SCOTTISH Labour has finally published its alternative Budget proposals – but the plans were last night dismissed as “fantasy figures riddled with factual blunders”.
The party claims its plans are the “most radical set of fiscal policies ever to be presented at Holyrood”. It said its alternative approach to income tax coupled with new tax powers for councils would generate almost £1 billion of additional revenue.
But Finance Minister Derek Mackay said they wouldn’t raise anywhere near what the party was claiming and some of the cash would come from proposals which couldn’t be implemented for years.
The proposals come ahead of the stage one debate on the Scottish Government’s 2018/19 draft Budget tomorrow.
Labour’s income tax plan matches the Scottish Government’s starter rate of 19p, but places the income threshold for a 45p rate at over £60,000 and introduces a new 50p top rate for those earning over £100,000. Under the Government’s draft Budget, a 46p rate only kicks in for earnings over £150,000.
Both the SNP and Labour proposals would see those earning above £33,000 pay more tax than they do now.
Ministers said their income tax policy is expected to raise an additional £164 million, while Labour quoted analysis from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) estimating their plans would raise an extra £540m.
Labour also wants to give councils the power to introduce a tourist tax on hotel stays and a land value tax on economically inactive land.
The party also proposes a social responsibility levy for licensed premises and the full use of non-domestic rates income.
These measures would raise a further £422m, Labour said.
The extra revenue would allow £545m of spending on public services, a £5 child benefit top-up, £100m of extra NHS funding, and a fully funded public sector pay increase, it said.
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard said: “It is time to end the failed experiment of austerity by making radical use of the powers available to the Scottish Parliament.
“When we campaigned for a Scottish Parliament, we saw it as a bulwark against Tory austerity, but in recent years it has simply been a conveyor belt for cuts. That needs to end.
“Labour is willing to ask the wealthiest few to pay more to benefit the many, and redistribute real economic power to local communities. The question now for other parties is do they agree with us.”
But Mackay dismissed the alternative Budget as “scribbled on the back of a fag packet”.
He said: “These are fantasy figures from Labour and are riddled with factual blunders. Not only would their plans raise far less than they claim, even where they will raise some revenue, for some of their suggestions that money won’t be available for years.
“That’s not much use to hard-pressed families looking for a tax cut now, or public sector workers hoping for a pay rise in April. Critically, Labour’s income tax plans clearly do not take account of behavioural change – which, given the sheer number of people who would be affected, would run into tens of millions of pounds.
“Meanwhile, the Tourist Tax and the Land Value Tax proposals would not raise a single penny next year – both require primary legislation, and in the latter case would require a valuation to be carried out on vacant land across Scotland.
“Labour have also fundamentally misunderstood how non-domestic rates work – not least because councils already retain the full amount raised by non-domestic rates.
“The SNP government will always listen carefully to constructive suggestions about how our Budget can be made better, but if Labour had wanted their proposals to be taken seriously they would have submitted them for scrutiny months ago — rather than wait until 48 hours before MSPs vote on the Budget Bill to produce a wish list scribbled on the back of a fag packet.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel