Professor Bill Buchanan OBE FRSE, a leading expert in applied cryptography, blockchain, and digital trust at Edinburgh Napier University has been a prominent voice in discussions around Scotland’s Digital Assets Bill.
His evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Economy and Fair Work Committee, delivered in December 2025, alongside colleagues, highlights both opportunities and shortcomings in the proposed legislation.
Core Thesis: Modernizing Law for a Tokenized Economy
Buchanan strongly supports updating Scots law to recognize digital assets as property, viewing this as essential for economic development in a digital world. He argues that economies must adapt from traditional “wet signatures” and paper-based systems to digital signatures and tokenized assets. Without clear, technology-forward rules, Scotland risks missing opportunities in blockchain, real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, and related innovations.
He envisions a tokenized economy where cryptographic tokens—digitally signed with private keys—represent ownership of digital or physical assets (e.g., real estate, vehicles, art, or financial instruments). This could unlock new efficiencies, transparency, and investment in Scotland. Buchanan emphasizes collaboration through initiatives like the Scottish Centre of Excellence and broader efforts in digital trust.
Key Criticisms of the Bill
While supportive of the bill’s intent—to confirm digital assets as objects of property—Buchanan finds the current draft inadequate, vague, and insufficiently aligned with modern technology. His main points include:
- Terminology and Definitions Are Outdated and Vague: As a technologist, he does not recognize key elements. The bill’s definition of a “digital asset” and references to an “immutable ledger” lack precision. “Immutable” can apply to both trusted distributed systems and centralized ones with low trustworthiness. The bill fails to distinguish properly between permissionless ledgers (e.g., public blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum, relying on broad consensus) and permissioned ledgers (controlled by a central entity that can approve, reject, or alter transactions).
- Lack of Clarity on Ownership and Control: Ownership should center on control of the private cryptographic key, which provides definitive proof of ownership and enables transactions. The bill does not sufficiently address this, raising risks around custodians (e.g., if a user hands over their private key). Buchanan worries that vague language around “transacting” or “disposing” of assets could lead to legal ambiguities, especially regarding loss of control or third-party involvement.
- Missed Opportunity for a Robust “Blockchain Act”: Unlike more comprehensive legislation in places like Liechtenstein or certain U.S. jurisdictions, Scotland’s bill does not clearly define blockchain-related concepts or provide certainty for businesses. It feels more like a minimal 19th-century-style update than a forward-looking framework. This vagueness could hinder businesses seeking to operate securely in Scotland and deter foreign investment.
- Insufficient Focus on Practical and Economic Needs: The bill should better support a tokenized economy, protect citizens, enable Scottish firms, and attract investment. Buchanan calls for stronger emphasis on digital signatures having equivalent legal standing to traditional ones, along with clearer rules for cryptographic tokens linked to assets.
Opportunities for Scotland
Despite these critiques, Buchanan sees significant potential. Scotland could position itself as a leader in digital trust, blockchain, and DLT through better legislation, leveraging its strengths in fintech, cybersecurity, and innovation hubs. Tokenization of real-world assets (real estate, etc.) and integration with secure, privacy-focused systems represent “very large opportunities.” He advocates for definitions and rules that give businesses confidence in transacting with trusted digital assets in Scotland.
Broader Context and Recommendations
Buchanan’s perspective aligns with his long-standing work in cryptography, blockchain education, and digital identity. He stresses that law must evolve with technology—moving beyond broad analogies to precise, usable frameworks that technologists and businesses can interpret clearly. While the bill serves as a starting point for recognizing digital assets in Scots law, he urges refinements for technological accuracy, economic utility, and risk mitigation (e.g., around custody, consensus mechanisms, and private keys).
In summary, Professor Buchanan views the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill as a welcome but insufficient step. With targeted improvements—sharper definitions, clearer treatment of permissioned/permissionless systems, emphasis on cryptographic ownership, and alignment with a tokenized future—Scotland could create a competitive, trustworthy environment for digital assets, fostering innovation while safeguarding economic interests. His evidence underscores the need for close collaboration between technologists, lawyers, and policymakers to realize this vision.
