Life or death decisions as politicians weigh up assisted dying vote
There are few decisions Holyrood can take that are bigger than a vote on assisted dying.
Whether or not to allow terminally ill adults to seek medical help to end their lives is of fundamental consequence.
The vote on Tuesday will also be of note to decision makers at Westminster, where similar proposals for England and Wales are working their way through the UK parliament.
MSPs have twice before rejected attempts to change the law, most recently in 2015.
The Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, who has developed the current proposal, believes the mood in parliament is now "very, very different".
He clearly expects his bill to have more support than previous attempts - but that is not the same as saying that he is sure it has sufficient support to proceed.
Speaking on BBC Scotland's The Sunday Show, he said he expected the first vote to be "close".
He could be concerned in part about the potential impact of recent interventions.
First Minister John Swinney has not changed his position over the years.
He has consistently voted against assisted dying and it was no surprise when he revealed that he intends to do so again.
He said that representations in favour of assisted dying from constituents who have witnessed loved ones suffer terribly at the end of their lives caused him to agonise over his decision.
However, he believes that changing the law would unacceptably alter the relationship between doctors and their patients and that it could put pressure on sick and disabled people to end their lives prematurely.
Swinney has also been careful to stress that he has reached a personal view, that he is not seeking to influence others, and the Scottish government will remain "neutral".
Swinney will not support assisted dying in Scotland
MSP to raise assisted dying age from 16 to 18 in bill
Could assisted dying be coming to Scotland?
Having said that, the Scottish government has already advised that it thinks Holyrood would be exceeding its authority by voting for assisted dying because the law on lethal drugs is under Westminster control.
McArthur argues that these issues could be overcome if Holyrood votes in favour of assisted dying.
Each MSP is free to vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
That does not mean the views of party leaders are unimportant. They could well sway the opinion of undecided MSPs.
Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay is understood to be "sceptical" about the current bill.
And Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has said he will be voting against, while pressing for greater investment in palliative care.
The Scottish Green and Scottish Liberal Democrat leaders are expected to support the legislation.
The indications are that the vote on Tuesday could be relatively close. There appears to be a sufficient number of MSPs who have not declared their views to swing the decision either way.
Liam McArthur is still having conversations with undecided MSPs in the hope of winning them over.
He argues that not changing the law would let down too many Scots who suffer in the final stages of life to a degree that leaves their loved ones "traumatised".
Some politicians are trying to weigh up the arguments over the weekend. Others intend to listen to the debate in parliament before making up their minds.
If there are more "no" votes than "yes" votes from MSPs on Tuesday the bill will be rejected.
If there are more "yes" votes than "no" votes that is not the last word on the issue.
That would amount to approval in principle. The debate would continue with the potential for MSPs to make changes to the bill to ease concerns.
There would need to be another vote of the whole Scottish Parliament on any final version of the legislation.
The separate bill for England and Wales was backed by MPs in November, but has yet to go to a final vote in the Commons.
One MSP described the assisted dying decision in Scotland as an opportunity for Holyrood to be at its best.
Whatever the outcome, they hope for a heavyweight debate with powerful arguments on both sides and the careful consideration that sensitive matters of life and death demand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy
Rachel Reeves claims she is investing in the country's Chancellor was cheered on by her front benches as she announced more money for the NHS, defence and schools in a move she boasted would lead to 'a national renewal'. In some senses, there were few surprises on Wednesday. We already knew how much Reeves had to dole out in her maiden spending review. The NHS gobbled up most of the money, with day-to-day spending on the Department of Health and Social Care growing by an average of 2.8pc a year over the forecast period. Defence spending has also received a significant boost as pressure from Nato mounts. Other departments, notably the Home Office, were squeezed as Reeves sought to make the sums add up. But while the numbers may tally on paper, economists are already questioning whether they will work in reality as pressures build from a more dangerous world and an older population. There are also fears that Reeves's announcement will pave the way for massive increases in council tax to keep Britain's streets safe. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), says that while health and defence are big winners 'in pounds and pence, even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough'. There are other pressures elsewhere. The Chancellor once vowed to never make an unfunded spending commitment but this week announced she will restore winter fuel payments to most pensioners with no clues as to how it will be paid for. She has also announced a Fair Pay Agreement for social care, which will set minimum terms across the sector without any clarity on how the proposals will be funded. Welfare spending, which sits outside Whitehall budgets, is poised to keep ballooning over the next five years as the Government prepares another about-turn to planned cuts to disability benefits. And unresolved questions over levies such as fuel duty will also pile more pressure on the Chancellor. While Reeves's statement is meant to set in stone government spending plans for at least the next three years, her £40bn tax raid last year may not be enough to foot the eventual bill. The tax burden is already on course to reach a peacetime high, but JP Morgan and Capital Economics both believe that Reeves will have to raise taxes by more than £20bn in the Budget this autumn to cover her increased spending plans and fend off increasing pressure from Reform. 'The spending review contains few surprises,' says Elliott Jordan-Doak, at Pantheon Macroeconomics. 'The question is only how big tax hikes will be in October.' The Government hinted on Wednesday that council tax would rise sharply to pay for policing after Reeves cut the Home Office budget by 2.2pc. Reeves claimed 'police spending power' would increase by 2.3pc in the coming years, which documents suggest could include more money from council tax. The Liberal Democrats said families in typical Band D households now faced a £395 increase in council tax by the next election. While the NHS is clearly a winner, there are already questions over whether the money will be enough to keep the health service running. Analysis by the IFS shows there have been just two occasions – in 1991 and 2004 – where health spending grew more slowly than envisaged in the spending review. More often, governments have been forced to top up health budgets to boost day-to-day health spending, which is on course to rise from a 26pc share of Whitehall budgets in 1999 to more than 40pc by the end of the decade. Reeves has set out plans to increase the NHS day-to-day budget more slowly than its historical average – by 3pc in real terms compared to 3.6pc – despite growing pressures on the health service. The plan set out by the previous Conservative government assumed real-terms funding increases of around 3.6pc per year. Johnson says: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18 week target for hospital waiting times within this parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' The plans also revealed the front-loaded nature of many of the settlements, with NHS capital spending set to remain flat in real terms for the rest of the decade after this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government's tax and spending watchdog, believes pressures from an older and sicker population will increase demand for NHS services by 1.1pc per year alone. 'The pressure to spend more on the NHS will still be great even after today's announcement,' says Jordan-Doak. Economists also questioned whether the health department's pledge to find £9bn in efficiency savings by the end of the decade was credible. Labour will unveil a refreshed NHS 10-year plan in the coming months, which is expected to demand more spending on staff and equipment to deal with Britain's demographic challenge. Another winner from Wednesday's spending review was defence, with spending in this area on track to rise to 2.6pc of GDP by 2027. But there was no mention of a 3pc target which Sir Keir Starmer has committed to, let alone the 3.5pc goal Nato is piling pressure on countries to reach. Increasing defence spending from 2.5pc of GDP to 3pc represents an increase of £17bn by the end of the decade. That's the equivalent of an extra 2p on income tax. Johnson says: 'On defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6pc of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' There are also doubts about whether Reeves will be able to force through the cuts envisioned for the departments that lost out in Wednesday's announcement – including the Home Office, transport, Foreign Office and environment departments, which will suffer cuts in real terms. Even schools will get a real-terms freeze if you strip out the cost of expanding free school meals. In fact, departmental spending to 2028 will on average grow more slowly than under plans Rishi Sunak set out in the Conservatives' last spending review in 2021. 'We think that these real-terms spending cuts will be impossible to deliver given the pressure on public services and voters' demands for increased spending,' says Jordan-Doak. Then there are the Chancellor's investment plans. Capital spending is set to rise by £113bn over this parliament, with money going on everything from transport to green energy, new prisons and housing. Reeves is gambling that this investment blitz can kick-start growth. But as with any gamble, there is a risk it could go wrong. 'If the Government insists on accumulating the extra spending it's planning over the full parliament, it seems only fair to also draw attention to the £140bn of extra borrowing we're forecast to do over the same period,' says Johnson, at the IFS. Extra borrowing will keep Britain's debt pile rising every year until the end of the decade. 'That borrowing incurs a cost in the form of additional debt interest – and one that's bigger than it was a year ago,' says Johnson. The question was always whether the extra investment would bring sufficient benefits to make that worthwhile.' Government borrowing costs rose in the immediate aftermath of Reeves's announcement. Andrew Goodwin, at Oxford Economics, calculates that the Chancellor's already wafer-thin £9.9bn headroom to meet her borrowing rules has already been eroded by £2.5bn as a result of higher gilt yields. And while Reeves boasts about all the extra investment being pumped into the economy, another key question is: will she be able to get all of that money out the door? Previous analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that successive governments of all stripes have struggled to spend all the money they wanted. Just £1 in every £6 in planned investment spending over the past seven spending reviews since 1998 actually went out the door. Why? Governments are often too optimistic about when projects become shovel-ready. There may be planning hold-ups, and the construction sector may not be able to cope with all that extra demand for engineers, project managers and construction workers to deliver these projects. 'We now know more about what sorts of projects the Government plans to invest in,' Johnson says. 'The focus must now shift to delivery and avoiding the all-too-common project over-runs.' Governments have in the past raided capital budgets in order to make their day-to-day spending budgets add up. New safeguards have been introduced to in theory prevent this from happening again. But this may simply make it harder for Labour to meet spending demands if plans go awry without putting up tax. Ben Ramanauskas, at Policy Exchange, casts doubt on Labour's ability to live within its means. He says: 'While the uplift to the defence and criminal justice budgets are welcome, this is unlikely to go far enough. Instead the Chancellor has chosen to prioritise the NHS by giving it even more money, without insisting on productivity improvements.' All this is expected to keep the size of the state permanently bigger than its pre-lockdown size. Ramanauskas says: 'The Government is yet to set out how it will fund its largesse to the public sector. However, it will almost certainly have to place even greater strain on the public finances by increasing borrowing or adding extra burdens to households and businesses by raising taxes.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Reeves set to extend £3 bus fare cap until 2027
Rachel Reeves is set to extend the £3 cap on bus fares until 2027 when she unveils her spending review on Wednesday. As first reported by the Mirror, the Chancellor is understood to be preparing to announce an extension to the cap beyond the end of 2025. Instead, it will continue across England until March 2027 as the Government seeks to ease cost-of-living pressures on the public. The Government has previously said that, without the cap, fares could rise by as much as £12 for a journey between Leeds and Scarborough, or £5.50 for a ticket between Hull and York. A Treasury source said: 'We understand the cost of living is a priority for the British people. That is why we are investing in Britain's renewal to make working people better off.' But the Liberal Democrats criticised the decision not to return to the £2 cap that had been in place between January 2023 and December 2024. The increase in the cap was announced at the budget in October, with the Government arguing the lower rate was not financially sustainable, although some metro mayors decided to fund an extension of the £2 cap in their areas. Lib Dem transport spokesman Paul Kohler said: 'Household budgets are still really feeling the squeeze, so many will be really disappointed to see that the Government is moving to make the bus fare hike permanent. 'This will hit those who rely on public transport to get around to their local high street or to work and school in the pocket. People have been telling them they got this wrong, but Labour clearly isn't listening.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Scottish Government refuses to rule out changes to pensioners' winter payment
The Scottish Government has not ruled out making changes to its equivalent on the winter fuel payment scheme, amid concerns some pensioners could be left worse off than their counterparts south of the border. A spokesperson for First Minister John Swinney said ministers at Holyrood were 'trying to understand the fiscal implications' of Monday's policy change by the UK Government. After cutting the winter fuel payment for all but the poorest pensioners last year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has now confirmed some nine million pensioners in England and Wales will receive the benefit this winter. The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners who previously received it, with those with an income of under £35,000 a year qualifying for the UK Government's payment. Today we are expanding Winter Fuel Payments to benefit nine million pensioners this winter. It is right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair. That's why we have acted to expand eligibility so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. — Rachel Reeves (@RachelReevesMP) June 9, 2025 In Scotland, ministers had already announced plans to ensure all pensioner households receive a payment. The Pension Age Winter Heating Payment will see all pensioner households get at least £100, with poorer pensioners getting either £200 or £300 depending on their age. Labour, however, challenged SNP ministers to ensure that 'no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans'. Mr Swinney's spokesperson confirmed that, as it stands, the policy in Scotland has not been changed. But adding that ministers are 'trying to understand the fiscal implications' of what has been announced', the spokesperson refused to rule out future changes to the payments. 'We will always seek to support pensioners in Scotland the best we can, we are absolutely committed to that,' the spokesperson said. The change in policy from the UK Government will bring additional money for the Scottish Government – with the spokesperson stressing SNP ministers are 'still trying to understand' how much extra cash could be due. Here, the spokesperson stressed the Scottish Government's budget is 'set largely by Westminster', adding: 'We have to, frankly, read the tea leaves sometimes about what is going to happen to our block grant throughout the year.' The comments from the First Minister's spokesperson came as Scottish Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville described the UK Government's handling of of the benefit as 'shambolic'. Ms Somerville welcomed Labour's U-turn on the benefit cut, but said the decision should never have happened in the first place. She told BBC Radio Scotland it was 'very difficult to try and run a devolved social security system when you're actually finding out some of the details on social media before you can actually find out the details from the Government'. The Social Justice Secretary insisted that was 'no way for the Governments to work together,', adding she was 'deeply disappointed in the way that the UK Government have handled this once again with the Scottish Government'. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray stressed the benefit was devolved to Scotland, saying: 'This is a devolved payment. There's lots of social security that is devolved in Scotland. It is up to the Scottish Government to develop that and come up with their own policy.' The Labour MP also told BBC Radio Scotland the Scottish Government's winter fuel payments system meant that 'limited public money' will go towards helping millionaire pensioners with their heating bills. He insisted the initial decision by the UK Government to scrap the universal payments had been the 'right thing to do at the time', but added that changes could be made to this now the economy has been 'stabilised'.
