By Mark E. Saunders of “The Scottish Minuteman” https://www.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=61575625542197

— More money to keep us afloat. Less investment to help us move forward —

Since the Labour government’s budget last month, there has been quite a bit of talk about Westminster giving Scotland an additional £600 million to ‘spend’.

But there’s a little more to that story than meets the eye — or the ears for that matter.

Firstly, the £600 million isn’t an annual payment. It’s the total additional funding spread across four years. And secondly, when you look at where the money is going, things become a wee bit less impressive.

It is true that Scotland gets an additional £866 million for everyday spending over that four-year period. But it is also true that there is a £338 million reduction in capital funding — money used to invest in things like hospitals, schools, roads and other infrastructure projects.

Here’s the important bit, which is more often than not omitted from the daily headlines.

Even though the amount of money available for everyday spending increases in cash terms, after inflation the actual spending power of the Scottish Government’s resource budget will fall by 1.3% in 2027-28.

Okay. So what does that actually mean? Is it just more ‘grievance’ drummed up by those blinking Scottish Independence punters?

The answer is simply, no!

Think of it like running your own family home.

You’ve just been given a wage increase by your boss. But as your yearly wage goes up, your monthly bills go up by more. I would think that most folk will understand that they are actually worse off. You’ve got more money coming in, but less left to spend.

If you’ve got less money available to repair your house, improve it or invest in making it better, you’re certainly not getting on in life. In fact, you’re travelling in a backwards direction.

That’s the situation for Scotland as a devolved part of the UK. More spending money to pay for less as costs continue to rise.

The Scottish Government has responsibility for many of our public services, but it doesn’t have the full range of economic and financial powers that an independent country has to shape its economic policy and Scotland’s future.

It is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to build a stronger economy, attract investment and improve living standards when so many of the bigger economic levers remain in Westminster’s hands.

And I’m not particularly convinced that the so-called Burnham Doctrine, with its proposal to shift more powers from Holyrood down to Scotland’s regions, is the answer either.

What is the point of moving powers around within a devolved system if the overall ambition remains limited by the same constitutional constraints?

All we’ll be doing is handing more responsibility to local councils, many of them run by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians. Their political priorities are shaped in Whitehall rather than by Scotland’s needs and wider ambitions.

Local decision-making has its place, of course it does. But simply moving the furniture around doesn’t heat the house.

We could end up with just another layer of government concentrating on managing and protecting the political status quo, rather than developing a vision for Scotland’s economic future.

Scotland shouldn’t simply be looking for enough money to keep its head above water. A country with so many natural and physical resources should be looking for the means to prosper.

Because keeping Scotland going and helping Scotland get ahead are two very different things.

And in my opinion, the UK Government appears far more willing to invest in the first of those than in creating the conditions for the second.