MAYBE I haven’t been keeping up but the term “green lairds” only recently impinged upon my consciousness, arousing instant suspicion. The word “laird” should be confined to soap operas set in big houses awash with tartan.

Call a spade a spade and a landlord a landlord. I don’t think I have ever heard anyone who lives under one talking about a “laird”. As for the “green” bit, it is a case of the word itself being weaponised as a form of greenwashing.

“Latest money-making racket” would be nearer the mark. A new report for Community Land Scotland by John Hollingdale, a forestry expert, provides useful insights into how it works and what might be done to stem it.

In summary: “Introducing new flows of capital, and the promise of more to come, has stimulated a new cadre of buyers … high net worth individuals, corporates and institutions acquiring land ostensibly for the delivery of environmental outcomes but often attracted by the financial returns on offer.”

Not only is this new money buying up huge acreages for dubious motives, it is distorting land use and making it impossible for anything “community-based” to compete. When it comes to buying and selling large chunks of Scotland, we might as well be in 1822 while Holyrood’s only meaningful action on land reform was back in 2005.

As a result, the Scottish land market continues to be a speculator’s paradise. This is the only part of Europe where money is the sole determinant of the right to own private kingdoms without accountability. The climate emergency is the latest rationale for perpetuating the same old system.

Planting trees and restoring peat bogs doubtless have their place in achieving net zero targets. However, the logic of stressing their importance must surely be that ownership and outcomes are not left to an unregulated market, propped up by public subsidy. It is fine to harness private capital for these objectives but that is very different from a free-for-all which may well be doing more harm than good.

One clue is in the word “net” before zero. It is acceptable to carry on emitting but to “offset” through planting trees, with a hefty dose of public money thrown in. “Drink Punk, Kill Carbon,” Brewdog’s trendy founders proclaimed while fending off accusations of running “a rotten culture of fear”. Just the people to save the planet – or brush up the image while the accountants work on subsidy schemes?

There are a plethora of opportunities to sup at the public trough and maximise tax benefits. Even our shiny new SNIB, presumably for the want of anything better to do, has joined in. Mr Hollingdale observes drily: “It is difficult to see how the investment of £50m by the Scottish National Investment Bank in a land acquisition and commercial forestry scheme aimed primarily at minimising tax burdens of high net worth investors contributes to delivering a just transition or the principles of the Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement”. Perhaps they will tell us, if there’s anyone left.

There is often over-emphasis on how much changes in Scottish land ownership through high profile sales or headlines about “green lairds” and not enough on what stays the same. Mr Hollingdale astutely points out: “Although with a much lower public profile, the same green finance mechanisms are being widely accessed by more traditional landowners, often reinforcing existing inequalities and in some cases rewarding unsustainable land management practices”.

We are promised a Land Reform Bill in 2023 and this will be a true test of the Scottish Government’s credentials. The questions are far more fundamental than “green lairds”. Why is there no public or community right of veto when estates are being bought and sold? Why is there no ‘fit and proper’ test? Why is there no limit on the size of landholdings? Why are there no meaningful powers of public acquisition for housing in rural areas? Why does re-peopling not take precedence over re-wilding?

Until the Scottish hereditary landowners were evicted from the House of Lords in 1997, hardly a year went by without them seeking to legislate in their own interests. As that abuse ended, a new era was supposed to dawn in which a Scottish Parliament would legislate – as it is perfectly entitled to – in order to right historic wrongs and create a land ownership structure fit for the 21st century.

Will we finally see some radicalism from the current incumbents? Now they have abandoned the pretence of a referendum any time soon, perhaps they could focus on a fundamental aspect of Scottish society they actually have the powers to change – or else ignore, with all the radicalism in the rhetoric? I think I know the answer.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.