Shooting tax in scotland

[muddy42]

The definition of what is purely deer management will be pretty clear when it is actually made.

I dont think there is much land, with sporting potential, that is not already on the valuation roll. I certainly don't know of any

I do . Almost by definition there will be land not included - land without sporting potential or semi-urban land. But also the majority of rural land is still held on the older sasine register. This isn't map based and can be notoriously vague.

The SNP's is motivated by "laird bashing" and blaming everyone/everything else for their woeful record in office (blame Westminster / brexit / lack of independence). Sporting rates are very much in the first laird bashing category and I believe this proposed deer management exemption is an afterthought, aimed to save (semi) public bodies like the FLS/MOD/NTS/John Muir Trust or community buyout groups from paying rates bills.

We have yet to see the detail, but id strongly recommend appealing or supporting groups like Scottish Land and Estates as they fight this. I wouldn't be surprised that if there are two identical hillsides - surprise surprise the one owned by one of the bodies above meets the exemption and the privately owned one doesn't.

 

[jcampbellsmith]

I can foresee a few awkward conversations coming up between landowners and stalking tenants

I'm not sure I follow that. Most stalking tenants are organised by Forestry companies or Agents.

Regards

JCS

 

[Chris Richardson]

I do . Almost by definition there will be land not included - land without sporting potential or semi-urban land. But also the majority of rural land is still held on the older sasine register. This isn't map based and can be notoriously vague.

The SNP's is motivated by "laird bashing" and blaming everyone/everything else for their woeful record in office (blame Westminster / brexit / lack of independence). Sporting rates are very much in the first laird bashing category and I believe this proposed deer management exemption is an afterthought, aimed to save (semi) public bodies like the FLS/MOD/NTS/John Muir Trust or community buyout groups from paying rates bills.

We have yet to see the detail, but id strongly recommend appealing or supporting groups like Scottish Land and Estates as they fight this.

100 % agree gotta love socialism

 

[doric_prince]

So I have a bit of land where i look after the deer. We shoot about three a year - low population of deer in the area thanks to FLS contractors shooting everything on the neighbouring land.

Farmer has just received a sporting rates assessment of £1,500.

The same scenario will be happening across Scotland.

Edit: Bear in mind that Sporting Rates are based on the Sporting potential of the land as assessed by someone in the council with a rate based on per Ha and the type of land use. The rates have to be paid regardless of whether or not sporting potential is actually utilised.

Over the last few years I know that many shoots have never got going again post COVID, Brexit and Bird Flu. Costs have risen and demand is not there. However I suppose many land owners will start reusing the sporting potential given that they have to pay the rates regardless.

Big question - will all the rewilding have to pay sporting rates. Certainly excellent potential for sporting use. If they don’t then that really begs the question as to how they get away with it, as plenty of other land will still have to pay regardless of whether or not they choose to use the sporting potential.

I believe re wilders are exempt as they are focused activity on environmental goals/ biodiversity.

 

[muddy42]

I believe re wilders are exempt as they are focused activity on environmental goals/ biodiversity.

and why cant farmers or private owners have these goals aswell? This is a joke.

 

[doric_prince]

and why cant farmers or private owners have these goals aswell? This is a joke.

Don’t know the answer tbh. Just reading what I saw published by SG.

It might be down to the main purpose of the business, but unsighted how checks would apply on that criteria.

 

[slider]

I do . Almost by definition there will be land not included - land without sporting potential or semi-urban land. But also the majority of rural land is still held on the older sasine register. This isn't map based and can be notoriously vague.

Are you confusing the Scottish Land Registry and Sasines (which i dealt with on a daily basis before I retired) with the Non Domestic Rates Valuation Roll?

The two serve completely different purposes and Valuation roll is not map based in any way (although I am sure the Assessor refers to it when setting rate valuations)

 

[Huntersforge]

I'm not sure I follow that. Most stalking tenants are organised by Forestry companies or Agents.

Regards

JCS

Outcome will be the same , leases not renewed / cancelled if presented with a big rates bill .
I will definitely be dropping one of my pieces of ground as I’m the sole tenant if this happens .

HF

 

[muddy42]

Are you confusing the Scottish Land Registry and Sasines (which i dealt with on a daily basis before I retired) with the Non Domestic Rates Valuation Roll?

The two serve completely different purposes and Valuation roll is not map based in any way (although I am sure the Assessor refers to it when setting rate valuations)

What I mean is if land remains on the sasine register it is very hard to find out who owns it or what its boundaries are. it could have been on the last 1990s sporting rates register or it could have been split up or amalgamated pre 2014.

 

[Heym SR20]

and why cant farmers or private owners have these goals aswell? This is a joke.

Plenty of farmers and private landowners have very good environmental goals. Indeed one piece of ground I shoot over the farmer is paid through grants to put in break crops which really benefit wildlife. We now have grey partridges and many other ground nesting birds. On another bit we are turning an old reservoir into a moss - drained down the reservoir and its now reed beds full of many different species. Yet it’s also been assessed for sporting rates.

 

[slider]

FLS is a public corporation owned by the Scottish Ministers. Yes it has some role in providing access to its estate to members of the public, but in terms of its timber business it is a direct competitor to the private sector. Indeed in all other matters its in direct competition to the private sector in terms of other access to amenities use. FLS gets big grants from Government for putting in bike tracks and then running the likes of Glen Tress. But what about private sector getting similar

I know exactly how FLS works as I worked for them before I retired, latterly at a higher management level.

I know exactly how the annual "subsidy" is calculated as I was involved in that.
No private sector forestry as anything like the number of access and environmental rangers, undertakes the level of broadleaf planting or has restore 2000ha of open cast coal moonscape to woodland. Or sold multiple areas of land, forests and buildings at discounted values to community groups.
These are the sort of "market failure" tasks and Agency of Scottish Government is tasked with.
The timber production element is not subsidised in any way, yet, in order to smooth the flow to the mills, is expected to continue to sell saw logs at below best value when the market is down and private foresters are not selling

The private sector have access to plenty of other grants via Lottery funds and Scottish/local enterprise funds for the provision of public access features.

Anyway, we digress. The removal of rating exemption is definitely SNP laird basing. Senior ministers are on record last week saying that this removal was due to a prior commitment to the Green Party. While I dont see game bird shooting getting off the hook I think we will see positive changes to the proposals with regard to deer management before the budget bill is finalised

 

[muddy42]

Plenty of farmers and private landowners have very good environmental goals. Indeed one piece of ground I shoot over the farmer is paid through grants to put in break crops which really benefit wildlife. We now have grey partridges and many other ground nesting birds. On another bit we are turning an old reservoir into a moss - drained down the reservoir and its now reed beds full of many different species. Yet it’s also been assessed for sporting rates.

Agree. this is purely politics of envy and bashing private landowners. And to lift the small scale exemption after the appeal period is ended just makes me so angry for smaller farmers out there. And finally to propose an exemption for their cronies in large semi-public groups just stinks of corruption. The last period of sporting rates in Scotland was stopped because the admin costs exceeded revenue. Let's hope this one does too.

 

[slider]

The last period of sporting rates in Scotland was stopped because the admin costs exceeded revenue. Let's hope this one does too.

It doesn't cover the costs just now, as a number of FOI's have proven.

Apart from the "Laurd bashing" i suspect part of the reason for the removal of the exemptions is pressure from Council to help them balance their books.

 

[jcampbellsmith]

What I mean is if land remains on the sasine register it is very hard to find out who owns it or what its boundaries are. it could have been on the last 1990s sporting rates register or it could have been split up or amalgamated pre 2014.

These sites may help.

Land Ownership Map | Who Owns Scotland

Who Owns Scotland map for visual overview of land ownership. For Academics, Property Professionals, Natural Resources, Windfarms, Film Location Scouts, Journalists

whoownsscotland.org.uk

https://www.ros.gov.uk/services/search-property-information

Regards

JCS

 

[Heym SR20]

I know exactly how FLS works as I worked for them before I retired, latterly at a higher management level.

I know exactly how the annual "subsidy" is calculated as I was involved in that.
No private sector forestry as anything like the number of access and environmental rangers, undertakes the level of broadleaf planting or has restore 2000ha of open cast coal moonscape to woodland. Or sold multiple areas of land, forests and buildings at discounted values to community groups.
These are the sort of "market failure" tasks and Agency of Scottish Government is tasked with.
The timber production element is not subsidised in any way, yet, in order to smooth the flow to the mills, is expected to continue to sell saw logs at below best value when the market is down and private foresters are not selling

The private sector have access to plenty of other grants via Lottery funds and Scottish/local enterprise funds for the provision of public access features.

Anyway, we digress. The removal of rating exemption is definitely SNP laird basing. Senior ministers are on record last week saying that this removal was due to a prior commitment to the Green Party. While I dont see game bird shooting getting off the hook I think we will see positive changes to the proposals with regard to deer management before the budget bill is finalised

As you have just said yourself, FLS continuing to supply timber at well below market rate is just causing market failure. Of course the timber mills will buy from the cheapest source. That’s business.

However if FLS was not supplying timber at subsidised rate, the private sector supply would flow. Or the mills would source from elsewhere.

Its the same with business. Scottish Enterprises has effectively killed off all the private sector provision of corporate finance and venture capital to Scottish businesses. Unless you are within the Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Investment Bank umbrella you don’t get a look in. Its also the reason why the Scottish Tech sector is a small fraction of what it should be.

 

[slider]

As you have just said yourself, FLS continuing to supply timber at well below market rate is just causing market failure. Of course the timber mills will buy from the cheapest source. That’s business.

However if FLS was not supplying timber at subsidised rate, the private sector supply would flow. Or the mills would source from elsewhere.

You are not correct but this is way of topic and I can't be bothers trying to teach a serial FLS hater

 

[Heym SR20]

You are not correct but this is way of topic and I can't be bothers trying to teach a serial FLS hater

So you are not prepared to explain why FLS should run at a loss by providing products to sawmills at below economic price. FLS as you point out is a government agency.

Then we as tax payers are being asked to pay yet more tax to coffers of the Scottish Government which are then distributed to their failing agencies.

You as a former part of the management of FLS clearly understand the economics, but are unable to provide a coherent answer as to the economics of a government quango. In the meantime all of us in the private sector will keep paying the taxes and get shouted at if we question where they go.

 

[slider]

So you are not prepared to explain why FLS should run at a loss by providing products to sawmills at below economic price. FLS as you point out is a government agency.

Then we as tax payers are being asked to pay yet more tax to coffers of the Scottish Government which are then distributed to their failing agencies.

You as a former part of the management of FLS clearly understand the economics, but are unable to provide a coherent answer as to the economics of a government quango. In the meantime all of us in the private sector will keep paying the taxes and get shouted at if we question where they go.

Basically as a Government Agency FLS is tasked with delivering Govt policies. An organisation tasked with delivering Govt policies cannot perform financially in the same way as an organisation tasked with maximizing shareholders returns. The "public goods" that those govt policies deliver (whether you personally believe they are "good" or not) have a value. That value is not a direct monetary value but is still a value in terms of public health, access, community benefits, ecological benefits etc etc etc.

The annual subsidy for delivering these public goods traditionally ran at around £30-40m but has reduced to £15-20 m in recent years. I am not aware of why last year spiked but there would have been a very specific reason as the annual subsidy has to be negotiated and justified annually.

FLS is not a failing agency, it is the only part of Scottish Govt that operates in any way remotely close to a commercial footing, the only part of Scottish Govt that is remotely close to being financially neutral.

Yes, there are issues but, again, most of these issues are related to govt policies - Public Procurement rules being the biggest headache for anyone involved in trying to balance the books of their department. In my personal experience Public Procurement legislation (there is a Scottish Public Finance Manual that runs to hundreds of pages) at times resulted in the wrong people being given the wrong contract at the wrong time but the rules are written to avoid officer awarding contracts to "their pals" and avoid fraud - in that respect they are very successful.
A govt agency cannot be seen to ignore govt regulation!!

The other factor that FLS have to deal with - on a daily basis - that commercial businesses do not is MSP's questioning virtually every thing they do. This is usually as a result of a constituent raising a query about something they simply don't like. MSP's like to ( try to) keep every voter happy. These queries usually cumulate with an understanding MSP and little change but take an inordinate amount of time. In the last two years of my working life I reckon I spent 60% of my time dealing with complaints (usually baseless) and MSP/Ministerial questions.

Ultimately the reason FLS are a (financially) inefficient public agency is because......they are a public agency.......

If you want more information please feel free to take this up with your MSP and/or submit Freedom of Information requests.

 

[Reloader708]

 

[artschool]

and why cant farmers or private owners have these goals aswell? This is a joke.

because that would prevent the government from using it as a punishment tool