When slavery was abolished in the British Empire, taxpayers paid huge sums in compensation to slave owners for the loss of their “property”. No compensation was ever paid to the slaves for the loss of their freedom.
The problem with that approach is, of course, that the state did not take into account that the “property” of which it was relieving the landowners was acquired as part of an inhuman and immoral situation.
I was considering the same question in relation to the constitutional moves of South Africa to redistribute land without compensation. It seems to me this is plainly morally justified. The only question marks I can see are of practicality, in terms of making sure those taking over the land are trained to keep it properly in production, and that redistribution is not corrupt. Those are not insuperable problems, and I support the South African government in its endeavours.
But I wish to apply the same principle, of the state acting to right historic injustice on behalf of the people, much more widely and in the UK.
I apply precisely the same argument to the great landed estates, particularly but not only in Scotland. I believe the fundamental answer to land reform is confiscation by the state of large estates, and that social justice can never be redressed by the taxpayer simply handing over money to the ultra-wealthy. We have already been doing far too much of that through the bankers’ bailouts.
I have no moral qualms at all about simply taking back the land, whether it be from the Dukes of Sutherland, Buccleuch and Atholl, from a Dutch businessman or from a sheikh. In England the Grosvenor estate, the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall, and similar holdings could be confiscated. I do not see this as harm to the “owners”. Let them work for a living, or try their luck with the benefits claim system. Residential properties in large estates might become council homes, while tenants of commercial properties might pay rents to the council rather than to the Duke of Westminster, and the council use a large portion of that money for homebuilding.
Agricultural land from vast estates might perhaps best be given to the tenant farmers who have rented it. In the Highland glens, there are vast tracts which were once cattle rearing and arable. We have been lied to for generations that these are only fit for moorland for grouse and deer hunting – despite the fact that they are studded with the croft foundations of the cleared populations they once supported, who reared cattle and grew crops. These unfarmed lands should be given free to communities to develop; with assistance for the expensive task of bringing them back into production. That assistance would be a better use of state money than paying “compensation” to the ultra-wealthy.
But it is not only land. I favour nationalisation without compensation of all PFI projects, and of all railways and utilities. The owners have milked the public and the taxpayer far too long. Any business investment carries risk, including political risk. If you misjudge the political risk, your business fails. These businesses have made a misjudgement of political risk in the view they could profiteer, that it is possible to rip off the people forever without blowback. That is a business miscalculation, and such businesses deserve to fail.
The Labour Party’s renationalisation proposals have been carefully calculated within the existing framework of “legitimate” property rights. Therefore John McDonnell has framed rail nationalisation in terms of the expiration of franchises, and talked of PFI projects in terms of buyouts. I reject this approach in favour of the more radical approach of confiscation.
Yes, I realise that some percentage of the investments removed will belong to pension funds and insurance companies and even foreign states, and to small investors. Still more will belong to hedge funds and plutocrats, and the stake of ordinary people in wealth through pension funds had been – deliberately – tumbling for two decades. The less wealthy individuals with a stake in pension funds will lose a little, but gain from the wider public good, and for them there might be a compensation mechanism.
I also realise the markets will not like confiscation, and there will be an increase in bond yields; but this will pass. There is no measure to redress social injustice the markets will like. The City of London is our enemy and will naturally attempt to resist or punish any attack on its continued ability to be the conduit for the hoovering dry of the national wealth.
The fact is, that the extreme injustice and inequalities of society have now become so very glaring that there is no way to make any impression on wealth disparity without changes that may be rightly considered revolutionary. Either we are content to live in a society where the wealthiest one per cent will within two decades own ninety per cent of all wealth in the UK and the rest of us be helots, or we make changes to the fabric of the economy and government which are truly radical.
The economic system has tilted beyond correction by tinkering.
What is immorally owned ought not to be compensated on expropriation by the community.
As with the owners of slaves, the owners of “property” would be likely to attempt to defend their riches through the courts. This is where the doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament might for once be put to good rather than evil use, in passing law making such state confiscation unequivocally legal. Both the UK and Scotland appear set for at least a period outside the EU; I cannot think of a better use for any window of legal autonomy.
I am fully aware that I am proposing very radical measures very unlikely to be adopted by the current political Establishment. But the most telling fact of recent western society, itself a natural and predictable result of that galloping wealth inequality, is that the political Establishment has its coat on a very shoogly peg.
Your opinion that the illegal theft of white farmers land is morally justified shows that you do not understand the history of South Africa nor understand the concept of morality. The black tribes were not the original inhabitants of the land, they invaded it and killed the indigenous population, Once there they never farmed the land because it was not in their culture to do so being basically nomadic. The Boers came to the land and created the farms. They also created a society in which despite the propaganda about Apartheid allowed the black population to increase by 800%. Since the collapse of white government crime has become an epidemic, murder rates are such that you average warzone is safer than many parts of South Africa. In tandem with this is rampant incompetence and corruption of government and a disastrous economy. The black administration has appropriated land and attempted to get blacks to farm it with generous loans/ subsidies. This has been largely a failure. The black population have neither the desire nor the ability to become farmers and it is only white farmers that have ever succeeded in a very harsh environment. So your communistic view that theft of land is moral is absurd. It will mean that the country will be unable to feed itself and the already flatlining economy will be unable to pay for food imports in sufficient amounts to feed the people. Under white government the average black person was materially better off and much safer than they are now. As usual the main beneficiaries of the change were politicians and bureaucrats not the ordinary citizen. Another immoral and illegal idea from a socialist, just what the world needs.
The Boer’s had no problems with keeping black slaves, they slaughtered many Bantu and took their lands at Kei, the Orange River and Drakensburg. Though the Hottentots prior to the Bantu could probably claim some European ancestry.
Its said that when Vasco de Gama rounded the Cape and landed at Mossel bay in 1498 he found only Hottentot people.
As far as I know Jan van Riebeck of the Dutch East India company was one of the first to set up at Table bay in 1652, along with another hundred or so people.
As for corruption in SA, the ANC presidents (possibly Mandela aside) have been just as corrupt as previous white presidents.
I wonder what Paul Kruger (Old Uncle Oom) would make of today’s SA?
Black tribes took it, then Boers took it. Now black tribes are taking it.
What’s the problem?
When the Boers took it, people were fed. Now the black tribes are taking it, people will starve. Not taking a position one way or the other, just saying it as it is,
I once met a British guy who lived in South Africa at a party in in Manchester in the mid-eighties: ” Mandela is a terrorist with no popular support. The Zulus have all the popular support, and they support the current government. Blacks can’t even agree amongst themselves. Why should we let them run the country? The Springboks are be best rugby team in the world. South African wines are the best wines in the world. I live there. You don’t. I know what goes on. You don’t”. You remind me of him.
So why do black workers in wineries still get paid in wine? White South Africa is predicated on racism.
ANC has over 4,000 formerly white farms that they have acquired since the end of apartheid and done nothing with. They are incompetent and corrupt, and leading the country off a cliff. That’s one reason why I donate to the Suidlanders.
The poet laureate of England, when asked why, as a member of the arts he was a conservative rather than a socialist, responded:
“Because the values of the conservative are self-reliance, industry, patriotism and duty”.
-And the values of the socialist?
“Envy, sloth and treason”.
Which poet laureate please ? Which school, University did he she attend ? Who were his her parents ? What job did he or she do ? Apart from writing. The values of Socialism for me are those are those demonstrated by workers who went to Spain and fight Fascist Franco. Socialist MP Dennis Skinner who was a Miner. And the millions of dead WW1 soldiers who died for the big lie ‘Dulce et Decorum est’. I doubt your poet was Wilfred Owen.
Philip Larkin 1922-1985.
Philip Larkin was never Poet Laureate.
I never said he was.
That may have been true of conservatism then. But now it supports crony capitalism, I.e., envy, sloth, and treason only on behalf of a favored few.
.
L. . . . . that’s a great observation. Sláinte
.
I forgot. Offered but refused the appointment. Apologies, blame old age …
Wow, I read it then paused… then I thought.. who gave these owners of massive tracts of Scotland these lands, what right do they have to “lord it over” the “ordinary” people, expecting them to kow tow, and why the hell are they allowed to (mostly) run these vast money making schemes as charities thus avoiding the inconvenience of that pesky tax thing.
Why do we put up with it, why not open up these lands for Norwegian style Hutta for the actual people, “ordinary” people can escape from day to day life for some healthy fresh air, it would save our NHS a fortune, cabins could be looked after and passed down, loved and respected
The lands in the Highlands were not given, they were taken from the clans after Culloden. The British Government troops were told to wipe out the clan system, ban the speaking of Gaelic, ban the bagpipes, ban the wearing of tartan. So they set about murdering, raping, torturing and burning families in their homes. This genocide continued for decades until the population shrunk dastically. Folk fled to the cities, to the Americas and West Indies. Bear in mind this is 39 years after the Acts of Union.
I don’t know what shoogly means but I definitely agree with everything else.
I think it means a wobbly peg ready to fall on the floor.
There’s a few ” shoogly pegs ” around when the politicians and economists try to tackle the slippery subject of unearned income and the tax ( or no tax ) thereon inherited and capital gains.
The Boer supporter above has put his hat on one when he uses the phrase “allowed ” the black population to grow.
They either fed them well by paying them well in order to flourish or something else happened?
My money’s on the something else happened.
Sounds a bit Jordan Peterson ish does that.
Yes, shoogly means wobbly or loose. The opposite of strong and stable.
At the rate the Australian MBAs are increasing our water bills, they will exceed council tax in another 10 years. Completely RISK FREE water, utility and transport monopolies should have their valuation done on an annual 2% ROI to date with an inflationery increase added to the original purchase price from the Treasury, value worked out accordingly and paid off via Treasury Bills. The only problem is where to find the genuine business/operational acumen to run them, as the first devils to jump at the chance will be the same hoedges who ran Carillion and Bhs to the ground.
Are you going through the change, Craig? Mood swings, calling people idiots, harking back to your childhood (Greenham Common) and fairly clickbaity articles, slanted so as to start a ruckus. I am reminded of my aging mum.
The whole socialist, for the people, ethos is long gone. Not one South African will in fact benefit from the land grabs. They are meant to benefit the fatcat ANC and to distract people from the ghastly mess the ANC has made of government.
If you make policy on the basis of colour, what else can you expect. Racism is never a good foundation.
The Khoi and the San have a claim. And no one else.
You guys have turned england into a nazi reich. Check this:
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201812021070329063-russian-journalist-classified-uk-security-risk-over-report/
.
RB—
“You guys. . . “
Please expand on this a little, I’m only an ill informed junior officer.
Many thanks.
.
No, not you guys, those guys over there … look quickly, before I manage not to change the subject.
Craig, hear hear. Its a massive issue, so ingrained and so rarely talked about.
Inequality and all its evils starts so very long ago and with so much might only later dressed as right. Ownership of land especially to the exclusion of all others is one of the original evils, and as absurd as owning the air.
This is an older link, that deals with Andy Wightman’s book, Who Owns Scotland, and it names a few names, most from outside Scotland.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/who-owns-scotland-1320933.html
Slaves, nowadays?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6450707/The-photo-Prince-Andrew-long-forget-back.html
pesky billionaire buddies
That will put the cat among the Palace pigeons. Just think that the new editor of the Heil replacing Dacre, is the son of a Palace flunkey, Geordie Greig. His father was Sir Carron Greig, a Gentleman Usher to Her Maj,
Capital Flight is a big price to pay. The fastest growing economy in 1912 never recovered from nationalisation in 1917 and is today a shadow of the economic power it should have achieved. Germany went to war in fear of the emerging power in the East much as USA is today frightened of China. Russia was the main export market of the UK after 1900 until war destroyed it for 90 years
When a career served former ambassador from The Foreign & Commonwealth Office speaks as I find here, I can only come to the conclusion that an old epoch is possibly ending. If that is the case, then I can only hope that the world really is changing for the better. It sure as hell needs to…_
This is succinct and sensible. Off with his head!
‘A study into who owns Scotland’s land and the impact that has on the people who live there is to be carried out by the new Scottish Land Commission (SLC).
+++It has been estimated that fewer than 500 people own half of all privately-owned land in Scotland.+++
That is one of the highest concentrations of land ownership in Europe.
The SLC study is one of a series of priorities being set out at its first conference in Dunfermline.’
Study into impact of land ownership in Scotland
By Kevin Keane – BBC Scotland’s environment correspondent
28 September 2017
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-41414706
Craig, your sentiments are well placed. I can also imagine how such a scheme could work, as the basis of an economic plan that is both practical and sustainable, to underpin a post-independent Scotland.
If the objective is to promote a voluntary and orderly nationalization; of Scotland’s land, rivers, sea, and mineral rights; we could legislate a land tax, of say 5%, and apply it to the assessed fair market value of those assets. In this way, those who have not the wealth to pay the tax will end up in default. If the law were to be written to mandate land forfeiture for persistent delinquency (say 3 years), a perfectly legal and acceptable way to transfer land to the state can be enacted. In the event that the land owner had the desire and financial capability to pay the tax, the Scottish government could content itself that it would be benefiting from a tax income equal to the lands value every 15 years.
To complement the above, and promote the voluntary transfer of land ownership to the Scottish government, those currently in possession of land can be offered a lifelong lease – granting the same rights and privileges to the land – at a rent substantially below the land tax; at (say) 1%. In doing so, by offering a lower cost mechanism for (essentially) having the same rights and access to the land, a positive incentive for transferring the land to the government would be created. And if the land-owner were to choose otherwise, that would be fine as they would be voluntarily choosing to pay the higher cost burden of ownership. With the passage of time, and the eternal search within each of us to minimize our tax burden, all land could reasonably be expected to become the property the Scottish government. This in turn could be leverage to raise tax revenue – at a fair, proportionate and universal rate – through extended leasing,
And of course, to be scrupulously fair, all land and assets owned by the Crown estate would be treated in the same manner.
In doing the above, I imagine that it would be possible to reduce significantly the amount of income tax paid by everyone in the country without affecting government revenue. This assumption, if correct, is premised on the land value in private ownership being an order of magnitude (or more) than the total earnings of Scotland’s tax payers. Just imagine how popular it would be to the majority of the voting public if income tax were to be reduced by transferring the bulk of the countries tax burden to land and property.
To put the above into context, I currently reside in Houston (Texas) and pay 3% tax of my houses property value. This is equivalent to a income tax of around 10% if assuming a property value of 3.5 x income. It is also of note that, in the event of property tax delinquency for 3 years, my property can be sized by the court. And, although I am the notional owner of the land, my rights are comparable to a tenant as I have no claim to any mineral deposits, and I am required to cut the grass under local city ordinance or risk a fine. The upside is that Texas, unlike many other states in the US, has no state income tax as revenues raised from property tax are sufficient. I can therefore imagine a similar scheme, if enacted in Scotland, would work just fine.
Totally agree, the only other solution involves pitchforks, and they are not to be recommended.
George Galloway recently interviewed on Radio Sputnik the author of a new book entitled “Hitler’s British Traitors”. Turns out a leading supporter of Hitler and his government in the late 1930s was the then Duke of Buccleuch.
I’m neither for socialism nor conservatism.I do believe that constraints should be placed upon behaviour, and an acknowledgement of human frailties.If every citizen was given £100, within a fairly short period some would be destitute, and some millionaires.
A peoples’ income, and a substantial tax on supra-earnings would get my vote. A substantial tax on earnings wouldn’t dis-incentive the conservatives, they would always strive to identify opportunities to gather wealth. A peoples’ income would /should provide support and dignity to those less driven by wealth accumulation.
The overseas donor of £38,000 to Scotland’s “Secretary of State” Mundell’s war chest stated that a recession provides opportunities to acquire assets, at a discount.Meaning strive to identify opportunities to purchase from whoever is in financial difficulty.
Empathy and Conservatism are the ying and yang of human existence.
Nice idea, but naïve. This simply cannot happen. Those with vested interests are, by virtue of those vested interests, monied enough to carry out extensive campaigns to ensure this doesn’t happen. They can fund their chosen party, their chosen candidate within said party and ensure that donations are based on never bringing such a policy to fruition. They can afford to play both sides of the street, directly or through intermediaries.
They ARE doing this and have ensured that they are safe and comfortable in their mansions on their estates and pay little to no tax as well as being entitled to large subsidies.
NO party has ever dared go against them at any time. Not just on the issue of land, but on the issue of taxation. We need only look at the difference between how a corporation is treated and how an individual is treated as far as income tax goes. The penalties for failing to submit returns, for example, are higher for a self-employed joiner than for a multi national – and that’s in actual MONEY terms, not percentages. An intial £100 plus possible daily penalties of up to £75 for the individual, compared to £100 for the corporation. In the case of an ‘Avon’ Rep who ‘forgot’ that they should’ve submitted an SA return (EVEN IF it was nil) for the past 5 years say, they would become eligible for FIVE TIMES the penalties, ie £500 plus £375 per day – until submitted. The corporation? It has the one off £100 (for each year) And if it fails? It gets struck off at Company House. The unsuspecting Avon Lady gets taken to court, has an order made against her, loses her credit rating and then has the order enforced by Sheriff Officers coming to her home and removing household good, car etc etc. This is whether, or not, she was due to pay ANY tax in the first place. The lack of the return is enough to trigger this, NOT the lack of payment itself.
Of course, there are those who are wise to this. Like some of Scotland’s leading legal representatives, some of them well known enough to be household names. Instead of submitting the returns, they pay their fines, pay their daily penalties and comply with any punitive payment. Knowing that to pay THAT is cheaper than paying their taxes. Enough money to buy a golden flute perhaps?
It’s no accident the system is stacked against the poor. Labour are WELL aware of this and have done NOTHING. Our tax system, our benefits system and our lands need reformed, badly. The poor support the rich, NOT the other way round. We have nothing to be grateful for, it is their smartest trick to make us believe that we have…
.
Gary—
“naive” (accusatory) = gaslighting.
Gaslighting behaviour nullifies the point you are making. Just saying.
Sláinte
.
Have you spoken with Anders Povlsen about you ideas for the sharing of land in the Highlands?
Perhaps, he might have some spare corners of Highland Moor where your ideas about reversing the land clearances could experimented with?
Re-wilding the Highlands: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/02/danish-billionaire-explains-re-wilding-vision-highlands/
I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling or inviting us to probe the limits of critical thought about the nature of the current status quo?
Yes, you usually try provocation-of-thought, but this one is a little more extreme than usual.
Seriously, not sure if I should laugh, cry or be nervous.
Macron’s attitude: Qu’ils mangent de la brioche. Le Pen and Melenchon need to find some way to work together, so that they can bring him down.
The land, like all gifts of nature, rightfully belongs to all. So it would not be appropriate to simply dole out restituted land to new “owners”.
As the law currently stands in the UK all the land is ultimately “owned” by the Crown. It is not necessary to “confiscate” anything, merely adjust the terms of the lease.
Over a hundred years ago Henry George came up with what seems like a reasonable approach: tax the land at 100% of its rentable value, not including any improvements. This would give large landholders a big incentive to sell surplus land, keep the price down, and kill speculation. Increases in value due to community action would be returned to the community. Land would become available at a reasonable price to all who could make productive use of it. No contentious confiscation and redistribution is necessary.
I wouldn’t take all of the land back from Estate owners in Scotland… Leave them with 2 or 3 acres and let them keep their estate houses.
Time to reclaim the rest of the land and work it sustainably so as to produce high quality food which will be inexpensive for the population… I also propose that we invest in large scale hemp farming, which can be a massive new industry and also a sustainable one, seeing as how it regenerates the soil and is extremely versatile, from producing 4 times the amount of paper per acre annually, compared to trees… Green biomass fuel, hempcrete, biodegradeable plastics, textiles, nutritional food for humans and animals… And of course, wonderful medicine for many biological health conditions etc…
Organic, non-GM fruit and vegetables are the gold standard of fòod production. Have the SNP invested in any agricultural infrastructure for such a market? Well, no. They’re waiting for someone to tell them what to do. Or maybe waiting until the summer when the project could be sold as empowering migrant fruit pickers. Whatever the reasons for head in the sand, the well-being of all Scots is not one of them.
I agree with you… We need a new political party comprised of people who have glimpsed a societal paradigm beyond what is currently ensnaring us.. Not just in Scotland.
Hilarious clip here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q3QBnCnJbQ
President Mauricio Macri of Argentina is trying some hand magic, following the example of Angela Merkel and Donald Trump. Silly sod!
Well said…I agree completely. As I say about the richest thieves here in America–There should be no such thing as “billionaire.” The word should not exist in the language because no single human being is worthy of such a fortune, particularly not the pirates who have hollowed out our economy.
As with most everything these days, I am in two minds. The thing with the (mostly white) South African farmers is that they seem to be very good at what they do. It’s a tough job, with very specific skill-sets, and they have performed admirably. Giving their land to the native population doesn’t, therefore, seem entirely practical. You might say, tough shit, that’s what you get for Apartheid, and that’s perfectly understandable. It is unlikely to end well though.
Here in Oz our Government seriously considered a special visa for white farmers, for the fairly obvious reason that their skills are especially useful over here. I think it’s a good idea personally, which means it’ll never happen. They are, you see, too white. Which means the femi-harpies of the media-sphere will cry foul, and the useless dolts of parliament will concede quickly, as they always do.
As to PFI, it’s always been ridiculous. I used to have discussions online on this subject, and came to the conclusion that PFI defenders were just hopelessly naive, utter dolts, or shills. I see no reason to alter this conclusion. But sadly, expropriation is probably impossible. Too many vested interests (notably, banks) will ensure the very idea is deemed impossible, MP’s bought, cabinet ministers removed, and leaders destroyed for even mentioning it. The usual then. Still, ethically, sure why not? It’d be hilarious.
A special visa for farmers is a good idea – likely coming from the agricultural community in Oz.
City people do not realize or know this, but it only takes one generation away from the farm (particularly with animal operations) to loose all the links and knowledge required to suddenly decide to start farming again. The next generation of farmers always come from the existing farming community and successful SA farm families would be a huge benefit to any country concerned about the future of their domestic agriculture.
As for reverting the Scottish Highlands back to farming, it is folly to think you are going take city hipsters and turn them into successful highland cattle herders…………………….city hipsters would have an equal chance of success raising Highland unicorns!
Craig is trolling everyone on this one…..I have to assume he knows better, but I stand to be corrected.
‘Here in Oz our Government seriously considered a special visa for white farmers, for the fairly obvious reason that their skills are especially useful over here’
No, and you know it. Dutton floated the idea as a dogwhistle and possible vote winner in a few marginal Qld electorates, in response to a few hard right nutters and their fellow travs in RSA promoting the ‘white genocide’ conspiracy meme. The idea became toxic when Anning exposed his Nazi sympathies. White farmers can and do come here already, but not those over 40. The ALP will soon be debating a motion to introduce a community immigration sponsorship program like Canada’s, over and above the general intake, potentially of use to farmers who exceed the age limit. Dutton’s mob are just dogwhistling for racist votes.
Russia is seriously underpopulated. No doubt they could use an infusion of skilled farmers.
According to your principal all wars have to be fought again only now based on your interpretation of justice. Old pain has to be revisited by new pain and suffering. Not my world Craig. Please do me one favour take the “human rights activist” out of your banner. Thank you
Oh, there’s an easy enough solution to the visuals of this social conflict.
Tax the land for large estates at 100%-of-value property tax rates. Everyone agrees that property taxation at any rate is completely legally correct and poses no legal issues. It’s not “confiscation”, but it effectively performs it; anyone who wants to keep the large estate must surrender something else of equal value.
A typical white farmer under African skies?, suggested here that he had an idea to do a Porton-Down, novichok, attack on Rhodesia’s farmland post u.d.i. He later went for Harry Wislon, allegedly.
https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Bruce-McKenzie-s-link-in-downfall-of-British-Prime-Minister/1056-4877100-g8lupd/index.html
Israel is always there. In Africa, supplying arms in South Sudan
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-set-to-impose-arms-embargo-on-war-torn-south-sudan/
13th July 2018
and a long term relationship with South Africa. Chapter and verse here – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–South_Africa_relations
Elsewhere on here I see that the relics of the Afrikaner Broederbond are alive and well.
.
SE—
“Elsewhere on here I see that the relics of the Afrikaner Broederbond are alive and well.”
Agreed entirely. Keep it coming. Sláinte
.
You are a complete and utter idiot Murray, you blithely accept the cant of the current terrorist government and their hangers-on. What you do not realise, and have probably never considered, being as you are, secure inside your own liberal bubble, is that the very people who are demanding to get “their” land back were, when the whites came to South Africa, nothing more or less, than wandering herdsmen and hunter-gatherers. Even the blacks who practised some agriculture, IE the Venda people in the Northern Transvaal, did so on land which was never theirs, it was given to them to work at the largesse of the local petty tribal chief and had to pay heavy tribute for the privilege or stand the chance of loosing the land and being forced out of the tribe. The areas already owned by the blacks are some of the most verdant and fertile in this country, whereas the areas farmed by the white population namely the Free State and the Transvaal are arid in the extreme. Please learn your history and ensure that your brain is engaged before you put your mouth into gear.
.
“Stephen” —
Hoisted on. And. One’s own petard.
Are phrases that spring from your little essay.
Was this your intention?
Sláinte
.
you’re stretching this one, Molloy. Craig can stick up for himself, and is more than likely, trolling.