As the Scottish Parliament seeks to press forward with its ambitious Land Reform Bill, currently at Stage 3 of the process to decide if it should become an Act, questions continue to mount over the clarity, effectiveness and long-term viability of its approach.
The Bill aims to improve transparency of ownership, promote fairer access and use of land, and support sustainable development and community empowerment.
However, a leading expert in land management law has raised concerns over the growing complexity of the proposed reforms and unintended consequences for rural communities and private investment.
Speaking exclusively to The Herald, Robert Scott-Dempster, Head of Land & Rural Business at law firm Gillespie Macandrew, urged caution when facing further additions to what he sees as the legislative avalanche threatening to engulf landowners, legal professionals and communities.
His comments centre not on the principles of land reform, which he acknowledges could lead to some positive changes, but on the sheer volume and opacity of proposed legislation, much of which is being brought forward, he argues, without sufficient scrutiny or practical foresight.
“I’m focused on the pragmatics of whether or not what we are getting is workable, sensible and achieves its aims,” said Mr Scott-Dempster, who is also Chairman of Scottish Land & Estates Legal Committee and an Agricultural Law specialist accredited by the Law Society of Scotland.
“Up until this point, we’ve been getting a deluge of potential legislation. It just keeps coming. We’re all at sea with it. We’ve done more consultations than we can remember yet our contributions appear to have absolutely no influence whatsoever.”
There were more than 500 amendments tabled at Stage Two, a figure Mr Scott-Dempster views as indicative of a system that is not working for anyone. He believes the proposals are becoming overcomplicated – with existing multiple overlapping “rights to buy” . Provisions such as “lotting” (the sub-division of estates) now threaten to add more confusion, without clear implementation plans.
“The complexity of it all is eye watering,” he said. “You have a community right to buy, a crofting community right to buy, a right to buy abandoned and neglected land and another for sustainable development, all with different rules. The original community right to buy has had various alterations over the years, changing land it applies to, late application procedures and other aspects, not to mention reams of detail filled in by secondary legislation, all of which is confusing enough for professionals let alone a layperson. Now the prior notification procedure would add another layer – but only for large landholdings, which from a title perspective are actually very difficult to identify with any certainty . . . It just goes on and on.”
Community ownership has long been a cornerstone of attempts to reform land policy, however Mr Scott-Dempster warns that the romantic notion of unified, empowered communities may not always reflect on-the-ground reality.
“Communities are just another cross-section of the population. They’re human beings and human beings don’t always see things the same way.”
He believes ownership brings responsibility and not everyone is ready for that – sometimes replacing a landowner with a community shifts the power but not the challenges.
He also warns uncertainty, and legal complexity could discourage investment in rural Scotland, with existing landowners increasingly cautious and unsure of how policy shifts will impact their businesses, especially in a climate where enforcement mechanisms could become more punitive.
“I think people forget this isn’t just about people owning land and therefore having a duty and a responsibility, which, of course, is correct. But that this has to be tempered with the fact landowners are also trying to run a business.
“Think about the time and money …to produce a full-scale land management plan then be in permanent engagement with your communities and be discussing things. It’s time consuming and consequently very expensive, particularly if you’re doing it under threat of sanctions.
“There is a question mark around how far you can push these things before you end up having an adverse outcome. The intended good can ultimately be lost.”
Mr Scott-Dempster would like to see a stronger focus on recognising the power of changing behaviour not just laws.
“Of course, there are bad apples in every barrel but there is a vast number of landowners who have changed their behaviour dramatically in their community engagement, the opening up of land and the way in which they invite people on to their land. It’s chalk and cheese from where we were 25 years ago.
“I’d like the focus to be on behaviour rather than overly complex policy manoeuvres. If we can modify behaviour, that will go a long way to having positive outcomes.”
Ultimately, Mr Scott-Dempster’s message is not a rejection of reform but a plea for balance.
“What strikes me most is you’re not going to be able to move forward until there is detail and clarity. And yet the more discussions you have, the more obfuscation and confusion there might be!”
Any legislation, he argues, must be workable, clearly defined and fully informed – with adequate time for scrutiny – by those who understand all of the practicalities of land use and management.
“What I would like to see is balance. That’s what we want to provide: opportunities for communities to thrive, be engaged, be listened to and have influence – but not at the expense of private investment or of putting existing rural businesses under real financial hardship. I think there has to be room for all.”
*This interview originally featured in The Herald on 17th September 2025 as an interview with Dominic Ryan.
