Brian Taylor: Stand by for cuts and tax rises. Who’s to blame?

Presumably Brexiteers would now have something of a problem with French Cricket. They would go for British Bulldogs instead.

Current discourse rather resembles a vigorous game of Pass the Parcel. It is yet to be determined who will be left clutching the bedraggled core when the music finally stops.

The new UK Labour Government resolutely blames the recently departed Conservatives for pretty much everything, including the state of UK finances.

In vain do the Tories say that the latest stats, registering 0.6 per cent growth between April and June, suggest a more robust economic handover than the picture painted by Labour.

The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, adheres zealously to pragmatic pessimism. For two reasons. She wants to extract yet more gain from Tory-bashing. And she wants to ready us for potential pain in her October budget, in the shape of spending cuts and carefully calibrated increases in the tax burden.

Inevitably, over time, the political burden will shift from the previous to the incumbent administration.

For now, though, Ms Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer have some slack in their favour.

Read more

Brian Taylor: Condemn the riots – but understand their true nature and context

Brian Taylor: Has John Swinney been handed a brimming bag of rubbish by Labour cuts?

By contrast, in Scotland, there is no such honeymoon available to the SNP devolved government. Not least because they have been in prolonged power since 2007.

So, while the Chancellor eagerly passes the political parcel back to the Tories, John Swinney is left looking around him, somewhat fretful.

He rips off a layer of flimsy wrapping. Easily done. But where to dump the depleted bundle? Thrust it in Labour’s lap? Or maybe choose the customary recipient for SNP opprobrium, the Tories?

The game was easier when the Tories were the target. Now Team Swinney are also having to develop a new, more nuanced narrative. Criticising Labour.

There is a substantial financial challenge confronting the SNP government. Partly that arises as a legacy from past spending commitments – purposeful or profligate, according to taste.

Partly, though, it arises as a direct consequence of decisions taken by the UK Labour Government, most notably with regard to public sector pay.

The Chancellor has, in effect, set a benchmark of 5.5 per cent for pay deals. She has also reached out in an effort to settle a long-running dispute with ASLEF, the train drivers’ union.

I understand the motivation. Strikes damage the economy – and Britain’s global reputation. Rachel Reeves wants the impending Autumn to be a Keatsian season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, not the prelude to a winter of discontent.

Supporters – including the Labour-linked unions – say her objective is to placate disquiet, to create a space for positive growth. Conservative critics say the offer to ASLEF, for example, abandons the search for productivity improvements and will prove unaffordable as a consequence.

And SNP Ministers? They are torn. They too have sought industrial peace through pay deals and have proudly proclaimed that they obviated disputes in the NHS.

More recently, they bought off the prospect of a strike by refuse collectors, with a subvention of £77.5million. Now they need to find the money from a budget which has to be balanced annually.

Hence the revised narrative. Scotland’s Finance Secretary Shona Robison says she faces “some very difficult decisions about what we can afford and what we can’t afford.”

She has ordered a freeze on recruitment and additional expenditure, unless such initiatives are inevitable – or necessary to enable the Scottish Government to comply with the law.

And she attaches a fair degree of blame to the UK Labour Government.

Specifically, she castigates Labour for confining the winter fuel payment to those on pension credit, just a few weeks before that benefit was devolved to Holyrood.

(Image: Shona Robison)

That meant a £160m shortfall in the cash to be transferred and resulted in this week’s decision that Scotland will reluctantly follow the UK example, in limiting the payment.

On pay, she notes that a substantial portion of the Reeves cash is to be found from Whitehall departmental savings. Under the Barnett formula, that means comparable constraint placed upon the Scottish budget.

There has been a fair degree of criticism aimed at Scottish ministers this week. That they fell short in prudent planning. That they must have known that the overall fiscal position was perilous.

Certainly, in the recent election campaign, it was the SNP’s voice which was loudest in talking of a financial black hole.

However, it was the Chancellor herself who argued, on attaining office, that the black hole was somewhat deeper than forecast. It was the Chancellor who offered substantial pay rises, insisting she was simply enabling public sector workers to catch up.

Perhaps these points might be adduced in defence of the Scottish Government against criticism that they spent too much historically, without productive reform and with a costly focus upon universality.

Either way, SNP ministers now have to find savings. Far from easy. The NHS is hugely expensive – but a political totem. Perhaps, over time, reform will limit demand and improve performance. But not instantly.

Is a National Care Service now affordable? I doubt it.

University tuition fees? Behave yourself. As far as I am aware, the rocks have yet to melt in the sun.

Benefits? The Chancellor is plainly looking there, with her repeated statement that “if you can work, you should”.

But the benefit portfolio in Scotland is more limited and John Swinney accorded top priority to tackling child poverty.

So might taxes have to rise? Again, the Treasury is evidently looking at possibilities, while ruling out hikes in VAT, national insurance and income tax on working people.

Ms Robison will be comparably cautious, motivated by electoral politics and a desire to attract productive investment.

Me, I rather like the verdict by Scotland’s Auditor General, Stephen Boyle, who says that what is needed is “shrewd governance”, a better understanding of where public spending works – and, crucially, where it does not.

Not, as he acknowledges, a phrase to raise the pulse. But vital.