Official Report 375KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20844, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2026-27.
16:13
As I begin today’s debate, I will first draw the Parliament’s attention to the procedural connection between the debate and rule 9.16.7 of standing orders, which states that a Scottish rate resolution must be agreed before stage 3 of the budget bill can proceed.
This rate resolution gives the Parliament an opportunity to provide stability in our tax system while delivering vital investment in our public services and giving our young people more opportunities to learn and flourish. Our approach to date has shown that there is not a trade-off between a progressive tax policy and the economy. Since 2007, Scottish gross domestic product per person has grown by 8.7 per cent, compared with 6.7 per cent in the United Kingdom, and, according to the latest forecasts, it is set to continue to grow faster, as are earnings. Unemployment also remains lower in Scotland; indeed, it is forecast to be around 4.2 per cent lower than in the UK over the next five years.
Ernst & Young’s annual attractiveness survey continues to show greater growth in foreign direct investment projects in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Since the introduction of Scottish income tax in 2017-18, more taxpayers have come to Scotland than have left, with net inflows averaging almost 4,200 per year.
In what might be the only moment of consensus, we agree on the case for a progressive tax system, but how is it progressive to have a higher percentage of workers paying higher tax rates year after year after year?
About three quarters—74 per cent—of taxpayers are expected to be unaffected by the higher-rate threshold being maintained at the current level. The question that Craig Hoy has to answer is how it is possible for his party to propose £1 billion of unfunded tax cuts, the money for which would come out of public services, while demanding increases in public spending. That is just not a credible position.
As I explained to Craig Hoy at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, it would take at least a year to make the changes to social security policy that he is proposing—God forbid that any Parliament would ever agree to them—so, in the world that he wants to create, front-line services would need to be cut before 1 April. That would include cuts to the £250 million that is going to local government, the additional funding for colleges and the additional funding for the national health service. All of that would have to go, because there would be £1 billion less in tax revenue. Those are the facts.
Made-up facts.
Tory members might not like facts being pointed out to them, but they are facts nonetheless.
The positive economic indicators that I have set out demonstrate the continued resilience of the Scottish economy.
In last year’s budget, our tax strategy made specific commitments for the remainder of this parliamentary session. Those commitments were to keep the same number of income tax bands; not make any increases to rates; ensure that the starter and basic rate thresholds rose by at least inflation; and continue the position whereby a majority of taxpayers could expect to pay less than they would in the rest of the UK. We have stuck to those commitments for 2026-27, and the rate resolution delivers that.
We propose increasing the basic and intermediate rate thresholds by 7.4 per cent in 2026-27, which is an investment of more than £50 million in lowering households’ tax bills. When considered alongside the policy last year, it means that the basic and intermediate rate thresholds will have risen by about twice the rate of inflation over the past two years.
We are continuing with our balanced approach and propose maintaining the higher, advanced and top rate thresholds at their current levels. It means that we are asking those with broader shoulders to pay a little more so that the public services that people rightly expect can continue to be delivered.
Many families will feel the benefit of the Government’s policies cumulatively, rather than just in relation to income tax alone. Such policies include free prescriptions, the abolition of peak rail fares, free higher education and the Scottish child payment, which the Tories no longer seem to support.
When combined, those savings often outweigh the small annual tax differences between those in Scotland and those in the rest of the UK. For example, Scottish households in the lower half of the income distribution are, on average, about £480 better off per year than they would be under UK tax and social security policies. We have fulfilled our tax strategy objective to provide stability for the remainder of this parliamentary session, and we have delivered our commitment to protect lower-income households.
We hear time and again, from other parties in the chamber, calls for additional spending by the Government. However, the reality is that we cannot will these things into existence. It requires dialogue, difficult choices and the conviction to make that happen, and that is what this Government is doing. It also requires resources. We cannot will the means into being; we have to provide them, and the rate resolution does so.
In the run-up to the budget, we were grateful to those colleagues across the chamber who entered into meaningful engagement with the Government. Our balanced, progressive approach to income tax policy goes some way to allowing us to protect the social contract that provides a range of services not available elsewhere in the UK. The income tax proposals that I have set out today underpin the entire budget settlement that we have been debating in the Parliament and provide the investment that ensures that our public services can be properly funded.
Let me set out the positive changes that will go ahead only if the Parliament votes for the rate resolution and the overall budget. For a start, income tax bills will be lowered for most taxpayers in our society, putting more money in people’s pockets to help with the current cost of living pressures. From April 2027, the Scottish child payment will be boosted to £40 a week for families with a baby aged under one, which will provide additional support for those who need it most. There will be a record £17.6 billion for NHS front-line services, supporting the vital work of general practitioners and primary care services, and more than £5 billion will be put towards measures that will reduce Scotland’s carbon emissions.
The Government is clear on what its priorities are and what they mean to households across Scotland. That is why I ask members to vote to ratify the proposed changes to Scottish income tax in 2026-27.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides for Income Tax to be charged at Scottish rates on certain non-savings and non-dividend income of a Scottish taxpayer to be charged above the personal allowance), the Scottish rates and limits for the tax year 2026-27 are as follows—
(a) a starter rate of 19%, charged on income up to a limit of £3,967,
(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20%, charged on income above £3,967 and up to a limit of £16,956,
(c) an intermediate rate of 21%, charged on income above £16,956 and up to a limit of £31,092,
(d) a higher rate of 42%, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £62,430,
(e) an advanced rate of 45%, charged on income above £62,430 and up to a limit of £125,140, and
(f) a top rate of 48%, charged on income above £125,140.
16:21
The cabinet secretary talks of stability. After 19 years of Scottish National Party Government, there is one thing that Scotland’s middle earners can be certain of: that they will be squeezed ever more to fill the gaps left by the SNP’s runaway spending and misplaced priorities. As the benefits bill blooms, the civil service grows and Government waste accumulates, it is average-earning Scots—nurses, teachers and police officers—who are repeatedly handed the bill. Today is no different; no amount of spin about tax cuts can obscure that fact. The SNP Government’s tax strategy does absolutely nothing to grow the Scottish economy. In fact, the Government’s own tax advisory group was sidelined while the strategy was being created.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will do so in a moment.
The strategy was cynically designed to engineer one headline, but members should consider what it has actually cost to produce that headline. The Government has committed £52 million to deliver a maximum saving for taxpayers of £32 per year. Independent analysts have called it
“the smallest income tax cut in history.”
Let us be clear that it is a joke from the SNP: a joke offering from a joke cabinet secretary representing a joke Government. However, that con trick conceals a real stealth tax raid on middle earners. By freezing the higher, advanced and top rate thresholds until 2028-29, the SNP is dragging hundreds of thousands more workers into tax bands that they were never meant to face—rates that were meant for the few but which are now being paid by the many.
In 2018, a band 5 teacher was earning £9,000 below the higher rate tax threshold; today, that same teacher is earning £9,000 above it. Apparently, teachers and nurses are the people with the broadest shoulders in John Swinney’s Scotland.
Craig Hoy is one of the biggest jokers in this Parliament—he is not able to do the sums; £1 billion of tax cuts and extra spending commitments do not add up. Does he not recognise the fact that teachers and nurses in Scotland are earning more after tax than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK? Those are the facts, because of the funding put in place by this Government to support a deal for our public sector workers. Does he accept that or is he just in denial, with alternative facts?
It is interesting that the cabinet secretary admits that the benefits of the Barnett formula give her more money to give teachers high salaries, which the Government then claws back in higher tax. The minister wants to talk about the facts. The simple fact is that those teachers were earning £9,000 below the higher rate threshold in 2018 and now they are £9,000 above it with the Government’s stealth taxes.
Taxpayers in Scotland are now paying an estimated £1.8 billion more than taxpayers elsewhere in the UK. Combined with Labour’s national insurance increases, the SNP and Labour tax rises are set to cost the average full-time Scottish worker nearly £1,800 a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that, by 2028-29, someone in Scotland who earns £50,000 will pay £1,500 more than their equivalent in England—that is not a small amount of money—and that, by the end of this decade, one in three Scottish workers will be paying higher rates of tax.
The economic consequences of that are now undeniable, which is why the budget is not only undesirable but unaffordable, as the IFS has repeatedly warned in increasingly alarmist language. Over the past decade, Scotland’s growth has lagged behind that of the rest of the UK by a cumulative £11 billion. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has confirmed that income tax revenues are up to £1 billion lower than they would have been had Scotland matched UK growth rates. CBI Scotland has called the tax divergence between Scotland and the rest of the UK “a handbrake on growth”, while Sir Tom Hunter has said:
“I have never heard so much disquiet among business leaders paying yet more and more tax for poorer and poorer outcomes”.
Why are taxes in Scotland so high? Under the SNP, the state has grown out of control. Civil service numbers have gone up by 74 per cent since 2007. Last June, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government pledged to cut the public sector workforce by 0.5 per cent, but, by September, we discovered that it had grown by 0.4 per cent. The Government has wasted £6.7 billion of taxpayers’ money in this session of Parliament—that is more than £1,200 for every person in Scotland.
That is the cost of the SNP under John Swinney. Social security spending is heading for £10 billion by the end of the decade. Taxes are high because the SNP’s spending is reckless, but the Scottish Conservatives offer a real—and costed—alternative. We would cut income tax to 19 per cent for all taxable income up to the higher rate threshold, which would mean a saving of £444 a year for every taxpayer who earns more than £15,000, and we would uprate the higher rate threshold in line with inflation.
Craig Hoy said that the Conservatives’ alternative was costed, but if he listens back to last Friday’s edition of “Any Questions?”, which I was on with his colleague Meghan Gallacher, he will discover that she made it clear that the Conservatives had not seen the numbers and that they were just making it up as they went along.
The programme may be called “Any Questions?”, but I will give him an answer: our proposal is fully costed. We will match our £1 billion in tax cuts by cutting the SNP’s ballooning benefits bill and taking an axe to the waste that the minister is incapable of removing from the civil service. We could fund our tax cuts—
Craig Hoy says that the Tories would close the spending gap by cutting the benefits bill. The last estimates that I saw in studies in The BMJ and The Lancet showed that there were between 100,000 and 300,000 excess deaths across the UK as a result of UK Tory Government austerity. What does he think the impact would be of his proposed cuts to Scotland’s social security system?
The IFS has said that the Scottish Government is living in a parallel universe, and I think that Ross Greer is quoting data from a parallel planet. In relation to the Scottish child payment, on the introduction of which there was consensus, one in 10 recipients of that payment have changed the way that they interact with the labour market. Therefore, it is a far more complex issue than Mr Greer makes it out to be.
We would do what Mr McKee seems incapable of doing by cutting the civil service back to 2016 levels. We would reduce quangos by a quarter, and we would fix Scotland’s broken benefits system.
Anyone who has watched the Scottish Government’s actions could be forgiven for thinking that the Parliament only has tax-raising powers, but that is not the case—it has tax-varying powers. However, under the SNP, the levers are only ever pulled one way—towards ever higher tax. It has never tried to cut tax in any meaningful way; a tax cut of £32 a year is not a meaningful tax cut. It has never tried to apply the logic of the Laffer curve.
Scots are sick and tired of paying more for the SNP’s failed projects and misplaced priorities, but there is a different way—a commonsense, Conservative way. We would lower tax, increase growth, tackle the benefits bill and, in turn, generate the tax receipts that are needed to build a fairer and better Scotland—a Scotland where hard work is rewarded, where excellence returns to our public services and where efficiency is at the heart of Government. However, we will never get that from this failed SNP Government and this failed First Minister. That is why we will vote against the income tax resolution tonight.
16:29
Rule 9.16.7 of the standing orders dictates that the Parliament must agree to a Scottish rate resolution before stage 3 proceedings for the budget bill can begin. As such, Scottish Labour will support the rate resolution. The late UK budget has made the timetable for this year’s Scottish budget challenging and put pressure on our parliamentary procedures. We will not stand in the way of the necessary mechanisms that will ensure that our police officers, nurses and local services continue to be funded at the start of the new financial year in only a few short weeks.
However, over the next few months, we all know what will happen. We know that the SNP’s deeply underwhelming budget will not last the year. Independent experts from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Fraser of Allander Institute are unanimous in their view that yet another emergency budget from whoever forms a Government in May is now a racing certainty.
The SNP continues to budget on a wing and a prayer, hoping that something comes along to bail it out once again. These are the hallmarks of 19 years of John Swinney budgets: creative accounting, financial sleight of hand and swingeing cuts to local government.
The SNP has received an additional £10.3 billion for Scotland’s budget from the UK Labour Government, and Scots will rightly be asking the SNP where the money has gone. The truth is that the SNP has decimated Scotland’s public finances and taken treasured public services such as our NHS to the brink. Our NHS is in crisis, with more people in Dundee waiting more than two years for treatment than in the whole of England. We have ferries that do not sail, roads that do not get dualled and schools that do not get built. It is a record of SNP failure and incompetence. We have a justice system past breaking point, with rising crime and overcrowded jails. We have a rotten culture of secrecy, in which the SNP circles the wagons to protect its own instead of serving the people whom it is supposed to represent. This SNP budget changes none of that.
Michael Marra raises waiting times in Scotland. For the past seven months, NHS waiting times in Scotland have fallen. Does he have any comment to make on the report that the NHS in England is paying trusts to incentivise them to remove patients from their waiting lists?
What I can comment on is the conversations that I have had just this week with people in Dundee who are having to take money out of savings and put money on credit cards in order to have hips replaced. The member who claims credit for that is claiming that waiting lists are going down. We also know that we have direct flights from Glasgow to Lithuania, where people are travelling to get basic procedures undertaken. The long waits are ruining people’s lives in Scotland. Frankly, it is a record of failure, and Mr Gray might want to face up to that.
As I said, this SNP budget changes none of that. It seeks to fix a few of the mistakes that the SNP has made over the past 20 years, but it will not fix the mess that the SNP has made of our finances and public services. It will not clear out the rot of a complacent Government that has lost touch with the people whom it is meant to serve. The SNP’s record is one of failure, incompetence and missed opportunities for the people of Scotland. The SNP will never take the bold and decisive action that is needed to fix what it has broken in our country, and the real opportunity for change will be on 7 May.
16:32
Scotland has been on a journey. Over the past decade, we have come quite far on that journey when it comes to income tax and progressive taxation more widely. The 2016 election was the first election to this Parliament in which tax was a major topic of debate. Some wanted tax cuts and others wanted small tax increases, but, by and large, most of the proposals were all or nothing: either everyone’s income tax would go up, everyone’s income tax would go down or the rates would stay the same.
However, the Greens made the case for a different system. We wanted a system in which those on higher incomes contributed more and those on lower incomes paid less. The current system is a result of that argument; it is a result of the early years of discussions between us and SNP colleagues in which we agreed to something quite different from the system that we had inherited from the UK Government.
We now have the most progressive income tax system in the UK. As Craig Hoy said, the result of that is £1.8 billion more to spend each year on public services such as our NHS than would otherwise be the case. Without that money, we would not have been able to deliver policies such as the Scottish child payment or free bus travel for young people. Without that money, we would not have been able to make Scotland the only part of the UK in which child poverty is falling.
I thank Mr Greer for quoting my words back at me, but does he accept that, because of the woeful underperformance of the Scottish economy under the SNP, that £1.8 billion drops to less than £1 billion?
I accept that the fiscal framework results in Scotland having to constantly compare its tax performance and income performance with those of London and south-east England. If the fiscal framework recognised that the economy of London and south-east England is so utterly different from that of everywhere else in the UK, Scotland would be in a very different position. There is a significant need for reform of the fiscal framework.
This year, the Scottish Greens did not propose any further changes to income tax as part of our budget negotiations because we believe that Scotland already has a progressive income tax system. We proposed changes elsewhere and I am glad that we were able to come to agreement with the Government on the introduction of a private jet tax that will properly tax 12,000 incredibly polluting flights into Scotland every year, on a new mansion tax, new bands for council tax and the removal of shooting estates from the small business bonus scheme, where they were masquerading as small businesses to receive tax benefits that they simply do not need.
There will always be a little bit more that we could do on income tax and we must always ensure that we maintain progressiveness in the system, but the focus now, and in the next session of Parliament, should be shifting the burden of taxation from work to wealth. The single biggest failure in the 27 years of this Parliament has been the failure to reform council tax. We have come so far on income tax and have been able to do an incredible amount for our constituents with the money that we have raised, but Scotland’s other major tax—and one that is paid by the vast majority of households—has been left untouched and is still the system that we inherited in 1991, when there was a quick and dirty compromise to replace the hated poll tax.
There is much more to do in the next session of Parliament and that must be underpinned by a far greater degree of honesty in our debates on tax and spending. It is not credible for parties to come to the Parliament demanding that the Government spends hundreds of millions of pounds more while also demanding that it cuts income tax or other forms of devolved taxation.
My final point is about the need for us actually to spend less time debating Parliament’s tax powers because we have given far more control over tax to local government. Local government knows far better than a national Parliament what the economic, social and environmental needs of communities are. Clearly, we cannot devolve income tax, but there is a desperate need to reform local taxation in this country and to give our colleagues in local government the powers that they need. In the debate before this one, we heard about issues such as the cruise ship levy that would massively benefit communities such as Inverclyde, which I represent, or Orkney. I hope that, in the next session of Parliament, we can defend our progressive record on income tax but move to the far more urgently needed work that is required to fairly tax wealth in this country.
Before I call Willie Rennie, I am aware of several conversations going on in the chamber. Let us be courteous to one another.
16:37
I had a rather disturbing dream last night and it involved Craig Hoy. He listed every single Liberal Democrat achievement during the budget process, starting off with the community fund and going on to colleges, hospices, young entrepreneurs and money for the islands. He went on about business rates and colleges—I may have said colleges already—and covered all those things. Then I woke up. Now, I have just been subjected to a lecture from Craig Hoy, who supported Liz Truss’s budget just a few years ago.
There is an important lesson. I remember when John Swinney was standing in as finance secretary and told us that the tax increase to be introduced that year would be an emergency one. I remember asking him at the time whether the tax would go back down again when we were through the emergency. The answer was a bit vague and noncommittal and the result was that that tax rise has been embedded since then and is not an emergency tax any more.
I have supported tax rises in the past. Back at the time of the 2016 election, we supported using, for the first time, the tax powers that Parliament had at the time. However, we opposed the subsequent tax rises proposed by this Government because we think that we have to be incredibly careful with trust regarding tax.
Will Mr Rennie accept an intervention?
Not just now.
During the Humza Yousaf period, and also at the tail end of the Nicola Sturgeon Government, we saw the Government losing control so that it looked as if taxes were going up at every single opportunity. Every time the Government spoke, new taxes were on the horizon, and Humza Yousaf spoke about even more tax rises being over the horizon if he had his way.
That is where I have a difference of opinion with the Government, because I think that we need to be incredibly careful. Of course there is behavioural change as a result of tax policy, but what matters even more is the trust that people have in Governments and what is going to happen next, and the rhetoric. If people think that the Government has lost control on taxation, they will make choices that will not benefit our economy when they have life choices to make about where to live, where to work, whether to work, whether to retire or whether to go part-time—in other words, behavioural changes.
I am not arguing for a reckless tax cut, as the Tories would, because we have to be very controlled and predictable and we have to give people confidence. However, I urge the Government to be incredibly careful when it makes any change whatsoever, because we do not want to go back to the days when people completely lost trust in what the Government was doing.
There is also a lesson to be learned from the Auditor General. Although the Government is now blaming the fiscal framework, which was negotiated and hailed by John Swinney, the result of the tax increase, which was supposed to be getting on for £1.8 billion, is only £600-odd million net, because of the fiscal framework and our lower earnings and lower employment growth in Scotland. The impact of the tax rise is therefore not as substantial as the Government hoped, so we have to be equally careful when we propose any tax changes.
As Michael Marra said, the tax resolution has to pass in order for us to move on to stage 3. We will support it today, but I urge the Government to look at the tax differentials between Scotland and the rest of the UK, to consider the behavioural change that has already happened as a result of the changes and to be incredibly careful.
I call the minister to wind up.
16:42
I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I will speak to some of those shortly.
Parliament is being asked to vote on a key policy that underpins the budget and will raise the revenue that is needed to fund public services and provide financial support to families across Scotland. Last year, we made commitments to provide stability and certainty on income tax for taxpayers and the business community in order to support our growing economy in Scotland, and the budget proposal delivers on that commitment.
In all our income tax decisions, we carefully balance the need to raise revenue with the impact on individuals, households and the wider economy. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that income tax will bring in £21.5 billion for the Scottish budget in 2026-27. Scottish Government analysis indicates that the changes will mean that more than 55 per cent of Scots—everyone earning less than around £33,500—are set to pay less income tax in 2026-27 than they would pay elsewhere in the UK.
We continue to use every lever at our disposal to grow the economy, which creates opportunity for people across Scotland and increases our tax revenues. It is for other parties that propose uncosted tax cuts to explain how they would be afforded without running down the vital public services that many of the lowest paid in our society rely on.
We have always been clear on the need for cross-party engagement on tax and spending. The productive discussions that we have with colleagues and the agreements that we gain from them ahead of the budget reflect the fact that credible alternatives are always welcomed by this Government. The proposed budget will help and support families with the cost of living and provide a tax cut for some of the lowest-paid individuals while continuing to invest in meaningful public services that are used by families across Scotland.
I turn to members’ contributions. We again heard Craig Hoy’s and his party’s position that they want to see another £1 billion or £1.5 billion—I cannot remember—on top of the £1.5 billion that we are already delivering in efficiencies. However, they have no idea where that would come from; they are just throwing numbers out there in the hope—
That is not true.
Well, I look forward to seeing their detailed proposals on where those savings would come from.
What about your proposals?
Our proposals have already been published, and they are very clear. Whatever the Conservatives propose would be in addition to that. Of course, the reality is that that would mean significant cuts to public services across the country. Craig Hoy made the comments that the Conservatives always make about Scotland’s economy, so I want to put him right on some of the facts.
Last year and the year before—Craig Hoy’s party was in power at Westminster for part of that period—Scotland’s economy grew faster than the economy in the rest of the UK. The unemployment rate is consistently lower in Scotland and, according to the latest figures, the gap is widening. Unemployment is at 3.8 per cent in Scotland versus 5.2 per cent in the rest of the UK. Scotland has consistently had the best-performing foreign direct investment for 10 years, and we are doing better than anywhere else in the UK, outside London, on that.
As the cabinet secretary mentioned, we watch the impact of those changes closely, which answers Willie Rennie’s question. After the tax changes, we have been seeing the inward migration of taxpayers to Scotland, which has been continuing for quite a number of years.
The trend is clear. People recognise that if they earn more they pay more tax in Scotland, but the range of benefits that they get for that more than outweighs the tax differential. They want to take part in the economic opportunities that are available in Scotland’s growing economy, compared with those in the rest of the UK, and they are very welcome to come and do so.
Willie Rennie said that we never cut taxes but, in the previous budget, Scotland was the only place to have a 19 per cent tax rate. We increased the thresholds by significantly more than inflation for the lower tax bands. That is in contrast to the UK Government, which froze the bands across the piece.
We are serious about raising more revenue, because we understand the impact that it has. We are focused on continuing to grow Scotland’s economy at a faster rate than the rest of the UK.
Members should be clear about what not voting for the rates resolution would mean in practice. It would restrict the ability of revenues that are collected from income tax to help businesses and the people we all serve across the country because it would stall Parliament in moving forward with the budget. Considering the importance of the revenue that is collected, we hope that all members will vote positively for the motion, so that Scotland remains a great place to live, work, study and do business in.
That concludes the debate. The question is, that motion S6M-20844, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2026-27, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.
16:47
Meeting suspended.
16:49
On resuming—
The question is, that motion S6M-20844, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2026-27, be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Burgess. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Likewise, my app would not work. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Wishart. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
The result of the division on motion S6M-20844, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2026-27, is: For 93, Against 29, Abstentions 1.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides for Income Tax to be charged at Scottish rates on certain non-savings and non-dividend income of a Scottish taxpayer to be charged above the personal allowance), the Scottish rates and limits for the tax year 2026-27 are as follows—
(a) a starter rate of 19%, charged on income up to a limit of £3,967,
(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20%, charged on income above £3,967 and up to a limit of £16,956,
(c) an intermediate rate of 21%, charged on income above £16,956 and up to a limit of £31,092,
(d) a higher rate of 42%, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £62,430,
(e) an advanced rate of 45%, charged on income above £62,430 and up to a limit of £125,140, and
(f) a top rate of 48%, charged on income above £125,140.