Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Jamie Langan will understand, from when he was a Conservative, that, amid the challenges of the pandemic and the Ukrainian war, the Conservative Government sought to support individuals across the United Kingdom: that is exactly what the Conservative Government did. That is the vision that I have talked about, and which my colleague Craig Hoy has set out today: a better future for Scotland and Britain.

As Willie Rennie said, the debate has covered vastly different potential directions in Scotland and the UK. It has been quite a depressing debate, I would say, but we know which way the SNP is likely to go, even if Jenny Gilruth says that she is not inclined to raise taxes. I believe that the SNP will gladly see costs rise and bills ratchet higher than ever. The SNP is first class at spending other people’s money.

Today’s debate has been very much about blame shifting and deflection. As I say, it has been quite depressing. The 15 SNP back benchers who have turned up have made tediously predictable contributions. Rather than address the key weaknesses of their own making, using the powers that the SNP has, they have wallowed in self-pity. It is not ambitious for anyone who is listening, but nobody is listening, and that is the key point. The SNP is not creating opportunities for Scots who want to get on in life.

The Scottish Government projects a £5 billion funding gap by 2030, which is extremely concerning. Scotland’s income tax base performance gap widened from just under £500 million in 2023-24 to £888 million in 2024-25. In addition, the 2027-28 Scottish budget will be reduced by a £720 million negative income tax reconciliation. The SNP Government will need to manage that reconciliation, but none of the SNP members has addressed that point today. That will lead to less money for crucial public services for everyday people who rely on them.

What about the SNP’s £560 million of planned savings?

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has warned the Scottish Government about its overspend and about the potential of less tax income. The Scottish Government has had plenty of time to prepare to deal with the reconciliation. All that will happen is that there will be less money for public services, because the Scottish Government is using that money irresponsibly.

The Scottish Government also plans to reduce the size of the public sector workforce. What has happened to that? There has been no progress whatsoever. Of the SNP’s £560 million of planned savings, 44 per cent are expected to fall on the NHS, and there is no detail on public sector reform. It is a complete disaster. There has been little progress. No wonder the economic agencies are saying that the Scottish Government needs to be transparent. It needs to show the public what it means when it talks about tax rises and less money for public services.

There is a point of conciliation here, and that is that energy costs need to be dealt with. They are rising globally. It makes no sense not to use the resources that we have here on our doorstep. Those energy costs also mean that Andy Burnham must give drivers a break by cancelling an increase to fuel duty or, better yet, cutting fuel duty. Prices at the pump have risen to just over £2 per litre at many garages, which experts say is among the highest prices in Europe.

Today’s debate has been depressing. Very few SNP members have turned up—[Interruption.] This is a great lesson in maths. They do not understand that my point is about proportionate numbers of their own ranks.

There is no hope for the public to put their trust in this SNP Government to run taxpayers’ finances, and that is a sorry state.

16:22

Today’s debate has reflected the different paths that our country could take, depending on the decisions that are made in the UK and Scottish budgets this year. I have listened carefully, and there are many policy choices to be made, but there are really only two directions that Scotland and the UK can go in. It is evident that either of Scotland’s Governments can increase taxes yet again, make life harder for households and businesses, increase the cost of living, slow down the economy, damage growth prospects and borrow more that future generations will have to pay for; or they can change their tune and finally make life more affordable.

They can reduce the cost of living so that families can cover their monthly bills, they can let taxpayers keep more of their own money, they can give businesses a break, and they can show some fiscal responsibility and balance their budgets so that our children and grandchildren are not left with a mammoth debt burden. They can set conditions for a new era of growth and prosperity.

I listened to Jack Middleton’s speech yesterday—he is a great advocate for the oil and gas sector in the north-east. We know that GDP is suffering and that earnings growth and employment are weak in the north-east—if only Jack Middleton could persuade his colleagues to open up the oil and gas fields and remove their presumption against doing so.

Would Hannah Mary Goodlad cheer me up?

Does Hannah Mary Goodlad believe that the Scottish Government will reach its efficiency target of £563 million? Can she give Parliament an update on where the Government is with those efficiencies?

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports rural health boards, including NHS Borders. (S7O-00331)

It is encouraging that the cabinet secretary seems to understand the needs of rural areas. However, fire services in Hawick have recently been downgraded and police officers have been removed from 2,000 miles of road. Residents are concerned that NHS Borders could be scrapped altogether. Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that there are no plans to scrap NHS Borders and that she will not risk safety, wellbeing and access to healthcare for my constituents?