Post-Budget criticism of Rachel Reeves has focused far too much on political irrelevances, and not enough on the very real problems with Ms Reeves’ Budget and the difficult decisions she has avoided making and instead stored up for later, says Herald columnist Mark McGeoghegan

Budgets have a tendency of unravelling once the Chancellor’s measures are public knowledge and can be picked apart by experts. This was the first Budget, as far as I’m aware, to have started unravelling before the Chancellor stood up in the House of Commons to deliver it.

We have now had over a week of incessant criticism of Rachel Reeves’ second Budget, much of it perfectly warranted. There’s a lot to criticise in it. But despite that, much of the criticism from both the media and the Opposition has been, at best, superficial, and at worst doing a serious disservice to the public by failing to engage substantively with the Budget itself.

The immediate reaction to the Budget can be sorted into two camps: that focused on politics, and that focused on policy. The latter, coming from academic bodies, think tanks, and comparatively niche publications like the Financial Times and the Substacks of policy wonks like Sam Freedman, has identified a litany of issues one can take with the Budget.

Ms Reeves has delayed the impact of the major tax rises she announced until 2028 or later, meaning she can do things voters like, like freezing rail fares and reducing environmental levies on energy bills, now while storing up the pain for........

© Herald Scotland