Chamber and committees

I agree with much of what the cabinet secretary has said. The Conservatives are doing an absolutely appalling job of running the economy, but does that not make the case for why we should be doing better? Although we might not have all the levers that the cabinet secretary wants, we do have levers, which does not explain why wage growth is underperforming in Scotland in comparison to the UK average. Can she explain that?

Thank you, Presiding Officer, although I think that I will need a moment to gather myself while—I hope that the member will forgive me for saying this—I expunge the picture of Douglas Ross and the “Kama Sutra”.

The spending review and the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecast make three things brutally clear. First, under SNP management, the Scottish economy has underperformed not just over the long term but in relation to the UK average. That would be bad enough if it just meant that Scottish workers were earning less and had fewer job opportunities than they should. However, it is even worse: income tax devolution means that there is hundreds of millions of pounds less to spend on front-line public services than would be the case if income tax had not been devolved. Next year alone, there will be £400 million less.

Secondly, after 15 years in charge, the SNP has suddenly woken up to the need for public service reform and modernisation, except that it has left it so late that it has no vision or strategy as to how the apparent efficiencies will be made. Instead, there are just four vague references to shared services and reforms. It all sounds very similar to things that are being proposed in Westminster by the Tories and which the SNP is so quick to criticise. The cabinet secretary has used the word “reset” endlessly in recent days, but, every time she says it, she means cutting jobs and public services, and passing the buck, yet again, to local councils to make those cuts.

Thirdly, let us make no mistake: the spending review means cuts—deep cuts—to critical services. There will be cuts to local services of 7 per cent over five years, so it is inevitable that class sizes will increase, local roads will deteriorate, parks will be left to rust and libraries will close. It is not just councils that will bear the brunt of those cuts; our colleges and universities will see their resources slashed, which means that we will not have the ability to grow the skills that it is so clear from the data our economy needs.

If the SNP says that health jobs will be protected, it is abundantly clear, as Douglas Lumsden pointed out in his speech, that, ultimately, there will be huge cuts to the rest. Half the job increases that came during the Covid period have been in the health service. If the cuts are to be made in places other than the health service, that means up to 8,000—a third—job losses in central Government and one in 20 jobs in local government at risk. Although the SNP has been quick to criticise the Tories—rightly—for austerity, this comprehensive spending review is nothing short of that same austerity being meted out to Scottish jobs and Scottish services throughout the country.

There has been much talk from members on the SNP benches about independence. They are absolutely within their rights to argue their opinions about what it might or might not deliver, although I urge them to read what the sustainable growth commission wrote and ask it—

Does Alex Cole-Hamilton agree that transport disruption and chaos is a problem not just because of the disrupted journeys, but because it prevents people from getting to new opportunities and new jobs elsewhere in Scotland, which, given our regional inequalities, is a horrendous economic crime in itself?

I agree with the minister that we have huge potential, but can we maximise that potential when we are cutting three of the four budget lines that are relevant to developing skills in Scotland?

In the interests of accuracy, will the member at the very least acknowledge that the budget is not entirely fixed, because 37 per cent of the revenue that the Government has to spend comes directly from taxes that it sets in Scotland?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is not working. I would have voted yes.

My supplementary question addresses the Scottish National Investment Bank funding. Many people will be surprised that the deposit return scheme is receiving funding from that source, given that the Scottish National Investment Bank was meant to be about strategic priorities, addressing market failure and driving enterprise. Is it appropriate for it to be funding public policy through that means, especially given that Scottish National Investment Bank funding will decline to zero in the timeframe of the resource spending review, as was announced yesterday?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its deposit return scheme. (S6O-01179)

In yesterday’s spending review, we saw that the profile of investment for the Scottish National Investment Bank has fallen to £9 million, through to £1 million in 2025-26 and zero in 2026-27.

That will leave investment in the bank at £610 million, I believe. Will the cabinet secretary clarify what the protected capitalisation will be as a result of the spending review? I ask because, by my analysis—I am happy to be corrected—that £610 million is well short of the £2 billion that was promised. What will be the impact on the number and value of projects in which the bank will be able to invest?

—yet we have none of that, this time.

My questions are as follows. Will the Government come forward with a full and frank economic assessment of why rates of wage and productivity growth here are lagging behind those of the rest of the UK? Will it pledge to cut consultants, communications agencies and non-executive directors before front-line staff, and will it bring forward the detail—at levels 3 and 4, by portfolio—that is lacking in the spending review, so that we have the appropriate clarity?