Above right, Siobhian Brown SNP candidate for the Ayr constituency, out leafleting, responds to the accusations from Scottish Labour that the SNP, after 19 years, is ‘tired & visionless.’
Full video at: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/17tX9kcQs6/
I feel sure they know how much the devolution settlements firmly denies the Scottish Government the ability to be visionary and their attack, for that reason, is visionless.
If Scotland was independent what could the Scottish Government's budget feature that it cannot at the moment
If Scotland were independent, its government’s budget could include a range of powers, policies, and fiscal tools that are currently unavailable or tightly constrained under devolution. The difference would not just be more money, but qualitatively different choices.
Below is a clear breakdown of what could feature in an independence-era Scottish budget that cannot realistically feature now.
1. Full control over borrowing, debt, and macro-fiscal policy
Currently
- Scotland has very limited borrowing powers
- No control over national debt, bond issuance, or deficit rules
- Capital spending is capped and tightly regulated
If independent
An independent budget could include:
- A Scottish debt strategy (issuing government bonds)
- Counter-cyclical fiscal policy (borrowing more in downturns, less in booms)
- Large-scale, long-term capital investment programmes (e.g. infrastructure, housing, energy)
- Choices about debt-to-GDP targets and fiscal rules
👉 This alone would fundamentally change the scale and structure of the budget.
2. Full tax system redesign (not just rate tweaks)
Currently
- Scotland can vary income tax rates/bands
- No control over VAT, corporation tax, capital gains, national insurance, fuel duty, etc.
- Tax base largely designed at UK level
If independent
A Scottish budget could feature:
- A fully integrated tax system aligned with economic strategy
- Corporation tax policy tailored to Scotland’s economy
- VAT reform (e.g. reduced rates for tourism, hospitality, energy)
- Wealth taxes (land value tax, net wealth tax)
- Reform or replacement of National Insurance
- Carbon, resource, or windfall taxes designed for Scottish conditions
👉 Instead of marginal changes, the budget could reshape incentives across the whole economy.
3. Currency and central bank choices
Currently
- Monetary policy is set by the Bank of England
- No control over interest rates, money supply, or lender-of-last-resort functions
If independent
Depending on the currency choice, the budget could interact with:
- A Scottish central bank
- Monetary-fiscal coordination (e.g. green investment supported by monetary tools)
- Exchange-rate policy to support exports or manage shocks
👉 Budgets could be written with monetary backing, not just spending limits.
4. Industrial strategy at national scale
Currently
- Limited ability to support or protect industries
- State aid rules, trade policy, and energy market design largely reserved
- No control over immigration linked to labour needs
If independent
A budget could include:
- National industrial strategies (energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences)
- Large-scale public ownership or equity stakes
- Strategic subsidies without UK-wide constraints
- Tailored migration-linked labour investment (e.g. health, care, engineering)
- Sovereign wealth fund contributions from natural resources
👉 This allows active economic shaping, not just service funding.
5. Energy and natural resource revenues
Currently
- Oil & gas revenues go to the UK Treasury
- No direct control over offshore energy licensing
- Limited leverage over grid and energy market design
If independent
A budget could feature:
- Direct allocation of oil, gas, and offshore wind revenues
- A Scottish energy dividend or stabilisation fund
- Long-term green transition funding from resource income
- Public ownership stakes in energy generation
👉 This is a structural revenue change, not a spending tweak.
6. Full welfare and social security design
Currently
- Some devolved benefits, but core system remains UK-wide
- No control over pensions, Universal Credit design, or automatic stabilisers
If independent
A Scottish budget could include:
- A fully unified social security system
- Pension design choices
- Stronger automatic stabilisers during recessions
- Integration of tax and benefits into a single system
👉 Budgets could be counter-poverty tools, not just service allocators.
7. Defence, foreign policy, and international spending choices
Currently
- Defence spending is UK-controlled
- No diplomatic budget or development policy
If independent
A budget could decide:
- Defence spending level and structure
- Removal of nuclear weapons spending
- Foreign aid priorities
- Trade promotion and diplomatic presence
👉 Significant resources could be reallocated to domestic priorities.
8. A coherent long-term national economic narrative
Perhaps the biggest difference is not technical but strategic.
Currently
- Scottish budgets are annual, constrained, reactive
- No ability to align fiscal, monetary, trade, and migration policy
- Vision statements exist, but tools are partial
If independent
Budgets could:
- Be multi-year, mission-led national plans
- Align tax, spending, borrowing, and regulation
- Explicitly choose a national economic model (e.g. Nordic-style, green industrial, high-wage economy)
👉 This is why independence supporters argue current budgets can feel incremental or defensive.
Bottom line
Independence would not guarantee better budgets — but it would make fundamentally different budgets possible.
An independent Scottish budget could:
- Borrow at scale
- Redesign the entire tax system
- Capture resource revenues
- Coordinate economic policy
- Invest long-term rather than manage constraints
Whether that would be done well is a political question — but many of the “visionary” elements critics say are missing today are structurally impossible under current devolution.
https://chatgpt.com/c/696b66b0-10b8-8328-8611-eb665c92b390
Compare this to Ireland, Denmark, or New Zealand
Side-by-side snapshot
| Feature | Scotland (Now) | Ireland | Denmark | New Zealand |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full tax control | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Full borrowing powers | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Currency/central bank | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Integrated welfare system | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Resource revenue control | ❌ | ✅ | Limited | Limited |
| Multi-year strategic budgets | Limited | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Budget as economic strategy | Limited | Strong | Strong | Strong |
Right now, Scotland’s budget is closer to a regional spending plan than a national economic blueprint — which explains why critics sometimes describe it as lacking vision, regardless of one’s view on independence.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
It’s so blindingly obvious that we would be infinitely better off managing our own affairs. The level of gaslighting that goes on via the British media is the only reasonable explanation why independence isn’t at 90%.
LikeLiked by 1 person
there’s typically anglocentric article in the Guardian right now about the disaster of ‘UK water companies ‘.
A fine example of how UK is just a term the English use when they either want to appropriate something that doesn’t belong to them, or to hide something bad that does.
rgds
Graham
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian Wilson epitomises the ”tired and visionless ” Labour Party unionist approach to Scotland /SNP .
He is so blinkered when considering anything that has been done by the SNP Government that he ignores the very policies that a Left Wing Labour Government should have enacted in the UK , never mind in Scotland .
Nationalising ScotRail while Labour struggles to bring SOME of the English Rail Network under Public control ;
Free prescriptions for all – while many sick people in England struggle to pay ever increasing prescription costs ;
Scottish Child Payment raises many children out of the poverty that still blights too many in England , while a Labour Government wrings its hands and utters empty promises ;
Public ownership of Scotland’s Water is highlighted this very week by the fiasco in Southern England , but Labour still refuses to act against the Rip-Off Water Companies ;
…. and so on !
But Brian Wilson will NEVER admit that , for all its faults , the SNP Government has accomplished many things that , had he been in Government in Scotland , he would also have enacted – if he was really a Labour man at heart !
LikeLike
Brian Wilson was one of 4 directors of the Scottish Coal Co.
He had a long, long relationship with Peter Lawwell, before, during and after this mining company(Celtic). If only we had some journalists.
Workers at Scottish Coal (Killoch DP) were forced to apply for their own jobs (poorer terms) or were out the gate–fire and hire.
The company collapsed leaving huge ecological damage, estimated at £150 million for local councils et al to clean up—apologies from Mr Wilson–no chance.
LikeLike
It’s been interesting to compare and contrast how two economic think tanks chose to comment upon the Scottish Government’s recent budget statement and Spending Review.
Let’s take the Glasgow-based FAI on the Budget first: FAI (January 13) ‘A Budget where the silences were loudest.’ The up front framing made a good start! And on what the Cabinet Secretary did say, it’s tough to find anything remotely positive in the commentary.
The FAI offers this further characterisation of the Budget: ‘Another case of delaying adjustment into the future’. Such a remark emphasises where the FAI ‘s own silence is deafening, namely any explicit appreciation that Scottish government budgets and associated forward plans are constructed and delivered within a context influenced – arguably dominated – by current and possible future (known unknown and unknown unknown) UK government decisions. For that sort of contextualisation – for acknowledgement and explanation of the inherent uncertainty associated with budgeting within the devolution settlement – an interested voter in Scotland would need to turn to the London-based Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFFS).
Source: IFS (January 13) ‘Immediate response to the Scottish Budget and Spending Review’.
Unlike the FAI, the IFS explains reality: ‘When assessing the Scottish Spending Review, it is important to recognise the challenges the Scottish Government faces in predicting how much funding it will have available and hence can allocate to services.
‘Its funding depends to a large extent on decisions by the UK government, as well as uncertain forecasts for tax revenues and social security spending. Combined with the limited borrowing powers it has to offset any changes in its funding, this means the multi-year plans set today could be subject to significant revision – even if there is not a change in government at the upcoming Scottish elections.’
And further context: ‘On the one hand, as we highlighted in November following the UK Budget, current UK government spending plans imply very tight budgets, especially for 2028–29 and 2029–30.’ However, for a UK chancellor in a government with unfettered powers, other options are available: ‘As these years – and the next UK election – approach, the UK Chancellor may feel the need to top-up spending plans, which would generate additional funding for the Scottish Government via the Barnett formula. The next Scottish Government could then choose to top up overall spending plans or reduce taxes.’ But presumably Westminster could choose to ‘top up’ in ways that don’t generate a Barnett consequential?
When the IFS published its briefing on the most recent Westminster government budget in November 26 – ‘Autumn Budget 2025: initial response’ – it included observations that have direct implications for Scottish Government budgeting.
From this briefing, note the following (with my emphasis): ‘.. the Chancellor is relying heavily on tax rises towards the back end of the parliament. More borrowing for the next few years, then a sharp adjustment. Spend now, pay later’. Otherwise known in FAI speak as a dastardly ‘case of delaying adjustment into the future’?
The IFS acknowledges the uncertainties facing the Chancellor going forward: ‘… Rachel Reeves chose to raise taxes. In part, this was to increase her ‘headroom’ to £22 billion, a sensible move for which the Chancellor deserves credit. By providing greater insulation against economic turbulence, the additional buffer will reduce the risk of playing out this year on repeat in 2026. Though, relative to the uncertainties involved, it’s still not that large a buffer.’ These uncertainties all have spillover effects on forward budget planning for governments in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh, for governments with few fiscal and no monetary powers compared to the UK Chancellor.
The IFS added: ‘Taxes also went up, in part, to pay for additional discretionary spending – most notably on universal credit through the scrapping of the two-child limit, as well as welfare more generally due to U-turns earlier in the year. That’s a perfectly reasonable choice – but it is a choice. The key point, again, is that the tax rises are promised for the future, but the spending is coming sooner.’ How on earth do devolved government’s factor the financial risks or opportunities associated with actual or potential Westminster U-turns into their budgeting and spending reviews?
The IFS muses: ‘The additional spending and borrowing in the short term is readily believable. The future restraint, just before the next election? One could be forgiven for treating that with a healthy dose of scepticism.’ How can any ‘devolved’ government predict how much funding it will have available and make firm, detailed longer term plans for its allocation to services in this context?
At least the London-based IFS recognises the spillover impact on devolved government budgeting of Westminster’s management of the UK’s public finances.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As a regular reader of the output of the Fraser of Allander Institute (FAI), I’m becoming increasingly disappointed in how it’s opting to express and emphasise what are ‘value judgements’ over analysis-based conclusions. Does it intend to become a quasi-political organisation?
On January 15 this headline appeared above an FAI article: ‘Budget – day 3 reaction – Council tax & the Spending Review. Incoherent reforms to council tax: could have been worse, but not good enough.’
Within the piece we read (with my emphasis): ‘Scotland will follow the UK Government’s example and introduce higher taxes on higher value properties. Whereas at the UK Government level this is being done as a new surcharge flowing to central government, in Scotland it will be through two new council tax bands, with revenues staying with local government’ and ‘These will be based on ‘up-to-date’ valuations, but only for properties worth over £1m. The rest of us have to keep paying tax on the 1991 values of our property, and all the errors and inconsistencies that go with that.’
Have you spotted ‘incoherence’ yet?
(The UK Government press statement on November 26, 2025 explained: ‘The government has announced the introduction of a new High Value Council Tax Surcharge. The below factsheet outlines the details of this new surcharge. From April 2028, owners of properties identified as being valued at over £2 million will be liable for a recurring annual charge which will be additional to existing Council Tax liability. This measure is estimated to raise £0.4 billion in 2029-30. Local authorities will collect this revenue on behalf of central government and will be fully compensated for the additional costs of administering this new tax. Revenue will be used to support funding for local services, with further consideration through the next Spending Review.’ My understanding is that no re-evaluation will take place for the impacted properties in England.)
The FAI adds: ’As the Scottish Government point out in the budget documents, a process of engagement, including a public consultation, is currently underway to look at reforms to the whole system, recognising “the importance of consensus, stability and fairness and is intended to inform decisions in the next parliament”. ‘Incoherence‘ spotted yet?
The FAI then finally explains: ’ … this particular change also introduces a degree of incoherence. Maintaining a stated position that reform cannot proceed without consensus, while simultaneously implementing changes to one part of the system in the absence of such consensus, is impossible to reconcile.’
Ah so that’s it! But in the same article the FAI tells us ‘the reform announced yesterday will only affect 1% of properties’. So a policy shift impacting just 1% of properties – which will first be revalued – in order to provide funding for local government taken from those with greatest property-based wealth justifies the claim of ‘incoherence’? A 1% ‘degree of incoherence’ is it?
Or is it sensible and pragmatic? Elsewhere in the FAI article we read: ‘The local government settlement looks very difficult over the 3 year period, particularly as this includes social care where the Scottish Government have assumed, again, that there will be growing demands.’
“Perfect is the enemy of good”?
The present Council Tax system may be far from the optimal, fairest, most progressive mechanism. However, getting cross-party agreement on radical reform may still be a long way off in a parliament elected by proportional representation – and therefore without robust government majorities – and which candidly, can often be toxically oppositional. And in any case, the response to a previous reform in Scotland – the Poll Tax – shows what can result when something as fundamental as tax to finance local government is radically reformed without consensus. Any sensible government will avoid a repeat!
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW take a look at the BBC website and look at the (so called) Scottish papers front pages section, as something is a tad suspicious on them.
The front page image of the Herald newspaper is blurred.
What is their main front page story ?
Well their main headline is:
“Billionaires bankroll Sarwar to beat SNP”
Every other newspaper image is clear in that BBC section.
Suppression through blurring……..what’s next ?
Perhaps censoring or blacklisting The National on their website……..
As they tend to not include covering the front page stories of The National in the BBC Scotland’s radio programmes whenever they review the daily papers in Scotland.
However why would billionaires want to bankroll Sarwar to oust the SNP, well not impoverish themselves in the future that’s for sure, but surely only to try to ensure that they stay wealthy and become even wealthier , which does not look good for a branch office Labour manager like Sarwar does it ?
Democracy for sale yet again.
However it was reported this month that:
“Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar confirmed in early January 2026 that his party has built a £1 million-plus “war chest” to fund their campaign for the Scottish Parliament elections in May 2026″
“Built a £1 million plus war chest” ?
Not “built” up over a long period though , especially if we read that “billionaires are bankrolling” him and his party.
Hopefully the people in Scotland will get to decide who wins and not the billionaires , in that we the people will decide who will win in May and not the elites who bankroll those who are clearly unfit and undeserving of power within Scotland.
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jackie Baillie tweeted this today in response to The Herald’s front page story on “Billionaires bankroll Sarwar to beat SNP” (obviously not sourced via the BBC’s blurred version):
“Delighted to welcome this significant support from Sandy and James Easdale as we work to deliver a new direction for Scotland”
Yeh, democracy for sale with Labour trying to win yet another election with money sourced from wealthy people.
Hopefully post the May elections Jackie Baillie will be less delighted when her party fail to win the main job at Holyrood yet again.
The brass neck and audacity of her thinking that this is in any way an acceptable thing to do, that is to accept money from billionaires for their Labour party political campaigns.
It just shows you how out of touch Labour truly are with us the ordinary people……
Mind you Labour are now just another new version of the Tory party that competes with the actual Tory party and also they are now having to compete too with the other new Tory party that is Reform UK.
UK party politics still scandalous, a catastrophe and a fiasco .
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also on The Herald’s blurred front page on the BBC’s website , with picture of Douglas Alexander, is this story.
“Scottish councils are facing a far sharper squeeze than their English counterparts under the UK government’s new Local Growth Fund (LGF), after ministers opted for a capital-heavy settlement north of the border that critics say is all about photo opportunities to “help Labour politicians save their skins”.
“Earlier this month, Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander announced that from April this year the UK government would invest £140 million in five Scottish regions through the LGF to support economic growth, with Edinburgh set to receive £37.8 million, Tay Cities £19.5m, Ayrshire £11.8m, Forth Valley £9.8m and Glasgow City Region £60.9m.Crucially, only around 30% of the new fund can be spent on revenue — the day-to-day funding used to pay staff and deliver services”
“A senior Glasgow source told The Herald: “The questions we urgently need answered are why this funding deal hammers Scottish businesses, third sector groups and employability schemes while our peers south of the border are spared, and what role the Secretary of State for Scotland has had in this”
“Either Douglas Alexander fought to retain the support for getting people in our hardest-pressed communities into work and he’s lost. Or he’s prioritised photo opportunities which he reckons can help Labour politicians save their skins. Either way, it’s rank incompetence and our communities suffer.
“The Secretary of State must wake up to the fact that his decisions are going to be damaging businesses and putting people out of jobs.”
Now we know why the BBC today on their website only has a blurred front page of the Scottish newspaper called The Herald………as not enough #SNPBAD stories on it and too many #LabourBad stories instead.
Liz S
LikeLike