Official Report 1060KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20295, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on stopping the Scottish Government’s business tax increases.
15:59
Today, businesses across Scotland face an existential threat, with dramatic increases in rateable values as a result of the recent revaluation. The Scottish Conservatives are taking the issue to the chamber today due to its urgency and the very serious concerns that so many businesses have raised directly with us. This is an issue on which the Scottish Government must act urgently, before we see a whole slew of business failures.
The latest blow comes against a backdrop of difficult trading conditions for businesses across Scotland. The cost burden has risen dramatically due to a combination of inflation, increases in energy prices and wage pressures. Labour’s tax on jobs—the increase in employer national insurance contributions—could not have come at a worse time.
The pressures are particularly acute in sectors such as hospitality and retail. In the area that I represent, across Perthshire and Fife, I can visit communities where once-thriving local hotels and pubs now lie empty and boarded up or have “For Sale” or “To Let” signs attached. Some of those businesses have been on the market for years without any significant interest. Some hoteliers tell me that they would bite the hand off anyone who came along with a serious offer to purchase.
The situation is not helped by the prospect of a visitor levy that adds further to the cost base. Those businesses that operate in the provision of self-catering accommodation for visitors are still dealing with the impact of short-term let licensing, with all the additional costs that that brought in. The latest blow is the non-domestic rates revaluation, with an average rise in rateable values of 123 per cent. Some businesses in the hospitality sector are facing rises that approach 400 per cent—a sum that is totally unrealistic.
I am sure that all members in the chamber can quote examples of such rises from local businesses that have contacted them. To give just a few examples from my own mailbag, there is one owner of a self-catering premises in Fife for which the rateable value is increasing from £4,850 to £16,000—nearly quadrupling in total. There is a holiday lodge park in Perthshire that has seen an increase from £12,000 to £26,200; for another, the amount has nearly doubled, from £21,400 to £49,500.
Rental valuations in the Borders are really worrying for local businesses. Does Murdo Fraser agree that the methodology for those valuations is completely wrong because it is based on the analysis of rents only? That data is so narrow that it is causing an increase of, on average, 150 per cent across the board, which is totally wrong.
I absolutely agree with the point that Rachael Hamilton makes. There are serious issues with the valuation methodology, which relies on a small and questionable rental data set.
On that point, is Mr Fraser aware that the counterpart in England to the assessor is the Valuation Office Agency, and that the VOA has said that the method adopted by the Scottish assessors is not suitable for self-catering properties because they
“are usually owned, rather than rented”.
Does Mr Fraser understand why the assessors have ignored the approach of their counterparts in England in a way that is plainly wrong?
Mr Fraser, I can give you some of that time back.
I am grateful to Mr Ewing for that intervention. It is a mystery why that should be the case about the assessors; perhaps, when he responds to the debate, the minister can provide some clarity.
The practical impact of those increases is that many businesses will struggle to survive. There are many that currently benefit from the small business bonus relief and, therefore, pay nothing. As a result of the increases, they will cross the threshold and face substantial bills for the first time.
I know that the assessors operate independently of the Government and carry out their work free from ministerial direction. However, it is the Scottish Government that sets the rules, guidance and protections, and, therefore, there is a role for the Scottish Government to intervene where there are such dramatic and draconian impacts from a revaluation.
A range of business organisations have spoken out about the threat to small businesses in the hospitality and self-catering sectors. The Federation of Small Businesses, UKHospitality Scotland, the Scottish Hospitality Group and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers—to name but a few—have called for Government intervention and action. Today, we are backing those calls.
What we need from the Scottish Government is an immediate pause on implementation of the 2026 revaluation, to allow time for a review of the methodology, which is clearly not fit for purpose. That would give businesses a much-needed reprieve before any draft values are set in stone.
The bureaucracy needs to be looked at. I was contacted by one business in Lanarkshire with three sites, which has had 790 separate entries in the roll—that is 790 separate returns and 790 separate bills. That is a huge administrative burden for a business, and it shows that the system is broken.
We need meaningful transitional protections to be provided against any excessive bill increases; we need the Scottish Government, in its budget next week, to set a rate poundage that reflects the impact of the rateable value increases; and we need clarity on the future of the small business bonus scheme to ensure that the smallest businesses do not suffer the most.
I have set out the pressing and urgent issues that will affect businesses as a result of revaluation, but there are also broader issues in relation to non-domestic rates that the Government needs to address. In the past two years, retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England have benefited from reductions in their rates bills that have not been reflected here in Scotland, even though the Scottish Government has had Barnett consequentials that would have allowed it to reflect those reductions. Since 2022-23, the Scottish Government has failed to pass on at least £700 million in business rates relief that has been received through the block grant.
Going forward, those same businesses in England are looking at a permanent 10 per cent reduction in their rates bills, but there are currently no proposals from the SNP Government to do something similar, and that needs to be addressed.
The businesses that I am talking about are at the heart of our communities, not least in rural areas. Many of them will simply be unable to survive the dramatic increases in rates bills that are coming their way. That is why the issue requires the urgent attention of the Scottish ministers. That is the point that is made in our motion, which I commend to the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that businesses across Scotland are facing an acute and worsening cost crisis, driven by inflation, energy prices, wage pressures, supply chain disruption and weak economic growth; notes with serious concern the scale of proposed increases in rateable values arising from the 2026 non-domestic rates revaluation, particularly in the hospitality and self-catering sectors; believes that sharp and unaffordable increases in non-domestic rates now pose an existential threat to business viability, employment, investment and local economic resilience in many parts of Scotland; notes the growing divergence between Scotland’s non-domestic rates regime and those operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and the competitive disadvantage that this risks creating for Scottish firms; understands that, since 2022-23, the Scottish Government has failed to pass on at least £700 million in business rates relief received through the block grant; calls on the Scottish Government to act urgently to provide certainty and stability by pausing the implementation of the 2026 revaluation, introducing meaningful transitional protections against excessive bill increases, and matching reductions in bills for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors in England, and affirms that a strong and thriving business base is essential to Scotland’s economic recovery, public finances and communities, and that the tax system should support growth rather than accelerate decline.
16:07
I am pleased to open the debate for the Government. It is a hugely important topic, on which we have had extensive discussions with businesses, not just recently but over a sustained period of time. It is very important that the Government engages with businesses across a range of sectors to understand their perspective on the issue.
The 2025 Scottish budget maintained a competitive non-domestic rates regime, which has meant that Scotland has had the lowest basic property rate in the United Kingdom for the seventh year in a row, and it provided a package of reliefs to support businesses and communities that, this year, are estimated to be worth £730 million. That includes the small business bonus scheme, which is the most generous scheme of its kind anywhere in the UK. As of June 2025, that scheme had awarded relief to 116,000 properties, reducing their non-domestic rates bills by more than £247 million.
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
Has the Scottish Government done any analysis of the number of businesses that will be tipped over the small business rate threshold, with the result that the Government will not have that flag to fly any longer?
That will depend on the decisions that are taken with regard to the Scottish budget for next year.
We do extensive analysis of the impact of the policies that we take forward. We have estimated that, taken together, around half of the properties in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors continue to be eligible for 100 per cent small business bonus scheme relief in 2025-26. In recognition of the challenges that are faced by the hospitality sector, we have offered specific relief for eligible properties in that sector in 2025-26. We also have the most generous relief package for the energy-generating sector in the UK. Among the unique reliefs that are available only in Scotland are the business growth accelerator, fresh start and day nursery reliefs, which are targeted at specific aspects of the Scottish economy.
We recognise that thriving businesses are key to growing the economy, and we engage and communicate regularly with businesses, business representatives and trade organisations on a wide range of issues, including regulation, investment and non-domestic rates.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will I get the time back, Presiding Officer?
I can give you some time back.
I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention. If those increases go ahead, even if they are ameliorated with a modest level of relief, thousands of businesses—perhaps tens of thousands—will close. Has the minister had any assessment from officials of whether the overall revenue would reduce because of the total loss of revenue from tens of thousands of businesses that simply would not be able to continue trading?
The Scottish Government does extensive analysis of the impact of all our fiscal policies.
The point about engagement with businesses is hugely important. Our engagement includes the non-domestic rates consultative group, which I chair and which met immediately following the UK budget. The group continues to explore how the non-domestic rates system can best support business growth, investment and competitiveness while acknowledging the important role that income from non-domestic rates plays in funding public services.
Local authorities ultimately retain all their non-domestic—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will if I have time.
I can give you some time back, but not all of it.
We are three minutes and 46 seconds into his speech and the minister has not addressed a single one of the concerns that were raised by Murdo Fraser. Is he going to talk about the concerns that businesses have, or is his speech going to be one long liturgy of self-congratulation?
I cannot do right for doing wrong. I have taken three interventions in order to have a proper debate, and I am making progress through my remarks. If members would listen to what I have to say, they might hear the answers to those points.
Local authorities ultimately retain all the non-domestic rates revenue that they raise to help fund the local services that they provide, and the non-domestic rates income is forecast to raise more than £3 billion this year.
The principle of devolution allows the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to take budgetary decisions to meet Scottish priorities.
Still no answer.
This is an important point—listen and learn something. Decisions on non-domestic rates policy for 2026-27, including rates and reliefs, are considered in the context of prevailing economic conditions and other Government priorities, as well as affordability. As members well know, those decisions will be set out in the budget on 13 January 2026, so I urge them to contain their excitement until next week, when they will understand the Scottish Government’s position and the policies that we are undertaking following our engagement with businesses to address the concerns that have been raised.
I am aware of the concerns regarding increases in rateable values following the publication of the draft valuation roll on 30 November. The final valuation roll for the 2026 revaluation will come into effect on 1 April, based on a tone date of 1 April 2025. The shorter one-year tone date responds to a recommendation of the independent Barclay review of NDR to ensure that rateable values better reflect property market conditions.
The valuation of all domestic properties is a matter for the Scottish assessors, who, as has already been identified, are independent of central and local government. Their independence in carrying out valuation judgments is critical to the credibility of the system. Evidence-based representations to the assessors on draft rateable values can be made—and are being made by many NDR payers—before the roll is finalised in March. I met the assessors before the Christmas recess to talk through that process.
Economic growth is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s agenda, and we will continue to take that approach. That is why the economic growth numbers, which were ignored by the Conservatives, show that Scotland has been growing faster than the rest of the UK during recent months.
We continue to make the right decisions to support businesses in Scotland. The Scottish Government has a strong track record of delivering a generous non-domestic rates package. Decisions on non-domestic rates policy will be set out in next week’s budget.
I move amendment S6M-20295.1, to leave out from “are facing” to end and insert:
“have seen increased costs in recent years due to rampant inflation and increased energy costs; notes the reliefs and support that are currently in place on non-domestic rates, and recognises that policy decisions by the Scottish Government on these matters will be set out in the Budget on 13 January 2026.”
16:13
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
What we have just heard from the minister is quite extraordinary. It is extraordinary because the Conservatives have, quite rightly, brought to the chamber an issue that is of huge importance and great concern to many businesses right across the country and in every member’s constituency and region.
In the weeks and months leading up to Christmas, many businesses in hospitality, retail and other areas were hit with a bombshell—an increase in rateable value of between 100 and 400 per cent—
Will the member take an intervention?
Before I do so, let me finish my point.
That increase will have come as a devastating blow. I know that it is devastating because, more than 10 years ago, I faced exactly the same situation, when my rateable value went up, inexplicably, by 300 per cent. I had to face that down through the appeals process, at a cost of thousands of pounds, despite the fact that, based on the documentation that was provided by the assessor, I could see that the way that my rateable value had been arrived at was entirely synthetic. Businesses that neighboured mine saw no similar increases. The ultimate reason for the assessor putting up our rateable value was that a stairway had been blocked up, changing the entrance to that business. That stairway had been blocked up in 1972, but that revaluation took place in 2010.
That is the system that we are facing. The fact that the minister referenced the revaluation only in passing, and that he noted the concerns, is, frankly, a slap in the face to many of the businesses that are facing an increase as well.
I am happy to give way now, if the minister wishes to address that point.
Minister, please be brief.
I know that the policy of the UK Labour Government is to leak everything in its budget in advance, then publish the full budget online before the speech has even been delivered. [Interruption.] However, in the Scottish Parliament, we do things differently. [Interruption.] As a Government, we are absolutely not going to release details of—
Minister, could you resume your seat for a second?
I can allow a little latitude ofr reactions to what is being said. I will not, however, tolerate the shouting down of the person who has the microphone. Minister, please be brief. Mr Johnson, I can give you the time back.
We do things differently in this Parliament—of course, with due respect to processes, procedures and the Presiding Officer.
I do not know whether Daniel Johnson is suggesting that, in advance of our budget next week, I should be giving details of what will be in that budget on the policy of NDR. That would be a ridiculous suggestion from someone who is supposed to be a front-bench spokesman for the Labour Party.
Not only has the minister exposed this afternoon the fact that he does not understand how the fiscal framework works, he is now exposing the fact that he does not understand how non-domestic rates work. Either the assessors are independent—and the valuations are arrived at independently—in which case, he can, absolutely, make observations about the scale of the impact, say what analysis has taken place and tell Rachael Hamilton the calculation of the number of small businesses that will be taken out of the small business bonus scheme—or they are not. This Is a nonsense.
Acknowledging the concern or the potential impact has nothing to do with the budget—absolutely, I would not expect those details to be released. The minister cannot seriously stand up and say that he can make no further comment other than to acknowledge the concerns. That is a nonsense.
It is true that Scotland has had the least generous business rate support in the UK. A licensed premises in Scotland with an RV of £35,000, entering the new year, faces a loss to the tune of £33,000 in support that it would have received if it were in England. Likewise, a premises with a rateable value of £75,000 would have received £80,000, cumulatively.
However, it is not just about those individual impacts. Sectorally, it is a form of taxation that is unfair. Retail and hospitality share a burden of 22 per cent of the total rates bill, despite the fact that their economic contribution is just 10 per cent. Hospitality has an 8 per cent share of the rates bill, despite the fact that its overall contribution to the economy is just 4 per cent. That tax is unfair not just with regard to the most recent valuation; it is fundamentally irrational and does not land fairly with businesses.
We often quote the Adam Smith principles of equity, certainty, convenience and economy. Fundamentally, equity means that taxation should be based on the revenue that is raised. It strikes me that, given the contrast in the shares that are contributed by each sector despite their economic contribution, that tax is unfair and overdue for reform. It is exactly that reform—ensuring that sectors pay their fair share—that Labour is committed to introducing when we form the next Government, after May.
I move amendment S6M-20295.2, to insert at end:
“; believes that the current business rates system is not fit for purpose, and calls on the Scottish Government to create a new system that levels the playing field between the high street and online giants, better incentivises investment, tackles empty properties and supports entrepreneurship.”
16:19
The Scottish Greens have no shortage of proposals for how our non-domestic rates system could be changed. Right now, we are not using the rates system as well as we could to achieve our social and economic aims. As Greens, we have fundamental disagreements with the Tories’ position as set out in their motion, but we hope to get some consensus and agreement that our rates system can and should be made fairer.
Regular revaluation is a feature of the system, not a bug. We have designed a system of proportional taxation, with rates payers paying rates based on the value of their premises. Therefore, accurate valuation is a key part of that system. We need only look at our council tax system to see the distortions that are caused by the failure to undertake revaluations and having people pay taxes based on inaccurate valuations.
Revaluation simply reflects increases in the rateable values of the properties. It is a sound principle that, as the relative wealth of a business is raised through the effect of inflation on property values, so, too, is its contribution.
The current system disproportionately benefits the owners of premises as opposed to the tenants of premises. That is why we, in the Scottish Greens, support a consolidated system of land value taxation. Land is an incredibly valuable asset and a source of wealth, yet it is not taxed fairly.
Let us take a step back and look at the big picture of the economy as it affects small businesses. Rents, rates and property values are going up, but spending and business output are not. If a small business is not bringing in enough money through the tills to pay the bills, that is much more to do with the economic disaster of Tory Governments and the reduction in disposable incomes, which means that people are simply spending less. That is why many small businesses, especially in retail and hospitality, are struggling. If a business owner is spending all their money on expensive rent, they are not going to the shops or pubs very often. That is the reality.
The Tories’ motion seems confused. They are simultaneously asking for a pause on revaluation implementation and for the implementation of transitional reliefs. We have a system of transitional reliefs for revaluations. Would they be satisfied by the implementation of a revaluation that was paired with transitional reliefs? The whole point of the transitional reliefs for revaluations is clear: it is to stop that cliff edge from happening for anybody who may struggle to adapt quickly to their changed expenses. Why, then, do we pay transitional relief to those who have no issue with transitioning?
Under the current regime of transitional reliefs, we are giving public money to big businesses that have no issue with paying the higher rates. It makes no sense for us to be giving tax breaks to multinational companies with millions in turnover. That is money that could be better targeted towards genuine small businesses, especially in retail and hospitality, that are struggling to stay afloat. Surely there can be cross-party consensus on that.
Greens advocate for a fairer rates system. The current system uses sledgehammers to crack nuts, and some of the best, most worthy and most socially beneficial businesses miss out as a result. Our small business rates relief scheme goes to businesses that are anything but small, because we use a totally unfit definition of small. A fairer system, in which big businesses pay more and do so according to their ability to pay, would allow us to target rates relief at those who are most deserving.
I advise members that we have exhausted all the time that we had in hand, so they will have to stick to their speaking time allocations.
I call Jamie Greene, who has up to four minutes.
16:23
Running a small business is not easy. It often involves taking a chance. The rewards can be great, but the risk is great, too.
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy—I hope that, at the very least, that is something that we all agree on. Of course, that means that we also have a collective responsibility to tip the scales as far as we can to support small businesses right across the country. As a different SNP minister said to me, words matter, but so do actions. On this issue, I absolutely agree. Today’s debate is urgent, as Mr Fraser says.
Businesses have had it tough since the pandemic. Many simply did not make it. We all know of examples of that. Small businesses are now estimated to be paying an extra £5,000 a year in energy costs. Commercial energy rates are brutal for small businesses. Changes to national insurance cost British businesses an extra £28 billion last year alone. An analysis shows that Scottish employers are the second-hardest hit by that rise, behind only those in London. Now, many will have to wrestle with an enormous hike in non-domestic rates. As has been mentioned, the FSB has warned that some will see their bills soar by 400 per cent. Examples from the Scottish Hospitality Group show that some businesses are looking at increases of more than 550 per cent.
I cannot see how we, as a Parliament, can sit back and say or do nothing on this issue. It absolutely merits time in the chamber today and it is absolutely serious. We all have small businesses in our constituencies and regions that will be affected, and some will close. That is the sad reality if we do nothing.
I have to say that the minister’s response to others who have spoken today, that the valuation of a non-domestic property is solely a matter for the independent assessor, is a very technocratic response to what is a moral question for us. It just does not cut it, because we have seen egregious examples of how the reassessment is failing businesses. When many businesses are knocking on our doors and filling up our inboxes, warning about the damage that those rises will do, we have a duty to listen and to act. To just say that we are aware of those concerns does not cut it either, I am afraid—
Will the member take an intervention?
Not with the time that I have.
The perfect storm of rising bills and costs is proving too much. I will name one example from my region. There is a wee shop, the Pirate and Bluebelle in Gourock, which is closing its doors in just 10 days’ time after 12 years in business. I am immensely sad about that. Rising costs and falling footfall have hit it hard. The two people who run it have chucked their life into this small business. That is just one example of many across the country. Woe betide anyone who knocks on doors during the election period and says that they backed doing nothing on the NDR reassessment. They will have to look those businesses in the eye.
Will the member take an intervention?
It is clear to me that, at the very least, one thing that we can do right now is put a pause on the implementation of the revaluation.
If the member is going to talk about that point, he could at least take an intervention on it.
The minister will have time in summing up to respond to my points, and, if we had had more time in today’s debate, I would have been happy to take interventions.
We need to pause the implementation of the revaluation right now.
I note the many calls from others to cap the increases. There are also many calls to speed up the appeals process. Those calls all deserve serious consideration. Doing nothing is simply not an option—time is something that small businesses do not have. I fear that, for some, this will be the final straw and they will close their doors.
We must give them some breathing space. Let us look them in the eye and say that we, as a Parliament, on a cross-party basis, will give them every opportunity to succeed. I know that we can do that if we work together, but that involves some compromise and constructive conversation. I hope that we can finally have some of that in today’s debate.
We move to the open debate.
16:27
I rise to speak on the motion because I fully agree with my colleague and friend Murdo Fraser that the matter is, indeed, urgent. The Scottish Government must act before we see many Scottish businesses fail and close, which would further add to the demise of our high streets.
The non-domestic rates issue is not only a double-edged sword; I would go so far as to say that it is a quadruple-edged sword, if that is even a thing. It has not only a detrimental impact on the businesses themselves, but a negative impact on the long-term tax revenue, on the visual in our high streets, on the economy and local jobs, and on the finances of our local authorities. This is such an important issue that I would go so far as to state that the consequences of inaction will have a dire effect right across the country.
Inaction cannot be a position of the Scottish Government. We can bandy around percentages, facts and figures, but I want to talk about how the issue affects real people in real communities. I will highlight a situation that is affecting Crieff in my region. It is in no way an isolated case; the same situation exists in towns, cities and high streets all across Scotland.
Crieff is an amazing rural town with many fantastic attributes, and it is a wonderful place to live. However, for many decades, Crieff has had a trifecta of dilapidated buildings. Three once-beautiful hotel and hospitality establishments were left to decay and rot. Those pubs and hotels were no longer viable. The cost of running the businesses simply outweighed the return, and they were closed. As businesses, they were no longer a going concern. They were unable to be bought by someone new as the business model would not secure a return. The major investment that was needed would be an instant loss, and any chance of providing local employment was a pipe dream. As investments for development, the properties were hindered by listed building status or local authority regulations. Again, the financial cost of regenerating the properties was prohibitive.
For years, those buildings, although they were privately owned, could not be repaired, sold, utilised or regenerated, and they therefore became dilapidated. Slowly eroding, the buildings became a breeding ground for broken glass and buddleia—a vandal’s playground and a hazard for police and the local community. They are not only a worry for the local infrastructure but a literal blot on the landscape, bringing down the look of this stunning rural town.
This is the problem that we must recognise: forcing high street businesses into liquidation due to punitive rates increases will only result in more hotel, retail and hospitality businesses closing, while the buildings that they occupy will likely end up having a detrimental effect on the public purse.
That is exactly what happened in Crieff. The situation became an issue for the local authority, with Perth and Kinross Council having to step in to spend millions of pounds to ensure public safety, support community buyouts and financially back town regeneration, which put additional strain on already stretched public funding. The police were often called to secure the properties or halt people trespassing in the dangerous buildings, or even to move on young people who found breaking windows to be an enjoyable form of target practice.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, inaction is not an option. If the Scottish Government does not use its position to intervene on the revaluations by reviewing and setting different guidance, creating a pause and changing the rules for the independent assessors, then more businesses will close, there will be more unemployment and more buildings will fall into dilapidation. Further interventions from police and local authorities will be needed.
Another fiscal catastrophe is looming. Running a business in Scotland is hard enough without these draconian revaluations, and we must stand together in the Parliament to support our high streets.
16:31
Although I do not agree with the framing of the Conservative motion, I thank the Conservatives for raising an important issue. This debate is about ensuring that Scottish businesses have a business taxation regime that supports their sustainability and growth as much as possible.
I will set out some unfortunate omissions from the motion that is before us. We talk about pressure on businesses. Rising business rates are a relevant factor, but the motion does not mention the impact of the UK Government’s national insurance increase, which is estimated to take £2 billion out of the Scottish economy next year. That is surely a significant omission, although I note that Murdo Fraser partly mentioned it during his speech. Likewise, staff shortages and high energy prices will be of particular concern to the hospitality sector. Those concerns are omitted from the motion. Absolutely, let us discuss the pressures on our businesses, but it is important to do so in a well-rounded fashion. The motion does not allow us to do that.
I note that the motion suggests that, since 2022-23, a cumulative £700 million in Barnett consequentials deriving from business rates relief in England has not been passed on to businesses in Scotland. I will not get drawn on the numbers that have been cited, but I note that the minister said that, in this year alone, there was £730 million in business rates relief to support businesses. When we cite such numbers more generally, we should compare apples with apples.
There is a more important point, which is that Barnett consequentials are deliberately not ring fenced. If Barnett ring fencing was how the Scottish budgetary process worked, I doubt that we would have found the resource to abolish prescription charges or tuition fees, or the nearly £500 million that is now spent annually on tackling child poverty in Scotland through the Scottish child payment, which is a core reason why child poverty continues to fall in Scotland while it increases to worryingly record levels in England.
However, let me make a wider point. There is a case to be made for further support for Scottish businesses—of course there is—and I acknowledge the case to be made for the hospitality, leisure and self-catering sectors. Whatever that support will be, it has to be costed and budgeted for. The imminent budget process in the Parliament is the appropriate time to do just that. I hope—this is a sincere plea—that the Conservatives will have a constructive dialogue with the Scottish Government, which is something that has not really happened in recent years.
I wonder whether Bob Doris will take an intervention.
Will I get the time back, Presiding Officer?
No.
Sorry.
Some 92 per cent of hospitality premises benefit from non-domestic rates relief of 40 per cent and are supported by the Scottish Government, but I appreciate that many would like to see the Scottish Government go further. As with any rates revaluation, there will be winners and losers. I am not surprised to hear suggestions for transitional protections and I am sympathetic to those suggestions. However, at the heart of this debate there is an opportunity to get agreement for broad support for businesses, if not a consensus on the specifics. I suspect that the Government will be constrained in providing detail about what will be in its budget next week.
I will make some suggestions, to float some ideas. I was very interested in Rachael Hamilton’s comment about rates focusing on rents. That is a reasonable point, but I would also point out that a blanket approach to rates relief simply means that very profitable businesses get rates relief that they just do not need. There is a wider debate about targeting rates relief to those need it the most and applying broad rates relief across the board. We have to take that into account.
Finally, there is the process itself. Initial draft rates proposals were made last November, and valuation officers are being consulted until February this year. However, people cannot appeal their rates revaluation until April, which will be after they have started paying the new rate. We must look at that and front load an appeals process so that people can make lodge a proposal—that is, start an appeal—before they start paying that higher amount.
Those are just some suggestions, and I look forward to learning the details of the Scottish Government’s support for business in next week’s budget.
16:35
We are debating a crucial issue this afternoon, and I believe that every MSP from every part of the country, representing every political party, will have received concerning emails from businesses and constituents who are worried about the rates that they are facing in April.
However, the debate is not being held in Government time. The Government and the SNP are not saying that this is an issue and that we are going to debate it; rather, it is being dealt with in Opposition time. It should not take the Conservatives to bring forward this debate in order to get responses from the Government, because this is such a serious issue.
When the issue first hit our mailboxes, the Government should have responded. The issue was raised at First Minister’s questions. There is clearly an issue here, but we are having a debate and a vote on it now only because the Conservatives have used their debating time to bring it to the chamber.
I must say that I was, frankly, appalled with the minister’s contribution, which, as Stephen Kerr said, was six and a half minutes of nothing—it was absolute waffle on an issue of such importance. What was even more galling was him sniggering, smirking and laughing when it was put to him that he had not addressed the points.
Ivan McKee rose—
I will give way in a second. How does he genuinely think that the businesses that are appealing to their representatives in this Parliament to raise the issue with the Government will feel when they become aware that the responsible minister considers it to be a laughing matter?
It is not a laughing matter. I was very clear about the fact that we are engaging extensively with businesses and business organisations on the issue. What is ridiculous—frankly, it is political point scoring—is members suggesting that the Government is not taking the issue seriously and is not doing work on it. We absolutely are.
I have got the—[Interruption.] I will tell the member what I have been doing. I met the NDR consultative group on 22 November 2025—
Is this an intervention?
I met the airport sector—
No, minister, you will have to use that material in your—
—and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers on 17 December—
I call Douglas Ross.
There is a ruling from the chair, Mr McKee. Sit down.
My time has been used up by a minister who had six and a half minutes to make those points. He has a summing-up speech to make those points. He also had an opportunity for weeks and, potentially, months to take the debate to the chamber, but he chose not to.
When businesses are urging us to get answers from the Government, we will use our time to get them, because those businesses are making very strong representation to MSPs across Parliament.
I want to tell the minister about some of the representations that I have received. Someone I met on the agritourism future farming programme told me in an email—which went to a number of colleagues—about their rateable value going from £3,300 to £9,000. What makes the situation even more concerning is that their rateable value, because of the circumstances in their business, was decided only last August. At the end of November, the rateable value increased by 170 per cent. However, their profits have not gone up by 170 per cent.
Richard Lochhead, the Minister for Business and Employment, is sitting on the front bench. I am not sure whether he is responding to the debate today, but he is certainly present. He will have received many of the same emails that I have received, including one just two days ago, which I noticed he was copied into. It is from a small campsite in Moray. It already had a high rateable value of £11,000, but that is going up to £30,000. The business is saying that
“A ratable value of £30,000 will unfortunately make the business completely unviable and will need to look at closing”.
That is what is going to happen—in Government ministers’ constituencies, businesses will go bust. We are making a very simple plea: do not brush that off, Ivan McKee, as a laughing matter. Treat it seriously. We need answers and resolution, otherwise businesses will be unable to continue and will fold. That would be disastrous for Scotland’s economy.
16:39
I agree with Mr Fraser’s assessment that businesses are facing a long list of rising costs, and they are definitely not helped by the Scottish Government’s current position of not passing on rate reliefs in the current financial year. Businesses are now threatened by the proposed revaluation from April.
I am sure that we are all aware of the declining and struggling town centres and empty high street shops. Constituents are complaining to me that the high street shops and town centres have lost their mojo as a result of underinvestment and neglect. The decline in town centres is further pushing people to drop the habit of spending time and money in town centres, which accelerates that decline and contributes to the silent epidemic of isolation and rising antisocial behaviour among young people.
From an economic perspective, between 2015 and 2025, more than 900 businesses closed, and nearly 25,000 jobs were lost as a result. At this time, we need more growth, greater investment, more entrepreneurial spirit and a helping hand from the Government. In addition, the retail and hospitality sectors present important opportunities for young people who are looking to take their first steps into the workforce. Without those opportunities, young people will suffer.
In the current financial year, the SNP has failed to pass on the full business relief that is offered in England and Wales, making it more difficult for Scottish businesses to compete with those south of the border. The proposed revaluation from April could be the final, deadly blow to many Scottish businesses. Members might ask what the SNP Government is going to do about that impending doom. Like the old Roman emperor Nero, it is going to fiddle while Scottish businesses and the economy burn.
The UK Labour Government has delivered an additional £10.3 billion in funding to the Scottish Government, so there is no need to go after small businesses. If the SNP Government could get over its addiction to wasting public funds, it would not need to shamefully plunder high street businesses in this way to cover its own failings. I heartily support Mr Fraser’s motion and Daniel Johnson’s amendment. We must face the fact that the current system is not in the interests of businesses or the public and that wholesale reform is required to help, not hinder, hospitality and retail businesses to return Scotland’s high streets to what our constituents want and deserve.
16:43
I am glad to engage in the debate. My background is with the Bank of Scotland—I worked in business and corporate banking for more than 20 years, and for that period I engaged with businesses on a daily basis. What businesses need more than anything is certainty.
The Scottish budget in 2025-26 protects the small business bonus scheme, which is the most generous small business relief in the UK. I know that, over a number of years, it has helped many businesses in every part of East Lothian. We have talked about the proposed revaluation, which will have an impact on businesses in East Lothian. I have had businesses contact me on that point, and I would be keen to hear the minister talk about it, although he has talked about engagement on the issue.
Tourism and hospitality is a major sector in East Lothian and in other parts of Scotland, but let us try to have a balanced and nuanced discussion and debate about the issue. Economic growth is at the heart of the SNP Government’s agenda. I know from discussions with the minister, the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister that they engage closely with business to drive economic growth in Scotland and to support consumers and local businesses.
On town centres, as we have heard, the Scottish Government supports funding for the Scotland loves local campaign, and more than £3 million has gone in to address retail crime, which we have heard about in the chamber. The Government also has the most generous business rates relief scheme in the UK. Of course, Scotland’s competitive non-domestic rates regime in 2025-26 includes a freeze on the basic property rate, which delivers the lowest rate in the UK. As Bob Doris mentioned, for 95 per cent of non-domestic properties in Scotland, that maintains the lowest rate in the UK.
I want to raise another point that was mentioned. I am aware of an email that was sent to all of us and to ministers from the Scottish Retail Consortium and the business improvement districts in Scotland. In the press release, the BIDs state:
“Our ambition is for Scotland’s cities and towns to continue to be great places to do business.”
The key word is “continue”. They state:
“Our cities and towns are the backbone of regional economies and communities across Scotland. The everyday economy drives footfall and provides local and flexible jobs and career opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Scots.”
I know that the minister has engaged with the Scottish Retail Consortium, as I and many others in the chamber have.
The BIDs add:
“Creating the best investment conditions for retail, hospitality and leisure premises is vital to keeping these businesses attractive to customers”.
They are asking for delivery on
“pledges about business rates competitiveness”
and support for
“commercial investment and growth in our city and town centres and regional economies.”
I am sure that the minister will address those points when it comes to the budget next week.
One key thing is that budgets are about priorities and achieving balance, which we need to have a nuanced debate on. We need to deliver a fairer and more progressive tax system, which is about raising additional revenue to invest in public services. In debate after debate, we have heard all the demands in the chamber. We need to protect the NHS, grow our economy and lift children out of poverty.
I will not take any lessons from the Tories on household bills, for example, given that they dragged Scotland out of the European Union against our will, made us poorer and reduced the funding that is available for public services. Nor will I take lessons from Labour, given its employer national insurance contributions tax on jobs.
Scotland’s economy outperformed that of the UK as a whole in 2024, when significant growth was recorded in Scotland. For the 10th year in a row, Scotland is the top destination in the UK for foreign direct investment outside London. Nearly one in six inward investment projects in the UK are in Scotland. A new Confederation of British Industry report shows that business investment in Scotland has risen to a 20-year high. We cannot get away from the fact that that contrasts with the fall in business investment across the United Kingdom.
The success of Scotland’s economy has come despite the UK Government’s tax on jobs and its low-growth model, and that is alongside the fact that unemployment in Scotland is lower than that in the rest of the UK. Scotland has a strong record on business growth and will continue to do so in the future.
16:47
In February 2020, I became tourism minister for the second time, expecting a fairly quiet period until the 2021 election. A few weeks later, the Covid lockdown occurred. Many of us will remember that time, when businesses, particularly in hospitality and tourism, went from thriving and optimistic—they were usually led by people with cheerful, pleasant, outgoing personalities—to having no business at all. They went from profitability to a cliff edge. Many of them were levered and had debt, and many have suffered enormously. I know that some business owners passed away because of the stress.
I spent a rather busy 12 months accepting every request for conference call meetings, and I heard tales of woe that I, frankly, never expected to hear again. The businesses are still recovering from that nightmare, yet little credence is ever given to that. However, they now face a second nightmare, which Mr Fraser has set out. The Government should debate the issue on its own time if it really cared about the Parliament coming up with solutions. We should have had more time to debate the detail.
The self-catering assessment for business rates has been carried out by Heather Honeyman, chair of the Scottish Assessors Association, on the basis of rental values. The VOA, the SAA’s counterpart in England, says that rental values are
“not suitable for self-catering holiday homes. Properties are usually owned, rather than rented on an annual basis”.
In a response to a letter from me, Heather Honeyman said:
“Rental evidence would be where there is a landlord and a tenant relationship and legal obligations on the parties.”
There are no obligations like that, apart from a few hundred out of 17,000. In England, assessors say that that method is wrong; in Scotland, the assessor maintains that it is correct. Neither Ms Honeyman nor anyone in her department has answered why on earth a methodology has been chosen that has in writing been entirely ruled out in England, which Ms Honeyman must surely be aware of. I call on her to come clean. Did she discuss the matter with the VOA? She should publish all the correspondence. Did she consult or inform Scottish ministers at all, or were they in the dark? I know that Mr McKee, as a former businessman, cares for business, and I take him seriously.
The valuations are just garbage—utter garbage. However, more than that, as we have heard from many members, the consequences are that people around Scotland are now writing to us to say that their health has suffered, that they are mentally unbalanced and that their families are suffering. I do not want to start being alarmist about this, but I am seriously worried about what happens when human beings who are working hard in society—many of them in relatively modest businesses—feel that there is simply no way out, that their business must close and that their life has been ruined by a Government that says that it cares for them.
It is not good enough, minister. You have the powers to intervene. I do not have the time to specify them, but Fiona Campbell already has, as have many others. I hope to God that you use them.
Thank you, Mr Ewing. Always speak through the chair.
We move to wind-up speeches.
16:51
The Scottish Greens will support the Government amendment. Regarding the Labour amendment, we agree that business rates are “not fit for purpose”, so the overall point is valid and one that we can support, but the amendment combines two separate issues in a rather awkward way.
Reform of property tax has been a long-standing priority for the Scottish Greens, and we have made the case for a unified system between residential and non-residential property taxes. Our preference would be for the system to be based on land values. In essence, non-domestic rates and council tax are still, however brokenly, property taxes, and they should remain so.
Labour has occasionally seemed open to that argument, which is welcome, but it has never followed through with active support for a reformed property tax. It was disappointing that Labour abstained on Ross Greer’s proposals to tax vacant and derelict land during the debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, because that would have been a step in the right direction towards making the tax landscape fairer and incentivising the good use of assets as well as investment. Labour had a chance to do something in that space, but it chose to sit on its hands.
We should not be afraid of divergence from England. Doing things differently is good, and that is the point of devolution. We should be fine tuning rates based on what is done in the premises. Decisions about domestic rates can be used to implement wider social and environmental policies. For example, why do we give rates relief to businesses that use unfair labour practices? We can make different choices so that we can provide a better life for our people. For example, we provide the Scottish child payment, free bus travel, free school meals and so on. The Scottish Greens want to bring back the public health supplement and have big supermarkets pay more in rates in recognition of the harms and costs of the products that they sell, such as alcohol.
The question of how to tax economic activity that does not rely on the occupation of property, such as online retail, can be dealt with only through other parts of the tax system, particularly those that are currently reserved. The Scottish Greens want that to happen. If Labour members want that, too, they need to speak to their colleagues in the UK Government at Westminster. They have the power to reform the system by using reserved powers or, better still, they could hand the powers to Scotland so that we can use them to level the playing field and make the system fairer.
16:54
I think that there has been near unanimity that this is an issue of huge concern, and it is right that we are debating it. In his closing speech, the minister might read out his diary and set out the meetings that he has had in recent weeks, but the tenor of his initial contribution led some of us to despair. We must ensure that the minister recognises reality. Nobody is seeking for him to pre-empt the budget, but Parliament is seeking for him to recognise the reality that businesses are facing. There have been increases of up to 400 per cent through the revaluation in some sectors, and businesses risk losing access to reliefs, as members across the chamber have set out.
Businesses might have experienced an increase in turnover since the last revaluation, but other costs have increased. For example, since 2019, pubs have had an 86 per cent increase in utility costs and a 58 per cent increase in wages and salaries, resulting in a 54 per cent decrease in net income. According to UKHospitality, the revaluation will cost the Scottish hospitality sector £69 million in 2026-27.
Critically, the Scottish Government has also continually refused to pass on rates relief as a result of relief that has taken place in England. Scotland has the least generous business rates support in the UK. A licensed premises in Scotland with a rateable value of £35,000 is entering the new year with a cumulative support deficit of £33,000 versus a premises with the same rateable value in England. For a premises with a rateable value of £75,000, the deficit is around £80,000, and for a premises with a rateable value of £150,000, the deficit is £165,000. Those are the results of decisions that the Government has made on reliefs. We are not seeking to hear the budget today, but we are looking for some recognition of that.
The overall case for proper reform has now become overwhelming, as colleagues across the chamber have set out. The principal effect of non-domestic rates in Scotland is that the economic activity in our country is artificially skewed away from property-intensive production. We have a complex system of rates, bands and specific reliefs that creates administrative burdens and distorts business behaviour and investment. Although targeted business rate reductions such as the freeze for properties under £51,000 provide immediate support to occupiers, they might be less effective in the long term and they often result in higher commercial rents.
Local authorities have no incentive to encourage business as income from NDR is centralised, and businesses have less incentive to invest in properties, as their rateable value will likely increase. Davy Russell set that out very well in relation to his Hamilton constituency—I must say that, after last year, I know an awful lot about Hamilton’s high street and the challenges that it faces. Davy Russell was right to say that, when our town and city centres become hollowed out, it has both economic and social consequences.
There is no doubt that the Scottish non-domestic rates system, in common with much of the tax system under the SNP Government, is a mess. The reason for that is quite clear: fundamentally, the SNP Government is disinterested in meaningful reform of our tax system. Whether on non-domestic rates, council tax or income tax, it prevaricates, obfuscates and sits on its hands, hoping that everyone else will get lost in the sea of consultations and working groups that are established with a fanfare and quietly closed with nothing done.
It is abundantly clear that the current business rates system is not fit for purpose. It is dysfunctional. A Scottish Labour Government will design a new system in true partnership with business to better incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurship.
16:58
I am not sure that the debate has been the balanced and nuanced debate that Paul McLennan said that he hoped for, but serious issues have been mentioned during it.
Although the motion includes areas on which we might disagree, we can all agree on the fact that many businesses in Scotland have faced tough trading conditions in recent years, with rising inflation, rocketing energy prices and supply chain disruption, as the motion outlines. Many of those issues are reserved to the UK Government. I gently remind Parliament that the party that lodged the motion was in power for 14 years up to 2024 and it oversaw many of those pressures. Since then, we have had policies such as the hike in employer national insurance contributions, which the Labour Government introduced after it took over in 2024. All of that is happening against the backdrop of global uncertainty and international events that have impacted on trade, business and profitability, such as tariffs and Brexit, as Jamie Greene, Bob Doris and Fergus Ewing outlined.
I wonder whether the minister will get round to addressing the key point in the debate, which is the issue of revaluations. I have heard everything that he and his colleague have said about the budget, which I am looking forward to, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the methodology that is being used to calculate revaluations. In some cases, the valuations are three or four times higher than previously, and that will potentially put businesses to the wall as a consequence. What is the Government doing about that issue?
Minister, I will give you the time back for the intervention.
Thank you.
I was, of course, referring to issues that are in Murdo Fraser’s motion. That is why I was responding on the pressures that are facing the business community.
As the minister said in his opening remarks, thriving businesses are key to growing our economy in Scotland. We are lucky that our economy is performing well on many indicators, particularly in comparison with the rest of the UK. One reason for that is that our business community is resilient. To give one example, I note that, in the four quarters leading up to Q3 of 2025, there was an increase in the number of businesses in the accommodation and food services sector in Scotland, with the number of births outweighing deaths.
As a Government, we take businesses’ views on business rates and other issues very seriously. Over recent weeks, the minister, Ivan McKee, has had numerous meetings on rates revaluations, so any suggestion that we are not engaging with the business community is complete nonsense.
Daniel Johnson rose—
I will take a brief intervention from Daniel Johnson if I will get the time back.
The minister is right that many of those businesses are resilient, but they have not experienced a 400 per cent increase in their income, which is the potential increase in their bill. Will the minister at least acknowledge that disparity?
I will soon have served in this Parliament for 27 years. I have been through various rates revaluations and have discussed those issues and percentages such as those several times. As others have mentioned, it is important that any conscientious MSP advises constituents who are facing those hikes to make representations before the roll is published in March and, going forward, to use the appeal system that is in place.
Is that it? Is that an answer?
The budget is coming up next week. Some members have asked why we are not bringing forward our own debates on the subject. It is because such issues are discussed when the Scottish Government presents its budget to the Parliament. As normal, analysis of the measures in the Scottish budget will be published on the day of the budget. That is normal practice and it will happen again.
We have a competitive rates regime in Scotland at the moment. The 40 per cent rates relief for the hospitality sector this year was warmly welcomed by the sector, as were the zero rates for island businesses and hospitality, for those that qualify. A number of measures have been taken. As the minister outlined in his opening remarks, there are more than £700 million of reliefs in the system at the moment.
That is self-aggrandizement.
We will listen very closely, but I urge members to look at the timetable for the revaluation and to advise the businesses in their constituencies of the timetable for making representations before the valuation roll is published in March and of the appeal system that will be in place thereafter. I advise members with specific cases—I have cases in my constituency, and a few other members will have cases in their constituencies—to adhere to that and to give that advice to those businesses. In the meantime, I assure the Parliament that we are listening and acting.
No, you are not. You are not acting.
We are going to support a thriving business community in Scotland. We will deliver our budget next week, which will support that. I commend the Scottish Government’s amendment to the Parliament.
Mr Kerr, you have made a number of interventions from a sedentary position. I now invite you to legitimately wind up the debate.
17:03
Winding up—that is what I do well, so I am glad to take the opportunity. [Laughter.]
First, the speech that Richard Lochhead just made was absolutely disgraceful. As Ivan McKee did, he hid behind the budget, saying, in effect, “We can’t talk about this. There’s a budget.” What is the best thing that the ministers, with combined voice, can tell the business community of Scotland? “Make representations.” People have made representations. That is why the Scottish Conservatives have listened and have brought this subject to the chamber today. We are the party that is listening to business, because we are, unashamedly, the party of business. But what do we hear from the SNP? “Tell them about the appeals process.” Really? That is the best that the Scottish ministers can come up with in the face of a debate on the subject of NDR revaluation.
People often say that the problem with the Scottish Parliament is that there is too much business illiteracy. Frankly, people could be forgiven for agreeing with that, given some of the things that have been said in this afternoon’s debate. The problem is that too many of us have never run a business. We do not know what it is like to get up in the morning and to have the responsibility not only of running a business but of employing people and keeping them in employment.
I wonder whether the member might agree with me that it was somewhat odd for the minister to reply that the issues that we are debating always come up when the revaluation takes place. Does that not suggest that there might be something fundamentally wrong with the revaluation process?
That is absolutely right.
What is the slogan of the SNP Government that has been in power for the past 19 or 20 years? “We’ll take no lessons.” That is what ministers often say from their front bench: “We’ll take no lessons.” They learn nothing from repeated disasters and from putting the Scottish business community through the wringer periodically. They learn nothing.
I expect better from Ivan McKee, because I think that he understands something about business. [Interruption.] Members dismiss that. Perhaps he does not know anything about business—I stand corrected. On the basis of his non-speech in this debate, we could be forgiven for thinking that he knows nothing about business.
We need to do something about our collective business literacy. Until you have run a business and hired people—and, sadly, until you have had to make people redundant in order to meet a cost base—and until you have done the hard yards for what makes the economy tick and you understand something about it, then when you talk about some of the things that we have been debating, it is just at the level of theory, and it is at that level of theory that we are doing damage to the confidence of the Scottish business community.
Does Mr Kerr agree that the Scottish Government has statutory powers to intervene and take action to order assessors what to do—that those powers have been conferred on the Government and it should use them rather than pretend that it cannot do anything?
That is absolutely right. We have rehearsed the arguments really well, on the side of those of us who want the Government to take some positive action. Indeed, my colleague Murdo Fraser set out—as does his motion—specific actions that the Scottish Government could commit to, because they are general in tone; they are not specific.
There is no compromise of any kind of secrecy around the budget—at least, not until at least Tuesday morning, when we buy our copy of the Daily Record, where we will, no doubt, read most of the budget speech already leaked to it, which would be consistent with the pattern of this Government. Ministers take no lessons, but they love to give Paul Hutcheon whatever Paul Hutcheon asks them for, so that John Swinney can continue with his weekly column in the Daily Record.
As colleagues have made absolutely clear, what we have heard from the Government in response to some very carefully argued points by those of us who are in favour of Murdo Fraser’s motion is SNP ministers and members carefully deflecting or simply ignoring the issue—as ever. The reality is that businesses across Scotland are facing a genuine cost of business emergency, and the rates revaluation is just another layer of their concern.
In the spirit of trying to build a coalition around Murdo Fraser’s motion, I will resist the urge to say too much about Labour’s spokesman talking about how Labour has some kind of sympathy for business when it did more damage to the business communities of this country in a single stroke, in Rachel Reeves’s first budget, than any chancellor did for as long as I can remember—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Kerr.
Added to that is the blind ignorance of SNP ministers in relation to this matter.
Very sadly, I am running out of time, although I have so much more to say. These debates need to be much longer, just for me to be able to wind up fully. I will say this, however. If we think that we can go on abusing Scotland’s businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and if we carry on thinking of them as some kind of fatted calf that, come every budget, will be slaughtered to justify some extraction of additional revenues for the public purse, we are making a huge mistake. If we do that, we are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. We should not assume that those businesses will always be there to open of a morning. We should not assume that they will always be there to employ people. We should not make those assumptions. Our economy is a precarious thing—it is a living thing. We cannot treat it the way that this Government treats it.
A strong business base underpins employment. As Roz McCall said, it underpins community. It underpins public finances, too. A tax system that accelerates decline of the business base instead of supporting recovery represents not only bad economics but a fundamental failure of government.
That concludes the debate on stopping the Scottish Government’s business tax increases.
Previous
Income TaxNext
Business Motions