Pubs in Scotland missing out on rates relief available in England as more landlords call last orders
More than 50 pubs in Scotland shut their doors for good last year as landlords battle with soaring costs and regulars spending less.
More than 2,000 pubs in Scotland are still missing out on rates relief available to bars in England as the hospitality sector continues to struggle.
Ian Murray, the Scottish Secretary, today challenged the SNP Government to do more to support the country's licensed trade after more than 50 watering holes shut their doors for good last year.
In England, pubs benefit from 40 per cent rates relief from the UK Government – but in Scotland rates relief is only extended to bars with a rateable value of £51,000 and under.
Trade body UK Hospitality estimates the difference means around 2,500 hospitality venues in Scotland are losing out, with a higher rates bill of £12,000 for a typical local boozer.
Murray, who ran pubs in Edinburgh before entering politics, spoke out on the issue while visiting Carrigan's Bar in Hamilton ahead of a Holyrood election in the local constituency next week.
"I used to run pubs and restaurants and the local is at the heart of so many communities," he told the Record. "That's why I was delighted to see the UK government give pubs a helping hand with 40 per cent rates relief.
"But that rate relief didn't reach every pub north of the border, the SNP decided to cap it and industry analysis believes as many as 2,500 pubs, bars and restaurants are losing out.
"That's despite Labour handing the SNP the biggest budget settlement in the history of the Scottish Parliament, with a £50 billion settlement this year.
'Davy Russell is a local champion who will back local businesses – a vote for him is a vote to call last orders on the SNP."
CAMRA, which campaigns in support of traditional pubs and ale, has called for the SNP Government to review the business rates system.
It comes at a time landlords face soaring energy costs while regulars have less to spend due to the cost of living crisis.
Stuart McMahon, CAMRA Scotland director, said: "In order to make sure our pubs survive and thrive at the heart of our communities, ministers must now commit to reforming the entire business rates system to make it fairer.
"The Scottish Government should level the playing field between online and bricks-and-mortar businesses and finally end the shocking overpayment that pubs have to cough up under the current system."
Labour candidate Russell, whose campaign is being backed by well-known Hamilton landlord John Carrigan, said: "Our high streets and communities are at risk of being laid low by an SNP Government that doesn't understand business or want it to flourish.
"Between voting against £8 million for Hamilton town centre and refusing to pass on rates reliefs for pubs and restaurants they have hollowed out our communities.
"I'm not a career politician and I've never stood for election before - I'm local and have served our community for 45 years, and I'm standing in this by-election because I am fed up with the SNP leaving our community behind.'
The Record asked the Scottish Government for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Strikes by airport workers could disrupt summer holidaymakers, union warns
Holidaymakers have been warned of the potential for strike action at Glasgow Airport over the summer as more than 800 workers from five companies are involved in pay disputes. Unite the union said workers at Glasgow Airport Ltd, ICTS Central Search, Swissport, Menzies Aviation and Falck could be balloted for walkouts. The union said on Saturday that if there is no successful resolution to the disputes in the coming days, it will move towards holding votes on industrial action within two weeks. It warned strikes could 'ground planes and passengers'. Pat McIlvogue, Unite industrial officer, said walkouts could be held from the middle of July. More than 100 Swissport workers are locked in a dispute about rotas and work-life balance, according to Unite. It said the company 'is demanding that workers at extreme short notice have to work shifts at various times and for various durations, which is directly impacting on their personal lives'. Unite said some Swissport staff are 'struggling with chronic fatigue'. A further 250 ICTS Central Search workers, who deal with passengers directly in the security search area and process them for flights, are currently involved in a dispute over under-staffing, working conditions and pay. A total of 120 workers employed by Glasgow Airport Limited have rejected a basic 3.6% pay increase, with staff including airport ambassadors, airside support officers, engineers and managers involved. The same 3.6% pay increase was rejected by 50 Falck firefighters who perform fire safety functions at the airport. Meanwhile 300 Menzies Aviation workers, including dispatchers, allocators, airside agents and controllers, have rejected a basic uplift worth around 4.25%. The union recently announced a series of what it said were wage wins for 100 North Air workers across Scottish airports, and more than 140 staff based at Glasgow Airport employed by ABM and OCS. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: 'Hundreds of workers at Glasgow Airport are heading towards summer strike action which would ground planes and passengers. 'The companies involved are all highly profitable and can easily afford to give our members better pay and working conditions. 'The truth is that they are denying fair pay increases to cynically boost their profits.' Mr McIlvogue said: 'Unite is in dispute with companies at Glasgow Airport which could ultimately bring hundreds of workers out on strike. 'The companies can resolve these disputes with Unite before that situation happens by addressing the legitimate concerns and pay aspirations of our members. 'If the companies refuse to work with Unite to resolve these disputes, then we will have no option but to open strike ballots. This could mean strike action happening from the middle of July.' A spokesperson for Swissport said: 'We are in dialogue with Unite – the talks so far have been constructive and we remain focused on working together to address the issues being raised.'
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash' existing housebuilding model
Labour's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government's flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. Mr Hinchliff has proposed arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from 'pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage'. Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. The North East Hertfordshire MP said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election – 'growth' – he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need – the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties – they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. The developer-led housing model is broken. It has failed to deliver affordable homes. Torching environmental safeguards won't fix it—the bottleneck isn't just process, it's profit. We need a progressive alternative: mass council house building in sustainable communities. — Chris Hinchliff MP (@CHinchliffMP) June 6, 2025 Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government's plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' – a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. 'These amendments should be withdrawn.'
