The Scottish Revolution? Evaluating the Impacts of Post-Devolution Land Reform

Abstract

Land reform was given high political priority in Scotland following devolution in 1999. The overall objective of the 2003 Land Reform Act (LRA) was to remove the land-based barriers to the sustainable development of rural communities. Using a combination of an expert survey, published commentaries and empirical evidence, this paper critically analyses stakeholder perceptions of the early impacts of the Act and its likely future effects. Further, it evaluates theclaims and counter-claims regarding the pros and cons of two contrasting models of land ownership: private ownership, which has long dominated rural Scotland, and the new forms of ‘social ownership’ by community and conservation bodies. We find that the LRA has accelerated a pre-existing trend away from a dualistic pattern of ownership (private and state) towards amore pluralistic pattern with many experimental models and multi-stakeholder partnerships. The research shows that neither the positive expectations nor the fears expressed about land reform have been fulfilled. Nevertheless, although the Act's buy-out provisions have so far been little used, the LRA has effected a decisive shift in the balance of power between landowners and communities.

Key Words:

• Scotland
• Land Reform Act
• land ownership

Notes

¹ This aspect of the Act is not addressed here. For discussions, see Mackay (2007) and the review in Warren (2009).

² Part 2 of the Act is stronger than this summary statement might imply in that it prohibits transfers ofland to other parties, regulates the valuation of the land and provides a set period of time (6 months) to complete the purchase, with recourse to the Lands Tribunal if necessary. It therefore places the community body in a strong bargaining position.

³ The Register of Community Interest in Land can be viewed at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Rural/rural-land/right-to-buy/Community/Register As at 8 September 2010, it lists a total of 123 separate entries. However, 55 of these are no longer active and are shown as ‘deleted’. The remaining 68 are not all from separate communities since a number of community bodies have chosen to register interest in multiple parcels of adjacent land. The Kinghorn Community Land Association, for example, has 16 registrations. Similarly, the Assynt Foundation's buy-out comprised three separate lots and therefore generated three entries on the register. To identify the number of individual communities which have legally registered interest in land and/or proceeded to a buy-out, such multiple entries have been grouped as single registrations, and it is these figures which are given in the text. Finally, there are three applications pending. For a detailed analysis of the basis of Ministerial decisions on applications in the period 2004–2008, see Pillai (2010).