Owning Scot-Land Policy Workshop 2
Picture credit: © Dafydd Mills Daniel
The second of this series of workshops that focused on discussing issues surrounding land ownership and usage in Scotland took place on Friday 10th April, 2026. The workshop was structured with three paper presentations followed by discussion to highlight particular issues in historical and contemporary land reform debates. A diverse team of experts gathered for the conversation including Dr Dafydd Mills Daniel, Dr David Stuart, Michael Russell (Chair of the Scottish Land Commission), Dr Bess Rhodes, Dr Lydia Cole, Prof Richard Oram, and Dr Jonathan Hopkins.
Dr Daniel presented the first paper, entitled ‘From the Scottish Enlightenment to Scottish Land Reform: The Value(s) of being ‘Landed’.’ Focusing on debates between Popular Calvinists and Classical Republicans in the eighteenth century, Daniel explored the interrelationship between the questions of who owns land and how it is used.
Tracing the debates that surrounded and followed the Patronage Act of 1711, Calvinist arguments were of particular interest. They did not criticise land ownership wholesale but decried its concentration. This was based on the dual ways land can operate as a vice: either when land is not owned, one’s life can become dominated by a landlord, or when land is owned in excess, the landowner’s vocation becomes about self-interest rather than serving God.
This criticism was related to theological underpinnings that believed God to be the ultimate ruler of land, which left humans as feu-holders or stewards. This raised the question of how far stewardship is interconnected with land ownership, given that having dominion over the land to live out one’s divine vocation seemed to require owning land.
Daniel’s paper raised points of interest regarding the relationship between land, place, and (dis)enfranchisement, along with discussion that nuanced the term ‘Republicanism’ to describe a variety of historical groups. Given that it seemed that the ‘who’ of land ownership could not be abstracted from its ‘how’, this raised the question of what we should do in our contemporary context when there remains a significant concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few.
Dr Rhodes presented the second paper, entitled ‘ ‘Preservit for the Common Use of the Toun’: Common Lands and the Survival of Green Spaces in Scottish Towns and Cities.’ Instead of focusing on common land in rural settings as discussion often does, Rhodes focused on common land in urban centres. By tracing the history of what happened to commonly and privately owned land in Perth and St Andrews, it became obvious that land which was both owned by the public and used for public good had a far greater likelihood to persist as such than other land did. That is, for urban green space to survive, it historically requires shared ownership and shared use.
This led to discussion around current pressures on common land (such as Perth’s North Inch) being threatened by private interests, along with how Elgin’s private land experienced a similar fate of disposition and redevelopment. The issue of how far those with cars require common land in urban centres was discussed. This raised questions about how far one’s privilege may operate as a barrier in contemporary discussions to preserving public land. Discussion then focused on who gets to make these decisions and how it is often a story of those in power wanting to make decisions for the long-term benefit of local residents and users of the land but is often in tension with such use. It was also raised how questionable those long-term interests are genuinely for the public good and not veiled private interests. The problem is that those who are ‘indwellers’ of the land do not have rights to it, meaning those who have ‘burgesses’ get to make the decisions.
Dr Cole presented the third paper entitled ‘ ‘Road to Recovery’ or Ruin? The Challenges of Restoring Peatlands in the Crofting Communities of the Outer Hebrides.’ Cole explored the urgent need and complexity of restoring peatlands across Scotland. She explained how the degradation of peatland results in emitting CO2 while ‘re-wetted’ peatland functions as a carbon sink. This, however, does not simply require financial backing or even the right technology, it also requires skilled knowledge (technical and about the specific area) and local commitment to preserve it.
Cole also highlighted how crofters need to be factored into conversations about peatland restoration given that 30% of peatlands coincide with land used by crofters. Crofters thus function as significant stewards of Scotland’s peatland. They also have the right to harvest peat for domestic use and to graze animals on peatlands. With the surge in gas and oil prices, peat functions as a near zero-cost means of generating thermal energy. Although this was raised to be unsustainable on a large scale, issues like this need to be considered in conversations about how best to preserve peatland in ways that also benefit the users of the land. Measures like the Peatland Code thus need to factor in these groups to their advice, rather than presuming land is preserved by a single owner. Overall, this paper raised further discussion on the connection between owning land and being responsible for it, along with how the rise of the Anthropocene has led to attitudes that separate humans from nature.
Overall, these papers sparked discussion and further questions around historical and contemporary issues facing land reform in Scotland, most notably on how land ownership and land usage are intimately connected. This has the likely implication that if we want to change how we use land across Scotland, its ownership will also have to change.