5. Further discussion
As summarised above, the most recent non-domestic rates relief statistics (June 2025) imply a net income of approximately £2.2 million based on reported gross liability and relief applied.
However, assessment of the fiscal impact of the reintroduction of rates is constrained by the absence of detailed revenue data specific to shooting estates. In addition, the lack of time-series data limits the scope for trend analysis, especially when comparing revaluation cycles.
More fundamentally, there is no comprehensive baseline dataset describing the number, distribution, or characteristics of shooting estates prior to their inclusion on the valuation roll in 2017. This limits the ability to assess wider impacts of the policy change, including potential effects on estate prevalence, land use patterns, or management practices.
A central finding of both the quantitative analysis and stakeholder engagement is that robust impact assessment is constrained by data limitations. The valuation roll provides the address and rateable value of the entry, but does not capture detailed business turnover, employment levels, profitability, or land management outcomes.
This limitation is not unique to sporting rates and has been identified in wider evaluations of non-domestic rates reliefs. It means that conclusions regarding business viability, employment, or environmental outcomes must be interpreted cautiously.
An important consideration for policy is the relationship between administrative effort and revenue yield. The reintroduction of sporting rates requires valuation, ongoing maintenance of entries, and the handling of appeals. In this context, the annual revenue of about £2 million raises questions about proportionality and administrative efficiency within the wider non-domestic rates system. This theme emerged consistently in stakeholder engagement, noting that the administrative burden was one of the reasons sporting rates were abolished in 1994.
However, no disaggregated data are available on the administrative costs associated specifically with sporting rates. A comparison of revenue raised against administrative costs would provide a clearer assessment of efficiency and proportionality, but such an analysis is beyond the scope of this study.
Stakeholders highlighted complexity in defining sporting units. Unlike buildings, sporting rights lack fixed physical boundaries, may be fragmented across crofts or multiple lease agreements, and often require interpretation when restructured. Appeals can incur professional fees, and rates must generally continue to be paid while appeals are outstanding.
While this study does not quantify administrative costs, qualitative evidence suggests that the system imposes administrative burdens on valuers, owners, and tenants.
For context, total non-domestic rates income in Scotland was approximately £3.1 billion in 2024–25. Revenue from shooting estates, therefore, represents less than 0.1% of total non-domestic rates income. This suggests that, in aggregate fiscal terms, the measure has a limited impact on overall revenues. Its significance appears to lie more in principles of tax equity and consistency across sectors than in material revenue generation. This was one of the stated objectives of the policy.
The relatively small fiscal scale suggests that sector-wide behavioural effects are likely to have been limited, including impacts on business viability, employment, and tourism. This assessment is necessarily cautious, as the available data do not allow comparison with a clear pre reform baseline.
Regardless, sector stakeholders emphasised that for those in scope, liability is passed to sporting tenants rather than landowners, meaning the burden is borne by those operating the businesses directly, where margins may already be tight. As a result, rates are often treated as an additional operating cost for those delivering sporting activities. In addition, the structure of payment and relief – requiring upfront payment followed by reimbursement several months later – was described as creating working capital pressures for some operators.
As for the environment, the small fiscal impact implies that wider trends, such as changes in deer populations or associated habitat impacts, are unlikely to be directly attributable to the reintroduction of sporting rates in isolation. Although, as mentioned above, the absence of baseline data limits our ability to say this with confidence.
Finally, some stakeholders identified perceived tensions between environmental incentive schemes and rates liability. Public funding is allocated through schemes linked to deer management objectives, such as payments tied to achieving cull targets, while rates liability applies to the same activity. Participants suggested that this interaction merits further consideration within the wider fiscal and land-use policy framework. More broadly, some stakeholders questioned how sporting rates fit within the overall policy environment.
