Budget Deals, Budget Revisions, and Budget Pressures
There was a lot of focus this week on the Budget deal struck by the Scottish Government, which will allow the Budget to be supported by the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats (write Fraser of Allander Institute’s MAIRI SPOWAGE and SANJAM SURI).
In early January, Anas Sarwar announced that Scottish Labour would abstain on the Budget as the Scottish Government were likely to secure support from the budget from one or other of these parties. Of course, this meant that the Scottish Government did not need to secure support from other parties to ensure that the budget would pass.
However, no doubt John Swinney will be pleased that he can demonstrate working across the chamber, and particularly constitutional boundaries, to come to a deal.
On the face of it, the price paid for the support of these parties seems pretty cheap (in the scheme of the SG Budget!), totalling £16.7m.
With the Scottish Liberal Democrats (TOTAL £7.7m):
- Increase Drugs and Neonatal Service Investment. +£2.5m
- Strengthen support for Hospices. Increase the funding from £4m to £5m. +£1m
- Invest in targeted support for the College sector. +£3.5m in creating an Offshore Wind Skills Programme and College Care Skill Programme.
- Support the continuation of Corseford College. + 0.7m
- Offer flexibility to Orkney Island Council in terms of capital and resource funding.
With the Scottish Greens (~£9m):
- Establish a £2 bus fare cap pilot in a regional transport partnership area. +£3m in 25-26 (£10m in total)
- Increase Nature Restoration funding. increase from £23 million to £26 million. +£3m
- Extend free school meal eligibility in S1-S3 in 8 local authority areas – covering pupils in an urban, rural, semi-urban and island authorities in receipt of Scottish Child Payment. +£3m (although it looks like most costs will fall in 2026/27, so not sure about the exact cost in 2025-26)
The Scottish Government say that this will be funded by another draw down from the Scotwind fund (more on Scotwind below) of £3 million to support the capital spending on nature restoration, and the remaining amendments are funded through debt servicing costs which they expect will be lower than they expected at the Draft Budget in early December.
The Spring Budget Revision changes the picture for 2024-25 considerably
Getting less coverage this week is the Spring Budget Revision, which was laid before parliament on Thursday. This is a pretty technical document, with the “supporting notes” document running to 146 pages. This is for the current year, and now reflects the additional Barnett consequentials which were announced through the UK Budget for 2024-25
[By way of background, these revisions happen twice a year, once in the Autumn and once in the Spring, to update the parliament to changes in the funding positions for the current fiscal year. The Budget bill will normally be passed by late February. The ABR comes in roughly Oct/Nov, then the Spring one in Jan/Feb]
The Government did not include any of these announcements in the baseline comparisons for the Budget in December. When asked about the uplifts for 2024-25 in the wake of the UK Budget, they said that the £1.4bn extra in resource funding for 2024-25 was “in line with internal planning assumptions”. This was in the context of the clear budgetary pressures earlier in the financial year, which lead to the emergency budget announcements in September 2024.
The Scottish Fiscal Commission were not please with this, saying “This is a material limitation to information available to the Scottish Parliament for its scrutiny of the Budget and in the spending analysis we can do.”
The SBR published yesterday shows how this money has been allocated in the current year.
The highlights for us are:
- The £338m resource borrowing that had been planned to cover for a forecast error reconciliation will not be necessary (so they had planned that borrowing into the 2024-25 budget due to this negative reconciliation from previous years, and now do not need to use it because of the funding received)
- That the planned £424m drawdown for the Scotwind licencing fund will all now be returned (they had already announced that they would reduce this drawdown by £300m at the Budget but now they are returning all of it because of the funding received)
- That £103m more than planned will be put into the Scotland reserve.
Two things are demonstrated by where the money has gone – first, that it does not seem credible that it was in line with “internal planning assumptions”, in the context of emergency budget measures prior to the UK Budget followed by cancelling of already planned borrowing. Second, it would have helped scrutiny for the 2025-26 Budget if this had been included in the baseline presented at the Scottish Budget, given the SFC role in assessing borrowing and use of the reserve and the role of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
The restoration of the Scotwind fund is welcome – let’s hope now it will be exclusively committed to capital/infrastructure spending to support the energy transition. It would be good if this could be formally done so the money cannot be used in this way in the future.
Employer NICs likely to cause more budget pressures
We’ve covered the impacts that the employer NICS rises could cause to public services in Scotland.
As a reminder, the Chancellor increased both the rate of employer NICS (from 13.8% to 15%) and lowered the threshold at which employers have to start paying NICS (from £9,100 to £5,000). At the time of the Budget, the Treasury said that public sector employers will be compensated – but no amounts were confirmed, which caused the Scottish Government to (quite rightly) raise concerns about the uncertainty that this would cause.
We’ve heard from the Scottish Government that the expected impact is expected to
range anywhere between £550m (for public sector workers), and £750m (including indirect employees such as childcare, higher education, social care). We estimated around £500 for the direct public sector. The rumoured amount on the table from the Treasury is £280-300m. Our blog explains the reasons behind these different amounts.
[But, in short, the difference between the SG and the Treasury is what “compensating” the public sector means – the actual cost, or the actual cost if the size and pay bill of the public sector in Scotland was proportionately the same as the UK.]
Whatever the final amount, it is unlikely the whole cost to the public sector will be covered. We said at the time of the Budget that the Scottish Government hadn’t budgeted for this likely shortfall.
Kate Forbes said this week that the public sector in Scotland will have to “absorb” the shortfall- which basically means that the public sector would have to find savings or efficiencies elsewhere to absorb the budgetary impacts of higher NICS.
The confirmation of the compensation will not come until the Supplementary Estimates are published (which might be as late as the end of February). This means that bodies like councils, who are currently trying to set their budgets, will likely have to plan on the basis of absorbing maybe 40-70% of this additional cost until they get confirmation.
Given the scale of financial challenges councils face, this may well impact on the proposed council tax changes they have to consider.
