Land Today
Land reform holds a less prominent place among the policies of leftwing groups than it once did, at least within Western nations. As industry developed, so did the urban proletariat and bourgeoisie, pulling the focal point of class struggle away from the countryside and into cities. While this is no less true for Scotland, as the question of land is the main priority for only a few, it persists within both political discussion and government policy. Various parties including Labour and the Greens have advocated furthering land reform and, at the time of writing, the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is working its way through the Scottish Parliament after being proposed by the former SNP-Green Government.
The continued presence of land reform as a political goal in Scotland is unsurprising considering the state of our land ownership. As of 2024, 70% of Scotland’s land is held by 2,877 landowners (0.05% of the population). This is down from 3161 landowners in 2012. Even more dramatically, 433 of those landowners hold 50% of Scotland (0.008% of the population), a drop from 440 in 2012. This makes two points clear. Firstly, land ownership in Scotland is concentrated in an extremely small number of hands. Secondly, that concentration is continuing to increase.
The intentions of these landowners vary about as much as their names. One is Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (the Vice President, Prime Minister, and Minister of Defence of the United Arab Emirates) who owns 63,000 acres off the coast of Loch Duich in the highlands. Recently his plans to build an eighth house on this land to accommodate guests has been approved, despite opposition from the local community. Others appear to have goals more noble than building holiday homes. Anders Holch Povlsen is a Danish billionaire and Scotland’s largest single landowner, owning over 220,000 acres. He is a self-described environmentalist (though one with a “taste for fast cars and private jets”) who plans to rewild his estates and restore Scotland’s former habitats.
While the efforts of past and current governments have seen some success, they have all been unwilling to make the truly radical changes to ownership needed to prevent the concentration and exploitation of land by private interests. Instead of community right to buy schemes or restrictions on sales, a genuinely radical Scottish government should secure the nationalisation of all land within Scotland’s borders.
A Rough Model
The exact mental image that “nationalisation” creates will vary from person to person so it is worth clarifying how it is imagined in this article. All land will be legally held by the government, preventing its free commercial exchange between individuals/businesses. Centralising its management entirely under the national government would both be impractical and deeply undemocratic. State agencies such as Forestry and Land Scotland are also not infallible compared to private companies, as they themselves have been found to violate environmental rules.
Instead, land management councils could be formed at the local level. These could be made up of both elected representatives of communities and other interested parties. For example, if a conservation charity operates in the area then they could be given representation to offer their expertise. While the national government could create nationwide plans, the local councils could be responsible for carrying them out, while considering and respecting local circumstances and holding national bodies to account.
This is of course a deeply radical departure from the current model in Scotland today under capitalism. Why, some might ask, would such a change be worth it?
Ecosystems
The exploitation of Scottish land for profit, to the detriment of people and wildlife, is a centuries old atrocity, continued today by the modern landowning class. Habitat fragmentation, overgrazing and other acts of landscape vandalism continue to threaten Scotland’s already diminished ecosystems. Commercial non-native monocultures pervade the landscape while our temperate rainforest has been pushed to the periphery of the area it once occupied.
Hunting estates, while “wild” in appearance, represent highly degraded environments. Intensive grazing by deer prevents ecological succession and the development of biodiversity, while muir burns for grouse shooting destroys sphagnum moss, preventing the formation of peat.
Fragmentation in particular is worsened by the division of land into various estates and smallholdings, most carrying out their own form of environmental destruction. Instead of expansive habitats between which animals can freely move through, fragmentation creates isolated patches. This cuts off individual organisms from sources of food, potential mates, and areas of refuge, reducing their fitness (their ability to produce offspring). With land divided between thousands of private owners, restoring expansive ecosystems is a difficult task. Bringing all land under national ownership would make coordinating the regeneration of natural habitats considerably easier.
As an example, let’s say the Scottish government wishes to increase the land coverage of the once widespread, but now relatively rare, wet woodland habitat. These are not only home to a wide range of plants, animals and fungi, but also have the potential to form peat which is an extremely efficient form of carbon storage. A national ecosystem regeneration plan could point to areas which once held the habitat but have lost it through clearance and drainage. Land management councils which cover these areas would then be responsible for applying the plan by working with the community and relevant organisations.
As described in the introduction, Scotland’s land belongs to an array of landowners who can and will fight any effort to turn their hunting estates or grazing grounds into ecosystems for the good of nature and people. Why should a small number of individuals be allowed to inhibit the necessary recovery of Scotland’s landscape in order to ensure they continue to hold a position of privilege?
Public Access
Public access to, and enjoyment of, these ecosystems is also important. While the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 codified the right of the public to access privately held land, this hasn’t stopped landowners from blocking access anyway. Between April 2017 and February 2022, over 1,000 complaints were made against landowners for obstructing public access, and it’s very possible that the number of actual obstructions was higher but went unreported or unnoticed. While a majority of complaints were resolved, there is a clear (and perhaps understandable) sense of entitlement among landowners to exercise control over their land in spite of the law and wishes of local communities.
While we could preserve the current system, perhaps expand the legal consequences of obstruction, there is no real reason to play this game of whack-a-mole whenever someone decides they wish to hoard a country path to themselves. The much simpler solution is to remove the root cause of obstruction, private ownership, and leave the state as the absolute guarantor of public access, with elected councils holding them to account.
Agriculture
The question of land inevitably also brings us to the closely linked question of agriculture. Today, 80% of Scotland’s land is used for agriculture in some form, including grazing alongside crops for human consumption. Despite so much land being dedicated to food production, over the past 3 years, food prices have increased by 31% and over a million people have experienced food insecurity.
Land nationalisation will also play an important part in increasing domestic production and reducing our dependence on imports. It’s impossible to predict the exact diplomatic situation that a socialist Scotland would find itself in, however, a revolutionary government may have more trouble trading with other nations than its capitalist predecessor. Today less than 60% of food consumed in the UK (the exact percentage for Scotland is likely similar), is produced domestically. A reduction in imports due to restricted trade or reduced agricultural production abroad linked to climate change, could spell disaster for Scottish food security.
Publicly governed agriculture would allow for the planning of food production, specifically a move away from calorie inefficient meat production and organising distribution so that food is produced as locally as possible. This would not only greatly improve Scotland’s food security but also reduce the environmental impact of modern intensive agriculture on climate and habitats.
Respecting planetary ecological boundaries while feeding a national population is a difficult but possible (and necessary) balancing act. It certainly cannot be left to the desires and financial interests of a few thousand private owners, all with their own plans for their section of the country. Efficient national planning and coordination is necessary, and the first major step towards achieving that is nationalisation.
Conclusion
There is a clear contradiction between the private ownership of land and the wellbeing of people and nature. A radical new approach is needed to create a Scotland that truly belongs to its people, protects its ecosystems, and ensures everyone enjoys a good standard of living. However, the changes described in this article, or really any serious challenge to the current economic order, cannot and will not come from the SNP, Greens, or any existing “progressive” party.
Instead, change can only be achieved by a genuinely socialist movement which allows for the democratic participation of the working class in decision making rather than appeasing investors and business owners. A revolutionary alternative, a socialist government, is needed.
