a shed worth thousands.

The real reason for kicking out this tenant is greed.

It is happening all over Scotland right now, as the lairds and the land agents set about removing tenants wherever possible, and raising rents and financial demands to an unreasonable level where the tenancy is secure.

It's the modern highland clearances.

mikep · Aug 28, 2015

The law in England is that anything below the ground is landlords this is taken to mean buildings as well unless a specific agreement is in place. However a few years ago I knew a fellow who's short tenancy finished and the landlord refused any compensation for a lot of new sheep fencing saying it was his. The guy chainsawed all the posts at ground level and took the rest. Buildngs might work the same way especially as its steel framed?

PSQ · Aug 28, 2015

jhorr30 said:
Personally knowing Andrew from colstoun, the Paterson's from moonzie and unfortunately the late Andrew Riddell from Peaston, I can say they are all tremendous farmers who have maximised and improved the potentials of their farms within the limits of their situations. They are also well respected members of their local communities.

Thats the crux of it right there. The recent cases have (justifiably) stirred up a lot of emotion, and with ARtB its only going to get a lot worse.

I've heard on the grapevine that land agents are "delighted" with the rents / agreements on some deals in the Borders lately. It looks like the parties got into a bit of a feeding frenzy, so you could argue that its ultimately farmers 'desire' (one word it) for more land thats going to fuel the impending 'tenant clearances'. That, and schemes generated by the advisors of landowners to avoid tax and 'maximise revenues'.

But while it might maximise revenues, it can (trying to be tactful here) umm, turn the landlord into a social pariah, even among their own class. No names, no pack drill.

And where are the SNP in all this? Fiddling while Rome burns. Played like a deck of cards, and always one step behind the game.

JP1 · Oct 16, 2015

Wheyibuggermair said:
What a bunch of barstewards!
Actually,this is a good opportunity for the SNP to demonstrate how their redistribution policy can operate.

Think C4 News's report last night proved the SNP have not helped him or anyone else for that matter. The SNP Land Reform spokeswoman they put up was just .............breathless

DrDunc · Oct 17, 2015

JP1 said:
Think C4 News's report last night proved the SNP have not helped him or anyone else for that matter. The SNP Land Reform spokeswoman they put up was just .............breathless

The incredibly well rehearsed, but factless nonsense that women spouted (Aileen McLeod minister), is the nearest to Orwellian Double Speak I've ever heard spoken by a politician!

I read that there has been a rebellion at the SNP conference last night, with ddelegates demanding a more robust and thorough land reform bill.

It is astonishing how differently the media is reporting this. The Torygraph click here indicates the injustice of laird's potentially (but very unlikely ever to be) stripped of "their"land.

The supposedly unbiased BBC indicate that the rebellion is purely over sporting estates click here.

I can't find any report of the disgusting social injustice occurring where tenants, their families and their workers are being evicted from the land to allow Lairds to "become more involved in farming".

This quote is in fact a cleverly worded land agent's response to allegations that their employers are destroying lives and communities, and reducing Scottish production, without financial compensation to the tenants.

Eviction then allows the Laird to claim the EU area based subsidy for themselves.

The SNP are doing nothing about this disgusting greed.

JP1 · Oct 17, 2015

DrDunc said:
The incredibly well rehearsed, but factless nonsense that women spouted (Aileen McLeod minister), is the nearest to Orwellian Double Speak I've ever heard spoken by a politician!

I read that there has been a rebellion at the SNP conference last night, with ddelegates demanding a more robust and thorough land reform bill.

It is astonishing how differently the media is reporting this. The Torygraph click here indicates the injustice of laird's potentially (but very unlikely ever to be) stripped of "their"land.

The supposedly unbiased BBC indicate that the rebellion is purely over sporting estates click here.

I can't find any report of the disgusting social injustice occurring where tenants, their families and their workers are being evicted from the land to allow Lairds to "become more involved in farming".

This quote is in fact a cleverly worded land agent's response to allegations that their employers are destroying lives and communities, and reducing Scottish production, without financial compensation to the tenants.

Eviction then allows the Laird to claim the EU area based subsidy for themselves.

The SNP are doing nothing about this disgusting greed.

The thing is the more this get's (intelligently) discussed on here, the higher up Google and other search engines the topic becomes. Serious reporters and researchers then have an alternative source of information. I'm sure the likes of C4 News's Alex Thomson and his researchers find this useful, same with Michael Crick with his killer doorstepping questions wit his furry microphone.

Keep going

Exfarmer · Oct 17, 2015

If I was the landlord, I would take the first opportunity to divest myself of such a tenant.
As I understand , he was on a term lease, so must have been well aware that he was at risk f losing any investment.
Further taking the landlord to court for a rent reduction makes him sound the tenant from hell!
I have recently witnessed an old friend lose half his farm when the landlord refused to renew, there was quite simply one person at fault and it was nothing to do with an agent, purely my friend took against the lady owner and her family. all he had to do was shmooze her a little and he would still be there.

DrDunc · Oct 17, 2015

Exfarmer said:
If I was the landlord, I would take the first opportunity to divest myself of such a tenant.
As I understand , he was on a term lease, so must have been well aware that he was at risk f losing any investment.
Further taking the landlord to court for a rent reduction makes him sound the tenant from hell!
I have recently witnessed an old friend lose half his farm when the landlord refused to renew, there was quite simply one person at fault and it was nothing to do with an agent, purely my friend took against the lady owner and her family. all he had to do was shmooze her a little and he would still be there.

So if the Laird is charging an unreasonably high rent, or asking for another ridiculous increase, the tenant shouldn't challenge it?

In Scotland there is no functioning independent rent arbitration system.

There are no secure tenures being let any more either (apart from I think one publicity stunt by the current chairman of the land owners federation), and you'll go back decades to find any.

Why should a tenant not improve his business with inward investment? Particularly when it is extremely rare for an owner to prove fixtures and fittings that are fit for a reasonably competent businessman to make a living (despite the poor attempt of the 2003 act to force the owner to do so).

When the term lease ends, why then can the owner or their agent decide what outgoing compensation should be paid to the tenant, with no recourse to an independent valuation? Why can the outgoing tenant not sell his investment to an incoming tenant? Indeed why can't a tenant not use their investment assets as collateral to raise finance?

Why is the Laird still allowed to rent out a farmhouse which has its water supplied through lead pipes? Which has not been rewired since electricity was installed using cloth insulated copper (and is more than a little fire risk today!)? When the walls run with water when it rains because they won't replace the roof (even when the tenant offers to provide half the funds to renew the roof of the laird's properly)? When the windows are single glazed sash units installed six or seven decades ago, that are literally held together by paint?

@Exfarmer, why should laird's not be subject to such laws that have been in place for generations in other warps of life?

The poor had no lawyers.

beefandsleep · Oct 17, 2015

DrDunc, I agree totally with your last point. Has Scotland always been independent in legislating on these matters? It seems that this is an area that it would do well to follow England's example. The proposed land reform bill looks like a swing to the opposite extreme and quite poorly thought out. I am amazed you haven't got an independent arbitrator to deal with these matters. Who is representing tenants in Scotland, and are they lobbying or being consulted on the land reform bill?

DrDunc · Oct 17, 2015

beefandsleep said:
DrDunc, I agree totally with your last point. Has Scotland always been independent in legislating on these matters? It seems that this is an area that it would do well to follow England's example. The proposed land reform bill looks like a swing to the opposite extreme and quite poorly thought out. I am amazed you haven't got an independent arbitrator to deal with these matters. Who is representing tenants in Scotland, and are they lobbying or being consulted on the land reform bill?

There is the Scottish tenant farmers association who actively lobby.

They weren't formed until 2001. Prior to then there was no representation.

The majority of farmers will still conduct rent reviews and negotiations in person with the laird's agent (factor). There are now just two large land agent businesses in Scotland. GKD Galbraith's, and Savilles Smith Gore. Between them they know the rent of practically every farm in Scotland.

When the farmer represents himself, he rarely knows what rent even his neighbour is paying, resulting in a somewhat one sided negotiation!

Despite the large economic downturn, and English rents actually being reduced, Scottish rents are increasing. There is supposed to be a voluntary agreement that rent increases requests aren't above inflation. This followed the land court ruling where lord Gill awarded a 78% rise to the Laird in the Elliott v Duke of Roxburgh case. It was recognised that something needed done to instill tenant sector stability!

Despite this, rent requests from the agents are often still above inflation. With the only arbitration currently available being from the ludicrously expensive and some would even say biased, Scottish land court, it is perhaps little wonder that when representing themselves, most farmers acquiesce to the demands.

The SNP did conduct what appeared a quite robust review of inputs from all parties prior to drafting the legislation. It is believed that the land reform bill will create an independent rent review body, so that would be a huge step in the right direction.

multi power · Oct 17, 2015

mikep said:
The law in England is that anything below the ground is landlords this is taken to mean buildings as well unless a specific agreement is in place. However a few years ago I knew a fellow who's short tenancy finished and the landlord refused any compensation for a lot of new sheep fencing saying it was his. The guy chainsawed all the posts at ground level and took the rest. Buildngs might work the same way especially as its steel framed?

As far as buildings go, gas axe at floor level

Exfarmer · Oct 17, 2015

Must confess I do not know Scottish law, however the tenant took on a substantial holding aware of the rules. They say he is a very good farmer , so I find it hard to believe he did not realise the consequences of falling out with the landlord.
Sadly as many tenants South of the border find , there is always someone else keen on taking over a good farm

TheRanger · Oct 18, 2015

DrDunc said:
The supposedly unbiased BBC indicate that the rebellion is purely over sporting estates click here.

Are you seriously having a veiled dig at the impartiality of the BBC?

Every side of the political debate think the BBC have got it in for them - it's because they're doing their job.

DrDunc · Oct 18, 2015

TheRanger said:
Are you seriously having a veiled dig at the impartiality of the BBC?

Every side of the political debate think the BBC have got it in for them - it's because they're doing their job.

A veiled dig? No.......

After all, there's plenty of reports about the one sided rent negotiation process aren't there?

That the estates make enormous increase demands without any justification (other than wanting the tenant out).

That the only arbitration process open to the tenant involves the insanely expensive land court (which the incredibly wealthy land owners federation gathers funds and pledges to contest).

Aye, there are a lot of reports about families being evicted to allow "the laird to take a closer involvement in farming". These reports also highlight that after clearing the stock, workers, and ceasing to actually produce anything, how much extra income the Laird generates for themselves through area subsidy money.

The reporting on the condition of the tied housing that a fifties slum landlord would be embarrassed about, well that is frequent and informative (!).

Aye, though there are plenty more examples, I'd better not list them all at once.

With so much reporting on the plight of the tenant, it might appear biased against the shooting estates owned by all those titled earls, dukes, and lords who contribute so much to the rural economy and community.

Aye, I'm being sarcastic.

Colstoun farmer told he must leave

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page