Rural Identity in the Twenty‐first Century: A Community of Crofters or Crofting Communities?
| Published date | 01 December 2010 |
| Author | Calum Macleod,Nicole Busby |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2010.00523.x |
| Date | 01 December 2010 |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 37, NUMBER 4, DECEMBER 2010
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 592±619
Rural Identity in the Twenty-first Century: A Community of
Crofters or Crofting Communities?
Nicole Busby* and Calum Macleod**
Crofting has been subjected to a specific regulatory regime in Scots
law since the introduction of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act in
1886. The Act, introduced in response to the devastation caused by the
Highland clearances, provided for security of tenure and associated
rights and now provides for full ownership on both individual and
collective bases. Consequently, the legal framework incorporates two
distinct forms of crofting identity: one based on the crofting function
and the other on a broader, place-based definition incorporating all
who live within crofting communities. Used as a basis for policy-
making, each definition gives rise to different outcomes. In this paper,
we use empirical research to show how such distinctions are
manifested in specific conflicts of interest within contemporary crofting
communities. This analysis is intended to inform the current debate
surrounding the future of crofting as well as to contribute to the wider
literature on the use of identity in the process of resource allocation.
INTRODUCTION
Debates on the use of identity as a foundation for the allocation of property
and other economic rights generally focus on reconciling individual claims
592
ß2010 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2010 Cardiff University Law School. Published by Blackwell Publishing
Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
*School of Law, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland
n.e.busby@stir.ac.uk
** Centre for Mountain Studies, UHI Millennium Institute, Crieff Road,
Perth PH1 2NX, Scotland
Calum.Macleod@perth.uhi.ac.uk
The authors gratefully acknowledge the award of a research grant by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Universities of Scotland which was used to cover the costs of the
empirical research. We would also like to thank the participants in our survey and
Professor James Hunter and the two anonymous referees for commenting on an earlier
draft. All errors remain our responsibility.
with those based on collective interests.
1
In most cases these often
competing claims can be distinguished on the basis of influential historical
factors, enabling conclusions to be drawn that favour one particular type of
claim over another. Although collective claims are often based on group
identities which have their roots in generations of shared social, economic,
and cultural experience, the recognition of group interest as a means of
legitimizing the allocation of resources is a relatively new phenomenon and
the previous exclusion of certain groups from full participation in socio-
economic life is often used to justify such allocation as a means of
remedying perceived injustices of the past.
2
In Scots law the conferment of certain property rights to those engaged in
the ancient practice of crofting is distinct in this respect. Such rights are
extensive and include security of tenure granted over 100 years ago as a form
of redress for the devastation visited on communities during the Highland
clearances of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, although
many of the practices traditionally utilized in the system of land management
survive, the current population of the crofting regions encompasses a group
of individuals who are vastly different from their forebears in both personal
and aspirational terms, making it difficult to draw the necessary definitional
boundaries for the purposes of identifying whom and what the legal
provisions should encompass. This, in turn, gives rise to certain conceptual
questions: should relevance be placed on the notion of a named individual
who fulfils the role of a crofter ± an identity based on function ± or on the
broader, more inclusive definition which incorporates all those who live
within crofting townships
3
regardless of economic activity ± an identity
based on place? Each definition gives rise to different outcomes which, if
used as a basis for future policy making, could serve to highlight and
entrench existing conflicts.
In this paper, we use empirical research to show how such distinctions are
manifested in specific conflicts of interest within contemporary crofting
communities. The purpose of this analysis is to inform the current debate
regarding the future of crofting policy.
4
Our study also has a wider purpose
593
1For example, S. Moller Okin, `Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?' and responses
to Okin's paper, in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?,ed. J. Cohen (1999).
2 Such reasoning is used as justification for affirmative or positive action measures in
much of the relevant literature, for example, C. Bacchi, `Policy and Discourse:
Challenging the Construction of Affirmative Action as Preferential Treatment'
(2004) 11 J. of European Public Policy 128.
3Defined in part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, s. 71(6) as `any two or
more crofts which share the right to use a common grazing together with that
common grazing and any houses pertaining to or contiguous to those crofts or that
common grazing'. `Common grazing' is land which is jointly utilized for the
purposes of raising livestock.
4 The Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament in
December 2009 and was enacteded in July 2010. The Act contains proposals to
ß2010 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2010 Cardiff University Law School
To continue reading
Request your trial