SNP's land reform plans risk rural disaster with ministers playing estate agent

The latest milestone on the land reform ‘journey’ is the draft Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently in its initial stages in the Scottish Parliament. Those of us with a keen interest in the use, management, and ownership of land know the arguments inside out.

There are those who advocate for the fragmentation of large-scale private landholdings. This principle – rooted in history and seen by land reform proponents as a straightforward way of breaking up rural estates – has found favour with the Scottish Government, even though ministers admit that scale is often crucial to the successful delivery of a wide range of benefits for people, jobs and nature.

Scotland’s largest landowner

The government believes that breaking up large landholdings – despite the fact it is itself the largest landowner in Scotland – will work by granting powers to force private estate owners to sell off their land in smaller lots.

Additionally, the government wants estates over 1,000 hectares to provide what it calls ‘prior notification’ to the public, even if they intend to sell only a single plot. All of this is in the name of greater ‘diversification’, despite the fact that rural land is already owned by many thousands of individuals and organisations of varying sizes and types.

While these matters may be close to the hearts of land reform activists and politicians wedded to the idea that they’re vote-winners, it’s fair to ask what the general public makes of it all.

Even if these measures could be made workable – and that is a mighty big ‘if’ – they come with a hefty price tag, which will have to be shouldered by Scottish taxpayers. And taxpayers are already contributing approximately £18.5 million a year towards land reform through a combination of Scottish Land Fund grants and the implementation of legislation and regulation by government bodies. At a time when the Scottish Government is frequently pleading poverty in terms of public finances, is this truly what the wider public sees as a priority?

‘Bad law’

The government’s own research clearly shows that only 17 per cent of the public sees land reform as a priority, and there is little evidence of a burning desire across Scotland to own small parcels of rural land that are not already part of the agricultural sector. Where there is appetite, this is largely being catered for through voluntary sales or other arrangements.

But, for argument’s sake, let’s assume there is an appetite among the public for purchasing land placed on the market by the government. In this scenario, these measures would need to be robust – and they are anything but.

Granting government ministers the power to determine how an estate should be sold represents an extraordinary level of interference with an individual’s right to sell their property. Such interference could well face legal challenges. Moreover, if this results in a loss of value, what level of compensation would taxpayers be expected to fund?

And did ministers truly envisage that ‘prior notification’ would require estates to inform anyone, anywhere in the world, that they are selling even the smallest plot of land?

You do not have to take my word for it. Land reform advocate Andy Wightman stated during his evidence to a parliamentary committee that it would be irresponsible of the Scottish Parliament to impose new, complex, legalistic and bureaucratic mechanisms on the people of Scotland that will not deliver the outcomes that ministers say that they will. He said that would just be making “bad law”.

This begs the question: do the public believe that government ministers effectively taking on the role of estate agents is what they’re meant to be doing? I would argue not, particularly at the expense of the taxpayer.

Communities can already buy land

In the polarised debate surrounding land reform, it’s easy to pigeonhole people like me as being anti-land reform. Not so. Many landowners have embraced changes to the way Scotland’s rural land is owned, with communities, charities, NGOs, and private owners co-existing quite harmoniously. There is already a significant body of legislation in place that enables communities to acquire land if they wish to do so.

What is wrong, in my view, is the government’s apparent determination to manufacture demand for even greater levels of land reform among the wider public, despite evidence suggesting there is little appetite for it. The narrative that breaking up large estates is inherently good needs scrutiny.

Large-scale estates often operate with a level of efficiency and resource management that smaller, fragmented holdings might struggle to achieve. These estates support local economies, provide employment, and invest in infrastructure that benefits rural communities. Fragmenting them could jeopardise these contributions without delivering the promised benefits.

Furthermore, the idea that more fragmented ownership automatically leads to better land use is far from proven. Diverse ownership does not necessarily translate to effective stewardship or community benefit, and the Scottish Government’s own research supports this.

A drastic step?

Some of the most successful land management models in Scotland involve collaboration between large landowners and local communities. Forcing fragmentation might disrupt these partnerships, leading to unintended negative consequences.

At a recent hearing, the Scottish Parliament committee tasked with scrutinising the Land Reform Bill heard voices from all sides urging the government to reconsider – and potentially even withdraw the Bill, as its implications could have long-term negative impacts on communities.

While ministers may be reluctant to take such a drastic step, they should at the very least address concerns about issues such as ‘lotting’ land and prior notification, which, as they stand, are costly disasters in the making.

Patrick Colquhoun is assistant chief executive of Luss Estates Company and vice-chair of Scottish Land and Estates