Seòmar agus comataidhean

In a moment.

Scotland’s economy is one of the best performing of any part of the UK. One of the most important factors in realising that has been the attracting of foreign direct investment. In fact, a record number—[Interruption.] I know that the Tories do not like to hear good news about the Scottish economy, but I am going to tell them it anyway. A record number of foreign direct investment projects were secured in Scotland in 2023, maintaining Scotland’s position as the top-performing area of the UK outside London for the ninth year running, and the Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that Scotland will have higher earnings growth and lower unemployment than the rest of the UK in 2025-26. I hope that Craig Hoy can welcome that.

I welcome any opportunity to talk about the draft budget, but there is one particular aspect of the Conservative motion that I think it is incumbent on us all to condemn. I know that there are members on the Conservative benches who deeply value all the communities that they represent and will deplore the terms of the Tory motion. Knowing those individuals, I do not believe for one moment that they condone the Farage-esque dog-whistle attack on asylum seekers that is at the rotten core of the Tory motion or Craig Hoy’s description of our important equality work as “woke”. It is, frankly, embarrassing. I suspect that it is more likely that they agree with the joint call from the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Catholic church today that, as a Parliament, we must

“resist attempts to divide our society, and instead show support to people who have come to Scotland seeking sanctuary and new beginnings.”

I could not agree more.

I welcomed the discussions with all parties represented in this Parliament, and with organisations beyond it, as we prepared the draft budget. Along with Ivan McKee, I look forward to those discussions continuing as we approach the next stage of the budget process. The budget that we presented last week is a product of that engagement and is focused on delivering progress and hope. Our approach to economic growth, the social contract and progressive taxation is fundamental to achieving that.

Scotland’s economy is one of—

Of course, we on these benches believe absolutely that the best constitutional future for our country is independence. I agree with Ash Regan’s point about employer national insurance contributions. The cost for the core public sector in Scotland is estimated to be around £550 million, and that would leave a £250 million shortfall because the UK Labour Government does not recognise the larger size of our public sector and the fact that we have invested in public sector pay. That is before we take into account the other services that are an integral part of our public sector, such as general practitioner services, social care-commissioned services and third sector organisations that provide vital support to our public services.

This matter has a long way to go. We will ensure that we press the Treasury to give a fair settlement for Scotland’s employer national insurance contributions.

To reiterate what I said earlier, the budget provides record funding of more than £15 billion, which is an increase of just over £1 billion compared with the 2024-25 settlement. Importantly, it includes £289 million of discretionary funding through the general revenue grant. It also removes £500 million of ring-fenced money into the baseline and includes additional capital funding, including £40 million of ScotWind money, all of which has been welcomed by COSLA. If the organisation that represents local government can welcome the budget for local government in the Scottish budget, perhaps members across the chamber can do likewise.

I gently point out to Alexander Stewart that we are about to have a Tory-led debate in which the Tories will call for £1 billion of tax cuts. The Tories cannot call for £1 billion of tax cuts and come to the chamber to demand more money for local government. The £1 billion of tax cuts would take away the £1 billion increase for local government. The Tories cannot have both, so they must decide whether they want their £1 billion of tax cuts or whether they want £1 billion for local government. The Tories really need to get their lines straight here.

We are on record as having welcomed the reset—that is essentially how the Chancellor of the Exchequer described it—of the United Kingdom Government’s budget for 2024-25, because there have been years of budgets not keeping pace with inflation. The reset was very welcome.

The 1 per cent increase in 2025-26 is also welcome, but I make the point to Stuart McMillan and others that we need sustained investment. The spending review, which is coming next year for both resource and capital, will be absolutely fundamental, because a one-year budget does not fix 14 years of Tory austerity.

It remains to be seen whether there will be a trajectory of continued investment in public services. We will continue to raise that and press the UK Government on it.

The publication of the 2024 medium-term financial strategy was delayed, first, by the Parliament needing to appoint a new First Minister, and then by the United Kingdom pre-election period.

I am actively considering the timeframe for fiscal events and publications in 2025, and I will update the Finance and Public Administration Committee early in the new year. I intend to return to the usual schedule for the medium-term financial strategy as I recognise the important role that it will play in pre-budget scrutiny for the 2026-27 Scottish budget.

We published some medium-term financial information, but the budgets were substantially reset when the new UK Government came into office. The point is that when the UK Government changes and spending positions change significantly, it is challenging to then base a medium-term financial outlook on old information from an old Government.

The multiyear spending review next year will be critical in relation to the outlook for resource and capital. I want to get us back into a regular routine of a medium-term financial outlook, but we must recognise that the major changes in the spending outlook and the political changes that we have seen impact on the financial information that we can put out. I will update the Finance and Public Administration Committee in the new year on the schedule for that publication.

What I would say to the STUC and others is that this is a budget that invests in our public services. It is record investment in our NHS and in local government. It provides resources that will help to ensure that our investment in public sector workers can be sustained, which will mean that we have a larger and better paid public sector. I am sure that the STUC would welcome that.

The question for Michael Marra and his colleagues is whether they will vote for or against that investment in public services. It is a very simple question.

The allocation to Stirling Council will be made in due course as councils get notification of their allocations. However, I believe that the allocation, including a real-terms increase in the general revenue grant—that is discretionary spend—will help the many differing communities in urban and rural settings in Evelyn Tweed’s constituency, which she narrated. The budget will help to ensure the resilience of our public services for such a variety of communities.