The 10 most expensive coastal towns in Scotland for buying property, revealed
St Andrews has been confirmed as the most expensive place to buy coastal property in Scotland, according to a new report.
For a second year, St Andrews has been named the most expensive coastal town to buy property in Scotland. | Adobe Stock / Canva Pro / Getty Images
The Bank of Scotland Coastal Homes Review, which tracks house price movements in coastal locations around the UK, found that an average home in the historic Fife town will set buyers back £458,381 – up 8% in the past year.
It is the second year in a row that St Andrews has been named as Scotland's most expensive coastal town, followed by North Berwick and Dunbar.
In the last year, the housing market for coastal locations in Scotland was worth £1.9 billion; up 4% from the year prior. In addition, the report found that over the last five years prices in Scottish coastal towns were up 25%, outperforming the British average of 18%.
Isla Benzie, Head of Bank of Scotland Mortgages, said: 'Scotland's coastline offers something for everyone – from the historic streets of St Andrews to the island charm of Rothesay and Millport.
'While some of the most sought-after locations continue to command premium prices, there are still plenty of affordable options for buyers willing to look beyond the traditional hotspots.
'Coastal property prices in Scotland have risen over the past year, reflecting strong demand and the enduring appeal of seaside living. But it's also important to recognise the diversity of these communities – while some are thriving, others face real challenges linked to housing affordability, seasonal economies and access to services.'
Here are the 10 most expensive locations for a home by the sea in Scotland.
1 . St Andrews
The most expensive coastal town in Scotland is St Andrews, with an average property price of £458,381. Up 8% in the last year, the historic Fife is known as the home of golf. | Adobe Stock Photo Sales
2 . North Berwick
Recently also ranked as the best place to live in Scotland, North Berwick is also the country's second most expensive coastal town. Around 20 miles from Edinburgh, the average property price in the town is £419,723. | Adobe Stock Photo Sales
3 . Dunbar
In third is Dunbar, East Lothian. With cliffs and coastal trails, the town is around 30 miles from the Scottish-English border with an average property price of £292,073. | Adobe Stock Photo Sales
4 . Anstruther
Perhaps best known for its award-winning fish and chips, Anstruther in the East Neuk of Fife has seen the biggest increase in property price over the last five years with homes now costing an average of £267,367. | Adobe Stock Photo Sales
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
35 minutes ago
- Scotsman
The place in Scotland where 94 per cent of people travel by ScotRail
The train operator says even just talking about improvements boosts passenger numbers 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... I used to think most people in Scotland rarely travelled by train, wedded to the convenience of their cars despite decades of government attempts to persuade them otherwise. But while it is true that the overall proportion of all journeys by rail remains tiny - just 2 per cent compared to half by car - I was taken aback by its popularity in some areas of the country when I saw a ScotRail presentation on Friday. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As someone who travels to Glasgow a lot, it's good to see that the peak-time fares are to be abolished | Jane Barlow/PA It turns out that folk in East Renfrewshire are Scotland's most enthusiastic rail travellers, nearly one third of whom take a train at least once a week. Even more surprising to my mind is that only 6 per cent of people there never travel by train. That's about double the Scottish average for train use, and about two thirds less than the no rail travel rate, of 17 and 16 per cent respectively. By contrast, in areas with fewer stations and less frequent trains, the picture is very different, with just one in 50 Perth and Kinross residents taking the train at least once a week while nearly one third never do. As ScotRail's strategy and planning director Scott Prentice, who presented the figures to the Scottish Association for Public Transport's annual meeting in Glasgow, observed: 'There's a myth out there we need to convert people to use rail. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'No, we don't - they're using us, they're just not using us often enough. So it's about frequency of use - that's how we grow our business.' Mr Prentice pointed to some of the fastest growing areas, including Fife, where he said reliability improvements and the reopening of the Levenmouth line had helped increase passenger numbers by more than half to 3.5 million over the last year. Numbers travelling on the Glasgow to Ayr, Ardrossan and Largs lines were up by one third to 7.1 million, assisted by some 135,000 travelling to the Open golf in Troon last July In fact, Mr Prentice said ScotRail only had to start talking about improvements for patronage to increase, which he said had 'put rail at the front of people's minds'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As for the fastest growing stations, some have soared past pre-pandemic highs, even if ScotRail overall has still to achieve that. These include Kennishead, on the south side of Glasgow, whose numbers were up one third on a decade ago to 90,000 even before its total more than doubled again in 2024-25 to 185,000. That's been put down to passengers temporarily switching from the nearby East Kilbride line during its closure for electrification, as well as new housing. The fastest growing was on another adjacent line, at Williamwood in East Renfrewshire, where passengers more than doubled for the same reasons to top 400,000 last year, although they were previously below pre-Covid levels. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Other rising stars are on the secondary Edinburgh-Glasgow route via Shotts, thanks to new and more frequent trains, with Curriehill handling nearly 200,000 passengers in 2024-25 - more than three times as many as ten years ago. Livingston South and Kirknewton on the line also saw big growth. But all that doesn't get away from the fact the network is hugely expensive to run, requiring £800 million a year of government funding.
New Statesman
38 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Things will only get incrementally better for Keir Starmer
Photo by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street Britain's political doom loop remains unbroken – perhaps one of the last things about us that is. A country whose economy has been too weak and growing too slowly to give people the living standards and services they believe they deserve, that chews up and spits out wildly different forms of leadership, year after year after year. Now it's Keir Starmer's turn. YouGov reports that the proportion of voters with an unfavourable opinion of the Labour leader has risen to 69 per cent, giving him a net favourability rating of minus 46 – his worst so far. The good news is twofold: he still has four years left, and when it comes to unpopular British leaders, it's 'join the club'. But that is about it. With a tough Spending Review on 11 June, and Labour MPs in mutinous mood about benefits cuts, gleeful speculation has already begun about how long Starmer will last, and about where the putsch is coming from. Let's deal with that later, but start by asking: even during days dominated by the hugely important defence spending review, what is the biggest issue for Downing Street? It is, simply, an electorate that feels skint. One key Starmer adviser tells me he thinks the very phrase 'cost-of-living crisis', popularised with the spike in energy prices after the invasion of Ukraine, grossly undersells the problem: 'This is a profound living-standards crisis.' He goes on to sketch a married couple in their fifties living in the suburbs. Their standard of living – the holidays they can take, the car they drive, the restaurants they can afford to eat at – is lower than it was 15 years ago, when annual pay rises came regularly, loans were cheap, the high street still worked, and technology was getting cheaper. Looking back, they are angry. Looking forward, they keep pulling the political levers to get change – Cameron, Brexit, Johnson, Labour – and nothing happens. The causes are well known, from the financial crash to spiking energy costs, Vladimir Putin's war, and decades of underinvestment. But voter rage, based on daily experience, doesn't blow away. It leads, next, to Reform with its fantasy economics and further in-built disappointment. The only Labour answer, so it follows, is to invest, to bring good jobs and grow the economy. Increased defence spending helps. But refiring the growth engine is not something that any government can do in a single year. So, cost of living is what dominates Downing Street strategy to the exclusion of all else. Until recently, that wasn't clearly so: Keir Starmer was the (successful) Prime Minister for Abroad. If there was a prime minister for the home department, it was Rachel Reeves. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe At the heart of government, perhaps the most significant shift has been a greater focus by the Prime Minister on domestic spending and economic decisions, following a series of bilateral meetings with Reeves in May. He is becoming steadily more assertive with those around him. When Liz Lloyd, the Blair-era policy chief, for instance, tried to get rid of Stuart Ingham, Starmer's veteran policy adviser, she was rebuffed. It is Starmer who has driven a rethink on the two-child cap and a bigger autumn announcement on child poverty, and who buried the winter fuel allowance error so publicly himself. To put it crudely, Starmer's greater engagement has seen a slight tilt leftwards in different policy areas. The more involved he has been, the more backing Bridget Phillipson has received on her academy reforms. Similarly, he has been pushing back against the cancellation of net zero as a political distraction: see the use of 12,000 predicted new green energy jobs planned for Lincolnshire as a way of combating Reform. This has immediate policy results. Soon we should see an intermediate package of extra help for families in poverty – more money for the household support fund, perhaps, and for breakfast clubs and school meals. That is not enough to make up for the two-child benefit cap, likely to be abolished when the poverty strategy is announced this autumn. But it is a direction-of-travel signal. In the Spending Review, we should expect the announcement of the commercial competition to build Britain's new, small modular reactors to be followed by some serious funding, including for the Acorn carbon capture project in Aberdeenshire, vital for Scottish Labour MPs stung by Reform's rise there. The way ahead begins with those policy reversals over winter fuel and the child benefit cap, then moves towards big infrastructure announcements across the north and Midlands of England. Summer will be difficult, but ministers believe the headroom exists to make the autumn feel a little easier. Though cabinet members tell me the Spending Review will be 'tough, not terrible', none of the above cancels the brutal spending squeeze on non-priority departments, including, crucially, local government and housing. The Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, is, by all accounts, having a horrible time. Angela Rayner is still fighting – one of her allies reminds me: 'Never forget, Angela is a trade union negotiator.' Downing Street is open to suggestions for ways to raise more money. Rayner's leaked tax memo had useful suggestions but would only have raised a few billion a year. The New Statesman has discussed ways of expanding National Insurance, a gambling or banking tax, and the case for a major rating revaluation – economically strong, politically dangerous. In cabinet, some want tax rises to focus minds towards 'on your side, not their side' politics. That leads, inexorably, to sensitive discussions about wealth. Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, free to speak openly at a recent conference held by the think tank Compass, urged Reeves to 'deliver a proper wealth tax. When the wealthy don't pay their fair share, everyone else picks up the tab.' Such a tax, she argued, would reward work, close loopholes and give Labour the means to invest: 'We must acknowledge that our tax system is perverse. It punishes earned income but barely touches the real driver of inequality – wealth.' There is a fight ahead on tax and spend, as in a Labour government there should be. But it is practical, not ideological. As one senior figure puts it: 'This isn't Healey and Benn.' Crucially, there is no sign of a serious challenger to Starmer from inside the government. Ed Miliband to his left, has a deep personal loyalty. Rayner, hugely popular inside the Labour family, would struggle to reach voters outside it. Wes Streeting, for all his energy and eloquence, doesn't have the union or constituency support to take colleagues in a Blairite direction. Only Andy Burnham, a mayor not a cabinet minister, has made serious public criticisms of the government, speaking at the same conference as Haigh. And there is underlying agreement. After the local elections hammering, ministers and advisers from very different Labour factions say that living standards are their key test. 'This is becoming a more lively cabinet, but it is a pretty loyal cabinet,' one member says, adding: 'We have time, but it is a long, slow haul and we have to own our past policy mistakes.' It is also, of course, a cabinet of politicians who watched the Tories destroy themselves in successive leadership fights which offered easy answers to deep problems. It's a cabinet able to make its own mistakes, no doubt, but unlikely to make that one. Now that Starmer has at least a brief break from the pressure of overseas crises, some of the incoherence that his government has suffered from should begin to clear. Anger in the country will not abate quickly and will probably get much worse during 2025. But it won't be answered, this time, by major factional feuding, a putsch or a deep division in the cabinet. [See also: Rachel Reeves should fear the bond market vigilantes] Related
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Here is the real reason River City is being axed by BBC bosses
The letter's subject was BBC Scotland cancelling River City, an act I had previously described as cultural vandalism. My correspondent had a cooler disposition and a better way with words. Summing up how the soap had been brought low in recent years, she wrote: 'Its viewing figures were adversely affected by stop/start production runs, erratic scheduling and a general lack of promotion.' Spot on. And then came this: 'I began watching River City out of loyalty to my city, but came to the view that it makes an important contribution to the culture of central Scotland.' BBC Scotland HQ at Pacific Quay Watching out of loyalty to my city. How wonderful, how generous, how Scottish is that? Of the thousands of words written and spoken about River City, all the BBC statements, the petition to save the show, the debate in the Scottish Parliament, not one sentence hits home as hard as that contribution. Watching out of loyalty to my city. There writes someone who 'gets' what River City means, and why it is not just another programme that can be binned by BBC Scotland because its face no longer fits. But what do you know, no one is listening. Not to my correspondent, not to those who have signed the petition, not to MSPs, or ministers. It seems the main arguments in favour of keeping River City - that it provides jobs and training for working-class Scots who might otherwise never get a start in TV, as well as being a pretty decent drama beloved by its audience - are not enough for BBC Scotland to change its mind. We know this because the executive who made the decision appeared before Holyrood's culture committee at the end of May and said so. Hayley Valentine, director of BBC Scotland, told MSPs that River City, with its 200,000 viewers in Scotland compared to Shetland's 700,000 'did not pass the value for money test'. But the money saved by axing River City would help to fund three new short-run dramas, she confirmed. Though these will 'absolutely cost more to make', the BBC would 'expect' them to deliver much bigger audiences than River City and 'really hope' they will. Expectations and hope. In other words, BBC Scotland is taking a punt. Making all those people redundant on a gamble. Having said that axing River City was a creative decision, it really does come down to money. As for River City being a way into TV, Ms Valentine said opportunities would still be offered across a wide range of other programmes. So that's okay then. Nothing more to see here, folks. Except it is not okay. It is very far from okay. Cancelling River City has always been about more than the end of one programme. It's about BBC Scotland fighting Scotland's corner within the corporation, and making sure the BBC represents and is reflective of all those who pay for it. Read more On the former, was London asked for more money to fund the short-run dramas? Was there ever a chance of building on the UK-wide iPlayer audience for River City by running a promotion campaign? Where are the figures showing potential job and training opportunities lost versus those created? Was there any analysis or was this simply a case of executives thinking they knew best? I understand BBC Scotland's ambition. It wants another Baby Reindeer. It wants the next Adolescence. But it doesn't have the money of a Netflix or an Apple+, which makes it all the more important to ensure that it is making decisions for the right reasons. When it comes to River City, I'm not sure it is. Just as to govern is to choose, running the BBC is all about choice. Who is out and who is in, who gets the money and who doesn't. BBC Scotland decided, ultimately, that River City was expendable. It has made the arguments about viewing figures and opportunities offered elsewhere, but I think there is another factor at work here. For my money - £174.50 licence fee - River City was vulnerable because it was a Scottish working-class soap made by working-class casts and crews. No one thought there would be the backlash there has been. It wasn't like cancelling Question Time with its well-connected panellists and audiences (now there's an idea). The class ceiling exists in the media in general - heck, in society as a whole. It's not just BBC Scotland. Indeed, BBC Scotland has done more than most to widen access and should be commended for it. Now and then, a youngster will appear who doesn't sound like your typical BBC sort. They thrive on the attention and encouragement, but then at some point they hit that class ceiling. They don't get invited into the room where it happens, so they can't shape the corporation's future, and the story of inequality rumbles on. Representation matters. As the old saying goes, if you can see it, you can be it. For many working-class Scots, River City was 'their' soap, and therefore 'their' way into TV. Doors opened that had too often been closed, and if it could happen for the guy down the road, it could happen for you. You cannot put a price on that kind of positive PR. The same goes for viewer loyalty. Fans of River City have had their patience tested to a degree that would not have happened with any other show. Yet they've kept faith with the programme. Even now, they trust executives will repay that faith and cancel the cancellation, but will they? Back to you, BBC Scotland. Alison Rowat is a senior politics and features writer on The Herald. Contact
