Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2015
It cannot be forgotten that the finance secretary had a choice in the matter, and he chose not to increase the resource available to him by levying additional taxes.
For all that we have heard about austerity and swingeing cuts, we must remember that the Scottish Government’s total budget for the coming year is, in cash terms, nearly £400 million higher than in the current year. In real terms, there is a small decrease, but that decrease is substantially less than the finance secretary’s most recent underspend. In that context, any talk of swingeing cuts simply looks ridiculous.
If it is still the position of SNP members that the Scottish budget is too low, then the solution is in their own hands. The finance secretary could have chosen to raise the rate of income tax, and he decided not to do so. For years he has portrayed himself as a prisoner of Westminster austerity, but now that he has been given the key to door of his cell, he has chosen not to use it. I trust that we will hear no more from SNP members about austerity and Westminster cuts, when they have made the choice not to increase the size of the budget available. They had their chance, and they flunked it.
The Scottish Conservatives will carefully scrutinise the detail of the budget that has been presented and will, as ever, suggest constructive changes when we have done so. For the moment, we welcome the extra cash for housing, and the promised review of non-domestic rates—a straight lift from the Conservative general election manifesto. Where the Conservatives lead it seems that the SNP follow. However, it is disappointing that there is no restoration of the SNP’s swingeing cuts to college budgets.
I am disappointed that the finance secretary has not introduced greater changes to land and buildings transactions tax, given that the existing scheme is having a detrimental impact on the market, particularly for larger houses in many parts of Scotland, and we are looking at a significant shortfall in the sums previously predicted to be raised from residential property. I ask that the cabinet secretary looks again at that, although I welcome his following George Osborne’s lead in increasing by 3 per cent the supplement for second homes. That shows, once again, that where the Conservatives lead the SNP follow.