Stage 3 Briefing on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill
I am publishing this blog to provide a link to the Stage 3 Briefing I have prepared for MSPs in advance of consideration of Stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The debate on the 392 Stage 3 amendments is scheduled to take place on 28 and 29 October with a 10pm Decision time. The Bill as amended is scheduled to be debated and decided on 4 November 2025.
I have reproduced the Briefing below for those who like to read it as a blog post The Briefing incorporates an open letter sent to the Cabinet Secretary, Mairi Gougeon on 23 October 2025 from myself and Don Macleod, Partner and Head of Land and Proeprty at Turcan Connell.
The Briefing can be dowloaded here
The Open Letter can be downloaded here
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill
Stage 3 Briefing from Andy Wightman
26 October 2025
Andy Wightman is a writer and researcher focussing on issues of land governance. He blogs at www.andywightman.scot and runs the www.whoownsscotland.org.uk project.
He can be contacted by email at andy@andywightman.scot
This briefing focusses on Sections 2-5 of the Bill.
OUTCOMES
The Bill is a government bill introduced to Parliament in March 2024 by the SNP and Scottish Greens coalition.
In the Ministerial Foreword to the consultation on the Bill, the then Cabinet Secretary, Màiri McAllan stated that,
“We are driving forward reform to historically iniquitous patterns of land ownership, but doing so with an eye to contemporary challenges and future opportunities“ [1]
In the News Release accompanying the publication of the Bill, the Cabinet Secretary, Mairi Gougeon claimed that,
We do not think it is right that ownership and control of much of Scotland’s land is still in the hands of relatively few people. [2]
Opening the Stage One debate in parliament, the same Minister went on to say,
“In Scotland, we have one of the most concentrated patterns of land ownership in the world, with 421 landowners owning 50 per cent of privately owned rural land. We are an outlier in comparison with Europe, where more diverse land ownership is the norm. That long-standing unfairness and the negative impacts on our rural communities have previously been raised by the Scottish Land Commission and others. Scotland’s land must be an asset that benefits the many, not the few, and it must play a leading role in sustaining thriving rural communities, tackling the climate change and environmental crises and continuing sustainable food production.” [3]
We have heard this rhetoric many times before over the 25 years of the Scottish Parliament and even before In 1998, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, claimed that the then proposed community right to buy,.
“would effect rapid change in the pattern of land ownership” [4]
If you take nothing else away from this briefing, take this.
This Bill will do next to nothing to reduce or have any influence on the pattern (whether concentrated or otherwise) of private landownership in Scotland. MSPs can pass all the Stage 3 amendments they like to vary the scope, criteria, qualifications and definitions of parts of the Bill but it will make no meaningful difference to the distribution and ownership of land in Scotland.
Why?
Because the core means by which this Bill is intended to make any difference is through the triggering of possible applications for late registration under the (modified) provisions of Part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill 2003 and by lotting decisions.
Note that,
- the late registration mechanism has not been used successfully since 2017;
- it is restricted to community bodies as defined by the 2003 Act (as amended);
- it provides no opportunities at all to businesses, individuals, social enterprises, sports associations, co-operatives or common good funds;
- it is only triggered by proposed sales not by gifts, inheritance or court orders;
- lotting decisions do not affect the ability of the new owners of lots to subsequently sell them in such a way as to enable one buyer to acquire all the lots (despite a prohibition on this in the first instance).
The late registration mechanism was designed to be used only in exceptional circumstances. There is and has not ever been anything stopping communities across Scotland from registering an interest in land in a timeous fashion prior to land being exposed for sale.
The Community Right to Buy as a whole, never mind the narrow scope of the late registration has never, and will never ,achieve any meaningful change in Scotland’s concentrated pattern of private landownership. Lotting is unlikely to have much impact either due to the fact that land is already lotted where it is financially advantageous to do so and that individually acquire lots can be amalgamated after the lotting decision has taken effect.
This is all exacerbated by the fact that this pattern is growing more concentrated. In 2024,
- 421 landowners own 50% of the privately-owned rural land (440 in 2012);
- 921 landowners own 60% of the privately-owned rural land (989 in 2012);
- 2588 landowners own 70% of the privately-owned rural land (3161 in 2012)
See Note [5] for source
Moreover, this trend is being driven by existing landowners acquiring more and more land leading to large-scale portfolio landholdings that are outwith the scope of the Bill.
The table below shows the extent of land sold in 2020-2023 (row 3) and the extent and proportion of that total that was acquired by new owners (row 1) and existing owners (row 2). Overall, the majority of such land was acquired by existing owners expanding the extent of their landholdings (row 4). The vast majority of these acquisitions are unaffected by the provisions in this Bill.
Large scale land sales >500ha 2020-2023
| 2020 (ha) | 2021 (ha | 2022 (ha) | 2023 (ha) | TOTAL (ha) | ||
| 1 | New Owner | 24,659 | 4794 | 13,270 | 29,467 | 72,190 |
| 2 | Existing Owner | 21,476 | 19,261 | 19,298 | 25,939 | 85,974 |
| 3 | Total | 46,135 | 24,055 | 32,568 | 55,406 | 158,164 |
| 4 | % Existing Owner | 46.6% | 80.1% | 59.3% | 46.8% | 54.4% |
CONCENTRATION vs SCALE
The Bill presumes that scale of landownership (the extent of land owned) is a suitable proxy for concentration.
It is not.
Neither is it a good proxy for any assessment of likely impact on communities with the large majority of large landholdings being at some distance removed from most of Scotland’s population.
As shown above, portfolio landownership – aggregations of landholdings across Scotland – are driving concentration and yet are outwith the scope of the Bill.
Furthermore, in a recent blog I highlighted the growing takeover of key parcels of land by one owner in the village of Braemar. [6] Setting aside whether the impact is positive or negative, there has been an impact on the community. But because the land extends only to 3.7 ha, it is outwith the scope of the Bill.
LEGAL ISSUES
The Bill introduces complex and bureaucratic procedures governing any proposed transfer of ownership of any part of a large landholding (over 1000 ha in extent). If such procedures were to deliver meaningful change then there might be case for them. But given the vanishingly small likelihood of any change at all due to the particular nature of the trigger mechanism (late registration and lotting) and in the face of the concentrating trends highlighted above, there seems little justification for the increased administrative costs on both the private and other public sectors.
Please see the joint letter appended to this briefing from myself and Don Macleod, Partner and Head of Land and Property at Turcan Connell for some further detailed legal provisions in this Bill that require further scrutiny in relation to the definition of large landholdings, persons to be notified of proposed land sales, the potential discriminatory effect of the new late registration provisions and the conflict of interest of Scottish Ministers.
Many of these procedures still lack clarity. The Bill as introduced gives regulation making powers to Ministers to change the definition of land to which management plans, prior notification and lotting apply.
Typically these could be used to increase or decrease the 1000 ha threshold. But they are so wide-ranging that a future government that did not share the policy intentions of the Bill could use them to increase the threshold to level (eg 250,000 ha) and thus effectively render the Part 2 provisions null and void as they would apply to no landholdings at all.
Stage 3 amendments 152, 167 and 195 go way beyond this already significant power and allow Ministers to introduce regulations designed to “clarify” the definition of a large landholding.
This is an unusual legislative provision which has only been used in a total of 2 UK statutes and 5 Acts of the Scottish Parliament. Routinely it is the job of the Courts or amending legislation to amend definitions in law rather than Ministers clarifying through secondary legislation.
MSPs should ask the Minister why it is considered necessary to have the clarification power when ordinarily definitions of what consists a large landholding (or anything else for that matter) should be crystal clear in the Bill at the outset and before it is enacted.
The word clarify is also in parenthesis which has never occurred before.
Why?
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Parliament should invite the Cabinet Secretary to adjourn the debate on Stage 3 of the Bill scheduled for 4 November 2025 to allow more time for detailed scrutiny of a) the issues above, b) to the matters highlighted in the joint letter appended to this Briefing, and c) to any other issues which the Government wishes to give themselves the opportunity to clarify before (rather than after) the Bill has been enacted.
- Parliament should consider carefully whether it believes that the limited impact of this Bill justifies the complex administrative procedures set out in Parts 2-5 of the Bill or whether they should be removed.
This consideration should be applied irrespective of whether one agrees with the policy intentions or not. There are no Stage 3 amendments lodged to leave out Section 2 and 3 but there are amendments (2 and 3) which leave out Sections 4 and 5. This question can be revisited if further scrutiny can be given to the Bill as recommended in the joint letter referred to above. - The proposals in Amendments 152, 167 and 195 should be challenged and, if passed, then so too should Edward Mountain’s amendments 39 51 & 75 which require greater parliamentary scrutiny of any such draft regulations.
In conclusion, in my oral evidence to Committee, I argued that,
It would be irresponsible of Parliament to impose new, complex, legalistic and bureaucratic mechanisms on the people of Scotland that will not deliver the outcomes that ministers say that they will. That is just making bad law. [7]
Nothing that has transpired since has caused me to change my mind.
JOINT LETTER FROM ANDY WIGHTMAN AND DON MACLEOD
The following is the text of a letter sent to the Cabinet Secretary, Mairi Gougeon on 23 October 2025 from myself and Don Macleod, Partner and Head of Land and Proeprty at Turcan Connell.
Mairi Gougeon MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
The Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House
Regent Road
EDINBURGH
EH1 3DG
By email to CabSecforRALRI@gov.scot
23rd October 2025
Dear Cabinet Secretary,
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill
This letter represents an unlikely but united alliance. Don Macleod is a solicitor dealing with rural
property and who acts for many land owners who will be affected by the Bill once it is passed. Don
would not identify himself as being in favour of the general policy of Land Reform. Andy Wightman, of
course, holds widely known views on the benefits of Land Reform. The joint nature of this letter –
from two people with differing perspectives on the debate – represents strongly held views that the
Bill, as it stands and in the proposed Stage 3 amendments, poses serious practical and legal
challenges that require further scrutiny.
What follows is not intended to question the policy intentions behind the Bill nor challenge whatever
measures Parliament deems appropriate to give effect to them. Some of the concerns are set out
below, and they relate to the effectiveness of the measures, the practicality of implementation, and
their proportionality. There are other concerns.
- Definitions of Large Landholder
Stage 3 amendments to the Bill include the redefinition of what constitutes a large landholding by
making references to the Register of Persons Holding a Controlled Interest in Land. The details is set
out in a new Schedule 1A in amendment 231.
Don has written an article which sets out the high level concerns, which is available here. There are
concerns around definitions and interpretation, and more seriously that the measures will severely
undermine legal process. - Record Keeping under Section 46A
Section 46A requires Ministers to keep a record of persons who wish to be notified of any possible
transfers to which Section 46K applies. There is no qualification or restriction to those persons who
may wish to be notified. They can be anyone anywhere in the world. There could potentially be
thousands of such people seeking notification of potential transfers. We have doubts as to the
proportionality of this provision given that such persons are not required to demonstrate any
meaningful link with the land which is proposed to be transferred. - Late Registration Process
The late registration process set out in Section 39ZA is different to that set out for a late registration
under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. This means that late registrations will be assessed
differently depending on whether they are made under existing procedures under the 2003 Act or the
new procedures set out in this Bill.
There is thus scope for discriminatory effect on landowners who are broadly in an analogous position.
Further exploration of this point is set out in Andy’s blog posts here (and by reference here) - Conflict of Interest of Scottish Ministers
Under the provisions of the Bill on prior notification and lotting, Scottish Ministers will make decisions
about land they themselves either own or intend to acquire. This raises a prima facie conflict of
interest which has not been adequately scrutinised.
By contrast the Land and Communities Commissioner must not be an owner of a large landholding for
precisely the reason that a conflict of interest may arise if they are required to make decisions about
their own landholding.
On that basis, there is a concern that the proposed law around lotting could be ultra vires.
Recommendation
In light of the above and the potential impact on the practical implementation of the Bill and potential
legal issues arising, we recommend that you consider using powers under Rule 9.8 of Standing
Orders (as set out in 5D and 6) to either adjourn the Stage 3 debate on the Bill in order to consider
these matters further and/or to refer these and any other matters that may give rise to uncertainty
back to the Committee for further scrutiny. This is particularly relevant to point 1 since these are new
proposals that have not been subject to any detailed scrutiny, point 1 being hugely consequential.
We would be happy to discuss the contents of this letter and expand on any point of concern. This
open letter is sent in a constructive spirit to help achieve the best outcomes arising from the
Government’s policy aims.
Yours sincerely
Andy Wightman and Don Macleod
NOTES
[1] https://www.gov.scot/publications/land-reform-net-zero-nation-consultation-paper/documents/
[2] News Release 14 March 2024 https://www.gov.scot/news/land-reform-bill/
[3] Official Report 26 March 2025. Col. 34
[4] Identifying the Solutions. Scottish Office. 1998. Recommendation Land Ownership 9
[5] Who Owns Scotland 2024. https://andywightman.scot/2025/03/who-owns-scotlands-2024/
[6] See Land reform and the gentrification of Braemar. https://andywightman.scot/2025/09/land-reform-and-the-gentrification-of-braemar/
[7] Official report Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee 3 December 2024, Col. 64.
https://www.parliament.scot/api/sitecore/CustomMedia/OfficialReport?meetingId=16140