Chamber and committees

I have one more point on that. We talked earlier about Rachel Reeves’s announcement on Wednesday about the AI corridor. It struck me as somewhat ironic that she made an announcement that the green book would be looked at with a view to ensuring that there is not a dominant focus on projects in London and the south-east, while at the same time she announced that the UK Government wants to create an AI corridor and that she has centred Oxford at the heart of that, rather than Edinburgh, as we talked about earlier.

Have you had any further indication of what the implications of the green book changes might be for city region deals in Scotland?

Good morning. I want to pick up on the point that Gordon MacDonald raised and ask about something that has come up in the committee before and which, from a legal perspective, I explored with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Both the Scottish Government and the UK Government might have a seat at the table; however, when I asked the secretary of state who the ultimate legal liability rested with, once commitments had been made, he confirmed that it rested with the Scottish Government. You might have a view on that, but what follows logically is that, if funding is withdrawn or paused by the UK Government vis-à-vis the spending review, if the Scottish Government, having made commitments, is on the rack from a legal liability perspective, that represents quite a significant risk. What risk assessment has been made of that by the Scottish Government?

So it is a risk to monitor, rather than a risk of significant concern.

Okay, thank you.

That is a clear answer, albeit a technical one.

The point that I was making, which is perhaps more one for the Deputy First Minister, is that, despite the fact that the green book has been looked at—I accept what Anne-Marie Martin said about that—it seems somewhat ironic for the green book to be looked at with a view to removing the relentless focus on London and the south-east, only for there then to be a relentless focus, potentially, on the Oxford to Cambridge corridor without any awareness of the fact that there was already excellence in the extreme at the University of Edinburgh, to which money had been committed. That is potentially now back on the table, although the situation remains uncertain.

Absolutely, but I make it completely clear that my ambition for Scotland is far more than that. I do not want us to rely on handouts. How about we all grow up and create our own future, in the form of independence? That would sort that.

Let us look at some of the changes that are in the budget. There is a compelling suite of policies across health and social care; support for our most vulnerable in society, including a winter heating payment; a £34 million uplift to the culture budget, which has been very well received by the sector; £25 million to properly focus on green jobs and to build a sustainable supply chain; and more than £300 million of ScotWind revenue, which is, thankfully, protected for investment in jobs.

All that is enabled by investment, and we see a real growth agenda in the form of a budget of £768 million for affordable homes, which will enable more than 8,000 new properties for social rent to be built this year. Who would not support that?

Before the general election, in December 2023, much attention was paid to independent research from the Nuffield Foundation and the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics, which concluded that the UK had lacked a coherent economic strategy for many years. Since being elected, the Labour UK Government has done its best to cement that lack of strategy into the UK’s DNA.

The report bemoaned the cuts to benefits under the post-2010 austerity drive of successive Tory Governments over the previous 15 years, claiming that all forms of cuts had reduced the incomes of the poorest fifth by just under £3,000 a year. However, UK Labour, in picking up the mantle of government, clearly thinks that the Tories did not go far enough. It is changing the work capability assessment, means testing the winter fuel payment and accelerating the migration of claimants from employment and support allowance on to universal credit. Overall, it plans to reduce the welfare bill by a further £4.1 billion by 2029-30, whereas the few benefits increases that are planned amount to a paltry rise of just £0.2 billion.

The UK Government is keeping two benefit rules that have a particularly dire effect on the living standards of the poorest: the benefit cap and the two-child limit. This SNP Government already mitigates, or plans to mitigate, those policies, but the Labour Party in Scotland will not support that.

The huge amount that this SNP Government pays to mitigate Tory and now Labour austerity is worth putting on the record. I quote from a letter from the Scottish Government to the Finance and Public Administration Committee:

“Subject to Parliamentary approval, in 2025-26 our investment to mitigate the impacts of UK Government policies will rise to over £210 million per year, an increase of over £56 million.”

The term “social contract” is often used in this chamber. It is worth hearing a reminder of what it means. It is about much more than the choices of the SNP Government to ensure that our Scottish students do not pay university fees, that our chronically ill do not pay constantly for prescriptions, that our youth get free bus travel, and so on. A social contract is at the heart of democracy. If the public feel that they are not being heard and the Government does not respond with public services that take into account their needs, that Government risks losing legitimacy. The social contract fundamentally underpins trust in our democracy.

At the most recent UK general election, the people of Scotland placed their faith and trust in Labour. How misplaced that was. Buyers’ regret is being felt across the board, not least by the newly elected Labour MP for my area, who claimed that my constituents should vote Labour to save the Grangemouth refinery. How did that work out for him?

The people of Scotland can put their faith and their trust in this SNP Government to endeavour to do the right thing for them, even in difficult circumstances, instead of using difficult circumstances as an excuse to do nothing.

This is, indeed, a budget that is made in Scotland for Scotland, and I add my voice to those who welcome the contribution of the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and Alba.

The Tories, as ever, are taking their job of opposition so seriously that they seem to oppose everything that the Scottish Government does, everything that this Parliament does and pretty much everything that Scotland does.

But what of the bridesmaid party, also known as the Scottish Labour Party, which never quite gets the white dress? It aspires to government, yet is unable to accept that being in government brings responsibility and choices. Stuck between its lack of policy ideas and the missteps of Sir Keir Starmer, Scottish Labour has chosen to sit on its hands. It takes a special kind of political incompetence to announce months in advance that it will abstain, having achieved absolutely nothing to advance its cause or the interests of the Scottish people.

Scottish Labour claims that the bill will

“not deliver the change Scotland needs”,

and that is why it is standing with the Tories in not supporting this SNP budget.

This is the open debate, so I get to be a little more free with my comments than everyone thus far. In my opinion, this is a good and clever budget, and it reorientates John Swinney and Kate Forbes’s Government with the right priorities, including tangible steps to ameliorate child poverty, a much more realistic spend figure for housing, the protection of Scotland’s funds for the originally intended use and so on.

However, growing the economy is a key part of the budget, and that must include growing the tax base to fund vital public services. As an aside—if you will indulge me, Presiding Officer—this is not a Scottish Government responsibility, but it could have a clear impact on our economy, I want to raise my concern about reports of an aggressive takeover bid of the Edinburgh Worldwide Investment Trust by Saba Capital, a hedge fund based in New York.

Scottish investment trusts established a crucial tradition that can still be seen in the DNA of successful Scottish investment firms: a long-term approach.

Saba Capital declared its intent just before the Christmas break, and it requires an extraordinary general meeting in early February. That deliberately left little time for organisation to ensure that all sides of the debate could be heard. My concern is that many retail investors may not vote, perhaps because they do not realise that the proposed takeover represents a fundamental risk to Scottish jobs and our financial ecosystem.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government cannot and should not take a stand on legitimate commercial activity. However, it can and should take a stand to value Scotland’s important professional services. Will the minister join me in encouraging all investors to register to vote now and make their voices heard to protect that vital sector?

I will move on to my other remarks—I have finished that section.

During the budget process, I always enjoy this particular debate, which I feel brings out the best of the Parliament. Ideas are shared in a calm and rational manner, away from the hurly-burly of political posturing. I am struck by the fact that all the committees that have reported have, invariably, agreed on their reports without division. That is certainly the case for the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is heartening.

Many points have been brought out ably in the debate. Zero-based budgeting is still an area of interest to me. During our trip to Estonia, the FPA Committee heard evidence of its use in the public realm. It has its critics but—perhaps because my previous experience in the commercial world had a sharpness around budgeting—I think that it has merit.

I add my voice to the calls to publish a variety of forecast information in a form that is described as a strategic approach. In the FPAC’s report, there are multiple calls for that, as either an MTFS—a medium-term financial strategy—or a fiscal sustainability delivery plan. There has been considerable uncertainty due to various events but, as the old mantra says: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

I have a thought about the issuance of bonds, which I am aware continues to be actively looked at. As well as a best-value test, bonds also have the benefit of embedding skin in the Scottish game. Investing in worthy public-realm projects can also provide an emotional commitment and be a draw for bodies run by affinity Scots or our global diaspora.

My final point is about reviewing how the fiscal framework operates. I draw members’ attention to the SFC’s report “Fiscal Sustainability Perspectives: Climate Change”, which makes clear that in no way can the framework be considered adequate for the scale of investment needed to get to net zero. Any further review must bear that in mind.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Falkirk Council is to consider a motion calling for immediate action by the Scottish Government to support the Grangemouth chemical cluster and the future of its industry. (S6O-04273)