Large-scale Rural Land Sales 2023
Today I am publishing a report analysing large-scale (over 500 ha) sales of rural land in 2023. This follows a previous report covering 2020 – 2022.
During 2023, 17 landholdings of over 500 ha changed hands together with 20 landholdings of less than 500 ha where the new owner already (or as a consequence) owns over 500 ha. The extent of land covered by these transfers is 55,406 ha – higher than in any of the previous three years.
Just over half (53.2%) of this land was acquired by owners who do not already own land in Scotland with the biggest acquisition by Alexander Gerko, the CEO of XTX Markets, who acquired 15,515 ha of land in Wester Ross for an undisclosed sum. The remainder was acquired by owners who are adding more land to their existing landholdings.
The report’s findings in the years 2020 – 2022 correlated closely with the findings of the Scottish Land Commission in its Rural Land Data report but in 2023, the findings diverged significantly with the SLC noting 5 landholdings of over 1000 ha having changed ownership whereas my analysis shows 12.
The report also highlights the growing use of “implementation of missives” as the consideration included in dispositions instead of a monetary value – a trend which is understood to be a result of both new and existing owners wishing to conceal the purchase price paid for properties.
Full details are set out in the quite short 7-page report which can be downloaded here.
Why is the Registers complicit in allowing the term “Completion of missives” to hide information fro public scrutiny?
Some months ago I queried Registers of Scotland who replied interalia
BEGIN QUOTE
I have to advise that whilst the 2014 regulations you refer to (the Land Register Rules) require a consideration to appear on the face of a title sheet, there is no requirement for this consideration to take the form of a monetary value.
Considerations can be monetary, non-monetary (commonly “love, favour and affection” in the case of a gift, but also such as in the current example “in implement of missives”), or a combination of both.
The role of the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland is one of a registrar, and she will simply reflect the terms of the deeds presented for registration to her.
END QUOTE
This means that to tighten up the system the regulatiosn need to be amended to make clear that where there is in fact money changing hands, that that will be disclosed as the consideration. The Keeper knows whether money changes hands becuase she needs to knwo the purchase price in order to charge the appropriate fee for registration which is on a scale according to value.
maybe she could make public the fees that have been charged?
I assume you have asked the relevant minister and officials what the “phrase” means if the think it an allowable term.
See reply to Rosemary
The govt legal team who work on these regulations always leave enough loose ends to keep their chums in the legal fraternity in gainful employment..
The first thing that comes to mind on reading this is ‘The Gordian Knot’..
The Gordian Knot….is an extremely intricate , complex problem or difficult situation complicated in structure, consisting of interconnected parts.
How to solve ‘The Gordian Knot’.. solvable only by bold action. or unconventional means…basically solved by a bold stroke.
So I suggest UDI. Now there’s a bold stroke. We take back the power that at the moment lies in foreign english hands.
Because as it stands Scotland is locked helpless in a toxic union. We will never find out who is buying and selling our land. The Chinese say..’your land is your treasure.’ Someone is stealing our treasure and we do not have the tools to expose them.
Pompey the great said…’Cease quoting laws to men with swords.’ In other words you need power in your hands.
We need to own our land and that means we have to become INDEPENDENT with the power to wrench it back from those who treat it as an investment opportunity.
Andy Wightman is one of those ‘men with swords’ who defend our land. But he needs power to cut the ‘Gordian Knot.’
Independence is the only bold stroke that will save us and our land as Scotland is ‘absorbed ‘ by our parasitic neighbours.
We are lucky to have warriors like Andy Wightman.
I don’t think that any of the above is solved by independence. We already have the power to greatly address the problems in the article. I imagine an independent Scotland, managed by an SNP derivative to have much the same effect as, say, the current Labour party (or perhaps Blair’s Labour). I’m also not overly concerned as to the nationality of the individuals buying up swathes of the country – it’d be just as wrong if the individual were Scottish, Irish, English or Saudi (or a lawyer from a company in the Caymans). I’m a keen supporter of independence, however I see very little evidence that the types of people who are donored into power will be any different to those of the UK.
Andy, exemplary work, as always. It must be tiring! It all seems to abstract. Is that what life is supposed to be? Bureaucratic division of areas, that we call property, with greedy individuals pretending that are master of parts of our planet beyond that which their eye can see. It shouldn’t need laws, it should need titles and deeds – none of that is real. Do you ever get frustrated, and saddened, by the depths to which you have to trawl into this abstract system (that we call civilisation)? Its human supremacy, that we all participate in, without real choice. Do you ever consider that your acknowledgement of it in very real terms, makes it seem more legitimate? I guess that without prefixing your every work with “this is a childish, immature, system that shouldn’t exist, however, as it does……”, then there’s not much that can be done! It’s difficult to put into words, but I guess what I’m sort of asking is if you ever think your critiquing a part of the system, without questioning the system, (I mean, everything – property, democracy, civilisation) itself?
Anyway, your work is certainly appreciated, it is immense in quality and detail.
“Do you ever consider that your acknowledgement of it in very real terms, makes it seem more legitimate?”
No, I have never considered that. I reflect life as it is. These institutions are well embedded. I also feel that critiquing the entire system at a fundamental level is beyond the scope of this blog.
Thanks for replying. I’m glad some of us is unwavering in our endeavours!
Some…… One. Stupid phone.
Hello Andy, thanks for an excellent post and some very revealing – and disturbing – information.
I’m looking into a recent land transaction in Assynt between an individual (previous owner) and a well-known Scottish charity (new owner). That title deed uses the phrase “implementation of missives” for the consideration. I was bemused, I started digging, and I was fortunate to find your post. “I’m not alone!” was my first thought…
RoS Application form guide specifically states that “implementation of missives” is a type of “non-monerary consideration”.
It’s perhaps reasonable to assume that 8 of the 12 largest (by ha) land transactions in 2023 DID involve money i.e. they weren’t beneficent donations. If so, it’s also reasonable to assume that choosing to use the phrase “implementation of missives” in the title, instead of the price paid (“monetary consideration”), is a clear intent to conceal the price paid.
I “get” that although I don’t like it and find it morally dubious. BUT. I find it deeply disturbing that a charity – itself dependent on money from individuals (not government bodies) – thinks it’s okay to hide behind the same nonsense phrase.
Maybe there’s no difference – what’s okay for company A is also okay for person B and also okay for Charity C. I personally think charities have a moral obligation to be more transparent about how they use their funds – perhaps I’m naive.
Somis this normal? I checked two recent charity land transactions in Scotland: SWT/Inverbroom and Woodland Trust/Couldoran. Both transactions were high profile so £prices were already in the public domain, but in each case there’s more information about price on those title deeds than on this one. So WHY would this charity hide it??
Do you have a view on a charity choosing to use “implementation of missives” to conceal the price paid for a bit of land? If so, I’ll happily share more info, but would prefer to do it offline.
Thanks for all that you do.
Hello Andy, thanks for an excellent post and some very revealing – and disturbing – information.
I’m looking into a recent land transaction in Assynt between an individual (previous owner) and a well-known Scottish charity (new owner). That title deed uses the phrase “implementation of missives” for the consideration. I was bemused, I started digging, and I was fortunate to find your post.
RoS Application form guide states that “implementation of missives” is a type of “non-monerary consideration”.
It’s reasonable to assume that 8 of the 12 largest (by ha) land transactions in 2023 DID involve money i.e. they weren’t beneficent donations. If so, it’s reasonable to assume that using the phrase “implementation of missives” in the title deed, instead of the price paid (“monetary consideration”), is a clear intent to conceal the price paid.
I don’t like it and find it morally dubious. BUT. I find it deeply disturbing that a charity, required by law to deliver public benefit – and is, in this instance, dependent on money from individuals (not government bodies) – thinks it’s okay to hide behind the same phrase.
Maybe there’s no difference – what’s okay for company A is also okay for person B and Charity C? I personally think charities have a moral obligation to be more transparent about how they use their funds but perhaps I’m naive.
I wondered about other charities, so I checked two recent-ish land transactions: SWT/Inverbroom and Woodland Trust/Couldoran. Both transactions were high profile so £prices were in the public domain, but in each case there’s more information about price on those title deeds than on this one. So why would THIS charity hide it??
Do you have a view on a charity choosing to use “implementation of missives” to conceal the price paid for a bit of land? If so, I’ll happily share more info, but would prefer to do it offline.
Thanks for all that you do.
Thanks for your comment. I don’t have a view on a charity using this term. My view is that it should not be used by anyone. I will be writing a further blog about it soon. I am aware of the transaction you are referring to but do not know why the price was concealed. It has been disclosed to memebrs of the charity and made its way into the public domain I think.
Thanks for your reply, Andy. I agree that the term “implementation of missives” shouldn’t be used for transfers involving monetary consideration – market value or otherwise – to any type of legal person.
I can perhaps see an argument for using it where transfers are ‘free of charge’ and the new owner pays the previous owner’s associated legal fees. But the phrase is inherently unclear (perhaps by design) and already tainted by misuse so ideally goes in the bin.
This particular transaction was disclosed verbally (NB: no price given) at the charity’s online AGM which was attended by approx 1% of members. Information is available via ScotLIS of course, but only if someone knows to look for it. I’ll carry on digging.
I’ll look forward to a future blog on rural land sales. And thanks again.