EXPERT economists have condemned a "lack of transparency" in the Treasury as they confirmed that Holyrood will receive just a fraction of the funds promised in the UK Government’s emergency spending plan.
An extra £800 million was pledged last week to the Scottish Government in the Chancellor’s summer economic update.
This figure was hotly contested by the Scottish Government, which put the “absolutely new” extra funds available to Holyrood at nearer £21m.
The latter figure has been confirmed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which warns the Treasury its "lack of transparency" is "corrosive of trust".
IFS director Paul Johnson, sharing the new analysis online, wrote: “It became apparent to us, bizarrely, through the Barnett formula! Allocation to Scottish government following last week's statement was just £21m. That was because total spending envelope so little changed by last week's announcement.”
He added that the "Rooseveltian" new deal announced by Boris Johnson "represents an increase of precisely zero this year on Budget plans".
It became apparent to us, bizarrely, through the Barnett formula! Allocation to Scottish government following last week's statement was just £21m. That was because total spending envelope so little changed by last week's announcement
— Paul Johnson (@PJTheEconomist) July 16, 2020
READ MORE: FACT CHECK: Is Scotland really getting an extra £800m in Barnett funding?
Overall, the report found the UK Government’s emergency Plan for Jobs to tackle the coronavirus crisis will involve up to £10 billion less spending on previously planned projects.
The IFS revealed that the proposals – which the Chancellor said could amount to up to £30bn of support – are partly funded by spending cuts on previously planned projects and investments which are now deemed less of a priority or infeasible given the Covid-19 plan.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said Sunak's Plan for Jobs would ultimately cost around £20bn. Alongside the major announcements, it was revealed "with much less fanfare" that there were reductions in previously planned spending.
According to the IFS, the Treasury's decisions on funding for the devolved administrations suggest they expect these underspends to amount to almost £8bn, while the OBR expects it to be more like £10bn.
For instance, the IFS said the £2bn green homes grant announced by Sunak is funded from within pre-existing spending limits and almost half the £400m of cash for traineeships and apprenticeships is reallocated money.
READ MORE: Summer statement: Just £20m coming to Scotland despite Tory claims of £800m
IFS associate director David Phillips said: "In its summer economic update last week, the UK Government launched its £30bn Plan for Jobs. What it didn't say was that almost £8bn of that is to be paid for by spending less than previously planned on other things.
"Indeed, the whole of the £5bn of additional capital spending trumpeted by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago in fact represents funding previously allocated to other capital projects which will no longer happen this year.'
"Meanwhile, the OBR thinks the Plan for Jobs will cost £20 billion, not £3bn. So the £30bn package turns out to be more like £12bn of additional spending plus some £8bn or so reallocated from previously planned projects.
"And capital spending is actually left no higher overall than was planned back in March.
"While such reallocations may be perfectly sensible – the Covid-19 crisis may have made some projects less of a priority or even infeasible in the short term – official policy documents should be clear what is happening and where spending is expected to be lower than previously planned."
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