The issues of land ownership and reform should be part of the independence debate

IN quoting Voltaire (“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”), Simon Miller, CEO of Luss Estates Company (Letters, September 6) will find millions of Scots who support him in respecting the rights of individuals to speak freely, including myself and almost certainly the First Minister. However, the circumstances of his company spending its income and using its employees to put up notices campaigning for a No vote is not quite the same, even if, presumably, it is registered as a Better Together campaigner with its costs being recorded as such.

But inadvertently he brings to the fore a major but hidden issue, one largely ignored by the press and the broadcasting media: land reform. Luss Estates Company is the modern incarnation of the Colquhoun clan lands, lands that in medieval times were the property of the clan people, chartered to their chief, and, post-1746, converted by acts of the Union Parliament to the property of one person and his family by succession, denying forever the rights of the people who lived on it, worked it and depended on it.

This feudal land ownership pattern in modern Scotland is an anachronism unmatched in Europe, controlling the value of land, the lives of thousands, and impacting on the availability and cost of housing. One only has to look at two islands to see a contrast, Gigha and Colonsay. One is busy and thriving, with a rising population, new housing, new businesses, energy generation, enlarged primary school role, having bought the land in a community trust buy-out over a decade ago. The other seems stuck in a time warp, the island almost entirely owned by one landowner who can control the lives of the inhabitants by his choices, whether benign or otherwise.

Where is the discussion of land reform, land ownership and land taxation in the debate? This really is an issue which could change the lives of hundreds of thousands for the better.

It’s true of other issues too, like the monarchy. Scotland had a queen when she formed the Union with England and will have a queen if she votes to break the Union next week. Should we remain a monarchy or become a republic? It’s a future issue, not one for the moment, but next week’s vote can be looked at this way: will you vote Yes to give Scotland control of our own affairs and the power to decide on issues like land reform and the monarchy or will you vote No to retain the Westminster straitjacket of control over everything important, including whether we get any more powers devolved to us or not? Let me think about that for a minute. A minute will do. Fergus Duncanson, 1 Robinsfield, Bardowie. THERE is no excuse for personal abuse or intimidation in any political debate – by either side.

Simon Miller’s “one-party state” view of the First Minister (Letters, September 6) and talk of vitriolic abuse in response to his letter is irresponsible and worthier of condemnation than the loss of No banners that prompted him to write: he reflects the Unionist Project Fear. The First Minister was democratically elected to lead his party, and his party was elected in 2011 to form the Scottish Government, and now there is a lively public debate about Scotland’s future. We all subscribe to Voltaire’s opinion that everyone has the right to express their opinions.

Mr Miller might note President FD Roosevelt’s “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. Whatever the outcome on September 18, life will go on, and we shall all adjust to its political realities: Mr Miller will be delighted with No; I shall be delighted with Yes. Colin Campbell, Braeside, Shuttle Street, Kilbarchan..