Highland Tourism Visitor Levy (Tourist Tax)

[SummitStupid]

You say that you can't reduce visitor numbers, but actually you can. If you set the levy high enough, then people will either go somewhere else because it's cheaper or they won't go at all. That's one of the reasons why places like Amsterdam have introduced tourist taxes.

Yeah, but then you're restricting those places to the well-off.

[davekeiller]

Yes you are. That's one of the reasons why I think a tourist tax is a bad idea.

[stuarty94]

I really don’t understand any objection to a tourist tax and I would fully support its implementation.

I recently travelled across Europe and paid between €1-€3 per night in tax without exception. Did it make me rethink where I was visiting? Course it bloody didn’t.

It was particularly well organised in Berchtesgaden, Germany. It was €2.60 per night (which is a fair bit of money, especially if you’re staying for a while) but in return you received free bus transport, 1/2 price parking, reduced entry to attractions and discounts in shops. It was used to fund the walking trails, infrastructure and provide live music in the evenings.

I believe a similar system would work well in Skye and the North West, both reducing the pressure on the roads by encouraging public transport and establishing a fund to improve roads, car parking, footpaths, public toilets etc. A percentage could also be put aside to assist the young people in the area that are unable to find affordable housing.

Skye and the North Coast are at breaking point (search 'Fairy Glen Chaos' on facebook for an idea!!) and really need some investment. No one is going to be put off visiting because of an extra few £s. My partner's family run a B&B in Skye and they (and many others) would be willing to lower their prices to offset the tax if they believed they’d see some local investment!

[Marty_JG]

With regards off the money being reinvested into infrastructure etc on one hand that’s great but on the other we go To these places because they don’t have huge infrastures and are unique.

I don't think many who live in these places want much additional infrastructure, just the necessary things to cope with the numbers of visitors in popular locations and the rest to be kept in good condition.

More available money would mean that any new infrastructure could be well made and of good design rather than just enough to be serviceable.

Skye has a resident population of c.10,600. It received c.660,000 visitors in 2017. Almost 80% from elsewhere in the UK. The island is screaming out for new infrastructure to handle those numbers. Not just that, residents and community groups I've spoken to recently (I do a bit of community engagement work in my job and I've been working in Skye this year) want measures to reduce the numbers of visitors. I don't think a tourist tax of say £2 pp/pn will make even the slightest difference.

1. We want a bridge!
2. No, we want a bridge without a tariff on it!
3. Hey Internet, come to Skye it's brilliant!
4. . . .
5.Oh, a lot of people are on the Internet, aren't they?

[Marty_JG]

That's one of the reasons why places like Amsterdam have introduced tourist taxes.

If that was the intent they have failed. Cruises have started to steer clear after a day tax, but the 7% hotel tax hasn't slowed tourist down an iota. Numbers are up year, on year, on year, and projected to rise and rise; 2018 saw the most-ever-yet at 20 million and by 2025 that's predicted to be 30 million.

Amsterdam is a victim of it's own, entirely intended, success: it worked hard to get the tourist infrastructure in. They cleansed out the dirty people, homeless, junkies, from the city centre. Schipol accepted as many cheap direct flights in as operators were willing to commission. They promoted itself worldwide. Now they're moaning people are there.

There are some funny spots in the Netherlands. Giethoorn sounds crazy: a village of 2,500 is visited by 350,000 Chinese tourists every year. Must be weird to have grown up in that town and see it change.

[Cairngorm creeper]

The biggest tourist attraction, the wonderful scenery is free and long may it remain so, but if there is no tourist tax perhaps the Highland council need a larger grant from central government to maintain the infrastructure so that it can be enjoyed by tourists from across the UK.

[fhaggis]

You say that you can't reduce visitor numbers, but actually you can. If you set the levy high enough, then people will either go somewhere else because it's cheaper or they won't go at all. That's one of the reasons why places like Amsterdam have introduced tourist taxes.

silly idea

[rodderss]

Pretty sure a couple of pounds tourist tax to nightly room rate is not going to damage tourism in Scotland to any noticeable effect.

If it hits campsites it could be a relatively large percentage increase.

Very true, notice you are championing campsites.you own a few

Can't imagine highland council really want to reduce toursit numbers just raise some more money because of there incompetence at balancing the books.

That's one of the reasons why places like Amsterdam have introduced tourist taxes.

If that was the intent they have failed. Cruises have started to steer clear after a day tax, but the 7% hotel tax hasn't slowed tourist down an iota. Numbers are up year, on year, on year, and projected to rise and rise; 2018 saw the most-ever-yet at 20 million and by 2025 that's predicted to be 30 million.

Amsterdam is a victim of it's own, entirely intended, success: it worked hard to get the tourist infrastructure in. They cleansed out the dirty people, homeless, junkies, from the city centre. Schipol accepted as many cheap direct flights in as operators were willing to commission. They promoted itself worldwide. Now they're moaning people are there.

There are some funny spots in the Netherlands. Giethoorn sounds crazy: a village of 2,500 is visited by 350,000 Chinese tourists every year. Must be weird to have grown up in that town and see it change.

Ah, Amsterdam when it was like the wild west, great memories but definitely changed for the better. if you go midweek as at weekends you can't move so busy

Amsterdam certainly don't want tourist numbers to drop when Netherlands brought in the weed pass so only locals could buy weed Amsterdam declined it knowing that many only go to Amsterdam for the ridicously overpriced centrum coffee shops weed.

When places get popular prices increase and some are just mindboggling,so why the need for a tourist levy,one place charges £400 extra a week due to what time of year,which makes it £1,750 for a week,pure greed,surely the tax raised should be enough to supply services.
Before I could have afforded to stay at this accommodation but now this is way out my price bracket.

Not really an unusual price increase from low to high season.Have a look at their online calendar bet they are fully booked and getting the extra.so why not.

[iain_atkinson_1986]

I already find Inverness wildly overpriced, as is Edinburgh, so I'm not sure it really needs the added deterrent of a tax for those visiting the Highlands. The Scottish and UK governments moving more infrastructure away from the central belt would be a better option.

[Marty_JG]

Very true, notice you are championing campsites.you own a few

I don't own any campsites, that I know of, but I certainly own a couple of tents.

Amsterdam certainly don't want tourist numbers to drop when Netherlands brought in the weed pass so only locals could buy weed Amsterdam declined it knowing that many only go to Amsterdam for the ridicously overpriced centrum coffee shops weed.

I've been holidaying in Amsterdam since late 80s and I lived for a few years in the Netherlands, it has been astonishing how the price has risen as the quality has dropped. Better than Canada though, that stuff is homeopathic strength.

Erm, allegedly, or so a friend said, a friend I've never met, let's change the conversation officer, etc.

[al78]

A tax on campsites would be absurd, even £2 on a £10 pitch is a 20% price rise.

Here we have an example of an irrational human cognitive bias. £2 is £2, the extra cost burden is the same whether it is an increase on a £10 object/service or a £10,000 one, what it is relative to something else is irrelevant. The extra cost is negligable in the grand scheme of things, a £2 increase on a nights camping or B&Bing will be unnoticable, given that the people who holiday in Scotland are paying massively more than that for transport and accommodation, so it is not like they are not going to be able to absorb the cost. It is like people at the bridge club who complain if the table money goes up by 50p, or they now have to pay a pound for parking in the evening, but spending £2k+ on holidays abroad every year is no problem at all.

This sort of thing comes down to the fact that local authorities are selling their region to get more tourists for economic reasons, but neglect the side effects. If you are going to heavily advertise something like the North Coast 500, and in the years to come end up with crowded small/single track roads that aren't up to the job of dealing with the increased traffic, and damage to the environment through carelessness, or disruption to locals trying to go about their business, what do you expect? It's a classic, try and get as many tourists in as possible, then complain when there is too many of them and the detrimental side effects cannot be ignored.

Perhaps I'll visit the Norwegian national parks in the future, if Scotland is trying to discourage tourists they've been trying hard to attract for the past however many decades.

[al78]

I've been holidaying in Amsterdam since late 80s and I lived for a few years in the Netherlands, it has been astonishing how the price has risen as the quality has dropped.

Perhaps they are trying to emulate SE England.

[Skyelines]

A tax on campsites would be absurd, even £2 on a £10 pitch is a 20% price rise.

Here we have an example of an irrational human cognitive bias. £2 is £2, the extra cost burden is the same whether it is an increase on a £10 object/service or a £10,000 one, what it is relative to something else is irrelevant. :.

Oh really?

The value or utility of £2 to an individual varies according to the amount of money they have and what they can afford to do with it.

If someone earns £100 per week and cannot afford to pay their electricity bill an extra £2/week is worth quite a bit in alleviating their problem.
Someone earning £1000 per week who has all their basic needs covered and has a large amount of disposable income an extra £2/wk is not going to change their life very much.

They have both had the same amount but the value or utility to the individual is massively different.

I camp because I can't afford £40-£80 B&Bs so adding £2 to a 14 night holiday reduces the amount I can spend on other things like food or fuel. £28 can buy me over 200 miles worth of fuel, that makes a big difference to what I can do on holiday.

What it is relative to is definitely not irrelevant.

[Marty_JG]

Poll Tax Bad (flat, regressive), Income Tax Good (proportional, progressive).

If there is one country on earth I shouldn't think this needs explain to it's Thatcher's Scotland.

And it could start at £2, but there is no guarantee - or likelihood - it would stop there. What's £5 in the grand scheme of things? Or £10 a night?

On a chalet costing £2000+ per week (as those recent review were or more) it's insignificant. On a £70 a night B&B it's signifiant but perhaps affordable. On a £10 a night pitch it starts piling-up on those who can least afford it.

[Sunset tripper]

A tax on campsites would be absurd, even £2 on a £10 pitch is a 20% price rise.

Here we have an example of an irrational human cognitive bias. £2 is £2, the extra cost burden is the same whether it is an increase on a £10 object/service or a £10,000 one, what it is relative to something else is irrelevant. The extra cost is negligable in the grand scheme of things, a £2 increase on a nights camping or B&Bing will be unnoticable

al78, That's a strange concept. A Ferrari costing £300,000 makes it unaffordable for me. For Sergio Aguero it's probably only a weeks wages.
You say £2 is £2 and indeed that is true and £300,000 is £300,000 that is true also. For some £300,000 is nothing and for others every £2 adds up. Once in my younger days I've seen me searching all my old jackets and ripping the couch apart to find an extra few quid to fund a trip to Glencoe or Fort William. Skye was sometimes too expensive with the ferry or the toll.
Camping was mostly free but I used the campsites on occasion also.
The £2 pn tourist tax could easily become £5 or £10, it's not cut and dried.
Accommodation already has a 20% VAT on it so if the national government want to devolve some responsibility for facilities and services in the highlands they could divert 2.5% or 5% or whatever of the VAT. The tourism and inflated prices for hotel rooms is good for them as the VAT returns get higher so they could divert some back to the community.