Finance (Income Tax)

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at on 20 September 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

Somebody who was on £12,000 a year would not have had to pay to end Tory austerity. The SNP could have made choices in government that would have ended Tory austerity, but it deliberately did not do so, and Scotland should not forgive the SNP for that.

I well remember that Nicola Sturgeon rejected Labour’s proposal and said that it

“would not be radical. It would be reckless. It would not be daring. It would be daft.”—[

Official Report

, 23 March 2016; c 47.]

A mere 18 months later, the First Minister has changed her tune about tax. Is that because there is a yawning gap in the budget? After all, the Government starts with having to find at least £190 million just to stand still. Derek Mackay’s sleight of hand last year was to bundle together underspend, which had yet to be reported, with financial transaction money and changes to the budget exchange mechanism. All of that was for one year only.

Then there are the SNP’s spending commitments for the years ahead. It will increase health spending by £500 million, maintain funding in real terms for the Scottish Police Authority and double childcare provision.

Then there are the commitments to higher and further education, reducing the attainment gap, concessionary travel—although I think that the Government might be moving away from that—and greater welfare spending. What is the price tag for all those things?

In 2016-17, a real-terms budget cut of 3 to 4 per cent was projected by 2020-21. I heard the cabinet secretary use a different figure, and it would be useful to have clarity on Scottish Government forecasts for the next few years to inform discussion about the level of taxation that might be required to close that gap. I have heard rumours emanating from the cabinet secretary’s office that he is looking for an extra £600 million. That is the scale of the cuts that we would face. I notice that he does not like that suggestion, but neither does he deny it.

Covering that cut in the budget and new spending commitments could mean that some unprotected areas of the budget—