Local Government spending decisions are being increasingly directed by Scottish Government, and the way Local Government finances are presented by Scottish Government is potentially confusing for the general public.
This can lead to raised expectations and lack of clarity in our communities about the reality of what is now possible to deliver on the ground, COSLA said today (Monday 16th January).
COSLA was clear that this year we needed and asked for a £1bn extra in real terms however we have ended up with £38million and that this was simply not good enough.
COSLA added that to avoid socially harmful cuts, the finances of Local Government need early and proactive discussions to avoid an annual public argument about the reality of what can and cannot be afforded by Councils.
Councils also need more freedom to address local priorities and the ability to focus on improving outcomes.
Commenting today, COSLA’s Resources Spokesperson Councillor Katie Hagmann said: “Given the significance of our council services to the lives and livelihoods of everyone across Scotland, communities deserve clear and consistent facts in relation to Local Government finance rather than a yearly debate on how much money is or is not available.
“All our communities are concerned about is the level of service they can expect that there is support for the most vulnerable and want to ensure their local environment looks and feels as good as it can – all of these things are under threat because of successive years of underfunding.
“Last week saw the publication of the Accounts Commission’s report on the health of council finances. The report makes it clear that councils are going to have to take very tough decisions over the next few years to balance the books, given the financial pressures they face.
“Responding to the Accounts Commission report, Scottish Government has quoted both real and cash terms increases of £2.2 bn between 2013-14 and 2022-23, but this is contradictory.
“We owe it to our communities to be clear, consistent and transparent about the starting point and how much less, in reality, councils have to spend year on year on the services that our communities rely on.
“In 2013-14, the Local Government funding settlement was worth £10.3 bn. Looking to 22-23 the Scottish Government provided £12.5 bn. This does equate to a £2.2 bn cash increase. However, that increase is heavily ring fenced and directed funding for core services and local priorities has stayed the same.
“The reality of having the same amount of money this year as 10 years ago for core services is a real terms cut. As well as increasing costs, this money is also now required to deliver more services than it was 10 years ago – Scotland’s population has increased, the number of households has gone up, COVID has left a legacy of support needs for the most vulnerable and as people live longer, their care needs have become more complex. This is just a snapshot of the demands being faced by councils, not to mention inflation and energy costs.
“For 2023-24, Scottish Government has stated that councils have seen a “£570m increase in their budgets” but the reality is, that only £38m of this can go towards pressures such as inflation, pay and service demand with the rest is for policy commitments that are already in the system, for example £100m to meet Real Living Wage commitments in social care.
“To put this into perspective, a 1% increase in pay across the Local Government workforces equates to around £100m. £38m will not go very far, especially when combined with energy price hikes, supporting the most vulnerable and our commitments to tackle the climate emergency.
“This year, demand for services like social care is at an all-time high but given the range of pressure facing councils, they simply don’t have the resources they need to work towards keep people out of hospital.
“Each day during winter, there is quite rightly a focus on getting people out of hospital to free up beds– currently councils support just over 97% of patients to be discharged without delay.
“The problem is not just getting people out of hospital but stopping them going in – councils simply don’t have the resources they need to provide the care packages or the interventions that prevent ill-health.
“COSLA’s key concerns are not only the socially harmful impact of cuts on our communities, but the way in which Local Government finance has been presented to them. The messaging is that there is more money for essential services each year despite this not being the case with councils asking communities about where they want to see cuts and reductions if essential services, like schools, roads, waste collection, child and adult protection, environmental health and social care are to continue to be delivered, every day of every year.”
New laws will allow government to set minimum levels of service which must be met during strikes ‘to ensure the safety of the public and their access to public services’
New laws will allow government to set minimum levels of service which must be met during strikes to ensure the safety of the public and their access to public services
the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will ensure crucial public services such as rail, ambulances, and fire services maintain a minimum service during industrial action, reducing risk to life and ensuring the public can still get to work
Business Secretary Grant Shapps said in Parliament today: “We do not want to have to use this legislation unless we have to, but we must ensure the safety of the British public.”
Millions of ‘hard-working’ people across the UK will be protected from disruptive strikes thanks to new laws introduced yesterday, which will allow employers in critical public sectors to maintain minimum levels of service during strikes.
The government is introducing this legislation to ensure that striking workers don’t put the public’s lives at risk and prevent people getting to work, accessing healthcare, and safely going about their daily lives.
The government will first consult on minimum service levels for fire, ambulance, and rail services, recognising the severe disruption that the public faces when these services are impacted by strikes, especially the immediate risk to public safety when blue light services are disrupted.
The government hopes to not have to use these powers for other sectors included in the Bill, such as education, other transport services, border security, other health services and nuclear decommissioning.
The government expects parties in these sectors to reach a sensible and voluntary agreement between each other on delivering a reasonable level of service when there is strike action. This will, however, be kept under review and the Bill gives the government the power to step in and set minimum service levels should that become necessary.
Business Secretary Grant Shapps said: “The first job of any government is to keep the public safe. Because whilst we absolutely believe in the ability to strike, we are duty-bound to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British people.
“I am introducing a bill that will give government the power to ensure that vital public services will have to maintain a basic function, by delivering minimum safety levels ensuring that lives and livelihoods are not lost.
“We do not want to have to use this legislation unless we have to, but we must ensure the safety of the British public.”
The sectors the legislation includes are:
health services
education services
fire and rescue services
transport services
decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel
border security
This principle is already recognised in many countries across the world, such as Italy and Spain, where systems for applying minimum levels during strikes are in place for services the public depend on.
As is the case currently a union will lose its legal protection from damages if it does not comply with the obligations set for them within the legislation.
Yesterday’s reforms come as government ministers are meeting trade unions to discuss fair and affordable public sector pay settlements for 2023 to 2024.
TUC to hold national ‘protect the right to strike’ day on February 1
Union body says it will fight new anti-strike legislation “every step of the way”
The TUC will hold a national ‘protect the right to strike’ day on Wednesday 1 February.
The announcement comes following a meeting of trade union leaders yesterday.
Events will take place in different parts of the country against the Conservative’s new anti-strike legislation.
Members of the public will be invited to show their support for workers taking action to defend their pay and conditions.
More information will be provided in the coming weeks about planned activities.
The TUC has vowed to fight the new strike curbs “every step of the way” – including through parliament and the courts.The union body says the government’s new anti-strike plans are unworkable and almost certainly in breach of international law.
TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty – but the government is attacking it in broad daylight.
“These draconian new curbs will tilt the balance of power even more in favour of bad bosses and make it harder for people to win better pay and conditions.
“Nobody should lose their job if they take lawful action to win a better deal. But ministers have gone from clapping our key workers to threatening them with the sack.
“Unions will fights these plans every step of the way – including through parliament and through the courts.
“On February the 1st will we hold events across the country against this spiteful new bill – which is unworkable and almost certainly illegal.
“We will call on the general public to show support for workers taking action to defend their pay and conditions, to defend our public services and to protect the fundamental right to strike.”
On the need for the government to follow the example of the private sector, Paul Nowak added: “The government should be following the example of many employers in the private sector who have sat down with unions and agreed fair pay deals.
“But instead ministers are drawing up plans that will succeed only in escalating disputes and driving workers away from wanting to work in our public services.”
TUC polling published in last year revealed that 1 in 3 public servants were taking active steps to leave their professions.
Analysis published by the union body shows:
Nurses have lost £42,000 in real earnings since 2008 – the equivalent of £3,000 a year
Midwives have lost £56,000 in real earnings since 2008 – the equivalent of £4,000 a year
Paramedics have lost £56,000 in real earnings since 2008 – the equivalent of £4,000 a year
And if the government does not improve its pay offer for public servants, public sector pay will fall, on average, by over £100 a month in real terms in 2023.
Expanding candidacy rights to 16 and 17 year olds is one of a number of electoral reforms being considered in a consultation launched today.
Following the lowering of the voting age to 16 in devolved Scottish elections, the consultation asks about changing the age of candidacy from the current minimum of 18 to allow young people to stand for election.
Views are also being sought on how best to encourage all those eligible to register to vote, especially among under-represented groups and on measures to protect the privacy of candidates addresses.
Other proposals in the consultation include extending candidacy rights to foreign nationals who already have the right to vote, and measures to improve the accessibility of voting, including for voters with sight loss.
Minister for Parliamentary Business George Adam said: “A robust electoral system is fundamental to the success of Scotland being an inclusive and vibrant democracy that makes everyone feel included and empowered.
“It is important as many people in our society as possible feel they have an effective and independent means to hold government to account and also feel encouraged take an active interest in politics and civic life.
“The measures set out in this consultation are wide-ranging and include key questions on how best to improve the accessibility of elections and to promote electoral registration. We will consider all responses very carefully before deciding on our next steps.”
TODAY (Wednesday 14th December), MSPs on the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee (CPPPC) will hear recommendations on how the Scottish Parliament can better engage with the people of Scotland.
Earlier this year, the CPPPC launched an inquiry into public participation, looking at how people’s voices are heard in the work of the Parliament. A Citizens’ Panel, comprised of 19 people broadly reflecting the demographic make-up of Scotland, met in Holyrood throughout October and November to deliberate how the Scottish Parliament can best work with people and communities to ensure their needs are reflected in its work.
Throughout the sittings, the Citizen’s Panel heard from MSPs, Scottish Parliament officials, third-sector organisations and leading academics about democracy and public participation to help facilitate discussion and inform their findings.
The Citizens’ Panel made 17 recommendations on improving how Holyrood’s work involves, reflects, and meets the needs of the full range of communities it represents, focusing on improving engagement for those currently under-represented.
Recommendations from the panel include improving community engagement, how the Parliament uses deliberative democracy, public involvement in Parliamentary business and the way Parliament communicates and educates the public on its work, specifically:
Removing barriers to participation so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be involved in the work of the Parliament
Legislating to embed deliberative democracy within the Parliamentary process
Scheduling specific time in the debating Chamber for individual public questions to be asked
Giving the Presiding Officer the power to compel MSPs to give a direct answer to all questions asked.
Five of the panellists, Gillian Ruane, Paul MacDonald, John Sultman, Maria Schwarz and Ronnie Paterson will present their findings to the CPPPC this week.
Following the evidence session, the Committee’s interim report will be published, and the Citizens’ Panel recommendations will go out to public consultation on 16th December for 8 weeks on the Scottish Parliament’s Your Priorities platform.
Commenting ahead of the Committee meeting, Convener Jackson Carlaw MSP said: “The work of the Citizens’ Panel on public participation has been invaluable to our inquiry, bringing fresh perspectives and bold ideas to the table around how Parliament can better engage with individuals, groups and communities from every part of Scotland.
“Ensuring the Scottish Parliament is accessible to a diverse range of people, particularly when developing new laws or policies that affect them, is essential and the recommendations made by the Citizens’ Panel have certainly given the Committee food for thought.
“The Committee will look forward to hearing from panel members this week and learning more about their experiences of the deliberative democracy process and how MSPs and the Parliament can best deliver on their recommendations.”
The Scottish Parliament should introduce proxy voting for those unable to vote due to illness, bereavement or on parental leave.
That’s the view of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee which has published a report calling for the introduction of a proxy voting pilot scheme with a view to it being established permanently in the Parliament.
The scheme would allow MSPs unable to vote for agreed reasons to nominate a proxy MSP who would cast their vote according to their wishes.
In a report published earlier this year, on Future Parliamentary procedures and practices, the Committee made clear that a hybrid parliament should be here to stay, including a recommendation to introduce proxy voting for those unable to vote in person.
Speaking on the report’s publication, Committee Convener Martin Whitfield MSP, said: “Our Committee is unanimous in their support for the introduction of a proxy voting scheme.
“We think Scotland’s democracy and its people are best served by ensuring that MSPs can still cast their votes even if they are unable to participate in parliamentary business due to the very human reasons of bereavement, illness or parental leave.
“We believe this is a positive, progressive step for the Parliament as we look to continue to evolve and to make the Parliament as accessible and inclusive as possible.”
Deputy Convener Bob Doris MSP added: “As a Parliament it is vital that we continue to look at ways to modernise and to increase participation in democratic processes.
“The introduction of a proxy voting scheme will ensure that MSPs can represent their constituents whether on parental leave, suffering serious illness or bereavement.
“We will continue to review current working practices as we look to innovate and improve Parliamentary processes, and to shape a Parliament fit for the future.”
Key points of the proxy voting being proposed:
MSPs may request a proxy vote due to illness, bereavement or if on parental leave;
A Member can designate any other Member as their proxy and it is for the Member to decide who to nominate;
A proxy vote is actioned by informing the Presiding Officer;
The proxy vote has the same status as a vote cast by a Member in person;
The use of a proxy will be recorded in the minutes of a meeting to ensure transparency;
The pilot would remain in force until 31 December 2023.
COLLISION COURSE: SUPREME COURT JUDGES SAY ‘NO’ TO SCOTTISH REFERENDUM
The Scottish Government has made a reference to the Supreme Court to establish whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an independence referendum.
The case was heard on the 11th and 12th of October and the verdict was made public this morning – Wednesday 23 November.
TIME FOR SCOTLAND RALLY
THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT:
Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 UKSC 31
Date:23 November 2022
Justices
Lord Reed (President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose
Background to the Appeal
The Scottish Government has drafted a Scottish Independence Referendum Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. Under the Scotland Act 1998 (“the Scotland Act”), the power of the Scottish Parliament to make legislation (or its “legislative competence”) is limited.
A provision of a Bill will be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore not law if it relates to the matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster (sections 29(1) and (2)(b)). These reserved matters include “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)).
In this reference, the Lord Advocate (the senior law officer of the Scottish Government) asks the Court whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament because it relates to either or both of the reserved matters of the Union or the United Kingdom Parliament.
This is a legal question about the Scottish Parliament’s power to make legislation under the Scotland Act. The Court is not being and could not be asked to give a view on the distinct political question of whether Scotland should become independent from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The powers of the Scottish Parliament were not in issue during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. This is because, in 2013, an Order in Council under section 30(2) of the Scotland Act modified the definition of reserved matters to enable the Scottish Parliament to pass the 2014 referendum legislation. The United Kingdom Government is currently unwilling to agree to the making of another Order in Council to facilitate another referendum on Scottish independence.
The Lord Advocate’s reference was made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The Advocate General for Scotland (the Scottish law officer of the United Kingdom Government) raises two preliminary issues, namely, whether the Court can and should answer the reference.
There are consequently three questions which the Court must consider. First, is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a “devolution issue”? If not, it cannot be the subject of a reference under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6, which would mean that the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide it. Secondly, even if it is a devolution issue, should the Court exercise its discretion to decline to accept the reference? Thirdly, if the Court accepts the reference, how should it answer the question the Lord Advocate has referred to it?
Judgment
In a unanimous judgment, the Court answers the questions before it as follows. First, the question referred by the Advocate General is a devolution issue, which means that that the Court has jurisdiction to decide it.
Secondly, the Court should accept the reference. Thirdly, the provision of the proposed Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” does relate to matters which have been reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the Scotland Act.
In particular, it relates to the reserved matters of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, in the absence of any modification of the definition of reserved matters (by an Order in Council or otherwise), the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.
Reasons for the Judgment
Issue 1: Is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a devolution issue?
Only a “devolution issue” can be referred to the Court under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The term “devolution issue” is defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6. Under paragraph 1(f), it includes “any other question arising by virtue of this Act about reserved matters” [13-14]. The Court concludes that the question referred by the Lord Advocate falls within this description and is therefore a devolution issue which the Court has jurisdiction to decide [47].
In reaching this conclusion, the Court holds, first, that the question referred is one “arising by virtue of” the Scotland Act because it is a question which arises under section 31(1) for the person wishing to introduce the Bill into the Scottish Parliament [16]. That person is required, on or before the Bill’s introduction, to give a statement confirming that, in their view, the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [9]. Secondly, the existence of the separate scheme for the scrutiny of Bills for legislative competence by the Court in section 33 of the Scotland Act does not prevent a reference from being made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 in relation to a proposed Bill, before it is introduced [21-27]. Thirdly, the terms of paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 6 are very wide. They are intended to sweep up any questions arising under the Scotland Act about reserved matters which are not covered elsewhere [37-42]. Fourthly, it is consistent with the rule of law and with the intention of the Scotland Act that the Lord Advocate should be able to obtain an authoritative judicial decision on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in advance of the introduction of a Bill [44-46].
Issue 2: Should the Court decline to accept the Lord Advocate’s reference?
The Court concludes that it should accept the reference [54]. The reference has been made in order to obtain an authoritative ruling on a question of law which has already arisen as a matter of public importance. The Court’s answer will determine whether the proposed Bill is introduced into the Scottish Parliament. The reference is not therefore hypothetical, academic or premature [53].
Issue 3: Does the proposed Bill relate to reserved matters?
The question whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would relate to matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act (section 29(2)(b)) is to be determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances (section 29(3)) [56-57], [70], [75].
A provision will relate to a reserved matter if it has something more than a loose or consequential connection with it [57], [71-72]. The purpose and effect of the provision may be derived from a consideration of both the purpose of those introducing the legislation and the objective effect of its terms [73]. Its effect is not restricted to its legal consequences [74].
Applying this test, the reserved matters which are relevant here are “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)). The latter reservation includes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament [76]. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to hold a lawful referendum on the question of whether Scotland should become an independent country, that is, on ending the Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament over Scotland [77], [82]. The Bill’s effect will not be confined to the holding of the referendum. Even if the referendum has no immediate legal consequences, it would be a political event with important political consequences [78-81]. It is therefore clear that the proposed Bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Accordingly, the proposed Bill relates to reserved matters and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [82-83], [92].
The Scottish National Party (intervening) made further written submissions founded on the right to self–determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law [84]. The Court rejects these submissions, holding that the right to self–determination is not in issue here [88-89] and does not require a narrow reading of “relates to” in section 29(2)(b) so as to limit the scope of the matters reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act [90]. Similarly, the allocation of powers between the United Kingdom and Scotland under the Scotland Act does not infringe the principle of legality [91].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
Note
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available online. Decided cases
The UK Supreme Court has today determined that the draft Scottish Independence Referendum Bill is outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, said that the UK Government was committed to working with the Scottish Government on the issues that matter most to people in Scotland.
Alister Jack said: “We note and respect the unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court today.
“People in Scotland want both their governments to be concentrating all attention and resources on the issues that matter most to them. That’s why we are focussed on issues like restoring economic stability, getting people the help they need with their energy bills, and supporting our NHS.
“Today alone, 11.6 million UK pensioners – around one million in Scotland – are starting to receive up to £600 to help with their energy bills this winter.
“As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government in tackling all the challenges we share and face.”
NICOLA STURGEON’s RESPONSE:
“Earlier today, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the Lord Advocate’s reference, seeking clarity on whether or not the Scotland Act 1998 allows the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence.
“First of all – while I am obviously very disappointed by it – I respect and accept the judgment of the Court. In securing Scotland’s independence we will always be guided by a commitment to democracy and respect for the rule of law.
“That principle also reflects a practical reality – the route we take must be lawful and democratic for independence to be achieved. And as is becoming clearer by the day, achieving independence is not just desirable – it is essential if Scotland is to escape the disaster of Brexit, the damage of policies imposed by governments we don’t vote for, and the low growth, high inequality economic model that is holding us back.
“However, we must be clear today that the Supreme Court does not make the law – it interprets and applies it. If the devolution settlement in the Scotland Act is inconsistent with any reasonable notion of Scottish democracy – as is now confirmed to be the case – that is the fault of Westminster lawmakers, not the justices of the Supreme Court.
“In addressing the implications of today’s ruling, it is also important to be mindful of what the Court was not asked to decide and therefore what the ruling does not tell us.
“The Court was not asked to decide if there is a democratic mandate for a referendum. The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable.
“Nor was the Court asked if Scotland should be independent. Only the Scottish people can be the judge of that. And it was not asked if there is any democratic means by which Scotland can choose independence.
“The question the Court was asked to decide – the only question the court could reasonably answer – was a narrower one. Would a Bill providing for an advisory referendum on independence be within the current powers of the Scottish Parliament?
“In other words, can the Scottish Parliament legislate for an independence referendum without the prior agreement of Westminster? The Court has answered that question in the negative.
“It has determined that under the Scotland Act 1998 – which encapsulates the current devolution settlement – even an advisory referendum asking the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?’ is a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
“What that means is that without an agreement between the Scottish and UK governments for either a section 30 Order or a UK Act of Parliament to change its powers, the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for the referendum the people of Scotland have instructed it to deliver.
“That is a hard pill for any supporter of independence – and surely indeed for any supporter of democracy – to swallow. However, as I said back in June when I informed Parliament that the Lord Advocate had agreed to make this reference, it was always the case that in the absence of an agreement with the UK government, the question of the Scottish Parliament’s competence in relation to a referendum would end up in the Supreme Court – if not before legislation then certainly after any decision by Parliament to pass a Bill.
“So while it is a statement of the obvious that this is not the outcome I hoped for, it does give us clarity. And having that clarity sooner rather than later allows us now to plan a way a forward, however imperfect it might be. Now, I am enough of a realist to know that the immediate questions posed by today’s judgment will be for me and the SNP.
“I am also long enough in the political tooth to expect some triumphalism on the part of unionist politicians. However, unionists of a more thoughtful disposition will, I suspect, know that to be misguided.
“Indeed, they will have been hoping that the Court – as the UK government asked it to do – would have declined to answer the substantive question today.
“That is because they will understand that this judgment raises profound and deeply uncomfortable questions about thebasis and future of the United Kingdom. Until now, it has been understood and accepted – by opponents of independence as well as by its supporters – that the UK is a voluntary partnership of nations.
“The Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs back in 1950 said this: “Scotland is a nation and voluntarily entered into the Union as a partner”.
“That sentiment was echoed nearly 60 years later by the cross-party Calman Commission which described the UK as “a voluntary union and partnership”.
“And it was reinforced in 2014 by the Smith Commission which made clear that “nothing in its report prevented Scotland becoming an independent country should the people of Scotland so choose”.
“What today’s ruling tells us, however, is that the Scotland Act does not in fact uphold that long held understanding of the basis of the relationships that constitute the UK – on the contrary, it shatters that understanding completely.
Let’s be blunt: a so-called partnership in which one partner is denied the right to choose a different future – or even to ask itself the question —cannot be described in any way as voluntary or even a partnership at all. So this ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality.
“And that exposes a situation that is quite simply unsustainable. In the words of former Tory Prime Minister, John Major: ‘No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will’.
“Indeed, perhaps what today’s judgment confirms more than anything else, is that the only guarantee for Scotland of equality within the British family of nations is through independence – that fact is now clearer than ever before.
“The immediate question, of course, is what happens now. Obviously, I am making these remarks just a couple of hours after the Court issued its judgment.
“While the terms and import of the judgment are clear it will still be important to absorb and consider it fully. I think it is safe to predict that this will not be my last word on the matter.
“However, my initial views – building on what I said in June – are as follows. First of all, it is worth repeating that the Court judgment relates to one possible route to Scotland making a choice on independence – a referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament without Westminster agreement.
“While it is absolutely the case – if the UK was a voluntary partnership – that this would not be needed, it remains open to the UK government, however belatedly, to accept democracy and reach agreement.
“I make clear again today, therefore, that I stand ready at any time to reach agreement with the Prime Minister on an adjustment to the devolution settlement that enables a lawful, democratic referendum to take place – a process that respects the right of people in Scotland to choose their future, in line with the mandate of the Scottish Parliament, lets politicians make the case for and against independence and, crucially, allows the Scottish people to decide.
“What I will not do is go cap in hand. My expectation, in the short term at least, is that the UK government will maintain its position of democracy denial. That position is, in my view, not just unsustainable – it is also utterly self-defeating.
“The more contempt the Westminster establishment shows for Scottish democracy, the more certain it is that Scotland will vote Yes when the choice does come to be made.
“As for that choice – and for the avoidance of any doubt – I believe today, just as I did yesterday, that a referendum is the best way to determine the issue of independence.
“The fact is, the SNP is not abandoning the referendum route. Westminster is blocking it. And in that scenario, unless we give up on democracy – which I, for one, am not prepared to do – we must and will find another democratic, lawful and constitutional means by which the Scottish people can express their will.
“In my view, that can only be an election. The next national election scheduled for Scotland is the UK General Election, making it both the first and the most obvious opportunity to seek what I described back in June as a de facto referendum.
“As with any proposition in any party manifesto in any election, it is up to the people how they respond. No party can dictate the basis on which people cast their votes. But a party can be – indeed should be – crystal clear about the purpose for which it is seeking popular support.
“In this case, for the SNP, it will be to establish – just as in a referendum – majority support in Scotland for independence, so that we can then achieve independence. That, then, is the principle.
“However, now that the Supreme Court’s ruling is known, and a de facto referendum is no longer hypothetical, it is necessary to agree the precise detail of the proposition we intend to put before the country – for example, the form our manifesto will take, the question we will pose, how we will seek to build support above and beyond the SNP, and what steps we will take to achieve independence if we win.
“As you would expect, I have views on all of that. However, given the magnitude of these decisions for the SNP, the process of reaching them is one that the party as a whole must be fully and actively involved in.
“I can therefore confirm that I will be asking our National Executive Committee to convene a special party conference in the new year to discuss and agree the detail of a proposed de facto referendum.
“In the meantime, the SNP will launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy. For we should be in no doubt – as of today, democracy is what is at stake. This is no longer just about whether or not Scotland becomes independent – vital though that decision is.
“It is now more fundamental – it is now about whether or not we have the basic democratic right to choose our own future. Indeed, from today, the independence movement is as much about democracy as it is about independence.
“To conclude, I am well aware that there will be a real sense of frustration and disappointment today in both the SNP and the wider movement. I share it. My message, though, is this: while that is understandable, it must be short lived. And I believe it will be.
“Indeed, I suspect we will start to see just how short lived in the strength of the gatherings planned for later today in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. The fact is we have work to do.
“The case for Scotland becoming independent is more compelling and urgent than ever. Independence is now essential because of what Westminster control means, on a day-to-day basis, for people in this country, and for future generations.
“Thanks to Westminster control, the UK economy is in crisis – and we are entering a new age of Tory austerity. Low-income households in the UK are now 22 per cent poorer than their counterparts in France, and 21 per cent poorer than in Germany.
“To put that in context – it means the living standards of the lowest-income households in the UK are £3,800 lower than their French equivalents. Thanks to Westminster control, we are subject to an immigration and asylum system that neither works in practice, nor serves our need to grow our population.
“It mistreats those who come to our shores looking for sanctuary from oppression, and deprives us of the talents and taxes of those who want to live, work and contribute to our country. Thanks to Westminster control, even the limited measure of self-government that devolution provides is no longer guaranteed.
“The steady erosion of the powers of our Parliament, the undermining of the Sewel Convention, the imposition of the UK Internal Market Act, and now the Retained EU law Bill.
“And if we stick with Westminster control we are stuck outside the European Union permanently. And that comes at a heavy cost.
“According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Brexit will mean in the long-run a fall in national income of 4 per cent compared with EU membership. That is equivalent to a cut in public revenues in Scotland of £3.2 billion.
“All the main Westminster parties now support a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. And the Brexit conspiracy of silence that exists between them means the UK economy will become weaker, and people will pay a heavier and heavier price.
“That price will be paid in hard economic terms – but also in the narrowing of horizons and loss of opportunities for the generations to come. Scotland can do better than this.
“The example of independent countries across Europe and the world, many with nowhere near the assets and strengths we have, tells us that loudly and clearly. We hear from Westminster that what is needed is stability.
“But let’s be clear – the Westminster system has shown that it is not capable of securing stability. The people relying on food banks are not being offered stability.
“Those across our country afraid to switch on their heating are not being offered stability. The businesses struggling with Brexit are not being offered stability. The young people denied the rights and opportunities of EU membership are not being offered stability.
“A UK economic model which delivers low growth and low productivity coupled with sky high rates of poverty and inequality does not, and never will offer stability. Scotland can do so much better. So, yes, of course, this judgment is a disappointment. But it is not one we can or will wallow in.
“Indeed, getting the judgment now rather than later gives us the clarity we need to plot a definite way forward. Fundamentally, our job today is the same as it was yesterday. It is to persuade a majority of the Scottish people of the fact that independence is the best future for Scotland – and ensure a democratic process that allows majority support to be established beyond doubt.
“That job is not easy, I know – on some days, like today perhaps, it feels more difficult than ever. But nothing – nothing – worth doing is ever easy. There is no doubt in my mind that independence will be worth it. And my resolve to achieve independence is as strong as it has ever been. Indeed, it is if anything even stronger. Prosperity, equality, internationalism – and now, without any doubt, the very democracy of our nation – depends on independence.”
A newly established Citizens’ Panel will meet for the first time this weekend (28th – 30th October) in the Scottish Parliament to help shape how Parliament engages with the people of Scotland.
The Citizens’ Panel, comprised of 22 people broadly reflecting the demographic make-up of Scotland, will come together to deliberate how the Scottish Parliament can best work with communities to ensure their needs are reflected in its work.
The Citizens’ Panel will meet for two full weekends at the Scottish Parliament and three shorter evening sessions online.
Earlier this year, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee launched an inquiry into Public Participation, looking at how people’s voices are heard in the work of the Parliament.
The Citizens’ Panel will assist the inquiry by making recommendations on improving how Holyrood’s work involves, reflects, and meets the needs of the full range of communities it represents, focusing on improving engagement for those currently under-represented.
Throughout the sittings, the Citizen’s Panel will have the opportunity to hear from MSPs and leading academics about democracy and public participation to help facilitate discussion and inform their findings.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Convener Jackson Carlaw, MSP, said:“Our inquiry into Public Participation is important because we know that the Parliament doesn’t hear enough from some groups and communities.
“We want to make sure that the views and opinions of everyone in Scotland are included in the work of the Parliament, and the Citizens’ Panel will be crucial to helping us understand how we can improve this.
“Ensuring the Scottish Parliament is accessible to a diverse range of people, particularly when developing new laws or policies that affect them, is essential and the Committee will eagerly anticipate the Citizens’ Panel recommendations.”
5th annual Cllr Awards held in Dundee showcases the best of local government
LGIU Scotland and CCLA are proud to unveil the winners of the 2022 Cllr Awards, the only national awards to celebrate the vital work of local councillors across Scotland.
This evening, the Awards ceremony took place at Caird Hall with hosts Dundee City Council along with special guests and speakers, including Ben Macpherson MSP (Minister for Social Security and Local Government) and Cllr Steven Heddle (COSLA Vice President). The ceremony was also streamed live on YouTube.
The top prize of the night for Community Champion went to Cllr David Macdonald of East Renfrewshire Council. Cllr Connor McManus of Midlothian Council walked away as the Young Councillor of the Year (below) and Cllr Maureen Chalmers of South Lanarkshire Council claimed the Resilience and Recovery Award.
Bailie Malcolm Cunning of Glasgow City Council was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award for his service (in memoriam). And, all leaders across Scotland were showcased and recognised for their remarkable contributions to local government over the last two years. The full list of winners is included below.
Running for the 5th year, the Cllr Awards are a hugely important way to champion what councillors do locally as their work can, all too often, go unrecognised.
Competition was particularly tight this year with nearly 100 nominations received. The winners were selected by a group of judges that included senior councillors and leading stakeholders from across the sector. A link to re-watch the Awards is available HERE.
This year’s Awards were made possible thanks to the generous support of founding partnersCCLA.
Jonathan Carr-West, Chief Executive, LGIU Scotland said: “We are incredibly proud to unveil the winners of this year’s Cllr Awards. During some of the most turbulent and challenging years in recent history, these councillors truly showcase the best of local government across Scotland.
And while awards and accolades aren’t the reason councillors put themselves forward and enter local politics, their incredible service is, so often, a thankless task. That is why these Cllr Awards are so important. One day a year to say thank you to our elected members for their remarkable efforts.
“I would like to extend a huge congratulations to all of tonight’s Cllr Awards winners. We thank you for your service and look forward to hearing about your continued accomplishments in the future.”
Heather Lamont, Director of Client Investments at CCLA, said:“For the last five years, CCLA and LGIU Scotland have thoroughly enjoyed raising the profile of the best of local government across Scotland and beyond. Councillors and council leaders have delivered in so many unimaginable ways for communities and we want to shout about it!
“The Cllr Awards are all about councillors. Their achievements are often hidden in plain sight and often go unrecognised. CCLA is honoured to stand alongside these outstanding councillors and thank them for their hard work and dedication to our communities.
“Why? Because at CCLA we believe healthy investment markets depend upon healthy communities – economically, socially and environmentally. In that we all have common purpose.”
On 5th September, the Conservative party elected a new prime minister of the United Kingdom. Scotland has not voted for a conservative government since 1955, and Liz Truss marks the twelfth prime minister in the last hundred years elected without majority support in Scotland (writes Fraser of Allander Institute’s ALLISON CATALANO).
The last time Scotland’s vote mirrored the majority was in 2005 – the last time that a general election resulted in a Labour majority.
The Brexit vote in 2016 is another good example of how far Scotland’s opinion differs from that of the UK majority – less than 40% of Scottish voters approved the referendum to leave the EU, compared to more than 50% from Wales and England.
Scotland’s status as a minority among the UK electorate isn’t so surprising from a population standpoint – Scotland only accounts for about 9% of the total UK electorate. England, by contrast, claims 84% of all voters.
The vast difference between Scotland’s opinion and UK electoral outcomes may result in worsened well-being for the Scottish population. People derive a sense of satisfaction from having the ability to participate in and impact politics and governmental structures. This satisfaction, termed “democratic well-being,” is weakened by perceived or structural inequalities.
Participatory inequality stems from any situation in which a particular group is unlikely to or discouraged from some form of civic participation, which includes behaviours like voting, interacting with political campaigns, activism, or volunteering.
Examining voting in particular, Scottish voters may feel disenfranchised from the political sphere in the UK because of the perceived lack of political power on a national level, and may be less likely to choose to vote or express an interest in politics.
Certain groups in Scotland may also be more or less inclined to participate in national or local elections.
Income levels, health, and educational attainment may all result in different levels of participation both within Scotland and when comparing Scottish participation to the rest of the UK. In this sense, there may be participatory inequalities within the Scottish population and when comparing Scotland to the UK as a whole.
Using Understanding Society: the UK Longitudinal Household Survey, we determined that age, income, health, education, and employment statuses are correlated with an individual’s level of interest in politics, and the likelihood that they voted or volunteered recently. Understanding Society is a yearly panel survey, with yearly data available from 2009 to 2021.
Does participation differ in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK?
Scotland has a high level of average engagement across all survey years relative to Northern Ireland and Wales, but a lower level than England.
Scottish residents are more likelyto have volunteered in the past year than residents of Northern Ireland or Wales, but less likely to have volunteered than English residents.
Scottish voting habits vary. Scotland had the lowest turnout in 2001 and 2005, and the highest turnout in 2015 and 2019. Scotland generally has higher turnout than Northern Ireland but lower turnout than England or Wales (Figure 1).
Scottish residents are more likely to express aninterest in politics than in Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland’s responses are roughly similar to England. Interest in politics across the UK increased in 2016 following the EU referendum vote, particularly in Northern Ireland, and peaked in Scotland in 2018 (Figure 2).
Figure 1: General election voter participation by constituent country
Figure 2: Interest in politics by constituent country
Despite Scottish residents being relatively politically engaged, Scotland experiences substantial gaps in participation based on health, income, education, and employment.
Scotland has the largest gap in participation between individuals that considered themselves in good health and individuals that considered themselves in poor health in the United Kingdom (Figure 3).
The lowest income quintile in Scotland is more engaged than the lowest income quintile in Wales or Northern Ireland. However, Scotland experiences larger gaps between the highest and lowest income quintile than the national average in political interest. Notably, the bottom income quintile in Scotland was more likely to have voted than in any other part of the UK. Political interest was also higher than the national average for the lowest earners.
Individuals with no qualifications in Scotland are less likely to volunteer than anywhere else in the UK, although they are more likely to have voted in a general election than the UK average. Unqualified individuals in Scotland are less likely to express an interest in politics than in England or Wales.
Scotland experiences a greater gap in participation based on work-related benefits compared to the rest of the UK. Individuals receiving in-work income or unemployment benefits are less likely to have voted, volunteer, or express a political interest in Scotland than anywhere else in Great Britain.
Figure 3: The gap in civic participation between self-reported good health and bad health is wider for each behaviour in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK
How do inequalities impact civic engagement in Scotland?
Health and income inequality are consistent predictors of voter turnout in Scotland. Scotland’s wide range of participatory behaviour based on health is particularly interesting.
Scotland has a unique relationship with health inequalities, and a history of unusually poor health outcomes based on region, education, and income. Although health inequality takes many forms, life expectancies provide a good frame of reference.
In general, higher incomes beget longer lives. Scotland is a complete anomaly in this regard – despite having the highest average income in the United Kingdom, Scottish people have the shortest life expectancy.
Life expectancies also vary widely within Scotland, and even within cities and neighbourhoods. For instance, a male born in Glasgow between 2018-2020 has a life expectancy that is 7.5 years shorter than one born in the Shetland Islands.
Within Glasgow neighbourhoods, the difference in life expectancies is striking – males born in the least deprived areas can expect to live 15 years longer than males born in the most deprived areas.
I examined the health impacts on voting, volunteering, and political interest based on individual’s self-perceived general health, mental health, long-term illness or disability, and receipt of any illness or disability benefits.
Individuals that consider themselves in poor health are less likely to engage in civic behaviour compared to those that considered themselves in generally good health (Figure 4). Overall, self-perceived general health was the most significant health predictor of civic behaviour.
Figure 4: Inequalities in civic participation by self-reported health status
Surprisingly, claiming a long-term illness or disability did not impact an individual’s ability to participate. This is largely because of the broadness of the term “disability” – a person can be disabled in a way that limits their ability to vote, but many disabilities are easier to manage and would have no impact on someone’s ability to understand politics or volunteer. Receiving disability benefits, however, indicates that a person’s circumstance is difficult enough that it interferes with regular work and income.
The Understanding Society Survey has 41 different benefit classifications. Using their descriptions as illness or disability benefits, I looked into people who received at least one of the following benefits: severe disablement allowance, industrial industry disablement allowance, disability living allowance, war disablement pension, incapacity benefit, received working tax credit (including disabled person’s tax credit), and any other disability benefit or payment.
Scottish residents receiving some form of disability benefit were:
10% less likely to have voted in the most recent election than Scottish residents that did not receive disability benefits
19% less likely to report an interest in politics
41% less likely to have volunteered in the past year
Receiving work or income benefits is another way of looking into the degree to which income inequality affects participation. I considered the following benefit classifications to be low income or unemployment benefits: income support, job seeker’s allowance, national insurance credit, housing benefit, rent rebate, universal credit.
Receiving work or income benefits affected participation more substantially than those receiving disability benefits (Table 1).
Table 1: Proportion of each population which participated in the following civic behaviours
Voted in a recent election
Interested in politics
Volunteered in the past year
Receiving unemployment or income benefits
66%
20%
8%
Receiving illness or disability benefits
72%
26%
10%
Total Scottish population
80%
32%
17%
Income inequality is also closely related to civic participation. By dividing household income into five quartiles of the population, we found that the highest-earning 20% of the Scottish population was significantly more likely to participate in civic behaviours (Figure 5). This is a clear example of participatory inequalities based on income.
Figure 5: Civic participation inequalities based on income quintile
Education also has a significant impact on all aspects of civic participation. Volunteering is the most notably impacted behaviour by education; only 4.4% of Scottish residents without educational qualifications reported volunteering in the past year, compared to over 27% of Scots with university degrees.
Table 2: Percentage of each population which participated in the following civic behaviours
Voted in a recent election
Interested in politics
Volunteered in the past year
No educational qualifications
73.5%
21.3%
4.4%
Scottish average
80%
32%
17%
Has a university degree
87.6%
38.4%
27.1%
Scotland suffers from unequal participation across a number of metrics, most notably education, income, health, and benefit receipt status. Poorer, less educated, and less healthy Scottish residents are less likely to have participated in voting and volunteering. The differences in participation are also larger within Scotland than any other constituent country in the United Kingdom.
Civic participation – whether by voting or by selecting causes to volunteer for – ultimately shapes political agendas. Values that are important to low-income, unqualified, or unhealthy members of society may be overlooked on a national scale due to disproportionately low levels of participation among these individuals.
The more equality in participation among all levels of society, the more that any particular group is able to better their circumstances.
Scotland’s Environment Minister Mairi McAllan and Biodiversity Minister Lorna Slater have written to the UK Government urging them to drop the proposals announced in its mini-budget, which they call “an attack on nature…and on the devolution settlement.”
The letter states that these proposals “demonstrate a reckless attitude to legislation that has been developed over many decades and that enshrines vital protections for both nature and people.”
The letter reads:
To:
Ranil Jayawardena MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Rt Hon Mark Spencer MP, Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
From:
Minister for Environment and Land Reform Màiri McAllan MSP
Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity Lorna Slater MSP
We write with urgency regarding proposals announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday, about which the Scottish Government had very little prior notification.
These measures, alongside the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, represent an attack on nature (when we should be demonstrating global leadership in the lead up to the important CoP15 global summit), and on the devolved settlement itself.
We therefore ask that you and your Government drop these damaging proposals, and instead work with us and the other devolved governments, to deliver high environmental standards that rise to the nature emergency and respect devolution.
Your government has given little clarity over how the measures included in the mini-budget will be taken forward, and what the implications of them will be for Scotland. Nor have you engaged with us in advance on these issues.
However, from the information that has been made available, we share the strong concerns highlighted by nature groups such as the RSPB and the Woodland Trust. The proposals demonstrate a reckless attitude to legislation that has been developed over many decades and that enshrines vital protections for both nature and people.
Your proposed measures also threaten to undermine our programme of planning reform that is underway in Scotland. National Planning Framework 4 will signal a turning point for planning in Scotland, and we have been clear that responding to both the global climate emergency and the nature crisis will be central to that.
In addition to the measures set out in the mini-budget, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill threatens to further undermine standards, as well as the Scottish Government’s powers to protect Scotland’s environment.
As set out in the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture’s recent letter to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Bill puts at risk the high standards people in Scotland have rightly come to expect from EU membership.
Your government appears to want to row back more than 40 years of protections in a rush to impose a deregulated, race to the bottom on our society and economy. It is particularly alarming that our environmentally-principled approach of controls on polluting substances, ensuring standards for water and air quality, and providing protection for our natural habitats and wildlife are at risk from this deregulatory programme.
Retained EU Law provides Scotland with a high standard of regulation. As we have repeatedly said, Scottish Ministers will continue to seek alignment with EU standards where possible and in a manner that contributes to maintaining and improving environmental protections.
As part of this effort, we remain committed to an ambitious programme of enhancing nature protections and delivering nature restoration. This includes delivering on the vision set out in the recent consultation on our new biodiversity strategy, setting ambitious statutory nature recovery targets, delivering on our vision to be a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture, investing in our natural capital such as through our Nature Restoration Fund, and expanding and improving our national park network.
Finally, as mentioned above, we are particularly concerned that this attack on nature has come at a critical moment as we approach the UN CoP15 biodiversity summit at the end of this year. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting an ambitious global framework to halt and reverse biodiversity decline, but this sudden and fundamental change in position means our views are no longer represented, and has undermined the UK’s ability to have a positive influence on the outcome of the talks.
We strongly urge you to reconsider both the anti-nature measures set out in the mini-budget and the proposed Retained EU Law Bill. Should you proceed regardless of our concerns and those of the public and civil society across the UK, then as a minimum we seek a guarantee that none of these measures will apply in Scotland without specific consent from the Scottish Government. We expect this matter to be considered at the next IMG-EFRA on 24 October.
What are the chances of Truss and Kwarteng thinking again? Absolutely NONE …
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has recruited three eminent economists …
Emergency Budget Review
Leading economists to give expert advice
Members of an expert panel providing advice to the Scottish Government as part of its Emergency Budget Review (EBR) have been confirmed.
Sir Anton Muscatelli, Professor Frances Ruane and Professor Mike Brewer will assess the impact on Scotland of the UK Chancellor’s fiscal approach and held their first meeting with Deputy First Minister John Swinney today.
Their advice will enable timely consideration of the implications of the UK Government’s fiscal event as work continues to prioritise the Scottish Government’s budget towards tackling the cost of living crisis. The Deputy First Minister has announced he will report the results of the EBR in the week beginning 24 October.
Mr Swinney said: “The Scottish Government wants to make sure it gets the very best advice and fresh perspectives as Ministers consider the complex and difficult decisions we face while tackling the challenges ahead.
“The radical shift in UK economic policy announced by the Chancellor has already caused significant economic shock.
“For the benefit of the people and businesses of Scotland, many of whom will find themselves paying higher prices as a result, it is vital that we consider the current situation and potential solutions with care.
“The members of the panel all bring robust economic insight and I am grateful to them for giving their time and expertise as we navigate these uncharted economic waters.”
The expert panel members, whose positions are non-remunerated, are:
Sir Anton Muscatelli
Principal of the University of Glasgow. He was knighted in June 2017 for services to higher education.
Formerly principal of Heriot-Watt University, he has been an adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee on monetary policy since 2007.
He chairs the Scottish Government’s Standing Council on Europe, a non-political group which provides expert advice to Scottish Ministers on protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU, and he was a member of the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers between 2015 and 2021 and a member of the Advisory Council for Economic Transformation.
In addition, she previously served three terms on the Council of Economic Advisers in Scotland. She will provide an external perspective to the panel on issues such as the competitiveness of Scotland’s tax regime.
Professor Mike Brewer –
Chief Economist and the Deputy Chief Executive of the Resolution Foundation, where he oversees all aspects of the Foundation’s research agenda.
He is a visiting Professor at the Department of Social Policy at the London School of Economics and between 2011 and 2020 was a Professor of Economics at the University of Essex.
He has also worked at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and HM Treasury.
