May I forward my thoughts on the Rennie McOwan article and responses? (Newsletters 22 and 23) Having re-read the article I am not surprised that it has upset Richard Haldane. Like Prue Kennard, I too was unhappy with the tone of the article which at the very least should have given equal prominence to walkers' obligations and avoided any reference to triumph. For one, I do not subscribe to the view that the forces of sense and light have triumphed in Scotland. Some aspects of the Land Reform Act which do not affect walkers but will affect landowners (viz. parts two and three, giving opportunities for communities and crofters to acquire land and water through "right to buy" provisions) may well be counter-productive if inadequately managed and financed.
To my mind the Concordat of earlier years worked fairly well and backing it with legislation was not necessary. However, we have or are about to have access enshrined in law and as well as rights, walkers (and landowners) have obligations which are pretty well set out in the access code - it seems fair in making clear what is expected both from walkers and landowners. In my view there are two essentials: walkers must not hinder the work of those who earn their living from the land - and landowners must not restrict access without good justification which must be made clear and transparent.
It remains to be seen if this is good legislation with the access code accepted by all as a "highway code" of responsible behaviour with resort to the law being the exception rather than the rule. My fear is that present-day culture, which attaches more importance to so-called rights without corresponding obligations, may predominate regardless of what the code says. Policing the law could then prove a nightmare and it is far too early to hail the Act as a momentous occasion. Certainly the statement "It's your law and your land" does nothing for good relations.
Regards,
Alan Cameron, Dunblane