Latest news with #MinimumIncomeGuarantee
The Herald Scotland
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Budget gaps, Chancellor? Why not save £500m a year on the royals?
Extending the thought, in these days when we're urged to give up 5% of GDP for defence, are cavalry regiments, state coaches, troopings of colours and bearskin hats appropriate things to ask those on low incomes and highly-taxed pensions to pay for? Palaces and properties, duchies (Lancaster and Cornwall), and the seabed to 12 miles from the shore are all income generators. Is it too much to suggest that they belong to us, not the Windsors? Taxing the rich rather than the poor might well be a popular policy. AJ Clarence, Prestwick. Wealth should not matter I wonder if Kevin McKenna writes for The Herald on a Tuesday ('How Scotland's satnav socialists abandoned working-class people', The Herald, July 7) without first reading the Monday paper? This is the second time that he has attacked Roz Foyer's position as STUC General Secretary purely on the grounds of her purported financial status and, by extension, her social class. If he read her articles purely on their merit, he would surely see that she bats on the side of outsiders of all descriptions in the UK and beyond, and does not appear to have bought into establishment thinking on homelessness, wealth distribution or anything else. How much property you own or how much money you have in the bank should have no bearing on whether someone can or does stand up for compassion, freedom, justice, and equality. I suggest that so to do is, adapting one of Mr McKenna's phrases, 'to be authentically Christian in public life'. Jesus did not require cynicism from his followers; he said: 'go and do likewise'. David Rogerson, Bridge of Allan. Read more letters A small price to pay There has been grumbling about pensioners being "dragged" into paying income tax for the first time with the Government freeze on the tax threshold. The current threshold for income tax is £12,570 in one year. The current maximum state pension is £11, 973. The triple lock could mean that the pension will rise by 5.2% (£622) next year to £12,595.60. This is £25 over the threshold, meaning pensioners on the maximum state pension would pay 20% tax on that £25 (£5) – an extra 10p a week. Those receiving smaller pensions would still not pay tax. While I appreciate this creates a precedent surely it's a microscopic price to pay for our share of improved NHS and defence of the country. I can't understand why Keir Starmer doesn't explain this. It's simple, reassuring, arithmetic. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven. Make enterprise No 1 priority Scotland receives around £10,000 more per family of four in public spending than England, thanks to the Barnett Formula. On top of that, middle earners face significantly higher income tax than their UK counterparts. So where does all this extra money go? Not into productivity or investment, but into politically motivated consumption: free prescriptions, free tuition, baby boxes, and much more. Now, the SNP is considering an eye-watering £8 billion-a-year Minimum Income Guarantee – as if the money tree (those with the 'broadest shoulders') can be shaken indefinitely. This isn't a path to prosperity; it's a blueprint for dependency. Tellingly, there's little serious discussion of how to grow Scotland's economy, because meaningful reform is complex, politically demanding, and doesn't deliver instant results. The true drivers of growth – entrepreneurs, investors, job creators – are ignored or penalised. These are the people who risk their capital, work long hours without guarantees, and expect fair reward if successful. Crucially, they are mobile – as demonstrated by the growing exodus of wealth creators to other European countries that welcome them with open arms. Scotland's increasingly punitive tax regime and populist handouts only accelerate this drain. With fewer wealth producers, the tax base shrinks, leading to more borrowing or heavier taxes on an already stretched population. And here lies the central irony: a debt-fuelled, welfare-heavy Scotland, reliant on Westminster subsidies, is hardly the mark of a nation preparing for independence. You cannot credibly claim sovereignty while running an economy on excessive borrowing, oppressive taxation and unsustainable welfare. Until the SNP prioritises enterprise over entitlement and growth over giveaways, it demonstrates only one thing: it is not serious about independence. Ian Lakin, Aberdeen. Biggest sinner is Westminster John Gilligan (Letters, July 8) declares 'it's the economy, first, last and always, stupid' and then proceeds to berate road signs and ferries. The big picture appears to have eluded him. We remain part of a UK economy which is currently in such a parlous state that cuts to winter fuel allowance and disabled benefits have been attempted and there are now plans to scrap support for special educational needs in England. The Children's Commissioner has declared that young people in England are living in 'almost Dickensian levels of poverty' where deprivation has been normalised. If Mr Gilligan really wishes to add up the billions wasted, I would suggest he directs his calculator to the oil revenues squandered, HS2, which may or may not reach Birmingham saving commuters 20 minutes, tanks which can't be driven and one aircraft carrier being laid up so as to be used to supply spare parts to keep the other afloat. Should he prefer to focus on minutiae, perhaps he could consider the ink that, although barely dry, is wasted when this Labour Government performs yet another U-turn? Whatever the Scottish Government's faults, and I agree they are legion, Westminster is in a league of its own. Alan Carmichael, Glasgow. Definitions of separatism While I agree with Mark Smith ("Independence declaration has the same old problems", The Herald, July 7) that 'commissions' are a way of kicking embarrassing issues into the long grass, the rest of his rambling article is, to put it politely, mince. It is noticeable that as usual, British nationalism is not nationalism at all, and must not be mentioned. Unfair? Why were the terms 'nationalism' and 'separatism' absent from the EU referendum, and how can politicians who opposed and still oppose membership of the European Union be 'unionists'? Mr Smith thinks that 'working closely together' in the case of the SNP joining the EU would undermine that concept. Sorry, that does not compute, nor does Scotland joining other independent nations of the world constitute separatism. The UK is not a fair and equal union: England with its huge population dominates the other countries, exploits their assets for its own benefit and uses that population density to slew investment to its country. Devolution has proved to be power retained with fiscal control remaining in London, and Westminster politicians desperate to interfere and overrule the elected legislatures of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. An example this week is the English Health Secretary putting down his marker for Labour's next leadership campaign through an ad hominem attack on the elected First Minister of Scotland ("Streeting calls Swinney an 'analogue politician in a digital age' over NHS app", The Herald, July 8). There is a democratic deficit; an elective mandate in Scotland is treated differently from an Anglo-British mandate, is it not? The right of self-determination, supposedly the first principle of international law, by-passes Scotland, though not Ireland. Westminster refuses to compromise its alleged sovereignty over the rest of us, and virtually never consults or seeks common ground on any issue with other UK nations. GR Weir, Ochiltree. Does Holyrood adequately cater for the needs of rural areas? (Image: Gordon Terris) Rural Scots are being ignored Andy Anderson ( Letters, July 7), writing about the right to call a referendum on public policy, says that "there is a petition on the Holyrood website calling for this particular UN Human Rights covenant to be put into Scots law". I contend that the SNP, which centralises all power in Scotland into Edinburgh, will never implement such a demand. Prior to the May 2021 election, the then SNP Communities Secretary, Aileen Campbell, pledged that her party would implement a bill, drafted by Andy Wightman of the Scottish Greens, to give councils European-style safeguards over a raft of new powers and financial controls. Note that, once again, the SNP shows that it cannot be trusted to implement pledges given to the people of Scotland. Phillip Norris (Letters, July 4) should also recognise that his request for "the SNP to take note" (over the desecration of rural Scotland by wind turbines) will simply be ignored. After all, there was not a single response from any SNP politician to my letter of June 30 pointing out that there's a parliament for the Central Belt but not for the rest of us. Rural Scots are ignored by the SNP. Ian Moir, Castle Douglas.
Telegraph
06-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
The SNP remains dangerously oblivious to the perils of a population drunk on taxpayer-funded welfare
It is a mystery why some ideas refuse to perish. They cling to existence, defying logic, even after every argument in their favour has been debated and discarded. The SNP's Minimum Income Guarantee is one such idea. In its quest for 'a wellbeing economy that is more inclusive and supportive of all its people, which can deliver economic growth that is more sustainable and, crucially, shared fairly', the SNP-led Scottish Government has been exploring a form of universal basic income for some time. In 2021, it commissioned and funded the work for a report on the programme, tasking 'an independent Expert Group to consider the design and delivery of this innovative and potentially transformational policy'. The final report was published last month. According to the recommendations, the payments – rounded to the nearest £500 per year – would be as follows: £11,500 for a single adult, £20,000 for a couple and £28,000 for a couple with one child or a single parent with two children. 'Assuming full take-up of benefits and no behavioural effects', reads the report, 'it [is] estimated that this would cost a net £8.1 billion per year'. And how is this lofty ambition to be funded? Through measures such as reducing Scottish income tax thresholds; or by increasing council tax by up to 22.5 per cent (plus inflation); or indeed by reducing the Scottish Income Tax personal allowance by £5,000 from £12,570 to £7,570. From increasing national insurance contributions to slapping a 10 per cent rise on fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty, every option involves a significant rise in people's tax bills. This has always been a leading criticism of any form of universal basic income programme: in order to scale it up to a meaningful level, the cost to the ordinary taxpayer becomes prohibitively high. Programmes such as these are designed and sold on the results of universal basic income models from around the world. Not a single one of these can be considered a clear success with trials conducted only on a narrow section of a population. As Deloitte's Chief Economist Ian Stewart pointed out in his analysis of some of those schemes, 'nobody knows how an entire population and economy would respond to the implementation of a UBI. The uncertainties of introducing it across a whole country would be enormous.' The SNP's Social Justice Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, has said there are 'no plans to change tax policy'. But, rather confusingly, she has also said she 'welcomed the report', providing no indication on how else, if not through tax rises, the Scottish Government can possibly hope to act on its findings. The politicians on this side of the border are only very belatedly waking up to the perils of a population drunk on taxpayer-funded welfare support. For the Scottish Government to continue to stubbornly entertain the Minimum Income Guarantee at a devastating cost – not just to the ordinary taxpayers but the entire country – seems desperately reckless.
Spectator
18-06-2025
- Business
- Spectator
The ridiculous fantasy of a Scottish universal basic income
One of the first casualties of the Covid pandemic was the millennial left's defining project of a Universal Basic Income. Once it became clear just how expensive it is for the state to pay people not to work, as in Rishi Sunak's lockdown income guarantee, this quasi-socialist project died a well-deserved death. But not everyone is prepared to let it lie. I'm afraid this betrays the fundamental problem with SNP economics The former Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, had been a supporter of UBI and commissioned an 'expert' group in 2021 to revive it under a new name: the Minimum Income Guarantee, or MIG. That group was largely composed of charities and academics. Unsurprisingly, their report today calls for a MIG that is marginally less barking than UBI. These experts advocate a minimum income for all of £11,500 for a single person, rising to £28,000 for a couple or single parent with one child. This would not, of course, remove entitlement to other welfare payments, including child benefit, disability benefit, or housing benefit. 'A Minimum Income Guarantee could be transformative,' said the expert group chair, Russell Gunson, of the Robertson Trust charity, 'putting in place a universal guarantee that's there for everyone in Scotland.' There's just one problem with this noble endeavour: it is almost laughably unaffordable. The Scottish government's own assessment put the cost at nearly £6 billion a year. The Scottish government is already committed to spending £2 billion more on welfare annually than under the welfare arrangements applying to the rest of the UK. This is in large part a result of the £27 per week Scottish Child Payment. Repeated reports from the Scottish Fiscal Commission and Audit Scotland have been warning that Scottish finances are already 'unsustainable'. Yet the Scottish government is also committed to restoring most of the Winter Fuel Payment and scrapping the two-child benefit cap, which will add even more to the Caledonian welfare bill. Introducing the Minimum Income Guarantee as proposed by the expert group would mean increasing income tax to levels that would horrify even the most radical Scandinavian finance minister. Scotland's 2.5 million income taxpayers would be liable to pay an extra £2,400 each per year. Since income tax is progressive, it would mean jacking up higher-rate taxpayers by a multiple of that figure. Scottish taxpayers on £50,000 a year already pay £1,500 a year extra for the privilege of living in Scotland. Asking them to pay another £3,000 or more would be politically inconceivable. And there is every reason to suspect that the cost could be greater than £6 billion. The independent Fraser of Allander Institute estimated the cost of an £11,500 Basic income at £58 billion a year. And while the wealthy would not receive a MIG, it is still an open-ended liability which no Scottish government could responsibly incur. So why has this 'expert' group proposed something so patently ridiculous? And why has the Social Security Secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, 'welcomed' a report that should clearly have been filed under bin the moment it crossed her desk? If you ask anti-poverty campaigners how they would pay for it, they invariably say, 'tax the rich'. But Humza Yousaf tried that with the new Scottish £75,000 tax bands. The Scottish Fiscal Commission expected this to raise only around £82 million a year – about 0.01 per cent of the MIG. In fact it yielded much less. I'm afraid this betrays the fundamental problem with SNP economics. It is based on a belief that there is some vast treasury of untaxed wealth that can be tapped if only there is the will to do so. Poverty campaigners talk fancifully of wealth taxes which, even if the Scottish government had the legislative power to levy them, would simply lead to an exodus of businesses and higher-rate taxpayers, as has been the case with Chancellor Rachel Reeves's attempts to tax non-doms. Any credible wealth tax, like the Scottish Green party's idea of a 1 per cent annual tax on the top 10 per cent of wealth holders, would mean confiscatory levies on pension funds and the notional asset values of houses. This is political madness. These delusions are born of the student union debating chambers where most Scottish politicians cut their intellectual teeth. They never grew up. Their fiscal infantilism is underpinned by the fact that most Scottish spending comes automatically in the form of subsidies from the relatively generous Barnett Formula. Perhaps SNP politicians should be given what they apparently wish for: fiscal autonomy. Make the Scottish government raise every penny it spends. Ministers might then set up an expert group on how to live within your means.
