STEPHEN DAISLEY: Land reform...courtesy of people who think taking the scenic route home from Waitrose is a trip to the countryside

The idea behind devolution was that nothing ailed Scotland that couldnt be solved by creating a whole new layer of politicians and bureaucrats. An expensive layer at that.

The problem, as the past quarter-century has amply illustrated, is that, once handed an empire, politicians and bureaucrats will dedicate themselves to expanding their imperial reach.

Lord Acton said that power tends to corrupt but it also tends to make you greedy for more. 

There are few parliamentarians who muse on the great questions of the day and conclude that the answer is leaving more power in the hands of people. After all, that would be bad for business.

The Land Reform Bill is another example of this mindset. It is a piece of legislation that exists not because there is urgent need for it but because the Scottish parliament isnt satisfied unless its meddling in every aspect of life in this country. 

Naturally, its a Bill which empowers the state at the expense of enterprise and the individual.

Land has been a fixation of the middle-class activist left since long before the opening of the Scottish parliament but, even though most voters are splendidly uninterested in the issue, it has become a perennial priority at Holyrood. 

For people with scant understanding of or affinity for the countryside, the Central Belt squad that runs Scotland is hellbent on sticking its neb into rural affairs.

It never ceases to amaze me how many proponents of land reform live in cities and suburbs and display no interest in rural Scotland beyond dictating how it ought to be run. 

Their idea of visiting the countryside is taking the scenic route home from Waitrose.

The new Bill is exactly what you might expect from this contingent. It passes ministers sweeping powers to dictate to landowners what they may do with their property, how they are to maintain it, and even the circumstances under which they can sell it. 

It is the brainchild of rural affairs secretary Mairi Gougeon and prompted raised eyebrows both at Holyrood and among landowners.

Scotlands rural affairs secretary Mairi Gougeon is behind controversial land reforms

Section 1(4), for instance, allows ministers to impose obligations on the owner of land for the purpose of promoting community engagement. Scottish Land and Estates

(SLE), which represents landowners, warns that the Bill shows an inadequate commitment to consultation. 

Instead of a conversation between ministers and landowners, which could produce compromise or at least fully explain decisions, people and companies face being slapped with burdensome regulations drawn up without their concerns taken into consideration.

Now, you might be thinking: well, of course landowner lobbyists would say that. However, SLE is not alone in its anxieties. Even Holyroods delegated powers and law reform committee has written to Gougeon to suggest making consultation a statutory requirement. 

The committee, which is headed by SNP MSP Stuart McMillan, described the power to modify obligations on landowners as wide and containing little detail as to why the power is necessary or how it will be exercised.

I can answer that. The power is necessary because this government, like so much of the political class in Scotland, is roiling with resentment towards landowners, who are viewed as cartoonish villains hoarding the nations natural environment for themselves and their own profit.

It is a prejudice every bit as ill-considered and outdated as the caricature of entrepreneurs as cigar-chomping, top-hatted exploiters of the workers. 

Land reform is what you call class warfare when it takes place north of Milngavie.

Naturally, Gougeons Bill takes this opportunity to grow the quangocracy and establishes a Land and Communities Commissioner to enforce the legislation on landowners, with the power to hand out £5,000 fines for non-compliance. 

Merely failing to provide information to the commissioner could see your wallet hit for £1,000.

Perhaps youre breathing a sigh of relief that youre not a landowner and so none of this will affect you. Who do you think will be footing the bill for the commissioner and their staff? State control: tightened. 

Taxpayers money: wasted. Ideology: put before practicality. All thats missing is an adverse judgment in the Court of Session and this would be the archetypal Holyrood Bill.

At the spite-dripping heart of this legislation is the belief that government should interfere in the ownership and sale of land. 

Ministers say they want to make community buy-out easier, but there has been legislation to do that on the statute books since 2003. 

What this Bill will do is give the state the power to wage a vendetta against law-abiding people for the crime of having purchased or inherited land. 

How much land? Whatever ministers consider too much.

That is not rhetoric on my part. The government has hinted that it might revisit the hectarage thresholds - the parameters which decide which estates the law would apply to - if the current provisions turn out not to work as ministers had hoped. 

The implication is that this would be done via secondary legislation. 

As SLE says: Making law but reserving the right to change it at any time is unsettling for businesses and unhelpful when businesses want to plan for the long term.

But this is not just about the size of an estate, its also about how it is used. The Bill would grant additional powers to intervene in this area too, which raises questions about just how these powers might be used. For example, could a future SNP-Green government draw on this legislation to ban shooting parties?

And while community ownership can be a viable approach to managing land, it is not cheap and not without controversy. 

When the residents of Gigha, in Argyll and Bute, bought the island two decades ago, it cost £4 million and saw the trust struggle with debt before selling properties to balance the books. 

While the island is reportedly thriving today, there remains bad blood over how things were handled. Making community buy-outs easier comes with its own difficulties.

Im not arguing for a totally free market. The state has a role to play in regulating ownership and if Russian oligarchs want to buy up land, theres more than enough in their own country.

However, where a landowner is a citizen and their property is lawfully held, the government should err on the side of caution before rushing in with more broad-brush, busybody legislation. 

No one knows how to maintain land better than its owner, who will typically have dedicated their life to their little corner of the world. 

There is more expertise in investment and experience than in academic advocacy or the mandarin-knows-best impulse that powers the civil service.

Ministers should heed the objections raised by landowners and their own fellow MSPs and pause the Land Reform Bill for further consideration. 

The Scottish Government behaves as though going back and thinking again about legislation is a sign of weakness or fright, but its what a mature, sensible government does when it wants to see the very best version of its legislation become law.

Petulant prejudice is a poor basis on which to make law. Instead of seething against landowners, ministers should find a way to work with them. 

Instead of bolstering their own powers for the sake of it, they should do what is in the best interests of the land.