When budgets are announced, the first few days are usually dominated by headlines, claims and counterclaims. The real test comes afterwards, once the numbers are picked apart by independent analysts and the political dust begins to settle. From that vantage point, the 2026–27 Holyrood Budget looks less like a turning point and more like a careful attempt to steady the ship in rough waters.
Total devolved spending rises again, and ministers are keen to point to record cash figures. But bodies such as the Scottish Fiscal Commission have been clear about the wider context: Scotland is operating within a very tight fiscal envelope, with rising demand, stubborn cost pressures and limited scope to raise additional revenue without economic trade-offs. This is not a budget delivered from a position of strength; it is one shaped by constraint.
The tax decisions reflect that reality. The modest uprating of the basic and intermediate income tax thresholds from April 2026 is designed to ease some of the pressure created by years of fiscal drag. Independent analysis suggests this will make a small difference to many lower and middle earners, but it is measured rather than transformative. At the same time, higher thresholds remain frozen, meaning the overall tax take continues to rise over the medium term. The policy choice is clear: limited relief at the lower end, offset by continued reliance on those higher up the income scale. Whether that balance proves sustainable for a small, open economy is a question that will not go away.
Health spending again dominates the Budget narrative, with ministers highlighting record allocations exceeding £22 billion. Few would argue against protecting health and social care in principle. The harder question is whether this level of spending is delivering commensurate improvement. Across Angus, patients still experience long waits and difficulty accessing services. Workforce pressures and rising demand have absorbed much of the additional funding in recent years. The Budget acknowledges the scale of the challenge, but offers little clarity on how outcomes will improve rather than simply be stabilised.
For local government, the detail matters more than the headlines. Analysis by SPICe shows that councils will receive a real-terms increase in revenue funding and, importantly, a lower proportion of ring-fenced allocations. That additional flexibility is genuinely welcome. Councils understand their local priorities far better than central government does. However, the same analysis also underlines a persistent problem: underlying cost and demand pressures continue to grow faster than settlements. For Angus Council, that means difficult decisions remain unavoidable. Residents may hear talk of “record funding”, yet still see slow progress on everyday issues such as road condition, public spaces and basic responsiveness.
The Budget’s approach to business and town centres follows a familiar pattern. Significant sums are again set aside for non-domestic rates relief, which will provide short-term help to many firms. In towns like Arbroath, that support is appreciated, but it does not amount to a growth strategy. Relief can buy time; it cannot by itself generate new investment, higher productivity or renewed confidence. Without a clearer plan to stimulate local economic growth beyond temporary measures, the risk is that decline is managed rather than reversed.
Housing and infrastructure spending is another area where ambition meets reality. Nearly £1 billion is allocated for affordable housing in 2026–27, supported by capital and financial-transaction funding. These are serious commitments, but delivery remains the decisive issue. Skills shortages, rising construction costs and slow project pipelines have limited impact in recent years. Communities across Angus will judge success not by allocations announced in Edinburgh, but by whether more homes actually appear on the ground.
Perhaps the most sobering findings from independent commentators relate to sustainability. Both SPICe and the Fraser of Allander Institute point to continued reliance on borrowing and non-recurring measures to support day-to-day spending, alongside an underlying deficit that has not been resolved. Borrowing is rising, not falling. This does not signal immediate crisis, but it does underline how little slack exists in the system. The next Parliament will inherit a set of choices that are no easier than those faced today.
Taken as a whole, this is a cautious and technically competent Budget. It avoids obvious mistakes, protects core services and offers councils slightly more flexibility than in the past. But it is also unambitious. It manages pressure rather than reshaping the landscape, and it leaves long-standing structural issues largely untouched.
For people in Arbroath and across Angus, the judgement will be practical rather than ideological. Are services easier to access? Are streets and public spaces better maintained? Are there clearer signs of economic opportunity? Those are the measures by which this Budget will ultimately be assessed, not the rhetoric heard in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
As a local councillor, my focus remains firmly on outcomes. Where this Budget helps our communities, it should be supported. Where it falls short, it should be challenged constructively and on the basis of evidence. Public finances are tight, expectations are high, and trust is hard-won. That demands honesty, realism and a willingness to confront difficult questions rather than postpone them.
A different approach
None of this is inevitable. Different choices are available, and they matter.
A Conservative approach would start with a clearer focus on economic growth, not just managing decline. That means systematic reform of business rates rather than endless sticking plasters, proper investment in infrastructure that unlocks private sector confidence, and a planning system that speeds up rather than frustrates housing delivery. Relief is welcome, but it is not a substitute for creating the conditions where businesses can actually thrive.
We would also insist on far greater transparency around public service performance. Record funding means nothing if outcomes are not improving. Every major spending commitment should come with clear metrics and regular public reporting. Taxpayers deserve to know whether the money is working, not just that it has been spent.
And we would be honest about the limits of what Holyrood can achieve alone. Much of Scotland’s economic performance depends on decisions made at Westminster, on attracting investment from elsewhere, and on unleashing the energy and ideas of communities themselves. Government has a role, but it is not the whole answer. The best thing politicians can often do is get out of the way and let people get on with it.
This Budget does not take those steps. It is competent management of the status quo, but Scotland needs more than that. Angus needs more than that.
