Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay—I will carry on for now then.

The responses were illuminating. In relation to the disaggregation of data, I was extraordinarily struck by the data set that Carolyn Currie provided, and by her point about people who become entrepreneurs out of necessity versus opportunistic entrepreneurs, as we might say. The former have different needs because of how they have arrived at running their own businesses.

I am particularly interested in following up on Carolyn Currie’s comment about structural issues. She has said:

“structural inequalities prevail”.

Perhaps we have a slight example of that in the point that we are routinely not gathering disaggregated data, but I am interested in hearing and understanding more about what specifically she meant by that.

Yes. I am talking about the new funding streams on levelling up, community renewal, UK shared prosperity and so on.

There might well be a residual benefit in letting the larger public understand the dog’s dinner of the current fiscal framework, but that is by the by.

Local government faces very similar challenges with regard to its being confident about when money will appear and so on. On the review of capital accounting, which I believe you requested and which is being led by directors of finance on behalf of local government, are you able to express any view on the extent to which the focus should be on understanding service concession flexibilities to facilitate financial planning, or do you intend to wait for the outcome of the review before local councils can get some more certainty about what flexibilities they have?

I have been listening to the contributions with great interest. The themes that keep recurring are around uncertainty and complexity. I appreciate the very difficult job that you have to do in reconciling what has actually happened with a forecast of what might happen, and I am interested in exploring that a bit further.

We have touched on some of the rationale that you use for your analysis when questions have been asked. I am interested in understanding the rationale for some of your analysis in your report. For example, we know that climate change will affect us, and net zero targets are being talked about a great deal. How do you reflect such issues in your analysis? Can you see a development of your report in which you reflect more on those issues?

For my last question, I want to pick up on Liz Smith’s point about the debt burden on small businesses. When you have your conversations with the UK Government, could you impress on it the need to implore banks to have flexibility in certain loan schemes? There are some protections in place, such as no personal guarantees for coronavirus business interruption loan scheme loans up to a certain amount, but the fact remains that, post the 2008 recession, there was some really poor behaviour by banks, with small to medium-sized enterprises forced into very distressed circumstances and made bankrupt or sequestrated. Will you add your voice to ensuring that banks understand their obligations, particularly to the SME community?

It is the best worst, as I think people would agree.

Cabinet secretary, your comments lead neatly to a question that I have, which concerns an alarming statement from the Fraser of Allander Institute in its report for the Economic and Social Research Council, “Designing and funding the devolved nations’ policy responses to COVID-19”, which you will know about. It said:

“The effect is to circumvent not only the Barnett Formula but the devolved governments themselves.”

I was interested to hear you talk about the implications of spending coming in from left field. Have you given further detailed consideration to a range of scenarios in which that might have unintended and potentially undesirable consequences for your ability to control and manage your budget and your ability to deliver on your policy imperatives?

Thank you for those points. I will move on. I would like more information, which I think will be of general interest to everyone. In your letter to the committee dated 30 August—thank you for that—you mention that you plan to launch Scotland’s first framework for tax. It would be helpful if you were to share what additional information you can about that. I am generally interested in the discussion about tax that we had last week.

In that respect, I, too, was excited about box 3.1, which started to get into that sort of thing.

My next question follows on from that and is on the similar theme of GDP per capita. We know that there are endless debates about how effective that is as a measure, although it is internationally understood and you rightly use it. However, what, if any, thinking have you done about measures in addition to GDP per capita, given its known and understood crudity, and particularly as we start to move to the so-called wellbeing economy, which I know is somewhat amorphous at the moment?

I also refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I receive income from residential buy-to-let properties and I am a shareholder in a property management company, but I receive only a benefit in kind in the form of life cover and no other income. I am a former MP and I have been asked to continue as an ambassador for a Westminster all-party parliamentary group for fair business banking, for which I receive no income.