John Swinney’s Scottish National Party (SNP) announced their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament election yesterday. We’ll go through the main announcements on tax, spending and public sector reform, and we’ll look at whether the level of detail matches what we would expect from a manifesto.
The SNP manifesto must be read differently from those of the opposition parties. As the party of government, the SNP can point to policies already in motion – but that same incumbency means their delivery record is available for scrutiny in a way that opposition parties’ records are not. Two questions therefore run alongside the usual fiscal analysis: how much of this is genuinely new spending, and which of these commitments have appeared in previous manifestos and gone undelivered?
Tax: continuity over reform
The SNP’s tax offer is the most cautious of any party, largely committing to maintain the status quo. This is not unsurprising for a party defending its record in government, and there is a logic to it – committing to significant tax cuts would be difficult to reconcile with the tight fiscal position the next Scottish Government will inherit. However, the choice not to increase taxes implies a continuation of constrained spending budgets, a tension the manifesto does not address.
On income tax, the SNP have committed to keep Scotland’s income tax system the “most progressive in the UK” and not increase the number of bands or rates. It is important to flag that they make no reference to thresholds, which will likely remain frozen until at least until the end of the spending review in 2028/29, which was announced in their January 2026 budget. This is a policy choice, which will raise significant tax revenue because as incomes grow, more taxpayers are pulled into higher bands. They go on to pledge to “simplify” the system by the end of the parliament however the manifesto provides no detail of what this would entail or who would be affected.
The SNP only propose one reform to council tax – the introduction of the ‘mansion tax’ on properties over £1 million and £2 million from 2028. This was already announced in the January 2026 budget and does not represent new policy. More broadly, the SNP have now been in government for nearly two decades without addressing the fundamental regressivity of a council tax system still based on 1991 property valuations. Their claim to have made the system “fairer and more progressive” is difficult to sustain – in the nearly 20 years since they took office, properties have moved further from their original valuations, arguably making the distribution of council tax liabilities more distorted over time, not less. Without a full revaluation, any claim to progressivity is limited.
On non-domestic rates (business rates) the SNP’s commitment to maintaining the Small Business Bonus for 100,000 businesses is welcome but is a continuity commitment rather than new policy. The pledge to make online giants like Amazon “pay their fair share” through the business rates system is presented as a measure to support local and high street businesses, but no mechanism is provided. As business rates are set on the basis of physical property values it is not clear how this principle could be applied to capture the economic activity of large online retailers without a fundamental reform of the rating system, which is not proposed.
Public spending: ambitious policies but unclear funding
Health and social care
Health is the dominant focus of the SNP manifesto in terms of both spending commitments and policy proposals.
The SNP have committed £200 million per year to reduce waiting times, which is £90 million more than their previous plans. With this commitment they promise that no patient will wait longer than 26 weeks for treatment by the end of the parliament. This is a meaningful target. Public Health Scotland data indicates that as of February 2026 over 20,000 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks for treatment, so the scale of the challenge is substantial. The manifesto does not address where the additional £90 million will come from. Given the minimal change to tax policy proposed, this implies either reallocation from elsewhere in the budget or a degree of optimism about efficiency savings that is not explained.
On GP services, the SNP reiterate their £531 million deal with GPs over three years, announced in October 2025. This is a continuation of an existing commitment rather than new spending. They have also announced a further 14 GP walk in clinics to their pilot scheme, in addition to the original 16 clinics previously announced. While these are not new policies, they will help address some of the key issues in the NHS in improving access to GP services.
The SNP have also committed to investing £10 billion in NHS capital over ten years. We assume this reflects a continuation of existing plans to spend around £1 billion per year on health and social care capital – a much-needed investment in buildings and infrastructure, but not additional spending. The manifesto also promises a new health and social care app with a national online booking system. It is worth noting that this was also promised in the SNP’s 2021 manifesto and remains undelivered five years later.
The most significant health policy commitment – at least the way it is framed in the manifesto – is the proposed introduction of a maximum price on between 20-50 essential food items at large supermarkets. This is a radical policy and market intervention with the potential to lead to food shortages and rising prices of other foods – but more on this later.
Importantly, the SNP do not outline what foods this would include, how this would be implemented in practice, and crucially who will absorb the cost of this policy – producers, supermarkets, or the government themselves through subsidies. The policy is also contingent on not being blocked by the UK Internal Market Act, so regardless of whether it is a sensible policy, the SNP may not be able to deliver it.
Welfare and childcare
The SNP manifesto states their commitment to increase Scottish Child Payment to £40 per week for children under one. They announced this policy in the January 2026 budget, and while this will be beneficial to families with young children, it does not represent new policy or additional spending.
On childcare, the SNP propose to expand their current offer to all children from nine months onwards, extending a policy currently accessible to three- and four-year-olds and some two-year-olds. A universal childcare offer is important in reducing child poverty and closing the attainment gap, which evidence shows begins at the early learning and childcare stage. However, the manifesto gives no indication of how many hours younger children would receive. If the intention is to extend the full 1,140 hours currently provided to older children, the cost would be very significant – and the manifesto provides no detail on where this funding would come from. No timeline for rollout beyond “by the end of the parliament” is provided, which makes accountability for delivery difficult. Increased childcare provision will also be conditional on the supply of teachers and spaces available, which has delayed the roll out of previous childcare expansions.
Education
The SNP commit to provide universal free school meals for all primary school pupils ‘in the next parliament’. It’s worth flagging that this policy was also promised in their 2021 manifesto, and while they did expand provision for P4-P5 pupils, they fell short of delivering the promised universal provision. The manifesto does not provide a delivery timeline, which raises the question of how likely delivery will be given constrained budgets.
The SNP have also given more detail on their promise to deliver breakfast clubs with £44 million per year per year committed from August 2027. It is positive to see this level of detail being provided – in both funding amount and timeline – compared to some of the other more ambiguous policies.
The Welcome to School Bag for all P1 pupils is a new and genuinely interesting policy, modelled on the success of the baby box in reducing disadvantage gaps between children from different backgrounds. However, this is a very costly commitment, and it is not clear whether this would be funded from within the existing education budget and therefore implying cuts elsewhere.
The SNP have also committed to delivering a minimum three-year guarantee for newly qualified teachers. This policy would be effective in providing new teachers with job security in the short-term, which has been a real problem in recent years especially for primary school teachers. However, without plans to increase the overall number of teaching posts, this risks shifting insecurity to the end of the three-year period rather than resolving it. The cost implications for local government, whose budgets are already under pressure, are also not addressed.
On universities and colleges, the SNP have committed to delivering two reviews on funding. Given the financial pressures facing both the Higher and Further Education sectors currently these reviews are a process commitment, and not a policy commitment to make changes to funding allocations from the government.
Housing
On housing, the SNP have committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. This is not a new policy, and it is actually an extension of the policy in their 2021 manifesto to deliver 100,000 affordable homes by 2026. As of September 2025 (the latest data), only around 31,000 affordable homes had been completed towards either of these targets.
The reported investment of £4.9 billion in housebuilding over the next four years is significant, but the manifesto does not clarify whether this is additional funding or a continuation of existing capital commitments. Given that the SNP have failed to deliver their previous housebuilding target with the existing budget it raises the questions as to whether the 2032 target is achievable either, without additional funding.
The SNP have also committed £100 million per year for their First Homes Fund, which will provide up to £10,000 deposit support per year for first-time buyers, in return for equity in the property. This is a welcome intervention for households struggling to access the property market. However, this is a demand side intervention, and without an equal increase in the supply of houses, deposit support schemes like this can push up prices rather than improve affordability, with the benefit captured by sellers rather than buyers.
Energy and transport
On energy, the SNP’s commitment of £500 million to their Just Transition Fund is a continuation of their current energy policy announced in May 2022. The proposed ScotWind Wealth Fund is a more interesting development. The intention to ringfence ScotWind revenues for future generations reflects the original purpose of the fund more accurately. However, the manifesto does not address the fiscal implication: if ScotWind revenues are ringfenced, they can no longer be used to supplement the Scottish Government’s day-to-day budget, which has been one of the financial safety nets deployed over the last parliament.
On transport, the £2 bus fare cap is a concrete and potentially meaningful commitment to reduce transport costs and improve connectivity. However, this is an ongoing revenue commitment whose annual cost is not quantified, and the manifesto does not identify a funding source.
The dualling of the A9 has been a contentious issue and it has not been missed out from the SNP’s manifesto. They state, “We were the first Government to commit to dualling the A9 and we will complete this by 2035.” However, it is important to note that SNP first proposed dualling the A9 in 2007, and committed to this project in 2011, which was due to be delivered by 2025. This is a policy commitment that is clearly long overdue for delivery.
Overall level of detail
The SNP manifesto is shorter than many others, and it feels less like a shopping list than some other parties’ proposals. This is a welcome point of difference.
On tax, there are commitments to not increasing income tax and to simplifying the system, although the detail is scarce on what that looks like in practice. The main commitment appears to be the continuation of having lower income tax for more than half of taxpayers than would be the case in the rest of the UK, even if this is only by a small amount (no more than £40 a year currently). Other taxes such as council tax and non-domestic rates get only brief mentions on what has already been announced as government policy, and there’s no commitment to reforming or revaluing the woefully outdated council tax.
On the spending side, there are additional commitments, from childcare to capping bus fares – in both cases, largely demand-driven policies which have the potential to cost significantly more than is budgeted for. But even if they don’t, the combination of these pledges with the Scottish Government’s own medium-term fiscal plans means that there are several billion pounds’ worth of unfunded pledges, which are yet to be recognised and prioritised.
No mention is made of a public sector pay policy either, which is extremely disappointing. This has been one of the main sources of pressure on the Scottish Government’s budget over the last Parliamentary term, and whoever is in government will have to finally act on whether to prioritise it to the detriment of other spending commitments or to reduce the public sector workforce. The Scottish Government’s fiscal sustainability delivery plan has a 0.5% fall in public sector employment in each of the coming years, combined with what look like very optimistic assumptions on public sector efficiency while protecting ‘frontline’ services – a politician’s favourite formulation on account of having no agreed or measurable definition. The reality is that a plausible trajectory for public services compatible with that workforce trajectory is one in which at least some public services deliver less or are aimed at fewer people.
This then is another manifesto consistent with a collective bout of fiscal denial displayed by Scottish parties across the board. Whether it’s tax cuts paid for by optimistic growth figures, increased spending with no plan for balancing the budget or implausible efficiencies, parties have refused to confront the reality of a Scottish budget already stretched and in need of action to bring it back into structural balance. It is possible to spend more with higher taxes, or to cut taxes by reducing the set of public services delivered. But the solution is unlikely to be only on one side of the ledger.
Apart from tax and spending, the flagship proposal in the SNP manifesto is the creation of a price cap for a basket of ‘essential food items’ at large supermarkets, while putting in “support mechanisms” – i.e. subsidies – to compensate Scottish producers. There are two main issues with this policy: one in terms of powers, and an economic one.
It’s almost certain that the Scottish Government does not have the powers to implement this policy. The Internal Market Act clearly lays out that “manner of sale requirements” – which includes prices – and subsidy control are reserved, UK-wide matters.
In fact, the SNP manifesto implies as much when it says that it calls “on the UK Government not to block this action through […] [the] Internal Market Act.” The only reason one might pre-emptively mention this is if one agrees that the Internal Market Act prevents this happening. Those of a cynical disposition might therefore conclude that this is an announcement designed to provoke a stooshie rather than a serious policy intention.
It’s worth noting that the UK Government is only one actor who might put a stop to the policy; affected producers and industry bodies could and most likely would take the policy to court, stopping its implementation while its legality is determined. If that were to be the case, it’s hard to see how this would provide any relief to consumers at all in the short run.
But even if the Scottish Government had the power to deliver the policy, it’s far from that intervention of this kind would be desirable. Never mind the fact that the general price level increase has (a) been the result of real terms-of-trade shocks, and therefore uncontrollable by government and (b) controlling inflation is a job best suited to monetary policy. Imposing a price cap on particular goods sold at particular stores seems fraught with unintended consequences.
A price cap which bites (i.e. below what the market would set) will lead to an imbalance. At that price, people would demand more than at the market-set price; but because the maximum price is lower, it is less profitable for suppliers, and therefore the quantity available for purchase will be lower than otherwise would be the case.
This is before we start to take into account other responses. Supply isn’t fixed, and assuming so can lead to undesirable outcomes. Supermarkets might respond by increasing prices on other goods to make up for the losses on these goods. They may also just make them available in very scarce quantities or in inconvenient locations within the store, thereby negating much of the potential consumer benefits.
This is to say nothing about the varieties of each of the foods mentioned by the SNP leader in his speech. Which cheese would be in scope? What cuts of chicken?
The manifesto also says this would apply only to large supermarkets. This presumably leaves out smaller shops (how small?) owned by large supermarket chains, where many people shop. But it also leaves out smaller, independent shops, which might be badly affected if they had to foot the bill for these lower prices. But it also incentivises people to shop at larger stores instead, thereby reducing the competitiveness of smaller businesses and threatening their viability.
An intervention of this kind might make sense if there were a genuine competitiveness problem in the grocery market through abuse of market power. But there is scant evidence of that. The supermarket sector in the UK is actually extremely competitive, with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stating in August 2024 that “effective competition is ensuring continued pressure on retailers to pass on cost savings to their customers” and that it did “not find evidence that groceries inflation is being driven at an aggregate level by weak competition between retailers.”
That doesn’t mean that prices haven’t increased and that affordability of necessities is not an issue for many people. But that is a combination of weak income growth and real-world shocks that have real consequences on costs and therefore prices. But even with those higher prices, the CMA found that profit margins were below where they were in 2019-20. This therefore has all the hallmarks of incomes and economic growth being sluggish, and any effective solutions ought to target that underlying issue rather than the symptom.
This work is supported by the Nuffield Foundation. The Nuffield Foundation is an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance social well-being. It funds and undertakes rigorous research, encourages innovation and supports the use of sound evidence to inform social and economic policy, and improve people’s lives. The Nuffield Foundation is the founder and co-funder of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory. Find out more at: nuffieldfoundation.org.
The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.
Authors
Ciara is a Knowledge Exchange Associate at the Fraser of Allander Institute. Her main area of focus is macroeconomic and fiscal analysis. She has recently completed a secondment to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, where she worked as an Economic and Fiscal Analyst in the economy team forecasting macroeconomic conditions.
João is Deputy Director and Senior Knowledge Exchange Fellow at the Fraser of Allander Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Fiscal Analyst at the Office for Budget Responsibility, where he led on analysis of long-term sustainability of the UK's public finances and on the effect of economic developments and fiscal policy on the UK's medium-term outlook.