Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the First Minister for setting out the value of representing Scotland on the global stage.

Given the current chaos at Westminster while the Labour Party tears itself apart, I am concerned about the price that Scottish industries are having to pay. UK Labour’s taxes on Scotch whisky and Scottish energy are destroying jobs and hammering our economy.

Does the First Minister agree that the Labour Party cannot be trusted to put Scottish economic interests first? Can he say more about how his Government is working to protect Scotland’s premier industries?

Och, he is a wee lamb, is he not? For goodness’ sake: the fact of the matter is that the Scottish Labour leadership appears to knife its own Prime Minister in the back, but it fails at every single turn to put the interests of the Scottish people first.

This is the context in which the Scottish Government has had to produce a draft budget in short order without knowing precisely what funding it will have to operate with as we still await clarification on consequentials.

I will dwell for a short time on two criticisms that I have previously shared regarding the constraints of the fiscal framework. First, I have said consistently that restricted borrowing powers limit the Scottish Government’s ability to respond to in-year inflation, pay pressures and unseen events. The framework also constrains our ability to borrow to invest, which is fundamental in addressing productivity challenges.

Secondly, I continue to be concerned that the challenging context has led to a reliance on one-off funds—most noticeably, ScotWind money being called on to fund day-to-day spending. I have been consistent in calling for those funds to be used for long-term investment. Therefore, there needs to be—and I think that Mr McKee will have a view on this—an even stronger focus on public sector reform and on setting clear priorities.

On that point, too often cries from Opposition parties to increase spending across many areas of Government are not accompanied by explanations of where that money is to come from—witness Craig Hoy’s remarks earlier. Frankly, that reveals that they are not ready for the challenges of Government.

As this is my last budget speech, I want to finish by recognising the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission under the leadership of Professor Graeme Roy. Its analysis is critical for us all in supporting evaluation and evidence-based decision making. It does a super job. I am pleased to note that the commission is continuing to broaden its analysis and improve data quality, and I thank the commission for that.

To ask the First Minister how often he or the Scottish ministers engage with the Scottish Government’s Washington DC international office regarding the Scotch whisky industry and other economic interests in the United States. (S6F-04672)

First, I note that I am disappointed at the length of the debate. The budget is absolutely at the heart of any Government activity. For it to be conducted on a Thursday afternoon in what some people consider the graveyard slot, and with such restricted time, is not good enough. I therefore apologise in advance to all members that I will not be able to take any interventions due to time, although they are absolutely the point of the debate.

On that note, what a week! Whoever promised Anas Sarwar that he would live in interesting times was not wrong. The release of the WhatsApp messages on Monday this week between Anas Sarwar’s old friend Peter Mandelson and Wes Streeting told us a lot of things. Notable, of course, is Streeting’s explicit criticism of his own Labour Government for having “no growth strategy”. That confirms what I have argued since its election. Although the UK Government holds most of the levers that are needed to create a coherent growth strategy—control of the tax regime and of key regulators, borrowing-to-invest powers and, of course, overall fiscal and economic powers—it has failed to use them. Here in Scotland, we have been captured within the chaos and failure of successive UK Governments’ making.

Within those challenges, we face the massive challenge of a fixed budget. It is therefore disappointing that, yet again, the Labour Party in Scotland refused to bring any proposals forward during budget negotiations and backed an abstentionist position. [Interruption.] Mr Marra may wish to heckle from a sedentary position, but he can intervene if he wants to and tell us why the Labour Party could not be bothered and, in fact, sought to abstain on the budget even before it was brought forward. Is he able to give me the compelling reason for doing that?

To ask the First Minister how often he or the Scottish ministers engage with the Scottish Government’s Washington DC international office regarding the Scotch whisky industry and other economic interests in the United States. (S6F-04672)

I thank the First Minister for setting out the value of representing Scotland on the global stage.

Given the current chaos at Westminster while the Labour Party tears itself apart, I am concerned about the price that Scottish industries are having to pay. UK Labour’s taxes on Scotch whisky and Scottish energy are destroying jobs and hammering our economy.

Does the First Minister agree that the Labour Party cannot be trusted to put Scottish economic interests first? Can he say more about how his Government is working to protect Scotland’s premier industries?

Och, he is a wee lamb, is he not? For goodness’ sake: the fact of the matter is that the Scottish Labour leadership appears to knife its own Prime Minister in the back, but it fails at every single turn to put the interests of the Scottish people first.

This is the context in which the Scottish Government has had to produce a draft budget in short order without knowing precisely what funding it will have to operate with as we still await clarification on consequentials.

I will dwell for a short time on two criticisms that I have previously shared regarding the constraints of the fiscal framework. First, I have said consistently that restricted borrowing powers limit the Scottish Government’s ability to respond to in-year inflation, pay pressures and unseen events. The framework also constrains our ability to borrow to invest, which is fundamental in addressing productivity challenges.

Secondly, I continue to be concerned that the challenging context has led to a reliance on one-off funds—most noticeably, ScotWind money being called on to fund day-to-day spending. I have been consistent in calling for those funds to be used for long-term investment. Therefore, there needs to be—and I think that Mr McKee will have a view on this—an even stronger focus on public sector reform and on setting clear priorities.

On that point, too often cries from Opposition parties to increase spending across many areas of Government are not accompanied by explanations of where that money is to come from—witness Craig Hoy’s remarks earlier. Frankly, that reveals that they are not ready for the challenges of Government.

As this is my last budget speech, I want to finish by recognising the work of the Scottish Fiscal Commission under the leadership of Professor Graeme Roy. Its analysis is critical for us all in supporting evaluation and evidence-based decision making. It does a super job. I am pleased to note that the commission is continuing to broaden its analysis and improve data quality, and I thank the commission for that.

First, I note that I am disappointed at the length of the debate. The budget is absolutely at the heart of any Government activity. For it to be conducted on a Thursday afternoon in what some people consider the graveyard slot, and with such restricted time, is not good enough. I therefore apologise in advance to all members that I will not be able to take any interventions due to time, although they are absolutely the point of the debate.

On that note, what a week! Whoever promised Anas Sarwar that he would live in interesting times was not wrong. The release of the WhatsApp messages on Monday this week between Anas Sarwar’s old friend Peter Mandelson and Wes Streeting told us a lot of things. Notable, of course, is Streeting’s explicit criticism of his own Labour Government for having “no growth strategy”. That confirms what I have argued since its election. Although the UK Government holds most of the levers that are needed to create a coherent growth strategy—control of the tax regime and of key regulators, borrowing-to-invest powers and, of course, overall fiscal and economic powers—it has failed to use them. Here in Scotland, we have been captured within the chaos and failure of successive UK Governments’ making.

Within those challenges, we face the massive challenge of a fixed budget. It is therefore disappointing that, yet again, the Labour Party in Scotland refused to bring any proposals forward during budget negotiations and backed an abstentionist position. [Interruption.] Mr Marra may wish to heckle from a sedentary position, but he can intervene if he wants to and tell us why the Labour Party could not be bothered and, in fact, sought to abstain on the budget even before it was brought forward. Is he able to give me the compelling reason for doing that?

No, I will not. I have taken one already.

That is a textbook example of two types of bias: confirmation bias and motivational bias.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given the level of interest in the debate, it is reasonable to assume that everybody in the chamber will have read the stage 1 report — and, with respect to the convener, this is a debate. I therefore do not think that there is any material benefit to taking interventions after all the main points have been made, and so I wonder whether she would reflect on whether she is willing to have a debate.