Future of council tax in Scotland: Consultation analysis Final Report

Executive Summary

The Joint Working Group on Council Tax Reform, co-chaired by the Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), led a programme of engagement to build consensus on council tax reform. This included a public consultation and five public consultation events.

Public Consultation

The public consultation on the Future of Council Tax in Scotland ran for 14 weeks from 27 October 2025 to 30 January 2026, and included 16 questions (14 closed, two open).

The consultation received a total of 1,311 responses. A process of moderation to remove responses with inappropriate language, and data cleaning to remove duplicate and blank

responses resulted in a total of 1,291 validated responses for analysis. Of these, 1,219 (94%) were from individuals and 72 (6%) were from organisations. Among individual respondents, 37% paid council tax in Bands A–D and 55% in Bands E–H.

Public engagement events

Alongside the public consultation, five public engagement events were held between 15 and 26 January 2026 in Aberdeen, Glasgow, Inverness, Edinburgh, and online, with a total of 115 participants.

Key Findings

Need for Reform and Revaluation

The majority of respondents (82%, 1,050 respondents) who answered were in favour of reforming the current council tax system (97% of organisations, 69 respondents; 81% of individuals, 981 respondents).

Two-thirds (67%, 864 respondents) supported a revaluation of properties to reflect current market values. A higher proportion of organisations (91%, 62 respondents) than individuals (66%, 802 respondents) expressed this view.

All 20 participant groups at the five public engagement events chose revaluation over no change. Participants at the events consistently viewed the current council tax system as being out-of-date and inequitable.

Amongst respondents to the public consultation, the most preferred revaluation frequency was every 10 years (34% of all those answering, 416 respondents). A further 24% (298 respondents) chose 'other', with some respondents advocating revaluation when properties are sold, changed or upgraded.

Options for Council Tax Reform

In relation to reform options, the findings from the public consultation showed some differences between respondent types and council tax band groupings.

• Respondents were asked to select which was more important in the design of council tax bands between: 1) progressivity in which those in higher value properties contribute more and 2) differentiation in which tax rises between bands are gradual and predictable.
• Overall, similar proportions of respondents who answered this question were in favour of progressivity (38%, 472 respondents) and differentiation (41%, 507 respondents).
• Respondents in Bands A–D favoured progressivity (56%, 241 respondents) while those in Bands E–H favoured differentiation (53%, 339 respondents).
• The majority of organisations preferred progressivity (55%, 36 respondents).
• A revalued 14-band system was the most supported reform option (38%, 463 respondents), with higher support among organisations (59%, 36 respondents) and Band A–D respondents (47%, 200 respondents).
• The current system with no revaluation of property bands was the least preferred option (41%, 521 respondents selected it as their least preferred), particularly for organisations (83%, 55 respondents).
• Views on national versus local banding were evenly split: 48% (606 respondents) favoured locally set thresholds and 45% (568 respondents) favoured a national approach. The majority of organisations preferred nationally set thresholds (68%, 43 respondents).

Transition and Mitigation

Respondents to the consultation were asked for their views on transitional measures to help households adjust to any changes in their council tax bills as a result of reform.

The majority of respondents in the public consultation (79%, 1,000 respondents) supported the establishment of a transitional relief scheme to limit how much a household’s council tax bill can increase each year following reform. Similarly, participants across the public engagement events were also supportive of a transitional relief scheme.

Respondents were then asked to indicate their preference between two potential transitional relief schemes, described in the consultation paper as follows:

• Scheme 1: Council tax gross bill increases due to the reforms would be limited to the lower of 10% or £300 each year, over four years.
• Scheme 2: Council tax gross bill increases would be capped at the lower of 25% or £600 per year, over four years.

Scheme 1 was more favoured overall in the public consultation, with 59% of all those answering (725 respondents ) indicating support for this option. There was limited support for either scheme amongst organisation respondents and some proposed alternative income-based or tenure-differentiated approaches.

The public engagement events also elicited mixed views on these two options. Some groups at the events favoured a lower cap (of around 10%) for offering greater protection to more households, while other groups preferred a higher cap (of around 25%) as a way to reduce implementation costs and move households to their full charge more quickly.

Views on a deferral scheme to allow some households to delay paying the extra council tax they owe as a result of reform were also mixed. In the public consultation, almost half of those answering opposed a deferral scheme for homeowners (48%, 606 respondents) while 39% (492 respondents) were in favour. Support for a deferral scheme was also limited at the public engagement events, with some participants raising concerns that those deferring payments could accumulate significant debt.

In the public consultation, approximately half (51%, 642 respondents) of those answering supported expanding the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme to include more households. Support for expansion of the CTR scheme was particularly marked amongst organisations (85%, 53 respondents) and amongst individuals in council tax Bands A-D (60%, 263 respondents).

Equal support was expressed for both of the proposed changes to the CTR scheme:

• Withdrawing support more gradually as rising incomes move individuals out of eligibility (42%, 525 respondents).
• Broadening eligibility criteria to include low-income households where the property moves into a higher band due to council tax system changes (42% of all those answering, 522 respondents).

Some respondents also indicated support for other changes to the CTR scheme, including widening eligibility to include more people and increasing the levels of reductions for those already eligible under the current CTR scheme.

Impacts of council tax reform

The first of two open questions asked respondents for their views on the possible impacts of council tax reform on the following: groups who share protected characteristics; island communities; businesses or organisations in the public, private or third sector; and your local area.

Many respondents raised concerns related to risks that council tax reform could result in higher bills, adding financial pressure to older people on fixed incomes (who may be asset-rich but income-poor), younger people on lower incomes, disabled people facing additional living costs, and women with caring responsibilities and lower average earnings. These views were also evident at the public engagement events.

Several respondents also raised concerns about the possible impacts of council tax reform on their local area. In particular, some were concerned that council tax reform could result in increased council tax bills in rural areas where property prices have been inflated and do not correspond to residents’ ability to pay.

A similar concern was also raised by some respondents in relation to island communities. These respondents identified a risk that council tax reform could add to already disproportionate living costs, along with a view that island communities already have poorer perceived public service provision and access relative to other areas.

Finally, a few respondents raised concerns that council tax reform could erode council tax revenues and increase demand on already stretched local authority services. A few respondents also noted that council tax reform could put more pressure on third-sector organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people.

Other views on council tax reform

The final question in the public consultation asked respondents for any other comments or views on the consultation themes or council tax reform that they had not been able to share in the preceding questions. This elicited a wide range of responses, and the most common themes, in order of the frequency with which they were mentioned, were:

• Property value was considered by many respondents to be a poor basis for council tax and many respondents felt it did not reflect household income and ability to pay. Many respondents felt that council tax should instead be based on household occupancy and/ or use of local services.
• Many respondents suggested alternative council tax models, including a per-capita tax, local income tax, land value tax and proportional property tax.
• Many respondents expressed concerns about the financial impact of revaluation on taxpayers, especially for those who have invested in their homes.
• There was also support for council tax reform, with many respondents noting that the current system, based on older property valuations, creates disparities between similar properties in both banding and council tax costs.
• The cost of reform was also raised. Many respondents noted concerns about the cost of ongoing revaluation of properties and the costs of implementing proposed transition and mitigation measures as well as the potential impacts of these measures on council tax revenues.
• Many respondents expressed support for greater protections for vulnerable groups such as pensioners, disabled people, and low-income households.

Finally, many respondents also took the opportunity to raise points that were outwith the scope of the consultation, including perceived inefficiencies in how council tax revenue is spent, concerns council tax reform could have adverse impacts on the housing market, a lack of trust in government, and criticism of the consultation process.

Conclusions

The consultation generated 1,291 validated responses from individuals and organisations across Scotland, supplemented by structured engagement with 115 members of the public at five events.

The majority of respondents supported reform of council tax. While there was majority support for a revaluation of properties, there was still a sizeable minority who did not agree with updating property values or with a property-based tax model.

Of the reform options presented, a revalued 14-band system emerged as the most favoured across both the public consultation and the public engagement events.

Transitional and mitigation measures were regarded as important to manage the impacts of changes to the council tax system. A transitional relief scheme was supported across respondent groups, and there was majority support for expanding the CTR scheme, though less consensus on deferral.

Recurring concerns raised by respondents to the consultation were a perceived disconnect between property value and ability to pay, and the need to ensure that council tax reform does not disproportionately disadvantage households already suffering financial hardship.