Meeting of the Parliament 04 June 2026 [Draft]
If the member reads the briefing that I have just mentioned, he will see that the vast majority of millionaires who were canvassed by that organisation are more worried about doctors leaving the country than they are about millionaires leaving the country.
We need to face up to the fact that what poses as trickle-down economics is, in reality, hoover-up economics. It always was, and it has led to the hoarding of wealth by those who are least in need. If the SNP now agrees and accepts the case for a bigger role for wealth taxation, that is great, but we will need to hear some specifics—more than we see in the motion—and if cross-party talks are being offered, they will need to come with real political will to act.
To be clear, I note that I really welcome the progress that has been made—and I should, as a lot of it has been the result of pressure from the Greens. The private jet tax and the mansion tax are both positive steps that show that tax can be successfully targeted at those with the most and those who consume more than their share. I am also pleased that support is growing for the so-called Amazon tax: a tax that is targeted at some of the biggest and wealthiest companies doing business—the online retailers. The Greens support that, the SNP supports it and I understand that Labour supports it, too. Today’s Green amendment gives Parliament the chance to endorse it.
However, let us be clear that, welcome as those steps are, they have, on their own, been modest measures in both the scale of the revenues that they generate and their power to address the current maldistribution of wealth. Is there more that we could do if we had greater fiscal power? Of course there is, and Greens support that call. I am particularly pleased that Labour has lodged a positive and constructive amendment that does not seek to remove that possibility from the Government’s motion.
It is equally critical that we do not use that possibility of new powers as cover—as an excuse to delay action that we can take within existing powers. The single most significant element of wealth tax in Scotland is a broken system, and it is the single biggest example of failure in the history of devolution. This Parliament has achieved a lot and, as its authority has grown as the seat of Scotland’s self-government, its confidence as an institution has grown. However, the most glaring omission—and the challenge that has been ducked time and time again—is reform of the council tax.
The council tax was unfair even when it was introduced, but it has grown ever more regressive as property values have spiralled, and it is inadequate to meet local government’s needs. It now represents a small fraction of the revenue that our councils need, and it locks them into growing dependency on the national Government. Given that it is still based on 1991 valuations, it will be an astonishing 40 years out of date by the end of the current session of Parliament if we, collectively, do not act. That must not be allowed to happen.
A modern, progressive property tax would help cut inequality, let our councils invest in their services and help prevent even worse inflation in the cost of housing. I know that it is a political challenge—let us be in no doubt about that—but if the Scottish Government is remotely serious about the need for further steps on wealth taxation, it simply cannot continue to ignore the most important element of wealth tax that is within its control, which is the broken, inefficient and unfair council tax.
That is why I move amendment S7M-00249.1, to insert at end:
“; recognises that significant scope exists for further action within devolved powers, such as surcharges within the non-domestic rates system; further recognises that political support has grown for a so-called Amazon tax, as proposed in both the 2026 Scottish Green Party and Scottish National Party manifestos, and believes that progressive reform of property tax could play a powerful role in wealth taxation, and that the Scottish Government must not allow council tax valuations to reach the milestone of being 40 years out of date by the end of the current parliamentary session.”
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.