WAS John Swinney’s draft 2023-24 Scottish Budget, unveiled on Thursday, a new sign of realism on the part of the Scottish Government?

In recent times its reputation has suffered from endless revelations about the ferry crisis and a number of other issues. It has tested the patience of many independence-leaning voters by arguing its case at the Supreme Court then immediately declaring that the next general election would be a de facto referendum. As the STUC’s general secretary, Roz Foyer, recounted last week, she has met many Yes voters on the picket-lines who say that what they want is “jam today, not tomorrow”.

In an interview with Neil Mackay in The Herad on Sunday, Ms Foyer went on to make a persuasive case that the SNP Government has been guilty of inertia and that it risked being viewed as “Tartan Tories” unless it passed a progressive budget.

The budget got off to a sticky start amid claims that the BBC seemed to have advance access to some of its key recommendations. If not quite on a par with the infamous leaking of George Osborne’s entire budget to the London Evening Standard in 2013, or the time in 1947 when the Labour chancellor, Hugh Dalton, had to resign after he revealed key budget details to an evening paper, which unhelpfully published them before he began his speech, it was still an unedifying episode, regardless of where the leak came from.

The anger of Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone was easy to understand: protocol, clearly, was breached.

Mr Swinney pointed out – how could he not? – the grievous economic, financial and political backdrop to his budget. Energy and fuel prices are rampant; inflation is at a 40-year high.

Brexit had had a seriously adverse impact too, while high interest rates had landed the country with much higher debt that will undermine public finances for many years. Hard choices needed to be made in these recessionary times.

His statement did contain many interesting elements. An extra £1bn for the beleaguered NHS and social care services. An extra £80m in police funding. Business rates are to be frozen. Benefits controlled by the Scottish government will rise by10% (apart from the Scottish child payment, which remains at £25 a week).

There is to be a £15m pilot project that, if successful, could lead to an overdue scrapping of peak rail fares (described by the train drivers’ union ASLEF as a “tax on workers”). The tax on buying a second home will increase. And, notably, a £20m fund set aside for an independence referendum has been diverted instead into the fuel insecurity fund.

It was striking that there was little or no mention of the need to grow the Scottish economy, which had been a mantra for Kate Forbes, the Finance Secretary, before she went on maternity leave.

Mr Swinney, in an added sign of realism in the face of harsh economic times, seems to have acknowledged that it is, for the time being, better to help people through these turbulent times than to focus on future growth.

The headline measure in the budget, of course, was the decision to hit Scotland’s middle- and higher-income earners with tax rises that will help strengthen public services.

No matter how selfless they might think themselves to be, no matter how much they cherish public services, middle-class voters will not be happy to pay hundreds of pounds more in income tax next year. It was bad enough that, in the current year, Scottish taxpayers who earn £50,000 pay around £1,500 more in income tax than equivalent earners in the rest of the UK. That imbalance is now set to increase. Throw in the prospect of real rises in council tax next year, and the unease is palpable.

Mr Swinney had sought in advance to flag up painful tax rises, saying that he would use his powers to the “maximum extent that is responsible” and that the devolution settlement had left him unable to borrow to cope with inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.

The move, which is in breach of the SNP’s manifesto pledge, helps confirm Scotland’s position as the highest-taxed part of the UK. It has led to understandable concerns of a possible brain-drain from Scotland as higher earners flee for less punitively-taxed countries.

It is almost axiomatic that no budget has – or ever can – please everyone. Thus it was with Thursday’s statement, the hospitality industry, buffeted by the impact of the Covid lockdown, was dismayed by the absence of sector-specific relief on business rates for hospitality businesses.

In analysing Mr Swinney’s unexpectedly bold decisions it is evident that he did not have a lot of room for manoeuvre. It was a brave and interesting budget in many ways. Public services are badly in need of extra funding. There are no easy fixes, but the budget statement was a realistic acknowledgement of this, and also betrayed a readiness to take some hard and unpopular decisions, principally on income tax. Gone are the days when the SNP Government tried to please voters with such things as baby boxes. On the other hand, free prescriptions and free university education have proved invaluable to many.

In a sense it can be argued that the budget is doing precisely what devolution was designed to do, all those years ago: to give Scots the chance to opt for a distinctive agenda.

Equally, however, voters will be looking for clear signs that public services will improve. Achieving this will truly be a herculean effort, but voters’ patience will run out should the services continue to struggle and should there be further increases in income tax.

The next Scottish Parliament election – some years off, admittedly – will tell us whether the party that raises taxes, loses voters, and whether the voters are willing to pay for decent services – or merely say we are.

One final point: when the situation allows, the income taxes must be reduced. Hard-working people should not be punished for seeking to get ahead and for working long hours. Reducing taxes would, furthermore, give the government of the day some room for manoeuvre when the next crisis hits.

Triumph of football

UP until recently, the thought of staging a traditional summer event, the World Cup, in the depths of winter was an eccentric one – all the more so when the host was the desert kingdom of Qatar. But football has triumphed over external concerns.

Who could have foreseen that Morocco would reach the semi-finals, or that Japan could defeat mighty Spain and Germany, or that Saudi Arabia could beat Argentina, tomorrow’s finalists?

There have been stupendous goals, dependable controversies about VAR, and much of interest to millions of TV viewers around the world. The France-Argentina final will be a pulsating event. We’re missing the 2022 World Cup already.