Fraser of Allander: A Budget with an eye on the election but storing up risks

It was a Scottish Budget where what was left unsaid was just as consequential as what Shona Robison mentioned in her 30-minute statement to the Scottish Parliament (writes the staff team at FRASER of ALLANDER INSTITUTE).

The Scottish Government will be hoping for many of the headlines to focus on the mitigation of the effect of the two-child limit from 2026-27. The Finance Secretary left this until last in the order to ensure maximum impact. 

A very political announcement, then, given the timing of the election, and one that has no money attached to it (as far as we can tell) in the 2025-26 financial year – the year this Budget actually refers to. See more on this below.

There were also significant announcements on health spending, which is forecast to rise by 3.6% in real terms – significant growth, although as we have said frequently, how and where it is spent matters just as much as the envelope. There were also increases to the affordable housing supply programme, which was cut by a quarter last year but is now just only 2.5% below 2023-24 in real terms.

At this point, we must welcome the change in presentation of the Scottish Government’s plans, which are now compared with their best estimate of the position for the current financial year. This has helped us meaningfully scrutinise plans, although some wrinkles remain to be ironed out such as in-year transfers to local government, and which we hope will be baselined in future.

Two-child limit

The biggest surprise in the budget (although social media had got wind of it slightly ahead of time) was the promise to ‘mitigate, as far as possible, the impacts of the two-child limit from 2026.’

This was clearly a last-minute addition to the budget. The Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) stated they received it too late to add to their figures, and too late for any analysis to be included in the budget document itself or the Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement. This lack of detail is troubling given the potential cost of funding this is likely to be in the region of £200m. There are far too many unknowns to say anything conclusive about impact, but there is no doubt that it would boost efforts towards the statutory child poverty targets (albeit not by nearly enough to meet them by just doing this alone).

How will the Scottish Government fund this? Well, they may be hoping that they won’t have to, and the UK Government will announce the abolition of the policy UK wide (which is widely expected to happen at some point) before the Scottish Government have to put their hands in their pocket.

Whilst early 2026 is their target date, this was heavily caveated in the statement as being dependent on the UK Government giving the Scottish Government the data to allow them to operationalise it. Given recent experience of rolling out the Scottish Child Payment, which took years, there are plenty of reasons why this may take longer than those target timescales set out. Yet in the meantime, the Scottish Government can take the moral high ground.

Relief for hospitality businesses

The Finance Secretary announced a 40% relief for small hospitality businesses that at first glance could appear very similar to the 40% relief offered by Rachel Reeves for retail, hospitality and leisure (RHL) businesses. However, it is a much more limited measure than the one offered in England – just for hospitality only, and only for those businesses who are “small” i.e. have a rateable value of less than £51,000.

To give a sense of scale, the SFC have estimated that this relief will cost £22m: far short of the Barnett funding generated by the measure in England of £147m.

ScotWind funding (partially) restored

Early in her statement, the Finance Secretary announced that some of the ScotWind funding that had been drawn down to fill gaps in spending in the statement in September has not been used for day-to-day spending, and instead will be retained for capital spending in 2025-26  – “for exactly the kind of long-term investment it should be spent on.”

ScotWind monies are revenues generated from the sale of offshore wind licences to energy companies. As they are one-off windfall payments from the exploitation of Scotland’s resources, they should really be used to invest in infrastructure to ensure that Scotland’s economy benefits on an ongoing basis from this sale. In particular, it should be focussed on capital spending that helps with the energy transition.

However, it is still the case that some of this fund has been used to plug gaps in day-to-day spending, even if some of the money has now been returned. The Scottish Government has used £160 million for resource funding in 2024-25. Now, in 2025-26, the Scottish Government plans to use ScotWind mostly to support £326 million of capital spending, with £10 million still used for resource.

This leaves a remaining balance of £219 million to support capital or resource spending in future years. Here’s hoping it is explicitly set aside for investment spending.

Lessons learned?

A surprising decision was to not account for the certain increase in employment costs due to the employer National Insurance Contributions that will come into effect on 1 April. As we mentioned in the last few days, we expect this will cost around £500m, and it will be an ongoing cost as the increase is permanent.

The Scottish Government doesn’t yet have confirmation as to how much they will receive from the Treasury in compensation, but any of the figures discussed in the media will be below that amount – perhaps around £300m. This means that the Scottish Government has a £200m shortfall in funding – perhaps more if it decides to compensate arms-length organisations providing public services.

What we have learned from the SFC’s documents, however, is that this shortfall remains unaccounted for in the Scottish Government’s budgeting. This is an extremely risky approach, and one which sets up a possible need for further emergency measures during the course of the next financial year – leaving us wondering whether any lessons have been learned from going into a new year without fully setting aside budget cover for what are known costs, as highlighted by the recent Audit Scotland report.

Beyond next year, there are some difficult news on the income tax forecast as well. The Scottish Government is looking at a £700m negative reconciliation in 2027-28, largely due to a much larger deduction to the block grant related to 2024-25 than that which was built into that year’s budget. This is still an early forecast, and much might change until then – reconciliations have changed significantly in the past. But if it comes to pass, it’ll be at a point when growth in funding for public services will be slowing– meaning that difficult decisions have been kicked into the future rather than planned for.

IMPROVING NHS, SCRAPPING TWO CHILD CAP AND DELIVERING UNIVERSAL WINTER SUPPORT

The SNP Government’s Budget will deliver progress for Scotland, by Scotland – after listening carefully to the people of Scotland and taking action on their concerns.

SNP MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands Gordon Macdonald highlighted key SNP policies which will be taken forward in the Budget which will benefit people in Edinburgh including:

·               Record levels of NHS funding – throwing the weight of the government behind NHS improvement

·               Reintroducing universal winter heating payments for pensioners after they were axed by the UK Labour Government

·               Scrapping Labour’s Two Child Cap – lifting 15,000 children out of poverty

·               Increased investment in housing, supporting the delivery of 8,000 homes

·               Delivering a fair tax system – meaning the majority of people in Scotland pay less tax than in the rest of the UK

Commenting Gordon said: “I am delighted at the support John Swinney’s first Budget is offering for people in Edinburgh.  It will deliver real progress on people’s priorities – and will offer hope, putting in place the investment for Scotland to in the future.

“The First Minister has listened to what people have told him on the NHS – that’s why he is investing record amounts and throwing the whole weight of the government behind improving the health service, making it easier for people in Edinburgh to see their GP, bringing down waiting times, and funding the replacement of the Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh.

“People across Edinburgh have been let down by the UK Labour Government.  While the UK Government’s Budget treated Scotland as an afterthought – this is a Budget that puts the people of Scotland first.

“While they cut winter fuel payments, the SNP is introducing universal support, while they push kids in Edinburgh into poverty with the cruel two-child cap, the SNP will scrap it and give thousands of kids a better chance in life.

“All this is being achieved while delivering the fairest tax system in the UK – with the majority of people in Scotland paying less tax than south of the border.

“This SNP Government have and will continue to listen to people’s concerns and take strong, decisive action to deliver on their priorities.”

Programme for Government – a new start for the Scottish Government?

FRASER of ALLANDER ANALYSIS

John Swinney presented his first programme for government to parliament on Wednesday. John Swinney came to power as First Minister in May, but due to the UK General election, this was his first opportunity to set out his government’s programme (write MAIRI SPOWAGE and EMMA CONGREVE).

The Programme for Government has four key themes: eradicating child poverty, economic prosperity, improving public services and protecting the planet. So far, so familiar – and not a huge departure in the substance from the three priorities presented in the 2023-24 Programme for Government by his predecessor.

The speech, of course, focused on the upside and how each strand of what was set out will be mutually reinforcing. One thing we often comment on when looking at these high-level speeches is that some of these things might occasionally conflict with each other. So, what is good for business might not be good for tackling child poverty, and vice versa.

However, the FM made clear that child poverty is ‘first and foremost in these priorities’. This sounds like a clear signal that where there are trade-offs, child poverty concerns will win over. Some may disagree with putting that first above all else, but for those of us trying to understand why certain decisions are being made, it’s not unhelpful for the government to be setting out a clear steer.

We’ll be looking at what that means in practice when it comes to Budget allocations; to implement much of what he talked about – for example, a roll-out of the type of whole family support that has been piloted so far – will require new money.

Also, following on from the Finance Secretary’s grim statement on Tuesday, no amount of prioritisation can totally overcome fiscal constraints.

Despite the fact that more targeted (rather than universal) measures are probably sensible for targeting child poverty, the non-delivery of the pledge to roll-out free school meals to all children in primary 6 and 7 is likely to sit uneasily with the FM. More tough decisions in this mould are likely to need to be made.

Elsewhere in the Programme for Government, there are some interesting specifics in relation to the economy, particularly on planning. The government has committed the establishing Scotland’s first “Planning Hub”, the establishment of Masterplan consent areas, and a planning apprenticeship programme. Whilst this sounds like pretty dry stuff, one of the most common frustrations raised by businesses is about the planning system, so this is likely to be welcomed.

Other things were notable by their absence. The Human Rights Bill and the Learning Disability, Autism and Neorodivergence Bill were not on the list of Bills for this 2024-25 session.

Given the 2025-26 session will be cut short by an election, they aren’t likely to be passed this parliament. This has come as a shock to many given previous assurances and the substantial resources that civil servants and stakeholders alike have put into the pre-legislative process to get these ready.

We’re yet to hear a convincing explanation for why they’ve been delayed.

The fiscal statement casts a long shadow 

The statement on Wednesday was hugely overshadowed by the fiscal statement on Tuesday. Overall, as well as setting out fiscal “black holes” it felt like Tuesday’s statement sucked up most of the political energy around in the week, leaving Wednesday to feel like a bit of a low energy anti-climax.

We are still not sure after the statement exactly what the Finance Secretary sees as the gap in the budget. Given she has set out £500m of “direct savings” plus the use of £460m of use of Scotwind money, we assume it is roughly £1 billion. £800m of this has been tied to “pay pressure”, and the rest (we assume £100-200m?) has been described as “in demand-led activities like legal aid, police and fire pensions and the costs of accommodation for Ukrainian displaced people” plus COVID-related health measures.

After a bit more detective work, we’ve documented the “£500m of direct savings” in the table below, along with where we still have questions:

 Published description What we’ve worked out
Savings  
£65mPre-announced decisions: peak fare train fairs to return, no free bus travel for asylum seekers plus agreement with local government to draw on existing programmes to fund pay dealsAccording to Transport Scotland, the cost of the full year subsidy for the peak fares pilot was approximately £40m[i]. In theory then, not having it running for the last 6 months saves £20m, although it is unclear to us if this was budgeted for to begin with given the pilot was only expected to last for 6 months of the year.The BBC reports £2m had been set aside for free bus travel for asylum seekers[ii]BBC reports that Councils have been asked to redirect £5m of this year’s nature restoration fund to help fund pay deals[iii]. In addition, £10m has been redirected from the Connecting Scotland’s digital devices programme (free iPADs and laptops for people who were digitally excluded), £2m from the fund to expand free school meals to p6 and 7 pupils who receive the Scottish Child Payment (although they say it will still be delivered) and £26m from the Flood Risk Management Programme, on the basis that “councils do not need it in this year”.ivThese total £65m.
£188.4New additional measures announced on 3rd SeptemberFull table of figures are laid out in the Annex of the letter to the Finance Committee.As there are no figures to help put these reductions into context (i.e. in relation to the size of the original budget allocations) it makes it hard to judge whether these are likely to have a large or small impact.
£60mSavings anticipated through emergency spending controls, in addition to savings set out as part of the £188.4 million. They are linked to recruitment freezes, and reductions in costs of travel and marketing, as per the letter to Cabinet reported in the mediav. We have no information on how the number has been calculated.
£160mThe cost of universality in the Winter Fuel Payment.The money for an equivalent to the UKG universal WFP was added to the Block Grant adjustment for 2024-25. The recent UKG decision to remove universality means that this money will need to be returned to UKG through the fiscal framework reconciliation process.SG could spend this money in 2024/25, but would then need to find savings in subsequent years to cover the reconciliation.We understand a decision on whether it will be spent this year is yet to be made.
Total savings
£473.5m  Up to £500 million saving measuresWe understand from officials that the “up to £500m” is a rounding up of the total.
#i https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/scotrail-peak-fare-removal-pilot-report-published/
ii https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw3n63ypjwo
iii https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy7p2y1p1eo
iv https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxjqggnewro

 v https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/scottish-government-imposes-emergency-spending-controls-l2pnb7lsg 

The fact that we are having to piece this together, including from media reports, is obviously not ideal. We don’t think it would have been too much to ask to have all this detail laid out, along with the evidence of impact that was cited in the letter to the Fiance and Public Affairs Committee.

We hope more information is released into the public domain in the coming weeks alongside the Autumn Budget Revision so help clear things up, as far as possible…

A look ahead to the budget

We now know the Scottish Budget will be on the 4th of December. The other important day to understand what the budget may look like for the rest of this financial year and the next will be the UK Budget on 30th October.

We should at that point have much more clarity about the financial envelope which the Scottish Government is working with for 2025-26.

There are also likely to be significant changes to departmental allocations for the current financial year (2024-25). Rachel Reeves said in her fiscal statement as Chancellor in July that she expected some of these in-year issues to be soaked up by departmental budgets.

The extent to which this will actually be achieved will also impact the monies coming to the Scottish Government. Therefore we may be most of the way through 2024-25 before we actually understand how much of the Scotwind revenue is required to balance the budget in 2024-25. It may mean that this is not the last fiscal statement we have about the current financial year.

Given all these in-year movements we would like to call, yet again (like SPICe have done in their blog), for the Government to provide in the Budget next year’s plans alongside the current position for 2024-25.

The convention (for some reason) would be to present the budget plans for 2025-26 compared to the plans that were set out for 2024-25 in December 2023. The in-year movements we have seen over the last three years make a nonsense of this convention (which reduces transparency and hampers parliamentary scrutiny).

This may be a bit of a niche point but it would make analysis of these statements much easier. Here’s hoping that this is finally the year this change is made.