Tag Archives: Crofting (Amendment) Scotland Bill

A very simple but effective amendment

Crofting Law amendments could be Simples

Simples!

I have already posted about the Crofting Law Group AGM (20 crofting lawyers in a room together) where the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill was discussed.

Sir Crispin Agnew QC observed at that meeting that a simple amendment to the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to correct the owner-occupier decrofting problem might be to insert in section 24(3): “Where a croft is vacant, or occupied by an owner-occupier crofter, the Commission may …”.

Very simple and effective. I would be more than happy for clause 1(2) of my Alternative Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill to be amended to substitute Sir Crispin’s proposed method of dealing with the problem.

Crofting Lawyers are finding simple and effective ways to resolve the issue. So far the Scottish Government seems intent on a very unecessary and complex layer of legislation in their attempt to resolve it. Many fear that this will just cause problems for the future. I share those fears.

[Picture Credit: Alexandre the Meerkat from CompareTheMarket.com advert © VCCP]

20 Crofting Lawyers in a room together

20 crofting lawyers in a room together

Not sure if any of these lawyers know anything about crofting law!

At the evidence gathering session on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 15th May the following exchange took place concerning 20 lawyers in a room together.

Richard Lyle MSP introduced the concept:-

I am not a lawyer or a crofter. However, I know that in 1993, 2007 and 2010, and now in 2013, we have had to try to deal with this problem. I am sure that it is a very important issue for many crofters. With the greatest respect to Sir Crispin Agnew, however, I am sure we can agree that if we put 20 lawyers in a room, they will come up with 20 different answers. In relation to the interpretation of the law, the point was made earlier that between an “owner-occupier” and an “owner-occupier crofter” there can be a world of difference as to whether those people fit into the bill.  As was mentioned earlier, Brian Inkster suggests that we can deal with the problem elsewhere, and Sir Crispin Agnew said earlier that he has other items to present to the committee. Can you really tell me that the proposals in the bill will solve the problem? Do you agree with me that there will be other problems that need to be addressed but which may have to be addressed at a later date because people have not even thought of them yet?

Sir Crispin Agnew’s view on this was:-

Yes. Where there are two lawyers, they can give different opinions. If something is well drafted, generally speaking— although not always—lawyers will give the same advice.

Derek Flyn gave his thoughts:-

On getting 20 lawyers in a room, I do not think that you would find 20 crofting lawyers who were prepared to sit and talk knowledgeably about crofting—although, as we know, there might well be more than 20 lawyers wanting to listen.

Well, on 31 May the Crofting Law Group held its AGM in Edinburgh and almost managed to get 20 lawyers in a room together to discuss the Bill. There were in fact 17 plus two non-lawyer members who probably know more about crofting law as most lawyers do.

Many, as Derek Flyn identified, were happy to listen but others talked knowledgeably about the Bill and the problems associated with it. One thing that was striking was that there was no disagreement amongst the 19 members of the Crofting Law Group in attendance as to the problems raised. There was not the 19 different answers that Richard Lyle might have suspected there to have been.

There could have been as many as 19 issues raised about the Bill. These were all of the issues already raised by myself, Sir Crispin Agnew QC, Derek Flyn (all three of us being in attendance at the AGM) and others in evidence given to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. There was general agreement that these issues were all problems that required to be addressed in the necessary re-drafting of the Bill. Let’s hope that the Scottish Government pay attention to the ’20 lawyers in a room’ who all held the same opinion.

[Picture Credit: Ally McBeal © 20th Century Fox Television]

6 out of 10 to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Strictly Come Dancing 2012The Summary by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on their Stage 1 Report formed the last post on this blog. I will now give my views on that Report.

10 Points

The Committee get 10 points out of 10 from me for acknowledging “the considerable body of opinion, particularly from the legal profession, expressing the view that the Bill as drafted is unnecessarily complex and, in places, requires amendment in order to avoid further difficulties in legal interpretation in the future.” This is something that Paul Wheelhouse MSP has, so far, failed to recognise. In the evidence gathering session by the Committee on 22 May he said:-

…the legal team has worked extremely hard to ensure that the bill is consistent with the measures in respect of tenant crofters. There are different ways to draft a bill, but we are not aware of any defects at this stage.

Many potential defects had, by that stage, been identified in the submissions made by myself, Sir Crispin Agnew QC, Derek Flyn and others. Paul Wheelhouse MSP may be turning a blind eye to these but it is good to see that the Committee is not. Indeed, the Committee went as far as to state that:-

…it strongly recommends that the Scottish Government carefully considers any amendments which may be required to the Bill at Stage 2 to allow for full scrutiny (seeking information, evidence and advice on any legal issues as appropriate) to ensure that the Bill is clear and competent and does not add further complexity to an already complex body of legislation, or have the potential to give rise to further unintended consequences.

Let’s hope that the amendments that do need to be made are indeed made at Stage 2.

Another 10 points for the Committee for highlighting that other problems exist with crofting law that need to be fixed. As they said:-

The Committee notes the significant number of other outstanding issues relating to crofting many believe require to be addressed by the Scottish Government following the conclusion of consideration of this Bill by Parliament.

With the Committee going on to ask:-

… the Scottish Government to identify how it intends to address the other issues within crofting law which were brought to the Committee’s attention during its scrutiny of the Bill and to inform the Committee of how it intends to proceed. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government indicates how it intends to address the wider criticisms that have been made, particularly by the legal profession, of the current state of crofting law as a whole.

I, as I am sure other crofting lawyers do, look forward to hearing what the Scottish Government will be doing about the general crofting law mess.

5 out of 10

The Committee, to give them their due, highlight my point about there being no place for new law in the Bill by quoting a section of my submissions on this point:-

The proposed new section 24C(2) to the 1993 Act appears to be new law in that I cannot see why the existing section 25(1)(b) cannot equally apply as it stands to owner-occupied crofts. There should be no place for new law in the Bill rather than a necessary fix of existing legislation. Any new law requires careful consideration and should not be rushed through as part of this particular legislative process. Thus I would submit that the proposed new section 24C(2) should be removed from the Bill.

They go on to state:-

…the Committee notes that a number of issues have been raised regarding the drafting of this section of the Bill, particularly with regard to the definition of a “decrofting direction”; the new section 24(C) which the Bill would insert into the 1993 Act; and the protecting of access to crofting land. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government gives careful consideration to these specific issues ahead of Stage 2.

This is good. But a general declaration that the Scottish Government should not be creating new crofting law by virtue of the Bill but simply fixing the perceived ‘flaw’ created by the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 would have been better. Furthermore, I made the same point in my submissions about the proposed new section 24D(3) to the 1993 Act. However, that seems to have been overlooked by the Committee.

Nul Points

Nul points for RACCE CommitteeThe Committee fell down, in my eyes, in certain areas where they achieve ‘nul points’. A number of submissions had raised the spectre of problems with decrofting by owner-occupiers who are not “owner-occupier crofters”. The Committee, to give them their due, did highlight the issue but unfortunately did not recognise the real significance of it. They said:-

The definition of what legally constitutes an owner-occupier crofter, and issues facing multiple owners of distinct parts of the same croft, seem, from the evidence submitted, to be the most pressing. However, the Committee is of the view that this Bill is not the appropriate place to seek to address such issues, given the urgency of the current problem, and the expedited process that is being sought to try and rectify the situation as soon as possible.

I would suggest, as I have previously, that leaving 700 owner-occupiers who are not “owner-occupier crofters” in decrofting limbo is a significant issue and one that could and should have been dealt with in the current Bill. There is also the ‘alien owner-occupier‘ issue that came to light after the date for receipt of submissions had closed. Notwithstanding that fact it was still brought to the attention of Committee members but unfortunately they did not consider it in their Stage 1 Report.

The impact of putting off dealing with these issues may only become fully apparent when the current Bill is enacted and it becomes clear that decrofting is still being prevented in situations where it simply should not be. Will we see, sooner rather than later, a Crofting (Amendment No. 2) (Scotland) Bill to resolve the plight of the 700 owner-occupiers who are being discriminated against by virtue of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill?

Overall Score

So with some 10 points, 5 points and ‘nul points’ I would, on balance, give the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 6 out of 10 for their Stage 1 Report. They could have done better. However, no doubt they could have done worse.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credits: Strictly Come Dancing © BBC (Photographer: Guy Levy) and Engelbert Humperdinck – Eurovision Song Contest 2012 © BBC]

Stage 1 Report on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee published their Stage 1 Report on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 31 May 2013. They summarised their findings as follows:-

1. The Committee regrets that an unintended consequence of omissions, and/or a lack of clarity in existing crofting legislation has led to the Crofting Commission suspending decisions on applications by owner-occupier crofters to decroft all or part of their land, as the Crofting Commission considered there was no legal basis on which to make such decisions. Such applications had been made, and decided upon, since October 2011, until the problem came to light earlier this year, and the suspending of consideration of such applications has prevented some owner-occupier crofters enjoying equal rights to tenant crofters, which was the policy intention of the existing legislation.

2. The Committee agrees that the legislation needs to be corrected and therefore welcomes the Scottish Government’s swift bringing forward of amending legislation which should not only remedy this issue for those making such applications to decroft in the future, but will also retrospectively apply to all those who previously made applications, or who currently have applications on hold as a result of the issue being identified.

3. However, whilst acknowledging that amending legislation is required, and that the Bill as drafted should address the identified problem, the Committee notes the considerable body of opinion, particularly from the legal profession, expressing the view that the Bill as drafted is unnecessarily complex and, in places, requires amendment in order to avoid further difficulties in legal interpretation in the future.

4. The Committee notes the significant number of other outstanding issues relating to crofting many believe require to be addressed by the Scottish Government following the conclusion of consideration of this Bill by Parliament.

5. The Committee was struck by the evidence it received from those knowledgeable in this area of the law, which demonstrated significant frustration and concern with the increasing complexity and layers of crofting law. Crofting law as it stands was described as “a mess” by more than one respondent to the Committee’s call for views.

6. The Committee makes specific comment on the provisions in the Bill in the main body of this report below. However, the Committee welcomes the policy intention of the Bill to rectify the anomaly which has been identified that currently prevents owner-occupier crofters from applying to decroft all or part of their land. The Committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Parliament support the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1, to allow the Bill to pass to Stage 2.

7. However, in doing so, it strongly recommends that the Scottish Government carefully considers any amendments which may be required to the Bill at Stage 2 to allow for full scrutiny (seeking information, evidence and advice on any legal issues as appropriate) to ensure that the Bill is clear and competent and does not add further complexity to an already complex body of legislation, or have the potential to give rise to further unintended consequences.

8. The Committee asks the Scottish Government to identify how it intends to address the other issues within crofting law which were brought to the Committee’s attention during its scrutiny of the Bill and to inform the Committee of how it intends to proceed. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government indicates how it intends to address the wider criticisms that have been made, particularly by the legal profession, of the current state of crofting law as a whole.

Read the full Stage 1 Report on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

I will give my views on the Stage 1 Report in the next post on the Crofting Law Blog.

Brian Inkster

Decrofting Spin

Decrofting SpinPoliticians are good at spinning. No exception when it comes to crofting law.

At the evidence gathering session on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 22 May, Paul Wheelhouse MSP stated:-

The existing legislation clearly does not work as it was intended to do. Although some crofting lawyers, such as Brian Inkster, disagree, the concern that I have expressed is shared by others including Sir Crispin Agnew and Derek Flyn. The Commission’s legal advice appears to have drawn the same conclusion.

Not quite correct. As blogged about previously on this blog at the evidence gathering session by the same Committee on 15 May, Sir Crispin Agnew QC said:-

I think that the Bill will solve the particular problem by making it clear that the Crofting Commission can decroft owner-occupier crofts. Brian Inkster might well be right but Derek Flyn might well be right that he is wrong. Until a case has gone to the Land Court and it has made a determination, it is sensible to clarify the situation for the avoidance of doubt.

Sir Crispin did not therefore pass any opinion on whether the existing legislation worked as it was intended to do. He remained neutral on that point but was of the view that given the confusion surrounding the issue it was sensible to clarify it by way of amending legislation. On that point Sir Crispin, Derek Flyn and I are all in agreement. The challenge for Paul Wheelhouse is to deliver such amending legislation that does indeed work without leaving any further confusion. Let’s hope he concentrates on that and not on the spin.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credit: Rainbow Humming Spinning Top from PoshTotty Designs]

700 owner-occupiers of croft land to be left in limbo

700 owner-occupiers who own croft land left in limboAt the evidence gathering session for the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 22 May the Convenor, Rob Gibson MSP, asked:-

I have a small point about Richard Frew’s answer to my question at last week’s meeting about the number of multiple owners of crofts. When I asked whether he had a ballpark figure, he said: “I am not aware of the exact figures, but I am sure that the Commission has a list of the different types of crofter.”

Can we take that answer any further just now?

I have already given my views on that response by Richard Frew at Crofting is not a perfect world

Paul Wheelhouse MSP said:-

I will ask Joe Kerr to comment on that. He is on secondment from the Commission, so he may be more closely involved with the issue.

Joseph Kerr gave the answer we have all been waiting for:-

An exercise was undertaken that looked at the different status of people in the crofting elections. In terms of multiple ownership, I understand that the figure was around 700, and that the ballpark figure for owner-occupier crofters was between 3,000 and 4,000.

So there we have it. There are 700 owner-occupiers compared to say 3,500 owner-occupier crofters. Thus, due to the interpretation put on the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 by the Crofting Commission, one sixth of owner-occupiers (if for present purposes we take it that owner-occupier crofters are a sub-set of owner-occupiers) potentially cannot decroft land they own. Furthermore, they still will not be able to following the enactment of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill which, as currently drafted, addresses only decrofting by owner-occupier crofters and not decrofting by owner-occupiers who are not owner-occupier crofters. One-sixth is surely a fairly significant proportion to simply ignore? There is, of course, an argument that if only one person could not decroft due to a flaw in the existing legislation that flaw should be fixed so that one person was not discriminated against compared with the other 4,199 people who could decroft.

Inksters’ submissions on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

Crofting Law - Brian Inkster and Eilidh Ross

Brian Inkster and Eilidh Ross

Solicitors at Inksters have lodged submissions on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill with the Scottish Parliament.

Brian Inkster has submitted his views on the Bill in three parts. These have been published on this blog as five separate blog posts:-

Submissions (Part 1): A sledge hammer to crack a nut

Submissions (Part 2): An alternative Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

Submissions (Part 3): Crofting is not a perfect word + The Crofting Law Hydra + Are owner-occupier crofters a sub-set of owner-occupiers?

Eilidh Ross has also submitted her views on the Bill: The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess

Since the deadline for providing submissions expired another decrofting problem has reared its head. Brian Inkster has blogged about it: Owners of croft land who are aliens to the Crofting Commission.

The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee are due to produce their Report on the Bill this forthcoming week. It is to be hoped that they take on board the Inksters’ submissions and the latest decrofting problem when compiling that Report.

Owners of croft land who are aliens to the Crofting Commission

Some owners of croft land are aliens to the Crofting Commission

We are consulting with Ripley as to your crofting status.

It came to my attention today that there is yet another situation where the Crofting Commission are not currently processing decrofting applications. This one appears to have received no publicity as yet and no policy statement has been issued on it by the Crofting Commission (I assume because they have still to actually formulate one).

The situation is as follows:-

  • A croft house and garden ground is purchased by the crofting tenant without being decrofted.
  • That crofting tenant becomes the owner-occupier of the croft house and garden ground and remains the tenant of the surrounding croft.
  • The now owner-occupier sells the croft house and garden ground onto Mr. A and remains the tenant of the surrounding croft.
  • Mr. A’s solicitor does not pick up on the fact that the croft house and garden ground has not been decrofted.
  • Mr. A, many years later,is in the process of selling the croft house and garden ground to Mr. B. Unfortunately for Mr. A it is picked up by Mr. B’s solicitor that there is no decrofting direction.

The solution to the problem is, of course, for Mr. A to apply to the Crofting Commission for a decrofting direction. He immediately does so but receives this response from the Crofting Commission:-

As the croft house site has not previously been removed from crofting tenure, it remains part of the croft [name of croft given].  Unfortunately, where a croft is partly owned and partly tenanted, as in this case, the status of the owner is currently unclear.  We have sought legal guidance on this matter and are unable at present to determine whether you are entitled to lodge a decrofting application.  We will provide you with an update as soon as this guidance has been obtained.

Incredible! First we had owner-occupiers of a historically ‘divided’ croft not being able to apply for decrofting directions without the consent and concurrence of other owner-occupiers of that croft. Then we had owner-occupier crofters not being able to apply to decroft full stop. Now we have owner-occupiers of croft houses surrounded by tenanted croft land who cannot apply to decroft because “the status of the owner is currently unclear”. Where will this end? The Crofting Law Hydra is certainly in full flight and gaining heads by every turn.

The Scottish Government must seriously question what is going on at Great Glen House. The Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, as currently drafted, is clearly seriously deficient in dealing with the decrofting problems that are emerging by the day. The last post on this blog suggested that the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess. There would appear to be no doubt about that given the constant desire by the Crofting Commission to reinterpret it.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credit: Alien – 20th Century Fox]

The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess

Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess

Crofting law may be as messy but not as tasty as eton mess!

Submissions by Eilidh I. M. Ross on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

The perceived need for, and the technical detail of, the draft Crofting Amendment Bill has been covered by my colleague Brian Inkster in his own submission, which I fully support.

For my own part, I will make a few comments on the limitations of the draft bill, and the need for further, radical, improvement of crofting legislation. I note the Scottish Government’s position that the bill will only be used to address one of the specific (perceived) problems with decrofting of owner-occupier crofts by owner-occupier crofters, namely the issue of whether such crofts can ever be vacant.

Not only are there many anomalies, hiccups, and unforeseen consequences of the provisions currently contained in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 caused by the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, but the 1993 Act itself is, in my view, a mess.

Matters are now to be exacerbated by the addition of yet another layer of incomprehensible extra sections and consequential amendments to an Act which was consolidated 20 years ago, and which has been (badly) amended numerous times. If the Act which my fellow crofting solicitors and I work with on a daily basis, and on which we must advise our clients, is in such a poor state of repair, that has serious implications for our profession (not to mention for crofters and landlords).

It is, in my view, now imperative that further steps are taken by the Government to address the wider problems of the 1993 Act. Further amendment is not sufficient, nor even perhaps consolidation, if that would not result in an act which was understandable. The Government know what people want from crofting legislation (that was established by Mark Shucksmith quite recently and, although some do not support his findings, I am not aware of calls for a new committee of enquiry), and the 1993 Act tries to achieve those objectives that but fails in almost countless ways. The Act should be deconstructed and then redrafted in a way which is simple, understandable, and which clearly sets out the rights and obligations of all those whom it regulates (and affects in other ways).

The crofting act is important not simply from a historical perspective (although in my view that element is important); it is an essential part of the economic and social fabric of the Highlands and Islands and it is simply not acceptable that the legislative framework which supports that system is such a shambles. It is now incumbent upon the Scottish Government, once this single problem amongst many has been addressed (albeit in my view doing so complicates matters still further), to address the 1993 Act without delay. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the crofting system as a legal entity depends upon it.

Eilidh I. M. Ross

[Picture Credit: Channel 4: Very messy Eton mess recipe]

Are owner-occupier crofters a sub-set of owner-occupiers?

Are owner-occupier crofters a subset of owner-occupiers?

Are they really crofters?

At the evidence taking session on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 15th May the Convenor, Rob Gibson MSP, asked whether there were any views on my argument that the Bill is not needed?

Richard Frew stated:-

Yes—we have considered Brian Inkster’s view. It is not surprising that different people reach different conclusions on the issue, as a number of people who are involved in this have done. It is clear to us that, although that issue is worth considering, section 23(10) of the 1993 Act clearly sets out that a croft is not vacant if an owner-occupier crofter is on the croft.

Unfortunately, Richard Frew ignores any exploration of section 23(12A) of the 1993 Act but there again that has been a continual failing of both the Crofting Commission and the Scottish Government throughout this process. However, Derek Flyn took up the cudgel on section 23(12A):-

When I brought the matter to the Crofting Commission’s attention, Brian Inkster’s response was pretty immediate. However, having looked very closely at the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, as amended, I think that he has missed one thing. The requirement for an owner-occupier to report to the Commission within a month of becoming an owner-occupier is contained in section 23(12) of the 1993 Act, but there is also section 23(12A), which seems to talk about an owner-occupier crofter as a subset of owner-occupiers.

I am sorry—I realise that the issue is complicated, and I know that most people’s eyes glaze over when I start to talk about it. The point is that owner-occupiers are not entitled to occupy their crofts, which can therefore be held to be vacant, and they can be asked to take tenants. However, owner-occupier crofters are entitled to occupy their crofts and must intimate to the Commission the fact that they are owner-occupier crofters. Instead of their being persons who have to give notice, they are persons who give notice as owner-occupiers as well as intimating the fact that they are owner-occupier crofters. I think that Brian Inkster has missed the fact that owner-occupier crofters are a subset of owner-occupiers. The matter is very complicated but, having looked at it many times since Christmas, I cannot see how one can be persuaded that an owner-occupier crofter could have a vacant croft.

The two things that are needed for decrofting are an application by a landlord or landowner and a vacant croft. Although an owner-occupier crofter could be seen as a landlord under the legislation, he certainly could not have a vacant croft.

If your eyes have not glazed over and you are still reading this then I do not believe that owner-occupier crofters are a sub-set of owner-occupiers. Indeed to the contrary an owner-occupier crofter appears to have received special status by way of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 setting them into a category of their own that is very distinct from owner-occupiers. You need look no further than the current controversy over problems associated with applications to decroft by owner-occupiers as opposed to by owner-occupier crofters.

Section 23(12A) is one of those deeming provisions in the 1993 Act which often seem to cause difficulties in understanding and interpretation. It quite simply deems an owner-occupier crofter to have a vacant croft for the purposes of decrofting under section 24(3) of the 1993 Act. If that is not the purpose and intent of section 23(12A) what does that section actually do and why was it introduced by the 2010 Act?

However, as Sir Crispin Agnew QC diplomatically put it:-

I think that the Bill will solve the particular problem by making it clear that the Crofting Commission can decroft owner-occupier crofts. Brian Inkster might well be right but Derek Flyn might well be right that he is wrong. Until a case has gone to the Land Court and it has made a determination, it is sensible to clarify the situation for the avoidance of doubt.

That is indeed where we are at and we shouldn’t, at the moment, whilst some redrafting of the Bill is necessary and hopefully in hand, spend much time debating whether or not the Bill was necessary. There may be a place for a post mortem after the Bill becomes an Act to see if things could have been done differently by the Crofting Commission and or the Scottish Government when the ‘problem’ first manifested itself. From that lessons may be learned for the future to hopefully avoid such a situation arising again.

[NB: This blog post forms part of Submissions (Part 3) by Brian Inkster on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. See Crofting is not a perfect world and The Crofting Law Hydra which both also form part of those Submissions (Part 3). In addition see Submissions (Part 1): A Sledge Hammer to Crack a Nut; and Submissions (Part 2): An Alternative Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill]

[Picture Credit: SUbSET via The Presidents of the United States of America]