logo
Spending Review: Shaping Scotland's priorities for years to come

Spending Review: Shaping Scotland's priorities for years to come

BBC News4 days ago

Increased spending for Scotland on defence, computing and the development of carbon-capture technology have been promised in the chancellor's Spending Review.Rachel Reeves has found £250m for the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine base on the Clyde, £750m to bring the most powerful supercomputer in the UK to Edinburgh, and funding for the Acorn Project in St Fergus. Acorn would take greenhouse gas emissions and store them under the North Sea, in a process known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).The news comes as Reeves announces the budgets for all UK government departments over the next few years.
Getting the review right is a tricky balancing act.Anyone can see ways that public funds could be used more efficiently or even cut. Everyone has their top priority for spending more.So what happens if there's a root and branch review, with every spending line scrutinised, new priorities set and given more funds and others squeezed or cut?We should find out later. But it may not be as radical a review as sometimes presented as too much is already committed by contract or by government manifesto to make really radical changes.
What spending is being reviewed?
The clue is in the name. This is not about taxation, and it's not about balancing the books. That's for the Budget, and one of them is expected in autumn, to cover 2026-27.The review takes the spending totals already set by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and chooses how to allocate the day-to-day spending (also known as current or revenue spending) for the next three financial years.It also plans capital spending for four years on projects with a lifespan beyond the year, such as buildings.That includes the spending in Scotland by Whitehall departments, such as work and pensions and defence. It does not include funds spent by Holyrood.
How tight will it be for day-to-day spending?
We already know, at least roughly, the total numbers the chancellor has to allocate. The increase in day-to-day spending is an average 1.2% per year over the three years to 2028-29.Extra funds have been front-loaded by the Labour government. In other words, most of the extra spending it gets from big tax increases on business and the wealthy are being used to lift spending in its first two years. Then it gets tighter.If every department were to retain the same share (which would suggest the review effort has been wasted), it would get the average increase.But we already know the defence budget is getting a significant lift, to confront growing challenges and new types of warfare.
We also know the NHS requires more than a standstill budget to meet rising demands on it. And the Westminster government has committed to increasing the amount of childcare it provides. That implies an estimated cut of 1.3% in real terms for other items of expenditure.Local government and justice have taken the brunt of such cuts in the five spending reviews since they started 27 years ago, though not in the one-year spending review carried out last year.One big question about such cuts is whether they mean a reduced level of provision, or a challenge to get at least the current level of public service out of less money.Public sector productivity has gone backwards since the pandemic. There's a need and a big challenge to reverse that and it may need some spending to help the process happen, with perhaps more use of technology to replace civil servants.
What's available for the longer term?
Capital spending looks in an easier position, not least because Rachel Reeves' spending constraints allow her to borrow for that. She aims to match day-to-day spending with tax revenue, so it should not be funded by borrowing.In recent days, we have seen announcements to fund capital projects for defence, transport in the north of England and a large nuclear power station in Suffolk.Carbon capture and storage projects, to trap greenhouse gases, include the Acorn Project in Aberdeenshire.There's a promise to spend "an initial £250m" over three years on the Clyde submarine base, "supporting jobs, skills and growth across the west of Scotland".A lot of the allocations are being attached to the government's top priority of economic growth, with an emphasis on spreading funds around the UK.
Some of this spending precedes the announcement of an industrial strategy, in which the UK government intends to give added backing to industries of strategic importance such as steel, or those with the most growth potential, so there's lots about science and IT.That's why Spending Review day starts with a further preview of the review: Edinburgh University is to get £750m allocated to a new super-computer, which is billed as the most powerful in the UK, and among the most powerful in the world. It will be available for research into numerous projects such as personalised medicine, sustainable air travel or climate change.It reinstates a project that was cancelled last summer by Rachel Reeves, because it had not been funded by the outgoing Conservative government.
What decisions will directly affect Scotland?
Much of the state pensions and welfare budget is distributed throughout the UK by the department for work and pensions. But that share has been falling as Holyrood takes on devolved powers.Changes to universal credit would be felt in Scotland. That includes changes to the two-child limit on benefits.The state pension's triple lock of at least the rate of average pay increase, of price inflation or 2.5%, is being retained and that also covers Scotland.Where there are cuts in civil service numbers, that could apply to those who work in Scotland for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, for HM Revenue and Customs and for the Department of Work and Pensions.But there is also a plan to push many more civil service jobs out of London, so there could be gains for Scotland from relocations.
How will this affect Holyrood's budget?
Many of the changes in day-to-day spending, or capital spending on transport for instance, directly affect other parts of the UK, and in some cases only England.The formula for spending should then apply a share of that change to the block grant passed from the Treasury to Holyrood – whether an increased share or a proportionate cut.If the health service gets a boost, above the rate of increase in other departments, that will be a positive for Holyrood as well. But if justice takes a hit, a proportionate share of that will be passed on to Scottish ministers.They will then be free to allocate the block grant as they wish, so they can pass on the health spending at the same rate as England, or apply that money to another priority.In recent years, more and more spending has gone into the new Holyrood welfare budget, so that £1.5bn is being spent each year on making welfare more generous than in the rest of the UK.Some of that has been to mitigate decisions taken on welfare by the Westminster government. And there could be relatively good news for Holyrood from two decisions in the spending review which have already been announced.Reversing the cut in pension-age Winter Fuel Allowance brings a share to Holyrood of the necessary funds to make that happen – somewhere around £125m. That eases the pressure on Shona Robison, Holyrood's finance secretary, as she decides how to use the resources she gets.
And if Rachel Reeves follows through on the commitment to increase the level of state childcare support, that will also ease Holyrood's budget challenge, as it has already found funds to increase childcare. A share of that new-found money for England will be added to Holyrood's block grant, but need not be spent that way.Shona Robison has put off decisions about her medium-term plans until she sees Rachel Reeves' spending review and the impact it has on Holyrood's day-to-day and capital spending.The Scottish finance secretary is due to update MSPs by the end of June on how she uses it, including a priority list of capital projects.These include high-profile road upgrades in the Highlands and Aberdeenshire, and the stalled programme for building NHS National Treatment Centres.She faces competing demands to improve the buildings and IT in public services and, on the other hand, improving economic infrastructure such as roads and rail, with a more direct impact on economic growth.She also has the challenge of either cutting some public services or reforming them in such a way that they can be provided more efficiently.This spending review may be of major significance for public services for years to come.Or it may be replaced by annual budgets, as we've seen in the past, making different decisions depending on funds available and political pressure.The announcement in the Commons later is only the start of the process of putting those funds to work.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DWP confirm exact date people born by to get 2025 winter fuel payment
DWP confirm exact date people born by to get 2025 winter fuel payment

North Wales Live

time44 minutes ago

  • North Wales Live

DWP confirm exact date people born by to get 2025 winter fuel payment

The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that all individuals born before a specific date will be eligible for the winter fuel payment this year. The website has been updated with preliminary details following Chancellor Rachel Reeves' announcement earlier this week that nine million people who lost the £200-300 benefit last winter will receive it this year. Those earning over £35,000 will also receive the payment, but it will subsequently be reclaimed through the tax system. Sir Keir Starmer has maintained that the decision to restore most winter fuel payments was not a reaction to political backlash against the policy. Following the announcement, the DWP has updated its information and for the first time revealed who will be eligible for the payment. DWP officials stated that only those born before a certain date would receive the money. They said: "The Winter Fuel Payment for 2025 to 2026 will be made to everyone in England and Wales born before 22 September 1959, unless you choose not to get it. You could get either £200 or £300 to help you pay your heating bills for winter. "You do not need to do anything - payments will be made automatically.", reports Teesside Live. Officials confirmed that everyone will receive the money, but cautioned those earning above a certain threshold that it would be recouped through HMRC, although they did not provide specifics on how this would occur. The statement read: " If your income is over £35,000, your Winter Fuel Payment will be recovered later through HMRC. Details of the 2025 to 2026 payment will be available by the end of June 2025." This week, warnings were issued that the 'fiscal drag' caused by the £35,000 earnings limit will result in hundreds of thousands of individuals losing their winter fuel payment during this parliament. This is due to Ms Reeves confirming that the £35,000 limit will not increase with inflation, leading to an estimated additional 500,000 people being affected before the end of this parliament. BBC Moneybox expert Paul Lewis stated: "The £35,000 income limit for keeping the winter fuel payment will be frozen Ministers confirm, leading to more pensioners repaying the money year by year it will join frozen bereavement payments, capital limits, child benefit limits, and tax thresholds." The Prime Minister highlighted recent growth figures and decreasing interest rates as evidence that "the economy has stabilised". Ms Reeves admitted that working individuals were not experiencing signs of progress as she attempted to move past the winter fuel controversy by asserting her spending review tomorrow would stimulate growth. "This government is going for growth because that is the best way to create jobs, boost wages, lift people out of poverty and sustainably fund our schools and our hospitals and all the public services we rely on," she addressed the GMB Union Congress conference. While expressing confidence in the government's direction, Ms Reeves commented: "I know that not enough working people are yet feeling that progress, and that's what tomorrow's spending review is all about - making working people better off, investing in our security, investing in our health, investing in our economy." Today, Rachel Reeves did not dismiss the possibility of further tax increases come autumn, following reports that the economy contracted more than anticipated in April. The Chancellor has consistently maintained that the forthcoming spending review's costs are offset by last year's tax hikes, emphasising that departments must now "live within their means". However, with a faltering economy and new obligations such as partially reversing cuts to winter fuel payments, experts caution that taxes might rise again in the autumn. When questioned on LBC about ruling out additional tax hikes, Ms Reeves said: "I think it would be very risky for a Chancellor to try and write future budgets in a world as uncertain as ours." Yet, she reiterated her commitment to avoiding tax increases on the scale seen last year, when they rose by £40 billion.

The £13 bn hole in the government's 2.6% defence target
The £13 bn hole in the government's 2.6% defence target

ITV News

timean hour ago

  • ITV News

The £13 bn hole in the government's 2.6% defence target

The Chancellor's and the Treasury's assertion, in its latest Spending Review, that by 2027 defence spending will 'reach 2.6% of GDP' is not all it seems, to the tune of about £13 billion. Here's why. The published forecasts for defence spending in the financial years 2026/7 and 2027/8, of £65.5 billion and £71 billion respectively in cash terms, are 2.1% and 2.2% of the OBR's forecast of 'current prices' GDP in those years. This is a long way short of the pledged 2.6%. The gap in cash terms is £13 billion - which is NOT a rounding error. I should start by saying that 24 hours ago I asked Treasury officials to explain the gap. It can't be hard for them to do so. They've gone away to think about it. So here are a few of my thoughts about what is going on. Some of you may remember that the government is including 'Nato qualifying' spending on intelligence in its calculation of that 2.6% target. From Westminster to Washington DC - our political experts are across all the latest key talking points. Listen to the latest episode below... But defence-related intelligence cannot possibly be more than a fifth of all UK spending on Mi6, Mi5 and GCHQ, because Nato is very clear that the only intelligence spending that counts has to be directly related to military operations. I am going to be generous and assume spending on military intelligence that is part of the so-called Single Intelligence Account and outside of the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) budget is just over a billion pounds. Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, tells me this is absurdly high. But I am trying to give the Treasury the benefit of the doubt. Even with my generosity there is a £12 billion gap. And by the way, even if every single penny of intelligence spending was attributed to defence, there would be a £7 billion gap! One Treasury official said another £1.6 billion is probably the £1.6 billion annual cash cost of army pensions. I'll lop that off the £13 billion. Which leaves only £10 billion to find. Wallace told me that when Osborne was chancellor, he insisted that in submissions of the UK's defence spending to Nato the MoD had to include the VAT it pays on procurement. As Wallace says this is double counting, because the VAT is paid to the Treasury. When defence secretary, he was so infuriated that one year he refused to submit numbers to Nato. So perhaps the whole of the £10 billion gap is VAT. And maybe the reason the Treasury isn't getting back to me to confirm or deny is that it knows neither Nato or President Trump would be impressed that a huge proportion of our claimed defence spending may be around £10 billion in tax payments to... the British government. Anyway, now that I've put these numbers in the public domain, I await with interest clarification from the Treasury of what's going on here. None of what I've just said takes away from the published fact that defence spending is rising 3.8% faster than inflation for the next three years. That is a huge amount of resource being transferred to defence. But if when you read that the UK is set to spend 2.6% of GDP on defence, you thought all of that significant expenditure was on the armed forces, munitions, military satellites, nukes, planes and boats - as I did - you need to think again.

‘We don't want to go back to court', says women's group over gender ruling delay
‘We don't want to go back to court', says women's group over gender ruling delay

Rhyl Journal

timean hour ago

  • Rhyl Journal

‘We don't want to go back to court', says women's group over gender ruling delay

For Women Scotland (FWS) challenged the meaning of a woman in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act, with the UK's highest court ruling the definition in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for transgender people in accessing services, but the Scottish Government has declined to make changes to guidance until the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issues its own guidance, which is expected to take place in the coming months. But speaking at a fringe event at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh, FWS co-director Susan Smith said the group was considering a further legal challenge against the Government. Speaking to journalists after the event, she said: 'We have spoken to the Scottish Government and asked them to withdraw some of this guidance, just to say that it's under review – they don't have to re-issue anything at this point – because it's clearly unlawful, we really do need some action. 'They're telling us they have to wait for the EHRC revised guidance and we don't believe this is true.' Ms Smith added that, if a woman were to be assaulted in prison by a transgender prisoner, the Government could be taken to court by the victim. 'I think they need to step up and take a bit of responsibility because these things are under their remit,' she said. She added: 'We don't want to go back to court, we really, really don't, but if we don't see some action that may be something we will have to consider.' Ms Smith said the group is speaking with its lawyers but she would not say if there was a timeline for action to begin. The co-director stressed that if ministers were concerned about a challenge to their guidance from the pro-trans rights side of the argument, they should be worried about one from FWS and other such groups too. 'They seem worried about a legal challenge from the other side,' she said. 'But my message to them would be they should be more worried about a legal challenge from the people who have the law on their side.' Ms Smith was joined at the fringe meeting – which was hosted by Tory MSP Pam Gosal – by former foreign secretary James Cleverly. Mr Cleverly was part of the Conservative-led government which blocked the Scottish Government's controversial gender reforms. The Government proposed removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria as a requirement for obtaining a gender recognition certificate – a process known as self identification. The move was scuppered by then-Scottish secretary Alister Jack, who used Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the legislation. Mr Cleverly told attendees the move showed the 'importance of the union'. 'This issue was clearly spiralling out of control, badly out of control,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store