A small Scottish incident with an anchor - what would you have done?

[Ceejay]

I feel that there is no need for the anti Edinburgh sentiments being voiced by some, after all, you can be an idiot and come from just about anywhere.
CJ

 

[Biggles Wader]

Perhaps he thought you were a god botherer or canvassing for vote leave?If so he probably had a point.

 

[awol]

I feel that there is no need for the anti Edinburgh sentiments being voiced by some, after all, you can be an idiot and come from just about anywhere.
CJ

Despite having lived in the place for 46 years - god, is it really that long? - I think Spike Milligans comment about Americans could be appropriated for those from the capital.
Why do people take an instant dislike to Edinburghers? .......... It saves time!

 

[Amulet]

Dylan's boat is one of the ugliest you've ever seen - a fact in which he takes some pride. However I'd have thought it an acceptable match for the shed.

Guess you've found a new wankerage.

 

[shaunksb]

"do you really have to anchor there" - he shouted in a very posh voice and started sort of dancing and waving his arms in a most unfriendly manner


what would you have done


D

"Ohhh... Alright.

Thank you very much"

Then picked up his mooring buoy...

________________________

 

[JumbleDuck]

As another "local" I am really sorry this happened to you. I have never experienced this kind of behaviour , and have been sailing the area for the last decade.

Me neither, though I I've never anchored in that spot, as I tend to tuck in by Eilean nan Gabhar.

My response to the question you were asked would have been "yes" and I would then have got on with lunch. It may be worth querying the legitimacy of the moorings - drop a note to the WHAM (http://www.whamassoc.org.uk/) guys, they regularly chase down moorings laid without authorisation, and work to control them so that anchorages are not infested with unregulated moorings.

I found the local Crown Estates chap very responsive when I contacted him about unauthorised moorings clogging up Bull Hole.

Back to Dylan's original points ... I think i would have moved, on the "life's too short" principle. As an aside, I am a Glaswegian who has lived, at least part time, in Edinburgh for twenty five years, and the Edinbourgeois are just as mixed as anywhere else. A few stinkers (Gullane = Newton Mearns) but overwhelmingly pleasant.

 

[ianj99]

Whilst his attitude was probably unnecessarily unpleasant, anyone who owns or rent a lodge on an otherwise deserted island, will cherish their privacy and the tranquility.
Considering that there is no shortage of suitable anchorages in Loch Craignish, I don't blame him for wanting to discourage those who feel they have a right to drop anchor right in front of his property. Its not something I'd ever do and certainly not without asking first.

For all he knew, Dylan may have been the vanguard of a flotilla, may have a liking for loud music and is given to general noisy merry making, so being hostile was his defence against this. Good on him for protecting his privacy and shame on those who would seek to bully him into giving way.

 

[dimdav]

I heard he dislikes yotties as some Drascombe sailors anchored in there a good few years back and shat all over his property. I believe it was / is a recurring problem for him..

If this is the reason then I cant help but feel some sympathy for him. He might have seen a small boat, have no real knowledge of the internals of small boats and therefore assumed the worst! Did lakesailor not have a similar problem with cyclists and dry stone dykes?

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

Whilst his attitude was probably unnecessarily unpleasant, anyone who owns or rent a lodge on an otherwise deserted island, will cherish their privacy and the tranquility.
Considering that there is no shortage of suitable anchorages in Loch Craignish, I don't blame him for wanting to discourage those who feel they have a right to drop anchor right in front of his property. Its not something I'd ever do and certainly not without asking first.

For all he knew, Dylan may have been the vanguard of a flotilla, may have a liking for loud music and is given to general noisy merry making, so being hostile was his defence against this. Good on him for protecting his privacy and shame on those who would seek to bully him into giving way.

If its privacy he wants maybe he could go stick his head in a pig*? You cannot expect or demand privacy in a place where the public have right of access. Should he desire privacy in such a place he should perhaps ask nicely.

*copyright Encyclopedia Galactica.

 

[Seven Spades]

I think the long island, Eileen Righ, is up for sale for a few million and has a helicopter landing pad. It is one of these places that the right to roam applies but you just know that the owner takes the concept of his privacy seriously. Come the zombie apocalypse I am going to send a boat load of the reanimated over just to really piss him/her/it off. Until then, I think I too would just move on, life is too precious to stand about arguing with someone, especially when surrounded with lovely places to visit.

Do you have the right to roam over any privately owned land including peoples gardens or does it depend upon type of land?

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Do you have the right to roam over any privately owned land including peoples gardens or does it depend upon type of land?

You can read all about here http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com from the code: -

Introduction

Scotland’s outdoors provides great opportunities for open-air recreation and education, with great benefits for people’s enjoyment, and their health and well-being. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 ensures everyone has statutory access rights to most of Scotland’s outdoors, if these rights are exercised responsibly, with respect for people’s privacy, safety and livelihoods, and for Scotland’s environment. Equally, land managers have to manage their land and water responsibly in relation to access rights.


The Scottish Outdoor Access Code provides detailed guidance on these responsibilities. The Code provides a practical guide to help everyone make informed decisions about what best to do in everyday situations, and provides the starting point for short promotional codes and more detailed advice about land and inland water.


Principles – the Code is based on three key principles:


• Respect the interests of other people.


Acting with courtesy, consideration and awareness is very important. If you are exercising access rights, make sure that you respect the privacy, safety and livelihoods of those living or working in the outdoors, and the needs of other people enjoying the outdoors. If you are a land manager, respect people’s use of the outdoors and their need for a safe and enjoyable visit.


• Care for the environment.


If you are exercising access rights, look after the places you visit and enjoy, and leave the land as you find it. If you are a land manager, help maintain the natural and cultural features which make the outdoors attractive to visit and enjoy.


• Take responsibility for your own actions.


If you are exercising access rights, remember that the outdoors cannot be made risk-free and act with care at all times for your own safety and that of others. If you are a land manager, act with care at all times for people’s safety.

Basically you can't roam over gardens and it is applicable to all private land that is not subject to the exceptions. A land owner can't state that the garden is 100,000 acres. The Duke of Argyle has a fine estate and no issue with people roaming over his land provided they do it responsibly. The legislation specifically places responsibilities on those who access the land as well as owners of the land. It is not a free for all e.g. the right does not extend to motorised access, but allows canoeists to paddle by anglers, who must not restrict the canoeists. It is a remarkable bit of legislation in my opinion, needed because of the tourist value of Scotland's land as well as the large proportion that is owned by non British people who may have tried to limit access.

 

[dimdav]

Do you have the right to roam over any privately owned land including peoples gardens or does it depend upon type of land?

Houses, gardens, airfields and military bases are excluded. Size of garden is defined to stop folk like Anne Gloag trying to claim her garden covers multiple acres.

 

[adwuk]

Good on him for protecting his privacy and shame on those who would seek to bully him into giving way.

That's an interesting point of view. Alternatively, wasn't the person on the beach simply bullying Dylan and preventing him from doing something he was perfectly entitled to do?

 

[Deleted member 36384]

I heard he dislikes yotties as some Drascombe sailors anchored in there a good few years back and shat all over his property. I believe it was / is a recurring problem for him..

He needs to really take a long hard look at himself if people are queuing up to shit on his land, I don't suppose he is a prosecutor by any chance in divorce settlements, that may explain it. Pissed off wives, divorcing sailing husbands, who, after being kicked out and having to handover the house, and half the pension, half the savings, half of everything except the boat, finds that the only satisfaction left is shitting on his ex wife's solicitors land. I can understand that.

 

[Seven Spades]

You can read all about here http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com from the code: -



Basically you can't roam over gardens and it is applicable to all private land that is not subject to the exceptions. A land owner can't state that the garden is 100,000 acres. The Duke of Argyle has a fine estate and no issue with people roaming over his land provided they do it responsibly. The legislation specifically places responsibilities on those who access the land as well as owners of the land. It is not a free for all e.g. the right does not extend to motorised access, but allows canoeists to paddle by anglers, who must not restrict the canoeists. It is a remarkable bit of legislation in my opinion, needed because of the tourist value of Scotland's land as well as the large proportion that is owned by non British people who may have tried to limit access.

I wouldn't call it remarkable, it is simply terrible. If I had bought a private island and paid for it then I wouldn't expect any Tom Dick or Harry to go wondering over my land, it is like the land has been nationalised without out compensating the owners of that land for their loss. It is nothing to be proud of unless you are a card carrying Communist.

 

[Resolution]

I wouldn't call it remarkable, it is simply terrible. If I had bought a private island and paid for it then I wouldn't expect any Tom Dick or Harry to go wondering over my land, it is like the land has been nationalised without out compensating the owners of that land for their loss. It is nothing to be proud of unless you are a card carrying Communist.

Remarkable or terrible - your view is probably going to be influenced by whether or not you are a large landowner (or tenant farmer). Pretty much everyone else stands to gain from the extra access rights. Even as a non-landowner I wonder whether this is the thin end of the Communist wedge.
Worth noting that in England we have for ages had similar arrangements in the case of public rights of way over otherwise private land. Every time I take my dog out for a walk I should be thankful for the enjoyment of these footpaths through beautiful countryside.

 

[dimdav]

I wouldn't call it remarkable, it is simply terrible. If I had bought a private island and paid for it then I wouldn't expect any Tom Dick or Harry to go wondering over my land, it is like the land has been nationalised without out compensating the owners of that land for their loss. It is nothing to be proud of unless you are a card carrying Communist.

Then don't buy an island or land in Scotland.

The ancient right to free passage has been around up here since before moses was a boy let alone communism so its never been nationalised. This legislation just formalised and modernised it. I guess it grew out of conventions\practicalities of our rugged landscape and a time when there were no roads.

We Scots are and always have been very protective of our right to unhindered passage.

 

[Amulet]

The vast estates in Scotland were not originally acquired by purchase or any other defensible means. The original inhabitants managed to share them without the need to invoke the concept of land ownership. Incomers, with royal backing, simply asserted that they owned the land (a kind of theft). Greedy Scots were coopted into this group and did the same. Self-serving legislation was then rushed through parliament to legitimise these claims. The estates have then been sold on as if they were legitimately owned.

Scotland cares about all its citizens not just the rich, and we are comfortable with the "right to roam". If you don't like it go and live in a less enlightened country. You are entitled to think this is communism if you want. However no-one here is defending the many failed economic policies of communism or capitalism, simply the right to roam.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

I wouldn't call it remarkable, it is simply terrible. If I had bought a private island and paid for it then I wouldn't expect any Tom Dick or Harry to go wondering over my land, it is like the land has been nationalised without out compensating the owners of that land for their loss. It is nothing to be proud of unless you are a card carrying Communist.

Thats a fair enough point and one that was actually argued quite extensively by some of those who owned the land. It is hardly compliant with communist doctrine or nationalisation as the owners of the land can still work the land for their personal gain without any hindrance or encumbrance and sell it if they wish for their own profit, the state has no interest in the land as a result of the legislation being discussed except to ensure that it is enforced.

 

[Spyro]

I wouldn't call it remarkable, it is simply terrible. If I had bought a private island and paid for it then I wouldn't expect any Tom Dick or Harry to go wondering over my land, it is like the land has been nationalised without out compensating the owners of that land for their loss. It is nothing to be proud of unless you are a card carrying Communist.

Anyone buying an island should do their homework first. I think there was a similar problem a few years back when a foreigner purchased Sanda. He closed the pub and put up no landing signs. It was discussed at length here.

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?351288-Sanda&highlight=Sanda