Scottish spending cut by £900m after Spring Statement
Treasury figures showed the Scottish Government's total expenditure is still expected to rise, from £48.2 billion in the forthcoming financial year to £53.5 billion in 2029-30.
But the University of Strathclyde 's Fraser of Allander Institute said cuts in Rachel Reeves 's statement would mean the Scottish Budget being around £900 million smaller at the end of the decade than previously forecast.
Joao Sousa, the institute's deputy director, said the Chancellor's cuts to UK departmental spending would result in around £435 million of cuts to Scotland through the Barnett formula.
A further £455 million of cuts are heading down the line in 2029-30, the analysis said, thanks to Labour's crackdown on benefits in the rest of the UK.
Control over some benefits have been devolved to the SNP administration in Edinburgh, with the Treasury handing Scottish ministers a sum equivalent to the cost of the same welfare payments in the rest of the UK.
Economists had previously warned that every £1 billion of cuts to welfare spending by the UK Government will lead to a £116 million reduction in funding to the Scottish Government.
Concerns over a financial black hole in the Scottish Government's Budget have been exacerbated thanks to the SNP introducing a more generous benefits system, with fewer eligibility checks.
This means SNP ministers could face a choice between making similar cuts to benefits in Scotland, reducing spending on other public services or raising taxes again.
Shona Robison, the SNP Finance Secretary, said: 'Today's statement from the Chancellor will see austerity cuts being imposed on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The UK Government appears to be trying to balance its books on the backs of disabled people.'
She also accused the Chancellor of 'short-changing' public sector bodies over compensation to cover the cost of Ms Reeves's increase to employers' National Insurance contributions.
But the Chancellor told the Commons that she had provided the 'largest settlements in real terms for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the history of devolution'.
Ian Murray, Labour's Scottish Secretary, said the Spring Statement had handed the Scottish Government an extra £28 million on top of a £4.9 billion boost provided in last autumn's Budget.
He said: 'This is the biggest budget settlement in the history of devolution and an end to austerity. The Scottish Government must now use that wisely – to improve Scotland's failing public services.'
Mr Sousa's analysis confirmed that the Spring Statement would result in a further £28 million rise in the Scottish Government's spending money for 2025-26.
However, he warned that 'the picture is significantly more challenging in terms of what it means for Holyrood's finances' in later years.
He said the cuts to departmental spending south of the Border would result in 'significant reductions' of £200 million and £435 million in the Scottish Government's block grant in 2028-29 and 2029-30 respectively.
The adult disability payment replaced the personal independence payment (Pip) in Scotland in 2022 when control over the latter benefit was devolved to Holyrood.
Mr Sousa said reforms to Pips south of the Border would lead to Scotland's block grant being cut by £177 million in 2027-28 and £455 million in 2029-30.
However, he noted that the Chancellor's decision to increase capital spending on infrastructure would lead the Scottish Government's funding for similar projects, such as buildings and roads, to rise by nearly £250 million by the end of the decade.
Dr Liz Cameron, chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, called for action to tackle poor economic growth forecasts.
But she said: 'The Chancellor's focus on the efficiency of government spending represents a bold step in the right direction.
'Reducing costs and boosting productivity are things which businesses must think about on a daily basis, and it is right that the Chancellor should treat public finances in the same way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Cooper defends live facial recognition expansion amid privacy row
The Home Secretary has defended the Government's expansion of live facial recognition technology as a 'targeted' crackdown on high-harm offenders, amid concerns over privacy. Yvette Cooper denied the technology was being used to catch lower-level crimes such as ticket-touting, as it has been previously in Wales, and said 'safeguards and protections' will govern its deployment. Critics including Labour peer Baroness Shami Chakrabarti have attacked new plans to roll out 10 vans equipped with facial recognition technology across seven police forces in England as part of a Government overhaul of neighbourhood policing. The former shadow attorney general said the expansion was a step towards a 'total surveillance society' in the UK. Asked whether the rollout would infringe on people's privacy, Ms Cooper said: 'Well, the way this technology is being used is to identify people who are wanted by the court, who maybe should be returned to prison, or who have failed to appear before the court, or who have breached things like sexual harm prevention orders, so serious criminals. 'And I think being able to identify them, alongside having proper legal safeguards and a legal framework in place because there do have to be safeguards and protections, but we also need to be able to use the technology to catch dangerous criminals and to keep communities safe.' In 2017, South Wales Police said facial recognition was being used to track suspects including ticket touts as the force prepared for the Champions League final in Cardiff. Pressed on whether she was happy for the technology to be deployed in this way, she said: 'No, that's not how they've (police in South Wales) used it. 'They used it for targeting where there's serious organised crime, where there are criminal gangs, but in every case that they do use it, they need to obviously have safeguards in place and we need to make sure that we've got a new legal framework for it to be operating under, and also that it can be used to tackle serious crimes and keep communities safe.' Ministers have said a new legal framework will be drawn up to support use of the technology following a consultation launching this autumn. Checks would only be done against police watchlists of wanted criminals, suspects and those subject to bail or court order conditions such as sex offenders, the Home Office said. The vans would be deployed across seven forces – Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley and Hampshire – in the coming weeks. They would be manned by trained officers operating within College of Policing guidance. But Lady Chakrabarti said the technology was 'incredibly intrusive' and had been 'developed pretty much completely outside the law'. 'Some would say this is yet another move towards a total surveillance society – challenges to privacy, challenges to freedom of assembly and association, and problems with race and sex discrimination because of the higher likelihood of false matches in the context of certain groups,' she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'It's particularly odd that this has all been developed pretty much completely outside the law.' She welcomed plans to consult ahead of possible new legislation, but warned that to date, 'it's been a bit of a Wild West'. Policing minister Dame Diana Johnson dismissed the claims, telling BBC Breakfast: 'With the greatest of respect, that's not what this is about. 'This is about giving the tools to our police officers to enable them to keep us safe.' Forces already deploying live facial recognition had used it to arrest rape, domestic abuse, knife crime and robbery suspects as well as sex offenders breaching their conditions. Meanwhile, the Home Office said every community across England and Wales had now been assigned a 'named, contactable' officer to handle reports of crimes such as anti-social behaviour. Their details would be made available for residents on their local force's website, it is understood. The pledge was made as part of the Government's previously announced Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, under which forces have signed up to a commitment to respond to neighbourhood queries within 72 hours. The Government said the move would help ensure 'the public will have consistent direct links to their local force, with dedicated anti-social behaviour leads and new visible patrols in town centres'.
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Labour minister vows ‘every community' in England and Wales to have contactable police officer
Labour minister Diana Johnston has vowed that 'every community' in England and Wales will now have a named and contactable police officer. Appearing on Good Morning Britain on Wednesday (13 August), the policing minister explained that 3,000 new police officers have been recruited to help in neighbourhoods 'up and down the country'. She said that members of the public are now able to find their local officer by entering their postcode on their force's website or enquiring over the phone. ' We wanted to make sure this works for policing. We're not just telling them we want them to make it work for them,' she said, confirming that the government has given the police £200m to implement this scheme.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The UK's bank ringfencing doesn't need large-scale reform
One reason to worry about the chancellor's plan for deregulation in the financial services sector is the dramatic language in which she pitched it. Rachel Reeves's metaphor in her Mansion House speech last month about regulation in too many areas acting as 'a boot on the neck of business' felt wildly over the top when you remember why tougher financial rules were needed in the banking sector in the first place. It was because the light-touch regulatory era caused the whole economy to be clobbered in the collapses of 2008-09. In the event, it took until 2019 to fully implement the centrepiece of the clean-up operation – bank ringfencing, which requires UK banks of a certain size to separate their retail and investment banking activities. Now, six years later – no time at all in the grand scheme – the Treasury, lobbied by most of the big banks, is contemplating 'meaningful' changes to ringfencing in the interests of economic growth. It feels far too soon to try anything radical. The definition of 'meaningful' is vague, it should be said. Outright abolition of ringfencing is off the table, thankfully, and some of the possibilities floated by the Treasury could be viewed as innocuous. Letting banks share back-office resources across the ringfence? Yes, that could be regarded as mere housekeeping. Allowing ringfenced banks to provide more products to UK businesses? Possibly, if we're talking about low-octane services. But the details do matter. The danger is that, if you create too many holes in the fence, you end up defeating the purpose of the construct. There are at least three reasons why Reeves should drop the inflammatory language and err on the side of caution. First, remember the primary goal: to ensure the state never has to bail out banks again – at least not the riskier trading activities. The plea from reformists is that other measures, such as stiffer capital requirements and 'living wills' to organise an orderly wind-down, do the same job. Yet ringfencing is surely genuinely different because it is a structural measure – the core UK deposit-taking operations have to sit inside their own legal entity. Maximum protection for the deposit-taking core still feels a sound principle given what happened in 2008-09, and how the whole of the wretched Royal Bank of Scotland was dragged down. Second, ringfencing may lower funding costs for banks. The perception of greater resilience should, in theory, attract a funding bonus. Put another way, regulators – with their eye on the overall stability of the system – might demand even higher capital buffers if ringfencing were to be meaningfully weakened. Would-be abolitionists grumble about the costs of trapped capital. Fair enough, but they probably wouldn't like bigger capital buffers either. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Third, if the chancellor's aim is more growth, why make it easier for UK banks to chase higher returns outside the UK? She should listen to the commonsense point made by Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England: 'Removing the ringfence would most likely have a negative effect on UK lending, both in terms of cost and quantities.' If ringfencing has meant cheaper mortgages, it would be a political risk for a chancellor to mess with the formula. None of which is to pretend that ringfencing has been a free lunch. Friction and expense clearly exist – the big banks spent a small fortune setting up the structures and have to carry extra overheads. Competition may also have suffered as big ringfenced banks have concentrated on UK mortgage lending and smaller banks have been forced towards riskier lending. Visions of a post-crisis world full of dynamic 'challenger' banks never materialised. But that is just to say that trade-offs exist. For the UK – a country that simply cannot afford another crisis like 2008's – financial stability should still be the priority. A few minor fiddles might be an improvement because no design is perfect. But major reform is not needed.
