Democracy, Churchill satirised, is “the worst form of government” – except, that is, for all the other systems that have been tried. The challenge for elected politicians is that their bosses, the voters, may not always be entirely certain what they favour but they are generally pretty clear as to what they dislike. Suggest curbing existing services or benefits and you can be fairly sure of the response. Up with this we will not put. Just ask Rachel Reeves.
So Scottish Government Ministers are treading rather carefully in preparing their budget. Plus the SNP lacks a majority at Holyrood. They need chums.
And, from everywhere, ideas. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested it might be feasible that Scotland’s tax rates, which outpace those in England, are in reality generating reduced revenue. That comes on top of warnings, thus far discounted, that high earners may shift their income elsewhere if the tax gap is too great.
Read more by Brian Taylor
- Why action to reverse climate change is in trouble
- How to respond to Trump? Swinney gets it right – eventually
Look, too, at the report from the Auditor General, Stephen Boyle. He accused Ministers of ducking the evident need to reform public services, rather than simply disbursing more cash. Mr Boyle has made this point previously – and is plainly becoming exasperated. As always, the tone is measured but still he demands “transparency” from the Scottish Government. Which is auditor speak for “time to get serious.”
Quite rightly, Russell Findlay, he who leads the Scottish Conservatives, assailed the First Minister on this point. John Swinney essayed a couple of opening parries: talk of Tory austerity and Liz Truss. But his main point was that Mr Findlay had failed to suggest alternatives.
So who’s right? They both are. Mr Findlay is entitled to cite the Auditor General who accused Ministers of relying on short-term solutions, rather than strategic change. Mr Swinney is right to rebut that his opponent is short on detail. For the avoidance of doubt, Labour is comparably culpable with regard to the UK budget set out by the Chancellor. Note the additional cash provided to the NHS – without first securing the reform which the Westminster Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, now argues is essential.
In short, they are all at it. But they have my sympathy. For two reasons. Times are tough fiscally. And the voters will need considerable cajoling before they submit to the substantial change which is required in public policy, the reforms in the NHS and other services which are now urgent.
Put most simply, we cannot afford the NHS as it is presently constituted. Demand is out of control while the supply structures – hospital procedures et al – are hopelessly antiquated. Meanwhile expensive new drugs emerge daily, each with their own well-motivated advocates, prompted by the big companies.
We need reform. Not, at this point, heaps of new cash. To be fair to Scottish Labour, they suggested just that in a paper this week. But that paper scarcely went beyond bullet points. To be fair, further, the Health Secretary Neil Gray – and other key Ministers – are actively seeking change. As, to record a hat-trick of fairness, are Mr Streeting and colleagues. The point the Auditor General is making is that time is running out. There is a hole in the Scottish budget right now.
Scotland. In many ways, this reflects the traditional Tory standpoint – and also makes use of Holyrood’s power to vary, rather than simply increase, tax. But, as John Swinney pointed out acerbically, Mr Findlay has yet to specify what programmes he would cut.
Which brings me back to Mr Findlay. He is suggesting substantial tax cuts inThe Tories say they need to see the books in detail, accompanying the December 4 budget. A reasonable point – but two thoughts occur. Firstly, they could give us a clue now, beyond broadly questioning social security benefits. Secondly, their declaration is more about a political stance countering the SNP than the drafting of an alternative budget.
Ditto Scottish Labour with their offer to fund a revised winter fuel payment in Scotland, if returned to Holyrood power. That too is a political manoeuvre, designed to appease angry Scottish pensioners – and perhaps in anticipation of an initiative from Scottish Ministers. Labour MPs – who meekly backed the UK change – are less than delighted.
To be clear, I raise no objection to strategic ruses. They are part of electoral politics. But they have little to do with formulating the current Scottish budget. Still less the Auditor General’s asks.
As to that budget, it remains possible that a deal will not be found. It remains possible that there will have to be an early Holyrood election. Possible – but highly unlikely. Nobody, least of all weary voters, wants an early ballot which would be in addition, note, to the fixed poll due in 2026.
Read more
- Independence splits over Holyrood budget are an embarrassment
-
EIF ascends under Benedetti while BBC Scotland rely on London
At Holyrood this week, I discerned little serious appetite for that scenario. So who might do a deal? Not the Tories – they are building their narrative of tax cuts for that 2026 election. Not Labour – their argument is founded upon challenging the SNP to make wise use of the largesse provided by Ms Reeves. (Or, more accurately, by state borrowing and unpopular tax hikes.).
The Greens? Still think not. Mr Swinney was ineffably polite while rebutting Lorna Slater’s demand for a levy on big retailers who sell alcohol and cigarettes. He outlined other avenues.
More to the point, SNP MSPs want away from Greenery. They do not want to revisit the Bute House pact. I suspect the Greens might also prefer a distinctive position. Which leaves the Liberal Democrats. I think the shelving of the National Care Service was aimed partly at them. They have long loathed the concept. LibDem sources tell me they are getting a bit of pushback from their voters for presenting the SNP with a list of demands. For talking at all. But, then again, there might be alternative pressures in the New Year if the talks fail and add to the uncertainty and anxiety already afflicting families.
In January, of course, it is Hail to the Chief in the shape of President Trump with his plans for trade tariffs. As one Holyrood source said to me, the economic challenges may look very different then. We might welcome reassurance.
Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel