Since Ken Thomson wrote his article in Mountain Views a year ago (Issue 86), the subject of land reform has become still more newsworthy. The Scottish Government is planning to introduce a Land Reform Bill by the end of the year. Organisations and individuals are trying to get in first to influence the draft Bill.
Local MSP Mercedes Villalba has launched a consultation on her Proposed Land Ownership and Public Interest (Scotland) Bill. Her key proposal is to limit the aggregate amount of land any one person can own to 500 hectares and to apply a public interest test to transfers of over 500 hectares. She doesn't propose to take land away from anyone and so the change would come slowly. She also lists some suggested considerations for the public interest test, which appear reasonable but would be difficult to define in any detail. You can read the ensuing debate here (but be warned, it won't do anything for your faith in our elected politicians and their processes).
The SLE has issued a rebuttal, pointing out that a limit of 500 hectares is over the average size of cattle and sheep farms in Less Favourable Areas and that the Bill appears to be based more on ideology and assertion than evidence.
Peter Peacock, an ex- minister, has called for a list of the top 100 land owners to be set up and to detail how much public money they get. He is concerned that we, the public, are paying for the rich to get richer and wants to see Government support directed away from wealthy individuals and companies towards community projects.
The Scottish Land Commission (SLC) has published a series of reports, while avoiding adopting a firm position. They and the Government seem to be favouring a limit of 3000 hectares with a public interest test to be defined. The reason for the lack of definition is obvious; defining the detail is a political minefield.
Woodland Trust Scotland has called for more regulation to stop the new "green lairds" pushing up the price of land.
As I see it, there are two basic issues that are getting woven together.
The argument is complicated. While some efforts to reduce this distorted pattern of ownership are overdue, one can argue that Hoch Anders Poulsen has done more for Scotland's environment and local jobs than any community buy-out. A big landowner is not necessarily bad. Many people would agree that communities should have more involvement in the management of the land that surrounds them, but how this will fit with the probable need for private investment isn't clear.
Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.