Stephen Boyd heads the influential think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland. As the election looms, writer-at-large Neil Mackay met him to discuss what the parties are proposing and what Scotland needs

What do you make of the party manifestos?

IT'S difficult not to be really disappointed. The manifestos don’t engage with the very significant challenges Scotland faces.

Some policies are interesting, but unhelpful. A bad example would be the SNP’s food price cap. It’s designed to send a signal rather than achieve real change. I’ve no ideological objection to government interfering in the market but I can’t see how this policy can work in ways that make a tangible difference to people’s lives. Making promises you can’t keep isn’t how you combat right-wing populism.

Stephen Boyd, director of the think-tank IPPR Scotland (Image: Robert Perry)

You see that across all the progressive manifestos, like the Greens. They’re not engaging with the real fiscal challenges. They’re not making a serious offer.

Labour talks of 2.4% growth. There’s just no prospect of the measures they propose amounting to that. Politicians don’t like hearing this, but growth isn’t really dictated by devolved policy.

Reform’s manifesto is built around a blatantly ludicrous proposition on taxation – that very big tax cuts will increase rather reduce revenue. It’s not serious.

It’s a policy that flatters the prejudices of rich people. Such policies always find an audience and well-resourced backers. Given the real fiscal challenges facing the next Scottish administration, Reform’s proposals are as offensive as they’re preposterous. They treat the electorate with contempt.

Reform’s tax policy is the most egregious example of bad policy across all the manifestos. Thankfully it’s highly unlikely to be implemented but if it were the damage to Scotland’s social and economic infrastructure would be profound.

The Tory manifesto is based on poorly specified public service reform which they believe will save a fortune. It’s just not credible. The LibDem manifesto is full of vague commitments and there’s little to excite. The commitment to deal with bed-blocking to reduce NHS pressure is welcome but isn’t supported by detail.

It’s not been a great election. The debate hasn’t been engaging at all. You can see that in the content of the manifestos. It’s disappointing.

Neil Mackay: English nationalism will be the death of the union

Neil Mackay: Here’s the secret to how the SNP turned Scotland into a one-party state

Neil Mackay: In the end, Nicola Sturgeon didn't do enough that mattered

Neil Mackay: Gangsters are terrorising Scotland, but do our politicians care?

Are there any good policies on offer?

A NUMBER of proposals are, ostensibly at least, interesting and progressive. The Greens, Labour and LibDems all propose reforming council tax.

The SNP, Greens, Labour and LibDems also propose extending subsidised childcare, a crucial component in creating a fairer, more dynamic labour market. The SNP and Labour manifestos include proposals with the potential to make a difference to regional and local economies.

There’s a bunch of other policies which, when considered in isolation, are very welcome – the Green manifesto includes good stuff around “free” bus travel, support for domestic heat pump installation, and integrated ticketing.

But there are very compelling reasons to be sceptical over the potential for these policies to be fully implemented. The Greens, unwisely, make a virtue of their manifesto being uncosted. Voters are right to be sceptical about the ability of that manifesto to be implemented in a partial fashion, never mind in full.

What are the challenges Scotland faces?

OVER the course of the next parliament there’s a very significant fiscal challenge. The £5 billion gap between spending commitments and revenues must be dealt with under the powers of the Scottish Government. We’re not a currency issuer, we have very limited borrowing powers. We’re working within very tight constraints.

We must deal with that seriously, through spending cuts or tax rises, or in a non-serious fashion, as most manifestos do, through pretending this gap can be met via economic growth or public service reform measures.

Significantly, the parties talking of public service reform, like the Conservatives, refuse to identify what they mean. That’s really frustrating. You get plenty of stuff about consolidating or abolishing quangos. But it’s just ludicrous, the numbers don’t add up. They never engage in what it would mean to abolish those quangos.

This is where is gets serious in ways politicians don’t want to admit: we’re basically looking at tax rises for all if we want to live in the kind of Scotland that the SNP, Greens and Labour say they want to build. Frankly, we all have to pay for that.

Stephen Boyd, director of the think-tank IPPR Scotland (Image: Robert Perry)

Another frustration comes when you get Scottish Government ministers referencing small European countries as a role model. All these countries spend more because they tax more. They’ve built very strong welfare states but managed to reconcile that with highly-dynamic, productive and innovative economies. That’s the kind of society we should aim for. I’m not pretending tax rises aren’t challenging politically and socially. Clearly, people today don’t believe they’re receiving the public services they should, so asking them to pay higher taxes is difficult. But we must engage seriously with this fiscal gap or inevitably we’ll face last-minute spending cuts that will be socially damaging.

The longer-term challenges are environmental and also demographic given our ageing population and falling birth rates. Demographic changes mean spending more on health and social care, if you want those services to continue to meet demand. Nobody is pretending that’s easy. It’s difficult economically, socially and politically, but that’s the direction of travel.

You either go in a planned managed way, or a very bumpy way by pretending you don’t have to do the hard stuff – then at the last minute jump in with deeply unhelpful policy measures.

The number of times the environment is mentioned in these manifestos compared to 2021 has dropped significantly. That’s worrying. If we’re to meet the climate challenge, again it implies much higher public investment.

If we’re going to........

© Herald Scotland