Things have changed a little since the last Holyrood budget. The SNP have a majority of seats so don’t need to negotiate which has sucked out a lot of the drama of building coalitions with the other parties, usually Tories and the Greens, has gone – this bill will pass. Which is a shame, because I thought that was one of the best bits of Holyrood and was a higher plane of politics than we usually get. Oh well.
Still, to be fair to John Swinney he has been trying to get cross party support and has been aided in this by the additional hundred million or so of Barnett consequentials, two thirds of which is so far unallocated, which has given him a bit of elbow room.
It’s less likely to be huge amounts of largesse and more that some areas will be cut less far – colleges being the current high profile example all the opposition parties are concentrating on. They’d had their funding cut some seventy million (while universities had their funding increased by around twice that) so it’s unlikely that we’ll see that entirely reversed but I’d imagine the cut to student support and some of the teaching grant cuts reversed.
Other than that? Bit more speculative. Some specific local government programs might get a bit as there’s some elections coming up. Housing’s already had some and might get some more, which would be good.
Given nobody has, AFAIK, submitted any amendments this time round what would you change? Comments please and remember – your fantasy budget amendment has to balance.
(Angus Loughran isn’t dead)
#1 by Barbarian on February 8, 2012 - 11:49 pm
How about starting up a government owned energy company?
Or even better, using a Scottish-based supplier for infrastructure projects.
#2 by Craig Gallagher on February 9, 2012 - 1:35 am
Well, I haven’t done the sums to be honest, but I will say I am in favour of reducing the college budgets generally. There seems to be an awful lot of quasi-secondary/tertiary colleges dotted around the central belt in particular that seem to offer nothing more than another chance to do your Highers if you bollocksed them up in school. Of course, that’s a sweeping generalisation but I stick by the sentiment.
With that in mind, I would probably relocate the funds Swinney is adding to the college budgets to doing something – anything, even if it’s just a free cake with every ride – to improve the trains in Scotland. Some kind of mandated improvement grant that Scotrail et al have to use to increase service standards, whether to do with timekeeping or the standard of facilities.
(I wasn’t serious about the cake thing)
#3 by Daniel J on February 9, 2012 - 5:39 pm
Surely it would be more useful to argue for a re-organising of the college system and courses offered therein?
#4 by douglas clark on February 9, 2012 - 8:52 pm
Perhaps less on roads and more on rail?
#5 by Angus McLellan on February 10, 2012 - 2:24 am
At the risk of being partisan – the idea was plugged by Glasgow SNP recently – I quite like the idea of making it easier for people to build their own houses – either individually or collectively IKEA-style. It wouldn’t take much more than sweetie money to have a proper study done in terms of changes to planning law and process. Anything that undercuts the near-monopoly a small number of speculators, developers and builders – aided and abetted by a bad system – have on low-cost housing would be a Damn Good Thing.
And perhaps Mr Swinney should keep back around £6 million to cover the annual cost of tugs at Stornoway and Lerwick for when Michael Moore loses interest in fighting for stop-gap funding every quarter. SEPA, Marine Scotland and the councils would get stuck with most of the cleanup costs were the worst to happen. And it inevitably will sooner or later.
#6 by Barbara Gribbon on February 10, 2012 - 9:33 am
How about a clear change the direction of our training for young people to produce trainees equipped for the modern, low energy future we envisage for ourselves, and perhaps taking the opportunity to address the concerns of places more remote but nearer to potential energy production that they are ignored at the expense of the central belt by concentrating improvement there? A few extra roads and a manufacturing base might help… ps I know nothing, and this might already be happening – just saying.
#7 by Indy on February 10, 2012 - 12:04 pm
I think the Glasgow budget was a tad more interesting. But I hear there are lawyers involved now so maybe best not comment further!