Spend our £9bn windfall on fixing broken Scotland's problems, Swinney is urged
The First Minister came under intense pressure as the UK Government published details of the windfall from Chancellor Rachel Reeves 's spending review.
The breakdown showed almost £6 billion extra for Holyrood thanks to higher UK spending on health and £2 billion from education.
Opposition parties demanded the SNP spend the cash on the same priorities - not blow more millions on bureaucracy, waste and dead-end preparations for independence.
Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Craig Hoy said: 'Hard-pressed Scots will be furious if the SNP squander the money they now have at their disposal.
'It should be spent on people's real priorities starting with our NHS which is in a state of permanent crisis under the SNP.
'Nationalist ministers have spent 18 years wasting money on their own pet projects and self-indulgent fringe obsessions, rather than what really impacts people's lives.
'Scots can ill-afford for that reckless approach to continue considering they are already paying more and getting less under the SNP.'
The Chancellor's spending review on June 11 set out headline figures for day-to-day budgets until 2028/29 and for capital spending until 2029/30.
Despite the £9.1 billion extra - which the SNP Government can spend as it chooses - on top of a record £50 billion a year grant, finance secretary Shona Robison said Westminster was 'treating Scotland as an afterthought and failing to provide us with the funding we need'.
The 0.8 per cent real terms annual growth in Holyrood's funding meant Scotland had been 'short-changed' by £1.1 billion relative to the rest of the UK, she claimed.
In a robust riposte, the Scotland Office yesterday set out how Treasury spending in devolved areas would give Holyrood the £9.1 billion extra through the Barnett funding formula.
It showed that by 2030, health spending south of the Border will generate £5.8 billion of 'consequential' funding for Scotland, education £2.1 billion, justice £451 million, housing, communities and local government £380 million and transport £807 million.
Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said: 'The UK Government has delivered the largest real terms settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution began in 1999, and ensured a definitive end to austerity in Scotland with £9.1billion more until the end of the decade.
'It is for the Scottish Government to determine how it spends this money.
'It is notable, however, that almost £6 billion of additional funding has been generated by health spending, and over £2billion by spending on education. Many Scots will expect to see better outcomes in their schools and hospitals given this record funding.'
Mr Swinney and health secretary Neil Gray have vowed to 'renew' the NHS, but waiting lists, delayed discharges and cancelled operations remain stubbornly high.
Around one in six Scots - more than 860,000 people - are waiting for NHS operations, appointments and tests, including more 100,000 waiting more than a year.
Figures released last week showed one in 12 operations were cancelled in May last year.
The SNP promised to eradicate delayed discharge in 2015, but an average 1,852 hospital beds a day were occupied by people who didn't need them in May, down just 12 on April.
A lack of home and community care remains a key factor in patients being stuck on wards.
Almost a third of people wait more than the four-hour target to be seen in A&E each week.
In education, the attainment gap between well-off and poorer pupils, which the SNP promised to close, continues to widen.
The proportion of pupils in the poorest areas getting Higher passes last year was 17.2 percentage points lower than in the most affluent - and even worse for Maths and English, where the gaps were 20.6 and 20.8 points respectively.
Scottish Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine said: 'Even with a record funding settlement for the Scottish Government to spend, taxpayers will be feeling apprehensive.
'The SNP love to waste taxpayers' money on poorly managed projects like their wildly over budget ferries or their bungled centralisation of social care and then insist they need to pick people's pockets for more.
'With record funding for health, my constituents will expect to finally see some progress on long waits for care. Health and care are the top priority..'
Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie added: 'John Swinney is presiding over an out of control billion-pound prison project, spending hundreds of millions on a never-ending ferry fiasco and we've got more quangos than MSPs.
'After nearly two decades of the SNP wasting the public's money, Scotland has record NHS waiting lists, 10,000 children with nowhere to call home, a drug deaths crisis, overcrowded prisons and falling education standards.
'They have the money, they have the powers - if they had a plan to fix any of the mess they've created we'd have surely seen it by now.'
Finance Secretary Shona Robison said: 'The UK Spending Review document sets out in black and white that our funding for day-to-day spending is set to grow by only 0.8 per cent over the next three years, compared with 1.2 per cent average growth for UK Government departments. This will short-change us by £1.1 billion pounds.
'What's more, we face an estimated £400 million shortfall from the UK Government's failure to fully fund their employer National Insurance increase.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
Claims of 'sovereignty of Scottish people' won't hold up in real world
On November 23, 2022, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament has no power to legislate for an independence referendum, not because of opinion, but because constitutional authority lies solely with Westminster. Holyrood, regardless of the mandate, is legally bound. People then shift the conversation from Parliament to 'the people'. But the people can't act through a Parliament that holds no legal authority. That's the trap. You're told to win a majority, but once you do, you're told you have no right to use it. That's not democracy. That's occupation dressed up as devolution. And what happens if we push anyway? Let's be crystal clear: Westminster has the legal power to shut Holyrood down, just like it did to Stormont on March 30, 1972. Northern Ireland's Parliament was suspended, and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 formally abolished it. A precedent exists – and the UK Government has already demonstrated its willingness to use it. Still, some cling to UN treaties. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is often invoked as a means of protection. However, in the 2010 ICJ ruling on Kosovo, the court made clear that international law doesn't prohibit declarations of independence, but it also doesn't enforce them. It depends entirely on power and recognition. In 2017, Catalonia declared independence. Spain declared it illegal. The EU looked away. Catalan leaders were jailed or fled. Why? Because they had no power to make their sovereignty real. Compare that to Kosovo (2008) or the Baltic states (1990–91). They didn't ask for permission. They created a crisis, gathered support and forced recognition through action, not appeals. Even Canada's Supreme Court (1998) stated that Quebec had no right to secede unilaterally, but rather that a clear referendum would create a political obligation to negotiate, not a legal one. Every route that Andy and others cling to – votes, courts, petitions, the UN – has already been tested. Every door is locked. Every demand for proof of public support is just a stalling tactic. And when we meet the condition, they move the goalposts again. It always comes back to one truth: you either have the power to enforce your sovereignty, or you don't. Scotland does not. Not yet. And until this movement stops confusing theory with force, and starts acting like a people denied their nation – not petitioners in someone else's Parliament – we will never be taken seriously, at home or abroad. James Murphy Bute ANDY Anderson in commenting on my long letter (July 7) writes that I mistakenly assume 'that the so-called UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish people can't have a referendum on independence'. He correctly states: 'The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to institute a referendum on that subject because it can only act within its allotted powers under the Scotland Act, and constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster. This says nothing about the powers of the Scottish people, who in fact hold sovereign power in Scotland.' The only reference to the 'Supreme Court' in my letter was when I said: 'The only item in Jim Fairlie's 2020 article not still entirely relevant is his perceptive warning – that went unheeded by the then leadership of the SNP – against taking the right to an independence referendum to Westminster's 'Supreme Court'.' The entire substance of Jim's article was that neither Westminster or its legal creations could legitimately overrule the sovereign rights of Scotland's people and further he sets out how those rights could be asserted in a Scottish Parliament with a democratic mandate. My own agreement on that position was, I thought, made pretty clear in my last long letter of July 7. If there can be any doubt, I draw Andy's attention to my long letter of June 24 where I stated: 'Some assert that this would be to ignore Westminster's Supreme Court ruling that Holyrood could not act on reserved matters without Westminster's permission. Not so; this approach tackles Westminster's attempted roadblock to democracy head-on. Westminster can be notified of our intent as a protocol courtesy. However, any problem with regard to their Scotland Act and a 'transfer of powers' is a problem for Westminster to address, and not a Scottish Parliament with a specific mandate from Scotland's highest legitimate authority – that of the Scottish people.' Perhaps, Andy was wilfully misreading me to, yet again, mention Scottish Parliament, Petition Number PE2135 on Implementing the International Covenant on Civil and International Rights (ICCPR). A petition I fully support and signed a while ago. The only point on which we may differ is that I regard having the ICCPR passed into Scottish law as a potentially powerful extra lever in the inevitable (political) struggle to prise away Westminster's death-like grip on Scotland. Just not as a magic key that alone will vanquish all obstacles to the exercise of Scotland's democratic rights. Mike Wallace Edinburgh AS I've mentioned a few times before in my letters, I have been guilty in the past of the cardinal sin of voting for Labour. For my sins, I eventually saw the light and ditched them for the SNP and independence sometime in the early noughties. It got me thinking, though. What if I lived in England? Well, as Labour have now basically turned into the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the US, we clearly now have a US-style political situation in England where you can choose between the Tories and Reform UK (the equivalent of the Trumpian Republicans in the US) or Labour (the Democrats). I reckon it's a case of Bernie Sanders's 'no more', England style! As in the US, none of these options now tackle the grotesque inequality and poverty in our society, so basically as a voter that actually has a heart and cares, you are well and truly screwed! If I lived in England, I would definitely vote for the Greens but they ain't gonna win power any time soon so it would basically feel pointless, which is so sad! So, clearly progressive voters in England have no say in who governs them. Well, actually they do but not in the way they would like. Ditching Labour for the Greens or the new party on the left potentially being jointly led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will almost certainly make it even easier for that awful man Farage to be the next prime minister. What aboot us, though? There are thankfully two progressive parties to vote for – the SNP and the Scottish Greens. As we all know, these two parties were in coalition in government. Happy days as far as I'm concerned! Then shitty politics got in the way! The non-progressive wing of the SNP (ie the right-wing types!) got into a fankle and wouldn't settle until they had persuaded Humza Yousaf to ditch the 'lefty' Greens! The rest, as they say, is history. So where am I going with all of this? Well, I'll tell ye where am gaun! Folk with a heart and that actually care are well and truly being squeezed oot o' the democratic process. Nowadays, and it's aye been, it's aw aboot shitty 'growth' which is meant tae trickle doon tae the masses (aye right!). We perversely pride ourselves in Scotland and the UK of living in a democratic society but this 'democracy' doesn't stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer year after year after year! Aye. Ye can stuff this type of 'democracy' up yer arse! Ivor Telfer Dalgety Bay, Fife I WAS disappointing to see the celebrations of the Entente Cordiale by two heads of state. That treaty deprived Scottish citizens of the right to French citizenship that they'd had for centuries. Maybe French education is not what it's cracked up to be. Macron, like his predecessors at the start of the last century, considered Scotland to be a throwaway for better relationships with England. Trump is not the only leader to enjoy having his ego massaged! Drew Reid Falkirk FURTHER to Alan Hinnrichs's letter (The National, Friday, July 11), this should be compulsory reading to a far greater audience, such as the UK and US governments and to all those who believe all the Israeli propaganda. I have previously written to your wonderful newspaper and to others about the genocide that has been happening in Gaza for a very long time. It seems to have been the aim of the Israeli state since 1948 to rid Gaza and the West Bank of the Palestinians. Previously, they have encouraged their population to remove peaceful Palestinians from their rightful homes by using force and even murder of these innocent Palestinians. Now, for a very long time, they have been bombing household buildings and killing many thousands of innocent civilians, mainly women and children. The UK and US governments have been complicit in this genocide by continuing to supply weapons to Israel. How many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been murdered under the pretext that there has supposedly been a Hamas leader sheltering in one of the bombed buildings? For a very long time, the Israelis have denied food and sustenance to the fleeing and sheltering population. Now, the IDF has been guilty of shooting civilians, who have been queuing at so-called safe relief stations, to supposedly receive some meagre scraps of food. Hospitals have been bombed and many medics have been killed, just trying to do their job of treating the injured and trying to save lives. These, all, are crimes against humanity and the Israeli state must be held accountable and punished for these criminal actions. However, the governments of the UK and US must be held accountable for supporting and supplying weapons, thus aiding Israel in committing this genocide and ethnic cleansing. During the Second World War, people and governments denied being aware of what was happening to the Jews in the German concentration camps. However, with modern technology, the whole world can see what is happening in Gaza every day and they should do something to stop the murder of innocents. Robert Cumberland Blantyre
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
All the times Labour has changed the definition of ‘working people'
Ever since the Labour general election manifesto promised there would be no tax rises for 'working people', party figures have struggled to define what that means. The manifesto claimed 'Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT'. Sir Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that the Government would keep this promise, but a growing hole in the public finances has raised questions over whether this will remain the case, and how the party will define a 'working person'. Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, on Sunday appeared to suggest that only those on 'modest incomes' would be classed as working people. It was not clear how she defined a 'modest' income. This is not the first time that the language surrounding 'working people' and how the Labour Party defines them has come under scrutiny. The Telegraph breaks down how the term 'working people' has changed since Sir Keir first made that promise last year. Working people do not have savings Before voters went to the polls, the Labour leader suggested that he did not believe that 'working people' had savings. Asked what he meant by a working person, Sir Keir told LBC in June: 'People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don't really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble.' The following day, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, appeared to contradict him by saying that some working people did have savings. She claimed on Sky News that her definition was: 'Working people are people who go out to work and work for their incomes. 'Sort of by definition, really, working people are those people who go out and work and earn their money through hard work.' Ms Reeves added: 'Many other people who go out to work have had to run down their savings. 'But there are people who do have savings, who have been able to save up and those are working people as well.' People on six figures can be working people The new Government came under intense scrutiny over its definition of 'working people' ahead of the Chancellor's first Budget in October last year. Lisa Nandy first suggested that someone on a six-figure salary who goes to work counts as a 'working person'. In an interview with Sky News, the Culture Secretary said: 'When I think about working people, particularly the challenges they face, I think about the factory workers, I think about people driving the buses in my constituency, working in the public services, working in the private sector, delivery drivers, call centres.' When asked whether someone on a six-figure salary counted, the minister replied: 'I mean, if they go to work obviously they will be working.' Landlords and shareholders aren't working people The following day, the Prime Minister said that he did not believe that landlords or shareholders fell under his definition of a working person. Asked by Sky News if those who earn income from assets such as shares or property would count as working people in the Budget, Sir Keir said that they 'wouldn't come within my definition'. The Chancellor went on to announce an increase in capital gains tax at the Budget, but kept property rates the same. Small business owners might not be working people Bridget Phillipson, just days before the Government's first fiscal event, refused to say whether a small business owner who earned £13,000 a year was a 'working person' or not. The Education Secretary told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that Labour's definition of a working person was someone 'whose main income arises from the fact that they go out to work every day'. Those paying employers' NI contributions are not working people When Ms Reeves's first Budget was unveiled on October 30, she announced an increase to employer's NI contributions. Standing at the despatch box, the Chancellor said that 'people will not see higher taxes in their playslips as a result of the choices that I am making today. That is a promise made and a promise fulfilled'. Ministers insisted that this did not breach the manifesto promises not to raise taxes on 'working people' because it was employers, rather than employees, paying the increased levy. But critics, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), disagreed. Paul Johnson, the then director of the IFS, said ahead of the Budget that the manifesto did not 'specify employee National Insurance' and therefore raising employers' NI would be a breach. He also warned that the levy ultimately came from employee pay, and therefore an increase could result in 'less pay rises' and 'possibly fewer jobs'. Working people earn 'modest incomes' On Sunday, Ms Alexander said that the Government had promised not to put up taxes for 'people on modest incomes'. She told Sky News: 'We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Newscast Will The Plan To Keep Kids Safe Online Work?
Today, the chief executive of Ofcom, Dame Melanie Henrietta Dawes sat down with Laura to discuss the Online Safety Act. In just under two weeks time, specific child safety measures, including changes to algorithms to filter out harmful content, will be enforced for a number of different tech platforms and companies. And we find out about the latest development in the upcoming strikes from resident doctors in the NHS. You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast'. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: Get in touch with Newscast by emailing newscast@ or send us a whatsapp on +44 0330 123 9480. New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. It was presented by Paddy O'Connell, Laura Kuenssberg and Joe Pike. It was made by Chris Gray with and Josh Jenkins. The social producers were Sophie Milward. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.
