Holiday home tax could DOUBLE in Green plan for Cairngorms National Park
A charge for buying a second home in national parks including the Cairngorms could double under plans to tackle a rural housing crisis.
Scottish Greens want Holyrood parties to back their bid to increase the 'additional dwelling supplement' on newly purchased properties as high as 16%.
They claim it would reduced the number of homes being used as holiday lets and help younger locals get onto the property ladder.
Cairngorms National Park estimates 12% of all houses within its boundaries are second homes.
This increases to more than 20% in the Badenoch, Strathspey and Deeside areas, covering tourist hotspots such as Aviemore and Braemar.
That's much higher than the national average – which sits around 1%.
The national park says this bottleneck results in 'unique pressures' across the region.
Green party MSP Ross Greer hopes the tax increase will be approved as part of the SNP's wide-ranging housing bill.
'Our national parks are iconic and beautiful places, but the families who actually live there are being pushed out by second home owners,' he told the Press and Journal.
'Young people in particular are too often forced to leave the communities they grew up in after being outbid by those wealthy enough to buy a second property.
'Too many properties are used as cash cows for short-term lets.'
The rule-change is likely to be discussed in Holyrood as part of the Scottish Government's package of reforms including rights for renters.
Cairngorms National Park says an abundance of second homes 'can bring significant benefits' but also 'add affordability pressures' for workers.
In February, we reported that Braemar locals fear the town's primary school could eventually shut if young families cannot live there.
Meanwhile, one tradesman in the Royal Deeside village wanted to build his own home because the area has become 'totally unaffordable'.
UK property site Rightmove reports Braemar homes sold on average for just over £396,000 in the past 12 month.
That represents a 22% increase since 2019.
Policies have already been put in place to target holiday homes in the national park.
Highland Council introduced short-term let controls in the Badenoch and Strathspey ward.
Extra planning permission is now needed before a homeowner can advertise their property as a holiday home.
The additional dwelling levy was already increased from 6% to 8% at the end of last year.
The Association of Self-Caterers believe the focus must be on building affordable homes instead of increasing taxes and regulation.
Association chief executive Fiona Campbell said: 'Raising false hopes about tackling homelessness by hitting Scotland's tourism sector is a cynical ploy which ignores the reality of Scotland's housing crisis.
'Policy should instead focus on real solutions: repurposing long-term empty homes across Scotland and accelerating the construction of genuinely affordable housing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
41 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it
Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... For those of us who have taken the trouble to engage with Reform UK's personnel and their activities – so we might understand their concerns, ambitions and the motives behind them – the performance of Britain's disruptor party at last Thursday's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election did not come as a surprise. Labour's victory was a shock because the SNP – and John Swinney in particular – had itself promoted the narrative of a Labour collapse as part of its campaigning tactics. To make this outcome appear especially credible the Labour Party itself had clearly switched into damage limitation mode by protecting its candidate from himself. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the end the vote delivered a tight three-way contest with only 1471 votes between the Labour, SNP and Reform candidates. With the Conservative candidate coming fourth with 1621 votes, never again should Rusell Findlay suggest voting Reform will result in an SNP victory. That sort of unjustified entitlement will be the death of Conservative or other pro-UK parties when Reform is clearly a serious contender. Let voters decide for themselves on the true merits of a candidate rather than be shepherded to vote against competitors. The prospect now lies ahead that the SNP may not form an administration after next year's Holyrood election and the possibility of genuine change might be possible. Accepting we have a proportional voting system at Holyrood I am not in favour of parties trying to build coalitions before they have been elected because it reduces choice for voters. Let the electorate decide which parties it wishes to reward for good reasons after which the elected representatives can take it from there. I am, however, in favour of parties giving serious consideration to policies that accentuate the common ground they might have with each other so that when attempting to build an administration, be it a full-blooded coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement, it is achieved in a positive and practical manner that makes good government possible. One of the issues that Scotland has to face up to is that it has its spending priorities all wrong. There are very serious faults with the quality and supply of many of our public services and the lack of funds finding their way to where they can make the most difference cannot be solved by taxing or borrowing more. Both of these possibilities are already stretched to the limit – so it requires changing the priorities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ideas about how this might be done are again up for debate thanks to the election of President Javier Milei of Argentina and President Trump gaining a second term after the Biden hiatus. Both have taken a radical approach of asking hard questions about the justification of spending and making sweeping changes that involve not just trimming budgets but closing down some operations that are now considered to be unnecessary or provide duplication. This has been characterised by Trump's creation of a Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short. Now in England, where Reform UK has gained control of five County Councils, local doge projects are being established. In Derbyshire decisions are being taken in quick order to start by example by closing down committees and removing generous sinecures that provide allowances and expenses to councillors. The amounts are initially relatively small but they signal an intent to the public that councillors feathering their nests by establishing talking shops and generating paperchases must end. This can only make the acceptance of rationalising departments and making superfluous posts redundant easier to deliver. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But a word of warning. Making changes at the margins is not going to be enough. Simply cutting back on the number of administrators is not the solution to bad resource allocation. What is required is to accept some functions are not the business of the state, be they delivered by unaccountable quangos and agencies, local councils or legislative governments. Abandoning functions that are not seen as vital necessities will be required. Scotland undoubtedly needs its own form of DOGE to go through the lush spending of the Scottish Parliament – all while the homeless are without shelter, drug-dependents are without rehab, classrooms are without teachers, pregnant women are without maternity wards and convicted criminals are released because we are without enough prisons. The place to begin is to take more seriously the insightful reports of the Auditor General who reveals with disturbing regularity the poor decisions that have been taken which cost us millions. When we add millions together we get closer to saving billions – all of which can be used to reduce Scotland's taxes to at least the same level as England's so we can encourage the enterprise that will create genuine sustainable prosperity. By stripping the SNP's unnecessary spending vital services can be protected and improved. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It also needs a huge change in attitude – and it must start at the top. We need a Scottish Government to always think about the public pound when committing to defend its policies through the courts. The fact that defending the Scottish Government case in the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes a woman should have run up a bill of £170,000 should be universally condemned. The legal costs that started with Nicola Sturgeon and passed through the hands of Humza Yousaf and John Swinney should be paid by them. It was, after all, an action designed to save their political reputations and against at least half of Scotland's people. Likewise, any spending on the whole panoply of independence and grievance mongering or political hobbyhorses should be open to challenge. The turnaround of the Argentinian economy has led the once-defaulting basket-case economy to higher GDP growth, falling inflation and improving and a declining poverty rate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland has a great deal to do to correct 18 years of SNP misrule all the more reason that being more realistic about what can be afforded must be as starting point.
Scotsman
41 minutes ago
- Scotsman
SNP ministers' stance on defence is incoherent - they need to either help or get out of the way
The SNP must get behind defence investment - or get out of the way, writes the GMB's Louise Gilmour. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It is not, as John Healey suggested, student union politics. It is a lot worse than that. Describing the refusal of SNP ministers to support a specialist welding school on the Clyde because the skills taught there will help build nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Navy, the UK defence secretary correctly suggested it is not the decision of a serious government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Vanguard-class submarine HMS Vigilant, one of the UK's four nuclear warhead-carrying submarines, at HM Naval Base Clyde | PA It is not serious and neither is it a matter of principle as Mairi Gougeon, the party's rural affairs minister, insisted as she tried to explain how her Cabinet colleagues understood the need for our armed forces, but could not, in good conscience, arm them. Even ignoring the millions of pounds of public money awarded to multinational arms companies by Scottish Enterprise, SNP ministers' insistence that someone should defend our country, just not them, is incoherent verging on the embarrassing. Student politicians had every right to be offended by Healey's comparison. The SNP policy, if that's what they like to call it, is an abdication of responsibility not just for the security of our country, but for its jobs, skills, prosperity and future. This is not just about defence, it is about industry, about manufacturing and engineering. It is about our country and its workers gaining the skills and expertise to build things. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ministers clambering onto the high ground and holding their nose while refusing the chance to help young working-class Scots thrive can tell each other they are being principled, but other words are available. Hypocritical, for example. Myopic, for another. Self-harming, for the set. The skills learned at the Rolls Royce welding school – and at other companies across the defence sector – will support young workers for the rest of their lives, get them good, well-paid jobs, allow them to buy cars and homes, build families, pay taxes and get on. Our defence companies invent, innovate and, literally, create the jobs of tomorrow. From computers and the internet to canned food and stainless steel, the list of technological advances pioneered by the military, but now underpinning our civilian life is endless. These young people might work in defence projects all their lives, whether making ships and planes or munitions and missiles, but their skills will be transportable and easily transferable to other jobs in other sectors. They could undoubtedly support the industrial strategy long-promised by Scottish ministers if they can stop clutching their pearls long enough to deliver one. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland is suffering a debilitating shortage of expertise across all skilled trades as employers struggle to fill vacancies, and creating a pipeline of talent, of industry-leading apprenticeships, must be a hardheaded priority, not some dreamy aspiration. The Fraser of Allander Institute last year detailed the surge in vacancies and a growing mismatch between applicants' skills and employer's requirements. It reported one in four Scots employers had vacancies, with 31 per cent of them being blamed on a skills shortage and trades being an area of particular concern. The problem stretches far beyond defence and is hobbling firms in all sectors, including manufacturing and engineering. Energy is only one example although our transition to renewables is still generating far more talk than jobs. The GMB is in Brighton this week for our annual congress when our reps in Scottish Gas will urge delegates to support calls for governments on both sides of the Border to do far more to deliver the promised transformation of our energy networks to protect existing jobs and create new ones. From making the underground cables needed to refit the National Grid to the wind turbines required offshore and on, an industrial strategy supported by a well-trained workforce will help secure the contracts currently going abroad along with the jobs. GMB Scotland secretary Louise Gilmour | Andrew Cawley Of course, the strategy should include new nuclear energy but, again, SNP ministers have a principle where their ambition should be. The party does not agree with nuclear weapons - although it claims an independent Scotland will join Nato, a nuclear alliance – and apparently also has a problem with nuclear-powered subs. So it is little surprise that John Swinney will not even talk about nuclear power or the kind of Small Modular Reactors being actively planned by dozens of countries around the world, including England. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Principles are no bad thing but, as John Maynard Keynes suggested, like opinions, they should change when the facts change and, from Washington to Moscow, the facts are transformed. We are living in a more uncertain world and, in the future, must better protect our country and our energy. For the SNP to continue opposing nuclear weapons while sheltering beneath them is questionable any time but, right now, seems wilful. So, too, is the apparent determination of both our governments to run down offshore industries and import more of the oil and gas needed for decades to come. Our new, more dangerous world comes with serious challenges, but also clear opportunities, including the chance to reboot Scotland's industrial landscape and create good jobs for our children and their children. That will need resource, but also a sea change in our schools where the overarching assumption that university or college is a better destination for young people than an apprenticeship is steering too many away from skilled trades and well paid work. The increase in defence spending announced by Keir Starmer on a visit to British Aerospace in Glasgow last week can drive growth in places that sorely need it, but only if every pound is spent smartly, stress-tested and charged with underpinning skilled trades, apprenticeships, and jobs. If, on a point of principle, the Scottish Government cannot help, it needs to get out of the way.
New Statesman
43 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Reform needs Zia Yusuf
After the turmoil created by the resignation of Zia Yusuf as chairman of Reform UK, and then his return 48 hours later in a new role, the risibly titled 'leader of the DOGE unit', Nigel Farage's anti-system party started the week determined to regain control. While Yusuf was interviewed in the coveted 8.10am slot on the BBC's Today programme on 9 June, Farage was in Wales. There he delivered a speech, fusing right and left populism, aimed at disaffected Labour voters. He took credit for Labour's U-turn on restoring the winter fuel allowance to most pensioners, accused Keir Starmer of being in a 'blind panic' about Reform (he had previously boasted that he was living rent free in the prime minister's head), said he would like to see the return of coal mines to Wales and pledged to reopen the Port Talbot steel blast furnaces. All in a morning's work. As the so-called Conservative and Unionist party withers in Scotland and Wales, Reform, dismissed as an English nationalist party, is supplanting it; without any significant infrastructure or organisation in Scotland, Reform improbably won 26 per cent of the vote in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election last week, which Labour took from the SNP. John Swinney, the SNP leader, had declared before the vote that Labour could not win. Don't follow his racing tips. Support for Labour has collapsed in Wales, and, according to the latest YouGov poll, Reform is second behind Plaid Cymru in the contest for next year's Senedd elections. The mood in the old industrial heartlands of Wales is no different from the red wall areas of England: one of mass disaffection. Starmer's advisers believe the next general election will be a straight contest between Labour and Reform and it's one they think they can win, not least because they expect progressives, as well as crypto Liberal Democrats, to fall into line when confronted by the prospect of a Farage premiership. That might turn out to be another progressive delusion. The greater challenge for Farage, as framed by Dominic Cummings, who caricatures Reform as being little more than 'Nigel Farage and an iPhone', is this: can the party attract elite talent? They were once antagonists, but Cummings is now one of the most astute analysts of Farageism. 'Does he want to find people to be chancellor etc who are better than the old parties?' Cummings wrote in a long Substack post, prefaced by the obligatory blizzard of quotations from Bismarck, Churchill, Nietzsche, Mao, Thucydides and James Marriott. 'Can he exploit the surging energy for new politics among the young, can he hoist a sail and let that force blow him along to greater victories over his enemies? Or does he blow the chance and let that energy be captured by others?' When I spent a day with Farage on the Essex coast last summer as he campaigned in the general election, he told me, as I wrote at the time, that he believed he had done more than any other politician to defeat the far right in Britain. 'If you think I'm bad enough, imagine what might come after me,' he said. 'But while I'm here that person will not emerge.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Farge is adept at simultaneously deflecting and attracting the nativist right, which is why his party is split. Rupert Lowe, a boorish Monday Club-style reactionary now sitting as an independent in the Commons having been banished from Reform, represented a hardline faction that is obsessed with Islam. That faction is closer, in spirit and intent, than Farage can tolerate to European far-right parties such as the Sweden Democrats and the Afd in Germany. I was reporting from a Reform rally in Quendon, near Saffron Walden, in Essex, in February, when Lowe demanded the deportation of rape gangs 'and members of their families'. He later posted on Facebook that he had been 'instructed by Farage's team, sanctioned by him, to remove a call to deport all complicit foreign national family members'. He claimed he was being censored. Shortly afterwards, he was out, having also clashed with Yusuf. Farage wants to position Reform as a mainstream centre-right alternative to the Conservatives, but he also wants 'to move the needle' on what counts as acceptable political discourse. Angela Jenkyns, the new Reform mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, said something similar when I asked her about her recent comments about putting asylum seekers in tents. 'I was talking about illegal migrants, not asylum seekers,' she told me while conceding that some of her statements were deliberately outrageous. 'You've misquoted me there. But it should be like in France, a contained area [of tents] – look at the stats, look at the people coming through. The majority are males, economic migrants.… It's about fairness for the British people. I'd never say that about asylum seekers. The tent thing was intended to be provocative to make the public realise that people have had enough. People should not be put up in hotels when British people are struggling to pay their taxes. I know I'm a glutton for my own punishment, but the thing is, I always know what I'm saying.' Sarah Pochin also knew what she was saying when she asked her question in the Commons about banning the burqa. Yusuf, who has endured repugnant racial abuse online, was correct to call the question 'dumb', on multiple levels. Why prioritise such an issue with your first question as an MP when it was not even party policy? The answer is that Pochin, who won the Runcorn and Helsby by-election, was cynically, opportunistically (choose the most appropriate adverb) 'laying down a marker' as one her allies put it to me. This is who she is and what she wants. In his BBC interview with Yusuf, who is a British Muslim of Sri Lankan heritage, Nick Robinson suggested that he provided 'cover' for Farage. The implication was that he was a useful idiot. That is one view. Another is that as a Goldman Sachs alumnus who earned as much as £30 million from the sale of a business, and has since demonstrated his competence by professionalising the party, Zia Yusuf has the kind of experience Reform must attract if is to become anything more than an anti-system protest movement. That was the real reason Farage was desperate not to lose him. [See more: Will Labour's winter fuel U-turn work?] Related
