Reading headlines such as the following yesterday brought out the latent republican in me: "Scotland to Cancel Funding for Queen" (The Times).

"Scotland won't pay £2m bill for the Queen" (Daily Express). "Scots to grab Queen's cash" (The Daily Mail). About time, I thought. Why not trim public subsidy to the royal family since they are reportedly coining it in because of inflated London property prices?

Perhaps the money diverted from royal flummery could be channelled into food banks or mitigating the bedroom tax or helping single parents who've had their benefits cut off; perhaps a donation to the Mediterranean boat people.

Of course, this turns out to be another case of the press shooting itself in the collective foot. Someone in the Palace thought it would be a wizard wheeze to put one over on the Nationalists by suggesting the Scottish Government was to give Her Majesty a financial haircut when the Crown Estate, which manages former royal lands on behalf of the state, is devolved.

But the annual sovereign grant (formerly the civil list) that finances the royals out of the public purse is not devolved. The revenue from the Crown Estate will go in future to Holyrood, but the royal family's cash doesn't come out of this revenue stream. One's dosh comes from general taxation and the sovereign grant remains a responsibility reserved to Westminster.

There is a notional linkage with the Crown Estate revenue, in that the Queen's stipend is calculated as a 15 per cent share of its annual revenues but, since this doesn't come from the revenues of the Crown Estate, devolution will have no impact on the royal revenues.

Many people pointed this out, including Andy Wightman, the authority on land reform and the Crown Estate. But everyone ignored this because suggesting that the nasty Nationalists are forcing the Queen onto Benefits Street makes a much better headline.

The Times even ran pantomime leader headed "Insurrection". It condemned the Scottish government for fomenting a "republican rebellion" in Scotland. If only, you might say. It was another illustration of the way in which sections of the UK press increasingly occupy a separate reality.

It doesn't really matter what the truth of the story is. There is an expectation that Scotland is engaged in some kind of anti-monarchist revolution. Perhaps if they try hard enough they might wish one into existence.

But the only circumstances under which the devolution of the Crown Estate could make a difference to royal revenues is if there was full fiscal autonomy. Perhaps the Palace knows something that we don't?

If Scotland were independent, of course, then the finances of the monarchy would obviously be an issue in the negotiations over disengagement from the UK. But we had a referendum on that last year, and Her Majesty may be advised that Scotland voted to remain part of her Union.

I contacted the royal household yesterday to enquire about the provenance of this story, which came from a press briefing by Sir Alan Reid, the keeper of the privy purse. Holyrood Palace was on voicemail and I was referred to Buckingham Palace. A press minion told me that "they wouldn't speculate on the intention of the Government".

So I contacted the Scotland Office, the UK Government in Scotland, and they confirmed that that the story was a figment of the royal imagination. "Scots will continue to pay the sovereign through their taxes", I was told. "There will be no reduction in the sovereign grant as a result of devolution of the Crown Estate".

I got back to the Palace. Would they like to correct the unfortunate misunderstanding that arose from their briefing? They said they'd get back to me, but of course never did. I suppose they don't deal with nasty oiks, and who can blame them?

So that's that; only it isn't. The context of this story is, of course, the Scottish Government's land reform proposals published on the same day as the Crown Estate bust-up. These have been attacked by landowning interests as "a Mugabe-style land grab". I think it is no accident that the Queen has been dragged into this row about on landowner privileges.

Landowners aren't the most popular figures in Scotland and many people believe that they should be shot rather than the stags. However the Queen is thought to be a nice old lady whom Scots want to keep after independence so that Alex Salmond has someone to discuss horse racing with.

But if anyone is thinking of using Her Majesty as a human shield to deflect public criticism of the rights of landowners they should think again. I wouldn't over-estimate Scotland's support for the monarchy.

Mr Salmond may bang on about how she is "Queen of Scots" and that the Union of the Crowns of 1603 is something true Scot hold dear. But when push comes to shove, I suspect most Scottish voters would be happy to see the Queen's cash put to better uses.

Many landowners are really bothered about the attempt to end the Scottish landowners' tax breaks. The Scottish Government has proposed ending the business tax exemption for sporting estates. Unlike a rural shop, the estate owners have not had to pay business rates on grouse shooting and deer stalking businesses.

This can involve serious money. A week's red stag stalking in the Conaglen Estate in the Highlands is on offer at the bargain price of £5,500 a week plus £600 per stag (plus tips). What are you waiting for?

The Scottish Government also plans to set up a Scottish Land Commission to, er, look at land ownership and set up a land register. We still don't actually know who owns what or where in Scotland, though it is widely believed that half of private land is in the hands of fewer than 500 individuals.

Scotland has the most unequal pattern of land ownership in the developed world, according to Prof James Hunter of University of the Highland and Islands, a legacy of Scotland's forelock-tugging past. The Highlands have been used as a theme part for hedge fund managers for long enough.

The Scottish Government has set a target of increasing the land in community ownership from the 500,000 acres to one million by 2020, hardly a revolution. Scotland has 7.9 million hectares in all, 60 per cent of which is in the hands of private landowners.

The pattern of landownership in Scotland dates back to feudalism. Much of the land has been sold by Scottish aristocrats to foreign business interests, but the McDukes of this and that are still a significant political force fighting a rearguard action in defence of their privileges.

Her Majesty the Queen remains the apex of this anachronistic feudal pyramid, the ultimate guarantor of aristocratic privilege. I hold no grudge against the royal personages themselves who seem fairly decent types. But I would advise the Palace not to allow the Queen to appear to become embroiled in any Highland land war.

Spreading stories about Scotland refusing to pay for the sovereign grant will only encourage people to ask why their taxes are used to fund this anachronism in the first place. So God bless you Ma'am, but don't rock the financial boat.