Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Chamber and committees

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, February 22, 2024


Scottish Income Tax Rate Resolution 2024-25

The Presiding Officer (Alison Johnstone)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-12252, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution for 2024-25.

Motion moved,

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 2024-25 are as follows—

(a) a starter rate of 19 per cent, charged on income up to a limit of £2,306,

(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20 per cent, charged on income above £2,306 and up to a limit of £13,991,

(c) an intermediate rate of 21 per cent, charged on income above £13,991 and up to a limit of £31,092,

(d) a higher rate of 42 per cent, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £62,430,

(e) an advanced rate of 45 per cent, charged on income above £62,430 and up to a limit of £125,140, and

(f) a top rate of 48 per cent, charged on income above £125,140.—[Shona Robison]


The Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance (Tom Arthur)

I draw the Parliament’s attention to the procedural connection between this 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 debate is set against a backdrop of one of the most challenging periods for public finances in the devolution era. Our economy has been damaged by Brexit, we have faced a period of continued high inflation, and the Tory United Kingdom Government is failing to deliver the investment that is needed in public services. Just last week it was confirmed that the UK has entered a technical recession.

UK Government spending decisions have resulted in a real-terms cut of 1.2 per cent in our block grant funding since 2022-23. That presents huge challenges for the Government here in Scotland, which is committed to progressing our three core missions of equality, opportunity and community. In the 2024-25 budget, we have therefore taken the difficult but necessary decisions that will allow us to sustain investment in our vital public services, upon which so many people rely.

Our principles as a Government—commitment to progressive taxation and investing in the people of Scotland—have guided our income tax policy decisions for the budget.

For 2024-25, we propose that no changes are made to the starter, basic, intermediate and higher rates of 19, 20, 21 and 42 per cent. We also propose that the starter and basic rate bands are increased by inflation. We propose that the higher rate and top rate thresholds are maintained at their current levels of £43,662 and £125,140 respectively.

Finally, we propose the introduction of a new advanced rate band of 45p, which will be applied on income between £75,001 and £125,140, and an increase in the top rate by 1p to 48p. That proposed policy package will see more than half of taxpayers in Scotland continue to pay less than they would in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that the advanced rate will impact only the highest earning 5 per cent of taxpayers in 2024-25. In fact, when recent changes to national insurance are accounted for, only employees who earn in excess of £100,000 will pay more tax in the coming financial year than they did in this year.

Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Can the Scottish Government tell the chamber what analysis it has done of comments by the business community, most especially people such as Sandy Begbie, who put on record last weekend that Scotland is becoming a “dangerous place” in which to create wealth?

Tom Arthur

What I would note is that, in 2023, earnings grew by 8 per cent, which was faster than in any other part of the UK. Strong public services are vital for the success of business and our overall economy. Had we not taken the decision to have a progressive tax policy in Scotland, we would have found ourselves having to replicate the real-terms cuts to public services that are being inflicted in England.

Will the minister give way?

Tom Arthur

I am afraid that I have to make some progress. I will try to take an intervention shortly.

This is a targeted tax package that will raise vital revenue to invest in public services, while protecting the majority of taxpayers. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that the introduction of the advanced rate and increase to the top rate will raise an additional £82 million in revenue next year. In addition, we estimate that maintaining the higher rate threshold at its 2023-24 level will raise a further £307 million.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur

I am afraid that I have to make progress, given the limited time that I have available.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission also estimates that our decisions on income tax since devolution could raise £1.5 billion more in 2024-25 than if we had matched UK Government policy. Our progressive approach means that we can continue to support the most generous social contract in any part of the UK. That includes our flagship Scottish child payment, free prescriptions and free higher education, all of which represent an investment in the people of Scotland.

I understand that many members of the Parliament have questions about how those policies could affect taxpayer behaviour and the economy. As always, we have relied on independent forecasts by the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which show that our policy raises revenues. However, given the influence of tax policy on the economy, I agree that it is essential for us to continue to monitor closely and further build our evidence on what we are doing.

Critics of our approach also need to remember that slashing taxes and running down our vital public services would not make Scotland a better place in which to live, work and do business. Despite all the uncertainty that we face, our economy has been resilient. As I said, earnings in Scotland grew by 8 per cent in 2023, which is faster than in any other part of the United Kingdom, including London and the south-east. That provides a further boost to our tax revenues.

There is, of course, one great uncertainty that hangs over our plans, which is the UK Government’s spring budget. That budget will have a material impact on Scotland’s budget, yet we are not sighted on any of those plans whatever. Bluntly, we are left to guess, based on speculation in newspapers. If the various media trails are to be believed, the UK Government’s spring budget will see further cuts to spending on vital public services and further cuts to tax. It goes without saying that that approach would be unsustainable. Just last month, the International Monetary Fund warned the UK Government against further tax cuts, stressing the need to boost key areas of public spending instead.

Having no clarity on the chancellor’s intentions puts us in a difficult situation. Although we can continue to prepare for possible outcomes, a late announcement of tax cuts would highlight that, with the limited powers of devolution, we are still beholden to the whims of Westminster. It is only with the Scottish Parliament having full powers that we can have a fiscal policy that is fully designed for and delivered to Scotland to benefit Scotland.

The Government is clear on its priorities. We are choosing to invest in our social contract, the people of Scotland and the Scottish economy. That is why I ask members to vote to ratify the proposed changes to Scottish income tax in 2024-25.


Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

On Tuesday next week, the Parliament will hold its stage 3 debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill. I am sure that the debate will be just as robust as it was at stage 1 and just as robust as the questions were from all members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee at stage 2 consideration earlier this week. Today, however, is about standing orders procedure, which states that a rates resolution must be agreed ahead of the stage 3 process.

I want to use today’s debate not just to respond to some of the issues—it is already very clear why the Scottish Conservatives are so concerned about the Scottish Government’s current tax policy, which we believe echoes the concerns of many sectors across the country—but to consider some of the inherent difficulties in the budget process, which are difficulties not only for MSPs who have been engaged in the scrutiny of the budget, but for local government.

Back in October, we learned from the First Minister that there was to be a council tax freeze, even though such a move is under the remit of local authorities rather than for the First Minister to decide. It was abundantly clear that there was no consultation about that—in fact, allegedly, some members of the Cabinet did not even know about it. Local authorities certainly did not know about it. At a time when they were starting to plan ahead for their budgets, they had no idea whether the council tax freeze was to be fully funded. In the budget statement on 19 December, the Deputy First Minister said:

“the Government will fully fund the council tax freeze.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2023; c 11.]

However, the accompanying arithmetic made it abundantly clear that that was not the case, which is probably why Argyll and Bute Council has just voted to increase its council tax by 10 per cent.

Will Liz Smith give way?

Will Liz Smith take an intervention on that point?

Liz Smith

I will in a minute.

Shona Robison has finally admitted that the council tax freeze will not be fully funded. The letter that councils received yesterday from the Deputy First Minister makes that very clear. That has been an issue for this budget.

I give way to the Deputy First Minister to tell us why she did not say anything about that at stage 2.

Shona Robison

Liz Smith is conflating two things. One is the general revenue grant position, which we are funding by £62.7 million, and the other is the council tax freeze money of £147 million. The two things are different pots of money.

I hope that Argyll and Bute Council will reconsider its position, because it will leave itself £400,000 worse off than if it had accepted the money that is for that purpose. Does Liz Smith think that that is a sensible decision by Argyll and Bute Council?

Liz Smith

What Liz Smith thinks and what councils think is that the decisions that have been made by the Scottish Government completely undermine the Verity house agreement and the ability of the Scottish Parliament to improve financial scrutiny of the budget. That is the issue for this particular rates resolution.

There have been other significant scrutiny issues during the budget process. During stage 2, the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee put on record concerns about potential behavioural changes following the tax changes. The minister has just said that the Government will keep a watching brief on that. The problem is that that watching brief will take place after the changes have been made, so the modelling—which I do not think the Scottish Government has actually done—is no more extensive than some of the recommendations that have been made by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. We do not know what the modelling process is.

It is exactly the same for the proposed surtax on business rates. I come back to the stage 2 discussions, during which the cabinet secretary said that there had been no discussion about that as yet, because the evidence had not been put before her. I do not understand how that can become a proposal if there is no evidence and the modelling has not taken place. That is a serious issue for the Parliament when it comes to the budget, because we must engage in the proper scrutiny process, and the rates resolution should reflect that.

As we know, it is clear that businesses in Scotland are extremely worried about the effect of the budget, of which there has been universal criticism. When I asked the cabinet secretary to name those sectors that supported the Government’s income tax changes, she could not provide me with any names, which is pretty telling.

Such scrutiny matters a lot. The Finance and Public Administration Committee fully accepted that the Scottish Government faces difficulties in light of the timing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring budget. However, in paragraph 142 of its “Budget Scrutiny 2024-25” report, the committee noted that the Scottish Government has so far failed to produce a full response to the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s fiscal sustainability report, which flags up the large, persistent black hole in the Scottish Government’s finances. In recent weeks, the Parliament has witnessed a great deal of discussion about that, and I am sure that we will come to that again at stage 3 of the budget bill.

On Tuesday, we will, I am sure, yet again debate our very different party-political approaches to the budget, but what really matters for the rates resolution is the Parliament’s ability to scrutinise what is behind the Scottish Government’s decisions. As Conservatives, we will not be the only people to express our deep-seated concerns about that.


Michael Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Scottish Labour will not support the rates resolution today. Scottish Labour believes in progressive taxation, but the proposals before us are far from progressive. As with the rest of the Scottish National Party’s budget, the rates resolution is devoid of any strategy to grow our economy.

Changes to the top of the income tax system will raise a paltry £8 million. A far more significant contribution—£307 million—comes from the fiscal drag that will be created by freezing the threshold for the higher rate at £43,663.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Michael Marra

No, thank you. I am just getting started.

The fact that the most significant decision that it has made is to do nothing epitomises this Government.

The Deputy First Minister told Parliament that her Government believes that the people with the broadest shoulders should pay a higher rate of tax. Who earns £43,000 in Scotland today? Nurses, teachers and police officers. Do they feel rich?

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Marra

No, thank you.

Mortgages are up, rents are up, energy bills are up and the price of the weekly shop is up—all of them are up. People are accounting for every penny, eking out their household budgets and hoping that the car will not need new tyres, that the boiler will not need to be fixed and that the kids will not need new shoes.

Every person in this country who earns £28,850 per year pays more tax than people elsewhere in the UK and is getting less and less in return.

Will Michael Marra take an intervention on that point?

Michael Marra

No, thank you, sir.

Those people do not have broad shoulders, and they are not rich—far from it. In a cost of living crisis, the SNP wants nurses, teachers and police officers to pay more to bail out a profligate and incompetent Government that has wasted their money.

This week, we heard the SNP’s latest tax position: oil and gas companies, which are raking in record profits, should get a free pass. There are tax rises for nurses and tax cuts for oil giants.

The flagship changes to tax policy—the introduction of the new advanced rate of 45p and the increasing of the top rate to 48p—are forecast to raise £82 million, with more than half of the unadjusted revenues being wiped out by behaviour change. No work whatsoever appears to have been done on the labour market effects of the SNP’s tax changes.

Labour remains deeply concerned about the impact on Scotland’s ability to recruit and retain key workers in our national health service and in our wider economy. We are recruiting breast cancer oncologists from abroad. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has heard that those who come here negotiate net pay, while those who do not come here end up in places that have tax rates that they prefer. All the while, the waiting lists in our NHS continue to grow and grow.

What about headteachers in our primary schools, of whom there is a national shortage, when the work does not seem worth the wages? They will be caught by the Government’s proposed tax hikes. Nothing has been done to mitigate the impact in key labour shortage areas through adjusted pay rates or conditions.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Michael Marra

No, thank you.

The very concept of that appears to be alien to a Government that sees tax solely as a means of plugging the hole that has been left by its failure to grow the economy. Those tax rates will not plug the overall gap. The national shortfall is forecast to grow still further, to as much as £1.9 billion by 2027-28, so it will be back for more.

I have seen nothing from this Government that resembles a plan to address the most pressing of challenges, which is the need to grow our economy. Instead, it is out of ideas and continually tries and fails to use tax as a substitute for economic growth.

Getting our economy growing should be the Government’s number 1 priority—that is an idea for the Deputy First Minister. If Scotland’s economy had grown at the rate of the economy in the north-west of England in the past decade, it would be £11.5 billion bigger. Just think what that could mean for investment in our public services and communities. Instead, we have a chaotic budget of cuts across the board, including cuts to key areas that would support economic growth, such as colleges, universities and housing. There is no strategy for growth—[Interruption.]

Let us hear Mr Marra.

There is no strategy for growth, only for ever-increasing taxes on hard-working Scots while Humza Yousaf lets oil and gas giants off the hook. [Interruption.]

Let us hear Mr Marra.

In a cost of living crisis, as Rishi’s recession bites, hard-working Scots should not have to pay the price for the failures of two incompetent Governments.


Ross Greer (West Scotland) (Green)

One of the Scottish Government’s defining missions is to tackle poverty, especially child poverty. In this financial year alone, 90,000 children are being lifted out of poverty as a result of Scottish Government policies, and the budget for the coming financial year includes £1 billion of additional social security spending, alongside actions that the Scottish Greens have been proud to champion, such as wiping out all school meal debt and expanding free school meals.

Tackling big challenges such as child poverty and the climate crisis requires huge state intervention. There is no free market solution to either of those problems, and nor is there a free market solution to issues in healthcare, justice and education, so we have to pay for those things, primarily through taxation.

Scotland has the most progressive tax and social security system anywhere in the UK, as has been confirmed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Through our income tax reforms over the past few years, by doubling the council tax on second homes, increasing the additional dwelling supplement and bringing in other measures, we are redistributing wealth from the richest to the most vulnerable in our society. That is the litmus test for a progressive Government, which is why Labour’s opposition today is so revealing.

The specific further reform set out in today’s resolution ends the frankly somewhat absurd situation in which one income tax band, the higher band, spans £82,000 of income, which is twice the range of the three lower bands and the personal allowance combined. The Scottish Greens were proud to argue for that change and I believe that it was a personal commitment made by the First Minister during his leadership campaign. I particularly thank the Scottish Trades Union Congress for its leadership on this matter, which answers Liz Smith’s question about who supports these tax proposals. Scotland’s trade union movement supports the proposals and advanced them in the first place.

I expected and understand the Conservatives’ opposition to progressive taxation and well-funded public services, but there is a dichotomy when they simultaneously oppose tax rises for the better off and demand more spending on a wide range of services.

Liz Smith

What concerns us is the fact that the business community and those who are most likely to be in a position to stimulate economic growth are deeply concerned about the extent of the problems in this Government’s budget. Those problems relate not only to raising tax, but to the differentials between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Does Mr Greer accept that there is deep-seated concern in the business community?

Ross Greer

I accept that that concern exists, but, as I will address later, I do not think that that is borne out by the past five years’ evidence on progressive income tax reform.

I will focus first on Labour’s position. It is astonishing that the Labour party is now adopting a near word-for-word repeat of Tory tax policy. Labour members are fond of saying, as Michael Marra just has, that those on £28,500 a year pay more tax in Scotland. They do: they pay £6 more per year, and for that they get free bus travel for under-22s and over-60s, free college and university education, free prescriptions and the best-paid public sector workers—such as the teachers whom Mr Marra referred to—anywhere in the UK.

Will the member accept an intervention?

Ross Greer

Mr Marra has to be joking—he would not take a single intervention.

Workers in Scotland get so much for that £6 a year, yet the Labour Party rejects it. It is abundantly clear to all of us that Keir Starmer—not Anas Sarwar or Michael Marra—sets Scottish Labour’s tax policies, but they are the ones who are left owing the public an explanation of where the £1.5 billion of Labour cuts to public services would land.

There is an element of the boy who cried wolf from some opponents of progressive taxation. We have been making such changes for five years and, every time, they have declared that this would be the tipping point resulting in less revenue coming in as people change their behaviour or move south. The reality is that the total tax take is up and net migration from the rest of the UK to Scotland is positive.

A higher quality of public services is a pull factor, which people are willing to pay a little bit more for if they are on an above-average salary. Liz Smith mentioned Sandy Begbie, for whom I have a great deal of time, but I have to say that every worker is a wealth creator, not just those at the top. Too often, these debates proceed as if the only people driving our economy are the high earners, the chief executives and the company owners. That is not, and has never been, the case. Ordinary workers are clearly better off in Scotland than in the rest of the UK in terms of the balance of tax and the public services that they receive.

You must conclude, Mr Greer.

Ross Greer

I believe that a broad majority in this chamber and across the country want to see a more social democratic and fairer Scotland. By voting for the rates resolution today, we are taking one further step towards that.


Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Scotland needs predictability and a long-term plan for tax and the wider economy, not erratic changes that will undermine confidence. Scottish Liberal Democrats voted for the tax resolution last year, but I warned then about tipping points. High earners are mobile and can shift earnings to their pensions. UK firms that want to expand their workforces can look to places such as Newcastle and Manchester.

The Fraser of Allander Institute’s analysis suggests that raising the top rate of tax to 48 per cent will raise just £8 million against behavioural change. That is chickenfeed in the context of the SNP’s ferry fiasco, which stands at about £250 million over budget.

Let us listen to what the British Medical Association says. On the new advanced £75,000 tax band, Dr Iain Kennedy said:

“this measure may push more of these doctors out of the NHS, to jobs elsewhere or retirement.”

Between the changes in the top rate and the advanced rate, the Scottish Fiscal Commission said that the impact of behavioural changes could amount to as much as £118 million next year.

However, there is a con trick, too, because the biggest increases in the overall tax take will come from fiscal drag on low and middle-income earners. The SNP-Green Government is taking tax to higher and higher levels without understanding the impact on behaviours, the economy or those who are already struggling to get by.

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I am afraid that the minister had no time for interventions, and I have considerably less time than he had. I have to make progress.

Taxpayers and businesses have no idea what will happen next. That is not an environment that is conducive to growth or which gives people the confidence to invest here. Moving overnight from a position of hiking council tax by record amounts to freezing it speaks again to a Government that is reactionary and operating without any vision for a tax strategy.

SNP tax plans just do not work. The SNP added a further penny on tax last year with the defined purpose—which we supported—of supporting our national health service. However, the crisis in our health service has not got any better, while the IFS has warned that health spending is set to drop in 2024-25, so the social contract at the heart of that is being stretched to breaking point.

Tax is being ramped up in an attempt at covering the SNP’s failure to grow our economy and hiding the incompetence and waste that are embodied by the ferries but which exist in many other portfolios. The SNP’s choices mean that Scotland has missed a big opportunity to raise revenues that could have allowed different decisions on tax and public spending.

Members will recall my long-standing objections to how the ScotWind leasing process was run. It sold Scotland’s prized sea bed for wind farms on the cheap and achieved only a fraction of the prices that are seen elsewhere in the world. It inexplicably capped the price that companies were allowed to pay for ScotWind sites, which botched the best chance for generations of bringing serious money into our Scottish economy.

Almost half that money—£310 million from the 10-year licences that were sold in the auction—will be spent in the current year alone to prop up SNP-Green spending and financial mismanagement. The problem is that, once that money is gone, it is gone. Those rights are sold only once. No annual payments exist, as happens in England, and we will be waiting for five to 10 years for more money to start arriving in the form of rents on the as-yet-unbuilt wind farms.

The Government is burning through that cash without a plan for what will happen to public services afterwards. The excuse that it is spending money on the journey to net zero does not fly when we have a budget before us that strips money out of green initiatives left, right and centre.

We move to the winding-up speeches.


Tom Arthur

I thank members for their revealing contributions. Liz Smith always makes measured contributions that reflect her political philosophy, over which we have a fundamental difference. However, there is a key issue. She spoke about modelling and what the consequences of decisions may be. That is something that will come out, and we will monitor it. We will have an updated forecast and an outturn eventually. However, we know what the consequences would be of not taking the decisions. As I touched on in my opening remarks, that would mean cuts to public services, which we cannot sustain. We are committed to our social contract and to investing in the people of Scotland. We put forward progressive tax policies to enable us to achieve that.

Will the minister give way?

Tom Arthur

I am afraid that I have only a very small amount of time, and I want to address a few other points before concluding.

I am grateful to Ross Greer for his contribution. He made a powerful point about recognising the contribution of everyone across Scotland to creating wealth in our society and to supporting a sustainable and prosperous economy. We have to bear that in mind and recognise that the majority of taxpayers in Scotland will pay less tax than they would if they lived south of the border. Simultaneously, they enjoy a range of benefits that are not afforded to our friends and neighbours in England.

I turn to the Labour Party’s contribution. Mr Marra had two principal criticisms on the rate resolution. One was about the point at which people in Scotland pay more tax than they do in England; the other was about the higher rate threshold. That situation prevails today because we had a rate resolution vote in the Parliament in February last year. The Labour Party voted for that. Not only did it vote for that; its finance spokesperson stated that he welcomed the proposals and that they were “progressive”. We are not even at the end of the tax year, and proposals that were described by the Labour Party as “progressive” are now traduced by the leader of the Labour Party as “ludicrous”. They have gone from progressive to ludicrous in one financial year. That is not a sustainable position from which to engender credibility.

Mr Marra also criticised the introduction of an advanced rate at £75,000, which has been welcomed and called for by the STUC and anti-poverty campaigners. Again, the Labour Party finds itself on the wrong side of the STUC and anti-poverty campaigners. That is shameful. As I touched on in my earlier remarks, because of the changes to national insurance, no employee in Scotland who earns less than £100,000 will pay cumulatively more tax next year than this year.

I take members back to the Labour manifesto of 2021, which said:

“Scottish Labour believes that income tax should be fair and progressive ... If there is a need to increase income tax revenues during the next parliamentary term, Scottish Labour would support changes that generate income from those earning over £100,000”.

The Labour Party has contradicted its position of last year; it is against the STUC and anti-poverty campaigners; and it is against its own manifesto. If I was being charitable, I would characterise that as a U-turn but, to make a U-turn, it would have to be in the driving seat, and we know that the Labour Party’s front bench is being taken for a ride by Keir Starmer.

I urge members to back our progressive rate resolution this evening.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate—[Interruption.] Members, let us cease the conversations. That concludes the debate on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2024-25.

Rule 11.3.1 of standing orders requires the question on the Scottish rate resolution to be put immediately after the debate. Therefore, the question is, that motion S6M-12252, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2024-25, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access digital voting.

17:05 Meeting suspended.  

17:07 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

We come to the vote on motion S6M-12252, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2024-25. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not think that my app connected; I would have voted no.

We will ensure that that is recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was counted; I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

We will ensure that that is recorded.


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)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
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)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (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)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
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)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)


Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
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)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division on motion S6M-12252, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2024-25, is: For 62, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

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 2024-25 are as follows—

(a) a starter rate of 19 per cent, charged on income up to a limit of £2,306, 

(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20 per cent, charged on income above £2,306 and up to a limit of £13,991, 

(c) an intermediate rate of 21 per cent, charged on income above £13,991 and up to a limit of £31,092, 

(d) a higher rate of 42 per cent, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £62,430,  

(e) an advanced rate of 45 per cent, charged on income above £62,430 and up to a limit of £125,140, and

(f) a top rate of 48 per cent, charged on income above £125,140.