Why were there few tied houses in Ireland and Scotland?

I used to wonder why almost all the pubs in England were tied, but those in Scotland and Ireland mostly free. Why didn't brewers rush to own pubs in the late 10th century like those in England had. Surely the same forces were operating in all parts of the UK?

Evidently not.

Does any one doubt that if the conditions under which the Irish and Scotch publicans have carried on their business had been the same as they are here, they would not also have sold their licensed houses as they have in England?

In England a licensed house is a valuable monopoly, requiring capital and possessing a substantial saleable value.

In Ireland, owing to the ease with which licences have been granted, the monopoly has no comparison with that in England, and the capital required and the saleable value are correspondingly small.

In Scotland the licence is personal to the publican, and does not attach to his premises.

The English publican, therefore, has had most to fear from the organised hostility of the teetotal party, which is largely responsible for the tied-house system in this country, and it is not surprising that the old-fashioned English publican has long ago sold out his business.
Brewers' Journal, vol. 45, 1909, page 415.

By the time this was published, the rules had changed in Ireland. Totally reversed, really. With iy becoming virtually impossible to issue a new licence. And in Scotland, while brewers owned few pubs, there was an extensive system of loan ties, which achieved a similar effect.

The article was prompted by a massive increase in license duties for pubs. This was based on the rateable value of the premises. In England, the price of pubs had been greatly inflated by the rush to buy pubs by brewers. In Ireland and Scotland, where this price increase hadn't occurred, the rateable value of pubs was far lower and hence the increase in license duties was much smaller.

It's a good demonstration of how legislation can distort the beer market. And have consequences not foreseen by those draughting it.

As I've said many times before, beer in a country is shaped by the local environment. Some of this environment - such as climate and available raw materials - is the result of geography. But mush comes from the legislative environment, such as taxation and the rules concerning pubs.

This is why beer styles in the USA gradually diverged from the British originals: they existed in a different environment. And this persists today. Why are American beers stronger than those in the UK? Taxation. The US system of a flat-rate tax encourages the brewing of stronger beer. While in the UK it's discouraged by the higher rate of tax it attracts.