Recommendations & Conclusions
19 items
1
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Accepted
We note the Scottish Government’s call for full fiscal autonomy, but do not consider that this currently appears to be a realistic prospect. Fundamental questions remain about how full fiscal autonomy would work in practice, and whether it would be operable within the constraints of the UK’s current devolution settlement. …
Read more
We note the Scottish Government’s call for full fiscal autonomy, but do not consider that this currently appears to be a realistic prospect. Fundamental questions remain about how full fiscal autonomy would work in practice, and whether it would be operable within the constraints of the UK’s current devolution settlement. Practicality aside, we do not believe that a compelling case has been made that such a change would automatically result in Scotland receiving a higher level of funding. Given that the Scottish Government did not accept the invitation to come before us to explain its proposal and respond to these fundamental questions, we do not see how we can consider this a serious proposition, and we remain to be convinced that this proposal is desirable in principle, let alone workable in practice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 20)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agreed with the committee's conclusion that full fiscal autonomy is not a serious proposition, contrasting it with the financial stability provided by the UK and highlighting a potential £14 billion funding gap for Scotland.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
2
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Accepted
Whilst the Barnett formula is an imperfect method of calculating Scotland’s funding, we have heard no convincing evidence of a workable alternative. We therefore consider the formula to be fit for purpose and are not convinced there is clear need to reform it significantly. (Conclusion, Paragraph 33)
Read more
Whilst the Barnett formula is an imperfect method of calculating Scotland’s funding, we have heard no convincing evidence of a workable alternative. We therefore consider the formula to be fit for purpose and are not convinced there is clear need to reform it significantly. (Conclusion, Paragraph 33)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the conclusion, citing the significant real-terms settlement for the Scottish Government delivered through the Barnett formula via Phase 2 of the Spending Review, affirming the formula's role in providing financial certainty.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
3
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Accepted
In particular, we are not convinced there is a need to introduce a needs- based factor into the Barnett formula at this time. Scotland currently may be receiving more than it would if a needs-based factor, like the floors introduced in Northern Ireland and Wales, were to be introduced. However, …
Read more
In particular, we are not convinced there is a need to introduce a needs- based factor into the Barnett formula at this time. Scotland currently may be receiving more than it would if a needs-based factor, like the floors introduced in Northern Ireland and Wales, were to be introduced. However, whilst such a factor is not appropriate at this time, the need of one should be kept under review. (Conclusion, Paragraph 34) Transparency
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepts the conclusion, reiterating the substantial funding increases for the Scottish Government through the existing Barnett formula, which provides financial certainty and stability without the need for a needs-based factor at this time.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
4
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Accepted
The operation of the Barnett formula is not as transparent as it could or should be. In particular, there is a lack of transparency around how comparability percentages are calculated. Comparability percentages are a fundamental feature of the Barnett formula and the only multiplier which cannot be effectively scrutinised by …
Read more
The operation of the Barnett formula is not as transparent as it could or should be. In particular, there is a lack of transparency around how comparability percentages are calculated. Comparability percentages are a fundamental feature of the Barnett formula and the only multiplier which cannot be effectively scrutinised by the public. We have heard no 43 good reason for this opacity, which limits the ability of the public and UK and Scottish Parliaments to hold their respective Governments to account. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated that details on how comparability percentages are calculated, including a programme-by-programme breakdown, are already included in Annex B of the Statement of Funding Policy document published in June 2025.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
5
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Deferred
In all future Statements of Funding Policy, the UK Government should include details of how the comparability percentage of each department has been calculated, including a programme-by-programme breakdown of what has and has not been included in the calculation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)
Read more
In all future Statements of Funding Policy, the UK Government should include details of how the comparability percentage of each department has been calculated, including a programme-by-programme breakdown of what has and has not been included in the calculation. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that officials have agreed to begin preliminary work on the scope for the next review of the Fiscal Framework, deferring the discussion rather than committing to include detailed comparability percentage calculations in future Statements of Funding Policy.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
6
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Deferred
We recognise the importance of the Block Grant Transparency document, as well as the value in it being published in a timely manner. We welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to publishing an updated document after the 2025 Spending Review and hope the Government will continue this practice in future …
Read more
We recognise the importance of the Block Grant Transparency document, as well as the value in it being published in a timely manner. We welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to publishing an updated document after the 2025 Spending Review and hope the Government will continue this practice in future years. We see no reason why HM Treasury cannot provide an updated Block Grant Transparency document alongside each major fiscal event in the same way in which it provides a raft of other relevant documents to accompany such events. (Conclusion, Paragraph 46)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government discusses Scottish Government borrowing limits and the Fiscal Framework review, rather than addressing the recommendation to publish the Block Grant Transparency document alongside each major fiscal event.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
7
Recommendation
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Deferred
The UK Government should publish an updated Block Grant Transparency document alongside each fiscal event which will result in changes to Scotland’s funding. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47) Dispute resolution and formalisation
Government response AI summary
The government states it shares the position, but then pivots to discussing VAT assignment, the Building Safety Levy, and Aggregates Levy, failing to address the specific recommendation to publish an updated Block Grant Transparency document alongside each fiscal event.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
8
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Accepted
HM Treasury, and therefore the UK Government, is the “ultimate arbiter” of the Barnett formula. As the formula is non-statutory, there is no legal recourse for the Scottish Government to challenge the UK Government’s application of it. There is also currently no formal, objective dispute resolution process relating to the …
Read more
HM Treasury, and therefore the UK Government, is the “ultimate arbiter” of the Barnett formula. As the formula is non-statutory, there is no legal recourse for the Scottish Government to challenge the UK Government’s application of it. There is also currently no formal, objective dispute resolution process relating to the application of the formula, although there are existing intergovernmental structures through which such matters can be raised. An imbalance persists however, with HM Treasury’s position enduring when agreement between parties cannot be reached, as reflects the UK Government’s constitutional position within the UK’s devolution arrangement. (Conclusion, Paragraph 68)
Show less
Government response AI summary
HM Treasury sets out the impact on Scotland of policy changes at fiscal events in the publicly available fiscal event documents.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
9
Recommendation
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Acknowledged
We are not convinced that putting the Barnett formula on a statutory footing, or otherwise formalising it, would significantly improve its effectiveness. The use of the Barnett formula is already a well-established practice, not unlike other features of the UK’s uncodified constitution. Although new routes to legal challenge may be …
Read more
We are not convinced that putting the Barnett formula on a statutory footing, or otherwise formalising it, would significantly improve its effectiveness. The use of the Barnett formula is already a well-established practice, not unlike other features of the UK’s uncodified constitution. Although new routes to legal challenge may be opened though legislation, such a change would restrict the flexibility of the operation of the formula, with little evidence there would be practical benefits for either Government. We also cannot see how a new dispute resolution process 44 specifically for the Barnett formula would not unduly overlap with or duplicate the existing intergovernmental dispute resolution process. (Recommendation, Paragraph 69) Budget stability
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government repeats the committee's conclusion verbatim.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
10
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Acknowledged
The Committee notes that the Block Grant is the single largest source of Scottish Government funding, and that tight rules on borrowing and fiscal reserves mean that significant changes to the block grant will almost always require significant, urgent changes to the Scottish Government’s spending plans. (Conclusion, Paragraph 80)
Read more
The Committee notes that the Block Grant is the single largest source of Scottish Government funding, and that tight rules on borrowing and fiscal reserves mean that significant changes to the block grant will almost always require significant, urgent changes to the Scottish Government’s spending plans. (Conclusion, Paragraph 80)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government provided an update on the Scottish Government's block grant, stating it has received the largest real terms settlement since devolution and additional funding, contrasting this with the Scottish Government's stance on the Barnett Formula.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
11
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Accepted
The timing of supplementary estimates and UK Government fiscal events can cause clear challenges for the Scottish Government in terms of financial planning, with the Scottish Government’s final funding position not confirmed until close to the end of the financial year. This uncertainty is compounded by in-year changes to UK …
Read more
The timing of supplementary estimates and UK Government fiscal events can cause clear challenges for the Scottish Government in terms of financial planning, with the Scottish Government’s final funding position not confirmed until close to the end of the financial year. This uncertainty is compounded by in-year changes to UK Government spending plans, and the possibility of multiple fiscal events per year. We welcome the UK Government’s commitment to “one major fiscal event” every year and the stated commitment to informing the Scottish Government of relevant funding changes as early as possible. While noting the regular official- level communication regarding spending, we remain concerned about the significant impact UK Government spending decisions can have on the Scottish Government’s budget, often at very short notice and without warning. (Conclusion, Paragraph 92)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explained that the Block Grant Transparency is published annually, and the Scottish Government is informed of changes at the earliest possible opportunity, justifying its current practices as appropriate for managing market sensitive information.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
12
Recommendation
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Accepted in Part
The importance of regular communication between the UK and Scottish Governments, in respect of UK spending decisions which could impact Scotland’s budget, cannot be overstated. The UK Government must ensure that the impact of UK budgetary changes on the block grant is assessed and considered while decisions are being made. …
Read more
The importance of regular communication between the UK and Scottish Governments, in respect of UK spending decisions which could impact Scotland’s budget, cannot be overstated. The UK Government must ensure that the impact of UK budgetary changes on the block grant is assessed and considered while decisions are being made. The details of such impact assessments must be released alongside or very quickly following any spending decisions. While we recognise the need for due process, the Scottish Government should be informed of major changes which impact its funding as early as possible. (Recommendation, Paragraph 93) Flexibility
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated that regular engagement and early notification on funding changes already occur, but rejected the need for formal impact assessments due to the mechanical nature of the Barnett formula, though impacts are routinely considered.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
13
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Acknowledged
Given the challenges the Scottish Government faces, we recognise its need for fiscal flexibility. The Scotland Reserve is a key tool that enables the Scottish Government to carry funds from one year to another, and there seems little benefit in capping the amount of money that can be stored in …
Read more
Given the challenges the Scottish Government faces, we recognise its need for fiscal flexibility. The Scotland Reserve is a key tool that enables the Scottish Government to carry funds from one year to another, and there seems little benefit in capping the amount of money that can be stored in it. 45 The danger of the Scottish Government having to surrender funds, due to a late addition which pushes the Reserve over the limit, whilst hypothetical, remains of concern to us. (Conclusion, Paragraph 99)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explained the Scotland Reserve limit was mutually agreed and is uprated annually, with consideration of any changes deferred to the next Fiscal Framework review expected in 2028.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
14
Recommendation
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Deferred
We note also that the jeopardy for returning funds to the UK Treasury at the end of the financial year incentivises poor behaviour in departmental spending, relative to value for money to the taxpayer. The removal of the Reserve, which is simply a treasury rule, would allow the Scottish Government …
Read more
We note also that the jeopardy for returning funds to the UK Treasury at the end of the financial year incentivises poor behaviour in departmental spending, relative to value for money to the taxpayer. The removal of the Reserve, which is simply a treasury rule, would allow the Scottish Government to plan more strategically both within and across financial years. A political decision could remove the Scotland Reserve in advance of the next Fiscal Framework event in 2027 to the immediate benefit of the Scottish Government’s budget setting. (Conclusion, Paragraph 100)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explained the current Scotland Reserve limits were agreed with the Scottish Government and deferred any changes, including potential removal, to the next Fiscal Framework review in 2028.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
15
Recommendation
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Deferred
At the next Fiscal Framework review, the UK Government should consider removing the cap on the Scotland Reserve, to ensure the Scottish Government’s fiscal flexibility is not unduly limited and to avoid the undesirable possibility of it having to return funds. (Recommendation, Paragraph 101)
Read more
At the next Fiscal Framework review, the UK Government should consider removing the cap on the Scotland Reserve, to ensure the Scottish Government’s fiscal flexibility is not unduly limited and to avoid the undesirable possibility of it having to return funds. (Recommendation, Paragraph 101)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government deferred considering removing the cap on the Scotland Reserve to the next Fiscal Framework review, expected in 2028, with preliminary scoping work beginning soon. They noted the current limit was agreed with the Scottish Government and is uprated annually.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
16
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Acknowledged
At present, the Scottish Government’s limited borrowing powers constrain its ability to manage fiscal shocks, as it is only able to borrow for resource purposes to cover forecast errors. Capital borrowing limits are currently linked to and grow in line with inflation, which may not necessarily be the highest metric …
Read more
At present, the Scottish Government’s limited borrowing powers constrain its ability to manage fiscal shocks, as it is only able to borrow for resource purposes to cover forecast errors. Capital borrowing limits are currently linked to and grow in line with inflation, which may not necessarily be the highest metric of growth. (Conclusion, Paragraph 113)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the conclusion by explaining that borrowing powers and limits were jointly agreed in the 2023 Fiscal Framework and are uprated annually by the GDP deflator to maintain real value, committing to consider these arrangements at the next Fiscal Framework review.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
17
Recommendation
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Deferred
We recognise the arguments presented calling for reform to the Scottish Government’s current borrowing arrangements. We maintain that such borrowing should continue to be subject to interest payments, the same as it is for any other government when it borrows to cover for its own forecast errors. However, we agree …
Read more
We recognise the arguments presented calling for reform to the Scottish Government’s current borrowing arrangements. We maintain that such borrowing should continue to be subject to interest payments, the same as it is for any other government when it borrows to cover for its own forecast errors. However, we agree with the Secretary of State that borrowing limits should be linked to the measure which offers the Scottish Government the highest level of flexibility but, crucially, we note that which metric delivers this remains undetermined. The UK Government should therefore publish a transparent analysis of what borrowing limits would look like based on the different metrics advised in the evidence for this inquiry. At the next Fiscal Framework review, we encourage the UK Government to consider reforming the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, by automatically coupling borrowing to the metric which offers the highest limit. (Recommendation, Paragraph 114)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explained current borrowing limits are mutually agreed and uprated annually, stating they will consider further reforms to Scottish Government borrowing arrangements at the next Fiscal Framework review. They did not commit to publishing an analysis of different metrics as recommended.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
18
Conclusion
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Not Addressed
It seems highly unlikely to us that the assignment of VAT revenues will ever come into force. It is clear that implementing the assignment poses a significant challenge, and given the amount of time that has passed since the change was due to come into force, it is far from …
Read more
It seems highly unlikely to us that the assignment of VAT revenues will ever come into force. It is clear that implementing the assignment poses a significant challenge, and given the amount of time that has passed since the change was due to come into force, it is far from clear whether it is realistic or possible. (Conclusion, Paragraph 120) 46
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged continuing work on Smith Commission recommendations, including VAT Assignment, but did not directly address the committee's conclusion that its implementation seems highly unlikely and unrealistic.
Read full response →
Scotland Office
19
Recommendation
1st report – The financing of the Scott…
Not Addressed
We call on the UK Government, in its response to this report, to explain why it thinks the assignment of VAT revenues is still possible, despite robust views to the contrary, and whether the Scottish Government shares this position. We also call on the UK Government, by the summer of …
Read more
We call on the UK Government, in its response to this report, to explain why it thinks the assignment of VAT revenues is still possible, despite robust views to the contrary, and whether the Scottish Government shares this position. We also call on the UK Government, by the summer of 2026, to write to us with an update on the progress made to date on implementing VAT assignment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 121) 47
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated that HM Treasury will continue to work with the Scottish Government to deliver Smith Commission recommendations, including VAT Assignment, but did not explain why it thinks assignment is possible or commit to a 2026 update as requested.
Read full response →
Scotland Office