Month: October 2025

The Herald continues its feature on land reform today, with an article written by Max Wiszniewski, Campaign Manager for REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform:

Scotland’s grouse moors are under fire—not just for environmental damage, but for symbolising a broken land system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. As public support for bold land reform grows, campaigners say it’s time to confront the invisible power protecting privilege and reshape the future of Scotland’s uplands, says Max Wiszniewski

When we asked Scots what they thought about land reform, focus group participants immediately raised concerns about large landowners. Concerns about their power, their lack of accountability and their failure to serve the communities around them.

If you want to understand why people know there was something wrong, look at a grouse moor.

Grouse moors represent everything that’s broken about Scotland’s land system, concentrated into one highly visible package.

They’re managed for the shooting pleasure of a tiny elite. They contribute pitifully to our economy while occupying vast tracts of land. They actively damage our environment through muirburn, holding moorland back from natural regeneration and increased biodiversity. They exclude local communities from having a meaningful say over land that shapes their futures, and they’ve been protected by what focus group participants called “invisible power” – the quiet influence of wealth and privilege that keeps land reform at bay.

The Big Land Question – the largest independent study of Scottish attitudes to land ownership ever conducted. More than double the number of people responded to Big Land Question’s public consultation compared to consultation for the Land Reform Bill currently going through parliament. Of those responses, 87% backed carbon emissions taxes on large landowner’s land. Focus groups wanted penalties for landowners who “don’t use their land properly.” And crucially, they saw environmental responsibility not as separate from land reform, but as an intrinsic part of it.

Grouse moors fail every test the public is setting.

Let’s start with the economics. Driven grouse shooting contributes trivial amounts to Scotland’s economy for the damage it does. Wildlife tourism, where wildlife is shot by cameras instead of guns, contributes far more. Forestry contributes twenty times the value of all sport shooting. Yet grouse moors occupy hundreds of thousands of hectares of Scotland’s uplands, locked into a land use that serves almost no one except the landowners and their paying guests.

Research commissioned by Scottish Land and Estates found that rural estates occupy 57% of Scotland’s rural land but account for less than 2% of our economy, a contribution their own commissioned report described as “trivial.” They provide just one in ten rural jobs and only 3% of rural homes. Grouse moors exemplify this pattern: massive landholdings delivering minimal public benefit.

Then there’s the environmental destruction. Eighty percent of Scotland’s peatlands are degraded, emitting carbon instead of storing it. For decades, landowners have been allowed to burn and overgraze these vital carbon sinks, for grouse shooting, through a practice called muirburn. Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and driven grouse shooting is a significant contributor to that shameful status.

The Scottish Government has rightly restricted muirburn over deep peat because of peatlands’ importance as carbon sinks. Given the scale of degradation and our climate commitments, the 78% of Scots who want climate and nature targets for large landowners aren’t asking for the impossible, they’re asking for the obvious.

Grouse moors also epitomise how concentrated land ownership excludes communities. When a few individuals control vast landscapes, decisions about land use are made in shooting lodges and estate offices, not in village halls. Communities watch their surroundings managed for driven shooting while they struggle with housing shortages, limited employment opportunities, and depopulation. The scarcity of useful land stops communities flourishing.

Focus group participants in The Big Land Question articulated this clearly. They believed land used for large estates should be broken up. They wanted councils to have power to tax large landowners in their areas, feeding funds back into the communities surrounding estates. They understood that land reform isn’t about technical policy adjustments, it’s about power, and who gets to wield it.

The contrast with community ownership couldn’t be starker. Community-owned land allows management to be tailored to local needs and economic opportunities, such as community-owned rural housing, nature restoration, renewable energy, and sustainable tourism. This community-led approach unlocks what REVIVE calls a “circle of prosperity” in Scotland’s uplands, replacing the circle of destruction that surrounds grouse moors.

So why do land uses like grouse moors persist?

Because the current Land Reform Bill, despite its ambitions, is broken. It doesn’t go far enough to deliver meaningful change. Landowners have too many rights and too few responsibilities. The Bill fails to disincentivise a few people from owning most of our country, and it fails to obligate large landowners to act in the public interest.

Land Management Plans, if done well, could make a difference by compelling landowners to engage with communities, enhance biodiversity, and deliver public goods. They could require landowners to protect degraded peatlands, end unnecessary wildlife killing, and transition toward net-zero. But the current proposals lack detail and, critically, it lacks teeth.

Penalties for non-compliance of obligations by landowners should reflect the value of land and the seriousness of breaches, because land reform isn’t about making it easy on landowners. It’s about doing right by the country.

The Bill also misses opportunities to introduce fiscal measures that discourage land hoarding and speculation. Without land taxes, large landowners can sit on assets and watch values appreciate while making it harder for community and public purchases. The 67% of Scots who support land taxes for large landowners seem to understand this, perhaps better than policymakers.

Around eight in ten Scots want landowners to meet climate and nature targets, while seven in ten support taxing large landowners. Some will argue that strengthening requirements would deter investment in natural capital restoration, but this ignores evidence that diverse ownership patterns create more innovation and community wealth. It also ignores what Scots are telling us: they want bolder action, not excuses for inaction.

Grouse moors matter because they’re where Scotland’s land crisis becomes visible. They show us what happens when land is hoarded by a few, managed for private pleasure rather than public good, and protected by the invisible power that focus group participants identified as blocking reform.

A transition away from grouse shooting is urgently needed, and the sooner the better for our people, wildlife, and environment, because grouse moors are symbolic of a land system that serves the few at the expense of the many.

ENDS

Issues around ‘The Big Land Question’ will be explored at REVIVE’s annual conference, taking place at Perth Concert Hall on Saturday 8th November 2025. For more details and to book tickets, please click here.

For those of you following the muirburn licensing fiasco in Scotland, where the Scottish Government has announced its decision to delay the implementation of licences for a second time after aggressive lobbying by the grouse shooting industry, Nick Kempe’s most recent parkswatchscotland blog will be on interest.

Nick explores the known facts about the recent out-of-control muirburn on a grouse moor in Aberdeenshire that turned in to a wildfire that burned 5 hectares of the neighbouring Muir of Dinnet National Nature Reserve:

‘These facts clearly contradict Mr Fairlie’s claim that  the delay in introducing the muirburn licensing scheme will  “provide us with the time and opportunity to carefully consider the upcoming changes to muirburn and how these changes can be brought forward in a way which does not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires.” 

The problem, which the Scottish Government is willfully ignoring, is that muirburn is responsible for a large number of wildfires and adds significantly to the demands being made on the Scotland’s Fire and Rescue Service who have suffered cut after cut in funding’.

With his usual thoughtful and evidence-based approach, Nick goes on to explore the wider politics associated with muirburn licensing. His parkswatchscotland blog can be found here.

A couple of weeks ago, on 24 September, the Shooting Times published a news item in which it was suggested that I support predator culls:

The Shooting Times article was supposedly a précis of an article that had appeared in The Guardian on 11 September, where it was reported that Mary Colwell, Director of Curlew Action, had told a farming conference that a “serious conversation” needs to be had about Fox culling. The full Guardian article can be read here.

I was asked by The Guardian journalist (Helena Horton) to comment on the proposition of widespread Fox and Crow culling for Curlew conservation and Helena duly included my quote, in full, in her article:

“Lethal control of some generalist predatory species will not solve the long-term issue of their over-abundance, which is a direct result of the mismanagement of our countryside.

“The three main long-term issues that need to be addressed include intensive agriculture, where silage-making increases feeding opportunities for Carrion Crows and reduces the breeding success of Curlews; the annual release of up to 60 million non-native Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges, which sustain artificially-high numbers of predators and scavengers; and the illegal killing of birds of prey, including species such as Goshawks, which would otherwise limit the populations of mesopredators and scavengers.

“In the short-term there may be justification for targeted and limited predator control for specific nature conservation purposes, but this should be done only as a last resort and only where robust scientific evidence shows there to be a need”.

You’ll notice that the Shooting Times article published just 12 words from my 139-word quote, selectively chosen and presented out of context, to infer my supposed support for widespread predator culls.

This is either shameless misrepresentation or whoever wrote that piece for Shooting Times, presumably overseen by the editor, is clearly struggling to grasp the principles of basic English comprehension – you know, the stuff you learn at school when you’re eleven about context and drawing conclusions.

And just because a newspaper publishes an article about a controversial topic, including opposing views, doesn’t mean that the newspaper supports either side of the debate – it’s simply reporting a balanced argument for and against.

How can the Shooting Times interpret this as, ‘National press backs fox control for conservation‘?!

Muppets.

I guess the Shooting Times also missed Mary Colwell’s subsequent letter to The Guardian, published on 21 September, in which she clarified her position on predator control:

It’s not quite the message that Shooting Times wants to get across, is it?

Press release from REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform (11 Oct 2025)

SCOTS DEMAND REAL LAND REFORM AS RESEARCH REVEALS OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CHANGE

Largest ever public consultation on land reform shows 78% want climate targets for large landowners, 67% back a land tax, 80% demand more community ownership, as MSPs face final opportunity to amend Bill 

The Big Land Question, the most comprehensive exploration of Scottish attitudes to land ownership ever undertaken, reveals that Scotland’s public thinks the current system is failing, and the Scottish Government must act decisively to redistribute power over land. 

The research, published today, was commissioned by the REVIVE Coalition and independently conducted by the Diffley Partnership over eight months. It surveyed over 2,000 Scottish residents alongside focus groups, stakeholder roundtables and online public consultations. 

The Big Land Question research found that despite land reform being on the political agenda for more than 20 years, public awareness is low. Yet when informed about Scotland’s unusually concentrated pattern of land ownership, with just 421 people owning over half of Scotland’s private land, support for reform was overwhelming.  

The survey tested specific reform measures and found striking levels of support: 

• 78% supported requiring large landowners to meet climate and nature targets 
• 67% supported a land tax for large landowners 
• 80% said the Scottish Government should do more to encourage community ownership 
• 59% agreed Scotland would benefit from more diverse land ownership 
• 50% supported government action to break up large landholdings 
• 63% felt more should be done to help people own and manage land 

The findings come ahead of MSPs considering Stage 3 amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill before a final debate later this month. Parliamentarians have one last opportunity to align legislation with public expectations, or face calls to revisit land reform in the next parliament.  

Mark Diffley, Director of the Diffley Partnership, said: 

“What’s remarkable about these findings is that high support exists despite low awareness. This isn’t a case of the public being divided or uncertain – once people understand the scale of land ownership concentration, the view of the Scottish public is clear across every methodology we used, and the consistency and strength of findings is striking.  

“Whether in quantitative surveys, focus groups, or open consultations, Scottish people are telling us the same thing, that the current concentration of land ownership in Scotland is unacceptable, and they want their government to take meaningful action. The challenge for policymakers isn’t to convince Scots that reform is needed – the public is already there – it’s to match their legislation to the ambition the public is ready to support.” 

Max Wiszniewski, Campaign Manager for the REVIVE Coalition, said: 

“We initiated The Big Land Question to provide robust, independent evidence of what Scottish people want from land reform.  

“For too long, the debate around land reform has been dominated by vested interests who benefit from the status quo. This research has created a platform for the voice of the many, and what we’re hearing is unambiguous. Scottish people want fair rules, transparency about ownership, and genuine accountability for how land is managed. For example, grouse shooting contributes pitiful amounts to our economy for the damage it does – wildlife tourism, where wildlife is shot by cameras instead of guns, contributes much more.  

“This research shows that policies which politicians claim are too radical, like land taxes, ethical wildlife control, and climate and nature targets for large landowners, alongside limits on ownership concentration, actually have strong public support. The current Bill has been widely criticised as lacking ambition. MSPs debating Stage 3 amendments later this month have the opportunity to change that.” 

The Big Land Question used a mixed-methods approach including: 

• A nationally representative survey of 2,041 Scottish adults (October 2024) 
• An open consultation receiving 1,390 responses spanning the political spectrum 
• An online panel of 155 members, with surveys and three focus groups held between February and June 2025 
• A stakeholder roundtable in June 2025 with community groups, environmental NGOs, landowners and sectoral experts 

The research was launched in November 2024 at the annual REVIVE conference in Perth. It was attended by 600 people and fronted by actor David Hayman, who presented the project’s online video survey. 

Across all research methodologies within The Big Land Question research, three interconnected priorities emerged consistently: community empowerment and local control, fairness and equity in ownership, and environmental responsibility aligned with climate action. 

Respondents expressed strong views that land should serve the public good and called for Scottish Government to take bolder actions towards real change, a direct challenge to the current Bill’s modest scope. 

The qualitative methodologies within The Big Land Question, through focus groups, roundtables and open consultation responses, also revealed how Scots understand the problem and envision solutions. 

Focus group participants raised concerns about large landowners unprompted, expressing strong views that these individuals must uphold social and environmental responsibilities. They identified the “invisible power” of large landowners as an underlying cause of government inaction, creating what they described as a “vicious circle” where those who benefit most from concentrated ownership have the greatest capacity to block reform. 

Participants pointed to the complexity of legal and financial frameworks, the prohibitive cost of land, and the hidden influence of concentrated wealth as key barriers preventing change. The research revealed a sophisticated public understanding that land reform’s slow progress is structural, rooted in power dynamics that current policy fails to challenge. 

This analysis was reinforced at the stakeholder roundtable in June 2025, where representatives from community groups, environmental NGOs, landowners and sectoral experts discussed reform priorities. Stakeholders identified strong alignment between their priorities and public support, particularly around transparency, taxation, and community control. 

However, they also highlighted the gap between public support and public understanding. Despite overwhelming backing for reform among those informed about the issues, awareness remains low across the general population. Bridging this gap through storytelling, political leadership, and inclusive policymaking was identified as essential. 

Scale of the Problem 

Currently, just 421 landowners own 50% of Scotland’s privately-owned rural land, one of the most concentrated patterns of land ownership in the world. A 2019 review by SRUC, commissioned by the Scottish Land Commission, found this concentration was causing “significant and long-term damage to the communities affected.” 

The suffocating impact of Scotland’s concentrated land ownership was also evident in research by Biggar Economics, published in 2023 and commissioned by Scottish Land and Estates. The report identified that 1125 rural estates take up approximately 4.1 million hectares, and found that while this equates to around 57% of Scotland’s rural land, they: 

• Account for less than 2% of the value of the Scottish economy, a level assessed as “trivial” by the report authors 
• Account for just 1 in 10 rural jobs 
• Provide only around 3% of rural homes and build around 1% of new homes built in rural areas each year 

A report on The Big Land Question is published today:

REVIVE will host a fringe meeting at the SNP Conference at 12.30 pm tomorrow (Sunday) at Conference Suite 3, TECA – The Event Complex Aberdeen, titled ‘What Scotland Wants: Real Land Reform’ to discuss the findings.  

The research will also be presented to delegates at the annual REVIVE coalition conference, taking place in Perth on 8^th November 2025 (programme & tickets available here).

 ENDS 

The Herald has published an exclusive feature on this news today, including reactions to the research findings from Mairi Gougeon (Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform & Islands) and veteran land reform campaigner Andy Wightman. The article sits behind a paywall.

You couldn’t make this up if you tried…

Breaking News….on the day the Scottish Government announced it was delaying, for a second time, the implementation of muirburn licensing after aggressive lobbying from the grouse shooting industry, news is coming in of what locals have described as an ‘out-of-control muirburn’ on a grouse moor on the east side of the Cairngorms National Park that is now a rapidly spreading wildfire.

Cromar Community Council posted this on social media late this afternoon:

Police Scotland (North East) posted this:

The Scottish Fire & Rescue Service posted this:

A local blog reader has reported that this was a prescribed muirburn, started (legally) by gamekeepers on a grouse moor but that it got out of control and has now spread to the nearby Muir of Dinnet National Nature Reserve.

According to Andy Wightman’s Who Owns Scotland website, the location where the fire started appears to be the Dinnet & Kinord Estate.

Given that the out-of-control fire was first reported at 1.22pm and fire crews are still tackling it seven hours later, this is clearly a significant incident.

Slow handclap for the Scottish Government.

UPDATE 11 October 2025: “SNP caves to shooting lobby” – reactions to Scottish Government’s decision to delay muirburn licensing (again) (here)

UPDATE 13 October 2025: ‘The problem, which the Scottish Government is willfully ignoring, is that muirburn is responsible for a large number of wildfires’ (here)

UPDATE 30 October 2025: Scottish Govt fiddles while grouse moors burn (here)

The Scottish Government has, for the second time, delayed the implementation of muirburn licensing after caving in to pressure from aggressive lobbying by the grouse shooting industry.

A quick re-cap for new blog readers:

In March 2024, the Scottish Parliament voted for the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, which introduced, amongst other things, a requirement for all muirburn to be licensed (see here).

The Bill was enacted in May 2024 and became the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 and since then we’ve seen the introduction of a grouse moor licensing scheme (although this still remains contentious as the licence has been significantly weakened after lobbying by the grouse shooting industry – an update on that is coming shortly) and the banning of the use of snares.

The introduction of the muirburn licence, also contentious because many conservationists didn’t believe it went far enough (e.g. see here), was due to be in place for the start of the 2025/26 muirburn season on 15 September 2025, some 18 months after the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of it.

However, in June 2025 the Scottish Government announced it was delaying implementation until 1 January 2026 because the grouse shooting industry had laughably argued that it wasn’t practical or fair for the licences to begin in September 2025 (see here).

Since then, the grouse shooting industry has continued its lobbying and wants the licences dropped altogether because of what it calls the ‘need’ for muirburn to ‘control the fuel load’ – the amount of combustible vegetation which could influence the intensity and spread of wildfires.

Although if you read these two fascinating recent articles written by Professor Douglas MacMillan for the ParkswatchScotland blog (here and here), you’ll see that within the Cairngorms National Park at least, a considerable number of wildfires are believed to have been caused by ‘muirburn gone wrong’.

Nevertheless, inevitably it seems the powerful lairds have applied sufficient pressure for the Scottish Government to capitulate once again, probably with an eye on the forthcoming election.

Yesterday, an obviously-planted written question appeared on the Scottish Parliament’s website:

Question reference: S6W-41119

Asked by Emma Harper MSP (SNP, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether the muirburn licensing provisions in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 will be implemented on 1 January 2026, in light of the lessons learned following the wildfires in Dava and Carrbridge in summer 2025.

The question was answered this morning by Jim Fairlie MSP, Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity:

Following discussions with a number of stakeholders and experts over recent weeks, I have decided to delay implementation of the muirburn provisions until the start of the next muirburn season in Autumn 2026.

This decision will provide us with the time and opportunity to carefully consider the upcoming changes to muirburn and how these changes can be brought forward in a way which does not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires. Wildfires as I saw this summer, are very damaging to our precious peatland carbon stores and further discussions on this issue will take place with key stakeholders and at the Wildfire Summit on 14 October 2025.

I don’t know what the legal position is for the timing of when legislation must begin after being enacted, but as it currently stands, it’ll be well over two years between the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 being enacted and muirburn licensing commencing, assuming, that is, that the Scottish Government doesn’t capitulate again before the start of the 2026 muirburn season on 15 September 2026.

Meanwhile, across the border in England, I see that the Moorland Association has written a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to Defra to challenge the lawfulness of the Heather & Grass Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, announced in September 2025 to restrict the burning of vegetation on deep peat, redefined from the current 40cm to 30cm depth (see here). A PAP letter marks the start of potential legal action (judicial review).

To be honest, none of this political lobbying and legal action by the grouse shooting industry in both Scotland and England should come as any surprise. Intensive driven grouse shooting relies not only on wildlife crime (it’s not possible to have the grossly excessive number of Red Grouse available to shoot without killing off as many native predators as possible), but relies also on torching the uplands via muirburning to sustain an artificial environment for those excesses of Red Grouse.

If muirburning is banned, or restricted, the intensively managed grouse moors simply wouldn’t be commercially viable. And that’s why the grouse shooting industry is throwing everything in to challenging the new regulations north and south of the border.

I suspect there’ll be a significant and angry reaction to the Scottish Government’s decision to further delay the implementation of muirburning at the behest of the lairds- one to watch.

UPDATE 9 October 2025: Breaking news…’out-of-control’ muirburn on grouse moor in Cairngorms National Park (here)

UPDATE 11 October 2025: “SNP caves to shooting lobby” – reactions to Scottish Government’s decision to delay muirburn licensing (again) (here)

UPDATE 13 October 2025: ‘The problem, which the Scottish Government is willfully ignoring, is that muirburn is responsible for a large number of wildfires’ (here)

UPDATE 30 October 2025: Scottish Govt fiddles while grouse moors burn (here)