SWBG blog

What does £7.6 million mean? Reflections on stage 1 and stage 2 of the 2026-27 Scottish Budget Bill

Our Economic Empowerment group met last week to consider Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Scottish Budget bill, the final legislative step in the Scottish Government’s annual budget process.  

The Stage 1 debate highlighted that with a minority government there is a need to discuss and agree budget measures with other parties. Jamie Greene MSP’s speech clearly highlighted the concessions that the Liberal Democrats had managed to secure.  

The group felt that the additional £20million agreed for social care was a good example of how this approach could improve budget outcomes for women.  However, the group continues to remain sceptical about the difference this funding will make given the negative changes to service provision being made at local level. 

The disconnect between the rhetoric used by the Government and people’s experiences at the local level has been a constant theme in the group’s discussions.  Another example of this was the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary of an additional £7.6million to tackle waiting lists for neurodiversity assessments.   

The group instinctively believed this would be a good thing, however they questioned what difference this funding will actually make because, while £7.6 million might sound like a lot of money – and in household terms it is – the lack of detail about  how this will improve current waiting lists was seen as problematic. The group agreed that without this information it was difficult to fully welcome this funding, or to assess whether this is the best way to address the needs of families with members who are neurodivergent.  

Finally, the group felt that by not spelling out the expected impact of money allocations, it is difficult to hold accountable those responsible for addressing waiting lists, including their organisations.  

Stage 2 debate took place in the Finance and Public Administration Committee and involved the Cabinet Secretary moving amendments to the Budget Bill.  During this phase, Liz Smith MSP highlighted to the Cabinet Secretary that the Committee still felt that the Government had provided too little information about the trade-offs they had made or about the reasons why the Government had decided to allocate money to some areas. 

One of the amendments the Cabinet Secretary made at the Committee was the allocation of funding to freeze rail fares. The Economic Empowerment group were interested in why the Government had decided to fund this policy to tackle the high cost of living instead of the costs of bus travel, a mode of transport that members of the group use more regularly.   

Given that only 8% of people travel regularly by train, this decision calls for further explanation of the Government’s analysis of who stands to benefit and how it supports the Government’s key priorities.  

Conclusion 

The questions the group raised about rhetoric versus impact, lack of transparency around money allocations and their expected impact, limited focus on outcomes and addressing inequality highlight the need for the Government to better implement gender budgeting approaches into their budget process.