Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Report claims devolution funding deal fails to meet taxpayer fairness test for whole of UK

In this photo illustration, A man holds a Saltire flag outside the Scottish Parliament on May 6, 2009 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first Holyrood election polling day, before the Scottish Parliament gained full powers on July 1, 1999.
In this photo illustration, A man holds a Saltire flag outside the Scottish Parliament on May 6, 2009 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first Holyrood election polling day, before the Scottish Parliament gained full powers on July 1, 1999.

The new funding deal for Scotland fails to meet the test of taxpayer fairness for the whole of the UK, analysis by an economic think-tank has found.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has examined the five-year fiscal framework agreement negotiated by the UK and Scottish governments last month.

The framework sets out how Scotland’s budget – the block grant – should be adjusted to take into account new powers being devolved in the Scotland Bill and was the subject of protracted talks between the two administrations.

The Scottish Government called for Scotland’s slower population growth to be taken into account in the new funding model in order to meet the “no detriment” principle set out by the Smith Commission.

The IFS found the deal meets this principle but does not meet the ideal of “taxpayer fairness”, which the UK Government placed more weight on.

The deal agreed will protect the Scottish budget from revenue and welfare spending risks associated with Scotland’s lower population growth, the report states.

Equally, Scotland will not benefit from the higher revenues that might result if its population grows more quickly than expected.

“This is the approach that the Scottish Government wanted and satisfies its interpretation of the Smith Commission’s principle that there should be ‘no detriment (simply) from the decision to devolve’ a power,” the IFS said.

“But it does not satisfy the commission’s ‘taxpayer fairness’ principle, which the UK Government placed more weight on. Scotland’s budget could fall a little if income tax rates are cut (or thresholds increased) in rUK and vice versa.”

The IFS also found that under the agreement, part of the growth in devolved tax revenues in the rest of the UK will continue to be redistributed to Scotland to help fund its higher levels of government spending, something the UK Government said should no longer happen once a tax is devolved.

By 2021/22 about £900 million of additional revenues from the rest of the UK could be redistributed to Scotland, it found.

The method agreed for adjusting the block grant also largely insulates Scotland from the impact of any shocks that hit the whole of the UK, such as the global financial crisis.

“But the Scottish Government’s budget will be exposed to long and short-term economic risks that affect Scotland differently from the rest of the UK,” the IFS said.

Faster or slower growth in devolved revenues or welfare spending per person could impact on the Scottish budget by more than £500 million a year after five years and over £2 billion a year after 15 years, it found.

David Phillips, a senior research economist and one of the authors of the report, said: “It was never going to be possible to design a fiscal framework that satisfied all the Smith Commission’s principles.

“In the end, the Scottish Government’s preferred approach was chosen, which prioritises the ‘no detriment’ principle.

“During the negotiations, the UK Government had claimed this approach was unfair because it violates the ‘taxpayer fairness’ principle. This begs the question of whether the UK Government has changed its mind or merely conceded the point.”

Co-author Professor David Bell said the Scottish Government did not get everything it wanted, and had to accept much lower borrowing limits than it had hoped for.

“These limits look like they should be enough to cope with fluctuations in its revenues and welfare spending. But the rules about when the borrowing powers can be used may be more constraining,” he said.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney said: “The fiscal framework agreement implements the principles of the Smith Commission and is fair to taxpayers in Scotland and across the UK.”

The IFS found that using the Scottish Government’s preferred Indexed Per Capita model means Scotland’s budget may be around £300 million a year more by 2021/22 than it would have been had the UK Government’s proposed comparable model been used instead.

Mr Swinney added: “This analysis by the IFS demonstrates Scotland’s budget could have been cut by £300 million a year by 2020/21 if the UK Government’s preferred model had been implemented.

“That is why we ensured that Scotland’s block grant will be adjusted annually, by indexed deduction per capita, to ensure no detriment to Scotland as a result of having new powers.”

A Treasury spokesman said: “The historic fiscal framework is fair for Scotland and fair for the rest of the UK.

“It takes all of the Smith Principles into account and paves the way for the Scottish Parliament to become one of the most powerful and accountable devolved parliaments in the world. It means that the debate can shift to what really matters – how these powers will be used to create a stronger Scotland.

“The Scottish Government will be responsible for managing the economic and demographic opportunities and risks associated with its new powers. It will be responsible for raising more than half of its own funding and it is right that the UK government provides transitional support.

“To ensure that the fiscal framework is consistent with all the Smith principles, including taxpayer fairness, on an ongoing basis both governments have agreed that it will be reviewed by independent experts by the end of 2021.”