IT is encouraging that land reform is now back on politicians' agenda, but Community Land Scotland is right to express doubts over the proposed powers for community purchase of neglected or abandoned land ("There is a risk in pursuing land reform in a rush", Inside Track, The Herald, October 8).

Indeed, the whole concept of community-right-to-buy (CRTB), touted as the centrepiece of land reform legislation, has to be reconsidered before we miss an opportunity for something much more far-reaching.

Ground-breaking community buy-outs in the 1990s, such as Assynt and Eigg, caught the public imagination and attracted funding from various non-government sources. Such funds could hardly be expected to continue at the same level if buy-outs were to become sufficiently commonplace to achieve the rapid change in the pattern of ownership promised under the subsequent CRTB legislation, but which has never happened. When Donald Dewar announced the CRTB proposals in 1998, he was canny enough to warn that the Government "cannot be the provider of all resources for this project". He stopped short of saying who actually would provide them.

One of the 62 proposals in the Land Reform Review Group's report last May referred to by David Ross was a "detailed study into scope and practicalities of introducing land value taxation" as an alternative system of local authority finance. This would reverse the relentless flow of money from the taxpayer into the pockets of landowners. It would be levied on the land alone with valuation based on optimum permitted use within planning or conservation constraints, and excluding the value of buildings and other improvements. With no exemptions for neglected or abandoned land, with or without buildings, it would provide the incentive for owners to put the land to legitimate use or dispose of it as soon as possible.

Recent studies show that, as an alternative source of local authority funding, land value taxation would only need to be levied at a very low rate. However, post-referendum negotiations on devolution of tax powers, notably income tax, offer a tantalising opportunity for Scotland to clinch a deal that would enable us to move away from reliance on taxes that penalise work and enterprise, and derive much more of our revenue from land rental values. Unshackled from the burden of deadweight taxation on production, the economy would move into the fast lane. Speculative land prices would collapse, land hoarding would be a liability and home ownership would become a reality for those to whom it seems a distant dream.

Land values are publicly generated as an indicator of overall demand for location, further enhanced by the provision of publicly-funded infrastructure and services. They belong in the public purse, not private pockets.

David Ross is right to urge caution in plunging too soon into land reform as we know it. There could be something much better round the corner if only our politicians realise it.

John Digney,

Creagmhor Lodge,

Lochard Road,

Aberfoyle.

DAVID Ross points out that land reform is on the political agenda. Land reform means dealing with the fact that a relatively small number of people or organisations own a very high proportion of private land in Scotland. Enormous estates are inherited and owned by individuals. Put bluntly, land reform means taking some land away from its owners and assigning it to community groups or for other purposes.

Instinctively it feels that the land-owning structure in Scotland is unfair, and this is especially the case if you have read Our Scots Noble Families, written in 1909 by former Scottish Secretary Tom Johnston, or Andy Wightman's clinical analysis of how the great estates were acquired and maintained over the centuries, The Poor Had No Lawyers.

Law based on the feeling that something is unfair, even grossly unfair, is unlikely to be able to sustain the legal challenge which it would inevitably face. A more powerful argument would be to demonstrate that the present land-owning structure has a depressing effect on the people and communities living under the control of the land owners. Evidence is available from those communities which in recent years have taken over parts or all of estates. By now there must surely be enough measurable information from these communities to deter­mine whether they have in fact flourished in such matters as better housing, more young people and families remaining in the commun­ity or being attracted to it, more tourist income for local people, morale and other real changes. There is also data available from other countries. Facts, not feelings, are needed.

If it can be shown that land reform would be very likely to have great social benefits then there would be a good basis for legislation.

As well as being legally strong, legislation should be fair; though "fair" would doubtless be regarded differently by legislators and those who would lose some of their property. "Fair" might mean that the laws would come into effect for each estate when the actual owners died, or where ownership was vested in a trust, company or similar, after a reasonable period of time to allow for adjustment to changing circumstances.

The headline on David Ross's article is indeed justified. Land reform in Scotland is called for, but must be executed with great thought and consideration.

Hugh Boyd,

65 Antonine Road,

Bearsden.