A FEW months ago, I spent a pleasant few days in the Perthshire town of Crieff.
As many readers will no doubt attest, Crieff is a charming, historic market town which enjoys its fair share of tourist trade. It is also a town which, like so many across Scotland, has a fight on its hands to remain viable while the broader retail sector goes through tumultuous change.
The reason for mentioning Crieff is that events taking place in the Scottish Parliament today could have a big impact on towns of its ilk.
MSPs will gather in Holyrood to vote for the final time on the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill. While not usually a topic that commands banner headlines – business rates tend to be more commonly heard being discussed in parliamentary committee rooms or council chambers – the Bill stands to bring significant change to the way the property tax is levied.
READ MORE: Scott Wright: Does Glasgow really need more hotels?
In short, unless MSPs back an amendment proposed by Scottish ministers, the legislation will result in the Uniform Business Rate (UBR) being scrapped and local councils being given the right to set non-domestic property rates, one of the biggest taxes paid by businesses in Scotland. It could also abolish the rates relief system that currently benefits thousands of small firms.
Business groups, as reported in a special series in The Herald last week, are dismayed by the prospect.
In theory, councils could cut rates if they had the power to control them. But that is unlikely in the view of 27 Scottish business groups that have come together to protest the move. They fear the tax will only rise if rate-setting is devolved and argue this would be hugely damaging to the retail sector, which is already struggling from the relentless tide of internet shopping, weak consumer confidence and rising costs.
You only need to refer to the grim festive trading figures posted recently by many of the major players to see the pressure retail is under.
Of course, some people will have no issue with businesses being asked to stump up more. Council services are already stretched to breaking point. What would be the harm in asking companies to dig a little deeper?
READ MORE: Glasgow ‘institution’ is bought by pub giant
The trouble is that, in the current climate, a little more tax could really make the difference between failure and survival. Look around and the evidence of town-centre decline is easy to see. Once-bustling high streets, brimming with big-chain and independent retailers, are shadows of their former selves.
Many big names have left smaller towns and flocked to out-of-town malls, where shopping is served up with cinemas and restaurants all under one roof, not to mention free parking.
It is a pattern that has blighted cities as well as towns such as Ayr or Paisley. In Glasgow, the once-mighty Sauchiehall and Argyle streets are no longer the forces they once were, as the premium retail offer is increasingly focused on Buchanan Street.
As the travails of Mothercare, New Look and Debenhams have shown, doing business on the high street just is not as viable as it once was, especially as more and more consumers shop online.
In that context, lumping even more tax on to struggling businesses must surely be the last thing on the mind of anyone who has the interests of Scotland’s town and city centres at heart. Especially if it results in funding being cut for Business Improvement Districts, as warned in The Herald last week.
Creative solutions are needed to boost ailing town and city centres, not ill-judged, hastily-passed legislation that could have lasting effects on towns and communities.
In that regard, it has been interesting to hear the views of Ken Barclay, the man whose review of business rates prefaced the Bill which goes before MSPs today.
Mr Barclay, who said scrapping the UBR runs counter to the remit he was given when asked to come up with recommendations to modernise the system, suggested a wider review of local government finance would iron out the “unintended consequences” created by the proposed legislation.
At such a crucial time for business and the economy, it is to be hoped such a common-sense idea gets the attention it deserves.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel