RESTRICTING the amount of Scotland one landowner can hold is among a range of radical plans aimed at making the country more equal.
Proposals published by the Scottish Land Commission suggest introducing a cap to loosen the grip of wealthy landowners.
Existing estates could even be broken up if it was deemed in the public interest to do so, despite this straying into “much less certain legal territory”.
READ MORE: Plummeting populations spark 'spiral of decline' for Scotland's most rural communities
The ideas are contained in a discussion paper written by former Labour minister Peter Peacock, which also considers new taxes and changes in inheritance law.
Mr Peacock, who was commissioned to produce the document for the quango, wrote: “It is widely regarded that, internationally, Scotland has one of the most concentrated landownership patterns – very few owners own a large proportion of Scotland – concentrating power in very few hands.”
He cited research showing half of Scotland is owned by just 432 people, and said such inequality “arguably limits or acts against furthering the achievement of greater social justice”.
But Scottish Land and Estates, which represents landowners, said the proposals were simply “rerunning debates that have already taken place”.
Chairman David Johnstone insisted land use, rather than ownership, should be the key priority for rural communities as Brexit draws closer.
He said: “We acknowledge that land reform is an ongoing process, and we support independent research that can inform how ownership can influence the best possible use of land.
“However, we are disappointed when similar research, already published by the Scottish Government as recently as July 2016, appears to have been forgotten.
“Amongst other findings, that research stated that it was ‘too simplistic to conclude that scale of land ownership is a significant factor in the sustainable development of communities.’”
READ MORE: Plummeting populations spark 'spiral of decline' for Scotland's most rural communities
The Scottish Land Commission was created by the Scottish Government last year in the wake of new land reform laws.
It was set up to examine the concentration of land ownership and the effective use of land in the public interest.
Mr Peacock’s paper, which aims to spark debate ahead of a wider consultation, admits setting an absolute limit on landownership “would almost certainly be seen as arbitrary, but that does not mean it would necessarily be inappropriate”.
He said so-called “land ceilings” were recognised in internationally agreed guidelines on land tenure.
He argued taking action over existing land holdings would be more “legally challenging”, but added: “This does not mean to imply action would not be possible after detailed legal considerations, with the provision of extended periods to bring holdings into line with any requirement.
“But inevitably it would be much less certain legal territory.”
Mr Peacock said existing holdings “may act against the public interest and objectives of government land policy”.
He said a regulatory body with “strong powers” could be set up to monitor future sales and investigate referrals.
Other ideas set out in his paper include tax incentives to encourage sales and an overhaul of inheritance law, as well as a residential requirement to live on any land purchased.
He added: “Such a legal requirement applies to crofters, to live on the croft or within 32 kilometres.
“While there would be inevitable policing and compliance challenges from such an arrangement, it is a not uncommon feature of other countries land laws.”
He said community buyouts – such as in Eigg, South Uist and North Harris – helped empower people to create a more sustainable future.
READ MORE: Plummeting populations spark 'spiral of decline' for Scotland's most rural communities
Mr Johnstone said landowners had “embraced” many of the Scottish Government’s aims on land reform.
But he added: “However, there remains an absence of meaningful debate about what should be delivered from Scotland’s land rather than simply who owns it and this is a matter that rural communities and businesses want to see addressed urgently, especially in light of Brexit.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel