Owning Scot-Land Policy Workshop 1
Picture credit: © Dafydd Mills Daniel
The first of a series of workshops designed to identify the issues surrounding land ownership and usage in Scotland took place on Friday 5th December, 2025. Several interdisciplinary experts put their heads together to consider some of the most pressing concerns. Included in the discussion were Dr Dafydd Daniel, Dr David Stuart, Michael Russell (Chair of the Scottish Land Commission), Dr Annie Tindley, Dr Laurence Lasselle, Prof Morag Redford, Dr Lydia Cole, Dr Sarah-Anne Munoz, and Prof Douglas MacMillan.
Bringing our various expertise to the table, the discussion surveyed a wide number of issues including gentrification, urbanisation, rural depopulation, neoliberalism, the benefits and failures of national policy and regulation, and the impact of commercial interests, to name only a few. We centred around a few problems in particular which are worth highlighting in more detail.
The question of who holds power became an immediately obvious concern. Not only in relation to the way private, wealthy, and international interests may compete against local community interests and the public good, but also (and more pressingly) to whose voice gets included in the conversation to begin with. One situation was mentioned where an influential and private party had initially supported a community’s bid for land reform in their area. After personal interests of securing local political power were met, however, this led to their withdrawal of support for the land reform. The situation demonstrates how private and wealthy interest can override community welfare.
The problems of power and voice were raised as being important to conversations on gentrification, urbanisation, and changing demography and landscape more generally. Who currently gets a say in what life should look like on lands across Scotland? And is the current state of things anywhere close to who should be included in these conversations before decisions are made by those in power? Or are voices being inadvertently marginalised if not actively suppressed?
These questions led to the identification of a more fundamental concern: who should own Scot-land? Should it remain in the hands of opaque, private parties and can their ownership be relied on to be conducive to national and local interests from tackling climate change to ensuring affordable house prices? Or should we return to more historic forms of public and/or communal ownership that may make more space for those interests?
Relatedly, we discussed the peculiarity of land ownership in Scotland. Interestingly most of land in Scottish national parks is not publicly owned. If these private owners continue to be relied on, then the status quo will likely remain: the good and the bad. If the more radical option is chosen to find a way of turning over private land to public owners, then thinking carefully how to manage the transition of ownership so that new owners adequately care for the land is critical.
In both cases, we identified that thinking for the short-term is problematic. Instead, land owners (be they public or private) should be encouraged to find sustainable and long-term solution that benefit the land and the communities who use it. It was considered that defining what a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ owner would benefit this task by challenging current owners to take greater responsibility for their land while also providing guidance for future ones. Ensuring that individuals and communities are well-informed also prevents them from being duped into decisions that create short-term gain with disastrous longer-term consequences.
Returning to the problem of who is included in conversations regarding land, the issue may be more endemic than already noted. We discussed how health wellbeing and education seem to be intimately connected to demographic changes, commercial interests, and land ownership. As rural communities thin, health access and school provision dwindles – and not just for the typical reason of a declining population. It was noted, for instance, how it has become difficult to encourage healthcare workers to move to some rural areas due to the surprising rise in housing costs. The cost-benefit ratio thus becomes unappealing to many professionals, leaving an unfulfilled demand for greater healthcare provision.
This led to us identifying that high house prices and, arguably arbitrary, land values contribute to wider social, economic, and cultural problems. This problem is only exacerbated by centring policy on retaining current land value. It was noted to benefit current landowners (especially those who have amassed significant land portfolios) rather than making land (and housing) a realistic possibility to have new owners or making it useful to local communities. Even something as what superficially appears to be a non-partisan issue like preserving national heritage can be hijacked by landowners to serve their interests alone: to fund the preservation of their land.
While other issues surveyed seem important, the structural inequality at the heart of land ownership may be the most important albeit difficult issue to attend to.