Why Scotland's universal offers such as free bus travel and tuition may not be in the public's interest

What passes for the “debate” on Scotland’s finances makes one yearn for “a grumpy treasurer”.

Covid exposed the vulnerabilities and inequalities baked into our society, and the impact of poverty and disadvantage was cruelly heightened. Surely now more than ever we should ensure that spending is about doing good, not just feeling good?

There is a serious debate to be had about the balance between universal provision and targeted spending; the cost of creating eligibility tests in comparison with the simplicity of a universal approach; the challenge of ensuring that the support to those most in need is not diluted.

But that debate is throttled in Scotland. Just divide the world into good and bad, compassionate and monstrous.

The comfort of the “retail offer” is embraced. So, we can have baby boxes, with no analysis of their benefits, alongside a reduction in family support for vulnerable mothers and children.

We can have free tuition for those who make it to university, alongside cuts to further education funding. We can have free bus travel and fewer bus routes in the communities most reliant on public transport. We can have free school meals of poorer nutritional quality alongside the virtual disappearance of support for vulnerable children in their own homes. We can freeze council tax and watch as services falter.

The truth is that a decent case can be made for almost all of these universal offers. But politicians have backed away from debate. It is as vacuous as it is maddening.

There is never an acceptance that in public spending we are choosing one good and worthy approach over another. The current approach encourages people to accept decisions that in reality are not in their interest.

This cannot go on. There needs to be a renewed commitment to rigour and rational policy and decision making. In a system where some policy choices are deemed untouchable, cuts in services fall most on areas where there is indifference, or a lack of awareness of services which most people will not need.

Cuts to care services, largely unseen but felt in the further burden placed on unpaid carers. Cuts in school funding, which reduces resources and school trips which better-off families can make up for. Cuts to drugs and rehabilitation services.

The refusal to be serious is played out in a thousand ways every day, at the expense of those without the voice, means or energy to demand better.

It is not right wing or unprogressive to test all options and be frugal in decisions. Seriousness should shape the work of the opposition, too. Their job is to challenge and provide alternatives, but they should resist the easy hit, the quick denunciation that entrenches the paralysis.

My advice? Embrace and channel your inner grumpy treasurer.

- Johann Lamont was leader of Scottish Labour from 2011 to 2014, and an MSP between 1999 and 2021. She is a member of Reform Scotland’s Commission on School Reform

* The full version of the article by Johann Lamont is be available at reformscotland.com