Budget Analysis 2016

In broad terms, the Chancellor’s destination is the same now as it was at the time of the Autumn Statement. He plans to achieve a budget surplus by the end of this parliament, while reducing public spending as a percentage of GDP from 40% now to under 37% in 2020.
But whereas in Autumn he was buoyed by higher revenue forecasts and reductions in forecast debt interest repayments, the context to the Budget was much gloomier. Forecasts for economic growth have been revised down quite substantially, reducing government revenues and increasing the forecast deficit in each year until 2020.
In this gloomier context, how then does Osborne still plan to achieve his surplus in 2020? Partly by allowing big business to defer increased corporation tax payments until the end of the parliament, and partly by making some large spending cuts in that final, election year. The hope presumably, is that the economy will have revived sufficiently by then that these cuts can be avoided, but on current evidence that appears optimistic.
Many of the Budget measures will of course apply UK-wide, particularly those on tax, but some are likely to have a 'territorial' or Scottish dimension.
The introduction of a tax on sugary drinks, which will raise around £0.5bn, will be welcomed by the health lobby, and is presumably the sort of policy that would find support from the Scottish Government. It seems likely however that Scottish taxpayers may contribute a larger than population share of this new tax (given higher consumption of sugary drinks), but the Scottish Government will receive only a population share of the additional UK-wide revenues and spending through the Barnett Formula. In England, the additional revenues from this tax will be used to fund initiatives promoting physical activity among the young, but the Scottish Government will be able to spend its share of the additional revenues in anyway it sees fit. 
Changes to income tax include the much trailed increase to the personal allowance, and the rise in the Higher Rate threshold. Both are tax cuts, and benefit higher earners more than lower earners. Of course by 2017, income tax will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. But whilst it could decide to reverse the increase in the Higher Rate threshold, it could not reduce the increase in the personal allowance (even if it wanted to).
More broadly, the OBR has revised down its forecasts of the revenues likely to be raised from devolved income tax in Scotland, as a result of both slower UK-wide economic growth, and the policy measures announced in the Budget. Scottish revenues from the 10p Scottish Rate of Income tax are forecast to be around £160m lower in 2020 than the forecast in the Autumn Statement. However, the Scottish budget is unlikely to face the full magnitude of this downgrade, given the way in which Scotland’s block grant will be adjusted.
Reductions in taxation of North Sea revenues were cautiously welcomed by the SNP, but were partly a political stunt by the Chancellor, allowing him to make vitriolic statements about the pooling and sharing of risks before what would have been ‘independence day’ on March 24th. The OBR forecasts that the prices of oil will remain around $40 per barrel over the course of the parliament, with North Sea activity bringing very little revenue to the Treasury. As a result, these cuts cost the Treasury around £200m per year, fairly little in the scheme of things.
The Chancellor also announced cuts to business rates, focussed on smaller businesses, whilst at the same time devolving the revenues to local authorities (a de facto spending cut for local government). While this policy is applicable to England only, the next Scottish Government is likely to face pressure from business to follow suit. John Swinney announced a review of business rates in Scotland when he delivered his budget in December.
Ultimately, the destination of this Budget is no different from the destination of fiscal surplus the Chancellor set sail for in his Budget last summer. Downgrades to forecasts means the journey now looks tougher. For now, the Chancellor is banking on economic revival if he is to arrive at a fiscal surplus in 2020 without further spending cuts at the end of the parliament. 
Over the coming days, analysts will pore over the Budget detail. But perhaps the biggest question is still whether the final destination is the right one. With government borrowing costs at an all-time low, relaxing the fiscal surplus rule to allow for higher capital spending would seem a sensible strategy – and one that would help future generations more effectively than the announced ‘Lifetime ISA’ schemes for under-40s which only the relatively better off will be able to afford.

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

David Eiser's picture
post by David Eiser
Fraser of Allander Institute
16th March 2016
Filed under:

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts