"The Prisoner of St Kilda" by Margaret MacAulay.

[wullie m]

Firstly, "leasehold" is an English term for a method of buying property, as opposed to "freehold", a freeholder owns the property outright, a leaseholder buys a property but that reverts to the original owner at the end of the time stipulated. A "leaseholder" in Scotland, is someone who rents property, pays rent for it, owns nothing, and leaves at the end of the lease. Buy is the operative word here. In Scotland a leaseholder buys nothing, in England he might shell out hundreds of thousands of pounds (still does). In Highland society, a "tack" (a lease) typically lasted for three generations, at the end of which, that family lost the property and were replaced by folk closer to the Chief's family. A tack could of course be converted by a "Wadset" (mortgage), and the tacksman become the owner, but that depended on the granter of the lease.
As regards crofts, there is a difference here between "registered crofts" and crofts in general. Two thirds of registered croftland is on the islands and a crofter can usually purchase his holding for about fifteen times the annual rent, which is usually a few pounds.
There are unregistered crofts throughout Scotland, many have been owned by the same family for generations, they were in existence long before "Registered Crofts" appeared on the scene.
Highland estates within the Crofting Counties, also have crofts which are tied to working on the estate, some keepers have their own sheep/cattle, others only have a house.
Most Scottish lawyers steer clear of crofting law, it is a specialised field, fraught with litigation, and best left to specialists. there is a celebrated case going through the Land Court at present.
There is a scheme to create "crofts for the 21st cent'", combined with forestry, stretching from Glasgow to Edinburgh. The forestry part is already well in hand.
What this has to do with Lady Grange and your peculiar paranoia, is a mystery to me.

[Crofter]

Lease – A lease provides specific provisions regarding the responsibilities and rights of the lessee and lessor. By paying the negotiated fee to the lessor, the lessee (also called a tenant) has possession and use of the leased property to the exclusion of the lessor and all others except with the invitation of the tenant.

So, ownership of the lease confers on the tenant ownership of the rights conferred by the lease. That was the position re Tacksmen. All the nonsense about it being an English term is an irrelevant distraction.

You then go on to say “A tack could of course be converted by a "Wadset" (mortgage), and the tacksman become the owner” This despite you saying earlier that a Tacksman “never owned anything”

The fact is that a Tacksman either owned the rights in the property (the Tac) conferred by the terms of the lease, or he owned the Tac outright if he bought it outright.

You then go into a totally fictitious discourse on registered and unregistered crofts.

Every croft in existence in Scotland is registered with the Crofters Commission. By law. Every time a croft changes hands it is recorded on the register. For a small fee the Crofters Commission will provide details of any croft, or crofting land, in Scotland.

The status of crofts and crofters does not alter whether they are located on Highland Estates or not, not does what they choose to use them for.

The status of crofts and crofters pre the 1886 Crofters Act were totally different, it just confuses the discussion if you persist in ignoring the differences at two separate times in history. I tried to simplify the matter for you by referring to the crofters as settlers in the former period but you were not satisfied with that either.

There may be land between Glasgow and Edinburgh over which the Forestry Commission has some sort of control but since the crofting areas at present are as previously listed then the Crofters Commission connot legally have any active involvement there. This looks like another irrelevant distraction from the point.

I have tried now over several posts to explain the points re tacksmen and crofts in such a way as can be easily understood, and to acquaint you with the legal position, upon which my explanations are based. You continue to blur the discussion with distortions and by introducing more and more unrelated issues each time. I suggest you take your own advice and leave the whole matter to those who know better. Or are you suggesting that you are the specialist to which it should be left?

Finally, you claim to be mystified by what all this has to do with Lady Grange. You started the thread about Lady Grange and I tried to correct some defamatory and false comments made by you in that posting. Your NZ mate, who looks like he might learn from reading the book you’re peddling, and you then took us on this diversion from the original subject. I tried in my last post to return you to the original subject, you failed to do this. Apart from trying to project yourself as an authority on crofting matters, which you have signally failed to do, you leave me, and probably everyone else, as mystified as yourself as to why you persist in pursuing it.

[Duthill]

Originally Posted by Crofter

Your NZ mate, who looks like he might learn from reading the book you’re peddling, and you then took us on this diversion from the original subject.

More lies from 'Crofter' , one of the persona of the multiple .
There is no diversion.
The reason that I decided to post on this thread was to ask the liar 'Crofter' why it has lied on this thread in it's first post.

[Duthill]

Originally Posted by Crofter

You then go on to say “A tack could of course be converted by a "Wadset" (mortgage), and the tacksman become the owner” This despite you saying earlier that a Tacksman “never owned anything”

Quite right too. A tacksman would not be an owner . A tacksman , who bought land would of course be an owner , who was a former tacksman .
Hence , "the tacksman become the owner"
The above is a prime example of the dishonesty exhibited on this thread by 'Crofter'.
Straw debate is a form of lying.
Why does 'Crofter' lie ?

[Duthill]

The Lie

Originally Posted by Crofter

Every croft in existence in Scotland is registered with the Crofters Commission. By law. Every time a croft changes hands it is recorded on the register. For a small fee the Crofters Commission will provide details of any croft, or crofting land, in Scotland.

The Truth

The Crofting Register

The new Register covers individual crofts and common grazings. The Act
distinguishes “unregistered crofts” and “registered crofts”.

New crofts must be registered when created; owner occupied crofts when
transferred and all other crofts when events affecting their status,
including resumption, occur. The trigger events for re-registration of
registered crofts are similar to those for first registration.

A purchaser of land comprising of unregistered crofts does not need to
register the individual crofts but must do so if registered croft land is
included.

The Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 - Anderson Strathern

Why does 'Crofter' Lie ?