Official Report 1155KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16531, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2025-26. I remind members that rule 11.3.1 of standing orders requires the question on the Scottish rate resolution to be put immediately after the debate. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call the cabinet secretary, Shona Robison, to speak to and move the motion.
14:26
Before starting, I draw the Parliament’s attention to the procedural connection between this debate and rule 9.16.7 of the standing orders, which states that the Scottish rate resolution must be agreed to before stage 3 of the budget bill can proceed.
The rate resolution debate gives the Parliament the opportunity to take one step closer to the delivery of a budget that addresses issues that matter to this country, such as tackling child poverty and improving our national health service. In response to the unprecedented challenges that we have faced in recent years, we have raised revenue in a fair and progressive manner that has helped to sustain our investment in vital public services.
Despite the usual comments from the doomsayers, the Scottish economy remains resilient. Real-time information data for 2022-23 and 2023-24 shows that earnings growth per head was stronger in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s 2025-26 budget report forecasts gross domestic product growth of 1.6 per cent, which is up from the 1.3 per cent that was forecast last year. It also anticipates earnings growing faster than in the rest of the UK over the forecast horizons. Those figures demonstrate the resilience of the Scottish economy, both now and into the future. Indeed, for the ninth consecutive year, the 2024 Ernst & Young UK attractiveness survey maintained Scotland as the top-performing region of the UK outside of London for foreign direct investment projects.
The budget and the rate resolution provide businesses with the stability that they need to continue investing in our economy. The budget and resolution do not contain the unfunded tax policies that other parties in the chamber seem all too happy to advocate.
First, we had the Conservative Party argue for a £595 million income tax cut without setting out which public services it would reduce to pay for it. Now, we have the Labour Party saying that it would raise the higher rate threshold to £50,270. We estimate that that change alone would cost more than £700 million in 2025-26. As the Fraser of Allander Institute pointed out previously, making that change revenue neutral would likely require increases to the basic and intermediate rates of tax. My challenge to the Labour Party is to set out how it would pay for that: would it increase tax for those in the basic and intermediate rates or simply cut public spending? Those are the questions that the Labour Party has to answer.
Let me turn to the proposed income tax policy for 2025-26. In the run-up to the publication of our tax strategy, we engaged with 65 different organisations across Scotland, including businesses, think tanks, academics, civil society groups and tax professionals. We listened to the views of those stakeholders and we recognise the importance of having certainty after a period of significant changes to our income tax system. Many have welcomed this approach, particularly our commitment to further evaluate the effects of previous changes in Scottish income tax policy.
Although annual policy will always depend on parliamentary support, we have made it clear that we wish to provide a period of stability for income tax for the remainder of this parliamentary session.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, when it comes to the question of stability, one of the big issues that the Deputy First Minister has cited recently is the fact that the Scottish tax base is not sufficiently wide and that there is considerable uncertainty as a result?
At the start of my statement, I set out the performance of the Scottish economy. Allied to the action that we are taking to grow the Scottish economy and, therefore, the tax base is the fact that we have positive net in-migration to Scotland, across all tax bands. That is something that we want in order to continue to grow the tax base, because we recognise its importance.
We do not intend to introduce any new bands or increase the rates of Scottish income tax for the remainder of this parliamentary session, and we commit to uprating the starter and basic rate bands by at least inflation. We will maintain the higher, advanced and top rate thresholds at their current levels, and we will continue to deliver on our pledge to protect lower-income households, ensuring that more than half of taxpayers pay less than they would elsewhere in the UK for the remainder of this session.
The SFC has confirmed that, as a result of those decisions, our income tax policy will raise an additional £52 million in 2025-26, and it estimates that Scotland’s income tax policy will raise a record £20.5 billion in total for the Scottish budget in 2025-26—that is £745 million more than it forecast for the Scottish budget last year. Members should make no mistake about what that means: more money for nurses, general practitioners, teachers and the police as a direct result of the decisions that we have taken on tax.
A full-time public sector employee in Scotland earned, on average, around £1,250 more than the UK average in 2024. If members across the chamber wish to recognise the hard work of Scotland’s vital public sector workers, they need to support our income tax policy, which raises the revenue required to agree fair public sector pay settlements.
Let me set out what that means in practical terms. Our progressive approach to income tax policy underpins the entire budget settlement that we have been debating in the Parliament this month. It includes continuing to support the most generous social contract in any part of the UK, which includes things like free prescriptions and free higher education and support such as the Scottish child payment. It also supports the revitalisation of our NHS by delivering a record £21.7 billion of funding for health and social care, including an increase of £2 billion for front-line NHS boards. Finally, it will enable us to capitalise on new green technologies that will provide future prosperity across the country by funding the expansion of our offshore wind capacity to the tune of £150 million next year.
Those are just some examples of the investments that the proposed income tax policy that I have set out today supports. It is important to remind members that those positive changes will go ahead only if the Parliament votes for the Scottish rate resolution today and for the budget overall.
The Government is clear on what its priorities are: we are choosing to invest to eradicate child poverty, to grow the economy, to tackle the climate emergency and to provide high-quality and sustainable public services. That is why I ask members to vote to ratify the proposed changes to Scottish income tax in 2025-26.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides for Income Tax to be charged at Scottish rates on certain non-savings and non-dividend income of a Scottish taxpayer to be charged above the personal allowance), the Scottish rates and limits for the tax year 2025-26 are as follows—
(a) a starter rate of 19%, charged on income up to a limit of £2,827,
(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20%, charged on income above £2,827 and up to a limit of £14,921,
(c) an intermediate rate of 21%, charged on income above £14,921 and up to a limit of £31,092,
(d) a higher rate of 42%, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £62,430,
(e) an advanced rate of 45%, charged on income above £62,430 and up to a limit of £125,140, and
(f) a top rate of 48%, charged on income above £125,140.
13:24
In 2021, the Scottish Government set out the principles of its approach to taxation: certainty; proportionality; convenience; engagement; effectiveness; and efficiency. I agree that the Scottish National Party Government has remained true to some of those principles. There is certainty: it is certain that the SNP Government will find new ways to tax Scots and tax them more than if they lived elsewhere in the UK. However, I challenge ministers on whether their tax policies are either effective or efficient.
Effective taxes should raise the expected revenues and achieve their intended aims. They should also minimise the opportunities for tax avoidance. However, any analysis reveals that the opposite is taking place in Scotland today. There is mounting evidence to suggest that there has been behavioural change and that Scotland’s high-tax, low-growth economy has in turn impacted earnings growth.
Does the member accept that, rather than Scotland having tax that is too high, the UK has tax that is too low, and that that is why we have such poor public services?
John Mason can continue to live in la-la land and argue that high taxes are a good thing when growth is low, but all the evidence suggests that that is not the case.
Despite the publication of its tax strategy, I still do not believe that the Scottish Government has a handle on how its tax policies have affected Scots’ behaviour. In the 2024-25 Scottish budget, the top rate of income tax was increased from 47 per cent to 48 per cent. The Scottish Fiscal Commission projected that £53 million of revenue ought to be raised from that in 2024-25, but it went on to estimate that the net amount was likely to be around £8 million, once behavioural responses were factored in. The risk is that people will work fewer hours or retire earlier. It is certainly the case that some people are moving away or are not moving here.
Craig Hoy keeps making the point that we do not have information on behavioural change, and then he goes on to quote a raft of information on behavioural change. Will he make his mind up?
I am saying that the Government does not have the evidence that it would like to have to support its argument that there is no behavioural change. I will give some evidence to the contrary. Earlier this year, research by Scottish Financial Enterprise found that 81 per cent of its members were concerned about the impact of tax divergence on retaining staff, with 66 per cent saying that the changes in the tax regime had harmed investment. That is independent research from an independent organisation.
Others are concerned that there are people in Scotland who are now incorporating to avoid the SNP’s high-tax regime and that the proceeds of that incorporation—the taxes—are now being paid to the UK Treasury rather than to the Scottish Government. Those are direct consequences of the SNP’s high-tax regime.
We also need to look at the SNP Government’s tax decisions and the impact that those have had on the wider performance of the Scottish economy. In January, Audit Scotland said that, although income tax revenues are continuing to rise—I concede that point—the impact on the Scottish budget
“is significantly reduced by relatively slower economic growth in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK.”
That is partly because of higher tax, which, in itself, and alongside the SNP’s other policies, is making Scotland a less attractive place in which to work, invest or grow.
Between 2017 and 2022, Scottish taxpayers paid an additional £3.4 billion as a result of devolved tax policy differences. However, slower economic growth in Scotland meant that the net benefit to the budget over the same period was the much lower amount of £629 million. When I raised that with the First Minister earlier today, he had no answer. The situation led Audit Scotland to warn:
“This current economic performance gap underlines the importance of relative economic growth to Scotland’s public finances and should be a key area of focus for the Scottish Government in the coming years.”
We do not think that there is enough in the budget to enable the Government to say that its approach will work.
This week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government sidestepped my question about whether the SNP’s complex set of income tax rates leads to higher compliance costs, but everyone can see that it clearly does. Other than enabling the Government to grab meaningless headlines on its claim that people in Scotland are paying less tax, regardless of how much less they are actually paying, there is no rational or economic case for our tax structure being more complex than that of the rest of the UK.
We now have a personal allowance, a starter rate, a basic rate, an intermediate rate, a higher rate, an advanced rate and a top rate, whereas the rest of the UK has a basic rate, a higher rate and an additional rate. The top-end rate is higher here than it is in England—48 per cent rather than 45 per cent—and, at the mid and upper levels, the rates are 42 per cent and 45 per cent, rather than the simple 40 per cent rate that exists south of the border.
Mr Hoy was present at the Finance and Public Administration Committee meeting when I asked the Institute for Fiscal Studies about its view on the alleged complication that is caused by Scotland having more income tax bands than the rest of the UK. We heard that there is no evidence of negative effects from our having more tax bands. I can understand why the Conservatives do not want those on higher incomes to pay more, but could Mr Hoy explain exactly what he thinks the harms are of having more tax bands? The Institute for Fiscal Studies could not find any evidence of harms.
If the member spoke with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, he would understand that it is saying that there are compliance costs from this additionally complex and flawed tax system, given that it is not bringing in what the Scottish Government hoped it would bring in.
The reality is that someone earning £50,000 is now paying £1,500 more in tax, and someone lucky enough to earn £100,000, such as ministers on the front bench, is paying £3,300 in additional tax. The SNP’s high taxes no longer fall only on high earners; they also fall on nurses, teachers and police officers. It is clear in our budget submission that we would like a reduction in taxes on ordinary Scots. In the budget, we called for the abolition of rates to give a tax cut to hard-working Scots. Our recommendations would also have made Scotland a more competitive place on tax at the mid levels than the rest of the UK.
However, it is clear that ministers are on a different path: one of high tax and low growth. The SNP’s tax plans that we are debating not only contradict the very principles that the SNP set out in 2021 but mean that more people will be paying more tax in Scotland. That will undoubtedly hamper growth and undermine competitiveness. It is for those reasons that the Conservatives will not support the motion on the Scottish rate resolution.
14:41
Rule 9.16.7 of standing orders dictates that Parliament must agree to a resolution before stage 3 proceedings of a budget bill can begin. As such, Scottish Labour will support the rate resolution this afternoon.
With an additional £5.2 billion added to Scotland’s budget, this is the largest budget in the history of devolution. That is only possible because of decisions taken by the UK Labour Government to raise revenue and invest in public services. We will not stand in the way of this budget, because we want Labour’s record investment to have a chance of reaching the front line of public services.
Instead of seizing the opportunity to transform Scotland’s public services and set a new direction for our country, the budget would correct some of the most egregious and recent SNP mistakes. Far too much of it is more of the same from the SNP. More of the same will not deliver more NHS appointments or cut waiting times. More of the same will not improve attainment in schools or solve the funding crisis that is besetting our higher education sector.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
There is none of the reform required to improve our public services and bring real change to communities across Scotland.
Although our UK Labour Government this week delivered an extra 2 million NHS appointments ahead of schedule, Scotland’s NHS remains in perpetual crisis and, without intervention, terminal decline.
Will the member give way?
No, sir. I will not.
To spend money on public services, we first have to raise it. The resolution will achieve a portion of that, but the lion’s share comes from decisions taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having opposed every revenue-raising measure proposed by the Labour Government, the First Minister suggested that the UK Government should have raised income tax in England. Surely the man who negotiated the fiscal framework should know that that would have slashed Scotland’s budget. The First Minister was promptly slapped down by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which said:
“Since the start of the year, the First Minister John Swinney has been making the case that ... the UK Government had alternatives for raising revenue—for example, they could have followed the Scottish Government’s example to raise income tax.”
It went on to say that,
“if the UK Government increased income tax ... the deduction to the block grant would be larger and the Scottish Budget would be worse off.”
The institute calculates that the First Minister’s proposal would have cut Scotland’s budget by £636 million.
On the point about cutting budgets, will Michael Marra explain the policy that was set out by his leader, Anas Sarwar, to raise the higher rates threshold to £50,270, which would cost more than £700 million? How would he pay for that? Would that be achieved through spending cuts or by an increase to the basic and intermediate rates of tax?
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s intervention. It is a legitimate aspiration to try to simplify—
It is an aspiration—
I am explaining to the finance secretary that it is a legitimate aspiration to try to simplify the system. We know that the vast bulk of tax rises and tax revenue resulting from the Government’s approach has come through fiscal drag. People earning between £40,000 and £50,000 are paying ever more and getting ever less from this Government. It is an entirely legitimate aspiration to seek to grow our economy and make sure that we can address that issue.
Despite recently telling the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee that she agreed with the First Minister, the finance secretary could not propose a single alternative approach through which the UK Government could have raised revenue this year in order to fund its budget. The Scottish Government has no constructive suggestions or new ideas. The country deserves much better than this tired Government, which has lost its way. Scotland needs fresh ideas and a new direction.
14:45
Scotland has the most progressive income tax system anywhere in the UK. I am proud of that fact, as I think all of us should be. Most people here pay a little bit less, but those on higher incomes pay more, which, in this year alone, will raise £1.7 billion for our public services. That will fund everything from free bus travel for young people to the Scottish child payment and the baby box—policies that are unique to Scotland and are making a transformational impact on the lives of people across the country, especially our most vulnerable families.
I am proud that Scottish Greens have delivered the major changes to income tax since the point at which it was devolved. It is true that a bit more could be done to change our income tax system to make it a bit more progressive, although not a great deal more, and certainly not in terms of revenue yield. However, income is far from the whole picture here. Of course, the wealthiest people in this country manage their finances in such a way that regular income plays only a very small part in them. Income taxes do not tackle generational wealth inequality.
Property is the obvious area in which to address such inequality through the devolved powers that are available to us. I am glad that we have, once again, increased the additional dwelling supplement that is paid by people who are in the fortunate position of purchasing a home that is not their primary property—generally, second or holiday homes or buy-to-let properties. The main property tax that we have available in Scotland is the council tax. We all agree that is a totally broken system. It has not been in date since a time some years before I was born. The last time that council tax was based on accurate valuations was almost a decade before the Scottish Parliament was reconvened.
In her evidence at this week’s meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the cabinet secretary was very honest about the challenges in achieving council tax reform—which, preferably, would mean its replacement—or even just revaluation. Any major change to our tax system would produce winners and losers—that is the nature of politics. As I pointed out at Tuesday’s committee meeting, given how grossly unequal the council tax system currently is, any winners from such a change are likely be people on lower incomes or in smaller-value properties, depending on how the change is made. The losers would be people who currently reside in much higher-value properties, which are generally much larger—the wealthier people in our society, who have much more political and social capital with which to cause grief for Governments and political parties that decide to make that change.
However, I am proud of the small tweaks that we have made to the system. For example, Scottish Greens secured a doubling of council tax on second or holiday homes. The Scottish Government consulted on going further than that doubling approach. In Wales, council tax of up to 300 per cent is charged on second or holiday homes, and there was overwhelming public support for that. I intend to lodge amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to give councils the power to set whichever council tax rate they wish for such homes. Such decisions on local tax should be for them to make—not us. Other new tools secured by Scottish Greens have been, or will be, introduced, such as the visitor levy and the cruise ship levy, which will empower local government further.
However, collectively, we need to grasp the thistle. It is incredibly frustrating to have the same debates about council tax reform over and over again without substantial changes being made. We even retreat from the point of revaluation. No significant reform can take place without having accurate data. Surely we can all agree on the necessity of holding a revaluation exercise towards the end of this parliamentary session or the beginning of the next one.
We need to tackle the big challenges that this country faces: the climate emergency, child poverty, our ageing population, and the social care and health demands that come with those. Tackling each of those issues costs a substantial amount of money, but doing nothing will cost far more. We need to be honest about where that money comes from. I am proud that, over and over again, in this country, we have taken the decision to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest responsibility for funding public services that deliver and meet the needs of the people of Scotland.
14:49
I will carry on from where Ross Greer finished.
Much has been said about the progressive nature of our taxation system, which has been a feature of our budgets for some years now. John Swinney, when he stepped in for Kate Forbes as finance secretary, made a slightly different argument. He said that the situation was extraordinary and that there was an emergency. It was just post Covid, and we were dealing with some deep financial problems. He said that that required an emergency rise in tax, and I asked him whether, when the emergency was over, tax would go back down again. He was reluctant to plan future budgets, as he put it at the time, but, as we have seen, those increases have been embedded into the budget, so it was not really an extraordinary emergency situation at that point—it was another means to raise taxation.
Then Humza Yousaf took over, and all went wild. He talked about ever greater progressivity in the tax system, egged on by the Green Party. That is a valid point of view, but the problem is that it broke trust with the public; they did not know where the Government was going with that progressive taxation. When trust on taxation is broken, it is invidious and creates difficulties for people’s individual choices about their behaviour. I am not talking about people leaving the country; I am talking about individual behavioural changes in relation to how people work, such as early retirement, going part-time or moving over to corporation status.
People make all sorts of choices, and we have seen that there has been an effect from behavioural change, but not only because of individual budget decisions. People can live with individual decisions. It is the cumulative effect over time and the uncertainty that is caused by the rhetoric that goes with it that have an impact. That was certainly case with Humza Yousaf.
We proposed a tax rise in 2016, but the difference was that it was a penny for a purpose—for education. It was defined, and we said that that was it. We did not say that it was going to go on forever as a progressive campaign over years. We said that it was defined, and we believed that we would retain public confidence with that method.
The people whom I worry about in relation to behavioural change are people such as NHS consultants, who can be mobile and can make a decision at certain points in their careers to leave the country, go down south or go elsewhere because of better taxation systems. They will not decide in the middle of a contract to go somewhere else, but the pressure is there, combined with all the other pressures that exist in the system.
I appreciate Willie Rennie raising the need for competitiveness for our consultants and our wider NHS staff. Does he appreciate the pay deal that was secured last year, which meant that we have competitiveness for consultants, and that the majority of healthcare staff in Scotland are paid more than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK?
That reinforces the point that we have a system of plugging the holes that are caused by other parts of Government policy, which is where we need to be careful, because we are not just talking about NHS consultants. Are we going to plug the holes for all the critical people we require to run the economy, health services and education systems? Of course we will not, because that would undermine the whole purpose of the taxation system. I recognise Neil Gray’s point, but it proves my point that we need a tax system that people trust, that has long-lasting effects and that people believe in, so that people do not change their behaviour as a result.
Having said all that, we will support the tax resolution, because we believe that we need to get people paid and get the tax raised, which is an essential part of the process. We have negotiated a good deal in the budget process for GPs and dentists and on long Covid, housing, hospices, drugs and careers—the list goes on for a long time. Therefore, we will vote for the budget. At least the tax resolution is stable, and the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government indicated that that stability will last for the remainder of the parliamentary session is a good thing, too.
I will conclude on this point. These debates are very different from what they used to be. We used to debate in Parliament how we were going to spend money rather than how we were going to raise it. The change has resulted in far better debate and a far better Parliament. We are thinking about the effects on people’s pockets and about investment in public services at the same time, which is a good thing.
14:54
I will start by picking up on the point that Willie Rennie just made, because it is important, although he perhaps does not realise its full implications. He is absolutely right that the Parliament has moved from just talking about spending to talking about raising revenue, as we acquire more and more of the powers of an independent state. As we continue down that journey towards full independence, I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the Parliament’s ability to talk about all the issues that affect an independent state.
The minister will know that we can stop at times.
Perhaps it was the enthusiasm and momentum behind Willie Rennie’s dialogue that made me sure that he was on that journey with us.
Today, Parliament is being asked to vote on a policy that will raise much-needed revenues for public services while continuing to see the majority of taxpayers in Scotland pay less than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK. Analysis of our tax and social security policies shows that, on average, households in the lower half of the income distribution are £450 a year better off than they would be south of the border, and the SFC estimates that our income tax policy will bring in £20.5 billion for the Scottish budget in 2025-26, which is £745 million more than it forecast for 2025-26 at the time of the Scottish budget last year.
During our tax strategy engagement, we heard the business community loud and clear when it asked for greater certainty and no further increases to income tax. That is what the budget delivers. It is a proposal that is constructed in a balanced way and provides a period of income tax stability for taxpayers while allowing businesses to invest in a growing economy in Scotland.
That point about a growing economy is important, because we hear some of the naysayers in the chamber talk down Scotland’s economy. The last available data on an annualised basis shows that Scotland’s economy is growing at 1.2 per cent, which is higher than the 1.0 per cent across the rest of the UK; Scotland’s unemployment is at 3.8 per cent, which is lower than the 4.4 per cent across the rest of the UK; and, for the ninth year in a row, inward investment in Scotland is higher than it is in every other part of the UK outside of London. Scotland’s economy is not doing as well as it could do, but it is doing better at the moment than the economy of the rest of the UK.
Does the minister agree that the response to those in the Parliament who demand that we widen the tax base and, by implication, take people who are out of work and on social security into work is that the solution is not to slash their social security payments but to provide them with the employment training and support that is required to get them into the workplace, if they so wish, and that that costs money, which we need to raise through this progressive tax system?
Ross Greer makes a valid point. Of course, we want to get as many people working in the economy as we can and provide them with the skills to contribute and to fill the many gaps that there are in skills as Scotland’s economy continues to grow and create opportunities.
Our approach ensures that we can continue to support vital services such as the ones that Ross Greer mentioned that provide the most generous public service offering available in any part of the UK, ensuring that Scotland remains a great place in which to live, work, study and do business. We contrast that with the almost £600 million in tax cuts that the Tories call for, which would directly impact our ability to provide those services, and the £700 million that, as my colleague the cabinet secretary just highlighted, Labour wants to take out of the availability for public spending in Scotland through what passes for its income tax policy, plans for which were hastily cobbled together on the back of an envelope.
That funding allows the Scottish economy to regain momentum and prosper after the years of Covid and the challenges resulting from Brexit. It will support continued renewal of our NHS and allow us to seize the opportunities of the green energy transition.
I hope that members will vote positively for the motion, and I thank those who have already indicated that they will do so, including, it appears, Labour members. I lost a small wager with my colleague Shona Robison on how Labour might vote this afternoon. Of course, the inconsistency around Labour voting for the tax policy but not voting for the budget seems typical of its muddled positioning at this point in time.
The budget chooses a path of stability in our income tax choices to provide certainty for our taxpayers regarding their take-home pay after years of high inflation, certainty for our businesses after the damage of EU exit and the insecurities facing the world economy, and certainty for our public services, with record investment. I encourage all members to support the motion.
That concludes the debate on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2025-26.
It is now time to move to the question on the motion. The question is, that motion S6M-16531, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2025-26, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.
15:00 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on motion S6M-16531, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2025-26. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms White. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not get my device to connect; I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect; I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Brown. We will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect; I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Carson. We will ensure that that is recorded. [Interruption.]
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry about that; I was trying to put my vote through and I was running in to the chamber at the same time. I was going to vote no.
Ms Gosal, in this instance, I will accept your point of order, and we will record your vote, but I ask all members to ensure that they are somewhere where they can vote. This will not happen again.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I do not ask for an answer now, what has just happened sets a precedent that raises a great number of questions across the chamber. I politely observe that I do not think that any member can be in two places at once. While taking part virtually, members need to be present at their terminal. I query whether all members were in that position when the vote took place. Some consideration should be given to what has just occurred.
Mr Johnson, fortunately, this is an extremely rare occurrence. I would like to think that I have made it quite clear that this will not set a precedent. Never again will this happen. We who sit in the chamber have a great privilege in that we are able to represent our constituents and vote on their behalf. I am always keen that every member has the opportunity to exercise that right. In this instance, I will accept Ms Gosal’s vote, but this will not happen again.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn]
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division on motion S6M-16531, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Scottish income tax rate resolution 2025-26, is: For 86, Against 27, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides for Income Tax to be charged at Scottish rates on certain non-savings and non-dividend income of a Scottish taxpayer to be charged above the personal allowance), the Scottish rates and limits for the tax year 2025-26 are as follows—
(a) a starter rate of 19%, charged on income up to a limit of £2,827,
(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20%, charged on income above £2,827 and up to a limit of £14,921,
(c) an intermediate rate of 21%, charged on income above £14,921 and up to a limit of £31,092,
(d) a higher rate of 42%, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £62,430,
(e) an advanced rate of 45%, charged on income above £62,430 and up to a limit of £125,140, and
(f) a top rate of 48%, charged on income above £125,140.
There will be a momentary pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Air ais
Portfolio Question Time